Cindy Sheehan Claims Clinton Killed More Iraqis Than Bush!!!

[Postmanx]

LINK

---snip---
And about Bill Clinton . . . . You know, I really think he should have been impeached, but not for a blow job. His policies are responsible for killing more Iraqis that George Bush.
---snip---

[wtmusic]

1. Sanctions

and it's probably true.

[jonnyblitz]

29. yup. exactly.

and Madeleine Albright on 60 minutes said it was worth it, the sanctions.

<snip>
It’s a hard choice, but I think, we, think, it’s worth it."
Her response to a May 11, 1996 60 Minutes question about the over half a million children killed by the sanctions
Death of 500,000 Children 'Worth It'
<snip>

http://www.zpub.com/un/un-ma.html

[mom cat]

245. Cindy is right...This does not absolve the Georges, it just tells us how

long the road to peace is... a lot of hearts and minds have to be changed... some of them are dems.

[formernaderite]

281. Thank you....very well said

of course any minute now Cindy and the rest of us will be accused of being stealth repubs.....

[mom cat]

312. LOL! Ive been accused of being far worse!

[mzmolly]

218. *

deleted, duplicated another DUer response.

[Lorien]

253. Yep-but BushCo has killed more Americans

and by the time his term is up, how many people of all nationalities...?

[yodermon]

2. She is spot on. n/t

[rodeodance]

10. We do not like to hear of our policies--how they degrade a country and

its people. But it was in the 90's that sanctions led to hunger, disease, etc etc--and we knew about it.

[htuttle]

3. The mortality figures for the period under sanctions are pretty grim

By the time 2000 rolled around, there were a LOT of humanitarian NGOs (including anti-Saddam ones) pushing to get the sanctions lifted, as they hurt the Iraqi people far more than they hurt Saddam.

You can either ignore that (for the 'good of the party', I suppose) or not. :shrug:

[w13rd0]

23. Hell..

...CHENEY was pushing for sanctions to be lifted...

Everyone forgets about that of course...

[JVS]

155. The big question is: who is responsible for sacntion-related deaths?

Is it the party that applies and enforces sanctions, or is it the party who despite being sanctioned does not take action to have them lifted?

[FreedomAngel82]

230. And remember what Poppy Bush did too

So it goes back to them as well. I hope after this is over we never go back there again. *sigh* They deserve that much after all this shit.

[leftchick]

4. she is right

but the sanctions went on for over a much longer period of time. I have no doubt bush will surpass the number.

[FreedomAngel82]

235. For all we know he already has

Remember they were doing air bombs too.

[Renew Deal]

5. It is estimated that over 1 million died from the sanctions.

[AZBlue]

13. They died because Saddam didn't use the money as intended

[mike_c]

26. not true....

eom

[...of J.Temperance]

104. That is true...they died because Saddam didn't use the money correctly

.

[manic expression]

128. Not really

The sanctions directly caused the widespread starvation. Vital products weren't getting into Iraq in the first place. Just because Saddam didn't redistribute wealth in Iraq doesn't mean the US isn't at fault.

Don't pass the buck on something we clearly did.

[rinsd]

150. Why did the child mortality rates drop in the North then?

[manic expression]

177. Well,

I'll let UNICEF explain:

"A UNICEF study in 1999 also showed that the child mortality rate in Iraq has increased in government controlled areas of Iraq (and decreased in autonomous, mainly Kurdish controlled regions). The report also says that child deaths have actually doubled in the last ten years.

As the above link also highlighted, Unicef Executive Director, Carol Bellamy “noted that if the substantial reduction in child mortality throughout Iraq during the 1980s had continued through the 1990s, there would have been half a million fewer deaths of children under-five in the country as a whole during the eight year period 1991 to 1998.” Recognizing a multitude of reasons, “she pointed to a March statement of the Security Council Panel on Humanitarian Issues which states: '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 war.'”"
http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/MiddleEast/Iraq/Sanctions.asp

more....

"The Iraqi government also withdrew funding and services from the three northern governorates and imposed its own economic blockade on the region in October 1991, leading to the creation of a de facto Kurdish-controlled region (Iraqi Kurdistan). However, the international community did not alter the scope of sanctions, which remained in force over the whole of Iraq.

This 'double embargo' imposed by the international community and by the Government of Iraq encouraged the development of a non-productive economy based on revenues derived from customs duties, and smuggling to Turkey, Iran, and government-controlled areas of Iraq. This anomalous economic situation fuelled the conflict between rival political factions, resulting in four years of internal fighting from 1993-1997. By 1995 this conflict resulted in the virtual collapse of the Kurdish Regional Administration established after the May 1992 elections in the northern Iraq."
http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/MiddleEast/Iraq/Sanctions.asp

In addition to this, IIRC, international humanitarian efforts were active in Kurdistan.

[...of J.Temperance]

152. SADDAM spent the money on dozens of palaces...Clinton didn't n/t

[IndyOp]

169. A $100 million palace would other provide $4 food per person --

in a country of 25 million people. That feeds the population at $2 per day for 2 days. It is complete and utter poppycock to claim that Saddam's palaces took food from the mouths of people. Of course Saddam was a sick, sick SOB for spending money on *anything* other than caring for his people - but it wasn't enough money to make a difference.

Also TWO heads of UN Oil for Food program quit in disgust at US policies - BOTH of them testify that the food acquisition and distribution was as efficient as it possibly could be and that Saddam had *nothing* to do with it.

[Sparkman]

187. Thanks for the reality check. The U.S. imperial death star's not new to me

and anyone can verify that there have been some 50+ wars since 1945.
WHAT DO WE THINK WE NEED 320+ MILITARY BASES AROUND THE PLANET, IF WE'RE NOT IMPERIALIST CONQUERERS?

The Neo-Fascists have been in government for a long time, and now are brazen and well funded and immume from significant persecution.

[IndyOp]

200. We have 725 military bases in over 130 foreign countries...

Why We Fight (by Eugene Jarecki) - Trailer for new movie...
<http://www.sonyclassics.com/whywefight/>

[mike_c]

160. the U.N. disagrees....

http://zmag.org/Zmag/Articles/nov01lindemyer.htm

MYTH: “Holds on inappropriate contracts help prevent the diversion of oil-for-food goods to further Saddam’s personal interests” (U.S. State Department, March 2000).

FACT: Requests for desperately needed equipment routinely get held up in the Security Council for months at a time. The delays have gotten so bad that UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan and Office of the Iraq Program Director Benon Sevon have written letters decrying the excessive holds placed on items ordered under the program (Education for Peace in Iraq Center).

The holds that perpetuate the detrimental health impacts of the sanctions have gained the attention of one House member. In the summer of 2000, Representative Tony Hall of Ohio wrote a letter to then Secretary of State Madeline Albright “about the profound effects of the increasing deterioration of Iraq’s water supply and sanitation systems on its children’s health.” Hall wrote, “Holds on contracts for the water and sanitation sector are a prime reason for the increases in sickness and death. Of the eighteen contracts, all but one hold was placed by the U.S. government. The contracts are for purification chemicals, chlorinators, chemical dosing pumps, water tankers, and other equipment… I urge you to weigh your decision against the disease and death that are the unavoidable result of not having safe drinking water and minimum levels of sanitation” (The Progressive, August 2001).

Unfortunately for the people of Iraq, the letter was addressed to Madeline Albright—the same person who stated that the deaths of over half a million children were “worth it.”

Despite the minimal coverage by Congress, holds continue to expedite the process of destruction within Iraq. “Earlier this year <2001>, U.S. diplomats blocked child vaccines for Iraq, including for diphtheria, typhoid, and tetanus. Over $3 billion worth of contracts remain on hold. To date, no hearings have been held” (Education for Peace in Iraq Center, August 2001).

MYTH: Saddam Hussein is hoarding both food and medical supplies from his people to evoke Western sympathy (U.S. State Department, March 2000).

FACT: Allegations of the “warehousing” of food and medicine were put to rest by former UN Humanitarian Coordinator in Iraq, Hans Van Sponeck; “It is not, I repeat not, and you can check this with my colleagues, a pre-meditated act of withholding medicines from those who should have it. It is much, much, more complex than that.“ Sponeck explains that low worker pay, lack of transportation, poor facilities, and low funding are responsible for the breakdowns in inventory and distribution systems. The bureaucracy of the oil-for- food program, such as contract delays and holds, also plays a substantial role. Sponeck, like his predecessor, Denis Halliday, resigned from his post in February 2000 in protest of the sanctions. Also like Halliday, Sponeck had worked for the UN for over 30 years (The Fire This Time, April 1999).

Halliday concurs that contract delays, contract holds, and distribution problems account for the medical supplies problem. “hose factors come together and you have a problem… I have no doubt in saying that there is no one person in the Ministry of Health or anywhere else in the Iraqi government who is deliberately trying to damage the health, or allowing children or others to die by deliberately not distributing medical supplies. That’s just nonsense” (The Fire This Time, April 1999).

[enigma000]

168. F*CK the UN

The UN was compromised with its involvement in the Oil-for-Palaces scam. On this subject, its word means nothing.

Still, I'm inclined to side with Cindy on this one.

[manic expression]

181. No, don't f*ck the UN

In this case, they are merely stating facts. That has little to do with the Oil-for-Food program (which US companies benefited off of).

[enigma000]

182. Well, they were UN sanctions after all

200 countries in the world. The US is just one of them. The UN wanted sanctions, the UN got sanctions.

f*ck the UN (on this issue, I like it most of the time)

[mike_c]

191. disingenuous at best....

http://zmag.org/Zmag/Articles/nov01lindemyer.htm

MYTH: The United Nations levied the sanctions against Iraq, so the United States is not to blame.

FACT: Van Sponeck addresses this point head on. “The UN doesn’t impose sanctions. It’s the UN Security Council member governments who come together and impose sanctions… I don’t see the distinction between US sanctions, in broad terms, and what is done and coming out of the Security Council of the UN. The leader in the discussion for the sanctions is the US side and they are the ones, together with the British, that have devised many of the special provisions that govern the implementation of the 986 program. They are coming together, in that Security Council of 15 nations and work as a team, and that’s the outcome, but I don’t see a separate US sanction regime that is markedly different from the UN Security Council regime” (The Fire This Time, April 1999).

[rman]

268. The US uses its weight to block or pass UN sanctions as it sees fit.

The US wanted UN sanctions, the US got UN sanctions.

[meganmonkey]

6. Yep.

The sanctions in Iraq were devastating to the civilians.

Just like they will be in Iran if we go that route.

Nice how we punish civilians for the actions of their leaders, huh?

[yodermon]

7. Here is a bit more context to the quote.

And about Bill Clinton . . . . You know, I really think he should have been impeached, but not for a blow job. His policies are responsible for killing more Iraqis that George Bush. I don't understand why to rise to the level of being president of my country one has to be a monster. I used to say that George Bush was defiling the Oval Office, but it's been held by a long line of monsters. We don't have to support our administrations to love our country. True patriots of my country dissent when our country's doing something so wrong.

Ronan: Samuel Johnson said in his Dictionary: "Patriotism is that last refuge of a scoundrel."

Cindy: Exactly! That's what they try to do! They hold the flag with one hand, and the hold shining keys with the other hand to distract us, and really, loyalty to symbols is false patriotism. Loyalty to the true, core values and roots of democracy is what makes a true patriot, not loyalty to a symbol of the country.

Ronan: Thank you, Cindy Sheehan, for bearing witness to the truth.

[tomg]

149. Reading it in its context really

shows what a true patriot is, and what a fine person Ms. Sheehan is. It take real integrity to say what she said.

[ComerPerro]

279. Much better. Thank you

[400Years]

8. true

[mike_c]

9. he did, and Madeleine Albright practically bragged about it....

Sheehan is 100 percent correct. Clinton manipulated the U.N. sanctions throughout his entire presidency, and is directly responsible for the deaths of nearly 10 times as many Iraqi civilians as George W. Bush. Half of those were children under 5 years old. It's a shameful legacy.

[bloom]

81. We don't know how many people have died under either, really.

I think the deaths from the invasion are probably a lot higher than people generally think about.


There may have been more deaths from the sanctions - but when unembedded journalists are being killed and imprisoned - how can people expect to know?

There was a doctor-turned-journalist on Democracy Now! today who was saying that for going into the area of Falluhjah where they filmed after the bombings - people who had been shot lying in their beds - they (the filmmakers) could have been shot by the US military (OR the insurgents). The guesstimated Iraq toll leaves out Fallujah and other such campaigns.


But I agree that it's a shameful legacy for Clinton and Bush and for Madeline Albright and her company - as well as the Carlyle group - that both benefit from Iraq's debts.

[MadHound]

11. She's absolutely correct

Between the sanctions and the thrice weekly bombing runs that went on during the Clinton administration, aprox. 400,000-500,000 innocent Iraqis died directly because of these actions.

[mike_c]

15. more like twice that number....

The U.N. estimates that 500,000 children under 5 years old died.

[AZBlue]

12. Impeachment for sanctions??

That's even dumber than for a BJ.

We now have proof that the Iraqi government had more than enough money for food and medicine for its people, Saddam just decided to use it to build his palaces and let his son throw parties instead. Saddam is the culprit.

BTW, Clinton was impeached...

I don't think Cindy understands our government very well.

[mike_c]

25. that's a myth....

eom

[...of J.Temperance]

106. Just ignore the facts why don't you? n/t

[Steve A Play]

153. I haven't seen any of the "facts" that you've presented

But one of the facts I've presented states that the 'per capita' amount that the Oil For Food program brought in was roughly $120.00 per person.

What would you spend your $10.00 a month on? Food or medicine? :shrug:

The "Smart Sanctions" proposal would allow more commodities into Iraq, but would not address the fundamental problem of the low purchasing power of the vast majority of Iraqis. Presently, and also under the "new" sanctions, Iraqi people who are employed are paid low wages, with a greatly devalued currency. The present "oil for food" program results in annual revenues of less than $120 per person.

http://www.scn.org/wwfor/iraqtalk.html

Just because a Democrat does it doesn't make it right. :(

Steven P. :kick:

[meganmonkey]

Actually, I think Cindy understands it perfectly well

in fact, so well that she doesn't act as an apologist for any politicians' poor actions, regardless of party.

Start with the truth, go from there. It's the only way to positive change.

