A challenge to Clinton's apologists:Defend his role in the Iraqi sanctions

[DerekG]

While most of us are justifiably horrified that 100,000+ men, women and children have already been sacrificed on the altar of Moloch (or Shrub, if you will), it seems that some are quick to dismiss--or worse, excuse--the Iraqi sanctions that predated this invasion. Of course, I am not surprised, for while the author was one George H.W. Bush, it was Bill Clinton who would be remembered as the true face behind said sanctions.

As for myself, it is no revelation that the man who unleashed Plan Columbia would also have a substantial role in the deaths of over a million Iraqi civilians: for some time, I've fancied Bill Clinton the Claudius to Bush's Nero, the charismatic Ted Bundy to the latter's cultic, frothing Charles Manson.

But many of you do admire "Big Dawg."

So in the interest of moral consistency--that is, not simply being outraged with an administration that burns children, but also with one that opts to starve them--I ask Clinton's apologists to read the links below (or at least the excerpts) before rushing to that charmer's defense.



FIRST SOURCE

Dennis Halliday administered the U.N. oil-for-food program in Iraq until 1998, when he resigned due to his disgust with the "genocidal" policies fomented by the Bush adminstration and expanded under Clinton's. Also note that Halliday's successor quit for similar reasons.

In this interview, Halliday asserts that it was America and other world powers--not Hussein--who diverted the resources meant for the Iraqi people:

http://www.consistentlife.org/Denis%20Halliday%20Interv...

--snip--

Q: Some people who are harshly critical of Saddam Hussein and who take a bellicose stand say that the Oil for Food program wasn’t working and that Saddam Hussein was siphoning off the revenues of the oil sales to feed the military, to feed himself, feather his nest. What’s the truth to that?

Halliday: Well, there’s absolutely no truth, whatsoever. Every penny from oil sales goes into the hands of the United Nations, into a United Nations bank account, and is released by the United Nations directly to the contractors - American, Russian, French, Chinese, whatever they may be - who provide the foodstuffs, medical equipment, medical supplies. There’s no possibility of funds being siphoned off whatsoever.

--snip--

http://www.consistentlife.org/Denis%20Halliday%20Interv...





SECOND SOURCE

Here's a link to an interview on commondreams that reveals the true intentions behind the sanctions:

http://www.commondreams.org/views/071800-102.htm

--snip--

When they launched Operation Desert Fox against Iraq in 1998, was it actually possible for the US and the UK to get rid of Hussein?

I think they deliberately decided to keep the government in Baghdad in power to sustain the instability of Iraq on the one hand, and the threat that Iraq posed for the Kuwaitis and the Saudis in the Gulf on the other.

This has been done to control the financial and oil resources of the Arab world in order to provide opportunities to sell American weapons and the American army. And they have done it very successfully.

Defense Secretary William Cohen travelled all over the Arab World selling hundreds of billions of dollars worth of planes and guns. It is called business. They have got a market for military hardware from the US and Europe and they've got control over the oil resources. I mean, we know that Iraq probably has the world's biggest supply of oil in the world, not the second. But this has all been suppressed. In other words, the Americans have got what they wanted. Who cares about 6,000-7,000 people dying every month?

I think we must address the fact that the American policy vis-à-vis Iraq serves to diminish the entire Arab world. It has been gobbling up Arab financial resources that should be going to the people; to education and to the future, into oil production and petrochemicals. That money is going into military arms, which will never be used -- I hope.


Calls are now being made to have Western leaders who caused this genocide sit trial in the War Criminals Tribunal. Is this possible and do you support such calls?

I do. I think it has become known as the Pinochet tactic. Pinochet has done us all a favour by being vulnerable and being caught -- even though he was released. It was a signal to everybody from Bush, Albright to Hussein; men and women alike who make decisions that constitute crimes against humanity have got to watch out. They're not free to travel, they're not free to do these things. They will be -- and must be -- prosecuted.

So you think President Bill Clinton should be tried?

Absolutely. He is the commander-in-chief and he approved the bombing of Iraq, for example, in December 1998. There was no justification for this, no UN resolution. It is a breach of international law. It is outrageous and it is, of course, a crime against humanity.

--snip--

http://www.commondreams.org/views/071800-102.htm





THIRD SOURCE

This 1999 article details how Clinton countered the efforts of France, China and Russia to ease the barbaric sanctions.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/sep1999/iraq-s28.shtm...

--snip--

After two weeks of intensive negotiations within the United Nations Security Council, the United States has blocked efforts by France, Russia and China to lift sanctions against Iraq. Washington has thereby ensured the continuation of a policy which must rank as one of the great crimes against humanity of the twentieth century.

Only last month the UN children's agency, UNICEF, released a study showing that nine years of economic embargo, compounded by the devastation from two air wars, have produced a “humanitarian emergency.” UNICEF reported that mortality rates among infants and children under five in the central and southern parts of the country which are controlled by Baghdad, where 85 percent of Iraqis live, have more than doubled since 1989. The study further concluded that 20 percent of Iraqi children under five suffer from stunted growth caused by malnutrition.

UNICEF estimated that 500,000 child deaths are attributable to the sanctions.

--snip--

http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/sep1999/iraq-s28.shtm...




FOURTH SOURCE

An excerpt from a report issued by Amnesty International:

http://www.amnestyusa.org/news/1999/51400699.htm

--snip--

The report does not exempt the government of Iraq from responsibility for the ongoing humanitarian crisis. But it notes that, "Even if not all suffering in Iraq can be imputed to external factors, especially sanctions, the Iraqi people would not be undergoing such deprivations in the absence of the prolonged measures imposed by the Security Council and the effects of the war.

--snip--

http://www.amnestyusa.org/news/1999/51400699.htm

[bpilgrim]

1. well the reTHUGs would have just filibustered

you know that

peace

[DerekG]

3. I am not concerned with the Republicans

None here would ever question the depravity and bloodlust of the opposition; my intention is to expose our own party's sins.

[Michael_Bush]

12. Wow

I didn't know we were allowed to do that!

Interesting take on GW1 and our motives in leaving Saddam in power. So Bush calls for a revolution, knowing he can't lose. If the Sunnis overthrow Saddam, he has a new ruler who owes his power to the Bush family. If the Kurds and Shia revolt, he can let them be slaughtered with the weapons Rumsfeld sold them and the chaos they need to sell arms to the ME and keep SA and Kuwait desperate for our friendship.

