"Clinton was Just as Bad as Bush"" - How to Respond?

[qwlauren35]

I received this inflammatory e-mail this morning suggesting that Democrats got us into WWII, Korea, Vietnam & Bosnia without having been attacked by those countries, and while I was successful in addressing the statements about WWII, Korea & Vietnam, showing the circumstances under which we entered the war (Eisenhower got us into Vietnam, actually!)

http://www.korean-war.com/TimeLine/1950/06-25to08-03-50.html
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/VietnamWar.htm

I had no answer for Clinton's actions in Bosnia.
http://www.progressive.org/comment9905.htm

Please read the e-mail, check out the websites, and let me know what you think.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Know the facts

There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq during the month of January.....
In the fair city of Detroit there were 35 murders in the month of January.

That's just one American city, about as deadly as the entire war torn country of Iraq. When some claim President Bush shouldn't have started this war, state the following ..

FDR...
led us into World War II. Germany never attacked us: Japan did.
From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per year.

Truman...
finished that war and started one in Korea, North Korea never attacked us.
From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost, an average of 18,334 per year.

John F. Kennedy...
started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us.

Johnson...
turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost,
an average of 5,800 per year.

Clinton...
went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent, Bosnia never attacked us. He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.

In the two years since terrorists attacked us President Bush has ...
liberated two countries,
crushed the Taliban,
crippled al-Qaida,
put nuclear inspectors in Libya, Iran and North Korea without firing a shot,
and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people.

The Democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking, but...

It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take the Branch Davidian compound. That was a 51 day operation.

We've been looking for evidence of chemical weapons in Iraq for less time than it took Hillary Clinton to find the Rose Law Firm billing records.

It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to destroy the Medina Republican Guard than it took Ted Kennedy to call the police after his Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick.

It took less time to take Iraq than it took to count the votes in Florida!!!!

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

1. "Got us into WWII". Is that supposed to be a BAD thing?

Gee, I guess those types are mad that lousy welfare Democrat prevented those good Teutonuc Christians from wiping out evil Communism from the face of the Earth.

[DBoon]

15. Don't laugh

I've heard this argument made in all seriousness.

Never underestimate the insanity of the American right wing.

[aden_nak]

2. I believe this letter is highly Snopes-able.

[LittleApple81]

3. Whatever they say about the PAST is silly. We deal with the EVIL

we have now and get rid of it. Don't stop thinking about the future!

[Beloved Citizen]

4. Laugh.

[gratuitous]

5. Gee, I haven't seen that one

Since freakin' yesterday!

[cspiguy]

6. so I suppose you're voting for Nader, Eh?

n/t

[bryant69]

7. Let me just take one bit

In the two years since terrorists attacked us President Bush has ...

You mean in the two years since President Bush failed to protect America on September 11?

liberated two countries,

Liberated them into anarchy followed by continued despotism. Somehow I don't think we should be patting ourselves on the back for that.

crushed the Taliban,

Since President Bush failed to provide an alternative, the Taliban will almost certainly be back. It's too bad really, but in Afghanistan there seem to be two historical models; repressive theocracy or ravaging warlords. Too bad we couldn't take the time to give them a third option.

crippled al-Qaida,

I do understand that they are suffering from having too many recruits. It's a real strain on the system to have to train so many. Where's Osama?

put nuclear inspectors in Libya, Iran and North Korea without firing a shot,

Except for the shots fired in Iraq, presumably.

and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people.

Great, we captured Saddam. Of course we know now he wasn't a threat to us, and given that we are going to let them reinstate similarly brutal policies, I'm not sure this is something we should feel too great about.

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

[qwlauren35]

30. Nice Rebuttal...

It helps to be able to put things into perspective.

[Bandit]

8. Do you ever read these forums?

This letter has been on here every day for over two weeks. It is complete BS and I personally am getting sick of seeing it.

[mzmolly]

13. Then use the *hide* function.

I've not seen it before, and I'm here often. :hi:

[qwlauren35]

32. I'm sorry, I didn't know.

And to answer your question, I read very selectively. If I attempted to read everything in DU, I wouldn't have a life.

