The problem with Cindy Sheehan's statement

[never_get_over_it]

Although I agree with her 100% that the sanctions sucked and were responsible for a huge number of deaths - the problem with her statement that Bill Clinton's polices were responsible for the deaths of more Iraqis than the freak in chief - is this might be the case today - but Bill Clinton had eight years to rack up those disgusting numbers - the freak in chief's numbers will continue to rise with the our military actions, the insurgency, the fact that we have destroyed their infrastructure - so I'm not sure we'll ever know the true number of deaths that either one of these men caused - but if Cindy was implying that Clinton's policies were as bad as the freaks I guess I just have to disagree - and by making the statement she gives ammunition to the right.

[400Years]

1. The Clintons are in bed with Bushco anyway, I'll take Al Gore thank you

[oasis]

49. No details to back up that Clinton slam so I'll take your word.Thank you.

:eyes:

[Lerkfish]

2. yawn. she's a private citizen, I support her when I agree with her, and I

don't knock her down when I don't.
that simple.


Elected officials are different, but a gold star mother has pretty much carte blanche to say what she wants, in my book.

besides which, she's being accurate, even if that makes us uncomfortable. Sanctions punished the wrong people in Iraq. And, since we invaded them anyways (I realize that's a different administration, but from their point of view its still america), it certainly would seem the deaths of hundreds of thousands to starvation was completely meaningless.

[bryant69]

6. Is disagreeing with her the same as knocking her down?

out of curiousity?

Bryant
check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Lerkfish]

12. point taken. I guess I'm reacting to the last line:

that she's giving ammunition to the right.
considering the right has called her all sorts of vile things already, i don't find that a valid criticism and it appears to be an attempt to limit what she says.

[robbedvoter]

14. Worshipping Clinton=bad. Worshipping Cindy- a must!

You must not question what ANSWER makes Cindy say!

[cigsandcoffee]

3. I just wonder what the alternative is to sanctions

If not sanctions, and if not military action (or the realistic threat of it), then what meaningful pressure can be applied to outlaw sates?

[Toucano]

4. Uhh...carrots.

U.S. foreign policy relies too heavily on sticks (sanctions, threats) when carrots (incentives, inducements) could produce desired results.

[cigsandcoffee]

8. Can a carrot work without a stick?

I think the two go hand in hand.

[Toucano]

18. Oh, they CAN go hand in hand.

When reasonable people are involved.

Where was the carrot with Iraq? Where is it with Iran? North Korea? Cuba?

The U.S. government aint' got nothin' but a stick.

[atreides1]

5. Definition

What is the exact definition of an "outlaw state"?

[cigsandcoffee]

10. General definitions aren't really possible

But I thinq Iraq of the early 1990s was widely and properly considered an outlaw state with a dangerous expansionist tendnencies. Poppy wouldn't have been able to get together such a broad coalition for the Gulf War - including Arab members - if this wasn't the case.

Are you starting the argument that you would have been for leaving Iraq unchecked even after they rolled Saddam's divisions in to Kuwait?

[sandnsea]

37. Oil for Food

Which Saddam didn't use as planned, including being used for weapons programs, even if legal ones.

[Toucano]

7. The problem with the statement isn't it's accuracy.

It's the relevency.

The sanctions have nothing to do with Bush's war.

Cindy should stay focused on the war and not get distracted by the whole political history of the middle east which, while interesting and important, is too complicated to resonate easily.

[QC]

9. Her statement minimizes the monstrousness of what Bush has done.

That's definitely a problem. I love her, and she's factually correct, but this was not a smart thing to say.

[Cha]

50. I agree..Cindy's done an

enourmous amount of Good and after all she's been through but that doesn't mean everything she says is gold.

The sanctions are heinous..I guess those were after the US was giving guns to sadam and rummy was shaking his hand?

[Village Idiot]

11. She is correct in her assertion, however.

Why be upset at her for telling the truth?

Personally, I think the death toll is unrealistically high for the sanction period - that is to say that NOT ALL 500,000 deaths were attributable DIRECTLY to the sanctions. I believe the DU dropped in Desert Storm may have had something more to do with the death toll than we may ever know with any degree of certainty. It OBVIOUSLY contributed VASTLY to the infant mortality numbers, as did the lack of power and water...

[robbedvoter]

13. So, war better than peace, Bush better than Clinton? Okey dokey then.

Glad all's clear. Things are looking up then and we need not do a thing as we're in better hands, thanks God! :shrug:
Also, I understand why Cindy packed her son to war - why bitch now that he died? iraquis seem to be better off - dying at a lesser rate as it is... Glad I don't need to go to all them pesky war protests anymore...
And W should be rewarded with all the civil rights we can surrender - after all, he ain't Clinton!
The only mistake of the Arkansas project: impeaching Clinton for the wrong reason. Other than that, true patriots.
W - I hope Iraquis build you monuments bigged than Saddams. And Cindy should be on hand, cutting ribbons.

