Put your cards on the table...is Bill Clinton a War Criminal?

[SaveElmer]

I'm gonna pull the scab off the wound!!!

There have been several posts recently saying not only is Bill Clinton a war criminal, but that he should be brought to trial at the world court for his misdeeds, and there was a recent thread featuring the two students who heckled President Clinton recently calling him a war criminal.

Apparently it is not against the rules to speculate whether Clinton is a war criminal as none of these threads have been pulled as far as I can see...and none of them have been pulled as flamebait.

So here goes...it is a simple question:

For his actions or inactions in Iraq, Rwanda, and Kosovo...do you believe that Bill Clinton is a War Criminal, and should he be brought to trial - Yes or No!!!

Obviously I am voting a resounding no

[Selatius]

1. The sanctions on Iraq were of the UN's doing, not Clinton

They went into effect before Clinton took office. I think he should've campaigned to have them removed just on humanitarian grounds alone though. Too many Iraqis died as a result of those sanctions.

[Radical Activist]

7. Clinton could have stopped it.

Since the US is on the security council and Clinton continued bombings against Iraq as well.

[NativeTexan]

66. Bush sure as hell showed the UN what to do in Iraq....

...HUH? Is THAT the kind of good world leadership you are searching for?

[Radical Activist]

83. And that has what to do with it?

Just because Bush is worse doesn't justify the dumb things Clinton did. This isn't a baseball game where we see who can score the most points against the other team.

[MadHound]

81. Yeah, but those thrice weekly bombing runs sure weren't authorized

By the UN, oh no. That was done by none other than Bill.

And yes, his negligence and inaction over the Rwanda situation is criminal. How in the hell do you just stand by and watch while a million people are killed in one weekend?:wow:

Brought up for war crimes charges, probably not going to happen. Excuses for the Iraqi bombing runs would abound, and standing by and watching hundreds of thousands of people get slaughtered isn't a war crime, it's negligence.

But I don't think that Clinton should ever again be rewarded with a position of power. He blew it when he was President, and on that basis he shouldn't be even thought of again for any office.

[Catherine Vincent]

2. So because of his inaction in Rwanda, he's a war criminal?

[SaveElmer]

3. That's the claim by some...

He failed to act in the face of massive genocide...which Clinton actually has said was his biggest mistake as President.

[ET Awful]

5. Using that standard, a witness to a murder who doesn't jump in front

of the killer is guilty of murder.

[SaveElmer]

6. No argument here...

I didn't say the charges were rational...just that there seem to be a surprising number of DU'ers who view that as well as the other actions a War Crime

[radio4progressives]

99. Remember the Holocaust

What do we say about those who stood by silently during the Holocaust and did nothing?

[Dhalgren]

16. It's more like watching a drowning victim and doing nothing.

I am not saying Bill is a criminal of any kind, but errors were made...

[ET Awful]

21. Actually, it's nothing like watching a drowning victim, unless you know of

a way to stop water from drowning someone. Removing said person from the water isn't an option, since there are millions of them.

I'll stand by my murder analogy.

[Dhalgren]

68. The idea that the West (I am not just singling out Clinton and the

US)had no options in Rwanda short of full-scale invasion is unfounded. It was our doing nothing at all, except saving the White tourists, that makes for a point of accusation. I'm sure that you saw the movie "Hotel Rwanda" and read all or many of the copious works on the horror that took place there. Practically every observer holds that the West was culpable for its almost total inaction. I am not saying Clinton is guilty of any crimes, but I do maintain that mistakes were made in this instance...

[ET Awful]

71. Nobody is disputing that mistakes were made. But for ANYONE to suggest

that this makes Clinton or anyone outside Rwanda who didn't stop it guilty of a crime is ludicrous.

[Dhalgren]

72. Then we are in agreement.

As I have repeated over and over, I do not believe Clinton is guilty of any crimes. I do not, however, have an opinion as to the ludicrousness of anyone else's accusations regarding either Rwanda or the Balkans.

[ET Awful]

4. First, not interceding in Rwanda is not a war crime,

The only war criminals in Rwanda are the Rwandans who participated in the genocide. While it may be reprehensible, not interceding is not criminal.

[sandnsea]

8. I don't know what these people want

He's a war criminal for NOT stopping the genocide in Rwanda, and he's a war criminal for stopping the genocide in Kosovo. He's a war criminal for containing Saddam, but we should have continued containing Saddam to avoid war.

They're nuts.

[Warpy]

9. They want to whine "BUT BUT BUT CLINTON DID IT TOO!"

like a bratty kid thinking he can avoid punishment by saying another bratty kid did the same thing, too.

Part of right wing disease is trying to make two wrongs come out as a right.

However, no, Clinton was no war criminal, not in the accepted definition of the term.

Bush is.

[DrGonzoLives]

18. It's not right-wingers doing it, though

n/t

[ieoeja]

32. In case you haven't noticed...

... there really are some people on the left for whom the United States is always at fault. It is not just a rightwing meme.

Of course, those people are not Democrats. Claiming they are IS just a rightwing meme.