Someone in that family has brains.

My disillusionment with Clinton (who I still think was a damn fine president in hard times) came upon reading about the Rwandan massacre and how we kept the UN from acting. Pretty shameful stuff. Like all people, he had his reasons, he was still smarting from our other oil grab in Somalia and the blackhawk down mess.

I think it is important we understand and acknowledge our mistakes so we can truly correct them, not simply burn the messengers.

[Terran1212]

66. Clinton is in the same league of war criminal as Bush

The reason most people protest Bush's crimes more is because so many Americans are dying in them. Clinton killed or assisted in killing many foreingers, as well.

[oasis]

77. Where did you get that disinformation?

[FlemingsGhost]

2. Oh, man ... this should be good. Researched, well-written ...

and challenges the myth, honestly.

Kudos, but I hope you wore your flame-retardant underwear.

[Solly Mack]

4. Can't help you. I was against the sanctions

but I will be checking this thread. :)

[WilliamPitt]

I was against the sanctions for the most part

but I will respond quickly - I have to go out in a minute - as the devil's advocate.

When the sanctions were put on, Iraq actually did have lots and lots and lots of WMD. The sanctions + occasional military strikes is the reason nothing was found in this war. The sanctions were aimed primarily at his military, and at his ability to get WMD-manufacturing equipment and materiel.

The deprivations created by the sanctions hit the Iraqi people in no small part because Hussein diverted any and all monies away from food, medicine and infrastructure and into his military and secret services, the latter spending much of its time on the black market looking for spare parts for tanks and planes.

So the sanctions did their part, but Hussein owns a lot of the blame for the sufering of his people.

/devil's advocacy.

[Frederik]

8. That is not correct

"Q: Some people who are harshly critical of Saddam Hussein and who take a bellicose stand say that the Oil for Food program wasn’t working and that Saddam Hussein was siphoning off the revenues of the oil sales to feed the military, to feed himself, feather his nest. What’s the truth to that?

Halliday: Well, there’s absolutely no truth, whatsoever. Every penny from oil sales goes into the hands of the United Nations, into a United Nations bank account, and is released by the United Nations directly to the contractors - American, Russian, French, Chinese, whatever they may be - who provide the foodstuffs, medical equipment, medical supplies. There’s no possibility of funds being siphoned off whatsoever."

Halliday administered the programme - he ought to know.

[KittyWampus]

11. The Oil/Food $ Being Spent On Foodstuffs Etc. Released OTHER $ For

military spending.

Also, how does Halliday know whether the foodstuffs, medical equipment, medical supplies didn't get blackmarketed upon arrival?

It would seem it did.

[jobycom]

21. Thank you, that's what I was going to point out

In a black and white world, maybe the OP would have something, but the picture is a lot more complicated than that.

[Frederik]

9. The WMD were destroyed in 1991.

[jayfish]

73. "Most" Of The WsMD Were Destroyed In 1991.

http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/twr147e.htm

<SNIP>
Pitt: Does Iraq have weapons of mass destruction?

Ritter: It’s not black-and-white, as some in the Bush administration make it appear. There’s no doubt that Iraq hasn’t fully complied with its disarmament obligations as set forth by the UN Security Council in its resolution. But on the other hand, since 1998 Iraq has been fundamentally disarmed: 90-95% of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction capability has been verifiably eliminated. This includes all of the factories used to produce chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, and long-range ballistic missiles; the associated equipment of these factories; and the vast majority of the products coming out of these factories.
</SNIP>

Jay

[Frederik]

5. You've got me on your side

Infanticide masquerading as policy.

[KittyWampus]

6. Devil's Advocate Here: Sanctions Are A Means Of Bringing Pressure

to bear on repressive regimes.

[Frederik]

10. But when they're obviously not working

and the only ones who suffer and die are innocent people in the hundreds of thousands?

[KittyWampus]

13. So You've No Problem With The US Trading With Thugs? It's Better We

buy goods from China and allow them to finance our National Debt then it would be to sanction them until they leave Tibet?

[K-W]

16. The US are thugs too, so how does that work?

No it is not better for the US to try to use economic means to control Iraq, regardless of our stated intentions anymore than we are justified to invade Iraq because of our stated intentions.

Meanwhile the sanctions actually served to STRENGTHEN Saddam's grip on Iraq and the pentagon probably knew that, but I highly doubt anyone bothered to tell clinton anything resembling the truth about Iraq or he wouldnt have continued a low level war on Iraq throughout his entire presidency.

[KittyWampus]

19. Is There Any Virtuous State?

[K-W]

30. States are a product of their society, they cannot be inherently good.

Because the chaotic social interaction of society can never be inherently good.

Regardless I wouldnt let even the most virtous person in the world run around with a gun shooting people who he thought was bad, nor would I let him try to starve those people or thier families, even if I agreed they were bad.

[Frederik]

22. If the sanctions killed a million Chinese

without accomplishing anything at all in Tibet, then yes, trade is better.

[jobycom]

25. When the alternative is war

where people will die in the hundreds of thousands, at least sanctions offer a chance. Not to mention that sanctions are not as immediately brutal on the infrastructure, and thus are more easily reversible when goals are met.

[K-W]

32. War was not an alternative, so what are you talking about?

The sanctions follwed the war, which we won handidly. There was no war to be fought.

Or did you mean to say occupation, which was, I suppose, an alternative, but certainly not the only alternative.

[jobycom]

92. I've answered this all over, but one more time

You know, wars and politics just don't work as simply as they do in LOTR movies or Tom Clancy novels.

Hussein had been disarmed after the first invasion, which ended, as you recall, with Bush I deciding not to march to Bagdad and remove Hussein. There was pressure on him to do so from our own neocons, from Israel, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, and probably others.

The way out of invasion was to force Hussein to disarm, and that's what the sanctions were for. The treaty which allowed us to invade if Hussein didn't comply with inspections is what prevented us from having to invade to disarm him, and the sanctions helped enforce that treaty. Without the sanctions, there would have been a lot more pressure on us to invade, there would have been an increasing buildup of weapons in Iraq, and sooner or later, probably sooner, someone was going to go to war over it.

I'm not defending either invasion, btw. Both Bushes should be executed publicly as war criminals. But the sanctions were an attempt to head of the invasion the fascist right wing was trying to force. Youu don't believe that? Read up on Chalabi's first attempt to convince us to invade. Read up on PNAC. Read what every neocon was saying all during the 90s. They all wanted to invade, and what prevented that invasion was Clinton and his proof that progress was being made because of the sanctions.