[Steve A Play]

120. Do you know how much money the OFF program generated?

The "Smart Sanctions" proposal would allow more commodities into Iraq, but would not address the fundamental problem of the low purchasing power of the vast majority of Iraqis. Presently, and also under the "new" sanctions, Iraqi people who are employed are paid low wages, with a greatly devalued currency. The present "oil for food" program results in annual revenues of less than $120 per person.

http://www.scn.org/wwfor/iraqtalk.html

Steven P. :kick:

[MrBenchley]

154. Her 15 minutes were up last summer

The most important fact about Cindy was never Cindy herself...it was that George the War President, whose supporters were chanting about how manly and brave he was, turned out to be utterly terrified of a middle aged mom.

[K-W]

294. Saddam is a culprit, so is Clinton.

It isnt an either/or situation. Saddam is no more responsible for Clinton's acts than Clinton Saddam's.

[bloom]

299. It was US policy

to undermine Saddam - for our interests - not for the Iraqis interest.

That is what should be understood.

There is movie featuring Scott Ritter - where he goes into detail about what was going on with the US in Iraq in the 90's such as keeping the sanctions in place. The US was determined to bring the Iraq gov't down one way or another.

It's really not about Saddam so much - except that he wouldn't agree to do business the way the US wanted it done.

That doesn't make Saddam "responsible". Heads of State should not HAVE to do whatever the US and the US corporations want or face sanctions or invasion, either one. It would be one thing if the US said - ok we're not doing business with you. But of course this went far beyond that.

People don't want to see the US as being the bad guy -even when we are.

[LittleClarkie]

14. And the sanctions were in place because...?

And what did Saddam do to alleviate the problem?

Did he care about his own people?

[mike_c]

21. yes he did-- sanctions were in place to force WMD disarmament...

...but Iraq ceased its weapons programs and allowed UNSCOM inspectors to destroy its stockpiles and manufacturing capability by 1992. Scott Ritter has made it clear that Iraq was "fundamentally disarmed by 1992." The sanctions maintained during the ENTIRE Clinton presidency were for political purposes only, and the blood of nearly a million Iraqi civilians is on Clinton's hands.

[rinsd]

98. I haven't seen 1992

" There came a point by 1996-1997, that even though we could not fully account for the totality of the weapons, we could ascertain that Iraq had been fundamentally disarmed, meaning that there was no chance of viable weapons of mass destruction existing in Iraq."

http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/05/11/int05045.html

Here's Ritter saying 1995

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/gulf.war/legacy/wmd/

This one says 1998

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/American_Empire_KH2004.html

And how exactly did Saddam take care of his people?

We have many examples of rampant corruption in Oil for Food that touches all manners of countries (US, Britain and Australia included)

We know the repression of the Shia revolt was brutal and many died. We know Kurds were also dealt with brutally.

This was after Saddam lead them into two wars of conquest.

So again tell me how Saddam helped his people?

[mike_c]

122. see (ironically) #92, below....

eom

[rinsd]

135. The Iraqi declaration of compliance means very little to me (nt)

[mike_c]

166. well, UNSCOM agreed with its conclusions....

Read Ritter's interview.

[rinsd]

173. Again, I will take when UNSCOM verified, not a declaration (nt)

[mike_c]

185. you and the neocons....

UNSCOM has NEVER verified Iraq's disarmament, for reasons that Ritter discusses at length in the interview, but which can be summarized as: a) blocking UNSCOM certification was U.S. policy throughout the Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II administrations; b) Clinton and Bush both pulled the inspectors out of Iraq to inflame the political situation; and c) Bush finally made a mockery of the entire process by invading Iraq. So the lack of UNSCOM verification leads you to conclude that Iraq is not disarmed? You should contact Dick Cheney to discuss that logic-- I'm sure he can find a job with a bright future for you in the WH.

[rinsd]

192. As you would do quite well on Saddam's defense team....

...two can play neener neener.

My point wasn't that Iraq wasn't disarmed. I just find Ritter more belivible when he says it has been verified that Iraq disarmed vs. what the Iraqi gov't said.

[meganmonkey]

223. You know what this thread reminds me of?

It reminds me of bushco's evolving justification for invading Iraq. All these people trying to justify Clinton's support of the sanctions, justifying the death that they caused.

Truthiness at its best.

[insane_cratic_gal]

16. Well she's no friend of Hillary, so I'd assume Bill

would fall right in there.

I like Clinton, but if it's the truth, then it's the truth. Ugly as that may be so long as he owns it and doesn't deny it.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

17. Not to mention he and Albright's subversion of help for Rwanda.

And, later support for Kabila in Congo. She's right.

[bicentennial_baby]

22. ...

:thumbsup:

[...of J.Temperance]

108. Can you post a link to where Clinton and Albright did what you say?

Where they prevented help from going to Rwanda and later supported Kabila in Congo?

Thanks.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

161. Sure. Here you go.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/070800-01.htm

Although he singled out France for its special support to the genocidaires, he also said the United States could no longer hide behind a veil of ignorance -- the most common defence given by the Clinton administration. Ms. Albright ignored early warnings of the genocide and then intentionally blocked hopes for greater UN intervention, Mr. Lewis said.

In the interview, Mr. Lewis, a former deputy executive director of UNICEF (the UN Children's Fund), said he was fed up with the West's efforts to consign the genocide to history.

"I don't have any compunction about identifying France or the United States, or identifying Clinton or Albright or (the late French president François) Mitterrand," he said testily. "Because of their inaction, 800,000 people died, most of them unnecessarily. I've reached a stage of life, I'm 62 now, that I no longer see the need for compunction, and the entire panel felt this way, to put up with this sort of inaction."

The report points out that the UN Security Council did not approve a stronger mission to Rwanda until May 17, six weeks after the daily killing of tens of thousands of people began. Citing procedural delays, the Pentagon then blocked a UN request to lease 50 armoured personnel carriers that Canadian Lieutenant-General Roméo Dallaire, then head of the UN mission in Rwanda, said were needed to save thousands of lives.

-------------------------------------------------------


http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/evil/etc/slaughter.html

The U.N. Security Council prepares to vote on restoring UNAMIR's strength in Rwanda. However, Madeline Albright delays the vote for four days.

--------------------------------------
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/04/07/0235212


Tuesday, July 11th, 2000
The Rwanda Genocide: How Does Madeleine Albright Live with Herself?


An independent panel commissioned by the Organization of African Unity charged this weekend that the United States, France and Belgium, as well as the Roman Catholic and Anglican churches, actively prevented peacekeepers from moving in to stop the mass killing of as many as 800,000 Rwandans in 1994. It concluded that the three governments should provide "a significant level of reparations" to the Central African country.

The 318-page report challenged President Clinton's claim that the United States's failure to act in Rwanda was due to ignorance of the extent of the atrocities unfolding there. And it accused Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, who represented the United States in the U.N. Security Council at the time, of using "stalling tactics" to prevent a military rescue mission.

------------------------------------------------
Support for Kabila
------------------------------------------------
http://www.stanfordalumni.org/news/magazine/1998/julaug/articles/out_of_africa/out_of_africa.html

The U.S. government has decided to support Kabila, not embarrass him. Washington is seeking to boost trade and investment in central Africa while reducing the region’s dependence on foreign aid. African leaders who share that vision, and who seem able to deliver the stable government it requires, receive U.S. aid. It’s a matter of realpolitik -- requiring that the United States sometimes look the other way if a country is slow to move toward democracy or fails to adequately protect human rights. With a policy aimed at helping Kabila succeed, officials have little incentive to scrutinize his past abuses.

Meanwhile, Congresswoman Lynn Rivers intervened. The Michigan Democrat, who represents Smuts’s congressional district, had been talking for some time with the former students. After Rivers put on the pressure -- what she calls “a lot of kicking and screaming and door knocking” -- Hunter was granted meetings with senior officials, including John Shattuck, the assistant secretary of state for democracy, human rights and labor.

The State Department position was plain. Officials were sympathetic to what the four had endured as hostages, but they believe Kabila is making progress toward establishing democracy and protecting human rights. They said it would serve no purpose and might harm relations to revisit past events with Kabila.

Privately, State Department officials admit Kabila is far from perfect. A spokesperson says the administration appreciates that Kabila’s human rights record has been “checkered” and notes that Washington has “deplored two or three incidents.” But, adds the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, “There’s a timetable for democratic elections, a relatively free press some 300 political parties.”

Albright crystallized this position in December. At a press conference following bilateral talks with Kabila, she acknowledged that “there is a long way to go” toward a civil society in Congo. But she praised Kabila for making a “strong start” on economic reforms and naming a commission to draft laws leading to an election. She said she was encouraged by Kabila’s “positive steps” and noted their meeting reflected “shared interests . . . and a joint willingness to solve problems.” Albright pledged $40 million in U.S. aid for health programs and infrastructure projects.

---------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Africa/US_Recolonization_Congo.html
----------------------------------------------------------------

There's a lot more available. Just Google Clinton Albright Rwanda or Clinton Albright Congo

[bpj1962]

18. Clinton

Cindy Sheenan needs to get her facts straight. The U.N. imposed the sanctions on Iraq and it was during the 1st Bush administration. The U.N. "enforced" the sanctions and the U.S. and Britain enforced the no fly zones right up until March of 2003. We have enough problems with the republicans spreading lies and misinformation it is about time that we as democrats get our facts straight. Ms. Sheehan has a right to her opinion but she must get her facts straight or the right wing will use it against us.

[SillyGoose]

35. Yep, the U.N. imposed the sanctions in 1990.

I agree with your entire post, BTW.

Welcome to DU!

:hi:

[wuushew]

45. Those sanctions served no purpose

Having removed Iraqi forces from the Kingdom of Kuwait why was it necessary to dictate whether Iraq itself could not possess any number of weapon systems it may use for its own defense? Iraq does after all neighbor the dangerous nuclear state of Israel.

Also the no fly zones were in no way legal.

[mike_c]

48. Clinton maintained the economic sanctions against Iraq...

...even though Iraq had complied with the U.N. disarmament mandate by 1992. Clinton deliberately manipulated the UNSCOM certification process to prevent lifting the embargo during his entire presidency. Blaming it on the U.N. is disengenuous at best. Why would Albright have accepted U.S. responsibility for the deaths of 500,000 children under 5 years old otherwise?

[bpj1962]

107. Sanctions

How many of you remember what the news was reporting in 1996. Everyone here has the ability to use the internet as a reference library for things that happened in the past. Clinton was dealing with a republican congress who would have beat him over the head if he had called for ending the sanctions. I find it amazing that we as democrats tend to forget his successes. He virtually ended a generation worth of killing in Northern Ireland. He stopped the ethnic cleansing in Bosnia and he did everything to ensure that the rulers were brought to justice. He stopped a potential blood bath in Haiti by simply sending the 82nd airborne into the air. I cannot justify what happened in Rwanda nor do I think that we could have done anything to stop it I also feel that Clinton had his fill with Africa as a result of Somalia and he wasn't about to put american lives at risk in a country that even toady most american cannot even tell you where it is. Civilians are always the biggest casualties of war. That is why we went into Somalia that is why we went into Bosnia. Clinton was not and is not perfect but he generally did the right thing when it came to stopping human suffering around the world. It is so easy to be a monday morning quarterback and make what we think are the right decisions.

[Ohio Joe]

269. I agree

As I'm reading through this thread, the same thoughts were going on in my mind. President Clinton is a great man and was a great President. Was he perfect ? No. Was he able to correct all of the ills in the world during his presidency ? No. Did he make mistakes ? Yes. Did he do the best that could have been done given massive amount of challenges he faced (in addition to the republican congress) ? Yes, absolutely.

It seems to me that many people want to put point a finger at either President Clinton or Cindy over her comment, I don't agree with doing that. I find it a mistake to refer to President Clinton as a monster but by the same token, I would find it a mistake to demonize Cindy because she makes a mistake. She too, has done so much.

[meganmonkey]

50. "Clinton Blocks Easing of Sanctions In Iraq"

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

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.

A number of other reports and eyewitness accounts have documented the existence of a social catastrophe in Iraq, resulting from the relentless economic, political and military assault by the most powerful nation in the world. In recent years Bill Clinton and his counterparts in Europe have employed the term “genocide” with near abandon to demonize leaders and regimes targeted for attack. But if anything in the past decade approaches the level of genocide, it is the systematic destruction of an entire nation carried out by the United States against Iraq.

--------------------------------------------------------

[berni_mccoy]

70. This was blocked because the Oil For Food program was already in place

It was put into place in 1996!

Why are people jumping to the wrong conclusions so quickly here?!??!?

Read up on it here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_sanctions

Iraq was later allowed under the UN Oil-for-Food Programme, introduced in 1996, (under Resolution 986) to export $5.2 billion (USD) of oil every 6 months with which to purchase items needed to sustain the civilian population. After an initial refusal, Iraq signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in May 1996 for arrangements for the implementation of that resolution to be taken. The Oil-for-Food Programme started in October 1997, and the first shipments of food arrived in March 1998.

Thirty percent of the proceeds were redirected to a Gulf War reparations account.

In 2004/5 the Programme became the subject of major media attention over corruption, as Iraq had systematically sold allocations of oil at below-market prices in return for some of the proceeds from the resale outside the scope of the programme. Individuals and companies from dozens of countries were implicated.

[meganmonkey]

121. Resolution 986, which the US tried to block

Repeatedy, while the rest of the Security Council was trying to get it passed.

July 1, 1996 The United States rejects an Iraqi plan for distributing food and medicine under United Nations Security Council Resolution 986, on the grounds that it would allow Saddam Hussein's government to evade certain sanctions as well as to give it control over distribution of supplies to separatist Kurds in northern Iraq. Resolution 986 would allow Iraq to sell $1 billion worth of oil every 90 days for an initial period of 6 months. (WP)

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/iraqchron.html

on edit: I am not jumping to conclusions. It was only 10 years ago, I remember it all well. I was appalled then, and I won't pretend Clinton didn't do these things.

[rinsd]

111. Strange that infant mortality rates got better in the North

In the autonomous northern region, under-5 mortality rose from 80 deaths per 1000 live births in the period 1984-1989 to 90 deaths per 1000 live births during the years 1989-1994. The under-5 rate fell to 72 deaths per 1000 live births between 1994 and 1999. Infant mortality rates followed a similar pattern.

http://www.converge.org.nz/pma/irsan.htm

[MadHound]

52. And who was it who pressed the UN to impose those sanctions

The US, under Bush. Who was it who continued the sanctions, and the thrice weekly bombing runs, despite the pleas for mercy, not just from Iraq but virtually all of the civilized world? The US, under Clinton. Who was it who blocked UN member state from presenting resolutions to lift the sanctions? The US, under Clinton. Time to get your facts straight also.