[jpgray]

9. Well, it leads off with some righteous bullshit

"There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq during the month of January.....
In the fair city of Detroit there were 35 murders in the month of January.

That's just one American city, about as deadly as the entire war torn country of Iraq. When some claim President Bush shouldn't have started this war, state the following .."

First of all, January was a rather quiet month as deaths go. Second, there were at most 130,000 troops in Iraq in January. The city of Detroit has about 900,000 people, and the metro area contains upwards of 3 million. So if Iraq were only as dangerous as Detroit, there should have only been 8 combat deaths in Iraq during the month of January using the population of Detroit itself as a base of comparison, and less than three using the metro area population as a base of comparison.

And lastly, this totally ignores the number of civilian deaths, which go unreported but are in the tens of thousands by this time. Certainly these should be included in any claim of Iraq's comparative safety when measured against Detroit? If we are only going by deaths of security personnel, shouldn't the number of troop deaths in Iraq be more aptly compared to the deaths of police officers in Detroit?

Start there. This is BS at first, and it likely runs all the way through.

[spanone]

10. #1. Maybe we should send troops into Detroit!

Bring 'em home.

[welshTerrier2]

11. Clinton's Not on This Year's Ballot

I was not overly fond of Clinton and see no reason to defend him. You could also argue about Nixon, Carter, Reagan etc ... what's any of that got to do with this year's election?

It's Kerry versus Bush ... pointing fingers at Clinton doesn't mean anything ... it's not Clinton's record that should be the focus of discussion; it's bush's ...

[mn9driver]

12. Put on your critical thinking cap

Every one of these points is either bogus--hoping you don't know your history--or comparing apples and oranges. Quick examples:

Combat killings vs. civilian killings: A more accurate comparison would be to compare combat deaths in Iraq vs. combat deaths in Detroit. Also, compare civilian deaths in Iraq vs. the aforementioned (and probably rectally produced) numbers for Detroit. I guarantee the the comparisons won't be favorable.


WW2: The US went into the war after Pearl Harbor, after Germany declared war on us, after at least 8 US merchant ships had been sunk by U boats, after two thirds of Europe had been invaded and conquered by Germany. Germany, Japan and Italy were openly cooperating and assisting each other--the origin of the term "Axis".

This is easy--it just takes time. Have fun.

[Jacobin]

14. This damn thing is floating around like a turd in a toilet

WWII. We were attacked by the Japanese at Pearl Harbor. Japan and Germany were allied. Germany was also attacking our ships. Do repukes actually think we should have stayed out of WWII? What planet are they on?

Korea. Nobody said it would be a cake-walk before we sent troops. Nobody made up lies about them attacking the U.S. We sent troops to keep the north from taking over the south. Whether it was a good decision or not, nobody lied about the reason.

Vietnam. Yeah, it was a huge fucking mistake, that everyone vowed we would never do again. Hellooooooooooooooooooo.

Bosnia. Coalition of European nations and the U.S. to stop the killing of hundreds of thousands in a genocide in the same country where WWI started. No U.S. soldiers killed. A mistake? In what way?

IraqNam. Promised a cake walk and flowers in the streets and that we would be greeted as liberators. Told we were about to be under attack with gawdawful weapons. We were LIED into that invasion to steal their oil. It will NEVER end until we withdraw our troops. A fucking disaster of epic proportions that will further de-stabilize the Middle East, kill countless people over the next decade and cost upwards of a trillion dollars in the next decade. We WILL be run out. We WILL NOT win this war.

Where do these people read their history? WTF? Are they so glued to their beliefs that they just completely ignore historical fact?

These people are fucking hopeless.

[greenbriar]

16. well clinton ain't running this year is he....

its Kerry and he is WAY better than shrubby

[liberalmuse]

17. You know...

this letter is so assinine and blatantly false that it really isn't worth a response. I commend anyone of you who has the energy to tackle this kind of B.S.