[rman]

20. What a senseless conclusion to draw from this. nt

[robbedvoter]

23. It's what she said: Clinton killed more than W, should be impeached

Clinton that is, NOT Bush. I just followed what she said.

[rman]

42. should HAVE BEEN been impeached

(but not for a blow job).

And Cindy did not say Bush should not be impeached. She wasn't talking about Bush. We already know what she thinks about Bush, she has talked about him plenty, and she'll probably talk about him in the future.

Do you really think that if Cindy is asked if she thinks Bush should be impeached, that she will answer "no"?

[robbedvoter]

77. WHY TF wasn't she talking about Bush? Did Clinton kill her son?

Start the war? What's the relevancy of this NOW?
I didn't mind her attacks on Hillary - but now I'm seing a larger agenda - and it stinks.

[rman]

78. You mean you want to tell Cindy what to talk about and what not?

There's nothing wrong with having an agenda, large or small - as long as it is not hidden.
You don't have to like it, but that doesn't mean that what Cindy has said about the sanctions is not true.

[Village Idiot]

34. I believe you are oversimplifying a bit, here.

Personally, I believe that sanctions, as well as wars, cause a hell of a lot more problems than they are purported to solve. Perhaps Cindy thinks this, as well.

I do not think that Clinton did the people of Iraq a good turn by proposing heavy sanctions against Iraq. I certainly do not think they affected Saddam Hussein, either. I certainly did not support EVERYTHING the Clenis did while in office - Iraq and Bosnia/Kosovo included.

The point is that the USA has NEVER had a consistant policy with regards to Iraq. Or Iran. Or the entire Middle East, for that matter. IT'S ALL BAD. IT MUST CHANGE, OR WORSE THINGS WILL HAPPEN.

That is all.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

15. She's right. And, the US part in the slaughter needs to be exposed.

Crying "not as bad" and denying history because the perpetrators of the crimes had a (D) after their name does nothing to deal with the ongoing conflicts in the ME.

"Giving ammunition to the right" is a strawman. Clinton behaved in the same way that any rightwinger would when he approved sanctions against Iraq.

[DrunkenMaster]

22. We have a winner!

Absolutely right on the head of the nail, my friend.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jonnyblitz]

56. turning a blind eye or trying to minimize bad stuff just because

the person is a DEM is the height of HYPOCRISY. some people are so blinded by party loyality or cult of personality they don't care. somebody even compared dead iraqi children to "bugs killed by RAID" in their attempt to poo poo the sanctions because they were so enraged their beloved Clinton was being criticized. totally unbelievable. :crazy:

[seg4527]

16. if liberals are to be taken seriously

we have to be against the policies of death even if the deathbringer has a D after his name.

[donheld]

17. Nobody agrees with anyone 100%

No matter how good they are, or how close to us they get. We still will not agree on everything.

[meganmonkey]

19. First of all, it wasn't a 'statement'

It isn't as though she issued a press release. This was a sentence spoken in an interview with the Irish press, and as far as I can tell, the only people talking about it is us.

Second of all, it isn't like we are talking about distinct, seperate events. The Bush I gulf war led into the sanctions of the 90's and were continued into Bush II's term, when he started the war back up. They are all part of the same foreign policy of the same country - the USA. And they are all, fundamentally, part of the neo-cons plans. Why Bill Clinton helped facilitate the weakening of Iraq in accordance with the PNAC plans I do not know. Is he an active part of a vast conspiracy? I highly doubt it. Did it somehow strike him as politically prudent to defy most of the UN Security Council and continue these sanctions? I suppose so, although I can't explain why.

The key here is that sanctions on nations with dictators will inevitably harm the citizens most of all, particularly the most vulnerable such as children and the elderly. What happened in Iraq under sanctions imposed in part by Clinton was terrible. I remember the 90's very well, and I remember being appalled at what was happening there. It was the first time I really understood that the US is not necessarily a force of good in the world, even under a Democratic president.

If we don't start with Truth, we will never be able to see our problems with the clarity needed to solve them. So let's be honest and move past it. Let's not defend mistakes even when they are made by 'our side' of the aisle.

Peace.

[Marleyb]

24. "the only people talking about it is us"

what is interesting is that someone choose to pick that statement out of the entire interview to make it the focus of discussion on DU. Why would anyone be looking for reasons to bash Cindy Sheehan?

I do not agree with the sanctions, however it is Bush that made the sanctions pointless. As misguided as they were, the purpose was to prevent Saddam from making weapons, which it did. The sanctions worked. And then we went and bombed them anyway.

[robbedvoter]

26. It was a hit and run poster too. But found fertile ground

as the question "whom do you hate more?" keeps raging on DU.

[robbedvoter]

25. Truth? Clinton killed millions? Bush is better? (killed less?)

I ain't buying that as truth. That is ANSWER BS. I get enough doublespeak from the media - I don't need Ramsey Clark's helpful talking points from my back.

