Question for (Rtd) Lt Gen Dallaire

[Gunner]

Gunnar I am using the same info available that you use. You're right it is an opinion and it's mine. To imply that you are correct and that I am wrong when it comes to opinions is very narrow minded. Your opinion is he is a good man, mine is that he is an incompetent man. I can't change your opinion and I don't want to, just as you can't change mine.

I didn't say he was a good man.  I argued that calling him a coward or incompetent was judgemental based on the facts.  He is criticised by some, not on the basis of fact, but because he is French, he is artillery, he is an officer, he had a well publicised battle with PTSD, he was promoted several times by Cretien and Baril.

Your comments:

Ask him if he can explain how he got promoted TWICE after he screwed the pooch in Rawanda and then became a drunken, blathering shell of a man found wandering by the Rideau?  I apologize ahead of time for anyone who might actually respect this individual.

Here's an example of your "correct" post!  Certainly it is your opinion, but it doesn't mean much as you don't provide any type of facts other than a blatant misunderstanding of PTSD.

Gunnar, I tend to agree that the man was not a coward, just that he was/is incompetent. He may well be a nice guy but he was way over his head in Rwanda and then showed that true lieberal spirit by blaming everything and everybody but himself.It doesn't surprise me that he took a nice plum patronage appointment from the liberals, after all he is cut from the same clothe. Accept all the credit when things work, deny responsibility when they go to crap.Also, I wasn't there so don't bother with that analogy. It reeks of schoolyard taunting "Yes you are. No I'm not" childlike behaviour.

Here's another example of your post.  How was he incompetent?  For leading a failed mission that probably had no chance of success?  Show me how he could have done better?

You should have read the last line in my first post where I apologized ahead of time to those who think Dallaire is a great man, because I will not apologize a second. Other than that, have a nice day and I will agree to disagree with you about this sorry excuse for a soldier! 

I have never stated that Dallaire was a great man but I don't believe he should be villified either or termed "sorry excuse for a soldier".  You can certainly state your opinion but if you don't back it up with any type of facts it doesn't mean anything and people should treat it as such.

 

[wotan]

  OK, gents, let's reduce the question to the basic parts.  I don't care if MGen/Senator Dallaire is Quebecois or Liberal.  These are items that don't matter becaus I have met very fine soldiers from Quebec.  Political allegiances are not the question.  The man scarpered when his troops were in imminent danger.  And no, I don't believe he scarpered to "save the mission".  He scarpered to save his neck.

  If you believe that he buggered off to save the mission, then great.  Go volunteer to serve under him in some craphole.  I belive the man is coward and it is proven by 10 Belgian paratroopers.  Could he have saved them?  Who knows, my crystal ball is broken.  But he could have tried.  Instead, he quite literally turned the corner.

  Strip away this one awful incident, and I would lament poor Romeo as a tragic figure of almost Shakespearean proportions.  But to deny his turning away is to amend history.  He is a coward.  Worship him if you will, but don't be mystified when your troops fail to follow you.

 

[onecat]

My opinion on Dallaire, and this my opinion. Is he lost all my respect when he came out said he was a life long liberal supporter.  This man was the CF saw the cuts and lack of respect of each and every Liberal government showed to the CF.. and still always supported them.  And to make it worst he supports teh Liberals because his mom told him too.  Does that make him a bad gerenal or officer, no but sure does show lack lack of forward thinking.

 

[Gunner]

The man scarpered when his troops were in imminent danger.  And no, I don't believe he scarpered to "save the mission".  He scarpered to save his neck.

You lost me with your logic.  It is well proven that Dallaire was on his way to meet with Boagosora.  Dallarie cronicles the events quite well in his book (page 239 onwards).

  If you believe that he buggered off to save the mission, then great.  Go volunteer to serve under him in some craphole.  I belive the man is coward and it is proven by 10 Belgian paratroopers.  Could he have saved them?  Who knows, my crystal ball is broken.  But he could have tried.  Instead, he quite literally turned the corner.

How is he a coward by having men serving under him die?  You logic continues to escape me.

Strip away this one awful incident, and I would lament poor Romeo as a tragic figure of almost Shakespearean proportions.  But to deny his turning away is to amend history.  He is a coward.  Worship him if you will, but don't be mystified when your troops fail to follow you.

