The Snap, Crackle & Pop of Susan Rice

Now I don’t watch the Sunday network talk shows, but I do get to read the transcripts.  I was sent one via email from a friend of mine on Susan Rice’s appearance on the Sunday talk show hosted by Former Bill Clinton Press Secretary George Stephanopoulos.  My friend was cracking up and couldn’t stop laughing. Now for the record I like Susan Rice, I may not agree with her often, but I do like her (nothing like a smart black woman to make me smile). I digress. Nonetheless, it was obvious the powers that be on the mainstream media wanted or needed to get former Ambassador Susan Rice into the collective unconscious of the public left.

From reading the transcript, the first thing that jumped out was that Stephanopoulos was tossing former Ambassador Rice under hand softball pitches or even worse, setting the ball on the T for her to hit without much difficulty. The set up (as has been the case since the presidential primary), is to first use a few of Trump tweets like they were chum (fish parts, bone and blood) to attract the anger and lure Ambassador Rice like a shark to the Trump smell. This is followed by the introduction of the Great White or Tiger Shark they are baiting (chumming) for: this time it being the person who served as national security adviser and UN ambassador under President Obama. His first question, referring to the commixture of tweets pertained to how alarmed should we be because of the recent terrorist attacks in London? Rice gave the basic scripted Benghazi type answer: “We need to remain very focused on dealing with that threat. But at the same time, we need to recognize that there will be homegrown extremists in all our countries. And there is no easy way to predict and defeat every single one of them.” 

Stephanopoulos’s next question was pure chum. "You heard the president say that travel ban would bring an extra level of safety. Your response?”

RICE: “Well, George, there's really no evidence to suggest that by banning Muslims or banning Muslims from a particular set of six countries that we would make ours here in the United States safer. And that's, I believe, one of the major reasons why the courts thus far have been very skeptical of the travel ban. Moreover, I think there's a very real risk that by stigmatizing and isolating Muslims from particular countries and Muslims in general that we alienate the very communities here in the United States whose cooperation we most need to detect and prevent these homegrown extremists from being able to carry out the attacks.”

Yes, that is correct, targeting the same predominantly Muslim nations Obama did in 2011 would only result in the “real risk that by stigmatizing and isolating Muslims from particular countries and Muslims in general that we alienate the very communities here in the United States.” It would be easy to conclude then that Obama’s slowing down of refugees and the level of Iraqi resettlement, would have resulted in the same. Now both programs are different, but it is the logic (or illogic) that sticks out as peculiar.

His next line of questioning briefly (and I mean briefly) addressed leaks.  From reading the transcript and lack of follow-up by Stephanopoulos it was clear he did not want to accidently ask her about possible leaks and unmasking by Obama administration appointees so he deftly moved to the next subject which was her critique of President Trump published in The New York Times. Stephanopoulos stated, “… one of the things you wrote is that Russia has been a big winner under President Trump. How so?”

RICE: "Well, George, the United States has been the leader of the world because the world trusts and respects us, because we have an unprecedented network of alliances with close partners that work with us, whether it's to defeat ISIS, whether it's to deal with a threat of an Iranian nuclear weapon, or to go after challenges of a new sort like pandemic disease or climate change. We need these partners. And when we alienate our western allies, when the president went to NATO and failed to reaffirm, as every president has since 1948, that we're committed and remain committed to the defense of our NATO partners, he sent shockwaves through Europe. And that is exactly what Vladimir Putin wants. Because Putin's interests, as he reaffirmed just on Friday, is to see NATO weakened and ultimately destroyed. And when the United States, the most important player in NATO, casts doubt about our commitment to that vital alliance, it undermines our security. It undermines the security of our closest allies. And it's a big win for Vladimir Putin.”

Now what is missing from this response you might ask? For starters, it is questionable if the prior administration tried to or wanted to go after ISIS. Obama did call them the JV team and blamed everyone in the universe (Bush, the second amendment & even global warming) for his not recognizing them as a threat.  In fact, Obama was occupied with Al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden so much so that he basically breast fed ISIS into existence with his policy of unilateral invasion of Libya under the dress of NATO. Which reminds us of how poorly he and Rice responded to the death of Ambassador Chris Stevens. Moreover, the concept that Iran as a major nuclear threat is also laughable given that they are still on the path and the deal negotiated by team Obama does nothing to prevent them from becoming a nuclear power. Not to mention the illegal and off the record $1.7 billion payment to Iran in 2016 made entirely in cash, with non-U.S. currency.