[meganmonkey]

28. As I posted to you on the other thread

(which you never replied to, btw) the only person saying "Clinton killed millions" is you. Cindy NEVER said that, I searched the whole interview.

Similarly, NO ONE has said "Bush is better".

If you would like to actually discuss the facts I would be glad to, but based on my past experience with you I won't hold my breath.

Peace.

edit for spelling - "kileld" to "killed"

[G_j]

30. never responded

and repeated the same thing.
You would think someone who has so much to say about something would have actually read it.
:shrug:

[robbedvoter]

31. "Clinton killed more thanBush" means "Bush is better" in my book

The impeachment comment seals it. It's what I object to, besides the loony facts - yeah, they are loony.
Clinton was pressured by PNAC to go in Iraq and reasisted. So, now he's a mass murderer, and worse that bush who started a war. LOONIES - you all. LOONIES!

[meganmonkey]

33. Wow, you're really good at that

putting words in people's mouths, and avoiding a discussion of the actual events. Instead you call people names.

I am not here to push an agenda, or to spread disinformation. I am here to discuss and analyze things that happened in the hopes that we can improve our country's foreign policy by holding it accountable no matter who is in power at a given time. It is true that most of the UN security council wanted to relax the sanctions but Clinton blocked this effort thanks to the US veto power, and it is true that hundreds of thousands of people, mostly children, died in Iraq as a result of the sanctions.

The UN and US records of these events demonstrate this is true, the WHO and HRW back up the statistics. This isn't ancient history that can be disputed, this happened in the last 15 years. I don't know about you, but I remember it.

I am not making judgement on anyone, and I fully believe that Bush is "worse" than Clinton, but pretending things didn't happen as they did is going to get us nowhere.

If we want to move this country forward in a positive direction, we can't be in denial of what has transpired. Our policy toward Iraq has been faulty for a long time. Anyone who doesn't think so is in denial.

[jonnyblitz]

64. great post that I am sure will fall on mostly deaf ears.

all people can see is that somebody said something mean about their beloved Bill CLinton, a Democrat.

[meganmonkey]

65. Thanks jonny b

I'm getting used to it, the deaf ears thing. :)

There are quite a few folks here who can debate the issues well, and who can 'agree to disagree' respectfully, but then there are those who just wanna argue. I've lately been learning how to tell the difference.

[robbedvoter]

72. No, I see her giving a pass to Bush. That drives me nuts.

Why are we talking impeachment re: Clinton TODAY again?

[sandnsea]

21. Which is why

the right wing charge against the far left is that they stand by and do nothing in the face of murderous regimes.

So Clinton stepped into Iraq and was wrong. He didn't step into Rwanda and he's wrong. People are dying in Darfur and that is wrong. But if the US steps in and one person dies afterwards, that'll be wrong too.

That's why the far left has no credibility. That's what the Democratic Party has to overcome in order to win a national election.

[robbedvoter]

27. Well put. It's not far left. It's COINTELPRO bamboozled trust fund babies

the ones who voted Nader and think their life time goal is to bark at government - ANY GOVERNMENT.
The Arkansas Project worked hand in hand with Nader, counterpoint (who saved this little Cindy "gem") and mostly Ramsey Clark who works hard to make the anti-war movement as looney sounding as possible.

[insane_cratic_gal]

32. I guess I am Waaaaaaaaaaaay left of you then

Because ironically I believe in telling the truth no matter who's ass is planted in the oval office. I believe in transparency in government.
I believe career politicians will not always do what is best for the American people but what lobbyist may benefit them, or which deal will broker the best rewards for "them".

I have no loyalty I guess, but if a wrong is wrong.. it's just that, wrong. I don't care who did it, I won't compromise and say it's ok because it was done by a President I admire.

Again, I've seen people here bitch about Freepers displaying just blind Loyalty, can I finally say it?

Pot meet kettle.

[sandnsea]

36. Loyalty?

No, it's about common sense. You can't scream that every US intervention is an attack on the brown people, and scream about the US not caring about the brown people, at the same time. You also can't say that thousands of Iraqis were dying and Saddam had a vibrant society with free health care and education for all, at the same time. It defies all common sense and logic. Bush is the biggest jackass of a President this country has ever seen, but there isn't anybody in this country literally starving to death. Saddam CHOSE that. There was plenty of money going into Iraq to provide for the people.

I was against the first Gulf War because I thought it was a trumped up excuse to get our foot into Iraq at the time. I did, however, support an agressive inspections regime once piles of bio/chem weapons were found, along with the nuclear program. I would never have supported leaving Saddam with no oversight whatsoever. I didn't hear anybody in Congress say that either. That means you've got to have something if you're going to leave Saddam in power. Sanctions, no-fly zones, inspections. The left dances around on all of this just as much as Bush does. One minute they say Saddam was contained, and ignore the HOW of it, which was sanctions. They say Saddam was dangerous and they don't support doing nothing about Saddam. Then they turn right around and attack the sanctions and inspections saying there was no need for them. Again, defies all common sense and logic.