He describes his decisions and rationale in his book.  Have you read it or simply jumped to your own conclusions based on bias?

My opinion on Dallaire, and this my opinion. Is he lost all my respect when he came out said he was a life long liberal supporter.  This man was the CF saw the cuts and lack of respect of each and every Liberal government showed to the CF.. and still always supported them.  And to make it worst he supports teh Liberals because his mom told him too.  Does that make him a bad gerenal or officer, no but sure does show lack lack of forward thinking.

I hazard to guess that more than one officer or general officer in the Canadian Forces has voted Liberal.  You seem to forget the conservatives haven't been too friendly with the CF over the years either.  Check out the current Conservative policy of placing 600 of us into Goose Bay....

 

 

[3rd Horseman]

Some harsh comments here, I must side with the comment "coward" very harsh but in my opionion a reality. I dont actualy believe everthing the Gen wrote in his book is truthful so it would be tough to argue from a book I feel is not fully truthful (opionion no proof on that) thus I feel it is tough for your writter to prove anything to you through the Gens book.
The reality is that he (gen D) was within ear and sight of the dead and dying soldiers, he did not stop, he did not stop the meeting he went to to solve the problem of his captured soldiers, he failed on the most basic principle. I agree with the comments that the mission was under mined from the start the true culprits are the PM, UN SGen, Gen Barei (spelt it wrong I think).  It does not take away from the General not doing the right thing! What was the right thing? Stop the jeep get out and stop the incident by brute personality (which I know he has) or use brute force and die doing it or win. He had only one choice once he saw his soldiers captured and abused. He was a coward for not stopping or then he was a coward for not stopping the meeting and solving the issue.

  I feel sorry for him, He was a good officer he was inspring to listen to and he appeared like you could lay it on the line and he would back you, in the end battle truely tells the story and he came up short.

My humble opinion 

 

[Gunner]

he should have at least tried to save his men. Something he did not do.

Well, actually he did, as quoted in his book on page 239.  Got a source that says he didn't?

That, in my books, makes him a bad officer (although not a coward, he did stick around when the poo really started flying, although to what end...no one is sure). Let me put this question to you...would you drive by a section of troops under your command being slaughtered or would you have tried to stop it?

Not sure if he is a bad officer but he may have made a bad decision (certainly in hindsight).  Dallaire drove by a section of troops that were known to be held by in Camp Kigali in an effort to prevent an entire country self destructing.  As a commander, what choice do you have?

Think about it. Or better yet, would you walk away if a loved one was being murdered or would you intervene no matter what the consequences...because you know what should be done and screw the consequences or risk to yourself. Well?

This is a stupid question.  Do you sacrifice 10 soldiers to save 500,000 Rwandans?  You had better.  I don't want to die in some shithole overseas but if someone can tell my family that I died preventing a genocide, I would like to think my death had meaning.

Yes.

Piper, are you willing to make that choice next time knowing that if you get hung up, captured, killed trying to secure the release of 10 Belgians, you may allow the country to slide into civil war?  What was the mission, what was the bigger picture?  10 Belgians or a country's stability?  Dallaire chose the country but in the end it failed.

3rd Horseman

I dont actualy believe everthing the Gen wrote in his book is truthful so it would be tough to argue from a book I feel is not fully truthful (opionion no proof on that) thus I feel it is tough for your writter to prove anything to you through the Gens book.

I agree you have to take Dallaire's comments with a grain of salt but until 2332 Piper, 2 Cdo, etc, provide some form of proof other than opinion, I may consider their argument.  So far they haven't.

The reality is that he (gen D) was within ear and sight of the dead and dying soldiers, he did not stop, he did not stop the meeting he went to to solve the problem of his captured soldiers, he failed on the most basic principle.

He states that he did try.  At the time he considered a rescue mission to be irresponsible as he had a larger situation that he was focussed on.  He didn't have an adequate QRF to assault Camp Kigali and would have had to strip forces from around the city further allowing the situation to deteriorate.

I agree with the comments that the mission was under mined from the start the true culprits are the PM, UN SGen, Gen Barei (spelt it wrong I think).  It does not take away from the General not doing the right thing! What was the right thing? Stop the jeep get out and stop the incident by brute personality (which I know he has) or use brute force and die doing it or win. He had only one choice once he saw his soldiers captured and abused. He was a coward for not stopping or then he was a coward for not stopping the meeting and solving the issue.