[0007]

24. Absolutely!

[rinsd]

94. Noted RWer Michael Moore....

http://www.zmag.org/crisescurevts/moore.htm

Some choice lines

"What a sad, pathetic man Bill Clinton is. Though many have criticized him for dodging the draft, I actually admired the fact that he refused to go and kill Vietnamese. Not all of us from the working class had that luxury, and tens of thousands of our brothers died for absolutely no damn reason. For this "anti-war" President to order such a misguided, ruthless -- and, yes, cowardly -- attack from the air is a disappointment of massive proportions"

"Now, it is time for all of us to stop Clinton and his disgusting, hypocritical fellow democrats who support him in this war"

[radio4progressives]

100. You deliberately skipped over the most important point

Friends, Milosevic must be stopped, BUT BOMBING DOES NOT WORK. It has never worked. It didn't work in Iraq -- Sadaam is still in charge no matter how many bombs we have dropped. It didn't work in Vietnam. During the Christmas week of 1972, the amount of bombs we dropped on North Vietnam was equal to half the tonnage of bombs dropped on England during World War II. That didn't work, so one month later, we gave in and announced our complete pull-out.

[rinsd]

117. I didn;t deliberately skip anything....

I pulled the quotes that Clinton by name.

Moore even reversed himself later when he campaigned for Wes Clark. He seemingly believes Wes Clark's plan to go in with GROUND troops would have been the way to go.

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?messageDate=2003-09-23

"The day Clark made his announcement, I was in the former Yugoslavia. Clark was the NATO commander during the Kosovo War. If you've seen my film ("Bowling for Columbine") you know that the bombing of civilians in Kosovo is something that bothers me to this day. That is why I put it in my movie. The 19 countries of NATO have yet to account for this decision to bomb in this way. The New York Times reported on Sunday that Clark wanted to use ground troops instead of relying on the bombing (less civilians would be killed that way). Clinton and Defense Secretary William Cohen overruled him. They didn't want to risk having any American casualties; they preferred the "clean" way of killing from 30,000 feet above. Clark, apparently to undermine them, went on TV and took his case to the American people. Cohen was furious and told him to "get your (bleeping) face" off the TV. He and the Pentagon then orchestrated his firing.

Years later, many analysts agree that the Kosovo War would have ended much sooner -- and fewer civilians would have been killed -- had the White House listened to Clark and let him use the ground troops to stop Milosevic's genocide of the people in Kosovo."

Some lefties were no pleased with Mr. Moore.

http://www.counterpunch.org/lodge09172003.html

Wes Clark is a war criminal apparently.

[blondeatlast]

34. You are exactly right. Kinda makes your head spin, doesn't it?

"They're nuts" nails it.

[radio4progressives]

101. Dropping Tonnage of War Bombs on people is not stopping Genocide

it is contributing to genocide.

[SaveElmer]

107. Casualties in Yugoslavia...effect on Kosovo...

Human Rights Watch, an orgainzation I think most would agree is not in the pocket of NATO or the U.S., issued a critical report of US military estimates of civilian casualties in Kosovo. Their estimate was 500 killed.

http://www.hrw.org/press/2000/02/nato207.htm

About five hundred civilians died in ninety separate incidents as a result of NATO bombing in Yugoslavia last year, Human Rights Watch said in a new report released today.

The Human Rights Watch estimate of the number of incidents is far higher than what the U.S. Defense Department and other NATO governments have admitted. But the Human Rights Watch figures for civilian deaths is much lower than what the Yugoslav government has claimed.

"Once it made the decision to attack Yugoslavia, NATO should have done more to protect civilians," said Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch, an international monitoring organization based in New York. "All too often, NATO targeting subjected the civilian population to unacceptable risks." Roth urged NATO governments to make a serious evaluation of the war's effects on civilians.

They also issued a report of the effect on the country after the operation

http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/kosovo98/news.htm

Kosovo has undergone profound changes in the seven weeks since the NATO-led Kosovo Force (KFOR) entered the province and Yugoslav Army and Serbian police units withdrew. After a decade of repression that culminated in a three-month killing spree by the Yugoslav army and Serbian security forces and the expulsion and displacement of more than half of the ethnic Albanian population, most of Kosovo's Albanians are finally able to live without fear of discrimination or violence by the Serbian state.

Even if you accept Human Rights Watch's figures, and grant the U.S. military was not as precise as they should have been...to suggest that doing nothing as an alternative was acceptable is simply not credible. It is clear there was massive murder, rape, and forced displacement going on and something had to be done. And to suggest that this operation actually contributed to the genocide is likewise not true.

[radio4progressives]

115. Where do I suggest We Should have done Nothing?

Even if you accept Human Rights Watch's figures, and grant the U.S. military was not as precise as they should have been...to suggest that doing nothing as an alternative was acceptable is simply not credible. It is clear there was massive murder, rape, and forced displacement going on and something had to be done. And to suggest that this operation actually contributed to the genocide is likewise not true.

If you want to wipe out a population of people, then dropping bombs is the easiest and most convenient strategy.

but if the objective is to save the lives of victims and potential victims of genocide, bombing the victims is not exactly the solution we should pursue.

Intervention essentially means boots on the ground, as well as other economic and strategical tactics... let's say for arguement sake that strategical strikes can be effective i suppose, but we engaged in massive bombings.

I've have personal testimonys that suggest conflict in the reportage. but that's alaways a given in the fog of wars.

[SaveElmer]

116. Are you saying then...

You would have favored a ground invasion of Yugoslavia?