Blind loyalty? That would be with the far left whose loyalty is truly to an anti-American ideology, first, last and always. And I honestly don't care what kind of names people want to call me because I dare to challenge it.

[insane_cratic_gal]

39. Far left is people who blow up SUV's

They are not people who ask about the motives of Leaders when it comes to humanity. Fek just call me socialist, not like Freepers haven't thrown at me before.

So tell me was Gandhi far left? how about Mandela? hmm or Martin Luther King? Anyone with an ideal that speaks to a humanitarian aspect of life is far left? Anyone who dares question the moral authority of one you agree with is Far left?

You call it whatever you want, I call it human.


Btw no one is saying Sadam wasn't evil.

We are saying sanctions weren't all the much help to the people of Iraq. It helped end lives too, we did nothing nor did we show mercy or plead for those who went hungry.

Jutta Burghardt, the head of the UN's World Food Program in Iraq, told a delegation of US congressional staffers earlier this month that Iraqi families spend approximately 70 percent of their total income for food. Burghardt said that by world and UN standards, that figure indicates “imminent famine.”

When food is hard to come by the Empire has to survive, we could of eased that plight but we didn't.

* Denis Halliday, the former United Nations Humanitarian Coordinator for Iraq, who resigned in protest over the continuation of sanctions, claims the embargo is responsible for the death of 6,000 Iraqis every month.

[sandnsea]

43. If they distort the truth

I don't care who they are, they're part of the problem.

"Btw no one is saying Sadam wasn't evil.

We are saying sanctions weren't all the much help to the people of Iraq. It helped end lives too, we did nothing nor did we show mercy or plead for those who went hungry."

But now you blame Clinton for Saddam's evil, because Saddam is the one who pilfered the Oil for Food money that was supposed to help the Iraqi people. Saddam is the one who did nothing, not the US & UN. "We did nothing" is just a bold-faced lie.

You just did exactly what I said the left does. No common sense, no logic; therefore no credibility.

[insane_cratic_gal]

45. Clinton's hand was in the cookie jar too

you can't ignore that.


Do you care for the truth or just your own version of it?

You could research it you know and decide for yourself, an opposing view it often hard to swallow, it doesn't mean it's wrong.
October 1998, Denis Halliday ended his 34-year U.N. career by resigning
as the coordinator of humanitarian relief in Iraq and devoted himself to a
worldwide campaign to get the sanctions lifted. When he came to Minneapolis
in March 1999, he said the sanctions were strengthening Saddam, enabling him
to portray himself as the one Arab leader willing to stand up to the West
and forcing the whole Iraqi population to depend on him for food.

"I think London and Washington have got to recognize the mistakes they've
made and be big enough to change it and come up with some new approach,"
Halliday said "But we need to move quickly. A hundred children died
yesterday and 150 may die today and the same tomorrow and we really don't
have time to go slow."


Still NO? how about this:

the Gulf War bombing campaign destroyed much of Iraq's
water-purification system, and because many Iraqi children are contracting
and dying from water-borne diseases, Iraq vitally needs chlorine, Bennis
said. U.S. objections delayed the chlorine shipments for more than a year,
Bennis said, although the contract was ultimately approved.

In its white paper on Iraq, the State Department said that 78 percent of the
contracts submitted had been approved. Those that were rejected or delayed
included requests for items that, while they may have legitimate civilian
uses, can also be used for nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. "As
Iraq is not permitting
to perform its U.N.-mandated functions, there can be no assurance that Iraq
would not divert these dual-use items," the white paper stated.


They refused to give them Chlorine for water sanitations because it could be used as a biological weapon!! If it were your children drinking disease infested water and your town were 1,000 children died a week? Would you be so forgiving? Especially when the leader of the free world refused to ease sanctions, which could of saved lives?

Just look it up and take the blinders off. This isn't about far left, middle left, DLC .. flaming liberal, it's about humanitarian and how far we willing to go to enforce it.

I like Bill, he did do good things, but I will acknowledge we was far from perfect. I'm not like "them" I won't defend his actions when he's wrong about something.

Please stop trying to challenge my American patriotism because I question my countries actions. That tactic is far Right and we both know it's bullshit. It's because I question my country's actions that I am more then just American, I am human.


Incase your lazy about it http://www.casi.org.uk/discuss/1999/msg00763.html

[sandnsea]

48. Where were the inspectors?

Inspectors and peacekeepers could have prevented this. Saddam could have brought them in any time he wanted to. He chose not to because he chose a dictatorship over care for the Iraqi people.

Next you'll be reminding me that Iraq had clean water, electricity, health care, education and food before we invaded. So which was it? Saddam spending oil for food money to care for all the Iraqi people, or a death trap with no clean water, medicine or food; created by the US?

Can't have it both ways.