See my comments about choices above.  I have yet to see any proof where Dallaire stayed out of harm's way or shirked from danger that would brand him a coward.

  I feel sorry for him, He was a good officer he was inspring to listen to and he appeared like you could lay it on the line and he would back you, in the end battle truely tells the story and he came up short.

I suppose that is where we will disagree.  I'm not convinced he (or anyone else) could have succeeded in his mission - does that mean he came up short? 

 

[wotan]

Gunner,

  Sorry that I lost you with my logic, I will sincerely try to clarify.

  He ran.

  He wrote his own book.

  I don't believe that what he wrote in his own book is the truth.

  I believe that what he wrote in his own book is self-serving.

  Since it is his book, it only gives his perspective, with the benefit of time on his side to "amend" his version of history.

  10 Belgian paratroopers are still dead.

  Is my logic and cynicism somewhat more clear now?

  I am done with this topic.  For those of you that think this man is some sort of hero or great Canadian, lament his tragic circumstances.  He is a vile and contemptable being, unfit for a commission or to lead men.  Remember, though, VOTE LIBERAL!!!

 

[armyvern]

This is a stupid question.    Do you sacrifice 10 soldiers to save 500,000 Rwandans?   You had better.   I don't want to die in some ******* overseas but if someone can tell my family that I died preventing a genocide, I would like to think my death had meaning.

I am sure that had he made the ultimate sacrifice trying to save the Belgian soldier's his death would have had meaning as well. This is an either/or situation, he made his choice...he gets to live with it.

does that mean he came up short?  

Perhaps you are correct in saying that it is possible that no-one could have been successful in this mission that ultimately failed.
I have heard him speak as well, and he is well-spoken. I find it hard to swallow however; that he feels it morally appropriate to write a book about the situation which he was party to in Rwanda (and thus he is the beneficiary of such proceeds etc - and no doubt - casts himself in the best possible light that circumstances allow) yet he does not feel that was appropriate to testify before the Belgian inquiry. Why is that; I am left to wonder? After all he should not fear speaking the truth.
Ultimately, I did not serve in Rwanda however some of my friends and fellow soldier's did. Some of them have expressed the change in the attitudes of the soldier's on the ground after the slaughter of the Belgian's and the lack of an attempt to save them (whether successful or not) on the part of Dallaire... Lead from the front. It becomes hard to do when your lack of action to save your personnel has caused those beneath you to lose their respect for your leadership capabilities,  
Although I believe this lapse in military leadership was a result of Dallaire's personal actions, I believe that responsibility for it's being allowed to happen is a direct result of higher leadership failures in that they sent an in-experienced, and thus ultimately in-effective Commander to a place he should never have been assigned to in the first place.

 

[Gunner]

Wotan,

Sorry that I lost you with my logic, I will sincerely try to clarify.

Your logic remains suspect.

He ran.

He didn't run and his actions are not those of a coward. 

He wrote his own book.

Yes he did.  Have you read it?

I don't believe that what he wrote in his own book is the truth.

Ah, so you prefer the drivel of Booh booh do you?  Do you have any facts other than your personal bias?

I believe that what he wrote in his own book is self-serving.

An attempt to explain his side of the story?  Is that self-serving?

Since it is his book, it only gives his perspective, with the benefit of time on his side to "amend" his version of history.

As a student of history, what part of his book do you want to prove is untrue?  Or are you simply ready and willing to cast all blame on a fellow soldier and, in typical Canadian style, wash your hands of it all?

10 Belgian paratroopers are still dead.

\\\

So are half a million Rwandans...they don't get much thought from you though do they?

Is my logic and cynicism somewhat more clear now?

Your attempts at combining fact with your perception have not added to a logical debate as to whether Dallaire was: a coward, incompetent, or useless, as you and your friends have spouted off about.  Your perception based on a lack of a factual basis is clouding your view of history.

I am done with this topic.  For those of you that think this man is some sort of hero or great Canadian, lament his tragic circumstances.  He is a vile and contemptable being, unfit for a commission or to lead men.  Remember, though, VOTE LIBERAL!!!

I haven't said he is a great Canadian however I don't feel his performance in Rwanda is worthy of your personal attacks on him without any foundation of basis.

Armyvern,

I am sure that had he made the ultimate sacrifice trying to save the Belgian soldier's his death would have had meaning as well. This is an either/or situation, he made his choice...he gets to live with it.

