Clinton bombed and starved Iraq throughout the 90s...

[UdoKier]

Clinton bombed and starved Iraq throughout the 90s, and we all know that the PNAC folks tried to get him to invade Iraq, so whaddya think?

[Psephos]

1. Clinton did what his pollster told him to do.

He was always the consummate politician.

Peace.

[Terran1212]

19. Clinton = War Criminal

Enough said

[benburch]

2. Unlikely Gore would have even touched Iraq.

I believe he would have eased sanctions, and eventually eliminated them.

[UdoKier]

3. Probably not.

But I wouldn't be surprised if Clinton had a strong inkling that Gore would never be allowed the presidency. The two were not very close.

[politicaholic]

4. Clinton (Godforbid) decided to work with the UN on Iraq...

that whole diplomatic route...you remember diplomacy don't you? I'm personally beginning to forget what it looks like.

[elehhhhna]

18. Diplomacy ?!! That's sooooooo "old america".

[unblock]

5. i don't believe he figured any successor would invade

although i'm sure he know that this would happen if shrub managed to finagle his way into the oval office. honestly, i think nailing saddam was the only reason he wanted to be president at all. everything about his body language suggests he hates being president.

i think clinton did what he felt he had to do. any backing off would have seriously hurt him politically, as being soft on evil saddam.

oh, and clinton was not remotely the most progressive president ever. he only seemed progressive compared to the banana republicans. i don't think he was much more progressive than, say, gerald ford and nelson rockefeller. if he had a liberal congress, things might have been different, but as it was, clinton was more old-fashioned (pre-banana) republican lite than progressive.

[UdoKier]

9. You do know I was joking about the "progressive" thing.

I see Clinton as one of the brightest, most charming and competent Republican presidents we've ever had.

[unblock]

20. and you're not the first person to make that judgement

i am among those who sometimes call him the best republican president we've ever had. if only they were all like that....

in any event, sometimes it doesn't hurt to spell things out.
:hi:

[eissa]

I criticized Clinton's Iraq policies as well

I thought (and still think) that Madeline Albright was one of the worst Secretary of States ever. Her comment on 60 Minutes regarding the death of thousands of Iraqis due to sanctions as being "worth it" was one of the most callous comments regarding death that I've ever heard (along with McVeigh's description of dead children as "collateral damage.")

That's the difference between us and the repukes -- we are capable of criticizing our own rather that goose-stepping behind an inept president the way they do.

[Wilms]

8. I'll second that. n/t

[malmapus]

17. With you both on that

Making the Iraqi people pay when we knew sactions weren't working as intended, then Albright saying that crap.

[Southsideirish]

22. No Clinton fan here!!

[applegrove]

6. I'll add that most people who dealt with Saddam in any way ended

up covered in slime. Saddam was a psychopath. He 'did' people. Including Rumsfield, Cheney, Reagan, Bush Sr., and all the rest.

[coloradodem2005]

7. And how is that worse than what Bush has been doing?

[UdoKier]

11. Who said it was worse?

Downright evil is always worse than just bad. But I don't look at the 90s through rose-colored glasses. I disagreed with Clinton on the sanctions regime, and I was also very upset at the speculative "new economy" nonsense that was going on, even as personal debt and bankruptcies were soaring. Clinton's policies were much better than Bush 2's but they were still way too Reagan-supply-side-go-go-let's-outsource-all-our-jobs for my taste.

Hell, Nixon was 10 times better than Bush, but that's no reason to idolize him.

[Vyan]

14. Clinton Signed the Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998

The goal wasn't to invade Iraq using American Forces, but to aid any and all internal democratic movements within Iraq with Military and Humanitarian assistance. In other words, help them free themselves - not take them over. Repubs and even some Dems like to claim that Clinton "did nothing" to help free Iraq, but that simply isn't true.

It wasn't a quick fix - but it was something.

SEC. 3. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING UNITED STATES POLICY TOWARD IRAQ.

It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.

SEC. 4. ASSISTANCE TO SUPPORT A TRANSITION TO DEMOCRACY IN IRAQ.

(a) AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE ASSISTANCE- The President may provide to the Iraqi democratic opposition organizations designated in accordance with section 5 the following assistance:

(1) BROADCASTING ASSISTANCE- (A) Grant assistance to such organizations for radio and television broadcasting by such organizations to Iraq.

(B) There is authorized to be appropriated to the United States Information Agency $2,000,000 for fiscal year 1999 to carry out this paragraph.