Want further proof? What happened as soon as the Repubs regained power? Bush II's invasion was the one the neocons wanted all during the 90s. Clinton's hope was that the sanctions would bring about a resolution that would prevent the neocon war when they finally got back in power. If Al Gore had taken the office he won, they would have probably worked.

I don't know where you were between 98 and 2000. I was here in Austin, watching what was going on. The reason they ran Bush and stole the presidency was specifically to invade Iraq and Afghanistan, to launch PNAC's plans and take over the Middle East. That's the war the sanctions were trying to halt. A lot more people will die over the next ten years from this invasion than died during the sanctions.

[Frederik]

38. But the alternative wasn't war

That is a neo-con talking point and a ridiculous thing to say.

[K-W]

39. If Clinton hadnt tried to appease the neocons

we wouldnt have had sanctions. They created the false threat of Saddam and Clinton bought into thier lies.

[jobycom]

93. If it's ridiculous, then why are we in Iraq now?

This is the war the sanctions tried to head off.

[B Calm]

7. While I still believe the impeachment of President Clinton was to

honor a brave man that would not quit under pressure. But instead stood up and stared into the face of hypocritical, political, smear mongers who tried and failed to undermine democracy, I will never defend his decision to carry out Bush #1 policy of Iraq sanctions!

[Old and In the Way]

28. I agree....

I can only imagine how the Republican majority and our news media would have played "Clinton Ends Embargo - Helps Saddam who almost murdered our beloved #41". Better question might be why people like Dick Cheney were circumventing the UN sanctions and making $ trading with Saddam.

I think the UN needed to end the sanctions and I don't think Clinton had the domestic political strength to go it alone. I think he saw the key to ME peace was getting the Israel and Palestine issue resolved....and we know how much help the Republicans were in facilitating that.

But let's blame Bill for the policy that GHWB dumped on his doorstep.

[xchrom]

14. well done.

interesting thread.


i was against the sanctions.
and i thought the wmd's were destroyed in 91?

wasn't that part of the deal?

[geek tragedy]

15. The fact that he was absolutely sure that Saddam wasn't diverting funds

under the OFF program reveals him to be a bit out of touch with reality.

[FlemingsGhost]

17. Prove it, otherwise.

Thanks.

[Frederik]

24. He administered the programme

and he says it was impossible. But I guess you know better, from your armchair.

[geek tragedy]

27. Anyone who's been reading the news knows that the program was corrupted

Anyhoo, Halliday also wanted to leave the Taliban and AQ in charge of Afghanistan after 9/11, so I don't take him seriously on this kind of issue.

[FlemingsGhost]

34. Proof?

Thanks.

[geek tragedy]

51. Proof

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/02/07/un.suspensions/

<snip>
The longtime head of the U.N. oil-for-food program has been suspended from any remaining duties, the world body announced Monday.

Benon Sevan is also a subject of an ongoing Justice Department investigation being led by the U.S. attorney's office for the Southern District of New York, according to law enforcement sources who say the program is also under investigation by the Manhattan district attorney.

Sevan was the main figure accused of corruption in last week's interim report by an independent commission investigating the United Nations' seven-year, $64 billion humanitarian program for Iraq. The commission is led by former U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker.

"We acted on the report as soon as it came out," U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan told CNN Monday. "This is not the end. It is the beginning and we'll act on the other branches of the report as they come out."

U.N. spokesman Stephane Dujarric called the suspension "the beginning of a disciplinary procedure respective of due process" and said it could be a first step toward lifting diplomatic immunity for Sevan.
<snip>

[Frederik]

40. The Taliban offered to extradite Bin Laden

Bush wasn't interested. The Taliban had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11, as any reasonably informed person knows. In fact, they tried to warn US authorities, after having gotten wind of it. The war in Afghanistan was a bad idea, so I agree with Halliday there.

[geek tragedy]

47. Oh please, spare me the Taliban apologia.

They were never going to extradite bin Laden. Guess why they were under UN sanctions?

That's right--for refusing to extradite bin Laden. They were his base of support and guests--bin Laden provided them $$ and they gave him a home base.

And the Taliban tried to warn the US about the 9/11 attacks?

Before reading this post, I thought triple-whoppers were only served at Burger King.

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[geek tragedy]

53. Bin Laden's terrorists blew up two US embassies in Africa, murdering

hundreds of innocent people.

The Taliban refused to turn bin Laden and his goons over, and in response the UN imposed sanctions.

Anyone who thinks the Taliban were good-faith actors in all of this is an absolute fool.

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[geek tragedy]

58. Uh, I've been reading the news for the past decade or so.

Do your own research.

Or stew in your own ignorance. No difference to me.

[aion]

62. Well that explains your illness

Yes, your position is well-reflected in the MSM. That doesn't make it truer, or more believable. You let others tell you what constitute proof, because you cannot or will not put forth the mental energy necessary to DEDUCE your conclusions from objective facts.

[geek tragedy]

63. I have the objective facts--which differentiates us.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=%22embassy+bombings%22+taliban+1267+1333&btnG=Search

By the way, one is not required to prove guilt in order to support extradition.

[aion]

67. You have no facts, you have only opinion

These sanctions (Resolution 1333), which took effect in one month if the Taliban did not comply, were aimed at pressuring Afghanistan to turn over Osama bin Laden, suspected in various terrorist attacks, including the August 1998 US Embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania.

Even this article states quite clearly that Osama is a SUSPECT. The Taliban had pressure put upon them to hand him over, but they stood firm in demanding PROOF. You have no proof, you have only the heavy-handed UN trying to force the Taliban to extridite Osama without first providing the proof of his guilt.

[geek tragedy]

68. Sorry to shatter your pro-Taliban, pro-bin Laden dreamworld, but

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/LAW/05/29/embassy.bombings.03/

[aion]

70. Use your brain, try using deduction rather than induction

If you had paid attention you would have noticed that the evidence linking these people to Osama is quite stretched. In order to create the bogeyman, the fake group 'Al CIAda' needed to be created. Do your history on the origination of the name Al Qaeda. They don't call themselves that, WE CALL THEM THAT.

[geek tragedy]

72. Good luck. n/t

[Name removed]

74. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[FlemingsGhost]

60. Proof?

I don't expect it, but it is fun pointing out how essentially you have nothing to bolster you argument.

Not your finest hour ...

