Blood on Democrats' hands

In January I responded to a StarTribune commentary that said Nader had blood on his hands for splitting the liberal vote (see my January 11 post). Today on MPR I heard a story about how the Clinton administration stood by while hundreds of thousands of people were slaughtered in Rwanda.
http://americanradioworks.publicradio.org/features/rwanda/index.html

I’m not sure that Nader would have done much better, but I personally think that if the U.S. is going to use force, air strikes from a safe distance can save a lot of innocent lives. This tactic appears to have been effective against Serbia (under Clinton) and Afghanistan (under G.W. Bush). Given that the Clinton administration had intelligence on the Rwandan genocide, it can be argued that Democrats have blood on their hands for supporting Clinton.

As for the Republicans, the Iraq occupation continues with more casualties, many civilian. As the U.S. attacks al-Sadr’s forces in Najaf, could somebody please tell me what al-Sadr did that was so bad? Didn’t Saddam Hussein kill his father? Was he against democracy? Was he more sexist than the new Iraqi government headed by Allawi? What, if any, were his thoughts on the Iraqi oil revenues? I’d like to know. Reports from Aljazeera indicate we could be stirring up a hornet’s nest of opposition:
http://english.aljazeera.net/HomePage