Comments on: Rwanda’s refugees and smearing Cindy McCain http://www.bloggernews.net/118219 High-quality English language analysis and editorial writing on the news. Fri, 17 Feb 2012 01:04:23 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3 By: DJS http://www.bloggernews.net/118219#comment-720757 DJS Tue, 28 Oct 2008 14:49:29 +0000 http://www.bloggernews.net/118219#comment-720757 It is not the crime (particularly since there was no crime to speak of), but rather the cover-up -- or, more acturately, the lack of truthfulness in her account. In July 2008, Cindy McCain travelled Rwanda with a bipartisan congressional delegation, touting her return to a country she had worked "during the height of the genocide." Only that she was never in that country at that time. She was in a neighboring country following the end of the genocide. The author is write that the conditions in Eastern Zaire were atrocious, and the medical needs incalcuably high. It is to Cindy McCain's credit that she went there. But what rubs some (including me) the wrong way is that the refugees in Eastern Congo at the time consisted of tens of thousands of participants -- that is, perpetrators -- in the genocide itself, fleeing justice, along with hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians fleeing out of an unfounded fear of retribution. The larger groups essentially served as a human shield for the smaller one. Now, let me be clear: the conditions in the camps and the dire medical needs meant that Cindy McCain and her colleauges were doing truly heroic, live-saving work, and deserve credit for doing so. But to represent it after the fact as saving victims of the genocide is to take advantage of the ignorance over the chain of events. She could easily have stated the facts with less obfuscation: "I helped deliver medical care to refugees in Zaire (now Congo) following the Rwandan genocide" -- the difference may seem small to Americans, but it is a huge one for Rwandans. After all, in 1994, after enduring three months of global non-intervention during the genocide, survivors of the genocide looked across the border and saw their tormentors benefitting from tens of millions of dollars humanitarian aid, arriving by the planeload 24/7. It rankled then, and the misrepresentation of it 14 years late rankles again. It is not the crime (particularly since there was no crime to speak of), but rather the cover-up — or, more acturately, the lack of truthfulness in her account.

In July 2008, Cindy McCain travelled Rwanda with a bipartisan congressional delegation, touting her return to a country she had worked “during the height of the genocide.” Only that she was never in that country at that time. She was in a neighboring country following the end of the genocide. The author is write that the conditions in Eastern Zaire were atrocious, and the medical needs incalcuably high. It is to Cindy McCain’s credit that she went there.

But what rubs some (including me) the wrong way is that the refugees in Eastern Congo at the time consisted of tens of thousands of participants — that is, perpetrators — in the genocide itself, fleeing justice, along with hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians fleeing out of an unfounded fear of retribution. The larger groups essentially served as a human shield for the smaller one.

Now, let me be clear: the conditions in the camps and the dire medical needs meant that Cindy McCain and her colleauges were doing truly heroic, live-saving work, and deserve credit for doing so. But to represent it after the fact as saving victims of the genocide is to take advantage of the ignorance over the chain of events. She could easily have stated the facts with less obfuscation: “I helped deliver medical care to refugees in Zaire (now Congo) following the Rwandan genocide” — the difference may seem small to Americans, but it is a huge one for Rwandans. After all, in 1994, after enduring three months of global non-intervention during the genocide, survivors of the genocide looked across the border and saw their tormentors benefitting from tens of millions of dollars humanitarian aid, arriving by the planeload 24/7. It rankled then, and the misrepresentation of it 14 years late rankles again.

]]> By: Jackie http://www.bloggernews.net/118219#comment-705089 Jackie Mon, 20 Oct 2008 12:39:34 +0000 http://www.bloggernews.net/118219#comment-705089 Why do they pick on Cindy McCain--what has Michelle Obama done other than criticise America....(edited for content) Why do they pick on Cindy McCain–what has Michelle Obama done other than criticise America….(edited for content)

]]> By: concerned http://www.bloggernews.net/118219#comment-703970 concerned Sun, 19 Oct 2008 18:41:24 +0000 http://www.bloggernews.net/118219#comment-703970 Typical loser comments. What do you propose to ask the Obama children who are 7 and 10 years of age? The Bill Ayres/Bernadine Dohrn connection to the Obamas is considered irrelevant. See what Colin Powell said about it today. Have the Republicans nothing else to talk about? Typical loser comments. What do you propose to ask the Obama children who are 7 and 10 years of age? The Bill Ayres/Bernadine Dohrn connection to the Obamas is considered irrelevant. See what Colin Powell said about it today. Have the Republicans nothing else to talk about?

]]> By: lindy http://www.bloggernews.net/118219#comment-703334 lindy Sun, 19 Oct 2008 05:44:54 +0000 http://www.bloggernews.net/118219#comment-703334 Pretty Trashy Stuff.... and just another part of the pattern of sexism of the Obama campaign against women. They are trashing the women of the campaign, the wife of the candidate and the vice presidential candidate because they know they cannot rely on the strength of their agendaes and their policies. The question is why the NY Times and the other publications, which published articles that were similar and equally as offensive as the other, have not published articles about the relationship and extent of Barack Obama's drug dealers, about Michelle Obamas relationship with Bernadine Dohrn and the wife of Farrakhan, as well as her endorsement, with her thesis, that blacks should live in a separatist society and return to their low income neighborhoods, once finishing college. Why hasn't someone written an article about Michelle Obama and her statement that she was uncomfortable around those who were white? Why hasn't someone from the Times written the friends of the children of Obama, to try to get information from them, rather than just doing so with the child of John McCain? Something is terribly wrong when journalists chase the friends of children of the candidate, virtually stalking children. The New York Times is dysfunctional and appears to be trying to vie with the National Enquirer and perhaps Salon by printing biased, untruthful, angry information. So journalists, seek out the children and stalk them to get information for your articles...it seems to be an acceptable practice. And those of ethics, morals and values, you may wish to cancel your subscription to the New York Times and other publications and journalists who work off speculation and not fact. It is no longer a credible journalistic source. Pretty Trashy Stuff….
and just another part of the pattern of sexism of the Obama campaign against women. They are trashing the women of the campaign, the wife of the candidate and the vice presidential candidate because they know they cannot rely on the strength of their agendaes and their policies.

The question is why the NY Times and the other publications, which published articles that were similar and equally as offensive as the other, have not published articles about the relationship and extent of Barack Obama’s drug dealers, about Michelle Obamas relationship with Bernadine Dohrn and the wife of Farrakhan, as well as her endorsement, with her thesis, that blacks should live in a separatist society and return to their low income neighborhoods, once finishing college. Why hasn’t someone written an article about Michelle Obama and her statement that she was uncomfortable around those who were white?

Why hasn’t someone from the Times written the friends of the children of Obama, to try to get information from them, rather than just doing so with the child of John McCain?

Something is terribly wrong when journalists chase the friends of children of the candidate, virtually stalking children. The New York Times is dysfunctional and appears to be trying to vie with the National Enquirer and perhaps Salon by printing biased, untruthful, angry information.

So journalists, seek out the children and stalk them to get information for your articles…it seems to be an acceptable practice.

And those of ethics, morals and values, you may wish to cancel your subscription to the New York Times and other publications and journalists who work off speculation and not fact. It is no longer a credible journalistic source.

]]>