Even the HRW report does not say we engaged in massive bombings. It complained about the use of cluster bombs, which was discontinued, and that the military wasn't as careful as it should have been to make sure and bomb targets of military significance. Had we engaged in massive bombings I can assure you more than 500 people would have been killed.

I do not know if HRW's figures are accuarate, but they are a good organization, and did a large survey to come up with these numbers. I'll grant the military may not have been as careful as it should have been, but there is no scenario where I can see this was in any way an imperialistic enterprise, or was not warranted. And as the HRW report makes very clear, it did accomplish what it set out to do.

[coalition_unwilling]

10. Sending a Cruise Missile into Khartoum, Sudan baby formula plant

resulted in the deaths of many African infants. That should qualify as a war crime under almost any definition thereof.

[sandnsea]

12. Yesterday I heard it was a medicine plant

And the lack of medicine caused the deaths of millions of infants. Some people revel in hating the US, it really is true.

[SaveElmer]

13. And then you have to ask yourself...

Did Bill Clinton intentionally bomb a milk (or medicine) plant in order to kill innocent people...a surprising number of people think that is exactly the case!

[Dhalgren]

14. Well, in fairness, much of the US behavior over the years has

caused much of the hatred...

[coalition_unwilling]

19. Are you using sarcasm to imply that there are

many urban legends out there about the Sudan plant?

I couldn't quite get your tone and, to be honest, I cannot rigorously source the infant formula issue right now. But I have read it in some pretty well-regarded places.

One component of a "war crime" is that it must willfully disregard the distinction between combatant and civilian. For example, if Clinton had reason to believe that Sudanese plant was actually manufacturing WMD, even if in reality it was manufacturing baby formula, then "war crime" becomes more difficult to justify morally. On the other hand, if Clinton made no effort to determine whether afore-mentioned plant was civilian before ordering cruise missile strike upon it, then, bingo, WAR CRIME.

[sandnsea]

22. if if if

If you don't know the facts, don't post them. And I mean primary source facts, not the "well-regarded" somebody's interpretation.

[coalition_unwilling]

86. Oh, I know the facts all right and also various interpretations

thereof. I was in a hurry yesterday and could not source them adequately, a standard that many posters besides myself follow.

Are you still interested in full sourcing of this matter? (Time's short and many topics require attention.)

[RaleighNCDUer]

23. A plant owned by the Bin Laden family, that had received chemicals

that are usable in the making of chemical weapons.

Also usable for the making of medicines. That was, of course, the last time that an american president acted precipitously on unsubstantiated information.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

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

[coalition_unwilling]

20. To meet the legal standard of "War Crime," intent does not matter.

The command responsibility standard is "knew or should have known."

Thus, if Clinton did not take pains to determine whether plant was military or civilian (infant formula), he is guilty of war crimes, whether he intended to kill civilians or not.

I do have to be upfront about this. I have a major bone to pick with Clinton dating from New Hampshire primary of '92 and then the Waco imbroglio. This may admittedly color my judgment, so I don't think I should serve on a War Crimes tribunal bringing charges against Clinton. I actually despise * even more, so I would probably have to recuse myself from a War Crimes tribunal for him and members of the Crime Family also.

[sandnsea]

26. Waco???

How in the world can you blame Waco on Clinton? That was a Poppy Bush operation through and through, Janet Reno only had days to consider that operation. I'm sure she had no idea the extent ground forces would go, particularly not lying to her.

I don't like Clinton either, but I am really sick of these concocted attacks.

[coalition_unwilling]

85. How in the world can I blame Waco on Clinton? Well, let's see . . .

the FBI's own Behavioral Science Unit warned senior FBI officials and Reno that Koresh was likely to instigate mass suicide if the FBI attempted to storm the compound. In fact, the BSU recommended that the police forces surrounding the compound simply wait Koresh out.

Then there's the little question of incendiary rounds. I guess we'll never know for sure exactly what caused the fire that burned 14 children (disguised as Branch Davidians?) to death.

[The Magistrate]

28. As A Matter Of Curiousity, Sir

What is your difficulty over the Waco affair?

You are mistaken in your analysis of criminal liabilty undre the Geneva Accords, by the way. Intent most certainly does matter, indeed, there is no criminal offense under any law in which intent does not matter. The standard in assailing dual-use targets, installations which can be if use fir either peacefulk or military purposes, which any pharmaceutical plant certainly is, since its equipment generally can be turned to the manufacture either of drugs or of poisons, ois whether the military effect to be gained by the action is great enough to out weigh the harm done to civilians, and further whether a reasonable effort has been made to minimize harm and casualties to non-combatants in the strike. It would be very easy to argue before a competent tribunmal both these conditions have been met.

The standard you have cited for command responsibility applies only when acts have been carried out by persons under an individuals authority that are demonstrated to have been crimes, and this must have been proved either by seperate proceedings against the underlings in question, or proved as part of the trial of an individual for having been criminal in the exercise, or sometimes lack of exercise, of his or her command authority.

To give an example, it would be childishly easy to convict Rumsfeld or Bush of criminal responsibility for the torture of prisoners, as there exists a paper trail of their endorsement of actions that are clear violations of the Geneva Accords in that regard, and this trail extends up the and down the entire chain of advisory and command personnel.