[geek tragedy]

64. Here you go:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=%22embassy+bombings%22+taliban+1267+1333&btnG=Search

I win, you lose.

Seriously, am I the only person who is aware of world history prior to 2000?

[FlemingsGhost]

71. How telling:

"I win, you lose."

Yes, what a winner you are ...

[LynnTheDem]

89. Always the usual from that poster, isn't it.

You agree with him totally, or you're a "Saddam-loyalst...OBL supporter...America-hater..." etc.

The "I win, you lose" is also familiar, although more often on other boards not in agreement with DU.

[aion]

94. Sophists only believe in pursuasion. Deductive Reasoning be damned.

I agree. It is as though they're playing to an invisible audience, and scoring it with a totally unknown set of rule-sets. They ditch deductive reasoning, and use pursuasive induction instead. Nevermind the problems in proving a negative...they never learned that, so it must not be true.

[Frederik]

86. You're not very well-informed

Are you. From Britain's The Independent:

"Revealed: The Taliban minister, the US envoy and the warning of September 11 that was ignored
By Kate Clark in Kabul
07 September 2002

Weeks before the terrorist attacks on 11 September, the United States and the United Nations ignored warnings from a secret Taliban emissary that Osama bin Laden was planning a huge attack on American soil."

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/story.jsp?story=331115

The Taliban demanded that Bush show them proof for Bin Laden's involvement in the 9/11 atrocity, which Bush couldn't provide and still can't.

Anyway, if you were the least bit informed you would know that the decision to invade Afghanistan was made the summer of 2001, as all the major countries in the region were informed that bombing would commence in October 2001. So the war was unrelated to 9/11 in any other sense than that it provided a convenient justification.

[geek tragedy]

96. And those having read that article would be able to note

that this was a rogue Taliban official acting on his own, not on behalf of Mullah Omar, and that this official WANTED the US to invade, but that such military action was unlikely.

<snip>
The emissary went first to the Americans, travelling across the border to meet the consul general, David Katz, in the Pakistani border town of Peshawar, in the third week of July 2001. They met in a safehouse belonging to an old mujahedin leader who has confirmed to The Independent that the meeting took place.

Another US official was also present ­ possibly from the intelligence services. Mr Katz, who now works at the American embassy in Eritrea, declined to talk about the meeting. But other US sources said the warning was not passed on.

A diplomatic source said: "We were hearing a lot of that kind of stuff. When people keep saying the sky's going to fall in and it doesn't, a kind of warning fatigue sets in. I actually thought it was all an attempt to rattle us in an attempt to please their funders in the Gulf, to try to get more donations for the cause."

The Afghan aide did not reveal that the warning was from Mr Muttawakil, a factor that might have led the Americans to down-grade it. "As I recall, I thought he was speaking from his own personal perspective," one source said. "It was interesting that he was from the Foreign Affairs Ministry, but he gave no indication this was a message he was carrying."

Interviewed by The Independent in Kabul, the Afghan emissary said: "I told Mr Katz they should launch a new Desert Storm ­ like the campaign to drive Iraq out of Kuwait ­ but this time they should call it Mountain Storm and they should drive the foreigners out of Afghanistan. They also had to stop the Pakistanis supporting the Taliban."

The Taliban emissary said Mr Katz replied that neither action was possible. Nor did Mr Katz pass the warning on to the State Department, according to senior US diplomatic sources.

When Mr Muttawakil's emissary returned to Kabul, the Foreign Minister told him to see UN officials. He took the warning to the Kabul offices of UNSMA, the political wing of the UN. These officials heard him out, but again did not report the secret Taliban warning to UN headquarters. A UN official familiar with the warnings said: "He appeared to be speaking in total desperation, asking for a Mountain Storm, he wanted a sort of deus ex machina to solve his country's problems. But before 9/11, there was just not much hope that Washington would become that engaged in Afghanistan."
<snip>

There is nothing but idle speculation to support the theory that the US was intending to invade Afghanistan in summer 2001. Doubtlessly they had plans drawn up, but they have plans drawn up for every possible area of engagement in the world.

As I've noted before, the Taliban were already in the wrong for sheltering bin Laden after the embassy bombings. Even the Taliban foreign minister recognized that the only thing that would drive them out was military force.

[Frederik]

101. The Taliban

Telegraph/Newsweek/CNN journalist Lutz Kleveman, in his book "The New Great Game", interviews Pakistani journalist Rahimullah Yusufzai, who has interviewed both Mullah Omar and Bin Laden several times. Mr Yusufzai says that after Bin Laden held his press conference in Kandahar in 1998, when he launched his jihad against the United States (and at which Yusufzai was present), Mullah Omar was outraged. According to Yusufzai, the enraged mullah told Bin Laden:

"There can only be one ruler in Afghanistan, and that is me. You are our guest, but don't get us in trouble with the Americans!"
(p. 238)

Yusufzai further says: "People in the west do not realize this: Bin Laden was a refugee who had a few fighters by his side, that's it. The Taliban always made fun of his talk about jihad".
(ibid.)

Which isn't exactly the picture that was painted for us by Donald Rumsfeld in 2001, when he alleged that Bin Laden would soon be ready to launch terror satelites into space from Afghanistan...

I really honestly believe it's unlikely that Usama or anyone in Afghanistan played any central role in the planning, organizing and execution of the 9/11 attacks. I would gladly change my mind if I was presented any evidence though, but so far what I've seen is scant, Colin Powell's promise that he would release it notwithstanding (where is that evidence, Colin?).

Evidence points rather to neighbouring Pakistan and their Inter Service Intelligence Diractorate. According to Indian intelligence sources interviewed by the Times of India and Agence France-Presse in October 2001, it was the head of the ISI, Lt. Gen. Mahmud Ahmad, who instructed ISI asset and Jaish-e-Muhammed leader Omar Saed Sheikh/Umar Syed Sheikh to wire $100,000 to "lead hijacker" Muhammed Atta. Indian intel had been listening on his cell phone calls among other things, and claimed to have solid evidence for the general's involvement. The evidence was handed over to the FBI which appears to have forgotten to tell the Congressional inquiry and 9/11 Commission about it, as the Indians' claims are not mentioned in their reports at all.

Lt. Gen. Ahmad was fired two days before the Times of India article appeared which broke the story. The official explanation was "a routine reshuffling".

The general, by the way, was in Washington on 9/11, having breakfast with Porter Goss, Bob Graham and John Kyl of the joint intelligence oversight committee as the first plane slammed into the WTC!

