Cindy Sheehan interview- "Bill Clinton killed more Iraqis than Bush"

[tn-guy]

In a January 10 interview in Ireland Cindy Sheehan baldly asserted that Bill Clinton was responsible for more Iraqi deaths than Bush.

"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. "

Read the entire transcript.

The lady has truly lost her mind.

[Psephos]

1. WTF???

[alcibiades_mystery]

2. It's totally true

The sanctions policy killed a million Iraqis, at least. It is the greatest failure of the Clinton administration that they took the policy of the previous Bush administration and kept it in place, despite its obvious barbarity. It is an outrage of first order. Now, Bush the Younger's absolute stupidity of invading Iraq certainly trumps Clinton's lack of imagination, but as a technical matter, the sanctions did in fact kill more iraqis than the war has thus far.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

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

[400Years]

69. Madeline Albright's Quote

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1084

"We Think the Price Is Worth It"
Media uncurious about Iraq policy's effects- there or here

By Rahul Mahajan

Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it.

--60 Minutes (5/12/96)

Then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright's quote, calmly asserting that U.S. policy objectives were worth the sacrifice of half a million Arab children, has been much quoted in the Arabic press. It's also been cited in the United States in alternative commentary on the September 11 attacks (e.g., Alexander Cockburn, New York Press, 9/26/01).

But a Dow Jones search of mainstream news sources since September 11 turns up only one reference to the quote--in an op-ed in the Orange Country Register (9/16/01). This omission is striking, given the major role that Iraq sanctions play in the ideology of archenemy Osama bin Laden; his recruitment video features pictures of Iraqi babies wasting away from malnutrition and lack of medicine (New York Daily News, 9/28/01). The inference that Albright and the terrorists may have shared a common rationale--a belief that the deaths of thousands of innocents are a price worth paying to achieve one's political ends--does not seem to be one that can be made in U.S. mass media.

It's worth noting that on 60 Minutes, Albright made no attempt to deny the figure given by Stahl--a rough rendering of the preliminary estimate in a 1995 U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) report that 567,000 Iraqi children under the age of five had died as a result of the sanctions. In general, the response from government officials about the sanctions’ toll has been rather different: a barrage of equivocations, denigration of U.N. sources and implications that questioners have some ideological axe to grind (Extra!, 3-4/00).

[eve_was_framed]

32. the sanctions WOULD NOT have killed Iraqi's if Saddam would have used

the money he was getting, for the oil he was "alloted" to sell, to feed and take care of his people as opposed to using it to his for his own personal wealth and that of his minions. Those deaths lie squarely at the feet of that regime not Clinton IMO.

[SaveElmer]

33. You are absolutely correct...

It's like blaming FDR for deaths in Europe during WWII.

[eve_was_framed]

36. exact;y! excellent analogy. I wish people would grow up and do their

homework. Cindy Sheehan is entitled to her opinion but she really should try and curb her ignorance.

[alcibiades_mystery]

45. You're the one who knows nothing of the facts

It's disgraceful that you would let loyalty blind you to what was really going on, you and your mid-90's catchphrases and talking points.

[eve_was_framed]

47. what's disgraceful is your crap and inability to appreciate that Clinton

had to work with the legal "bodies" of his time so "pre-emptive" war was not and should not have been a consideration for him!

[alcibiades_mystery]

50. His utter lack of imagination and courage

led to the death of half a million kids. Some fucking hero you got there. Awful

[eve_was_framed]

52. no one said he was a hero...your agenda is slipping through

[alcibiades_mystery]

62. What agenda would that be?

The agenda whereby I hold Clinton to as high moral sdtandards as I hold anyone else? What a shocking agenda that must be to the Clinton fanatics! If you have an accusation to make, come out and make it. The cowardly insinuation game is worthy of only the street corner commisar, whispering into the ear of the secret police on the sly. It's disgusting. As it stands, your argument - supposing anyone could call it that - amounts to little more than such sly accusations: not having anything to support your position, you descend into the time-honored cowardice of accusing me of being some sort of infiltrator - surely not pure enough for your sublime Clinton-love! Well tough cookies.

Clinton didn't have the imagination to find another way, and that is the greatest failure of his administration. It is as simple as that. Moreover, this failure, because it depended on the lie of existing WMD to maintain the sanctions, provided ample fodder to the lunatic neo-cons in the subsequent administration, who never tire of saying that "Clinto n thought so too!" In fact, Clinton didn't think so, and neither do they. Clinton simply couldn't come up with another solution - hell, they didn't even appear to work on one, even as the evidence of catastrophe became more and more clear, and for that he should be rightly condemned, idol or not.

[paulk]

64. so it's all Clinton's fault...

it's fascinating how the extreme left and the extreme right come together at the bottom of the circle.

