Script

AMELIA- Kade, I'm glad you brought up the "G-word." My question is, WHY do we sugarcoat the subject? Douglas Jehl published in June of 1994 that Trying to avoid the rise of public pressure to stop the mass killings in Rwanda, the Clinton Administration instructed its spokesmen not to describe the deaths there as genocide, even though some senior officials believe that is exactly what they represent. This is completely ridiculous as genocide is exactly what was happening! So, because they don't want us to protest, be unpatriotic, or wait, lastly, stop the mass killing, the truth is being sugarcoated? This seems like an ongoing trend that the government will never breakfree of.

JISA- This is exactly what happened in Iraq! We stormed in there searching for Weapons of Mass Destruction and didn’t find any, how could we have been sure that acts of genocide were occurring in Rwanda at that time? David Rawson, the United States Ambassador to Rwanda, said in an interview, "As a responsible Government, you don't just go around hollering 'genocide,'" "You say that acts of genocide may have occurred and they need to be investigated." Cries of Hypocrisy

Amelia- we KNEW what was going on, the U.N. was there as well as a few journalists and had scarring images of what was going on. It was completely irresponsible and un-american of us to not interfere and help those people. The New York Times published on multiple occasions in 1994 that there were mass killings going on. America just didn’t want to take responsibility so the “G-Word” wasn’t used.

JISA- It is true that we didn’t act when we should have, and now looking at it, it is something we should have done. The New York Times, again, was accurate in their reporting but anytime government officials talked about Rwanda, they weren’t allowed to use the word Genocide.

(BOTH LOOK AT THE CAMERA)