[DerekG]

30. Clinton's "wag the dog" El Shifa strike was ordered on August 20, 1998

The very day Lewinsky returned to the grand jury.

The Clinton regime told the American people that the El Shifa plant was suspected to have manufactured EMPTA--the building block to VX nerve gas--under the aegis of one Osama bin Laden. Within days, both allegations were proved to be fallacious. What's more, Seymour Hersh would reveal later that the four service chiefs of the Joint Chiefs of Staff were kept in the dark about the strike, as was FBI head Louis Freeh.

How odd, that Clinton didn't demand that the Sudanese regime--which had diplomatic relations to D.C.--open the plant up for inspection. What was the big hurry?

[sandnsea]

33. 13 days after the Embassy bombing

Read another perspective. Written back in 1999 before everything got twisted around with the Bush election, the Cole, and 9/11. When you go back to things that were said at the time, it tends to give one pause as to what those same people said in 2002.

http://www.fas.org/irp/news/1999/02/990210-in-terror.htm

[The Magistrate]

37. Indeed, Ma'am

The crew attempting the '98 Coup were the people circulating the "wag the dog" nonesense. Their tying the government in knots in that attempt is a large part of why Bin Ladin was able to successfully strike the United States a few years later, as their effirts made effective action against him very difficult, through political slanders like that, and through corruption of the F>b>i> into an arm, essentially, of their investigation of President Clinton, eather than the counter-intelligence and federal law enforcement bureau it was intended to be....

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

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

[oasis]

65. The Osama and Koresh types need to be put down, permanently.

:thumbsdown:They exploit the most vulnerable in our society in order to carry out their fiendish agendas.

[radio4progressives]

104. what did Koresh do to our society that was wrong, dangerous or

threatening?

[BootinUp]

105. He opened fire on officers with a lawful warrant.

Like shooting fish in a barrel this is.

[radio4progressives]

106. Lawful Warrant?

What was the grounds for this "Lawful Warrant" again?

My memory of the story says the the basis for the warrant was illegtimate. I don't remember the details, just that the entire event could have easily and should have been prevented.

[BootinUp]

109. It had to do with stockpiling illegal weapons

IIRC.

I don't remember anything about the warrant being invalidated. Just that the ATF fucked up when they decided to confront him at his armed fortress.

[radio4progressives]

111. thanks for the reminder..

[SaveElmer]

112. If a warrant was issued by a judge, it is lawful...

It isn't up to the people on whom it is being served to question it at the time...that is what the legal system is supposed to determine.

Koresh was absolutely obligated to obey the warrant, not to fire on officers, wounding one.

What happened after that was at least as much Koresh's fauly (and in my opinion more), as the ATF's bungling firing in gas canisters.

[Dhalgren]

11. I voted "no", because I believe that, technically, Clinton is not a

criminal of any kind. Did he act in a way that I would approve of in these, listed, foreign policy situations? No, I disapproved of much that he did and did not do. Does this rise to the level of "war criminal" - to a level like Bush's? Absolutely not. He was wrong in many of these instances, he used political calculations rather than what was right and wrong, but not criminal...

[WildEyedLiberal]

17. My mind just exploded

He's a war criminal for NOT stopping genocide in Rwanda, but he's also a war criminal for STOPPING the genocide in Kosovo?

That's actually a perfect illustration of how idiotic the fringe extreme elements are on both sides. If Clinton had stopped genocide in Rwanda, these same fanatic leftist morons would be claiming that the US imperialistically invaded another country and killed people and that we should have kept our noses out of Rwanda's business.

[AtomicKitten]

25. bingo

[sandnsea]

27. Heeey

You copied my post. :P

[WildEyedLiberal]

31. It was too good not to say again

I just added a lil' snark to the mix. ;)

[stillcool]

29. I have no idea...

...but the reasons why our country intervenes in other's is surely up for debate. There is very little about the history of my country's foreign policy that I find definitive.
http://www.killinghope.org/

Following its bombing of Iraq in 1991, the United States wound up with military bases in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman and the United Arab Emirates.
Following its bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999, the United States wound up with military bases in Kosovo, Albania, Bulgaria, Macedonia, Hungary, Bosnia and Croatia.
Following its bombing of Afghanistan in 2001-2, the United States wound up with military bases in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Georgia, Yemen and Djibouti.
Following its bombing and invasion of Iraq in 2003, the United States wound up with Iraq.
This is not very subtle foreign policy. Certainly not covert. The men who run the American Empire are not easily embarrassed.
And that's the way the empire grows -- a base in every region, ready to be mobilized to put down any threat to imperial rule, real or imagined. Sixty years after World War II ended, the United States still has major bases in Germany and Japan; fifty-two years after the end of the Korean War, tens of thousands of American armed forces continue to be stationed in South Korea.

[mtnsnake]

35. How lame that almost 1/4 the people posting think he's a war criminal

21 out of 86 people (at the time of this post) voting on a Democratic forum think Bill Clinton is a war criminal. Figure that.

:puke:

edited for mathematical error! 1/4 is still way too much!!

[BootinUp]

36. I think the name of the forum

needs serious reconsideration, heh.

[mtnsnake]

39. I think that's a very legitimate suggestion n/t

[SaveElmer]

38. Not quite as bad as you are saying...

Actually 21 out 85...25%...