[alcibiades_mystery]

65. Oh my God

It is not ALL Clinton's fault, nor is NONE OF IT Clinton's fault. Those are the EXTREME responses. The moderate response would be that Clinton's policies servede as one contributing factor in both the deaths of so many Iraqis under the sanctions regime and the current neo-con policy. That is a moderate response, see. It seeks to understand complex factors, and doesn't rest on absolute claims, one way or the other. In your goal to be "moderate" and portray the supposed "extremes," you betrayed yourself as extreme, accepting a completely binary logic whereby either NONE of it is Clinton's fault (your extreme position) or ALL of it is (the stupid and completely false extreme position you attribute to me). So, who is the extreme one? It is you, with your laughable absolute claims and binary logic.

[400Years]

70. your right, extreme responses and refusal to acknowledge facts

The Clinton worshippers need to get a grip.

[paulk]

84. when denigrating someone

it's usually considered more civil to respond directly

[Andromeda]

96. You are in the wrong forum.

You belong in the Socialist Neoliberal Anti-Imperialist Green Party Underground website.

[alcibiades_mystery]

105. My apologies

For not rising to your level of Party-Line Orthodoxy. Feel free to denounce me to the STASI if you please...:eyes:

[Andromeda]

97. What would those be?

"you and your mid-90's catchphrases and talking points"

[alcibiades_mystery]

44. Awful analogy

Because FDR's actions went to stopping what was going on in Europe, whereas all the Clinton administrations actions went to PROLONG what was going on in Iraq.

[SaveElmer]

49. Three points...

One: Your dispute with the argument that Hussein could have administered the relief program better to allevaite the deaths that occurred is called into question by the fact that in the north, where the UN administered the program, child mortality rates actually dropped.

Two: The analogy is very apt, Bill Clinton's reason for imposing sanctions was not to prolong them as long as possible, it was to remove Saddam Hussein as a threat, hopefully by complying with sanctions. FDR's and Clinton's motivations were the same.

Third: The bottom line however, is that sanctions could have been stopped at any time by Hussein himself.

[alcibiades_mystery]

53. Ay yay yay

1) In the north, where the UN "administered" the programs, they had access to the banned "dual-use" chemicals that were not available in the areas administered by the Bath Party tyrants.

2) Slippage is severe: the sanctions were not explicitly for the purpose of removing Saddam Hussein but to disarm him. After he was effectively disarmed, the sanctions continued, because, of course, they were REALLY for the purpose of removing him. The cynicism was open and outrageous on this point. You can't say that Saddam was effectively disarmed (which everyone knew by 1996) but that the sanctions should continue. And even if Saddam had not totally disarmed, how long do you stand by and allow the deaths of so many behind that policy: the sanctions were a graver threat to human life than Saddam ever was, as witnessed by the sheer carnage they actuated: at what point do responsible people say "There has to be a better way." The Clintonites NEVER explain why this point wasn't reached, and why, in fact, the amoral bureaucrats in the State Department thought the carnage was "worth it." The indifference alone is atrocious, never mind that this indifference was no indifference at all, but an active diplomatic push to keep the murderous sanctions in place even as the death toll mounted into the hundreds of thousands.

3) This is clearly false: there is nothing Saddam could have done to have the sanctions lifted. Zero. Saddam effectively disarmed by 1996, and was met only by increasing hostility and weird machinations on the part of US UNSCOM people - who even now admit that fantasies about weapons caches were little more than political expediencies.

[SaveElmer]

59. Response...

From the Nation. hardly a right wing rag...and even in this article does note that the U.S. an U.N. were responsible for sanctions...a responsibility I believe rests with Saddam Hussein.

<snip>
"The differential between child mortality rates in northern Iraq, where the UN manages the relief program, and in the south-center, where Saddam Hussein is in charge, says a great deal about relative responsibility for the continued crisis. As noted, child mortality rates have declined in the north but have more than doubled in the south-center. The difference is especially significant given the historical pattern prior to the Gulf War. In the 1970s child mortality rates in the northern Kurdish region were more than double those in the rest of the country. Today the situation is reversed, with child mortality rates in the south-center nearly double those in the north. The Kurdish zone has enjoyed a favored status in the relief program, with per capita allocations 22 percent higher than in the south-center. The region contains most of the country's rain-fed agriculture. Local authorities have welcomed the continuing efforts of private relief agencies, and have permitted a lively cross-border trade with surrounding countries. But these differences alone do not explain the stark contrast in mortality rates. The tens of thousands of excess deaths in the south-center, compared to the similarly sanctioned but UN-administered north, are also the result of Baghdad's failure to accept and properly manage the UN humanitarian relief effort. "

<snip>

<snip>

The government of Iraq also bears considerable responsibility for the humanitarian crisis, however. Sanctions could have been suspended years ago if Baghdad had been more cooperative with UN weapons inspectors. The progress toward disarmament that was achieved came despite Iraq's constant falsifications and obstruction.

