It could be any one of serveral reasons. Was it because Clinton was racist?
2007-02-12 23:33:13 · 10 answers · asked by junglejoe 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
The more you know about Clinton, the more you understand that the US should NEVER again have such a lousy president.
2007-02-12 23:36:46 · update #1
He needed something to make people forget about his *******.
2007-02-12 23:37:55 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
All the way back in 1957 I was told that if the US wanted to go to war, the CIA had 142 places it could. I can't imagine the list would have diminished since then. Clinton's hands were pretty much tied by his Republican congress and he wasn't a fan of the executive orders that would have subverted the Constitution as this one is, so when he tried to order intervention in the Sudan the "Wag the Dog Reps" made it impossible. He got Bosnia in because of the UN. Unless you want to bankrupt our country and kill off a generation, you got to pick your battles, and with no economic upside, Darfur will stay down at the bottom of the list. Its not racism its economic-ism.
2007-02-13 07:43:24 · answer #2 · answered by justa 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
No. It is because nobody seems to care about the atrocities that are occurring in Africa. The UN Secretary General, Koffi Annan, was African and during his tenures he did nothing to stop the wars, genocides, starvation, and illnesses ravaging the continent.
Since France, Germany, Belgium and Russia (among other countries) are still raping the natural resources of Africa for financial gain the US would be going head to head against Europe if they acted unilaterally down there. A good percentage of the economy of Europe is dependent on the civil wars and internal strife that keep the African nations without strong leadership who would ask market value for their natural resources.
Attempting to end the atrocities in Africa would be like launching a direct attack on Europe's economy. Too much of it relies on the undervalued African raw supplies.
2007-02-13 07:44:03 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Darfur happened on W's watch. The conflict there erupted in 2003.
Maybe you should rephrase the question
"Why did Bush go after Saddam while 600,000 died in Darfur?"
2007-02-13 07:39:04 · answer #4 · answered by I'll Take That One! 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
because clinton wasn't president during the darfur massacres.
2007-02-13 08:14:56 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, it's because Clinton wasn't president anymore.
2007-02-13 07:36:18 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Well,Did Clinton ever Bop a woman outta' his race
or have relations *snicker* with any women out side
of his race? If so,he kept it well hidden & totally secret,
of course I don't know how he did it,if he did?
2007-02-13 07:51:03 · answer #7 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
You are muddying the topic for the sake of vilifying a man who stopped bloodshed in Bosnia, without regard for our CURRENT president's failed foreign diplomacy.
In essence, while Bush likes to suit-up as a man with a firm commitment to peacekeeping missions, he nevertheless appears incapable of following through.
2007-02-13 07:47:09 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Because the French told him what to do in foreign affairs--he had enough domestic affairs already!
2007-02-13 07:50:37 · answer #9 · answered by slodana2003 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
And Clinton was president how long ago?
2007-02-13 07:35:54 · answer #10 · answered by planksheer 7 · 2⤊ 3⤋