They were reportedly discussing terrorism emanating from Afghanistan.

Bob Graham has admitted that he had been forewarned of 9/11 by an FBI agent (Randy Glass) who had himself been told by an ISI agent several times that the WTC would come down.

Omar Saed Sheikh was named by the CNN as the man who wired $100,000 to Atta the day before the Times of India broke their story. That was the last time the CNN mentiond him in connection to 9/11...

...but he reappeared in US media in 2002 as the alleged killer of Wall Street Journal journalist Daniel Pearl. No mention then of his role in 9/11. Pearl's widow is convinced Sheikh is not her husband's killer, but he's still sentenced to death for it in Pakistan. He is not mentioned in the 9/11 Commission report.

Daniel Pearl was investigating the ties between "al-Qaida" and the ISI, according to French journalist Bernard Henri-Lévi in his book "Who Killed Daniel Pearl?"

And the Taliban was dependent on the ISI for their existance. They had been installed in 1996 in a joint ISI/CIA operation. The US clandestinely supported the Taliban until the summer of 2001, hoping to get the Unocal pipeline through the country (while Kremlin supported the "Northern Alliance"). As you may know, a Taliban representative visited the US State Dept. in 2001 to discuss the pipeline matter.

Most of the training camps in Afghanistan were operated by the ISI, and used for training guerrillas for their war in Kashmir and jihad elsewhere (Chechnya, Central Asia) through proxy groups such as Jaish-e-Mohammed. Several ISI officers were reportedly killed during Clinton's Tomahawk attack against Afghanistan in 1998. Pakistani soldiers also fought with the Taliban against US forces in 2001.

My impression is absolutely that the Pakistanis were calling the shots in Afghanistan. But they're America's staunchest ally in the war on terror, of course.

The embassy bombings in 1998, by the way, were coordinated from Azerbaijan, where Ayman al-Zawahiri ("Dr. Death") of Egypt's Islamic Jihad had taken up residence, not from Afghanistan. But that's another story.

[geek tragedy]

105. Why didn't the Taliban give Osama and his goons up in 1998? eom

[Frederik]

106. Osama had the support of Pakistan eom.

[aion]

48. Posada and Osama -- yin and yang

Quite refreshing to see another person who remembers this. The Taliban demanded proof before extridition. Bush claimed, as they always do, that he needed to protect so-called 'sources and methods'. I guess they want us to believe that by revealing the evidence we had on Osama, CIA covers might be blown, spy networks (ours) broken, etc. I don't buy it.

Will Posada ever face justice? Should Cuba and Venezuela be required to supply proof before extridition is allowed, or will they desire to protect their sources and methods as well?

Quite a glaring double-standard if you ask me.

[Frederik]

102. Posada is a freedom fighter

Don't you know the difference? :P

Oops, Reagan called the mujahedin in Afghanistan ("al-Qaida") "freedom fighters" in the 80s. Well, anyway. Posada is a REAL freedom fighter.

[Zhade]

56. You mean the conservative media using lies from Chalabi?

Well, yeah, idiots might believe that.

[geek tragedy]

59. No, I'm talking about the inquiry commissioned by the UN that led to the

UN suspending the head of the program.

Nice try, but you lose. Read the news before picking a fight.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

108. So are people who think Hugo Chavez will attack the US

w/ the FARC or some shit like that. Go figure...........

[jobycom]

18. Not apologist. Bold supporter

The whole point of sanctions was to prevent a war. The choice was not between sanctions and non-sanctions, it was between sanctions and invasion, which would have been more devestating. Sanctions are meant to force a leader to comply with the world community. They aren't always going to work, but they are the only alternative to full scale bloody violence. If a leader doesn't care how hungry his people get, then sanctions will be devestating, too, but it's the only decent option to war we have, and I'm rather stunned to see the neocon talking points against using sanctions over war repeated on DU.

You are looking at the internal workings and saying "Man, that sure was ugly." Yes, it was. But look at the picture from the outside, and you see what the options were: 1) Do nothing, let Hussein become more powerful and threaten the whole region. The Republicans and moderate Dems weren't going to stand for that, nor were Hussein's neighbors. 2) Overthrow Hussein and hope to build a decent government in his place. We've seen that option in action. 3) Sanctions.

None of them were pretty. We chose the method that offered the best chance for the least damage. It didn't work, but it failed no worse than the other options would have.

As for the specific problems within the sanctions--diverted funds, stolen funds, etc.--when you find a way to keep people honest, let me know.

And finally, the charge that Clinton kept Hussein in power to "sustain the instability of Iraq" is just dumb. We see how well removing Hussein improved the stability of Iraq and the region. The purpose of keeping Hussein in power was to maintain stability.

Yes, the United States is an atrocious--in the literal sense of the word--nation. Our flag should be burned for being used to create such suffering and death. I honestly no longer believe this nation should survive, it is so drenched in blood and stabilized by the bones of innocent people around the world, not to mention in our own land. But to blame Clinton--the one who tried to mitigate the carnage already in place when he took over--is just clueless. Clinton and Albright developed a policy of using our military only in support of diplomacy, never in place of it. Many seem to miss that nuance. The alternative to Clinton's plan was more of Reagan/Bush's plan, or more of what W has done. W's invasion is going to play a sigificant role in the deaths of many more millions in the next decade, as war, destabilization and the ubiquitous corruption bleed Iraq to the bone. If you think Clinton was ruthless for the way he handled things, maybe you'll get a better idea after watching Bush and his alternative. CLinton was a humanitarian compared to the alternatives, and in the real world, in politics, that's how you judge things. By absolute standards, even Ghandi caused a lot of bloodshed.

[FlemingsGhost]

20. Nice rebuttal

Cheers.

[bpilgrim]

26. "The whole point of sanctions was to prevent a war" - it was OVER, and

we WON, according to the M$MW...

FYI: it obviously didn't WORK, and in PRACTICE, which is well documented, it killed INNOCENT civilians, mostly CHILDREN.

but, hey thats politics, right?

peace

[jobycom]

31. The war began again in 2003, or have you forgotten about that?

The neocons wanted to invade all during the 90s. PNAC was developed in 1998 after Clinton refused to support Chalabis first plan. The war that was prevented, or at least delayed, was not over, you just don't see it clearly because the sanctions took its place.

And I'll repeat the point: the war that would have taken place without the sanctions would not have saved any lives. One offered a chance, the other no chance.