<snip>

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

Under Bill Clinton, had Hussein cooperated fully with inspectors, I believe a lifting of the sanctions would have been supported by the Clinton Administration. Under Bush, I do not believe that, and in fact the inspection operations were infiltrated by Bush operatives trying to find evidence they could use to invade the country.


You might look at this article for a good corrective on the numbers you cite as well.

There is a tendency on DU to divide into two camps on every issue, and never move off point. It makes for a more lively time I guess, and gets people's juices flowing. Were mistakes made in the administration of the sanctions? Sure there were. But the bottom line is that Saddam Hussein was a significant threat in the middle east during this period. They had invaded one country, were trying to obtain WMD's, threatened Israel, and of course had no compunction about killing their own citizens. And as much as I hate that we have to send American soldiers to protect our oil supplies, and as much as I agree that is the result of a scandalous energy policy largely designed to line the pockets of big oil, the fact is that a significant disruption of that supply, which Iraq was capable of, would have been devastating to the US, and to large parts of Asia and Europe.

Taking no action was not an option. War was not an option. Sanctions were all that was left. Sanctions like war, are going to hurt innocents. That is a very sad fact. United states bombs killed hundred's of thousands, if not millions of civilians during WWII, yet what would have been the consequences had we not acted? Bill Clinton was often criticized for the bombing campaign in Bosnia, yet what would have been the consequences had he not acted? What would have been the consequences had we not acted in Iraq? Unlike the lame excuses of Bush and their clear manipulation of intelligence, in the early 90's, Iraqi development of a nuclear weapon was not far fetched. Israel thought this was serious enough to bomb an Iraqi nuclear facility.

Finally, I suppose it all boils down to what you think of Bill Clinton as a man. If you believe he is capable of turning his back on the deaths of innocents that may have been caused by his policy decisions, for the purpose of political advantage, then I suppose no argument will sway you.

If, on the other hand, you believe Bill Clinton to be a fundamentally good person, who truly cared about his fellow man, then you have to accept the notion that he looked at his range of options for eliminating the threat posed by Hussein, and the political, economic, and diplomatic constraints he was operating under, and arrived at the policy he believed would result in the greatest good.

I count myself in the latter camp.

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

107. On the other hand, millions of Jews were killed, help was requested,

but the US didn't enter the war until Japan attacked our base in Pearl Harbor.

[atreides1]

74. FDR not totally at fault

I would suggest that you read the book "While Six Million Died", by Arthur D. Morse.

It will open your eyes to what FDR's administration had the ability to do, but failed to do it.

[alcibiades_mystery]

38. Oh bullshit

That was the Clinton administration apology starting in the mid-1990's, when the scale of the catastrophe was coming clear. It was weak then, and it's weak now. Even if it were true (which it is not), the Clinton Administration is still on the hook for seeing what was unfolding and doing nothing about it. I am of course NOT saying that they should have invaded, but that they displayed a remarkable lack of courage and imagination, and that this lack did lead to these hundreds of thousands of dead, made up largely of children under 5. Under your theory, it would be perfectly acceptable to say "Oh well, if only Saddam was using that money appropriately, blah-dee blah-dee, blah." There's no "appropriate use of money" that allows one to bring in supposedly "dual use" chemicals to ensure the safety of the water supply: tens of thousands of children died of dysentery; there's no appropriate use of money that would have allowed Saddam to bring in the chemicals necessary for making medicines that would have saved the lived of tens of thousands of children. You're so wrapped up in your Clinton idolatry that you accept any bullshit they put out at the time: it was just as savage a lie as any Bush ever told, and it had only one purpose: to justify the continuations of sanctions for the purpose of regime change, rather than indexing sanctions - as they should have been - to disarmament, which was obviously complete by 1997. Do some research. See what Doctors Without Borders was saying about the outrageous lies spewing from the butchers Madeline Albright and Sandy Berger back in 1998. Stop replicating talking points and get your fucking facts straight.

[eve_was_framed]

51. *yawn*

[alcibiades_mystery]

54. Creative way not to have a real answer

Your know-nothing response was expected, given your previous posts on this issue.

[eve_was_framed]

55. someone who sits there spewing gutter language at me doesn't merit

my time or energy.

[alcibiades_mystery]

63. Your pristine sensibility

apparently allows children to die in droves because your movie-star idol President won't lift a finger to save them, while balking at the use of the word bullshit. That's quite a finetuned moral sense you have there.

[eve_was_framed]

67. it's not a "pristine sensibility" that I have, it's a respect for the

other party I'm speaking to. Your vitriolic speech was uncalled for and paired with that your self righteous and presumptive judgments on my "opinions" of Clinton which I never ever stated yet you assumed were of a "hero" or "idol" nature rendered the discussion mute at that point. And now, you have decided that my sense of civility "allows children to in droves", how obtuse.

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

110. A little swearing, a few scatalogical epithets thrown out in anger

here and there just do SO very much to enhance an otherwise "strong" argument, oh yea.