[meganmonkey]

56. More...The US had VETO power of UN Sec. Council and used it...

July 1, 1996 The United States rejects an Iraqi plan for distributing food and medicine under United Nations Security Council Resolution 986, on the grounds that it would allow Saddam Hussein's government to evade certain sanctions as well as to give it control over distribution of supplies to separatist Kurds in northern Iraq. Resolution 986 would allow Iraq to sell $1 billion worth of oil every 90 days for an initial period of 6 months. (WP)

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/iraqchron.html

[Xithras]

113. UN wanted to ease sanctions, Clinton fought the idea.

Most of the UN wanted to drop or dramatically scale back the santions by the mid-90's, but pressure from the US and Britain kept them in place. That pressure came directly from Clinton, who wanted Saddam out of power.

When it comes to Iraq, both Clinton and Bush agreed that Iraq would be a better place without Hussein. The difference was that Clinton wanted to make Iraq so miserable that the Iraqi's would overthrow him themselves. Bush didn't like that idea and decided to go the invasion route. Different methodologies, same goal.

[sundancekid]

171. AMEN! welcome, and with that fact-based attitude, please stay & play at DU

[Proud2BAmurkin]

19. Idiotic.

:puke:

[oasis]

158. Journalism 101:Cindy vs. Bush is not news. Cindy vs.Clinton, that's news.

In any case it's no big deal.:boring:

[bicentennial_baby]

20. true dat

she's right, so far

[1620rock]

33. With all of the shit that is going on now...

...why does eceryone on both sides keep pointing fingers at Clinton? :eyes:

[insane_cratic_gal]

People shouldn't have to apologize for their leaders

and yet when it's our own we tend to forgive their sins.

The truth is the truth, if it's ugly no matter who committed doesn't make it any easier to swallow.

I can't stand when people are willing to over look the mistakes of our politicians because they happen to be of the same party. It's hypocritical and it's simply wrong.

If a Dem was in office right now, and did everything Bush has done. I'd want his ass thrown out! I wouldn't apologize for him. Wrong is wrong.

[bicentennial_baby]

47. it's called being honest

just b/c he's Clinton doesn't mean the sanctions are something we should dismiss or forget...just like Rwanda.

[SammyWinstonJack]

60. It's easy?

:shrug:

[K-W]

297. Do you really not know the answer to that question?

People on the right attack Clinton because he was a prominant Democrat.

People from all over the spectrum critisize Clinton because they disagree with him and this is a free country.

There is no 'both sides' there are Republican propagandists and honest people who disagree with Clinton, the two should not be equated.

Cindy didnt choose to take this one quote out of context and spread it around, by the way. That was done by people trying to get Clinton fans to have a knee jerk response to Sheehan and the anti-war movement, rather than understanding that while we do have major, honest, differences of opinion we are all working against the lying propagandists.

I think you only hurt things by generalzing legitimate disagreements about policy with republican lies.

[King Coal]

24. There were more jews killed during FDR's administration that Reagan's.

[htuttle]

27. Which of FDR's policies was responsible for that?

I don't think that's a very good analogy.

[insane_cratic_gal]

30. I think that was the poster's point eom

[King Coal]

74. Thanks gal.

[The2ndWheel]

71. Wow

It's sad that someone would say that when it's brought up that Clinton supported the sanctions in Iraq during the 90's. Just accept that Clinton played that game. Why compare two president's broken up by 40 years? Does that somehow make it alright that Clinton did what he did? To make an over the top point, to somehow make it seem that a simple fact about our latest ex-president isn't worth brining up?

This, "but he's my guy, so I'll explain it away" mentality is the reason nothing changes. All hail Clinton(even though many of his policies, even those that made "Americans" wealthier, made many more people poorer, or helped kill them).

[King Coal]

86. Don't sanctions make more sense than sending our boys to die.

Clinton didn't support sanctions because he claimed Iraq was responsible for 9/11. Clinton wanted Saddam to allow weapons inspectors. The sanctions, cruel as they were, seemed to work. And our boys weren't killed. My point is that comparing Bush killing Iraqi's with Clinton's sanctons Iraqi's is as silly as the comparison I made. Sabe, Kimo?

[The2ndWheel]

110. No, it doesn't make more sense

Imperial power is imperial power, through the gun or the pen.

Iraqi's are worth just as much as "our boys".

"Cruel as they were, seemed to work"?

That's where we disagree. So no matter how cruel, if the end justifies a larger power, it's alright? So the mass genocide of natives may have been cruel, but we at least got democracy and freedom out of it?

Maybe you're right, I don't know. But I just don't get how your mind works. You say "Bush killing", but follow that up with "Clinton's sanctions". Neither Bush or Clinton physically killed anyone. Both used someone else to do their dirty work.

To me, it doesn't make a bit of difference if "our boys" are being killed now, or weren't being killed then. At least they have a gun today. The Iraqi's killed by the sanctions(let's even say indirectly by Clinton, and for a "good reason", just for the sake of argument) didn't even have that.

[manic expression]

148. 4,000 dead children a month is 'sense' to you?

:puke:

The sanctions were unnecessary and wrong. They starved an entire country for little reason. Contrary to your view, they did not force Saddam to do anything.

Clinton's policies were beyond terrible, arguably murderous. How can you try to rationalize that?

[Geek_Girl]

224. I would agree with you except

Sadam dismantled his Weapons program in 1992. So Clinton Lied and Bush lied about WMD's. This is the biggest problem when I talk to Iraq war supporters. They say, "well Clinton even said he had WMDs."

[BL611]

28. So...

If you're against the war (which I was), and against sanctions (which I support), and against trade with Saddam( as we had in the 80's), what course exactly should our relations with Iraq take, as you have just taken all options available off the table (at least as far as I can see, so hopefully you will enlighten me...)

[mike_c]

40. Clinton should have dealt honestly with Iraq....

Iraq complied with the U.N disarmament mandate by the early 1990s-- Ritter says compliance was complete by 1992-- so the U.S. should have allowed UNSCOM to certify Iraq as being in compliance and permitted the security council to lift economic sanctions. If the U.S. didn't want to trade with Iraq afterward, they didn't have to-- others were more than willing to do so because Iraq has some very valuable commodities to offer. Instead, Clinton manipulated the inspections process to make certification impossible, and maintained the embargo while HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of Iraqi civilians died unnecessarily.

[htuttle]

41. You're presenting all those options as absolutes

The 'trade' with Saddam in the 80's was mostly WEAPONS. It's entirely possible to trade with a country, but not trade arms with them, right? The sanctions covered FAR MORE than military equipment. Why put sanctions on things like electrical generators, for example? There were sanctions on all sorts of stuff that was only tangentially related to 'dual use' applications.

What the sanctions were supposed to do in reality was depose Saddam, not just keep him from building up his military. In order to bring that about, they (those who were in favor of keeping the sanctions) felt they needed to make the Iraqi people feel enough pain to do something about it. But of course, what the sanctions did in the end was disempower the secular forces in the country who COULD have eventually deposed Saddam.

Yet with China, the US has taken the tack that only by 'engaging' with China can it be changed. Why then wasn't this strategy used in Iraq? Money, money, money, at the bottom of it, no doubt.

[Roho]

77. imo

Bush sr. realized 25 thousand coalition casualties were likely if they had gone into Baghdad and deposed saddam after gw1. The sanctions were then imposed to bleed iraq dry.

The no fly zones were designed to protect a weakened Iraq and its assets for the US and UK from hostile neighbors.

Once Iraq produced the 20000+ page weapons report to the UN the all clear was given to go in and take Saddam out.

America first party affiliation second.

[Caution]

31. those were UN policies

UN sanctions. I like Cindy Sheehan but she's wrong on this one. Hussein's refusal to abide by the terms of his surrender and his refusal to care for his own citizens caused those deaths.

[underpants]

36. ........ ...... ... and statistics

They might have died during the Clinton years but that doesn't mean that he killed them.

[mike_c]

195. wrong....

http://zmag.org/Zmag/Articles/nov01lindemyer.htm

MYTH: The United Nations levied the sanctions against Iraq, so the United States is not to blame.

FACT: Van Sponeck addresses this point head on. “The UN doesn’t impose sanctions. It’s the UN Security Council member governments who come together and impose sanctions… I don’t see the distinction between US sanctions, in broad terms, and what is done and coming out of the Security Council of the UN. The leader in the discussion for the sanctions is the US side and they are the ones, together with the British, that have devised many of the special provisions that govern the implementation of the 986 program. They are coming together, in that Security Council of 15 nations and work as a team, and that’s the outcome, but I don’t see a separate US sanction regime that is markedly different from the UN Security Council regime” (The Fire This Time, April 1999).

Von Sponeck was the U.N. head of the sanctions program, so he should know. He was also the second such head to resign in protest specifically against the U.S. refusal to lift or relax the embargo while hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians died-- during, I might add, the Clinton administration.

[F.Gordon]

32. Cindy Cindy Cindy

I'll call bullshit on this because if she really said this then she is totally clueless and irresponsible.

[jonnyblitz]

38. except she is correct. nt

[F.Gordon]

44. Thank you for that detailed factual statement

Oh, she's correct. Sorry. How stupid could I be?

:crazy:

[jonnyblitz]

49. read up on the effects of sanctions on Iraqi children

during the CLinton era. you think people say this sort of thing for no reason? please. educate yourself. i don't have the time to do it for you...I am sure you only care to believe what fits in your simplistic partisan point of view anyways so why waste my time.

[Midlodemocrat]

85. The UN imposed the sanctions.

The US enforced them. Not quite the same thing. And, they were imposed during GHWB's administration.

[FreedomAngel82]

238. And because it happened in the Clinton era

that means he did it?

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

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

[F.Gordon]

78. Sigh

I don't need to read it. Already done that. Got the T-Shirt. It's YOU that need to do a little fact checking.

[robbedvoter]

34. Yeay! let's impeach Clinton! Thanks Cindy for the clarity & vision

Your timing is impeccable - we were just wasting our time with Alito here...
But timing was never your forte...You also think you started the anti-war movement. Only you were packing your son in Iraq (to kill, like Clinton) while the whole world said NO to Bush's war.. YEARS BEFORE YOU!
Thanks again for setting our priorities straight. Just last night Leno was joking about Monica's dress. Now I realize how relevant he was!

[meganmonkey]

Cindy doesn't owe you or Bill Clinton anything

she is NOT an apologist for either party.
She speaks the truth, and until we face the WHOLE TRUTH we will never fix anything.

Denial is NOT the way to improve our nation.

[jonnyblitz]

46. exactly. people need to get over this simplistic binary thinking

about one side being totally good and the other side being totally evil and educate themselves a bit about REALITY.

[robbedvoter]

83. OK, I want proof about those millions killed by Clinton.

UN proof - or reputable international sources proof - not IAC hysteria.

[meganmonkey]

127. From UNESCO:

http://www.unesco.org/delegates/iraq/effects_health.htm

Year No. of Deaths
1989 (before the embargo) 27,334
1990 (embargo imposed in 6/8/1990) 32,464
1991 95,942
1992 123,463
1993 128,023
1994 133,681
1995 138,784
1996 140,281

[robbedvoter]

146. See post#118 - Tahiti Nut on the BS numbers

Again, if we are to believe them, war is a blessing for Iraq, non?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=238994&mesg_id=240105

[meganmonkey]

156. Okay, I delivered exactly what you asked for but that's not good enough

Cute

I gotta go. I'll be back later

[mike_c]

236. and TahitiNut's source has now been seriously challenged....

It's a front organization set up to plant articles.

[meganmonkey]

134. More, from UNESCO Courier

But the wall of silence is starting to crack after reports from UN bodies that the sanctions may have killed more than half a million children under five, and because of the despair of humanitarian organizations and the revolt of UN officials who have resigned from their jobs in Iraq. Even the U.S. State Department's website, long silent about reports of the plight of civilians, has posted remarks by Congressman Tony P. Hall, who returned from Iraq at the end of April 2000.

"I fear that no matter how quickly sanctions are lifted, the future of most of the people I met in Iraq will be bleak," he writes. "That is because its children are in bad shape, with a quarter of them underweight and one in ten wasting away because of hunger and disease. The leading cause of childhood death, diarrhoea, is 11 times more prevalent in Iraq than elsewhere--while polio has been wiped out throughout the Mideast, it has returned to plague Iraq's people. Schools and water systems--the infrastructure any nation's future depends upon--are decrepit and hospitals lack basic medicine and equipment. Ordinary civilians have exhausted their resources and their health trying to survive on $2 to $6 per month.... It will take Iraqi people a generation to recover from their present situation."

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1310/is_2000_July/ai_63845114

[G_j]

55. there were countless activists begging Clinton to rethink the sanctions

I was one of them.
Cindy is a peace activist, she cannot be expected to look the other way because of party affiliation.
Every dedicated peace activist I know views the sanctions as murderous and criminal.

[robbedvoter]

66. Whose truth? IAC's? First of all, those numbers seem made up.

I don't find that a source of truth. I was hoping Cindi was doing something to give anti-war movement more respect. Unfortunatelly the crazies - friends of Milosevic, Saddam and castro have her now.
I didn't need party apologists. I wouldn't have posted if she would have merely lied about Clinton. It's the
MORE THAN BUSH LIE THAT'S DANGEROUS AND SMELLS LIKE COINTERLPRO TO ME.
Which is where Ramsey Clark comes from. She's being used.
Like "Abramoff is a both parties scandal"
No dufference" Voting is futile. Yup. That's the ticket, Cindy!

[G_j]

82. Link?

re: the IAC has her now

[robbedvoter]

84. Just comparing rhetoric - same BS! My opinion, having heard both.

Not so hard, comparing loonies. "Clinton killed millions"

[G_j]

96. so she is a friend (figure of speech here) of Milosevic and Saddam ?

:wow:

come on!

[meganmonkey]

225. The funny thing is

I don't see where anyone but you said "Clinton killed millions"

I read most of the interview, I did a search of the page, and that word wasn't in her words :shrug:

[K-W]

300. Cindy didnt make this forum post, you have been duped.

Cindy just expressed her opinion in an interview. She did not choose to focus on this, she did not choose timing. The opinion she expressed is not a new one and not one she is making a point of stressing at the moment.

But someone decided to take that section of the interview, out of context, and make it a post so people would read it and react without thinking like you did.