When asked about President Putin, Rice quickly responded that “he's lying” and that "The reality is, …the Russian government, at the highest levels, was behind the very unprecedented effort to meddle in our 2016 presidential election.” Continuing she said, “Russia is an adversary. Russia not only has invaded a sovereign country and annexed part of it in Ukraine and Crimea [After Obama orchestrated coup]. It's not only in cahoots with a regime in Syria that uses chemical weapons [yet to be proven], it has interfered directly and deliberately at the direction of the highest levels of its government in our democratic process…That is a threat to the integrity of our democracy. That's a threat to our country on a bipartisan basis. And we need to hold Russia accountable.”

Who else to know if someone is lying than the always honest Susan Rice who had the gumption to go on national television and lie to hundreds of millions of U.S. citizens and people around the globe when on one news show she said: “Based on the best information we have to date, what our assessment is at present is in fact what began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo where, of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our embassy, sparked by this hateful video.…We do not — we do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned. I think it’s clear that there were extremist elements that joined in and escalated the violence. Whether they were al-Qaeda affiliates, whether they were Libyan-based extremists or al-Qaeda itself I think is one of the things we’ll have to determine.”

Again Stephanopoulos let her hit the pitch right up the middle of the field without making a play on the ball. Without a transition, it was easy for him too move to the next point of liberal discontent – when he asked, “Would it have been appropriate for Jared Kushner to have a back-channel during the transition? Your successor, General McMaster, has suggested there's nothing wrong with it.”

RICE: "Well, George, I think, these reports, if accurate, are concerning, not just because of communication between the Trump transition and the Russian government, and we do have communications between transition teams and foreign governments, but rarely with adversaries like the Russians, and rarely with the frequency that we have seen. But what I found most concerning about that report, which, if true, is that Jared Kushner suggested to the Russian ambassador that they communicate using Russian communications in a Russian diplomatic facility to hide their conversation from the United States government. That's extraordinary, if not mind-boggling from the point of view of a national security professional. I have worked in this field for 25 years. And I have never heard of such a thing. The United States -- and from one administration to the next -- has one government, one president at a time. And we worked very hard to do a professional and effective handoff. A seamless one. We worked very hard in this transition to accomplish that and to do so transparently.”

This was probably the most historically inaccurate and artfully mendacious crock of Buffalo feces of the entire interview. First communication alone is not as heinous as Rice makes it out to regardless of who is President or what country it is, even Russia. And the part about advisories is either the result of a historically ill-informed person or a calculated lie.

After the election of Richard Nixon in 1968, his future national security adviser Henry Kissinger set up a back-channel to contact and communicate with the Soviet leadership via a known KGB operative named Boris Sedov, whom Kissinger had come to know from interactions at Harvard. Even before Nixon, FDR’s used a long time fried Harry Hopkins as a go between the U.S., U.K. and Stalin. Only difference was that Roosevelt was President at the time. Then there’s Obama’s backchannel fiasco with Iran which occurred in 2008 while he was running for president in which prior to even being elected, his staff established secret communications with the Iranian leadership using William Miller to relay how they planned to interact with Iran if Obama was elected.

I don’t know if Rice believes what she says in interviews or rather if she just like hearing herself talk. One thing for certain is that she has a short memory span and here knowledge of history is suspect or intentionally confined. I mean, the Obama administration and the democrats went from loving Russia to hating Russia and calling the nation the greatest threat in the world when just a little while back it wasn't.

Read More

Give Me Flint and LA over Paris Any Day

I thought I couldn’t see anything more ridiculous in the form of behaviors evinced by the progressive left since the election of Donald Trump. Personally, I thought I had seen it all, the entire range of everything running from pure vitriolic hatred and ‘soreloserness’ to overt and utter contempt and even fear of what his election appears to mean for them.  But I was wrong.