But still...pretty bad...can't say as I am surprised with the number of anti-Bill Clinton threads that get started on a daily basis!

[mtnsnake]

40. Yikes! Thank you!

LOL, I just edited my math after you pointed that out to me. My bad!!

[LincolnMcGrath]

41. Interesting numbers when stacked against this other poll

right here

[The Magistrate]

42. As A Point Of Curiousity, Mr. McGrath

Do you think President Clinton is a war criminal?

Do you think the line that he is would be welcomed by the great majrity of rank and file Demcoratic Party voters?

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[LincolnMcGrath]

43. I curious how many DUers actually believe the two chuckle-heads

screaming at Clinton are actually Leftist, Liberal, Progressive, let alone Democrats?

[SaveElmer]

44. Looks like about 25% of those responding to this poll...nt

[LincolnMcGrath]

45. And that means what exactly?

It was poorly worded?

That it was freeped ?

That those who can't go two posts without screaming progressive purist spammed it?

:shrug:

[SaveElmer]

46. Ah yes I'm sure that's what it was....

I posted this because of the number of threads I have seen and the number of responses I have gotten saying this very thing...do a quick search and you will find them.

This goes back to the debates over Clinton's actions in Iraq...same kind of comments.

Fact is, there are a not unsubstantial number of DU'ers who believe Bill CLinton was a war criminal. I would gladly link their posts but I always get in trouble with the mods for calling out other members. Look, they are not hard to find.

[LincolnMcGrath]

49. People that would agree Clinton made Foreign Policy Mistakes?

Dear Lord NO! lol

Who is a war criminal anyway?

Pinochet?

Hitler?

Stalin?

Saddam?

Milosivec?

I do not believe for a single second there are clear thinking Democrats here or anywhere in the country who believe that Clinton is on par with that crowd.

I think you are cherry picking vague comments to suit your own agenda.

[SaveElmer]

52. No...I am not...

I was very careful to not do that...

I am talking about very spefific comments, and answers to inquiries from me. As I cannot post the links here I will be glad to send a couple via your inbox if you like!

I do resent the implication that I would purposely misrepresent someone's comments to make it sound as though they were making that very serious accusation.

Ans since when has DU ever been accused of being populated by only clear thinking Democrats?

[LincolnMcGrath]

54. I never meant you were doing it on purpose.

You see what you want to see, whether you realize it or not.

[SaveElmer]

56. Well I have to take issue with that as well...

The last thing I want to see are other Democrats calling Bill Clinton a war criminal!

[LincolnMcGrath]

58. Let us know when you can verify that any Democrats have.

:hi:

[SaveElmer]

59. How about this...

I can either email you the links, or you can look for them yourself...

One of two things are possible

1. They are as you say freepers or trolls and should be reported

or

2. They are bonafide long standing members of DU, in which case a challenge from you might do more to change their minds than from a centrist like me.

[LincolnMcGrath]

61. How would that prove they are Democrats, and not pixels on a screen?

I gotta get ready for my show now. :hi:

[SaveElmer]

62. Are you broadcasting from a river in Egypt?..nt

[Bridget Burke]

98. In Cyberspace, nobody can tell that you're a dog.

(arf!)

[The Magistrate]

47. Your Point Is Unclear, Sir

We have both been here a long time, since the old forum at least, and over that time a number of people who mkist certainly were leftist have made just this criticism, and supported it with references to a variety of left journals and sites to boot. Debating such people over the question of the Kossovo war was once a leading source of sport for me. So we can take it as settled that there afre certainlty people on the left, and people who in other contexts will loudly claim they are the base of the Demcoratic Party, who have levelled such criticisms here at times.

If you feel that any particular person leveling such criticism now is in fact a rightist trolling here, then by all means alert on the comments, or if you wish, contact me privately with your concerns in the matter.

[LincolnMcGrath]

53. And you know for certain they were bona fide leftists

tossing dead chickens at Clinton while running around sporting there Che t-shirts? lol

The only thing that is settled fact is that you have no clue who the posters were in real life. In fact, you can not say with any certainty at all that I am not Bill O'Rielly, can you?

I know many here on DU would love to use this as the daily (at least) leftist boogieman thread, and that is unfortunate.

Anyone, on the left, center, or right side of the Democrat party has a right to question Clinton's mistakes whether you agree with them or not. And they have, all of them, from all angles of the D political spectrum.

[The Magistrate]

57. As You Wish, Sir

It is not possible for me to name names, or reveal details of records here on site owing to confidentiality agreements, but yes, the persons were bona-fide leftists, and you are most certainly not Bill O'Reilly.

There is, in fact a well developed left critique, ill-founded, in my view, but extant, holding that Kossovo was an imperialist venture that broke international law in numerous ways, including criminal conduct by the armed forces. It can be found certainly in the archives of "counterpunch", "z-mag", "WSWS", and doubtless a variety of other venues. Denying it exists, or deny that it has been purveyed here on numerous occassions by persons of the left will not do at all, Sir, since too many people long here will have seen it done.

It is worth pointing out that saying someone has made a mistake, and saying someone has comitted war-crimes, are very different matters. President Clinton made any number of mistakes, and it does not trouble me at all to see them pointed out, nor should it trouble anyone. But it requires considerable distortion of fact to claim he committed war-crimes, under any reasonable reading of the relevant statutes, and so that is a thing that by definition cannot be pressed in good faith.