It is an either/or situation.  You are on the ground in Rwanda and the situation is deteriorating.  You can work towards securing the release of 10 Belgians that are being held captive and possibly even tortured.  To assit you have to bring every available soldier into an assembly area and use force to spring them or you can go into Camp Kigali and use your position as force commander to attempt to secure a release.  To do either, jeopardizes the larger picture of attempting to stablize Rwanda, and should you fail, untold numbers of Rwandans will be killed.  Why side with the 10 Belgians? 

Perhaps you are correct in saying that it is possible that no-one could have been successful in this mission that ultimately failed.
I have heard him speak as well, and he is well-spoken. I find it hard to swallow however; that he feels it morally appropriate to write a book about the situation which he was party to in Rwanda (and thus he is the beneficiary of such proceeds etc - and no doubt - casts himself in the best possible light that circumstances allow) yet he does not feel that was appropriate to testify before the Belgian inquiry. Why is that; I am left to wonder? After all he should not fear speaking the truth.

Have you read his book.  He accepts his responsibiity for the failure of the mission, his thoughts on why he did certain things, and it is left to history to decide whether he made the right or wrong decisions based on the situation he was in.  I've mentioned about the Belgian inquire above.  What does the Belgian National Contingent Commander say about Dallaire?  Does he support his actions in Rwanda or does he paint Dallaire as responsible?

Ultimately, I did not serve in Rwanda however some of my friends and fellow soldier's did. Some of them have expressed the change in the attitudes of the soldier's on the ground after the slaughter of the Belgian's and the lack of an attempt to save them (whether successful or not) on the part of Dallaire... Lead from the front. It becomes hard to do when your lack of action to save your personnel has caused those beneath you to lose their respect for your leadership capabilities, 

There were extremely few Canadians on the ground in Rwanda with Dallaire, you may be speaking to those who arrived afterwards with Gen Tousignaut after the French had arrived to stabilize the situation.

Although I believe this lapse in military leadership was a result of Dallaire's personal actions, I believe that responsibility for it's being allowed to happen is a direct result of higher leadership failures in that they sent an in-experienced, and thus ultimately in-effective Commander to a place he should never have been assigned to in the first place.

Which generals did we have that had any meaningful operational experience in 1994?  Was the mission a failure?  Yes. Is he partially responsible?  As Force Commander, of course.  However, can you prove to me he was ineffective based on his force structure and mandate provided by the UN?  What should he have done with his 2800 man force consisting of Bangladesh, Ghanians, and a handful of Belgians? 

 

[wotan]

Gunner,

 Continually you reference the man's own book.  Why?  It gives his perspective and his alone.  By definition it is biased and hence, intentional or not, it is self-serving.

 As for the Rwandans killed, I have made no mention of them, because that is not the issue.  He did not kill those Rwandans and given the resources and support afforded him by the UN, I truly do not believe he could have prevented it.  But he COULD have made at least a show, a gesture to save the men under his command.  Instead he quite literally chose to turn the corner.  I am mystified as to why you or anyone sets this man on a pedestal.  He is a coward.  Excise this one incident where he abandoned his troops and he is a tragic figure.  With it, he is a self-serving rat-b*stard looking out for himself.  If you like him, vote for him.  Oh, sorry, we don't vote for Senators, they are appointed by a PM.  Strange that.

 And yes, like it or not, he did run and his actions are those of a coward.  BTW, WTF is booh booh?  I haven't heard anyone say "Booh booh", since they found a drunken, commissioned, dolt, coward by the Rideau.  Now there's a fine image for Canada's officer corps, n'est ce pas?

 As far as "my personal attacks" upon him, well, guess what?  We live in a democracy and I can hold any belief I like, even one you don't approve of.  If they don't meet your criteria, too bad.  So stuff it.

 

[armyvern]

Armyvern,
It is an either/or situation.   You are on the ground in Rwanda and the situation is deteriorating.   You can work towards securing the release of 10 Belgians that are being held captive and possibly even tortured.   To assit you have to bring every available soldier into an assembly area and use force to spring them or you can go into Camp Kigali and use your position as force commander to attempt to secure a release.   To do either, jeopardizes the larger picture of attempting to stablize Rwanda, and should you fail, untold numbers of Rwandans will be killed.   Why side with the 10 Belgians?  