Her timing isnt the issue, the timing of the people who disseminate her out of context quotes is the issue.

Your ignorant statement about her son pretty much proves how little thought you have put into your judgements.

Her priorities are straight, she values human life no matter whos decisions caused their death. And as I already explained Cindy did not choose to take this one quote and put it here for you to read today.

[Steve A Play]

37. Absolutely correct

It's been widely reported by groups like UNICEF that between a half million and a million preventable deaths occurred because of the sanctions imposed against Iraq. :(

A Hard Look at Iraq Sanctions

David Cortright

The humanitarian disaster resulting from sanctions against Iraq has been frequently cited as a factor that motivated the September 11 terrorist attacks. Osama bin Laden himself mentioned the Iraq sanctions in a recent tirade against the United States. Critics of US policy in Iraq claim that sanctions have killed more than a million people, many of them children. Saddam Hussein puts the death toll at one and a half million. The actual numbers are lower than that, although still horrifying.

Changing American policy in Iraq is an urgent priority, both for humanitarian reasons and as a means of addressing an intensely felt political grievance against the United States. An opportunity for such a change may come soon, as the UN Security Council considers a "smart sanctions" plan to ease civilian sanctions. As we work to change US policy and relieve the pain of the Iraqi people, it is important that we use accurate figures and acknowledge the shifting pattern of responsibility for the continuing crisis.

The grim question of how many people have died in Iraq has sparked heated debate over the years. The controversy dates from 1995, when researchers with a Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) study in Iraq wrote to The Lancet, the journal of the British Medical Society, asserting that sanctions were responsible for the deaths of 567,000 Iraqi children. The New York Times picked up the story and declared "Iraq Sanctions Kill Children." CBS followed up with a segment on 60 Minutes that repeated the numbers and depicted sanctions as a murderous assault on children. This was the program in which UN ambassador (and later Secretary of State) Madeleine Albright, when asked about these numbers, coldly stated, "The price is worth it."

<more>

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20011203/cortright

World: Middle East

Iraqis blame sanctions for child deaths

By Middle East Correspondent Jeremy Bowen

In Iraq's hospitals and slums, and in the homes of many impoverished, once prosperous, families, it is easy to see the human suffering behind child mortality figures released by the United Nations Children's Fund.

Unicef says that children under five in Iraq are dying at more than twice the rate they were 10 years ago.

<snip>

In his garden, Karim Kadhum sat with his surviving son, Mustafa, and a photo of Hussein, his youngest, who died after he developed a chest infection.

Mr Kadhum said the first and last reason for his son's death was sanctions. He said Iraqis do not have enough medicine or food.

In the house of the Mohammed family in Baghdad, I saw the month's official food ration - in a tin and a few sacks.

This is paid for by allowing Iraq to export a strictly controlled amount of oil.

The ration is made up of rice, pulses, cooking oil, sugar, salt, tea and dried milk. It is enough to stop it all getting much worse, but not enough to make it better.

In the next room sat Naba Mohammed, 3, a pretty, tiny girl. Like 20% of Iraqi under-fives, her growth has been stunted by malnutrition.

At least she is surviving. Unicef estimates that at least 500,000 children have died, who ordinarily would have lived.

<more>

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/418625.stm

Iraq surveys show 'humanitarian emergency'

Visit UNICEF's Iraq Press Room

Wednesday, 12 August 1999: The first surveys since 1991 of child and maternal mortality in Iraq reveal that in the heavily-populated southern and central parts of the country, children under five are dying at more than twice the rate they were ten years ago. UNICEF Executive Director Carol Bellamy said the findings reveal an ongoing humanitarian emergency.

The surveys, released today by the children's agency, also cover the autonomous northern region of Iraq. They were carried out between February and May 1999 by UNICEF, together with the Government of Iraq in the southern and central parts of Iraq and with local authorities in the autonomous northern region of the country. Technical support for both surveys was provided by the World Health Organization (WHO). As a consequence of the findings, UNICEF recommended an immediate implementation of specific proposals made in United Nations Secretary-General's reports and by the Security Council's Humanitarian Review Panel. Among the specific proposals are the following:

* The international community should provide additional funding for humanitarian efforts in Iraq.
* The Government of Iraq should urgently expedite implementation of targeted nutrition programmes.
* Both the Government of Iraq and the U.N. Sanctions Committee should give priority to contracts for supplies that will have a direct impact on the well-being of children.

The surveys reveal that in the south and center of Iraq -- home to 85 per cent of the country's population -- under-5 mortality more than doubled from 56 deaths per 1000 live births (1984-1989) to 131 deaths per 1000 live births (1994-1999). Likewise infant mortality -- defined as the death of children in their first year -- increased from 47 per 1000 live births to 108 per 1000 live births within the same time frame. The surveys indicate a maternal mortality ratio in the south and center of 294 deaths per 100,000 live births over the ten-year period 1989 to 1999.

<more>

http://www.unicef.org/newsline/99pr29.htm

Whether from bombs and bullets or from lack of bread and medicines, dead is still dead.

Steven P. :kick:

[F.Gordon]

63. No one disputes that people died

And who started the Iraqi sanctions?
:shrug:

Clinton tried to lift some of the sanctions against Iraq but the repukes would have none of that. Clinton knew what was going on over there. Do a little google and check out what Clinton tried to do before he left office.

And why isn't Cindy saying that Bush I should have been impeached? He sure the fuck killed more Iraqis than his demonic little prick son.

I still call bullshit on this because I HOPE she really didn't say this.

[Steve A Play]

94. I'm glad she really did say it! It's long overdue

I'm quite familiar with what Clinton's role was in keeping the sanctions up while he was in office. I was fighting to have them lifted at the time. Perhaps you need to educate yourself about the US and British roles in that whole sorry fiasco. Have you forgotten about Madeleine Albright or the US concept of "smart sanctions"? :shrug:

Talking points: Iraq

1- For almost 11 years, the Iraqi civilian population has been suffering from the most draconian and prolonged economic sanctions imposed by the United Nations and supported by the US government:

* "Smart Bombs" dropped by the U.S. 11 years ago targeted water treatment plants, sewage treatment plants, power plants, schools and hospitals.
* One-fourth of Iraqi children under the age of five are malnourished. (UN Report, March 1999}
* There has been a 160 percent rise in Iraq's infant mortality rate since 1991. Iraq has the highest increase in child mortality during the period 1990-99 of 188 countries surveyed. (UNICEF, December 2000)
* As many as 70 percent of Iraqi women suffer from anemia. (U.N. Report, March 1999)
* Sanctions have contributed to the deaths of over one million Iraqis. More than 200 people die each day in Iraq; 5,000 to 6,000 die each month. (UNICEF and Denis Halliday, UN Humanitarian Coordinator for Iraq)
* Access to potable water, relative to 1990 levels, is only 50 percent in urban areas and 33 percent in rural areas. The overall deterioration in the quality and quantity of drinking water has contributed to the rapid spread of infectious disease. Raw sewage often flows into streets and homes. (World Food Program)
* School enrollment for all ages (6 - 23) has declined to 53 percent. (UN Report, March 1999)
* Per capita income fell from $3,416 U.S. dollars in 1984 to less than $1,036 in 1998. Other sources estimate a per capita decrease as low as $450 U.S. in 1995. (IMF and UN Report, March 1999)
* Iraq experienced a shift from relative affluence to massive poverty. (UN Report, March 1999)

2- Instead of ending the economic sanctions against Iraq, the United States and Britain have come up with so-called "Smart Sanctions", which is basically meant to institutionalize (and justify) the ongoing suffering of the Iraqi people. The smart sanctions policy does not improve the desperate situation in Iraq, since:

* There are still too many banned items in the new proposal. The current version of the Smart Sanctions proposal has a 23-page list of banned items, which highly restricts Iraq’s access to new technology and spare parts badly needed for the reconstruction of the ruined economy.

* The "Smart Sanctions" proposal would allow more commodities into Iraq, but would not address the fundamental problem of the low purchasing power of the vast majority of Iraqis. Presently, and also under the "new" sanctions, Iraqi people who are employed are paid low wages, with a greatly devalued currency. The present "oil for food" program results in annual revenues of less than $120 per person.

* Smart sanctions do not lift the almost complete ban on foreign investment, necessary because Iraq’s infrastructural and reconstruction needs are so severe: "The deterioration in Iraq's civilian infrastructure is so far reaching that it can only be reversed with extensive investment and development efforts." (Human Rights Watch, and others, August 2000).

* The "Smart Sanctions" proposal would increase the amount of money taken for the UN compensation commission. Currently, 25% of the proceeds from Iraq’s oil sales are diverted to the UN Compensation Commission, which processes claims for damages by victims of Iraq’s 1990 invasion of Kuwait. The new British proposal would restore the UNCC’s cut to 30%. This would be taking away revenue desperately needed by Iraq for reconstruction and basic needs.

* And finally, "Smart Sanctions" call for a total closure of the Iraqi border. If this happens, the Iraqi government will not have the supplemental income it now derives from commerce with neighboring countries and uses to pay civil servants such as teachers and doctors.

Steven P. :kick:

[F.Gordon]

115. I guess I did

Have you forgotten about Madeleine Albright or the US concept of "smart sanctions"?

:dunce:

Damn. You have all this stuff at the ready? I remember the facts surrounding the "smart sanctions" a bit differently. But I'm ill prepared to go off and pull a couple dozen links to prove you wrong, and I'm just too lazy to do that at the moment. So, you "win" by default.

This thread is a bit confusing. Is it a "defend Cindy" thread? Is it a "bash Clinton" thread? Is it a discussion about the history of the Iraq sanctions? Or.... all the above.

I'm voting.."defend Cindy". And I have a problem with that. I admire and respect the woman and have great sadness for her loss, but that doesn't mean that I'm going to hang on her every word like some Pat Robertson cult member. If not bullshit, she is completely wrong in saying what she said because she did so as "historical revisionist". We have quite enough of those in this country at the moment thank you.

Like I said... you "win"
:hi:

[Steve A Play]

137. We ALL lose

when we let our government do things that result in the deaths of innocent people for political motives.

By allowing ourselves to be trapped into voting for 'the lesser of two evils' to represent us, we only guarantee that we will be represented by some form of evil. I firmly believe that we're better than that and we need to hold our representatives to a higher standard.

Peace!

Steven P. :kick:

[F.Gordon]

That we do

And there aint many winners these days.

This is obviously a hot button topic for ya'. Admire your passion. Don't lose that.

Peace
:hippie:

[earth mom]

39. Cindy Rocks! Simple as that! eom

[incapsulated]

42. Yes, let's go after the REAL enemy!

Clinton!

There comes a point, sometimes, when even the most sincere person is doing themselves and their cause more harm than good. I think Cindy has gone there. Clinton didn't send her son to war to die. Bush did.

[Adelante]

88. Let's not impeach Bush

Let's impeach Clinton all over again. This woman is around the fucking bend. :crazy:

[incapsulated]

90. Yeah! And for completely different reasons!

He was worse than even the repukes thought, he's a mass murderer!

Is this about stopping the war that killed her son or revisiting Clinton and decades of previous policy while helping the rethugs deflect the blame? "Well, even Cindy Sheehan thinks Clinton should have been impeached! Even Cindy Sheehan thinks that Iraqis were worse off before under Clinton's admin! It was better to go in there and get rid of Saddam than to starve those poor people..."

This is common sense, it's not rocket science. Keep your focus on your cause and don't give the opposition ammunition.

[robbedvoter]

93. Who cares? She'll get more popular now - on DU AND FR

In fact, now she may appear on teevee, with Tweety and REEEEALY get famous!
Even W may receive her now that they finally reached common ground! yeay!
keep it up Cindy dear and you'll have your own teevee show before long!

[brainshrub]

43. And she would be right.

Go Cindy!

Tell it like it is!

[jonnyblitz]

57. this is why I like her. she isn't a partisan hack , the truth trumps

bullshit partisan politics.

[WI_DEM]

51. Well this should shut the fundies up about her being a partisan

[Yollam]

53. True, but...

(Supposedly) killing up to a half million with sanctions is one thing, but blowing the crap out of 30~100K is another.

Saddam bore at least some of the responsibility for the starvation and disease that occurred under sanctions, but the 2003 bombing and invasion was all Bush's fault.

But Sheehan deserves some credit for showing some intellectual honesty and not being a partisan. Clinton also did a lot of legwork for Bush in trying to legitimize this utterly illegitimate war. The fact that he is so much more likeable and worthy of respect than Bush shouldn't overshadow that fact.

[SammyWinstonJack]

54. However, bush hasn't finished killing Iraqis yet, has he?

He's still working on that.

[Bridget Burke]

65. It's easier to criticize Clinton than stop Bush.

I don't think pushing all the blame to Clinton is Cindy Sheehan's goal.

But out-of-context snippers would love to deflect any blame from Their Boy George.

[SammyWinstonJack]

67. True. nt

[G_j]

117. yes, this person who was camping out at Bush's door

getting arrested at the White House, traveling the country demanding answers of Bush.

Cindy certainly is not letting Bush off the hook.
I agree, that was obviously not her intention.

[berni_mccoy]

58. Wow, this is absolutely WRONG. I like Cindy, but not on this point

From Wiki (and MANY OTHER SOURCES) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_sanctions:

United Nations sanctions against Iraq were imposed by the United Nations in 1991 following Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990, and continued until the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 because of the failure of Saddam Hussein to satisfy the UN that the conditions for lifting them had been met.

and this:

On August 6, 1990 the U.N. Security Council adopted Resolution 661 which imposed stringent economic sanctions on Iraq, providing for a full trade embargo, excluding medical supplies, food and other items of humanitarian necessity, these to be determined by the Security Council sanctions committee. After the end of the 1991 Gulf War, Iraqi sanctions were linked to removal of Weapons of mass destruction by Resolution 687.

Saddam WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THOSE DEATHS, NOT CLINTON or anyone else in America.

Man, the pure blindness to the facts here AMAZES ME.

[meganmonkey]

68. Well, how about this?

July 1, 1996 The United States rejects an Iraqi plan for distributing food and medicine under United Nations Security Council Resolution 986, on the grounds that it would allow Saddam Hussein's government to evade certain sanctions as well as to give it control over distribution of supplies to separatist Kurds in northern Iraq. Resolution 986 would allow Iraq to sell $1 billion worth of oil every 90 days for an initial period of 6 months. (WP)

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/iraqchron.html

eventually we gave in on that one, but why were we the ONLY ones opposing this? Why was Clinton opposing this?