This past week Trump kept a campaign pledge. On the stump, he said he would pull the U.S. out of the Paris Accords and as a man of his word, he did. Upon which, you would have thought that he fired every teacher in Baltimore or put up ten thousand confederate monuments or even poisoned the water of all the residents of Flint, Michigan and threatened them with foreclosure if they did not pay for water they could not bathe in or drink. I use these as examples because all of them are real and current events that should have the attention of all Americans regardless of political affiliation because they touch the very fabric of compassion and genuine concern for our fellow citizens.  But no, this makes too much since so contrived outrage must suffice in the name of disagreement for disagreement sake.

There once was time when democrats looked out for the small man, but those days have been long gone.  They ended with the rise of the corporatist liberal democrat – the Bill and Hillary Clinton’s (net worth= +$250 million), the Rep. John Delaney’s (net worth = +$91.6 million), Nancy Pelosi’s (net worth = +$29.3 million), the Mark Warner’s (net worth = $90.8million), the Dianne Feinstein’s (net worth = +$52.7), the Richard Blumenthal’s (net worth = +$66.9 million) and yes, even the Obama’s of the nation (net worth= +$24.5 million). So for this coterie of politician, it is not unusual for big global efforts to take precedence over local and national concerns. They speak loudly about Trump ending the Paris accord as known and signed by President Obama but seem to not be interested in the thousands of citizens of Flint still dealing with exorbitant levels of lead contamination in their tap water making it unsafe for them to drink or that homeowners are being told that if they do not pay for water unsafe to drink or use, the Democratic city government will put liens on their properties. If they are unable to pay, they may lose their homes. This isn’t as outrageous as Paris.

Therefore, I cannot comprehend why withdrawing from the Paris Accord is such a lightning rod.  Not that it impacts anyone personally, just for the mere fact Donald Trump did it and that it was undoing what their favorite politician of all time – President Obama had put in place. This is typical of the cognitive dissonance the left has been displaying since last November. For example, Democratic Mayor Catherine Pugh of Baltimore has stated that she's considering removing Confederate statues from the city following what the democratic leadership in New Orleans just did.  Not because her citizens and electorate asked her, but because she thinks it is cool. Albeit it will be at a cost of about $200,000 a statute to tear them down. This is not the point of confusion. Although this seems to have the Mayor’s attention, school officials just informed 115 Baltimore City staff members that they will be laid off in the next few weeks. These include school guidance counselors, librarians, assistant principals and classroom teachers. The Baltimore City Public School system presently has a $130 million budget gap to fill. Ironic isn’t it, Baltimore can find money to take down statues and send them down a memory hole but can’t find the loot to keep needed educators in a school system that is one of the poorest performing school districts in the nation and serves some of the poorest children in the USA.

Now I expected that former Obama Administration cats would vehemently hate on Trump’s decision which was clear from tweets by the likes of Dan Pfeiffer, Susan Rice and Cody Keenan. I also anticipated that trick azz world leaders would also complain, also as evidenced by the tweets of Nicola Sturgeon, Prime Minister of Denmark Lars Rasmussen, former Mexican president Vincente Fox and others. What surprised me was seeing every black negro progressive liberal democrat this side of the moon express a similar emotionally uninformed deportment. Now nothing wrong with that, but the reality is that 99% of both groups (politicians and black folk in America, ain’t never even read the Paris Agreement.  Honestly, I haven’t read the entire agreement, but rather just the UN background document on the agreement. So, I don’t know what is exactly in it and as such will not address such.

This is another reason I find this fervid outrage comical, cats aligning with the Paris Agreement and don’t know what the fck the accord is even about. What I do know is that America must dole out a large chunk of chump change to get this Paris party started and where there is free loot, the people will not benefit but you can best believe big corporate interests are looking to get their slimy paws on the billions in incentives and subsidies guaranteed in the accord to develop green energy sources. In my opinion, we could use that money elsewhere.  For example, over the past year, the homeless population in Los Angeles County is 23% than it was in 2016. More worrisome is that the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority reported a 61% increase in homeless youth compared to 2016. This even though the Democratic leadership of the city promised to spend $138 million on homelessness this year (which thus far has proven to me a windfall for big real estate).

Again, these are the people loudly upset and pained with Trump for removing the U.S. from the Paris Accord. Yet they are cool with a growing homeless population in their midst and seem to never have money for black people in jails who need access to public defenders but can find money out of nowhere to fund a plus $10million legal defense fund for illegal criminal immigrants facing deportation.