:sarcasm:

[alcibiades_mystery]

113. I'm sorry your highness

I hope I didn't interrupt tea time with my vulgarities....

:sarcasm:

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

115. Perish the thought! I don't drink tea. n/t

[Elidor]

109. I don't think anyone could have predicted that Saddam would steal from his

Citizens.

:sarcasm:

[qazplm]

68. no

Saddam's using of the money he got from oil for food for himself instead of his people killed a million Iraqis.

It always boggles my mind to see a few on here who cant find any evil in the world lest it originates in America.

[Name removed]

72. Deleted message

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

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

111. There is something to this statement, IMHO

Now take a few weeks back when there was the scuffle over the Patriot Act.

* said he would not sign a short-term renewal to allow more time to work out a deal satisfactory to all. Now according to the GOP'ers and * that was supposed to leave the Democrats responsible for not having a Patriot act in force when the old one expired.

Bogus argument. And * caved and did sign it.

Same type thing happened here in AZ. The legislature sent her a program or education budget, knowing she wouldn't like it. They all also knew there was a Federal deadline pending, with large fines to the state, that would kick in if AZ didn't have something passed. Same logic, if Napolitano doesn't sign it, then she will be responsible for the fines.

Logic? Not good logic, IMHO.

Last I'd heard, she had veto'ed 2 unsatisfactory bills, while communicating with the Feds over how the money, the fines would be spent. She and AG Goddard wanted it spent on education funding, which seems fair.



BTW, there are no perfect heroes, there are no people whether in public service or not, who don't make mistakes. Just a fact of life. There isn't anyone who couldn't be criticized for something they did or for not doing something they should have.

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

112. Follow-up to above: Judge gives Napolitano victory

Yay!!!!

"Judge gives Napolitano victory with ruling on English-learners

Chip Scutari
The Arizona Republic
Jan. 27, 2006 12:00 AM

In a victory for Gov. Janet Napolitano, a federal judge ruled Thursday that the state must deposit $500,000-a-day fines for missing an English-learners deadline into a special fund to help those children master English-language skills.

The decision by U.S. District Judge Raner Collins could translate into millions of dollars more for students.

It also gives Napolitano the upper hand in further negotiations over how best to meet the needs of about 154,000 children with English deficiencies.

Republican lawmakers criticized the judge's decision, saying it "tied their hands in negotiations" with Napolitano. She had vetoed two Republican proposals earlier in the week, both of which would have set aside substantially less money for English-learners than Napolitano wanted.

"He took our ability to negotiate away," said Rep. Bill Konopnicki, a Safford Republican. "Now, the governor can wait until she gets enough money in the fund until she agrees to any bill we send to her. The judge has really changed the dynamics of the negotiations."..."

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/0127english-learners29.html

[texastoast]

81. Perhaps

But the ramifications of this war are not over yet. Considering the long-term totality of the harm, I think shrubito will have the dubious honor of biggest, overt murderer, though Bill has to take the responsibility for keeping the sanctions in place. One must consider the deaths that haven't happened yet in the current situation due to poisoning from depleted uranium, the illnesses that could have been avoided had medical care and clean water been available, further killings that will happen "civilly," and on and on.

I doubt Cindy thought of these things or she would have chosen her words more carefully.

And, as my old polisci professor said, "You have sold your soul to the devil three times before you make County Commissioner."

[acmejack]

3. Go do your research then come back & post.

Thank you, we'll continue once you are better informed.

[jonnyblitz]

10. people are really clueless about what went on under clinton. nt

[Tom Joad]

11. People enjoy, and some need, fantasy.

[democracyindanger]

4. Sanctions.

I don't think saying it is productive for ending the war, but she's factually correct and entitled to say what she wants.

[bluedog]

5. you can bet the right wingers will have

this statement on all their blogs and in the media by weeks end!

[madmom]

6. already there ..saw it better than an hour ago.

[ISUGRADIA]

7. Paging Cindy Sheehan...Ramsey Clark would like you to

join him in the "we have no credibility club."

[jonnyblitz]

8. she is correct and this is a dupe..already a huge thread on this.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=238994&mesg_id=238994

[Tom Joad]

9. Cindy is right, of course. Though Bush is catching up.

tri-guy, i beg to differ. You have to be honest about history. Cindy is.

Cindy:
"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."

Tri, go out and study US history... read folks like Zinn, or noam chomsky. These folks don't try to spin for those in power, but they tell the truth. Such people told the truth about not only nixon but lbj. We can't be selective.

Dreaming that Dem leaders are blameless is a nice fantasy, but we have to deal with reality.

These people are true patriots. folks who are apologists for the sanction loving, bombers from the air like clinton... are just apologists for power.

[LisaL]

88. How is she right? I mean, who is counting the dead?

We do not have any idea how many were actually murdered by Bush's policies and his war, do we?