As for it being politics, yes, it is. Sad, huh? The world would be a lot less bloody without politics. Find a way to end them, and I will bow at your feet and praise your name as God.

There are very few absolutes in politics. You can't just say those million people would be alive today without the sanctions. There were too many other factors involved.

For the record, in case I didn't make it clear, I don't approve of our whole policy towards the Middle East. But within that policy, the sanctions were a lot better option than the others being considered. There was no way Clinton could have simply done the right thing--pull out of the Middle East and pay a fair rate for their oil. He was president, not dictator.

[Frederik]

43. Clinton was president

The United States doesn't go to war unless the president wants to go to war. War wasn't "inevitable" unless Clinton really, really wanted a war.

How would the neo-cons have forced Clinton to go to war against Saddam? Even with a Republican Congress, they can't resort to the "nuclear option" and declare war without the president's consent.

"You can't just say those million people would be alive today without the sanctions"

Sure, they might have gotten hit by an asteroid.

[jobycom]

54. Congress declares war, not the president

But that's not even the point. Hussein rearming would have disrupted the entire Middle East. War would have broken out, whether between us and Iraq, or Iraq and Iran, or some other variation of it. That makes Bush's invasion even more horrific. We invaded a nation who had done exactly what we told them to do, and a nation whose military we had taken away. No nation will ever trust us again when it comes to disarming.

[Frederik]

87. Congress declares war after the president asks them to

Do you think Congress would have declared war against Iraq if Clinton lifted the sanctions, even if Clinton opposed it?

[jobycom]

91. No war was declared in Iraq.

Article 1, Section 8: Powers of Congress:

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

[Frederik]

99. Again:

Would Congress have initiated a war against the will of the president?

[bpilgrim]

82. FYI: we 'WON' that one, too...

and in case YOU didn't notice we were talking bout CLINTON'S WATCH.

anyway you look at it, both were MISERABLE FAILURES, war & sanctions on all their watches, that's the point, BTW.

WHEN will we get SANITY back in our foreign policy? after we're BROKE or after WW III :shrug:

peace

peace

[Michael_Bush]

29. There were other options

Clinton wasn't ruthless, he took the easy way out. He could have forced the issue, embarassed US companies about their cheating, stopped the Iraqis from selling out to Turkey and Jordan and positioned it in such a way that the companies appeared to be traitors and Turkey and Jordan could have been dealt with through the UN. THAT would have been ruthless.

For better or worse, he let the business people run roughshod so he could persue his real domestic agenda against a Republican congress that probably knew much of the above was going on. Politics is only pure in the movies and in HS history class.

Clinton was a complex man who got a lot done in hard times. I despise him for some things he did, I think we will rue his dealings with the Chinese and Americans will die because of them. However, despite that I think he is certainly the most effective president in the last fifty years of this century.

[jobycom]

37. Excellent points

I agree with you, pretty much, except that when you say Clinton took the easy way out, it makes it sound too easy. Other battles would have been lost if he had focused only on Iraq, and the tragedies would have taken other forms, and then we'd be talking about them, instead.

No president or leader starts the problems he has to face. He inherits them from decades of policies. Clinton did what he could. His intentions were--if not pure--at least well-meaning. As opposed to the three Republicans who surround him, who took even easier paths, and have created problems that will be measured far beyond their presidencies. It's not a stretch to say that UBL and Hussein were the results of Reagan's failures and ill intentions, and thus the slaughter now is at least partly his legacy.

[Michael_Bush]

52. Reagan's failures

Were many. I agreed with arming the Muj then and still do. Reagan just abandoned them afterward. They had ducated women in the cities and still do although to a greatly reduced extent. The foreign aid it would have taken was pretty small to make it a better place and a lot of good will was pissed away.

Reagan then decided to interfere in Lebanon without knowing what he was going to do and got a lot of good men killed. Our tucking our tail and running there was what convinced UBL that we too could be shoved out of a Muslim country.

Reagan played Iraq and Iran off against each other and really distorted the region with the buildup of Saddam. That was a harder call. We sure didn't want Iran to win the damn thing, but giving him gas was not the brightest thing either but neocons are not known for their ability to see the future and avoid backblast.

[jobycom]

61. Again, I agree

You're right on Afghanistan and Lebanon.

As for the Iran/Iraq war, to me that was not a hard call. Iran was not enough of a threat for us to arm both sides of a war and support the fighting long after natural resource limits would have ended it. To me, Reagan's actions with Iraq and Iran earn him a place between Pol Pot and Adolph Hitler in the bloodthirsty bastard hall of fame.

We can trace it back to the 50s, too, under Eisenhower, when we overthrew the Democratic government of Iran and turned it over to the Shah. How many of our problems would never have occured if we had allowed the Middle East to decide its own fate? Rice said the other day that democracy is not natural to Islam, but Iran had proved that a lie in the 50s, and we destroyed them for doing it. Without out meddling, the whole region could be democracies. We strengthened the extremists by squelching everyone else.

[Michael_Bush]

69. The Middle East WAS democractic

after the war but in the 1950s we overthrew most of them.

I think we have to disagree about Iran, but you may still be right. Who knows, perhaps if we hadn't supported Iraq they would have become moderate sooner. Although if all the adults hadn't been killed off, you wouldn't have the youth movement of today (I don't support doing it that way, it is simply an observation).

Imagine if after 9/11 we had had a real leader with vision...oh the mind spins!

[Frederik]

35. "neo-con talking points"

Yes, anyone who objects to the slow killing of a million people, the majority children, is a neo-con.

"they are the only alternative to full scale bloody violence"

Hmmm, you were the one accusing others of using neo-con talking points?

"Do nothing, let Hussein become more powerful and threaten the whole region"

Excuse me, but that IS a neo-con talking point. Iraq's military was decimated after the war. Opposition against Saddam was quite strong. Sanctions probably contributed to strengthening Hussein's power internally.

Iraq never "threatened the whole region" anyway, in any sense but the one which is expressed in neo-con talking points.

"Clinton and Albright developed a policy of using our military only in support of diplomacy, never in place of it."