No, oil for food wasn't perfect. Life never is. But it's just typical far left rhetoric to just bitch all the time. Easy to do when you never put yourself in the position to deal with the consequences of your rhetoric.

And I didn't like Bill Clinton because I don't like bullshit, no matter where it comes from.

[insane_cratic_gal]

53. If you don't like Bill why are you bitching?

What do you care what rhetoric is being spewed in his name or against?
Saddam always ran a dictatorship, it was never democracy.

Your right it's easy for you when you don't have to deal with the consequences of your own rhetoric, the street goes both ways honey.


Saddam actually did try to nego. sanctions in 1997 but was refused.

The Inspectors and peacekeepers tried too but they were turned away, not by Saddam but by US and the British.

French, China and Russia tried to ease sanctions we refused. I'm not an expert, I'm not even an Idealist, I try to be a realist, though I'm sure others would beg to differ. I realize things have to be done with results I may not like. It doesn't mean I blindly support those choices. It doesn't mean I forbid other people from disagreeing with me, I stand by Cindy, she has the right to point out what she believes to be a flaw.

And your wrong, it Cindy and only Cindy who will have to deal with the consequences of that.

[sandnsea]

61. I care about the truth

What is so shocking about that. Gads.

The inspections were a cat and mouse game by ALL of them, not just Saddam, not just the US. Again, any opportunity to distort realty against the US, the left is right there to jump on it.

You can't get to workable solutions when everybody is lying. And that is exactly what happened in Iraq and happens over and over and over.

The left plays politics just as much as Bush or Democrats or any other group of people do.

Cindy can say and believe whatever she wants, has nothing to do with her.

[insane_cratic_gal]

63. No you care about your version of the truth

when faced with evidence and opinion that differs from your own, all you can do is attack it.

"the left, the democrats, those people, and them"

I'm confused, first you were defending Bill's actions, then the UN, now your including Saddam into the circle of inclusion that your choosing to exclude from critique. Which side of the fence are you on? and against "the US" ..

Perhaps I'd get the argument straight if you'd just draw a line in the sand, I knew which side of the battle field you were on.

Your right Cindy is allowed to say whatever she wants, it's exactly what most of us have been trying to say.

[sandnsea]

68. Lines in the sand, us or them

The truth isn't that simple, that's the point. But the left tries to make it that simple, and shifts the argument as it suits them, depending on the circumstances of the day. Pointing that out isn't attacking. It's pointing out the fallacies in far left ideology. That's all.

[insane_cratic_gal]

55. A letter from none other then: John Conyers

Dear President Clinton:

We are again writing to you to ask that you de-link economic sanctions from the military sanctions currently in place against Iraq.

More than nine years of the most comprehensive economic embargo imposed in modern history has failed to remove Saddam Hussein from power or even ensured his compliance with his international obligations, while the economy and people of Iraq continue to suffer.

Reports from UNICEF, (the United Nation's Children's Fund) and other United Nations agencies operating in Iraq estimate that over one million civilians, mostly children, have died from malnutrition and disease as a result of the embargo. UNICEF also reports that, despite the UN's Oil-for-Food program, several thousand children under the age of 5 die every month ("Situation Analysis of Women and Children in Iraq," 1998, UNICEF).

Earlier this year, a special United Nations Security Council panel reported that "the gravity of the humanitarian situation is indisputable and cannot be overstated." Iraq has "experienced a shift from relative affluence to massive poverty." Prior to sanctions, Iraq's healthcare was regarded as amongst the best in the Middle East. Today, children die from epidemics of once preventable diseases. The special Security Council panel reported "infant mortality rates are among the highest in the world." Meanwhile the embargo effectively prevents Iraq from purchasing equipment and spare parts required to restore water purification, sewage treatment, medical infrastructure, electrical, transportation, agricultural, and industrial production systems that were severely damaged during the 1991 Gulf War.

The U.S. Administration has argued that sanctions remain necessary to prevent Iraq from threatening its neighbors and rebuilding its arsenal. The goal of these sanctions, however, seems to have changed. The original UN resolutions imposed sanctions to pressure Iraq to eliminate its weapons of mass destruction programs. Statements by U.S. officials, including Secretary Albright and Sandy Berger, however, suggest that sanctions will remain in place until Saddam Hussein is removed, or even beyond. This policy clearly undermines the original intention of the sanctions, around which the international consensus against Iraq was originally based, and makes the children and families of Iraq into virtual hostages in the political deadlock between the U.S. and the government of Iraq. Morally, it is wrong to hold the Iraqi people responsible for the actions of a brutal and reckless government. Politically, this policy deprives the Iraqi regime of any incentive to comply with UN resolutions and international norms.

The time has come to turn a new page in our dealings with Iraq. While we have no illusions about the brutality of Saddam Hussein, the people of Iraq should be allowed to restore their economic system. We simply ask you to do what is right: lift the economic sanctions. At the same time, we support the continued embargo on military equipment and materials.