[berni_mccoy]

76. Because there wasn't enough enforcement of dual use items

Clinton felt the program could be abused to0 easily (AND IT WAS) but eventually gave in due to the political and humanitarian pressures...

Here for more info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil-for-Food_Programme#US_and_UK_complicity

Initial support and criticism
The program was conceived as a way of mitigating the impact on ordinary Iraqis of the sanctions against Iraq. The most fundamental criticism of the programme was that this was a stop-gap solution that was bound to strengthen Saddam Hussein's position, potentially preserving the survival of his dictatorship.

Alternatively, if the sanctions were too harmful for Iraqis to sustain, critics argued, the sanctions should be removed (excepting clearly military items). Critics claimed that the Oil-for-Food Programme was responsible, under the blockage of dual-use equipment, for preventing Iraq from repairing the water purification and medical systems destroyed by the initial sanctions and in the 1991 Gulf War, and others challenged the program on the grounds that it would not permit Iraq to import the food and medicine necessary to prevent millions of easily preventable deaths. Former program heads such as Hans von Sponeck questioned whether the sanctions should exist at all. Von Sponeck, speaking in Berkeley in late 2001, decried the proposed "Smart Sanctions", stating "What is proposed at this point in fact amounts to a tightening of the rope around the neck of the average Iraqi citizen"; claimed that the sanctions were causing the death of 150 Iraqi children per day; and accused the US and Britain of arrogance toward Iraq, such as refusing to let it pay its UN and OPEC dues and blocking Iraqi attempts at negotiation.

Supporters viewed the program as a way to keep Saddam Hussein in check without resorting to war.

The Clinton Administration opposed further liberalization of the proposal which was pursued by both Iraq and France.

[meganmonkey]

147. C'mon, berni

Just like Saddam had WMDs 3 years ago? And we had to punish the citizens for it?

What the US has done to that country for the last couple of decades is unforgivable.

I am not a "Clinton-basher" or anything, I am just trying to talk about truth, and facts. It's not okay when Bush I or Bush II punish civilians for the actions of their dictator, neither is it okay when Clinton does it. We will keep making the same mistakes unless we face the truth and learn from our past.

[mike_c]

73. blindness....

Oh man-- you appear to have your head firmly implanted in the sand. Yes, the U.N. imposed sanctions under Res. 661 but Iraq had complied fully by 1992-- the year Clinton took office-- and the U.S. under Clinton manipulated the UNSCOM process to prevent the lifting of sanctions. Furthermore, it expressly prevented trade in many materials that were meant for humanitarian relief. The U.S. was directly responsible for maintaining the embargo for nearly a decade after Iraq had complied with the U.N. mandate.

[berni_mccoy]

80. You better cough up the facts on that one...

Show me any respected source that says Iraq complied FULLY by 1992 and I'll reconsider my position on this.

[mike_c]

92. quick link-- Scott Ritter, Democracy Now interview Oct. 21, 2005....

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/10/21/144258

on edit-- that IS the transcript-- my bad-- so here's the exact quote:

We're talking about solving a problem. We have yet to define the problem. And the problem isn't just what's happening in Iraq but it's the whole process that took place in the United States leading up to the war, this dishonest process of deliberately deceiving the American public. And it's not just George W. Bush. For eight years of the Clinton administration, that administration said the same things. The C.I.A. knew, since 1992, that significant aspects of the Iraqi weapons programs had been completely eliminated, but this was never about disarmament.

<snip>

And by 1992 they were compelled again because of the tenacity of inspectors to come clean. People say why didn't Saddam Hussein admit being disarmed? In 1992 they submitted a declaration that said everything's been destroyed, we have nothing left. In 1995 they turned over the totality of their document cache. Again, not willingly, it took years of inspections to pressure them. But the bottom line is by 1995 there were no more weapons in Iraq, there were no more documents in Iraq, there was no more production capability in Iraq, because we were monitoring the totality of Iraq's industrial infrastructure with the most technologically advanced, the most intrusive arms control regime in the history of arms control.

And we knew that while we couldn't account for everything that the Iraqis said they had destroyed, we could only account for ninety to ninety-five percent, we knew that: (a) we had no evidence of a retained capability and, (b) no evidence that Iraq was reconstituting. And furthermore, the C.I.A. knew this. The British intelligence knew this; Israeli intelligence knew this; German intelligence. The whole world knew this. They weren't going to say that Iraq was disarmed, because nobody could say that. But they definitely knew that the Iraqi capability regarding W.M.D. had been reduced to as near to zero as you could bring it and that Iraq represented a threat to no one when it came to weapons of mass destruction.

Iraq submitted documentation of disarmament in 1992. By 1995 the UNSCOM inspectors were certain that the 1992 declaration had been true.

[berni_mccoy]

109. Sorry, Scott's only talking about compliance with WMD inspections

NOT the requirements for the U.N. Sanctions (which were much broader). The full sanctions were described in UN SC Res 661, and after the war, the WMD req's were attached in UN SC Res 687.

He had to do much more than comply with weapons inspectors.

[mike_c]

sure, it was really about bringing democracy to the ME, right...?

:puke:

[berni_mccoy]

124. That has nothing to do with the sanctions

It was about stopping Saddam's aggressive behavior. He was threatening his neighbors and refused to comply with sanctions or acknowledge he did anything wrong by invading Kuwait.

[Steve A Play]

202. The Administration didn't seem to think Saddam did anything wrong

by invading Kuwait. They knew perfectly well about the slant drilling that Kuwait was doing on their border to steal oil from the Iraqi fields and U.S. Ambassador April Gillespie informed him it was of no concern to the US what he did to retaliate.

On September 18, 1990, the Iraqi Foreign Ministry published verbatim the transcripts of meetings between Saddam Hussein and high level U.S. officials. Knight-Ridder columnist James McCartney acknowledged that the transcripts were not disputed by the U.S. State Department. U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie informed Hussein that, "We have no opinion on...conflicts like your border disagreement with Kuwait." She reiterated this position several times, and added, "Secretary of State James Baker has directed our official spokesman to emphasize this instruction." A week before Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, Baker's spokesperson, Margaret Tutwiler and Assistant Secretary of State John Kelly both stated publicly that "the United States was not obligated to come to Kuwait's aid if it were attacked." (Santa Barbara News-Press September 24, 1990 cited in {1}).

Two days before the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, Assistant Secretary of State John Kelly testified before the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee that the United States has no defense treaty relationship with any Gulf country." The New York Daily News editorialized on September 29, 1990, "Small wonder Saddam concluded he could overrun Kuwait. Bush and Co. gave him no reason to believe otherwise." (quoted in {1}).

http://www.csun.edu/~vcmth00m/iraqkuwait.html

Steven P. :kick:

[berni_mccoy]

213. That was the Bush Sr. Admin, NOT Clinton.

Just because one administration is complicit with an evil dictator doesn't mean the next has to go along with it. Clinton did what he believed (and all the other UN Nations believed) was the right course of action.

[mike_c]

216. which brings us back to the topic of the OP....

Clinton was responsible for prolonging the embargo unnecessarily throughout the 1990s and killing somewhere in the vicinity of one million innocent Iraqi civilians, mostly through disease and starvation.

[K-W]

298. The issue isnt what Clinton believed was right.

Just like that isnt the issue with Bush.

[tkmorris]

59. She is correct

As others have pointed out on this thread already.

I don't understand Clinton worship. I really don't. He was better than Bush to be sure, but any member of the human race would have been better than Bush.

[robbedvoter]

240. According to your worshipped Cindy, Bush is better than Clinton

And you have to cheer or else they excommunicate you.

[rman]

266. Not so - Cindy claims more Iraqis died while your worshiped Clinton

was president, compared to Bush.
But everyone knows that much more has happened/is happening besides the dying of Iraqis.

[fishnfla]

62. Well then Casey did not die in vain

the sanctions have been lifted. Bush wont be impeached for anything. He must be her new hero, since fewer Iraqis are dying under his leadership

[bluedog]

72. so does she now mean bush didn't lie?

didn't lie about the reason for war in Iraq...didn't lie about the WMDS?.....that the war is okay with her after she found out about Clinton and the sanctions?...how come she didn't know that before her protests......

[robbedvoter]

87. No blue dress, no lies that we care about. let's get Clinton!

[robbedvoter]

79. Right on. Freedom on the March.

COINTELPRO Ramsey Clark coopted Cindy. masses bleat happily. Anti-war still synonym to loony. Mission accomplished.

[Fleshdancer]

64. and we wonder why they don't trust us

America claims to care about the Iraqi people but we knew sanctions would starve them death and we know bombing will bleed them to death. But hey, now they don't have to worry about the evils of Saddam Hussein, right? We're just so much more civilized....


:eyes:

[Freddie Stubbs]

69. So the war is actually a good thing?

Less people are being killed?

[robbedvoter]

75. Looks W improved Iraqis' life after all! yeah, W!

I think we need to lynch Clinton - right away - and give W more rights over us - in appreciation of this.
Freedom and Liberty were on the march all along, but I was blind - until Cindy came! That's why her son went to war, I guess!

[bluedog]

89. less Iraqis.......MORE US soldiers !! KILLED

[robbedvoter]

100. Less iraquis? So, Shock and Awe was just a light show then? Okey-Dokey.

[bluedog]

114. not what I meant

cindy said Clinton killed more Iraqis.............bush killed more US soldiers.........

[robbedvoter]

138. I know. Just adding - he also killed more Iraquis as well.

This is such a karl Rove thing, my brain explodes! talk about muddying reasons for activism and compromising the anti-war movement ! Ramsey Clark/COINTELPRO wins again!

[FreedomAngel82]

242. So where's your tally number of how many Bush has killed?

[The2ndWheel]

95. Stop it

Just stop. Stop doing that. I can't take it.

We shouldn't fuck with Iraqi's, period. Be it the British carving up the country, or us supporting Hussein, or UN economic santions(and the next time the UN does anything without American power, it will be the first) that never end up hurting anyone but the average person, or a pre-planned war that required a new Pearl Harbor, we have to stop.

Screw Bush and his war. Screw Clinton and his WTO, UN, World Bank way of screwing people over with a smile.

No, the war is not a good thing. But neither are economic sanctions imposed on a country that turned out to be a crap hole because of our policies toward it a decade earlier. We support both Iran and Iraq in a war that took over a million lives. We supported a strong man dictator. We support sanctions because of the weapons that were used that we gave them to use.

Just accept that Clinton did it at face value. He supported the sanctions. Iraqi's died because of them. End of story. No excuses. No, "but it's better than war, right?" Just accept that the smooth talking genius helped, directly or indirectly, kill many humans in Iraq. Bush isn't in Iraq killing them directly either. But we hold him to account. Stop giving Clinton a pass.

[G_j]

101. great post

I agree with you.

[robbedvoter]

103. Giving passes vs saying Bush is better than Clinton - big diff.

We are in deep crisis NOW. Is it the time to attack Clinton?
Ah, the power of ADD! It's what made BFEE possible!

[G_j]

123. in case you missed it

she has been camping in ditches at Bush's ranch, getting arrested at the White House, DEMANDING answers from BUSH.

[The2ndWheel]

126. But it didn't just start in 2003

Clinton was part of the problem, in the big picture. This goes back before the 2000's, 90's, 80's, hell even the 20's when the British empire did what it did to "Iraq". This goes back to the foundations upon which civilization was built. A large power doing what it wants, when it wants.

What Clinton did was part of the puzzle.

Is getting rid of Bush going to make everything right? That would be forgetting bascially all of human history.

To me, what made the BFEE possible, was not attacking every aspect of that empire. More importantly, it's not just the BF part of that empire. The Bush family is absolutely part of it, but they're not central. Our glorious founding fathers were part of the problem. The pilgrims, part of the problem. Every group that has ever imposed its will on others, part of the problem.

If the BFEE had never existed, we would call it the JFEE, or CFEE, or PFEE. It would be very simple if it was just the BF segment. Unfortunately, for everybody and everything on this planet, it ain't.

[robbedvoter]

129. No time for puzzles - WE'RE IN A CRISIS! Your ADD helps the fascists

[The2ndWheel]

280. ADD

How am I expressing ADD? I'm focusing on long term history, and how this administration is not some leviathan that sprang up overnight, and I'm the one practicing ADD?

My ADD helps the fascists? Nothing that I, you, or anyone else typing right now, has any affect on what this country has done, is doing, or will do. We're both against the empire, but we're not going to stop it. We'll have this conversation again some day, well after Bush is gone. Why? Because that's how the empire works. It's not centered around one man, one family, one nation.

Yes, we're in a crisis. But if we don't change the foundations which that crisis thrives on, then it's pointless to worry about said crisis. Because we'll just be fighting, for the honor, of fighting the same fight over, and over, and over, and over, and over again. Then we'll leave those fights for our children, who won't change anything either, then leave the fight for their children. Those children will fight their "new" fights, never really changing anything fundamental...well you know the rest.

So don't worry about the puzzle. You just focus on this one aspect of the picture, and I'm sure we'll all eat lemondrops under the rainbow where bluebirds fly, when the BFEE is gone.

[FreedomAngel82]

243. So my question is

why didn't the republicans impeach him for this instead of a blow job? :eyes: All of this was no where in site and it would've been so perfect for them.

[The2ndWheel]

275. Impeach him over sanctions?

Could they even do that?

My guess is because the Republicans enjoyed the power over others that being members of the US Government gives them. They don't mind sanctions on an Arab country, they certainly don't mind bombing almost any country, so it's not surprising they wouldn't make a big deal about Iraqi's dying.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

112. Well said and right to the point. Gandhi would agree with you.

“What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy.” - Gandhi

[robbedvoter]

142. Except Ghandi always knew who his adversaries were

He won because he focused on a cause - unlike ADD Cindy&followers.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

165. His "cause" was justice for all.

His adversaries were those who wielded power against the helpless. i.e. the Iraqi people.

[Steve A Play]

232. It looks to me like the ones with the real attention deficit disorder

are those who didn't pay attention when their own party was doing the killing and they chose not to inform themselves of the facts at the time. Many of us did pay close attention to the hypocritical nature of what our elected representatives were doing and worked really hard to stop them.

The only reason that we did not succeed in stopping them was their reliance on the party faithful (or followers) who chose to ignore fact and reason and follow them regardless of what they did. They knew they had your vote regardless.

Sorry, from now on I'll only vote for representatives and not leaders.