Sure, I much prefer Clinton/Albright's approach to military action to the Bush/Reagan/neo-con bellicosity, but Clinton was by far the more temperate of the two. The "principals committee" of Albright, Cohen, Shelton etc was the driving force behind the illegal war against the people of Serbia in 1999, they took advantage of Clinton's weakened position after the impeachment to push for that war which probably rendered the relationship with Russa more tense than it has been at any point since the Cuban missile crisis. Another result of the war: a dramatic increase in Serbian wrondoing against Albanians as retaliation for the bombing. Which was predictable, and would have been factored in, if humanitarian concerns were the only motivation for the war, and Albright's neo-con Brzezinski doctrine of surrounding and containing Russia didn't play a role.

Many thousands of Serbian citizens were killed, and many still die from "depleted" uranium exposure and cluster bombs.

My beef isn't mainly with Clinton, but when the weapons inspectors reported in 1998 (1996? 1997?) that all chemical and bacteriological weapons were probably destroyed, he chose not to lift the sanctions and end the slow genocide. He should have done that, and he's complicit in genocide for not doing it.

[jobycom]

46. Yes, neocon talking points

As I said in the post you responded to, the belief that the alternative to the sanctions was the happy lives of all Iraqis is naive. Hussein's military was decimated after the first Gulf Invasion, but it wasn't destroyed, and without sanctions and inspections could have easily been rebuilt. There's nothing neocon about that. So yes, the sanctions destroyed the rest of Hussein's military, and prevented further military buildup.

As for your summary of the Serbian invasion, which I also opposed, it's just way too simplistic. Negotiations had gone on for years, and had slowly ended the rampant bloodshed of the region. Maybe you forget all the ridicule the Republicans dumped on CLinton for trying to negotiate peace in a region that "had always been fighting and would never settle anything peacefully." The negotiations were made possible by the threat of military retaliation for anyone who broke the agreements. Serbia broke them, and the US backed up the agreements. We kept the trust, and that made the diplomacy possible. People see only the absolutes in that case, and forget the whole story.

[Frederik]

88. Justifying sanctions with the fear of the Iraqi military

is very neo-con indeed. Exactly who would be threatened if Iraq rebuilt its military?

As for Kosovo, Carl Bildt said that negotiations should have continued. Remember, the Serbs were still negotiating when Albright & Co decided to unleash the killing machine. What is Kosovo today? A free-zone for organized crime, people trafficking and the heroin trade, and dependent on KFOR peacekeepers to avoid "ethnic cleansing", this time of the Serbs by the Albanians.

The ethnic cleansing of Serbs at the hands of Croatians, and sanctioned by the Croatian government, in West Slavonia, Croatia, was larger in scope than that of Albanians in Kosovo, yet was not even condemned by the "international community".

[Zhade]

65. Thank you for injecting some sanity.

It is a LIE that Hussein was "a threat to the region" - pure bullshit, because as you say his forces were decimated and his power waning. He had eyes on him for what WMD he still had.

The santions were avoidable. They weren't avoided. Clinton was wrong to continue the policy. Albright was a monster to call the deaths of 500k Iraqi children "a price worth paying".

I mean, let's see, more Iraqis died under the SANCTIONS than under our current invasion. So even IF Hussein had been a threat after getting beaten senseless in '91, and another war had been required because he attacked an ally, we still would have caused less deaths than the sanctions caused.

There simply was no excuse for the sanctions.

[IrateCitizen]

103. One big quibble with your last paragraph, jobycom...

Clinton and Albright developed a policy of using our military only in support of diplomacy, never in place of it. Many seem to miss that nuance.

That's not true. Clinton and Albright continued the transformation of US foreign policy toward militarism. I would suggest you read William Greider's Fortress America, specifically the part in which he describes how the Clinton Administration saw a speedup of the installation of MILITARY thinkers into more and more STATE DEPARTMENT positions. One specific example he uses is WRT China.

Furthermore, wasn't it Madeline Albright who said things like:
- "We will act multilaterally when we can, unilaterally when we must."
- "What's the use of having this military if we can't use it?"
- "If we use force, it is because we are America. We are the indispensible nation. We stand tall. We see further into the future than most."

The fact remains that Bill Clinton could have pushed for a real peace dividend in this country, but he failed to do so. Then again, that was classic Clinton, IMHO -- a bunch of feelgood rhetoric and nibbling around the edges, absolutely nothing in the way of bold initiatives, and the sinking feeling of a grand opportunity lost. The military drawdowns that occurred during Bush I and Clinton were really nothing more than a return to military funding on the level of pre-Reagan.

Then again, the way that our country is enamored with militarism, perhaps we only get the leaders we deserve. It's just that the idea of Bill Clinton being somehow the BEST we can do that makes me lose all hope for the future....

[BigBearJohn]

111. I'm with you! Excellent writing.

[LynnTheDem]

23. I don't defend it. The majority of the world was opposed to the sanctions

and wanted them lifted (except the "WMD" parts) a year after they were first enforced.

But the US has the veto and as they do everytime a US res comes up against Israel, the US just used their veto against lifting the economic sanctions against Iraq.

It was a horrendous hideous murderous thing to do, those sanctions, and I have never, don't, and never will excuse Clinton for them.

The "WMD" sanctions could still have been kept in place.

******

But I also blame Poppa Bush and most the current bushCartel who supported Hussein, then purposefully stabbed him in the back in order to wage war to take over Iraq when they thought Hussein was no longer enough of a strongman to keep Iraq in check and for US desires.

All we EVER had to do in 1990 was tell Hussein "DO NOT ATTACK KUWAIT."

He WANTED to be America's pal. He BRAGGED about being America's ally. He THOUGHT invading Kuwait was with US permission. Because the US GAVE HIM that idea; read the UN transcripts all the times Hussein went to the UN to complain about Kuwait. READ what the US's diplomat told Hussein what the message from the US govt was.

If the US had said DON'T DO IT, he wouldn't have done it. If the US was concerned about human rights violations, all they had to do was tell him to tone it down. The US NEVER EVER ONCE said f*ck-all about any of that.

Instead, they tricked Hussein and back-stabbed him, then starved to DEATH a whole lot of Iraqi people. Then they invaded and occupied Iraq, killing another whole lot of people...and wonder HOW DARE the Iraqi people not be grateful.

[KittyWampus]

33. All we EVER had to do in 1990 was tell Hussein "DO NOT ATTACK KUWAIT."

Sorry, that's a stretch.

To say all we had to do is tell Saddam 'do not attack' is based on wishful speculation.

And yes, I know the story about Bush's representative telling Saddam we would NOT retaliate if he invaded Kuwait.

That story might be true and it might not be true.

And I'm not a fan of sanctions either. Just arguing for the sake of it.