Sincerely,

Tom Campbell
Member of Congress
John Conyers
Member of Congress

http://www.adc.org/action/1999/30nov99.htm

[G_j]

57. good read

thanks! :thumbsup:

[sandnsea]

60. It takes both to work?

The point is that all the deaths the left rails about did not occur between Nov 99 and the end of Clinton's term. The left was complaining about the sanctions and the bombings and the rest of it long before this letter was written.

It can be summed up as - Saddam is brutal and when he slaughters thousands of people we will demonize you for it, Bill Clinton, just like we demonized you for Rwanda. Even so, let Saddam have complete access to all the oil money the country will generate, on the outside chance some of it will trickle down to those people who are dying.

Stupid and I don't care that Conyers supported it.

[insane_cratic_gal]

62. You keep saying "the left" as if your separate from it

as if your not part of the picture.

Care to share why?

"The left was complaining " I've caught that in several of your posts but ignored it ..

Do you not identify with "the left"? This is democratic underground far as I know, that encompasses "the left"

[sandnsea]

67. No, I don't identify with the far left

Communists/socialists/anarchist. Nope. Not me. And not the Democratic Party, no matter how much they think they are. The far left is as far left as the radical right is right. Extremists who muck up the works, for the most part. I always thought that they just hadn't considered the whole picture on some issues, but having spent 3 years at DU, I now know that they have a completely separate agenda that has nothing to do with solutions or progress. They truly stand on the outside and throw rocks and think they are going to tear down the "establishment" and create a leftist utopia. Not only is that never going to happen in the US, I wouldn't want it to happen because most of the time the ideas of the left don't consider consequences at all, and haven't thought anything out beyond everything free and power to the people. A small family doesn't function that simply, I don't know why they think governments would.

[Name removed]

69. Deleted message

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

[sandnsea]

73. Really?

You haven't spent much time in the northwest then.

Are you really saying that because I reject socialism and communism and similar extremist idelogies that I, by default, belong at Free Republic??

No lockstep with the enlightened left at all, now is there. :eyes:

[robbedvoter]

74. having experienced dictatorship from the left and now from the right

I totally agree with you. Ultimately, extremists are alike - and if given a chance to seize power will do the same things to the people - because they are a minority and their need to stay in power conflicts with democracy. I notice often times identical rhetoric coming from both extremes in this country. hell, I remember websites attacking Clinton - purported lefties - where Nader and Chomski articles were refferenced right nest to Ken Starr reports and Arkansas Project stuff.
They worked together in the 2000 elections - helping Bush, they both worked hand in hand to attack Clark as soon as he declared his candidacy.
This "Get Clinton!" histeria at a time when hell is breaking lose on BFEE is no coincidence either. Someone pulls some strings and the "naive idealists" jump.
I believe Cindy was used - this was a minor answer to a question - and it's now further exploited on DU to create a disturbance when all efforts for fillibuster are going on.

[sandnsea]

76. Some days

it seems like there is only a handful of individuals who aren't playing personal politics, pushing a political agenda, or otherwise lost in the mire of some political ideology or other. I agree with your COINTELPRO post too.

I don't generally like Clinton politics, but I also think he did the best he could with a really awful situation in Iraq.

[rman]

46. wow, where to start

> "You can't scream that every US intervention is an attack on the brown people, and scream about the US not caring about the brown people, at the same time."

You're saying attacking brown people = caring about brown people? No? Then how does the claim that every US intervention is an attack on the brown people, exclude the claim that the US does not care about brown people? Really it's not so much "brown people" as it is poor people - usually in poor nations. It is exactly because the powers that be (those who staff the executive branch) don't care about poor people that they attack them by means of intervention or reform of one kind or another.

Why would it not be possible for Saddam to both kill some Iraqis and have free health care and education for all, at the same time? (I agree that it wasn't the most vibrant society imaginable, but then again it wasn't/isn't unique in that respect).
Same thing happened in the old USSR; many of the basics of life were free, but people did "disappear".

> "there isn't anybody in this country literally starving to death"
It takes only so much mal nutrition before it cuts short your life span. I guess you'd argue that isn't literally "starving to death".


re. the sanctions: sanctions could have been implemented that would have contained Saddam without hurting the Iraqi population to the extent that these sanctions did.

[sandnsea]

51. Answer your own questions

Because they don't make any sense to me.

How is it that every US intervention gets distorted as an attack on brown, or poor, or however you want to describe foreign nations? How is it that the US is criticized for intervening, and not intervening, either way, doesn't matter, always by the same very far left crowd?

Why is the logical conclusion to who Saddam was assisting and why ever addressed by that same far left? Why are the deaths consistently underplayed or even flatly denied?

Finally, I've been on food stamps. There's no reason anybody should be malnourished in this country, to tell the truth. I happen to think it's depressing and demeaning to have to eat legumes and root vegetables in order to have a nutritious diet; but it is possible. Nobody in the US literally starves.