Cindy's focus is the same as Gandhi's, the cause of peace and the sanctity of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. She has correctly identified who our adversaries are. Too bad the party faithful on both sides just don't seem to get it. :shrug:

Steven P. :kick:

[Freddie Stubbs]

277. bus according to Ms. Shehan's reasoning, Bush's policy is more humane

Perhaps she is using faulty premises?

[The2ndWheel]

282. I don't really care

what her reasoning is. Ask her if she's using a faulty premise.

I wouldn't care if she didn't say what she said, I'd still say the same thing. I don't worship her. She doesn't form my opinions. I don't look at her as the face of the anti-war movement.

I don't even look at Bush or Clinton as the face of imperialistic policy. I'm Mr. PNAC, and I don't think they're the face of empire either. They're symptoms of the bigger problem. America isn't the face of it. It's just the latest vehicle for it.

To me, it makes sense for America to support sanctions, or go to war, because that's what must happen when you have a power center that requires expansion. Bush and Clinton are simply doing what they've been put into office to do. My problem is the force behind Bush, Clinton, America, or every other power center in human history.

[Freddie Stubbs]

286. Many DUers have made her the face of the anti-war movement

If they hadn't, this thread would have probably been a lot shorter.

[wuushew]

116. A false choice

No war AND no sanctions is the best possible outcome.

Sanctions were appropriate to remove Saddam from Kuwait without having to massacre hundreds of thousands of Iraqi conscripts and destroying countless vital infrastructure. The invasion of Kuwait was motivated by the very real wealth the oil held(and the Bush administration's blessing). Although having made numerous bad decisions Saddam would have followed his own logic and minimized his losses by withdrawing in relative quick order.

His non-compliance with future international actions was understandable given Amerika's desire to kill him and depose his government.

[Kingofalldems]

226. Get those GOP talking points in-nice going

I gotta hand it to you---you are good.

[Freddie Stubbs]

278. I am only following Ms. Shehan's line of reasoning to its logical

conclusion. Perhaps she is simply full of it.

[Midlodemocrat]

91. I think a point that is being missed by Cindy is that

yes, Clinton did enforce the sanctions that the UN had agreed upon and sadly, lots of Iraqis, especially children, died.

Not that this makes a huge helluva difference, but when the sanctions were imposed, the world had condemned Iraq for its invasion of Kuwait. Clinton probably didn't want to give up political capital by not enforcing the sanctions.

This war, OTOH, is illegal in every sense of the word. From the lies that we were told from the beginning, right up to yesterday. The world has since condemned US for our actions, and rightly so.

[New Earth]

102. it seems

at least in the situation with Clinton, it wasn't covered up with a shitload of lies, and obviously agreed upon with the UN :shrug:

[lakeguy]

97. starvation kills just as well as bombs do.

give bush time though, i'm sure he hates to be bested by clinton at anything:nuke:

[...of J.Temperance]

99. Cindy Sheehan sucks ass...she obviously hates our party

The UN imposed the sanctions not President Clinton. Where does Cindy get off talking such horsecrap?

First we have her telling people that Hillary should be defeated in New York, now she's calling President Clinton a mass murderer.

Hey Cindy, shut the fuck up already and don't let the door hit you on your uninformed ass on the way out.

The link is also from Counterpunch, a magazine that never hardly has anything nice to say about the Democratic Party or just Democrats in general. Also, Alexander Cockburn is a disgusting anti-Semite.

Posting such drivel as this article just doesn't help our party at all.

On Edit: I hope that the moderators allow my post to stand. Thanks.

[insane_cratic_gal]

140. For what saying what she feels is the truth?

Anyone who touches the infallible Clintons.. Oooooooo noooooooooo.

The one DLC success story?

Shall be stoned to death for speaking what they believe is the truth.

Look she's out there doing her thing.. who gives a shit what you, me, them think about it. She's not there to represent you or me or them or the Democratic party. She's saying what she believes. Good on her for doing it.

[robbedvoter]

151. She should inform herself. And treat that ADD condition.

See post 118 for the truth on those numbers.
And think about the emergency crisis we are in - and who benefits from this idiotic statement. Thin, man, think.

[insane_cratic_gal]

162. 100k Iraqi deaths

you willing to accept those numbers when Asshat was responsible for them.

I am thinking.. I promise I am.

But all I am seeing is deflection, and dodging. All I want is for people to stop putting their party leaders on a pedestal and hold their feet to the fire!

We keep asking why freepers refuse to see the sins of Bush, but we can't even acknowledge the sins of Clinton?

Makes me wonder, if a Dem had done all that Bush has done.. would be defending him or holding his feet to the fire.

I'd like to believe you'd be holding the flame along side me.

[robbedvoter]

180. I accept those, and there maybe some truth from the past - just

the timing and venue are SO WRONG!
Again, I wouldn't have even intervened in this if not for the assertion "more than Bush" We are hitting ourselves in the head with idiotic lies - and it makes me mad! :banghead:

[rinsd]

179. That's a little uncalled for...

While I agree that Cindy has taken the fellow traveler path a bit too literally, saying she has ADD is a bit much don't ya think?

[...of J.Temperance]

167. Cindy's just making shit up...she's talking horsecrap NOT the truth

She's saying what she believes? Great, well if Cindy wants credibility then she should get herself aquainted with a little thing called facts and not just talk off the top of her head.

President Clinton killed more Iraqi's than Junior did...and President Clinton should have been Impeached over it.

Cindy shouldn't let the door hit her on the ass on the way out.

On Edit: Dammit spelling error.

[insane_cratic_gal]

188. JT..

I love you.. We've butted heads before but I respect your opinion. Now:

Let me first say that the brunt of support Cindy has gotten has been from the Anti War Movement. She's joined it, and I'm glad she's found her path (but not given her circumstances of course).

Amnesty Int. has had her ear, she may have a view point that is more radical then we would like, doesn't mean it's wrong. It's just different. Amnesty is more focused on human rights abuses, such as she was discussing.
Now because she named a former president we happen to be partial too doesn't mean her information is wrong.

Now she's not coming out for Bush either... another misconception and drama filled post I saw. She doesn't like Hillary, I don't blame her I don't like either (too passive for my taste) it stands to say she will not like Clinton's policies any better.

She is NOT a spokes person for the democratic party she's laying blame at the feet of those she feels is responsible for human rights abuses.

[Blue_Roses]

193. well said!

enough of this horseshit. i have no idea what agenda Cindy is pushing but it's not the one that helps Democrats.

[...of J.Temperance]

207. Thanks :) Cindy is getting the wrong advice and if she wants to keep

Any credibility whatsoever, she needs to get rid of whoever thr crowd is that she's now surrounding herself with.

I think it's probably a combination of the Green Party and Socialists.

[KittyWampus]

198. "saying what she feels is the truth"-That's What Colbert Calls TRUTHINESS

you can't use facts to establish Truthiness... you just FEEL it in your gut.

[...of J.Temperance]

208. Yes well, Junior doesn't use facts either...so what does THAT say? n/t

[jonnyblitz]

174. she cares about the TRUTH, she isn't a partisan HACK

she has a bit more class than that. what in hell kind of person are you that thinks just because somebody is a Democrat they shouldn't get called on shit you would never let a republican get away with without criticizing them for. pretty fucking SAD and hypocritical.

[...of J.Temperance]

201. She cares about the TRUTH...by making FALSE statements such as

President Clinton killed more Iraqi's with his policies than Junior has by carpet bombing them amongst other things.

Cindy is rapidly losing whatever credibility she had left, I'm sorry you won't like that, but it's true.

[mike_c]

220. simply repeating that over and over isn't going to make it so...

...no matter how hard you wish it. If you have EVIDENCE you'd like to contribute, then by all means do so. What makes you think that a million Iraqi civilians didn't die of starvation and disease during the years that Clinton maintained the sanctions? Do you agree with Albright, that their deaths were "a price that we're willing to pay?" Do you think that Clinton was powerless to stop that carnage? Two heads of the U.N. Humanitarian Program for Iraq resigned in protest over U.S. policies on the security counsel-- were they utterlt delusional?

[robbedvoter]

105. Abramoff- both parties. Killing Iraquis - the Clintons MORE than Bushes

(remember, BFEE had 2 wars - and still didn't catch up with that Clenis fiend!
Yup. Same TOP, filtered through IAC- COINTELPRO-Ramsey Clark- naive Cindy.

[TahitiNut]

118. Commonly Accepted Fallacious Statistics

Commonly Accepted Fallacious Statistics
December 13 2002

<snip>

Iraqi children killed by sanctions - 600,000

Derivation: in 1995, when two researchers from the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO), whose report had heavily relied on Iraqi government figures, asserted in The Lancet that 567,000 children had died, a story quickly picked up by The New York Times and CBS's 60 Minutes. Overnight, an FAO extrapolation based on nothing more than a sampling of 36 infant deaths and 245 child deaths, had become accepted fact. Others later inflated the figure to one million dead.
Actually: The Iraqi population has exploded by 29% over the past seven years, from 17.9 million to 23.1 million, and that the crude death rate per 1,000 was unchanged at nine between 1990 (before the sanctions) and 1996. According to UNICEF, children under five in Iraq die at a rate of 131 per 1,000 live births, ranking it between Haiti (at 132) and Pakistan (at 136).

http://www.stats.org/record.jsp?type=news&ID=412

[jbm]

133. yours is the most important post on this thread

Even though I pride myself on always questioning the validity of the initial assumption, I still sometimes forget to always question the validity of the initial assumption. Thanks for remembering for us.

[robbedvoter]

144. I questioned these numbers too - thanks for the answer!

[mike_c]

178. this is the same page that claims there is no gulf war syndrome...

...and provides virtually no justifications for its "debunkings." The "Actually" in the quoted paragraph is laughingly incomplete. Sanctions continued until 2003, yet the last figure it notes is from 1996.

[TahitiNut]

203. The absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence!

Please, get thee to a logician. :silly:

[mike_c]

204. LOL-- no, it's just "absence of evidence...."

TN, meet petard. :hi:

[TahitiNut]

251. Nonsense.

[Steve A Play]

211. A little bit about your source from sourcewatch.org

The Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) is a stealth PR operation of the Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA). Since it shares the offices (in the pricey "K Street" lobbying district of Washington) and staff of CMPA, it should be considered as a front, rather than a subsidiary or spin-off. STATS poses as a disinterested, non-partisan guardian of scientific and statistical integrity in order to plant stories with unsuspecting, credulous (or colluding) media outlets. It has been surprisingly successful in this imposture, with many persons and organizations citing STATS (especially, its web site stats.org (http://www.stats.org)), for example <1> (http://bailiwick.lib.uiowa.edu/journalism/statistics_txt.html) and <2> (http://library.uwsp.edu/vrd/communication.htm), as an authoritative or useful resource.

STATS seems to have become less active in recent months, but this may be temporary.

Early in its history, STATS concealed its affiliation with CMPA, but now discreetly mentions it.

<more>

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Statistical_Assessment_Service

Always know who you're quoting!

Steven P. :kick:

[TahitiNut]

221. Interesting. Thanks.

While I think "regard the source" as an important caution, and I looked at the site's various articles, I'm also inclined to eschew the notion that all things 'left' are honest and all things 'right' are dishonest. I'm particularly wary of specious 'statistics' of all kinds.

[Steve A Play]

237. That's why I thought you might be interested to know

who it was you were citing. :hi:

I always try to research who's behind the 'non partisan' source in cases like this.

Peace

Steven P. :kick:

[rinsd]

119. Well there goes her cred with mainstream america

She is of course entitled to her beliefs and the right to say them but her effectiveness as a spokesperson is just about gone. Between the World Social Forum and this she can now just be written off by much of the public.

[...of J.Temperance]

132. Well said...and let's hope she is written off by much of the public n/t

[rinsd]

141. It kills me to say so...

People can identify with a grieving mother demanding answers.

But its much harder to identify with someone whose politics are getting more and more radical.

[...of J.Temperance]

190. I have sympathy for Cindy over her son, but yes it's increasingly obvious

That Cindy's political views are greatly alienating to the majority of the mainstream public.

[rinsd]

194. People will not like to hear this....

...but I think activists around her have shaped and soldified those views. I see a very different Cindy from the one who started her camp out.

[...of J.Temperance]

210. And we know where those activists have come from don't we?

From the very Far Left...and as we know they are incredibly alienating to the majority of the mainstream public.

Cindy is getting bad advice on what to say from these people, as I said up the thread, if Cindy wants to keep any bit of credibility that she has left, she needs to get away from these activists.

[mike_c]

231. oh looky-- the "vast leftwing conspiracy" rears it's demonic head....

Puh-leeze.

[jonnyblitz]

172. for speaking the TRUTH? how fucking STUPID.

:eyes:

[...of J.Temperance]

212. It's NOT the truth, Cindy's comment is factually INACCURATE

But you know, when you're absorbed with the Cindy Personality Cult...why let a little thing like facts get in the way?

[mike_c]

233. you keep saying that without offering any facts...

...to support it. That's a well regarded disinformation tactic, BTW. Or did you already know that? Post some information that disputes her statement.

[insane_cratic_gal]

145. LOL OMFG like main stream american agrees with us?

Uhhhh sorry but we are also labeled radicals too or extreme left wing.

[rinsd]

164. Fine deny reality....

when Cindy made the transition from grieving mom to fellow traveler, she gave up the moral authority she had in the minds of many Americans.

Do you think it was a coincidence that her campout was the real turning of the tide against this war in the public eye?

Now America hears that Clinton was a bigger murderer than Bush, do you think they'll still give her views the same clout?

Now its her life and her views but the power to reach people has been diminished.

It's like ANSWER and the peace rallies. People here may love ANSWER's message (and even then you are talking a minority, a sizable minority but still a minority) but they are very aware of what ANSWER's presentations during the big anti-war rallies hurt them with the general public.

[insane_cratic_gal]

175. But she's NOT OUR tool

She's one voice with an opinion that differs from our own, or sometimes agrees with our own.

We all supported her when she camped out at the ranch. We loved her then, but now that's made some verbal mishaps your all ready to piss all over her.

Cut the lady some slack, she's telling the truth as she sees it, it just so happens it's against Prince Charming. Hey, I like Clinton but I don't delude myself into believe he was perfect. I refuse to defend a wrong he committed, I refuse to defend any wrong a politician has committed. Wrong is wrong.

[rinsd]

186. Of course she's not a tool

But she was an important spokesperson for the anti-war movement. One that couldn't be written off as a raving lefty or IAC type. That profile is diminishing.