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

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

[snowbear]

13. Bill Clinton Rocks.. Cindy Sheehan is losing it in my opinion..

Pretty sad.

[rman]

18. Does that mean it's your "opinion" that Clinton did not have a hand in

the death of half a million Iraqies?
The historic record does not bear that out.

[AtomicKitten]

80. or was it the Repubican Congress? NT

[rman]

101. Clinton did not exactly oppose the sanctions did he?

Clinton may not be as guilty as Bush, but he does bear some responsibility if only because it happened on his watch.

[AtomicKitten]

114. I refer you to #14

Not to worry, there's plenty of blame to go around.

[AtomicKitten]

14. I'm sorry to say it's true.

The US flew 200 sorties a year over Iraq bombing them.

The US and GB banned together and would not give permission (as part of the UN council overseeing the sanctions) for Saddam to repair the water purifications plants, and thousands of Iraq kids died every year from dysentery.

I love Bill Clinton, but he continued a genuinely sadistic regime of sanctions. Whether or not the Republican Congress dominant in 6:8 years of his presidency share some of the blame, I can't say.

When we see world tragedies occurring, that's where American's resources should be directed. Not the billions and billions of dollars spent killing people.

However, I'm not sure what purpose Cindy Sheehan serves in pressing this issue at this particular time in the history of our country.

[CityDem]

15. Cindy is starting to sound like a nutjob

Maybe she needs some time off to compose her thoughts and feelings.

[rman]

17. Either that or she's correct

It looks like it's the latter.

[cyberia]

16. Try googling

--- albright "it was worth it" "60 Minutes" ---

You will find links to the interview in which Madeleine Albright defends the embargo policy, enforced throughout the Clinton administration, that led to the death of an estimated 500,000 Iraqis, mostly children.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

21. The UN imposed the embargo.

And quite frankly, Saddam could have gotten that embargo lifted at any time if he'd stopped beign such an egotistical douche. I have never been a strong supporter of the UN's embargo, however asserting that "Clinton killed more Iraqis than Bush" is just bollocks.

[cyberia]

24. The UN imposed,

but how far would it have gotten if the US hadn't enforced it? The UN passes resolutions all the time that are ignored. Iraq pissed off Washington and paid. Clinton collected.

[CBHagman]

29. I wasn't for the invasion in 2003, but...

...it's a cop-out to suggest that hundreds of thousands of deaths are to be laid at the feet of the U.N., of Clinton, and of the West in general. Saddam Hussein's Iraq was filled with corruption and ghastly exploitation of wealth (the palaces were going up through the '90s). The fact is that those poor Iraqi people lived under a system where they were useful to Saddam as a symbol but not worth getting the sanctions lifted.

That said, I do think people like Denis Halliday were right to question the human price of the sanctions, but to say something like "Clinton killed more Iraqis than Bush" is just a cheap and intellectually dishonest move.

[donheld]

108. Try googling ---- Welcome to DU cyberia

:hi: :D

[fujiyama]

19. While she has a point regarding the sanctions and the devastating effect

it had in Iraq, Bill Clinton was not the one to send her kid off to die.

I hope she keeps that in mind.

Also, I would like to see a link to the study showing that Clinton alone was responsible for the sanctions. Many leftists would not like to face the fact that Saddam was partly responsible for those deaths as well. I recall reading that the Kurdish areas were also under the same sanctions yet did not face the same issues as the other areas.

This doesn't excuse the way the sanctions were carried out. They were inhumane and medicine and food should have got in but it wasn't soley Clinton's fault. On edit, here's a good article explaining the responsibilities and the sanctions:

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

Sheehan's main message is going to be diluted using such rhetoric which is simply 'End the War'. It's playing into GOP hands to state both parties are the same or that Bush is the same as Clinton.

[Stockholm]

20. Technically she is partly right

but lets give GWB the benefit of a doubt. He is just starting out killing Iraqies and it appear that the US will stay in the country for many years to come so who knows.

I am sure, one of these day´s, he will catch up.

The biggest difference is that the UN sanctions was imposed by the UN, which means Blair, Chirac everyone is equally to blame for the failure of securing medicin and food etc. to Iraq (remember oil for food programme?). The killing going on now is all GWB´s doing.

[Surya Gayatri]

75. Yes, lest we forget, Stockholm,

the UN sanctions and the Clinton enforced "No-Fly Zone" lasted at least 8 LONG YEARS (if not longer in the case of the UN ordered sanctions).

GWB has barely begun--between 100,000 and 250,000 in 3 years? He's well on his way to catching up with and surpassing the death toll during Clinton's watch.

And yes, Saddam was the strong man who exploited his own people's suffering for political advantage and financial gain.

Clinton was no humanist paragon, but laying this at his door is grossly unfair. IMHO, Cindy Sheehan has spoken out of her depth here. She should stick to anti-war political theater.