[DrunkenMaster]

70. Nobody in the US literally starves???

This is the single most irresponsible statment I have EVER read on DU. Y

Hunger In America: Hard Facts

More than one-third (38%) of families leaving welfare reported that they ran out of food and did not have money for more. (Urban Institute - 2001)

Approximately 7 million different people receive assistance in any given week (America's Second Harvest - 2001)

96,000,000,000 pounds of food is thrown away each year by the Food Service Industry. (Source: FoodChain )

33.6 million people including almost 13 million children live in households that experience hunger or the risk of hunger. This represents approximately one in ten households in the United States (10.7 percent). (Bread for the World Institute - 2002)

Children And Hunger: Hard Facts

10.5 percent of all U.S. households, representing 20 million adults and 13 million children, were "food insecure" because of lack of resources (U.S. Census Bureau survey -2000)

Over 9 million children are the recipients of food from either a pantry, kitchen or shelter. (America's Second Harvest - 2001)

22.2% of shelter clients indicated that their child/children was/were hungry at least once during the previous 12 months but couldn't afford more food. (America's Second Harvest - 2001)

Between 2000 and 2001, requests for emergency food assistance increased by an average of 23% in American cities, with 54% of requests coming from families with children. (U.S. Conference of Mayors)

[sandnsea]

75. Hunger is not dying of starvation

Nobody in the US literally starves. Nobody. It's kind of hard to put up all those statistics of adults and children being fed at pantries and food kitchens and shelters, and then turn around and say people are starving to death. Which did happen in Iraq because Saddam did not buy and deliver food with the oil for food money.

[berni_mccoy]

35. More B.S... DUers Need To EXAMINE the FACTS

Sanctions were Initiated by U.S. during Bush Sr. and FULLY BACKED BY UN.
Sanctions DID NOT Limit Food or Humanitarian needs.
Oil For Food Program Created DURING CLINTON ADMIN (yes, he resisted initial version, but allowed it to go through... and he resisted for the right reasons - the program could be abused too easily, as IT WAS).

BUT THE KEY EVERY DUer AND MS. SHEEHAN OVERLOOKS SO EASILY IS THIS:

SADDAM WAS THE ONE WHO DECIDED WHEN SANCTIONS WERE LIFTED. PERIOD. END OF STORY.

STOP THIS BULLSHIT NOW!

I will agree with the OP here on one issue: THE RIGHT WILL TOTALLY USE THIS AGAINST EVERYTHING WE TRY TO DO FROM NOW ON. THIS WILL DAMAGE OUR ABILITY TO WIN ELECTIONS THIS YEAR.

Ms. Sheehan WAS POLITICALLY IRRESPONSIBLE WITH HER STATEMENT, not to mention just plain WRONG.

[meganmonkey]

38. Berni, a few things

Cindy didn't make a 'statement'. This whole argument is based on one sentence taken out of context from an interview a few weeks ago with a member of the Irish press. No one is talking about this but DU as far as I can tell.

Next, sanctions traditionally punish citizens for the actions of their leaders. Most Human Rights groups agree that sanctions are often not the best way to go since a dictator will manage to live large and build palaces while the people are hungry and have no water. They may be effective in the short-term to put pressure on a regime but they are NOT a good idea in the long term.

Finally, I thought we all understood that Saddam, in reality, was not a threat to the US, that he didn't have WMDs. If he didn't have them in 2003 when we invaded, he didn't have them in the mid-90s either. If he was a threat in the 90's, then where did all the weapons go? Other than 4 days of bombing in 1998, we didn't destroy any weapons plants or anything. So what was Saddam doing that was so horrible in the 90s that the deaths of all these children were justified? The same thing he was doing in 2003 when a war was NOT justified.

As for the corruption in the oil-for-food program, well, we aren't one to talk about corruption are we? If any other UN or US program was scrutinized to the extent the oil-for-food program was, I reckon we would see the same amount of corruption.

I don't know, man, what I see on these threads is people trying to say that our foreign policy in Iraq was wrong under the Bushes, but right under Clinton. The thing is, it was pretty much the same policy. Demonize Saddam, and make the Iraqi people suffer. I am not a fan of Saddam, but if we are truly concerned about human rights and potential weapons threats there are 20 other countries in worse positions than Iraq.

(on edit: Overall, I think Clinton is leaps and bounds better than Bush, don't get me wrong. I don't mean to compare bush vs. Clinton here, but the context makes it hard not to)

[berni_mccoy]

47. Megan, with great respect for you, I disagree.

First, I want to say, I appreciate your posts greatly as well as the support you have given me in the past at DU.

:dilemma:

I just can't agree with her statement. I read the transcript. I don't believe I'm taking it out of context, and I don't know why she had to say it. Her statement about Clinton seemed out of place in the discussion and came awkwardly at the end.