I'm not pissing on her. She's entitled to her opinion as much as anyone else.

That doesn't mean I can't lament her loss from the anti-war movement.

[johnnie]

125. Good for Cindy... I guess

She should wait until bush is done and then do the counting though. They are over there dying daily for georgie's "war" and there doesn't seem to be an end in sight. Then we will have to add up all the dead as a result of this "war". bush still has three years left.

[robbedvoter]

131. TV pundit career - here she comes! Tweety will salivate at this!

[Hello_Kitty]

130. She has a point but not a good RW talking one

One of the plethora of justifications for the invasion was that SADDAM was this butcherous madman who tortured and also starved his own people. They used those deaths during the sanctions to bolster the case for war, and continue to do so now. We're "liberating" them, remember? If 1/2 million deaths are the fault of Clinton (and also the mostly Republican Congress that was in power at the time), then that argument becomes moot, IMO, and this should be pointed out repeatedly if they try using Sheehan's comment.

[johnnie]

163. Another point is

bush did nothing to stop the sanctions for the first three years as president.

[robbedvoter]

229. But then he started a war, for which Cindy seems to be now grateful

Nader's sophistry.... for the easily distracted fluffy brained ...

[Rex]

136. Poor Bill, most ragged on POTUS in history.

What was Clinton going to do in Iraq? Pull our troops out and leave it in peace? That would have been unAmerican! We don't leave a place until we've completely fucked up it's gummit and changed it's environment and culture. Then we leave.

[Initech]

157. You know what pisses me off? You never saw Clinton blaiming previous admin

for anything! You never heard his supporters blaming Reagan or Bush Sr. for his administration's mishandlings. :grr:

[incapsulated]

170. No, blaming Clinton is everyone's job, it seems

Very popular, even with Democrats! Let's all forget that Reagan helped to create Saddam the monster with WMD (that he gave him), Bush Sr. started the war in Iraq, Clinton inherited this mess, and Dimson Jr. went right back in, this time all the way to Baghdad and occupation. It's all that Clinton guy's fault! That murderous bastard! He shoulda been impeached... wait, the republicans actually beat us to it. Well, good on them! :thumbsup:

The rethugs would be very pleased, indeed.

[robbedvoter]

183. Common ground between Cindy and W - Blame the Clenis!

The mighty Clenis shall not remain unattacked even when all hell is breaking lose on W (Abramoff, Katrina, NSA spying, Plame etc) It's absolutely necessary! Thank you, cindy!

[Initech]

197. Yup, when all else fails, blame the guy who hasnt served in 5 years!

[Rex]

258. Clinton never compained, acted like a real politican

and got BURNED for it. The Cons still say Reagan made the 90s surplus possible...always taking credit for a Dems hard work. Clinton and Carter were better POTUSs than every repuklican since Ike combined. Repukes defend Nixon and Bush with a hardon. That's what pisses me off!

Edit- Something else, Ford and Bush Sr. are just footnote POTUSs yet look how they pardoned crooks and filthy liars! They are the bagmen for other repuke crimes. When will be start getting serious about the crimes commited against America by repukes!?!?! WHEN!?!?

[hiley]

139. true

so far


watch the clip

[JVS]

143. .

:popcorn:

[malaise]

159. Cindy is correct

It is time for everyone to wake up and face the truth about post WW2 foreign policy and in particular post Soviet Union foreign policy. Therein lies the andger and hatred of many towards the US.

Sadly until the said policies hit home and the majority of Americans wake up and demand reforms, the rest of us will have to wait.

[SaveElmer]

176. And the self-immolation of the Democratic Party continues...

Saddam Hussein was wholly and completely responsible for the deaths occurring in his country during this period.

[noahmijo]

184. clinton didn't start the sanctions...but didn't stop em either..

just sayin...

[johnnie]

189. That is true

But either did dubya.

[Name removed]

196. Deleted message

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

[Hippo_Tron]

199. I wonder how many Iraqis are currently dieing of starvation

We count the bodies of those who were killed because of guns and bombs, but have we counted the number who have died because of malnutrition or inadequate medical care under the US Occupation.

[agincourt]

256. This we'll probably never know,

Because they'll shoot the reporter who tries to get the story out. A history of violence is our nation's legacy.

[yurbud]

205. it's funny that some people expect us to cheerlead and turn a

blind eye the way the GOP rank and file do.

[Xenotime]

206. Cindy is a true patriot.

Too bad her family can't see it.

[jonnyblitz]

209. it's pretty damn pathetic that people are willing to turn a blind eye

to the truth because it makes there beloved favorite politician look bad, whether it be about this, or the School of the America's, or the National Endowment for Democracy. The facts are out there and all many seem to care about is whether it makes their favorite DEMOCRAT look bad or not. I don't know how some people can fucking sleep at night, they don't even care that people see what hypocrites they are.

[johnnie]

215. Here is my problem with her statement

"His policies are responsible for killing more Iraqis that George Bush".

Anyone who paid attention knows what was going on in the 90s in Iraq. My problem with her saying what she said is that people who read it outright won't take in to account that george bush isn't done with Iraq yet, and the three years of his presidency that he did fucking nothing about the sanctions.

Bill Clinton had many other problems during his presidency, but most of of are sick to death about hearing "but Bill Clinton...blah blah blah" and her statement just sounds like another wing-nut talking point. She is only right that as far as we know, more Iraqis died in the 90s (on record) than what we have seen as the casualties of this "war". It is a misleading statement.

[lynne]

214. That Cindy -

- What A Uniter!

[Steve A Play]

219. Watch her unite the American People

against the two major parties that have managed to foster the "culture of corruption" in Washington D.C.!

Wrong is wrong regardless of party affiliation. Killing innocent people through politically motivated sanctions is no less wrong than illegally invading a sovereign country based on lies. The dead are no less dead one way or the other.

Steven P. :kick:

[Charlie Brown]

217. and Cindy Sheehan is probably right

between the eight years of sanctions and the bombing, it's very proabable. Clinton is as much to blame for the Iraq War as Bush.

[fujiyama]

264. Clinton responsible for the war?

Now, that's a new one. I also find it ironic in that case that you have a John Edwards avatar, considering he voted for the war, and only recently did he apologize for that vote.

The sanctions were cruel and it's clear they should have been modified long ago to allow more medicine and food in the country. Clinton takes blame for continuing the sanctions that took place but that doesn't mean he is soley responsible for those deaths. Saddam shares blame in them as well, whether many on the far left want to admit that or not.

[Charlie Brown]

305. Yes, it does

"that doesn't mean he is soley responsible for those deaths."

Clinton continued unjustified sanctions in spite of full knowing the effects they had on the Iraqi people. He also initiated deadly bombing raids in '98. He's never "taken blame" for these policies, and maintains that they were justified. He shares responsibility for the current war in Iraq. Edwards is equally wrong and accountable.

My avatar is one I chose for convenience and never bothered changing. Since you have an upside down flag for your avatar, I guess you're a flag-burner and believe servicemen should be shunned and spat-on.

[Kingofalldems]

222. Another hit and run post

Seen it before.

[robbedvoter]

244. Glad someone else noticed.

[Freedom_Aflaim]

227. DIdnt Bush #1 impose the sanctions though?

Of course I cant deny that Clinton continued with them, but that doesnt excuse Bush for starting them in the first place.

[progressivebydesign]

228. What is her trip? Nice way to tear our party apart. n/t

[insane_cratic_gal]

257. If you haven't noticed the party was torn well before

Cindy showed up on the scene.

It's called moral judgment, truth and those who choose to ignore it. We accuse Freepers of it all day long, but pointing fingers without any responsibility is such a Chimp thing to do. And it's rampant in this thread. No one wants to believe anything bad about our leadership. But it exists in every party in every country in human nature. Truth has a way of taking an illusion of beauty and exposing it for fraud that it is.

It's not Cindy's fault this party is in trouble, nope. The Democratic party has only themselves to blame, until they recognize this and start acting like the Democratic party we all use to love (Yes before the Clinton's ever got the oval office.. there were liberal before them I know there was a big ass dry patch but come on!).

The party of health care, the party of Unions, the party of the average Joe, the party that shows empathy. A party that fights big business (not embraces it and votes for bankruptcy bills that only hurt the little guy)... we as a society are all in trouble.

We are disillusioned, hell maybe it's just me, but you can't blame Cindy for following her truth. She believes there is evil is in inherit in all men. She wants nothing more or less then we do! Peace, and a Man or Woman we can believe in, the real deal.. how tired are we? We get angry daily because our party does not stand up to the abuses of power of this adminstration. Every day, for good reason. We feel hopeless. We want the real deal, not some manufactured image, that says one thing will crossing his fingers behind his back.
One who shows conscience about signing papers that end lives. Signatures that destroy homes, families, people's loved ones over lies and Sanctions. I think she has the right idea, but she's done something to offend everyone here and that is lay the blame equally at Clinton's feet. Just because people do not like it, doesn't make it any less true.

Leave Cindy alone, she's done nothing but speak her mind. If want to tear people apart start by admitting we ain't all perfection either.

[Freedom_Aflaim]

234. Thats all fine well and good

But exactly who are we going to have as president, if we impeach everyone? Heck Cindy doesnt even like Hillary.

It sounds like you need to be mother teresea to qualify for president under Cindy's standards. Except that Mother Teresea is just a bit to religous for government work.

We really don't need to be eating our own imo. I say we stick to impeaching republicans

[lonestarnot]

239. Hell yeah! Cindy you tell them! Truth to power!

[robbedvoter]

241. What power? Bill Clinton? Boy, was I in the wrong time and place!

I thought BFEE was in power and it was them having 2 wars against Iraq under their belt. But somehow...it's Clinton's fault... I get it...truth to power :sarcasm:

[RummyTheDummy]

247. Good point

I thought my browser was jacked up and I was at FR for a moment. But alas, Clinton hating has become as in vogue at DU as it is every where else. It's trendy. It's fashionable. It's the latest thing. Everybody's doing it.

((((YAWN))))

[lonestarnot]

248. The headline was that Americans have killed more Iraqis than Sadam

That is what I was referencing.

[robbedvoter]

290. So the power is "Americans" is it ME she's speaking truth to?

What kind of courage does it take to yell "Impeach Clinton - he's worse than Bush?"

[RummyTheDummy]

246. So if I understand correctly

The jist of this thread:

1-Sadam bears little or no responsibility for his actions while in power.

2-Bill Clinton is infinately more evil than Sadam.

:shrug:

[The Gunslinger]

249. This thread is full of RW talking points

Tune in to right wing hate radio tommorow for more details. Cindy has a lot of courage, but her whole movement just backfired and will become a boon for the Right wingers.

[LittleClarkie]

250. She is a brave woman, but not everything out of her mouth is golden

I wasn't terribly aware during the Clinton years, but how much exactly did he have to do with the UN's policy toward Iraq?

[Clara T]

252. Actually her comments

hold true. It was Strictly the dictates of US foreign policy as initiated in the
Bush 1 admin and heartily endorse in the Clinton admin. that was responsible for the sanctions. Apprx 1.5 million died from these sanctions over the eight year period of Clinton's regime of which apprx 500,000 were children. That's a conservative figure.

Another aspect is the fact that Iraq was bombed by US Air Force nearly every day for 13 years now straight through the Clinton admin as well as Bush.

You can do a google on this and get thousands of sources to corroborate.

The result of the current Iraq massacre will be larger, if it continues and I believe it will, than what Clinton's admin did but why make it a game of numbers. Who killed more is pretty ridiculous.

In both cases we are talking about wholesale slaughter.

And it really shouldn't be labelled any wings talking points or be a notion of political tactics to whitewash history the truth is far too precious and important.

Yes one can quibble over semantics or numbers but essentially her comments were on the mark.

For a deeper historical perspective google Lord Curzon and then follow the timeline of Western intervention and control of Iraq. you will see the picture unfold.

[meganmonkey]

254. Well, considering the US veto power at the UN Security Council

quite a lot. As I have posted elsewhere on this thread with links, the other countries on the Security Council were trying to relax the sanctions (due to Saddam's compliance, and the human rights issues coming up particularly with children's health) and we blocked it. More than once.

[fujiyama]

265. It's more complicated than most will lead you to believe

There were several studies done and the approximate number is around 350k deaths, not that that isn't horrifying. Also, while most were attributed to the sancctions, many can also be believed to have been caused by the war, mostly because of the destroyed infrastructure.

Clinton certainly continued the policies set forth by Bush I. I'm not going to defend the sanctions the way they were carried out. In fact, they should have been modified long before they were - but they eventually were. In fact by 1999, the oil for food program allowed enough access to food. Also by that time, they were also producing close to levels before the war.

It's clear Saddam shares some of the blame for those deaths. I don't have a problem with Cindy calling out policies under the Clinton administration, but it's still misleading to claim that he killed more Iraqis than Bush.

Here's a good article on it: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20011203/cortright/2

Exerpts were posted above, but the entire article is worth a read.

[The Gunslinger]

293. from what I ve read

The numbers you hear are Saddham's numbers. the numbers include every death in the country during the time period. Not all can be blamed on the (UN not Bill)sanctions.

[rman]

267. Doesn't change anything about the number of Iraqis who died

due to the sanctions in effect during the Clinton admin.

[Strawman]

255. She's just being consistent

The war is killing innocent people needlessly and it is wrong. The sanctions killed hundreds of thousands innocents and they were wrong. The numbers themselves don't make Clinton worse and this statement hardly lets Bush off the hook. Give this war a decade, and I'm sure it will catch up with the sanctions numbers and probably pass it. But it doesn't matter what the final body count is. It's all just wrong. 500,000 people dying bothers me more than some swipe directed at our old party leader as a result of comparing him to Bush in that way. When we think about this topic, I mean really, should anyone here be concerned first and foremost with Bill Clinton's precious image?

Critics of the war tend to assume that everything would have been just dandy had we stuck with the status quo. That's kind of the default position, and they're wrong. The better answer is what Sheehan is saying: no war, no sanctions. An arms embargo, fine, but those sanctions were brutal. At the end of the day, I suppose Bush I/Clinton's sanctions are less offensive than actively blowing shit up and killing people like Bush II, but they're still very bad. Ultimately, however, what does it matter whose political mascot is deemed "worse," or if I want to affirm or reject her comparison of Bush and Clinton on some technicality like intent?