[IndianaGreen]

22. A factually correct statement

Remember Madelyn Albright's dismissal of the deaths of over 500,000 children due to sanctions?

The only difference is that Clinton's crimes has a semblance of legality, like a cop shooting a black man in a gated white neighborhood, while Bush's crimes are clear for all to see.

[d_b]

23. Bill Richardson

Told Amy Goodman he thinks it was the 'correct policy'. Incidentally, Clinton has said that it was Saddam's fault -- that he wasn't feeding his people with what he did have. Was he really that fucking stupid to think Saddam would? Clinton isn't stupid.

[eve_was_framed]

34. No Clinton isn't stupid but he's not "god" either and has no

responsibility for what another does. Saddam's actions just served to highlight what a degenerate human being he was and what a waste of air.

[ProSense]

25. Let Iran have nuclear weapons, forget sanctions. War is the answer, it

saves more lives. :sarcasm:

[No Exit]

27. So that must mean Sheehan is not a "DEMOCRATIC PARTY OPERATIVE",

right??

Right?

Okay, so the next time I hear some wingnut ASSHOLE saying she is, I'm gonna point out that she also has harsh criticism of the Clintons. We already know how she hounded Hillary about Hillary's vote for the fraudulent Iraq war.

The Clinton administration? All I know is, I was reasonably prosperous, I didn't ever worry about WWIII erupting, I didn't ever worry about the government coming and taking my children and sending them off to be killed... and what did I do? Why, I sat around wringing my hands about how "liberal policies" were "subverting our great country from within." What a stupid, uninformed, dumbass I was.

Of course, I hadn't ever lived through a George W. Bush administration yet.

Now I begin to wonder... I think this is the worst I've ever seen it, but could it get EVEN WORSE after 2008? Is that even POSSIBLE???

[No Exit]

28. Maybe--but Cindy, BUSH KILLED MORE AMERICANS THAN CLINTON!

And, sorry, I admit I still worry most about my own fellow citizens. Call me bigoted and xenophobic...

[LisaL]

87. If anybody should know this, it's her.

:shrug:

[SaveElmer]

30. Saddam Hussein was wholly and completely responsible....

For the deaths in Iraq under sanctions. At any moment he could have simply complied with them and that would have been it. Bill Clinton is no more responsible for deaths in Iraq, than FDR was for the deaths of civilians in Germany during WWII.

[MrBenchley]

31. So true....

Can't say it better than I did yesterday....Her 15 minutes was 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.

[SaveElmer]

35. Agree...

Her credibility is completely out the window.

[eve_was_framed]

37. on this one it sure as hell is IMO.

[MrBenchley]

39. Exactly...

From here on out, I guess we can expect a series of ever more preposterous statements as she attempts to hold on to the limelight.

[AtomicKitten]

79. Saddam complied and Bush invaded.

Don't mean to throw a monkeywrench in the works, but sanctions have traditionally been used to punish countries we don't like. Or more accurately the Republicans don't like, and Bill Clinton (or was it realy the Republican Congress? - hmmmmm) continued them.

We maintain hypocritcal sanctions, however. We cripple Cuba and smooth China's ass.

Go figure.

But people are dying as a result of America's hardnose tactics.

[IndianaGreen]

104. FDR did not help the Jews trying to flee the Nazis

I don't think that bit of historical news is included in our history textbooks.

I presume that Saddam was also responsible for the bombing of Iraq during the Clinton Administration...

[SaveElmer]

106. Brother...

I guess there is no Democratic hero people here aren't willing to trash. It's as though we expect our leaders to act in a vacum, free from any external pressure or constraint. Of course at the outset of the war Roosevelt would have no way of knowing the scale of the genocide planned by Hitler.

Saddam was responsible for the bombing that occurred under Clinton, for firing on coalition aircraft, for attempting to assasinate Bush I among other transgressions.

[erpowers]

40. A Bit Far

I think she is beginning to go a bit far at this point. Yes the sanctions on Iraq hurt people. However, I do not believe that sanctions where Clinton's decision. In addition, Clinton did not invade a country that had nothing to do with the terrorist attacks of 9/11. In addition, I think Clinton really did try to bring some democracy to the world. People should remember that it was Bill Clinton who helped restore the democratically elected leader of Haiti to power after Bush left office. I think Clinton tried to do some of the right things when he was in office. I do not like everything he did when he was in office, but I think he did a large amount of good for the world. He was not a monster.

[NCarolinawoman]

41. She is diluting her once pure message of:

"Bush lied to get us into a war, and my son died for nothing".

She spoke from the heart, her personal anguish, and from her own experience. I am afraid that people are turning away now. I wish she had kept her focus on that one important issue.

[fujiyama]

102. Well said

I would have preferred she kept the message more simple and directed at Bush. He is still responsible for her son's death.