So, call me what you will, I have no problem with, nor see anything wrong with Trump pulling out of the Paris Accord. So, we won’t be giving millions too oil rich nations to help them at the expense of other poor nations. The way I see it, Fck Paris, give me Flint, Baltimore, Los Angeles or any other American city any day. I guess my comportment is unacceptable for the Liberal Progressives – actually putting American's first.

Read More

The Forgotten South of Sudan

As we continuously hear from the Obama Administration about Aleppo, among the other international events laid at the feet of President Obama’s foreign policy we do not hear of inclusive of Yemen is South Sudan. Established after a referendum vote to secede from the northern part of Sudan and the Khartoum government, and once touted as a way to formalize peace to Sudan’s long-running civil war, this small oil rich nation has dissolved into pure blood stained disorder. Even famous actors the likes of George Clooney and Don Cheadle advocated for its existence as being a humanitarian necessity to show the people we in the west cared.

For years prior to its formulation (not formation), the US supported rebels in the south of Sudan. After the nation of South Sudan was formed, the U.S. continued to provide billions of dollars in military and security assistance to the fledgling country under the Obama Administration and Hillary Clinton’s State Department. In 2011 then Secretary of State Clinton, at a major conference onSouth Sudan in 2011, spoke of her visions for the future of South Sudan. Ironically, in the same year in which President Obama employed a technicality to get a Child Soldiers Prevention Act (CSPA) exemption for South Sudan.

The logic was feculent and two fold. First being that the law could not be applied to a newly formed nation that recently became independent and second, the administration wanted the country to get on firm ground before the US made any statutory request of its military. Meaning that since the countries subjected to CSPA were already in existence, they could not add the South Sudan to thelist. The Obama administration also openly advocated their support for the Sudan People's Liberation Army (SPLA).  The SPLA according to human rights group worldwide have been documented to have engaged in numerous human rights violations, including but not limited to rape and extrajudicial killings (nice UN saying for murder).

However since the celebration of South Sudan as the world’s newest member state in 2011, a political rivalry between the Dinka President Salva Kiir and the then Nuer Vice President Riek Machar erruptrd dissolving the nation into a civil war along ethnic lines. Since then more than 1 million South Sudanese have fled to neighboring countries like Uganda and many thousands more have been slaughtered, tortured or raped. One UN report noted that South Sudanese army soldiers had raped thousands of women and girls as a reward for their service instead of being paid salaries. Others had been used as part of ritual cannibalistic activities or burned alive.

But none of this mattered to the Obama Administration.  Although in his formal recognition statement for the Republic of South Sudan as a sovereign and independent state he described it as a “historic achievement” after “the darkness of war,” his policy has proven the opposite and has resulted in more bloodshed and insecurity by not ending the use of child soldiers on the one hand and by turning a blind eye to the atrocities committed by the nation he pushed to establish on the other. What the president once hailed as one of his foreign policy success stories, is now merely a failed state in reality - unless it is the desire for Nobel Peace prize winning presidents to leave nations in the ruinous aftermath of war (Yemen, Libya and Syria also included).

Obama in concert with his National Security Advisor Susan Rice vehemently led the crusade for the creation of South Sudan, but since then, we have only seen daily tribal hostilities continuing to fester. Add to this that the economic condition is following a similar descending path and that state sponsored repression remains a major impediment to any form of democratic government, what we get from the President is silence or troops. Nor does he address how the ongoing violence rests as a massive obstacle to peace which on its own serves as a catalyst for the continuing genocide in Darfur and a growing militarization of the party’s involved. In particular since the present administration continues to honor the authorization of more than $120 million in U.S. military assistance and over $20 million in arms sales since FY2013 and an addition request for $30 million in military assistance for South Sudan for FY2017.

Now it would be insincere to place all of this at the feet of President Obama since a sizable amount of his foreign policy was advocated for and proposed by Hillary Clinton. As a presidential candidate, Clinton consistently presented her  foreign policy experience as a major justification for her being president, although she never spoke openly about her desire to intervene in Libya or her role in the failed Russian “reset.” More importantly, there was no mention of the outcome of her efforts in South Sudan. True in 2012 she openly stated her disparagement of the use and recruitment of children as soldiers, however it was a position in dire contrast to her part in allowing South Sudan  receive US military support via her approval of waivers to the nation while it used children as fighters.  Still Clinton’s handling of South Sudan and how the new nation descended into a calamitous civil war that involved the use of thousands of child soldiers is rarely reported.