[LincolnMcGrath]

Is it OK if I use that on the Factor tonight?

[The Magistrate]

63. As Children, Sir

We used to refer to that as "pounding it into the ground"....

[radio4progressives]

90. Magistrate is absolutely correct on this point, though I disagree that the

charges were ill founded.

I believe, given the entire set of facts, that the bombing of Kosovo was indeed an imperialist misadventure - and the underpinning facts are fairly well documented, i have personal testimony vis a vis interviews i did for radio - details are simply too many and horrific though none of it presented in the mainstream and that is indeed unfortunate.
The same goes for the sanctions and "fly zone" bombings in Iraq.

Documentation is numerous and done by the credible same non-partisan organizations that are and have been monitoring abuses in the Bush administration.

At some point folks, we as a people must stand on principle, not simply party loyalty to have any legitimacy and credibility as a party to say we really do have 'something better to offer'.

[BootinUp]

91. Party loyalty?

War is a terrible thing it should only be used as a last resort. That standard was met in this case. This is not about party loyalty.

Tragedy on both sides? Sure no doubt. But there was a relatively quick end and a more ethnic cleansing was averted.

[radio4progressives]

92. We're still in Kosovo, didn't you know? It hasn't ended yet.

[BootinUp]

96. I don't see the significance of that distinction

The political situation is not completely settled, but there is no open warfare. The bombing resulted in a relatively quick end to the war.

[radio4progressives]

108. What you say is the official story..

do you buy it?

[BootinUp]

113. I know a man who was there and I believe

him to be honorable. See my avatar.

Plus I have seen no credible reports (admittedly my opinion) that raise any doubt in my mind.

And on a personal note I do question things, thats why I'm called a liberal, geek, pessimist, overly analytical, etc etc by people who know me.

[radio4progressives]

93. "Last Resort" ? Last Resort when others disobeys the United States?

Or "Last Resort" - when our country is being directly attacked?

When I say "our country" - I'm specifically referring to the United States and I'll include it's (illegal) "territories".

[BootinUp]

97. A) Watch a slaughter of innocents ensue B) intervene

Take your choice.

[radio4progressives]

110. It's very important that the distinction is made.

"last resort" should have the weight of meaningful humanitarian policy, not simply a rhetorical device used as an excuse to justify militarism for the sake of imperial adventures.

I dp agree with interventions, but bombings on villages and thereby slaughtering the lives of innocent civillians is not an interventionist tactic or strategy in my view.

[SaveElmer]

114. Casualties in Yugoslavia...effect on Kosovo

Human Rights Watch, an orgainzation I think most would agree is not in the pocket of NATO or the U.S., issued a critical report of US military estimates of civilian casualties in Kosovo. Their estimate was 500 killed.

http://www.hrw.org/press/2000/02/nato207.htm

About five hundred civilians died in ninety separate incidents as a result of NATO bombing in Yugoslavia last year, Human Rights Watch said in a new report released today.

The Human Rights Watch estimate of the number of incidents is far higher than what the U.S. Defense Department and other NATO governments have admitted. But the Human Rights Watch figures for civilian deaths is much lower than what the Yugoslav government has claimed.

"Once it made the decision to attack Yugoslavia, NATO should have done more to protect civilians," said Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch, an international monitoring organization based in New York. "All too often, NATO targeting subjected the civilian population to unacceptable risks." Roth urged NATO governments to make a serious evaluation of the war's effects on civilians.

They also issued a report of the effect on the country after the operation

http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/kosovo98/news.htm

Kosovo has undergone profound changes in the seven weeks since the NATO-led Kosovo Force (KFOR) entered the province and Yugoslav Army and Serbian police units withdrew. After a decade of repression that culminated in a three-month killing spree by the Yugoslav army and Serbian security forces and the expulsion and displacement of more than half of the ethnic Albanian population, most of Kosovo's Albanians are finally able to live without fear of discrimination or violence by the Serbian state.

Even if you accept Human Rights Watch's figures, and grant the U.S. military was not as precise as they should have been...to suggest that doing nothing as an alternative was acceptable is simply not credible. It is clear there was massive murder, rape, and forced displacement going on and something had to be done. And to suggest that this operation actually contributed to the genocide is likewise not true.

[sandnsea]

48. Which I didn't even read

Until now, because I generally don't read anything that says "enough of XXX Dems". Now that I have read it, her 3 targeted issues couldn't possibly be more stupid either. Not to mention, if a Presidential candidate chose only 3 issues, then every single interest group would rise up in revolt that their issue wasn't being represented. Everybody loves Molly, I get that, of course she got a great poll. Doesn't mean anything.

[Doctor_J]

50. Other

why the hell are we discussing this instead of using all of our energy to try and save democracy from Rove?

[LincolnMcGrath]

55. Good Question

:hi:

[NJ Democrats]

60. Absolutely Not!

My only question is how 23% can vote that he is one.

[Chemical Bill]

64. He is not the first person I want to see charged. n/t

[rman]

73. agreed, but he doesn't go free

[Auntie Bush]

67. If Bill Clinton is a war criminal...then so is EVERY US President!

(Within reason)

[rman]

74. they are - and most Western governements are complicit.