Yes he made his choice just as I stated. A choice many others would have made differently. Do not lead your men to slaughter, and if they happen to head that way, at least try help them out once they get there. Plain and simple to me. I believe we should have learned this at Dieppe. You want your soldier's to follow you? Then lead the way, by example and from the front. Many an in-experienced warrior have been successful in times of woefully inadequate support, and many were not. At least they made the attempt, it IS the soldierly thing to do. 

Have you read his book.   He accepts his responsibiity for the failure of the mission, his thoughts on why he did certain things, and it is left to history to decide whether he made the right or wrong decisions based on the situation he was in.   I've mentioned about the Belgian inquire above.   What does the Belgian National Contingent Commander say about Dallaire?   Does he support his actions in Rwanda or does he paint Dallaire as responsible?

Yes, I have read the book. Picked it up in the Ottawa Airport while attending a conference. It was an interesting read but has nothing to do with mny question.  Again, his point of view on his thought process' at the time, with hindsight and again, I'm sure, the most favourable light he could place on his decisions given the circumstances. Regardless of what the Belgian Commander had to say about Dallaire, that does not justify why he did not speak before the inquiry. With, as you say, back-up like that of the Belgian Commander, why not testify and put it all officilly on the record under oath? I have distinct problems with someone adapting the Mea Culpa line in a book, written in their own hand, who is not willing to offically accept that same Mea Culpa in an official forum by a nation who was greatly touched by the decision he made.

Which generals did we have that had any meaningful operational experience in 1994?   Was the mission a failure?   Yes. Is he partially responsible?   As Force Commander, of course.    However, can you prove to me he was ineffective based on his force structure and mandate provided by the UN?   What should he have done with his 2800 man force consisting of Bangladesh, Ghanians, and a handful of Belgians?  

Did I say Canadian Generals, because I do not believe that I did? Our Snr leadership, at the time, did and said nothing, just as UNHQ did, there was a complete lack of leadership occuring regarding the Rwanada mission all the way through to the top. In the end the Rwandan people suffered (and suffer still for it), and 10 Belgian soldier's paid with their lives for it. Please do not quote me his book or use it as a 'factual' knowledge base, for it is ultimately, only one man's spin on one failed mission in which 10 soldiers were sacrificed, rightly or wrongly, in a mission he ought to have known was already doomed to fail, based on the response (or lack there-of) he was getting from UNHQ.

 

[wotan]

Final thought on this topic, Gunner.

Do not, under any circumstances, refer to MGen/Senator Dallaire as my fellow soldier.  He is a cowardly rat-b*stard.  Claim him as a fellow soldier of yourself if you will.  He is not my comrade, nor shall he ever be, he broke that faith.

MEMORIAM EORAM RETINIBEMUS

 

[KevinB]

IMHO He might have made a bigger impression on the opposing powers by leading a Belgian para unit into Camp Kigali - and killed anyone in his way in attempt to free his men.  Tinpot dictators and third rate thugs that run a lot of the African (and elsewhere) militias and gangs respect power and those who unflinchingly have the resolve to use it.  Having seen African "soldiers" I would suspect a Company of Belgian Para's could have wiped out at least 10-20x times their numbers as long as they had ammo and the authority to use force.

I furthermore point to the members of TF Ranger - specifically a platoon minus held on (albiet with US Helicopter support) against a force of over 5000 in Mogadishu, Somalia Oct 3, 1993 for over 14 hrs. 

I suspect that Feb 9, 1994 Gen Dallaire was aware of all of the above - however simple did not have the will to do so.  Whether the lack of will was do to a failure in his character, a failure in the Canadain Military as an institution (inbred institutionally engineered failure), or specifically due to political pressure of either the Canadian Gov't or UN we will never know.

 

[Infanteer]

:boring:

This is why I never read the book - it'd just bring me into these bunfights....

 

[UberCree]

as long as they had ammo and the authority to use force.

Every Canadian citizen - soldier or otherwise - has the legal right to use minimum force necessary to prevent a murder.  If he had acted he would have been legally justified in doing so.

 

[Blue Max]

My understanding of the events as relayed by the Belgian Para's:

- According to the Belgian officers there was strong evidence that something big was about to happen. The Belgian paras wanted to draw in their small dispersed forces and form reaction teams in a few key areas. RD with his wealth of experience (SARCASM) overruled the paras suggestion and kept his limited forces dispersed.

