In another thread it was suggested that our President has failed to take action in Rwanda because of the lack of oil. However upon further investigation it has been revealed that the former administration failed miserably from the very begining of the atrocities and genocide against Christians by Islamists in Rwanda. Here are several links to evidence that Bill clinton refused to take action in Rwanda: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200109/power-genocide http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB117/Rw01.pdf http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/070800-01.htm http://www.alternet.org/story/9494/ http://www.nathanielturner.com/rwandangenocide2.htm http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB117/ Why would Clinton refuse to take action in Rwanda? He did not want to get the US involved in a war where there would be a loss of American troops and thus having his approval numbers drop. His refusal to act in Rwanda was all about his legacy. The left today ignores his refusal to act in Rwanda and works to criticize our President for what they did not want to do 10 years ago. If I was to use their form of logic that leads them to claim That our President hasnt done what they think he should in Rwanda because of the lack of oil, I would have to come to the conclusion that Clinton refused to act in Rwanda because of the lack of Interns.(but I digress) In the end it is all about Clintons approval numbers, the polls, and his legacy. His Presidency was lifted up by his shrewd but shallow politics, the huge economic drive by the dotcom industry(which when bottomed out lead to a recession due to his constant barrage of tax increases that could no longer be supported). Revisionism is alive and well, and is as fresh as this mornings cow patties.