[The2ndWheel]

75. What's your point?

Clinton wasn't a war criminal. But neither is Bush. It's just business.

People have to die sometimes. Whether it's bombing them, or using sanctions, it just has to happen.

I'm always amazed at how people can just explain thise sanctions away. It was the UN, not Clinton. It was Saddam's fault that the medicine never got to the people. Sanctions are better than having our dear troops killed.

Have we had a president that believed in entities such as the UN more than Clinton? He was globalization. He was the WTO, IMF, World Bank. He believed in the sanctions. The sanctions killed however many people in Iraq. They still died, be it by bomb, or pen. Does it really make anyone feel better if there is a D or R in front of the president's name? If it does, then you're a slave to The Party, and live in your own little world of political bitching.

And yes, many US president's have blood on their hands. But that's the price you pay for a world of states, superstates, and global corporations. Like I said, some people that are simply in the way of progress/civilization/globalization, just have to die. It's been that way for thousands of years. That's the world we live in.

[DerekG]

84. One of the most rational responses I've read

Men like RFK, McGovern, and Kucinich had no business running an empire such as ours. Our figureheads are expected to be monsters, and Clinton played the part considerably well, as all our presidents have.

Don't like sanctions? Death squads? Coups? Mass murder?

Then ditch the system.

[ReadTomPaine]

69. As the person who hosted the thread for the students from Pace...

I'd have to say that while I have some problems with Bill, he's no war criminal. As I mentioned elsewhere, in such a target rich environment for political dissent taking aim at Bill Clinton seems a fruitless, pointless task esp. at this point in time.

It was an intriguing thread, however.

[Greyhound]

70. From a non-amerikan viewpoint probably yes, but less than most

of the others before and since.

[IndianaGreen]

76. SOA, Plan Colombia, Iraq, the Balkans, Sudan bombing

Of course, Clinton is a petty war criminal compared to the gangsters running our country now, and he should wait his turn behind all the neocons. I am also sure that an international tribunal would be more merciful in its sentence on Clinton than it would on Bush & Co.

[Aaaargh]

77. "YES or NO!" This is yet another attempt to stifle debate on DU

We all know that presidents have awesome responsibilities and must make decisions which effect the lives of millions of people, and that some of those decisions can actually bring about mass death.

However, the term 'war criminal' is legalistic and suggests a judgment made through a judicial process. That goes beyond any judgment anyone here can make, except as a rhetorical gesture.

But we can, and we should, make our own best judgments about whether a course followed by a president whom we've supported, and wish to mainly think well of, was really the right course to take -- and we shouldn't let that discussion be distorted and ultimately stifled by resorts to flaming rhetoric.

I myself believe that the Kosovo and other military actions taken by President Clinton were justified, but I'm willing to listen to informed arguments to the contrary. On the sanctions against Iraq, I believe that Clinton's actions were wrong.

President Clinton's legacy is a subject that Democrats certainly SHOULD be talking about, because it has tremendous significance for the future. The impact of some of the actions taken by Clinton is still unfolding and will be for some time, when it comes to both foreigh policy issues and domestic issues.

But, typically, what we find being pitched on this forum by its administrators, moderators and the rightwingers who dominate it, are attempts to undermine discussion of such issues by changing the subject to luridly-framed questions of LOYALTY to individual leaders ("So is President Clinton a WAR CRIMINAL or not? HUH? HUH? YES or NO! If you criticize the Kosovo campaign or the Iraq sanctions, you're saying he's a WAR CRIMINAL! And YOU call yourself a DEMOCRAT!" etc).

Look. If we have loyalty to the Democratic Party at all, unless we conceive of it as out hometown or high school 'team,' that loyalty is to the principles and policies which the party is thought to represent, and isn't at all about fealty to individual leaders or the organization itself, no matter what directions that leadership takes the organization in.

By the same logic peddled here, that demands uncritical support of the Democratic party and its leaders, persons who relate strongly to issues of racial justice in the US should be loyal to today's Republican Party, because at its origin, that party's focus was the abolition of slavery. Lots of water under the bridge since then, right?

I, along with the majority of Democratic Party members (and oddly, unlike many frequent contributors to DU), want our party to remain the party that supports the interests of middle-class America, as it has traditionally been throughout our lives, and our parents' and grandparents' lives. The question of whether the party's current direction is taking us elsewhere is too vital for discussion of it to be stifled in the name of an empty fealty to the institution and its contemporary leaders.

[rman]

78. "the party that supports the interests of middle-class America"

You mean Dems do/should not support the poor?
Why not support all Americans?

[The Magistrate]

95. Do You Really Think So, Sir?

Several points about your comment above strike me as worth some small engagement....

One is the ease with which you make the claim you are speaking for the majority of Demcratic Party members, and against the feelings of a majority of members of this forum. That is a bold belief indeed, that most any individual ought to think very hard about before making, people being, after all, so numerous, and such a varied lot of critters.

Another is your claim that the purpose of the party is to support the interests of middle-class America, especially coupled with your apparent belief that the predominant view on this forum is that the Party should imitate the Republicans, and your expressions of distaste for that view. The Republicans, after all, have traditionally positioned themselves as the party of the small businessman and the professional, or in other words, the real constiuents of the middle class, and enjoy a good degree of loyalty from such persons: indeed, if elections were conducted with only the votes of persons in households with incomes of over sixty thousands per year counted, a ludicrously low threshold for middle class status in our current economic condition, Republican candidates would win a walk.