This is what we're up against--human beings with the brain capacity of a garden slug. When I read something like this first thing in the morning, I wish someone would just come along and bash my head in with a 2 x 4 so I would never, ever again have to experience the aggravation of coming across this kind of stupidity. Ouch!

[RoyGBiv]

18. Holy Crap...

This is the third time I've seen this thing on DU in the last week, the second time in the last 24 hours. A friend sent it to me a few weeks ago to get my comment so he could respond to the person that sent it to him. I also saw it several months ago and actually took the time then to reply to it. Others have as well.

So in summary just let me say that this is garbage, contains numerous historical inaccuracies, and should die.

OnEdit: I will respond to this one thing, because it's an inaccuracy a lot of people propagate, and it drives me nuts.

Germany never attacked us: Japan did.

Japan attacked the United States. The United States declared war on Japan. Germany, holding to the terms of its treaty with Japan, declared war on the United States. That declaration indicated Germany's intention to attack United States' interests, shipping, etc. and, potentially, to aid Japan in its war with the US. Then, in response, the United States declared war on Germany.

[Cocoa]

19. serious question for you...

why?

Seriously, why respond? Why not ask them to take you off their list?

These are not rhetorical questions, I really want to know...

[qwlauren35]

33. It came from a close personal friend.

I guess that's just reality. Some of my friends don't support Kerry. And he gets all of my pro-Kerry e-mails. So I guess it seemed fair to read it at least.

When I read it, it made me realize that I'm VERY ignorant about these matters, so I did a fair bit of research. And, as I said, I was comfortable rebutting every major statement... except the one about Clinton. I hadn't realized that the Bosnia situation was essentially one that we blundered.

The comparisons at the bottom weren't worth my time, so I ignored them as the inflammatory garbage that they were. But the finger pointing at Clinton really got to me.

So many people have been up in arms about Bush's decision to invade Iraq. But reading the progressive article about Clinton makes me realize that Clinton did something EXTREMELY similar. So those (like me) who thought that Bush's attack on Iraq is unprecedented may not be so up on history. Our war in Bosnia set the stage for Bush's attack; similar to Bush, Clinton, not Congress, led the initiative (Congress gave him the go ahead, as Congress gave Bush). The UN was AGAINST the attack (as the UN was against Bush).

It was these specific issues that made me want to question my tendency to rail against Bush about going into Iraq. However, the people who have been nice enough to respond with some meat have shown me enough details to put me on firm footing again.

[Cocoa]

39. you're just an innocent little thing aren't you?

[qwlauren35]

40. Quite possibly.

Did you mean innocent? Or ignorant?

The more I learn, the more I know how little I know.

But at least I admit it.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

20. WW2, Korea, And Bosnia Were Justifiable....

We should have tried to co opt Ho Che Minh... His beef was with the French colonialists not us....

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

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

[mn9driver]

25. Too much coffee this morning?

Twitchy mouse finger? :bounce: :bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce:

[WoodrowFan]

26. Bosnia

I beleive Bosnia had NATO approval, so it did have the approval of a legal international organization.

[CBHagman]

27. That e-mail has been taken apart repeatedly here at DU.

For starters, whoever wrote it slept through history class. He/She also doesn't have much of a sense of international affairs. His/Her ethics are abysmal.

For starters, the claim that Clinton was "offered" bin Laden has been thoroughly debunked. I can't recall which current books (SERIOUS books, not horse manure cranked out by Regnery Press) covered that, but I seem to recall "Ghost Wars" covers the complex situation in Asia, the rise of the Taliban, the question of allying the U.S. with warlords (something the Bush administration was apparently not squeamish about doing).

The Balkans wars of the 1990s were the bloodiest conflict in Europe since World War II and threatened the stability of the Western world. The people of the Balkans a refugee crisis, massacres, inter-ethnic violence, expulsions, sniper attacks, systematic rape of women and murder of men and boys, and other atrocities. The war crimes tribunal for these wars is continuing even as we speak.