I do totally agree that sanctions punish the people of a country. No doubt about it there. But sanctions do provide a means of forcing compliance with international law. And that was what Saddam refused to do. Yes, WMD inspectors were allowed in, and during the 90's they dismantled his WMD program. But WMD was not the only reason for the sanctions. Saddam refused to comply on other aspects of the agreement which required restrictions about troop locations, build-up and actions (and here is a point that I don't like to use, but yes, Saddam did fire on UN forces that were policing the no-fly-zones). These actions by Saddam were why the sanctions were never lifted.

And this is why Clinton objected to the Oil For Food program. Saddam would not use the aid as directed and continue to not comply with the UN Sanction. Why would he when he is getting what he needs to continue military resistance to the UN? He kept rebuilding his military and kept violating the resolution.

You could go back throughout U.S. history and disagree with U.S. foreign policy for both repubs and dems alike. To say Clinton perpetuated the neocon foreign policy and is no different than Bush's is wrong. If that were true, he would have invaded Iraq, we would have not done a damn thing about Haiti, Somalia or Kosovo and we would have been on much worse terms with North Korea. Yes, Rwanda was a failure, and Clinton admitted that, but I don't hear Bush admitting any mistakes of his foreign policy.

If Clinton's policy was so bad, why wasn't Cindy out protesting it then? Why wasn't Clinton impeached for it if he was at fault. The bottom line is, Saddam punished his own people. Period, End of Story.

There are so many reasons why her statement is wrong, both factually and strategically. I believe this will come back and harm the party.

Peace to you Meganmonkey!
:pals: :hug:

[meganmonkey]

54. I find that this is sort of where I part ways with many

here on DU. See, in the 90's I was protesting Clinton, not as adamantly as I protest Bush, of course.

But I am glad we can disagree respectfully. I really appreciate your kind words. And I love your random optimistic crazy threads you start from time to time!

Peace back atcha Berni!

:hug:

[DrunkenMaster]

66. I was too

for his bombings of Iraq and Kosovo. Its nice to see there are still some us left! :)

[DrunkenMaster]

71. well if they were backed by the UN

they MUST have been moral. Uhuh.

[sundancekid]

40. the total absurdity of her apples and nails comparison would then make

the losses suffered out of our Civil War (highest in our history)what exactly???

she's jumped the shark and is objectively out of her element ... what, the sadam hussein genocides, the first gulf war, our "intervention" on the side of iraq in other conflicts don't have a counter weight measure when she "looks" at deaths on any one side?? what possesses her to become a self-proclaimed master of documentable data??? naivete is a dangerous ledge when evaluating such global generalizations ... and, after all that deep and analytic thought, it only comes down to clenis v. chimp ... PUHLEEZE!!!!

[insane_cratic_gal]

41. Oh I don't know Amnesty? Answer

Articles like this..


She's been exposed to many different organizations vying to educate her given her celebrity status.

http://www.casi.org.uk/discuss/1999/msg00763.html

Just Google Clinton sanctions against Iraq
that's enough to raise an eyebrow and wonder why I should defend him. The truth should rein not spin.

[SaveElmer]

44. The bottom line....

How one feel about President Clinton will determone your position on this issue.

If you believe, as apparently many here do, that Bill Clinton would turn his back on the deaths of innocents his policy may have cause, for the purposes of political advantage, then no argument as to the wisdom of sanctions would ever convince you otherwise.

If, on the other hand, you believe Bill Clinton is a good person, who deeply cares about others, then you have to accept that he looked at the danger Hussein posed, looked the the constraints under which he was operating economically, politically, and diplomatically, and arrived at the solution he belived would result in the most good.

The fact is, in the early and mid 90's Saddam Hussein was a serious threat. He had invaded one country, threatened oil supplies, was clearly after WMD's, threatened Israel, indeed bombed them during the gulf war, and showed no hesitation about killing his own people. Clearly something had to be done. The options were very limited. War clearly was not an option. Sanctions were all that was left. Sanctions like war hurt innocents...that is just a sad fact. United States bombing raids during WWII killed hundreds of thousands if not millions of people in WWII, yet what would have been the consequences of not acting? What if Bill Clinton had not acted in Bosnia? And what would have happened had he not acted in Iraq. That Hussein could have developed a nuclear weapon was not far fetched. Indeed Israel took the threat seriously enough to bomb an Iraqi nuclear facility.

Were there problems with the sanctions? Absolutely. Like any human enterprise, including war, it could have been run better. But I have no doubt that at the time it was necessary. While Clinton was President, had Saddam Hussein fully complied with weapons inspectors, I believe the sanctions would have been lifetd. Hussein lost his chance when Bush, who we now know was determined to attack Iraq no matter what, came to power.

[DrunkenMaster]

52. ahem

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.

[G_j]

59. something to think about

I was actively involved in the peace movement then as well, in truth, the first gulf war never really ended.

[enid602]

58. victims

The only problem with Cindy's argument is that the nutrition and medicine situation in Iraq has not improved since the lifting of sanctions, but rather has worsened with ongoing war and insurgence. As such, one should count malnourished children and people with untreated disease among Bush's victims.