When President Obama leaves the White House next January, people worldwide will question his foreign policy. This will likely be partisan but the objective individual will note from Yemen to Libya and Syria to South Sudan – he was afailure. Moreover, he managed to make social and economic situations in these places worse. But in Sudan he will be remembered for creating a state and leaving it to rot; a place where he waived to the prohibition on the use of child soldiers  in an untried country that is acknowledged as being one of the most corrupt in the world and the home of a 4-year-old civil war where US installed leaders have used their positions to rob the country of its wealth, while at the same time creating one of the greatest humanitarian disasters today – in essence an embarrassment for the Obama administration. As a newly formed country, the future looked bright for South Sudan and its vast oil reserves. But realty has shown us otherwise, that effective foreign policy demands more than words and dumping huge sums of money in the hands of installed puppets.

Read More

Paul Kagame and the Clinton’s

For the Clinton’s, especially President Bill Clinton, Rwanda has deep meaning for him and his presidency, for he has openly suggested that he will forever regret not intervening to prevent or maybe stop the Rwandan genocide, in which at least 800,000 people were murdered and/or killed in less than four months due to tribal genocide in 1994. At the time, then Vice President and Minister of Defense and now current President of Rwanda, Paul Kagame was a key player for both good and bad, depending on what side of the coin you end up on.

This has been the typical mantra of not only the U.S., but other western nations and leaders. For the Clinton’s and the Clinton Foundation, he is considered to be among “the greatest leaders of our time, and described as a “brilliant man” who “freed the heart and the mind of the people.”  Historically the United States, Britain, Germany and the Netherlands, have always been behind Kagame’s with former British Prime Minister Tony Blair describing Kagame as a “visionary’.  This is almost comical if it were not true that this is how many in the west really want and project for the world to see Rwandan President Paul Kagame in this manner.

Unfortunately the reality is that he is a dictator responsible for human rights abuses too numerous to list yet is a close associate of the Clinton's, the Clinton Foundation, and has received favorable treatment inclusive of funding by the Clinton State Department. Regardless of the fake picture they attempt to hide Kagame with, there is no way to get around that for him the democratic process in Rwanda is the equivalency of autocratic authoritarianism.

Since he has been involved in politics in Rwanda, dozens prominent dissidents have been tortured, disappeared, assassinated, and/or imprisoned. The lucky ones have fled the country or been exiled abroad. The list included journalists, opposition politicians and human rights activists. Thus it is for many, strange the extent of the relationship that Mr. Kagame and Mr. Clinton have. Kagame is a regular at the Clinton Global Initiative Annual meeting and even was awarded the organizations Global Citizen Award in 2009; Bill Clinton called him a “brilliant man” who “freed the heart and the mind of the people.”

This unfathomable relationship and the depth of interaction and sway Kagame has with the Clinton Foundation regarding Rwanda has been maintained although the U.S. State Department has often been adjudged for wanting a third term as president in which he changed the constitutional amendment allowing him to do so.

To get a better understanding of how this relationship manifested, one can start on 6 April 1994, when then Rwandan President Habyarimana's plane was shot down resulting in the deaths of Habyarimana and the President of Burundi, Cyprien Ntaryamira who was aboard the plane with him. Many believe that Kagame and the rebel army he led, Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF), were responsible.  Since he has been in politics, the military wing of the RPF was renamed as the Rwandan Patriotic Army (RPA). After this incident, approximately 700,000–1,000,000 Rwandans were killed during the 100-day period from April 7 to mid-July 1994. In fact since his entry in politics, dozens if not hundreds have been found dead under strange circumstances. Yet this has not stopped Mr. Clinton or the Clinton Foundation incessant encirclement of Mr. Kagame Also, the United States remains on of Kagame's firmest ally and longest devotee (maybe because it is in its geopolitical interest seeing that Rwanda is a mineral-rich east African nation and maintains a powerful army).