[LynnTheDem]

57. Sorry but no it isn't a stretch at all.

Hussein was EAGER to please America back then, and that was well-known.

And yes that "story" is true and is documented.

And arguing for the sake of it is a fun thing to do, I don't mind. :)

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

36. The "Big Dawg" has a lot of fleas. Ask about Rwanda.

And how Clinton and Albright actively subverted UN efforts to stop the genocide.

[G_j]

98. yes, Rwanda immediately comes to mind also

That was an absolute disgrace.

[eridani]

41. We could have swapped sanctions--

--for permanent weapons inspectors at any time. I was against sanctions all that time myself, and in the 80s opposed aiding Saddam militarily.

[latebloomer]

42. Ah yes, and wasn't it Madeline Albright

who said that the deaths of half a million Iraqi children was an acceptable sacrifice?

[DerekG]

44. "We think the price is worth it."

Such was Albright's response to Leslie Stahl's question regarding those 500,000 tots.

[LightningFlash]

97. I remember it regretfully...

As I remember the remarks during the RWANDA genocide....It was tragic.

[Frederik]

45. So she said

She's a "soft-power" neo-con light. Her mentor was Zbigniew Brzezinski, one of the main advocates of American imperialism.

[latebloomer]

50. Yup, these wolves are all on the same page

Some wear sheep pelts, some go naked.

(My apologies to actual wolves.)

[Tinoire]

75. No apologetics here. I hold Clinton as guilty as I do Bush.

a 14 year immoral war against Iraq for oil AND Free-Trade

the same with Yugoslavia- oil AND Free-Trade


Clinton is no hero. The sooner we Democrats realize that the only difference between Clinton's empire-building and his pro-corporate agenda is that Clinton's was just more refined, more palatable for our illusions, the quicker we'll be on a path to recovery.

[B Calm]

76. Why not blame the president who started the sanctions? Hell come

to think about it, the republicans are responsible for every damn thing that has happened in Iraq!

[DerekG]

79. For the same reason I condemn Richard Nixon

Nixon and Clinton were both afforded the opportunity to end the madness of their respective predecessors, but chose instead to throw millions more to the wolves.

[ariellyn]

78. In other words, it's all Clinton's fault

:eyes:

[FlemingsGhost]

80. Maybe next time, you will actually rebut the OP...

... instead of rolling your eyes.

[ariellyn]

81. In light of the many travesties facing us today, I hardly think this

compares--thus the eyes. Newsflash: Clinton's not in charge anymore. :eyes:

[DerekG]

83. The deaths of Iraqis can't compare to......the deaths of Iraqis?

Some of us actually look upon Gulf War I/the Iraqi Sanctions/Gulf War II as a 15 year war crime. The deliberate starvation of civilians has everything to do with what's going on now.

"Newsflash: Clinton's not in charge anymore."

Crap, does that mean we're barred from discussing the policies of 42 presidents?

[bpilgrim]

85. "a 15 year war crime" -hmmm...

but that's sooooooooooooooooooooooo 910


http://images.globalfreepress.com

peace

[LynnTheDem]

90. "Gulf War I/the Iraqi Sanctions/Gulf War II as a 15 year war crime"

HEAR! HEAR!

:applause:

[bpilgrim]

84. of course NOT, he ain't the only one

:eyes:

peace

[LightningFlash]

95. I will not defend them whatsoever. Clinton made a mistake.

I will choose to never vote for a Clinton, as they are far too in bed with the neo-con movement and much of this insane imperialistic ideal....

The sanctions could have damn well been avoided, there is no exscuse for not sending in a convoy. They could have pursued the much better alternatives of covert ops, rather than using sanctions and trade blockades for their own greed.

For all this time we've had a powerful, controversial military which could move in pure stealth and assassinate someone like Soddom Hussein if it was really needed. Instead, we've used that power to get richer and more complacent.

I see no reason for apologizing for Clinton. I think Clinton is a good man and he did alot of good things for the country, but what he absolutely failed to do was stop the likes of the Rwanda genocide. He was arrogant and foolish to keep following the game of the Council on Foreign Relations, and listening to the phony imperialists like Donald Rumsfeld. They have turned him into a puppet, and I wish he would just break away for one god damn second and have some independant thought. There is no reason to allow these tragedies, not while standing for democratic values.

[rocktop15]

100. Ahh yes the pro-business candidate that everyone loves....

Can't really figure out why there is so much love for Clinton around here when, looking strictly at the issues and not rhetoric, he was a pro-business candidate.

[yurbud]

104. Clinton looked out for us domesticly part of the time

and that modest favor makes him head and shoulders better than Bush, but clearly not a saint.

On foreign policy, his primary virtue was that of a con man. Bush is more like a mugger. When a mugger takes your money, you know you've been robbed. When a con man does, you hope to do business with him again soon.

[Dirk39]

107. But Clinton was a diplomatic and multilateral war-criminal....

Hello from Germany,
besides Iraq and Yugoslavia, his most cynical crime was the cruise missile attack against a Sudanese Aspirin-factory in 1998, which the White House claimed was in retaliation for terrorist attacks on two U.S. embassies in Africa. It happened three days after President Clinton's appearance before a federal grand jury investigating his relationship with Monica Lewinsky. I guess even Bush wouldn't attack another country with Cruise Missiles to give the media something else to talk about than his dick.

And the rhetoric was exactly the same as the rhetoric and lies of the Neocons:

"President Clinton ordered the attack, alleging that the plant had links to Osama bin Laden..."

"The White House insisted at the time it bombed the plant, located near Khartoum, Sudan, because it was tied to international terrorist Osama bin Laden and was producing precursors to VX nerve gas"

http://www.mega.nu:8080/ampp/khartoumbomb.html

Clinton should have become a Hollywood actor or a popstar, but never ever a politician.

Dirk

[BigBearJohn]

109. And I thought the Republicans were the only ones who ate their own

Great timing. Any other Democrats you want us to know
the truth about? Might as well destroy ALL our illusions.
You might want to send a copy to Rove too... he could sure
use the encouragement.

[AuntPatsy]

110. Good smokescreen to avoid talking about what is happening today

that is much more in need of such elaborate studies....

Enough about Clinton, he can't run again, he cannot harm you or me so let's talk about who is in a postion who can if you please..

When all else fails to be good enough pr to cover one's shanigans as case in point, those shrills in office "today, not yesterday" , yell loud and clear that "Clinton did It", works every time..