She has a right to speak out against the sanctions as well. I have no problem with even going as far as to call Bill Clinton out for not modifying the sanction to allow food and medicine in. But it's simply fanctually incorrect and a clear misrepresentation to claim that Clinton, himself killed more Iraqis than Bush. First of all, the number of dead cannot all be attributed due to the sanctions alone. Some of that was due to the infrastructure damage during the first gulf war - under none other than Bush Sr. Also, Saddam was partly responsble for not full cooperating earlier on with inspectors. He did, eventually, but by that time many had already died.

[erpowers]

43. Actually

Actually Ronald Reagan, George Bush, and the Republican Party are responsible for the affects of the sanctions. Many of the people at DU should read the book callded "With Friends Like These". This book details how Reagan, Bush, and the Republican Party until right before the first Gulf War supported both the Iranian and the Hussein Regieme. At this time about everyone in the world including Democrats in Congress tried to convence Reagan and Bush to break off ties with Iraq and stop giving him chemical and Biological weapons along with other bad things.

Throughout the 80s and the 90s Reagan and Bush pushed for ways to sell Saddam more of the things he wanted even after many scandals had been revealed. Even after other countries had stopped supporting Saddam Reagan and Bush kept doing so. Therefore, if we are to blame anyone for the deaths in Iraq due to sanctions I contend we should blame Reagan and Bush since it is their support of Saddam, in the face of constant opposition to that support, that got us to this point.

[Javaman]

46. I love posts like this...

it gives all the former clinton hating repukes who switched and now hate moron* a forum to air their bizarrely deep seated anger against Bill.

Rant, rave, scream, shout, knock yourselves out.

In the mean time: :popcorn:

[eve_was_framed]

48. yep, they cherry pick their facts to maintain their outrage

[WCGreen]

56. Remember one thing......

For most of the 90's... Clinton had to deal with a republican led Congress...

Do you honestly think that NEwt and the boys would have let Clinton stop the sanctions against Saddam even if he wanted it that way....

Seriously, they would have been all over Clinton like ugly on an ape, saying he was soft on Terrorists and a traitor to those brave young lads who gave the ultimate sacrifice for their country...

The political realities must be included in the discussion....

[eve_was_framed]

57. that's a good point

[ncteechur]

58. She is becoming a legend in her own mind

She has the right to speak, or at least she does until Bush completely trashes the Bill of Rights. However, she is a loose cannon and as a result she dilutes the very strong message she started with. She WAS a strong voice for peace. She has now become a pawn in the conflict between the right and left. It may be true about Clinton. Clinton was no saint. I'm beginning to think there is no one with presidential aspirations that deserves to be president. I think the most virtuous and deserving don't want the job. However, wisdom sometimes is knowing when to speak and when to shut up. She has lost sight of her important message that was an honor to her son. Now I don't think she helps herself, her son's memory, or her cause.

[ChipsAhoy]

60. WHY bring up Clinton's name at all?

She really is losing it. What, is she now trying to reach out to the Repub's by slamming Clinton?

I used to feel sorry for her.

[catbert836]

73. Reaching out to the GOP?

I think she's FAR past that point. And "slamming" Clinton is not something that only happens on the right side of the aisle.

[ChipsAhoy]

77. Yes

After reading the article, I see I jumped the gun with that comment.

But, it irks me that she would say all past presidents were monsters. Who is her base after all?

[catbert836]

90. Her base

Cindy isn't a political party, or in charge of one. Ergo, she doesn't have to worry about a base.

[ex nec 8404]

61. Saddam Hussein's Iraq

Well, your choice. Either A)Clinton, B)Bush, or C)Hussein. I'll guess most Iraqi's would pick either A) or B) as a president
http://fdd.typepad.com/fdd/2006/01/alert_saddams_c.html

[zanne]

66. Why would anyone write a post like this if not to....

Divide. Think about it.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

83. It's not the first time this has been posted here in GD.

And as to your conclusion regarding the reason for the posts, well... no comment, LOL.

[catbert836]

71. Like it or not

What she says is true. Clinton continuously bombed Iraq during his administration, which led to thousands of deaths.
Link:
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2005/Clinton_bombing_of_Iraq_far_exceeded_Bushs_in_runup_to_war__Bush_spikes_of_activity_que_0705.html

[iconoclastNYC]

76. Clinton the sacred cow.

He did kill a lot of Iraqis. Sanctions. LOOK IT UP before you defend Clinton.

[we can do it]

78. Ok - Cindy Whatever

[savemefromdumbya]

82. they obviously did a body count did they

oh come on!