A great deal of the debate over the direction of the Party involves such matters as what degree of primacy relative to economic issues should be given to such matters as the imperial adventure in Iraq, and the various "life-style" issues (nee "liberation" issues). It is Democratic office-holders who do not subscribe to particular lines on Iraq and abortion and gay rights who draw the greatest fire here, and the loudest charges of being Democrats in name only. How are these in any particular way issues that especially concern "the interests of middle-class America"? They certainly do not reflect concerns that are unique to middle class persons, and mostly do not even impinge much on the lives of persons who genuinely are middle-class, for their children are not much involved in military service today, and middle-class women and their daughters will likely even if abortion is made illegal be able to procure the procedure in reasonable safety, and homosexuals of middle class status will be able to secure reasonably unrestricted existences regardless of prevailing social mores in urban enclaves.

It is odd that you mention President Lincoln's legacy in what you evidently feel is a demonstration of the absurdity of any urging to Party loyalty, because it is an odd fact of history that the present character of the Democratic Party as the champion of civil rights in fact owes a great deal to liberal and progressive Republicans driven out of that party by its Goldwater wing during the sixties, and fetching up in the Democratic Party for lack of anywhere else to go. Blacks indeed did vote Republican quite solidly up until the era of President Roosevelt, and their shift at that time was by no means complete, and had much more to do with federal relief efforts during the Depression than with any actions against segregation. Indeed, most segregationists were Democrats, and the present character of the Republican party as the bastion of racism owes to the reverse of the phenomenon above, namely an influx of segregationists feeling driven out of the Democratic Party by the acts of President Kennedy and Preident Johnson, and finding a happy home in a Republican party dominated by its Goldwater wing.

[Bridget Burke]

79. At Nuremberg, Planning & Waging Aggressive War were the major charges....

Against the Big Guys. Not the "I was only following orders" guys--but the ones who gave the orders. Crimes Against Mankind were secondary charges.

Clinton was not perfect but I do not think he qualifies as a War Criminal. Bush & his people fit the profile much better. Who is accusing them to get their 15 minutes of fame?

[Catchawave]

80. Definitely not a war criminal.

I don't even think he should have been impeached for zippergate.

[Radio_Guy]

82. inactions in Iraq, Rwanda, and Kosovo??

Bill Clinton is a hero. He pulled the US out of economic paralysis and gave us a budget surplus. If his economic plans had kept going, the national debt would be gone by now. We are not the world's babysitter. We helped when NATO called, but we have no business getting into other country's business unilaterally. Clinton would never do that. He is the measuring stick all future Presidents should hope to become.

[coalition_unwilling]

88. "Bill Clinton is a hero" -- oh, he was heroic alright. Look how

he forced those welfare mothers to accept personal responsibility. Look how tough he was on crime -- he executed someone with an IQ of 69-72.

When you call Clinton a "hero," you've debased the language to the point where Derrida and the post-structuralists have won. Call me logo-centric, but doesn't "hero" have something to do with "courage"?

[radio4progressives]

87. I haven't seen those posts... got any links?

[SaveElmer]

89. There have been several...but

Everytime I post a link the mods delete it because we are not allowed to call out other members. There are some in this thread, and if you do a search I think you will find others fairly easily. There was a thread involving the two students who heckled Clinton recently that contained some. And there were several in the debates a few weeks ago right after Cindy Sheehan made her comments.

[radio4progressives]

103. Oh ok, I gotcha now...

I got the impression from the OP that DU was being sort of flooded with numerous postings with Clinton War Criminal subject headings.

But i see that you're referring to a few in response the news of the hecklers and Cindy Sheehan's remarks in Venezuela about Bush's foreign policies and military threats to Chavez and Iran(?) (during her visit in Caracas ?)

[radio4progressives]

102. unfortunately ignorance prevails...

no wonder our country is a fascists wasteland. And this ignorance is a threat to the entire world, not just the welfare of our own country.
I suspect it's because our own people consume what they see on tv or am radio and that's all they need or want to know.

[rinsd]

118. Why?

Because we don't buy into the IAC's propaganda?

"I suspect it's because our own people consume what they see on tv or am radio and that's all they need or want to know"

Versus reading nothing but lefthan sources and assuming they are the truth because the right sources have lied to you?

I'll take critical thinking for $100, Alex.

[Bammo]

119. Hell No

Going to vote NO, Bill Clinton is no damn war criminal!

I am a disabled Vietnam Vet, and during Bill Clintons 8 years as Commander and Chief he never hurt the Veteran by cutting their budget. I'll go as far as saying Bill Clinton was Veteran Friendly!

Sure a lot of Vets will disagree with me there but they voted for the "SHRUB" and bought the BS on another Nam Vet J. Kerry!

Not hearing many Vets at the VAMC admitting voting for the "SHRUB" lately - some find it hard to say they screwed up, I guess!

Hang Tough~

[eridani]

120. Every post WW II American president is a war criminal

The Dems have been mostly pretty good on domestic issues, but all have promoted imperial military bullying of the rest of the world.