Or it may be that the U.S. is alright with dictators it trains. Kagame studied at the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College in Fort Leavenworth, Kansas in the early 1990s, before he returned to Rwanda and seized power in 1994.  His son even studied at West Point. On the other hand, it may be due to the large sums of money the U.S. gives to the Kagame Government (Although it is consistently cited for murder and human rights abuses).  Much of this started under Bill Clinton and was supported by national security adviser Susan Rice and Jendayi Frazer, a former top State Department Africa diplomat.  But it was not until Hillary Clinton became secretary of state that Bill Clinton was in a position to provide Kagame with even more loot by securing around $27 million from the State Department through a Boston-based charity that he ran. By the time secretary Clinton left office, she had allocated tens of millions of emergency funds to combat HIV infection overseas — called PEPFAR, for Rwanda although it maintained one of the lowest HIV prevalence rates on the continent.

But for as much as former President Clinton openly states he regrets his inaction regarding the genocide in Rwanda, the record clearly indicates he was more involved than either he recalls or wants to recall. First it was President Clinton who stopped the UN Security Council from organizing an intervention in Rwanda. To be more accurate, in concert with the British, the U.S., under the direction of then President Clinton were covertly funding and supporting the Kagame and his Army that invaded Rwanda from Uganda some several years prior.  Secretly it was the desire of the Clinton Administration to keep Kagame as a proxy army to promote U.S. interest in neighboring countries. In addition Clinton had to be aware of U.N. evidence that senior Rwandan military staff who report directly to Kagame murdered tens of thousands of unarmed men, women and children, in 1996 and 1998. It was as if under the direction of President Clinton, Kagame became an official  U.S. proxy along with Uganda and used to invaded what is now called the Democratic Republic of the Congo (formerly Zaire) and first overthrowing Mobutu (1996), then Laurent Kabila (1998).

The end product allowed for the U.S. to have a major and dominant geopolitical imprint in the region, only at the cost millions more Rwandians, Ugandians and Congeleese civilians dead and still to this day, incessant and ongoing conflict over the vast mineral wealth in that region of the Congo.

This is possibly why upon leaving  the Clinton Administration in the capacity of  Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, later, as U.S.ambassador to the United Nations Rice allegedly tried to prevent the release ofa 2010 U.N. report, about the murder and killings carried out under the instructions of Kagame. Of course Rice refutes this assertion although since the days of President Clinton and his wife’s tenure as Secretary of State, the fact remains that unprecedented levels of funding continue to go to this despotic and murderous regime.

Having such a relationship with Kagame remains problematic for the Clinton’s and the Clinton Foundation given that the present leadership in the state department and U.N., as well as other nations in Europe and Africa continue to note that the Kagame government continues to display a disregard for human rights, whether it is by providing weapons to rebels in the Democratic Republic of Congo or imprisoning and murdering his political rivals and/or suppressing political dissent and the press via violence. This will only get even more conflated if Kagame successfully amends the constitution of the nation to allow him to run for a third seven-year term (If he is successful, and Hillary wins the presidency, they will both be president starting 2017 together).  This may not be a good look.  We know in the past that the State Department under Clinton sidetracked a portion of US government grant money from nonprofit groups fighting HIV infection in Rwanda, and channeled it to the Rwandan government under the sole control of Kagame (US taxpayer money), which for the free thinking individual wreaks of possible favoritism and influence through his relationship with the Clinton's. Not to mention in 2012, Secretary Clinton boasted her work with Kagame in Rwanda as an example of the State Department assisting poorer nations to solve their own problems.  However, she forgot to mention her husband’s role in the entire effort. She lauded it as an example of the State Department prodding a poor country to take on more responsibility programs to fight HIV infection.

The bigger question is how long will these types of relationships (ones in which human rights are over-looked for personal gain and benefit) continue to go unexamined by the Clintons?  Former president Clinton can pretend that he regrets not getting involved in stopping the genocide in Rwanda but the fact is he didn’t give a fck. Clinton was not going to stop Kagame from finally overthrowing the existing, Hutu-led Rwandan government and seizing power. In all reality, Kagame actions went better than expected based on U.S., and even some select European nations desires. So much so that a massive cover-up began at the International Criminal Tribunal of Rwanda, in which only Rwandan Hutus were indicted and prosecuted.

So any time former President Clinton says that he is sorry he did not intervene in Rwanda, it is frankly a bold-face lie. When he states he failed, what he really means is that my objectives were not to stop murder, but rather a means of implementing the good old fashioned U.S. proxy war to encourage repeated invasions of a sovereign nation (Zaire) – nothing more, nothing less.

Read More