[LisaL]

85. At least Clinton left the Americans alone.

[MODemocrat]

86. She's started making up this stuff

Down deep, she's a republican, and she was more than willing to send her son to Bush's oil war.
I've had a great deal of respect for her, but she's quit doing what she meant to do in the first place, and that was to protest the war; but she's wound up bad mouthing President and Hillary Clinton instead. For Christ's sake, doesn't she have enough venom in her to spew against Bush? :shrug:

[ZapaPaine]

89. Perhaps her intentions are all about truth?

Just maybe, Cindy might not give a crap about Democrats or Republicans, Clinton or Bush. Perhaps she has a moral imperative, a quest for the truth? Not everything is black and white, and I think Cindy is deeply immersed in the various shades of grey. Maybe she speaks for justice and truth? Is that a bad thing? Pointing out past injustices and past truths does not make her a bad person. Calling out Bill for what he helped create, which the entire world knows is true, is not bad mouthing him. It is seeking truth, plain and simple. For her it is much more than bashing one Party or another. She has become a hater of war, of death, of genocide and of crimes against humanity. Attacking Clinton and Bush fit this pattern. Clinton is not innocent, and he deserved what Cindy can dish out, if it is based on truth. In this case it most definately is.

[LisaL]

91. Based on the truth? I have no clue how many have been murdered

in a war. Nobody is counting. How does anyone know how many have been killed, and who is responsible for more dead Iraqis?

[rman]

99. The neocons don't count, because they don't care.

They don't care about the financial cost nor about the human cost.

But others are counting; ie human rights organizations, red cross.

You however seem to be thinking it doesn't really matter how many die. Also you seem to be thinking that any claim about specific numbers must be false, and that therefor any claim about specific numbers is irrelevant.
Your having no clue about the truth doesn't mean there is no truth.

[MODemocrat]

93. I guess you've put me in my place, right?

I want her to prove this statement, wherein she says Clinton has killed more Iraqis than Bush has.
How in the hell would she know? No one anywhere knows how many people Bush's war for oil has killed.
I've never said Clinton was "innocent", but, I think it's a disgrace for people just to keep on comparing him to, and blaming him for Bush's blunders. I am a war hater, and I despise the ones who start them to get more and more power.Bcause of the great World War II, my Mother and we three young siblings had one very rough time while my two brothers were serving their country, and my Father was ill with cancer and died while my brothers were gone. I know what war does to innocent people as well as anyone. I wasn't born yesterday, make that 73 years ago, So, I don't need a sermon from you or anyone else. Democrats just love eating their own for some reason. You'll never see a right-winger go against their own. They've proved it over and over since Bush was appointed;
they'll lie and cheat for him, prop him up, buy the news media, or do anything for him even if it's unlawful.

Bush is the one that won't speak to Cindy, so what I'm suggesting is that she keep after him til she gets her wish.

[rman]

100. "nobody knows" - bullshit

"We Think the Price Is Worth It"
Media uncurious about Iraq policy's effects- there or here
By Rahul Mahajan
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1084

Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it.


=== comparing this with Bush's war:


Study puts Iraqi toll at 100,000
Friday, October 29, 2004 Posted: 1:10 AM EDT (0510 GMT)
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/29/iraq.deaths /

LONDON, England -- Public health experts have estimated that around 100,000 Iraqi civilians have died since the United States invaded Iraq in March last year.

In a survey published on the Web site of the Lancet medical journal on Friday, experts from the United States and Iraq also said the risk of death for Iraqi civilians was 2.5 times greater after the invasion.

There has been no official figure for the number of Iraqis killed since the conflict began 18 months ago, but some non-government estimates have ranged from 10,000 to 30,000.

The researchers surveyed nearly 1000 Iraqi households in September, asking how many people lived in the home and how many births and deaths there had been since January 2002.

They then compared the death rate among those households during the 15 months before the invasion with the 18 months after it, getting death certificates where they could.

The experts from the United States and Iraq said most of those who died were women and children and air strikes from coalition forces accounted for most of the violent deaths.

[mtnsnake]

92. My fight's w/Bush not Clinton. Enough w/the divisive Clinton distractions

that are meant to get our minds off the criminal in office. Whoever's pullin this shit outta their sleeves now, piss off.

[agincourt]

94. My question is,

would any elected president have taken the sanctions off? I have my doubts and there lies the problem. The US has been at war, in some form or another, with many third world countries for too long. I don't think a leader could get elected who would reach out in good faith to North Korea, Iran, Cuba or Syria. The sanctions weren't Bill Clinton's policy, they were America's policy. And until we see the third world as "like Americans", rather than others, physical or economic war will continue.

[rman]

103. All very true, but Clinton could have taken a stance

against it. The fact that he didn't to me is just one more piece of evidence that he is not the saint that some make him out to be.

[Andromeda]

95. I admired her at first...

but now she loves the limelight too much. That happens sometimes to people who start off with a high degree of credibility and the more attention they get, the more ridiculous they sound.

[DerekG]

98. Perhaps comparing body counts isn't the way to go

Shouldn't we be looking at Gulf War I/Iraqi Sanctions/Gulf War II as an ongoing war crime? All three men (or four, since we should include Hussein) have a hell of a lot of blood on their hands.

I doubt any of these heads of state would want to see St. Peter.