Politicians lie. That’s a fact. They lie to get elected and to stay in power. Some lie about other countries so they can justify invading them. Others lie so they can portray themselves as experienced leaders.
Hillary Clinton is a great example here. Let’s take a look at a few of the recent lies in her campaign to be Democratic presidential candidate.
Bill and Chelsea Clinton have been touting Hillary Clinton’s commitment to Africa on the campaign trail by telling voters that “Hillary was the first U.S. Senator to call Darfur genocide.”
Chelsea talked about her mother’s record on Darfur to Stanford University students, saying that she was “really proud that...mom was the first Democratic senator to call Darfur conflict genocide in May of 2004, and put a lot of pressure on the Bush administration to recognize it as genocide.”
As it turned out, the first senators who actually called Darfur genocide were Russ Feingold, D-Wisconsin, Mike DeWine, R-Ohio, and Sam Brownback, R-Kansas.
Hillary Clinton’s first press statement referring to Darfur as “genocide” wasn’t until March 16, 2006.
Some will say Hillary did not lieabout Darfur, it was Bill and Chelsea. Yes, but this was a part of her campaign strategy and she never distanced herself from their false statements.
When it comes to the 1994 Rwandan genocide, Bill Clinton claims that Hillary urged him to intervene but he and his administration refused.
The Chicago Tribune writes that, “despite lengthy memoirs by both Clintons and former Secretary of State and UN Ambassador Madeleine Albright, any advice she gave on Rwanda had not been mentioned until her presidential campaign.”
Obsidian Wings blog notes that “military intervention was not considered as an option in the case of Rwanda, never even debated, which means that any advocacy [if any] Hillary did engage in must have been pretty ineffective… She not only failed to convince her husband to send troops, but also failed to convince him, for instance, not to advocate the withdrawal of most of the UN peacekeepers” from Rwanda in the midst of the genocide.
It was understandable that the American government wouldn’t send the troops to Rwanda shortly after what happened in Somalia. But all they had to do was to provide equipment to the UN troops from African countries ready to go to Rwanda and save a few hundred thousand civilians from being slaughtered.
Instead of lending military equipment to the UN (to whom the United States owed hundreds of millions of dollars in membership fees at the time), the US government decided to lease it for $15 million. The United Nations, fully dependent on its negligent members to pay for missions, did not have the money. The 5,500 additional troops never arrived in Rwanda to intervene.