- The rifle section stationed at a compound was trapped, and given an ultimatum by the Hutu mob to drop their weapons. Over the radio they received advice from their HQ to comply. They dropped their weapons and were executed.

- At a sports stadium somewhere in the city another rifle section of paras was attempting to get into the stadium and set up a defensive position when they were cornered against the closed stadium by a large mob of machete wielding Hutus. Instead of laying down their arms as demanded by the mob and recommended by HQ, the rifle section opened fire. The mob dispersed very quickly and the rifle section got back to base that day.

- RD made a number of poor decisions leading up to this event; he did not allow the paras to bring in country their APC's, heavy weapons or for officers wear side arms in a useless attempt to show confidence in the situation and not seem offensive in nature. Without a side arm RD was unable to get his Rwandan driver to stop in front of the compound for a recon at least.  

- Having said that one of the doomed rifle section members had a smuggled pistol that he kept on himself after the section dropped their main weapons. He was the only one to get away from the initial fusillade and barricaded himself in an adjacent building within the compound for about an hour until of course he ran out of ammo.

- RD did have a radio in his jeep, and there was a rifle section of paras down the road that heard the firing (their comrades being executed) but didn't know what the shooting was about. They say if they had known what was happening they would have run down the road and charged into the compound. What would it have taken for RD to let some one know immediately that his troops were in crisis at that location? Leadership was one of many things missing on that day.

Is not a general of men and a politician supposed to show leadership above and beyond that which we show in our every day lives?   How can he look himself in the mirror after accepting that Liberal Senate position based on his miserable leadership so far?

 

[armyvern]

Every Canadian citizen - soldier or otherwise - has the legal right to use minimum force necessary to prevent a murder.   If he had acted he would have been legally justified in doing so.

Absolutely correct, and the day they take that RIGHT away from me (or any other soldier) is the day an awful lot of releases get thrown onto the table.

 

[kcdist]

Blue Max, your synopsis is well done.

It took me years to find a forum where fellow Canadians hold my view that Dallaire is nothing but a feeble minded bum, unfit to wear even a boy scout uniform.

His apologists talk of the big picture, using cliches to justify their arguments. Fact is, at some time during his mission, common sense should have prevailed. My thought is Dallaire held the Western-centric view that all people are generally good and that with reason alone, he would succeed in his mission. Typical liberal think, and the reason 10 Belgian soldiers are dead.

Whether there were any Canadian Generals in the early 90's that held operational experience is a weak argument indeed. The strength of the Canadian Combat Arms Officer Corps is the ability to critically analyse and take decisive action if and when necessary. If appeasement worked, World War 2 wouldn't have occurred.

Here's a thought. How would the situation have differed if Gen Lew Mackenzie had been in charge?

 

[armyvern]

Here's a thought. How would the situation have differed if Gen Lew Mackenzie had been in charge?

Well, how some minds think alike!!
IMHO he would have stopped the vehicle and been in there like a dirty shirt fast enough to make anyone's head spin. He would never have been caught without communications. Therefore, he'd have stopped, the other Belgians would have been there almost as fast as he would have been, and I'd like to think, they all would have made it out alive (as evidenced by the soccer stadium incident). If not, he'd at least be one VERY RESPECTED fallen soldier. And, if the UN didn't like the decision he made about that well we know what his response would have been..to f'n bad!! MEA CULPA to the utmost that man is.

 

[kcdist]

As a police officer, when someone really screwed up, the analysis would always commence with "I can't really judge how I would perform, because I wasn't there"....and then you'd go on to critique the performance based on your experience in similar situations, and the facts as detailed by witnesses, radio traffic, ect.

Same thing with Dallaire. Although none of the posters on this board were there, the majority believe, based on the values and ethos inherited through Canadian military service, that his actions were not consistent with that of a combat leader. Making the situation worse, is that his abject failure was rewarded with promotion and a lifelong golden handshake.

During my service, I met dozens of officers that would have unquestionably and without hesitation, taken action in an attempt to assist the Belgians. Without any sense of bravado, I know that I sure as hell would have. As a Canadian soldier, I felt a sense of shame when the incident first occurred and I read the accounts from the Belgians and from Dallaire's own admissions. May he rot in the Senate