(2) MILITARY ASSISTANCE- (A) The President is authorized to direct the drawdown of defense articles from the stocks of the Department of Defense, defense services of the Department of Defense, and military education and training for such organizations.

(B) The aggregate value (as defined in section 644(m) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961) of assistance provided under this paragraph may not exceed $97,000,000.

(b) HUMANITARIAN ASSISTANCE- The Congress urges the President to use existing authorities under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to provide humanitarian assistance to individuals living in areas of Iraq controlled by organizations designated in accordance with section 5, with emphasis on addressing the needs of individuals who have fled to such areas from areas under the control of the Saddam Hussein regime.

(c) RESTRICTION ON ASSISTANCE- No assistance under this section shall be provided to any group within an organization designated in accordance with section 5 which group is, at the time the assistance is to be provided, engaged in military cooperation with the Saddam Hussein regime.


Clinton's bombings of Iraq were against specific targets and WMD facilities - his actions are a large reason why we can't find WMD's now - what wasn't destroyed by UN inspectors prior to 1998, was destroyed by bombs. The famine in Iraq was a result of post Gulf-War UN sanctions, are we're at least partially alleviated by the Oil-for-Food effort, which obviously was imperfect.

Vyan

[MadHound]

10. Yes he did, another stupid action by our best Republican President

Clinton's actions with the embargo and thrice weekly bombing runs wound up killing between four and five hundred thousand innocents, mostly the elderly, women and children, from disease and starvation. I've never figured out why Clinton continued with this stupid piece of policy, but then again I never figured out a lot of the idiocy that Clinton performed, like the '96 Telecom Act, welfare reform, NAFTA, etc. etc. ad nauseum.

[spooked911]

12. Neither Clinton NOR Saddam "starved" Iraqis. That is pure propaganda.

And I think Clinton's bombing of Iraq was quite immoral but not as bad as Bush's invasion.

[UdoKier]

13. So, a half million Iraqis didn't die of malnutrition & preventable disease

after Desert Storm?

[spooked911]

16. No. The US promoted that idea to show how horrible Saddam was

and Saddam let it be perpetrated because he wanted to show how tough he was and to show how the world was against him.

The Iraqis had enough to eat. Life was tough under sanctions, no doubt, but they weren't starving.

[Wilms]

23. Uh. If you have cholera I'm not sure how "enough to eat" will help. n/t

[Dogmudgeon]

15. Other: Clinton got the blame for a massive clusterfuck

Here's a (partial) list of the organizations that wanted a strong embargo -- or invasion -- against Iraq:

• The United Nations


• The Republican Party


• Project for the New American Century


• The Council for Foreign Relations


• Israel


• Iran


• The House of Saud


• Most of the rest of the Shi'a Muslim political world

And who gets blamed for it? Bill Clinton! As if he personally savaged Iraq for nearly a full decade. Nobody remembers that he tried several times to soften the embargo, either.

So once again, the Mighty Clenis provides uncontainable excitement for the Right and Left alike -- Cockburn, Hitchens, Chomsky, Nader, Zeese, and hundreds of lesser lefty lights regularly vilified and still vilify him; and suddenly, a lot of Republicans have developed a taste for the exotica of human rights.

Clinton deserves rebuke for not taking an even stronger stand to reduce the human impact of the embargo -- and that's all.

Meanwhile, where is the criticism of those other groups I mentioned earlier on?

--p!

[Terran1212]

21. Facts COMPLETELY wrong on United Nations

Out of the 135/137 (I don't remember) medical items barred from entering Iraq, all but 2 were being barred by the United States at the request of the Clinton Administration.

Most members of the UN wanted the sanctions dropped altogether; the Security Council wanted 99% of the medical items being barred to be reopened. And Clinton did nothing.

Second, I've never heard that the Shi'a supported the embargoes.

[Dogmudgeon]

24. And yet, it was an official UN Embargo

Interesting.

Sounds like the kind of CYA that the Republicans used to push aggression, then blame Clinton for being a big meany.

The Shi'ites -- they're not just opposed to the Sunnis on religious grounds, they regularly denounced Saddam Hussein for apostasy and human rights violations. The Shi'a/Sunni rift is still active in Iraq and a number of violent skirmishes are religious in nature.

The Shi'ite politicians are no stranger to CYA actions, either.

Clinton's share of the blame should be in proportion to his actual complicity -- it was significant, but to hear the Conventional Wisdom tell it, all that Clinton lacked was a big blue ox named Babe.

--p!