The problem I think most people have with this idea is that it places her in a perceived place of political and social isolation and they're uncomfortable going along to that place. People wanna have their cake and eat it too. They wanna be against the war because they know it's wrong, but not too far out there on the left. But what she's saying here is right and courageous. Above all else she's speaking out against senseless killing in her opposition to the war, not against Bush so Dems can win elections. This is bigger than Bush, partisan politics or fucking poll numbers.

[Clara T]

259. Well stated and accurate n/t

[mike_c]

261. bravo....

:yourock:

[mps]

260. I think there are a lot of Fifth Columnists lurking here either starting

threads or replying to them. This is the Democratic Forum not the Republican/Right-wing/Necocon/Pro Unified Executive/Pro Constitutional Originalist/Swiftboating or Fascist Forum.

Ralph Nader lost the election for Al Gore in 2000. George McGovern lost to Nixon in 1972. People get a grip on reality! Do you really want to defeat the Roveian Mentality that has taken over the 3 Branches of government?

If people in this forum don't have constructive views in how to take back our democratic institutions using the only Party that can realistically achieve this end, then I recommend that they start or join another political party. I am so tired of the Clinton Bashing going on here and on all the liberal blogs. It's insidious, corrosive, self defeating and reeks of Roveism.

[katinmn]

274. Welcome to DU

[rman]

288. doesn't mean that what Cindy says is untrue,

nor that it is irrelevant.

[robbedvoter]

291. Welcome to DU - good to see that some good people join for this too

because the thread seems mostly to bring some loons from the woodwork, starting with master flamebait OP who disappeared.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

262. So, Cindy, what should Clinton have done?

And please don't say "Um, well I think....um, live and let live....um okay, man".....because that would just complete your drift into irrelevance.

[eridani]

263. After Ritter et al had demonstrated that they had gotten rid of the WMD--

--all Clinton had to do was to swap sanctions for permanent inspections, as recommended by Jimmy Carter.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

296. Those U.N. resolutions went beyond.......

....the WMD issue. There were other things Saddam and Iraq needed to comply with other than that.

[eridani]

313. No , there were not

Just because the US insisted that "compliance" also meant "regime change," doesn't make it the law, nor moral or ethical.

[rman]

270. You're not saying that because Clinton did not know what to do,

makes it alright that so many Iraqis died due to the sanctions, are you?

It's not that 'we' bare no responsibility until such time when a critic tells us what to do...

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

301. Don't cop out here......

.....she's criticizing a measure that was taken and agreed upon by the U.N., so I would truly like to know what she thought Clinton and the U.N. should have done in lieu of sanctions. Somehow I get the feeling "nothing" would be the bottom line answer. As much as BushCo.'s illegal war is evil and immoral, you can't just whittle away other solutions to the problem of Saddam's aggression and take the complete opposite approach. This is where the right wing gets their ammo to rip the anti-anything movement.

Cindy is a woman who lost her son in an aggressive invasion led by a power hungry moron and not backed up by a shred of real evidence. She puts a face on a very emotional part of this war that people wanted to ignore because the administration tells us everything is a-ok over there. That does not make her a Middle East expert. Her bravery in standing up to the administration is to be saluted. But every time she opens mouth now, she's getting further out of her element, and playing right into the hands of the right-wing media machine.

And by the way, I don't buy the numbers that "so many Iraqis" died. Part of them are provided by the Iraq/Saddam government. They are as credible as the statistics that the Administration comes up with.

[rman]

304. Agreed upon by the U.N. - with a knife on its throat

The US does in effect have veto right in the security council.

Regarding the numbers - as someone else noted: Albright was practically bragging about it. The half a million she mentioned is probably a conservative number, as is Bush's 30,000.

[katinmn]

271. Cindy is correct. Again. It was US-led, UN Sanctioned Genocide

People really need to bone up on history, truth.
America has been terrorizing Iraq since 1990.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_sanctions

http://www.casi.org.uk/info/reiff.html

http://www.lshtm.ac.uk/cps/public/excess%20mortality%20in%20Iraq.pdf

http://www.commondreams.org/views/081100-104.htm

http://www.reason.com/0203/fe.mw.the.shtml

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/indxone4.htm

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/indexone.htm

http://www.quakernet.org/Concerns/campaign_challenges_economic_san.htm

http://www.pitt.edu/~ttwiss/irtf/iraq.html

http://peace.mennolink.org/articles/iraqsancthist.html

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/sanction.html

http://cfrterrorism.org/causes/iraq.html

[katinmn]

272. Part 2 - Bombings (the above dealt with food, medical and other sanctions)

The media dropped the ball during the Clinton years, too. As aggressive as the Clinton Administration was, it was better domestically than the current regime.

http://www.media-criticism.com/Washington_Post_UNSCOM_1999.html

The Washington Post’s silence from 10/98 to 1/99 regarding the UNSCOM spying is critical: President Bill Clinton ordered cruise missiles to attack Iraq in 12/98, under the pretext that Hussein was not complying with UNSCOM. Had the Post run the UNSCOM spy story when it had it, the attack may not have come. In addition, Clinton’s action was state-sponsored terrorism, one of many international war crimes so far from the current occupant of the White House. (It also came after Clinton’s State of the Union speech, where he looked into the TV camera and threatened Saddam Hussein by name. He’s a real tough guy, Bombing Bill.)

In fact, the 11/16 article suggests in two places that the spy story the Washington Post held on to never existed. In the first sentence above (‘Nearly a year...’) we are just told Hussein ejected UNSCOM. Later in the article the incident is completely misrepresented with:

'Saddam Hussein’s decision to expel the inspectors followed a series of confrontations over giving them access to sensitive government sites and led to several days of U.S. cruise missile attacks.’

This is historical revisionism. Elsewhere in the article (Washington Post, 11/16/99) we learn:

‘The Clinton administration has been trying for months to find a formula under which Saddam Hussein would allow the inspectors to return to Iraq. If the Iraqis cooperate with the inspectors, the Security Council then would suspend the nine-year-old trade sanctions that have shattered the Iraqi economy and barred the country from using its oil revenue to purchase anything other than food and humanitarian supplies.’

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Clinton_bombing_of_Iraq_far_exceeded_Bushs_in_runup_to_war__Bush_spikes_of_activity_que_0705.html

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html

http://www.ccmep.org/2004_articles/iraq/092604_bombs_ahoyiraq.htm

http://www.ornery.org/essays/2001-01-26-1.html

http://www.media-criticism.com/Clinton_Iraq_1998.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/iraq/timeline/062793.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/events/crisis_in_the_gulf/latest_news/238878.stm

http://www.cuttingedge.org/news/n1247.cfm

[DerekG]

273. Well, perhaps they'll get to swap war crime stories in Hell

You do indeed have to be a monster to ascend to the presidency.

[mogster]

276. Interesting debate n/t

[berni_mccoy]

283. This thread is the BIGGEST B.S. THREAD EVER

So Cindy, Saddam HAD NO POWER to end the SANCTIONS what so ever?

And whoever is saying Saddam COMPLIED by 1992 HAS PROVIDED ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE. Compliance with WMD had nothing to do with compliance with the resolution to end sanctions.

Saddam is the bad guy here. When he was defeated in the first Gulf War, he could have easily have complied with the resolution.

Besides the FACT that she is 100% wrong here, this is the absolutely WORST TIMING to be having this discussion. We have BIGGER FISH TO FRY than indict Clinton.

Which brings up an interesting point... HOW MANY HERE WERE WANTING CLINTON IMPEACHED FOR THIS?!?!?

TOTAL B.S.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

295. Seriously.....

...I wonder if some of these folks were cheering on the house managers and various Repugs when they were standing on the steps of the Capitol bashing Clinton and Blair for trying to create a distraction from the "business of the country" in regards to the Clinton blow job.

[mike_c]

310. no, Saddam did NOT have any power to end the sanctions....

Berni, read the transcript of the Ritter interview I linked up-thread. I know you're resisting it, but it contains some important information that you seem to misapprehend. Ritter makes it absolutely clear that America manipulated the UNSCOM process in order to make it IMPOSSIBLE for Iraq to be certified in compliance with U.N. resolutions. He also makes it clear the they did it by making DISARMAMENT an unprovable matter-- all this nonsense about "the other things Saddam had to do" is irrelevent. NOTHING Hussein did would have resulted in lifting sanctions (except possible being deposed and imprisoned). The U.S. was absolutely opposed to lifting the embargo as long as Saddam Hussein was president and it blocked Security Counsel members from relaxing or lifting the embargo. Two heads of the U.N. Humanitarian Relief for Iraq organization resigned in protest of U.S. actions specifically. The U.S. did everything in its power to hurt-- and ultimately kill-- civilians during the embargo, even extending the embargo to medical equipment, water purification equipment, sanitation equipment, food production and processing equipment, and immunizations against childhood diseases.

As for your final question, the truth of the matter is that during the Clinton administration I did not know much of what I know now-- I believed the disinformation campaign being waged by the gov't through the MSN. But had I known this, I would have absolutely supported impeachment of Clinton for crimes against humanity.

[Twist_U_Up]

284. Fuck that here..........

http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/Iraq_war.php

[izzybeans]

285. Cindy speaks a half truth.

We know how many people died in the 90s there is no waying of knowing how many people are dieing today. It would be naive to assume that the mortality rates are not similar if not higher. And even if they aren't, the birth rate has surely dipped so low that the population is quickly diminishing. So in real numbers the population is most likely fairing much worse; but this is merely a "known unknown"...an inference on knowledge of past conflicts. No one has the ability to count the dead (estimation) accurately in Iraq today (they can't even point a camera accurately; an indicator of how hush hush the toll this war is now bringing). We estimate over 100,000 from the conflict, this does not include deaths of starvation, publich health (sanitation), electrocution, illness, etc. Nobody seems to ask about that these days. Those deaths would be directly attributable to wartime disorganization. Otherwise the argument that the infrastructure of Iraq is in disarray would be bunk; if it is in totaly disarray than its consequences are real and the outcome is increased mortality. My guess is that its beyond the total of the 90s, however I have no way to prove because nobody is counting.

Either way "Bush's" war has been raging sense poppy bush turned on his buddy and dropped bombs over baghdad. The death toll has been continous and they are all to blame. Three Imperial Kings from the same country responsible for the deaths of millions. We will all republican and democrat alike have to come to terms with that bit of history. IMHO.

Some seem to forget how contradictory our foreign policy was under Clinton: Humanitarian in the white regions of the world, Exterminate and neglect the brown regions. We have yet to change that pattern. Bush just escalated the conflict in Iraq and changed it from passive-aggressive strong arming through the Security Council to outright bloodshed (despite the fact that we continously bombed Iraq anyway). Clinton is no less guilty than either Bush the Greater (poppy) or the lesser (pooh bear). Kind of explains Hilary's waffling on the war issue to me. Caught between her past complicity and the current day rising awareness of the bigger picture. "Holy shit I better retreat and act like the 90s never happened."

[Heewack]

287. Yep, Saddam had absolutely nothing to do with it.

Give me a fucking break, Cindy.

[katinmn]

289. She didn't mention Saddam, just American leaders

Try to stay on topic

[robbedvoter]

292. yeah, dammit. Topic: Clinton - bad. Bush - not so much.

[bloom]

302. All I can guess is that it's the DLC war fanatics

who are so against Cindy Sheehan speaking about the truth.

Might reflect back on Hillary and the war agenda. :shrug:

People sure shouldn't criticize unjust wars (or sanctions). :sarcasm:

People might think we want a better world or something. :crazy:

[katinmn]

308. Apparently, it's honorable or justified if "we" do it.

The more I learn about America's foreign policy over our entire history I realize there really is not much to be proud of. Meddling, putting in puppets in South and Latin America, Eastern Europe, and now the Middle East. Acting as Globo Cop.

One can only hope that we evolve as a nation and do better by all people.

[Dawgs]

303. Monday morning quarterbacking at it's worst....

I seem to remember Clinton fixing most of the problems in America during the ninties. Was it his job to fix all of the problems of Iraq as well. Bush is the one that cares more about Iraq than the US, not Clinton.

Yes, Clinton is responsible for not handling the sanctions well, but to claim that he is responsible for KILLING Iraqi children is just plain STUPID. He wasn't ruler of the world, and he didn't have control or knowledge of everything.

Some of you people are pathetic!!!

[Charlie Brown]

306. and the bombing?

The bombing raids in '98 killed numerous innocents. Do you give Clinton a free-pass for that?

"I seem to remember Clinton fixing most of the problems in America during the ninties."

I seem to remember Clinton signing NAFTA and DOMA into law. Some people here have a very selective memory of the nineties.

[DrunkenMaster]

309. it isn't the honest critics that are pathetic

is the ones who defend Clinton because he has a more appealing face than Bush.

Between 1999 and 2001, the U.S. and British-led air forces in Iraq dropped 1.3 million pounds of bombs in response to purported violations of the no-fly zones and anti-aircraft fire from Saddam Hussein.

The details of the bombings, provided by the British ministry of defense to parliament in February 2002, markedly revise a picture painted by critics of Bush’s airstrikes and that of a piece RAW STORY carried last week.

The nature of the strikes differed; Clinton’s bombings were part of what some dubbed a “war of attrition,” an attempt to degrade Hussein’s hold on power without resorting to full-scale war, whereas Bush’s bombings appear to have been part of a concerted effort to clear the way for a ground invasion.

A sweeping attack, conducted in January of 1999, rained down 25 missiles on Iraqi soil, killing civilians. Clinton said the attack was in response to four planes violating the no-fly zones.

Clinton and British Prime Minister Tony Blair authorized air strikes on more than 100 days in 1999, sometimes several times per day. The bombings were ostensibly in response to Hussein’s refusal to allow UN weapons inspectors into the country, though critics alleged the move was aimed at deflecting attention from impeachment.

1999 saw heaviest pre-war bombings

In the first three months of 1999, U.S. led-forces bombarded Iraq with 241,000 pounds of bombs—just shy of the 253,000 pounds dropped under President Bush in the eight months leading up to the final UN resolution before the war.

By August of 1999, American and British pilots had fired more than 1,100 missiles against 359 targets—that year alone.

[Ksec]

307. The more I read about Clinton the less I respect him

He simply appeased the GOP for 8 years by stealing their issues and making them his own. He , along with the past three other presidents have done nothing for working people . Their idiot free trade policies and other GOP lite ideas are slowly killing the Middle Class in this country.

[stepnw1f]

311. How Many American Soldiers Died Though? (nt)