Really, debunking outright stupidity and ignorance is such a time-consuming task. Someone needs to compose a concise response to that drivel.

[NewJeffCT]

28. Try Snopes, as usual... and a few from memory

1) The US has about 140,000 troops in Iraq, Detroit is a city of approximately 1 million people. That also does not take into account all the "brown skinned people" that were killed in Iraq, be they insurgents, innocent bystanders, Iraqi police & government officials or US mercenaries.

2) Chain of events - a) Japan attacks Pearl Harbor
b) US declares war on Japan
c) Japan's ally Germany, declares war on us.

3) Korea was a UN sanctioned action, and there were 20K of our soldiers on the Korean peninsula when North Korea attacked. Should we have abandoned them? An invasion by North Korea probably seemed like an imminent threat to those 20,000 soldiers.

4) Eisenhower was the one that first put 'advisors' into Vietnam, but it was a royal screw-up by everybody involved.

5) Bosnia was a NATO sanctioned action to prevent proven genocide that was ongoing, not US sanctioned genocide from the 1980s.

6) Sudan was in no position to offer Osama to Clinton. A businessman who now works for Fox News claims he offered Osama to Clinton, but he never offered any proof. There was a supposed offer by the Sudan to turn bin Laden over to the Saudis, which was rejected by the Saudis. And, again, the gov't of Sudan was in no position to get bin Laden.

7) Liberated Afghanistan? The president there is afraid to leave his palace, warlords control everything outside of Kabul, the opium trade is booming and they just had to beg for more UN forces to help them.
Liberated Iraq? The country is on the verge of civil war, the new leader is a Saddam-wannabe trained by the CIA and thought of as a US stooge by the Iraqis. Government officials are killed on an almost daily basis now.
Crippled Al Qaeda? Ask the governments of Turkey, Morocco, Spain & Bali if they are crippled? Heck, our own AG John Asscrack says we are in more danger than ever of a terror attack here in the US. The State Dept says that worldwide terror attacks in 2003 were at a 30 year high, and that didn't include Iraq or Afghanistan. The Bush invasion of Iraq has, in actuality, created a recruiting bonanza for Osama bin Laden & Al Qaeda.

Inspectors had access to NK and Iran prior to Bush declaring them as part of the Axis of Evil. Only through the intervention of the Chinese in NK and the Brits & French in Iran get them back in. Negotiations for Libya to give up its WMD programs started 10 years ago.

[redqueen]

29. Nice refutation

Would someone care to get the link from snopes, and all these responses, and then we can just cut and paste for the next time this crap shows up? It doesn't help to keep it kicked, so once the response is posted, it will just sink as it should.

[NewJeffCT]

38. We should create a separate forum

Debunking Right Wing BS

That way, we don't have to retype it every week.

Thanks for the compliment, by the way... Every few hundred posts, I actually contribute something worthwhile to DU.

[zbdent]

31. One key point I make when people compare the death totals of

Iraq per whatever period to whichever city/state is convenient:

You are comparing apples to oranges.

First thing, you are reporting the number of US soldiers killed. Factor in the number if Iraqis killed, and you'll get a real indication. Oh, the media isn't really reporting the number of Iraqi civilians killed in this war. That's unpatriotic.

Then, if you still insist on pointing only to the US soldiers, then you can't say about the deaths in so-and-so city without putting the perspective that, in one sense, the US soldiers are the police. If so-and-so city had x number of cops murdered (and not even including the number injured), then there would be a major outrage and a total crackdown on that city. If 35 cops were killed in Detroit in one month, there would be no Detroit.

[NewJeffCT]

37. we Americans...

We Americans don't count those brown-skinned people and we don't care... so, their deaths don't count to most Americans.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

34. Ah, and before I forget...

[library_max]

35. Bosnia was a sovereign nation that was being attacked by an aggressor.

Bosnia was like Desert Storm, but it wasn't like the present war in Iraq.

[seabeyond]

36. kosvo vs iraq

clinton was just as bad? NOT