Hey Albright, remember the genocide in Rwanda when you think about "a special place in hell"

[Skwmom]

being reserved for someone....


STEPHEN LEWIS: Amy, Ambassador Albright, in response to the report, has said that she thought the report was inaccurate in its depiction of the United States. I have never felt so certain about a position in my—in a life of feeling certain about positions. I think the evidence is just overwhelming. It’s quoted chapter and verse in the report. Madeleine Albright said that she has apologized and expressed remorse, as has President Clinton. That’s fair enough, although apologies are by no means enough. Both President Clinton and Madeleine Albright say that they were largely ignorant of what was happening. I don’t—forgive me, I don’t think that’s accurate.

Madeleine Albright has said that it would be impossible to get U.N. troops in fast enough, things were unfolding too quickly. Amy, within 48 hours, there were between one and two thousand foreign troops in Kigali, 48 hours of the massacre’s beginning, because they wanted to evacuate their foreign nationals. When France decided to go to the southwest quadrant of Rwanda at the end of the genocide with its so-called Operation Turquoise, it took them 48 hours to get their troops there with a full U.N. Security Council mandate. It’s just poppycock to pretend that you can’t move troops around quickly and in large numbers when the industrial world decides it wants to do so.

Finally, Madeleine Albright says she was screaming about the way in which the Americans were mishandling the genocide; she thought their policies were wrong. Now here I have great trouble. If the screaming went on in Washington, I want to tell you it was absolutely inaudible in the rest of the world. Madeleine Albright, with a zeal which was virtually supernatural, pursued the mandate of preventing the U.N. from entering Rwanda in large numbers. She did it with a determined, methodical prosecution of her brief, in a way—I was an ambassador at the U.N.—in a way few ambassadors do. I would have thought that there comes a point in the life of a public servant, of a diplomat, where if you know that the results of your government’s inaction would mean the death of half a million to 800,000 people, which became early and clearly evident, then either you resign, as a matter of principle, or you yell from the rooftops. You don’t share the animus of your views quietly in the corridors of Washington. And that’s what disturbed the panel about Madeleine Albright.

http://www.democracynow.org/2000/7/11/the_rwanda_genocide_how_does_madeleine

[guillaumeb]

1. Albright has a record of ignoring and justifying genocide in service of empire.

Remember her comments about 500,000 dead Iraqi children that occurred as a direct result of the Clinton sanctions against Iraq?

She is a war criminal of Kissingerian level.

[SamKnause]

3. I will never forget.

[SamKnause]

2. She thought the sanctions against Iraq was worth the death of

500,000 CHILDREN.

I really don't care to listen to anything this horrible women has to say.

[guillaumeb]

4. And to them, the deaths were worth it when weighed against the needs of empire.

Justification and use of genocide is not unique to Germany, or the USSR, or China, or England. A tool of empire.

[SamKnause]

5. I am to aware of the horrible policies this country was built on

and continues to employ around the globe.

We are the official shit stirrers of the world.

It truly sickens me.

My country hates peace.

My country worships profit over lives.

[DanTex]

6. Relax, people, it was a joke.

Also, it's a little weird seeing Bernie supporters attack someone for not being interventionist enough. I happen to agree that we should have intervened in Rwanda, but you know that if the US had gone in, Albright would be being bashed as a warmonger.