Bush's body count in Iraq vs. Clintons.

[TrustingDog]

I know this is probably going to get some feathers ruffled, but I was reading my 'bible' yesterday (Propaganda and the Public Mind by Chomsky) and I kept on asking myself this silly question.

How many Iraqi's did Clinton kill, compared to Bush the present? Take into account the years and years of bombing and harsh sanctions that are said to have killed at least 500,000 children alone (to which Maddy Albright said something like: Well, it's a price we have to pay). Let alone the targeting of important infrastructure such as water treatment plants, etc.

So really, Bush has some catching up to do (or does he, maybe he's already hit the mark, whose to know) but Clinton is considered by many here as some heroic scholarly saviour, when really he is just a cog in the corporate controlling machine as any president is and as all of us are.

I think Nader was right and I apologize to him for so easily being swayed to think that the Dems are really all that much different than the Pugs. They aren't, they're just a bit more intellectual (but not necessarily smarter in the Game of things).

There is no Santa, folks. :(

[mattclearing]

1. Not if you take his father into account.

eom.

[TrustingDog]

2. what then is 'acceptable' what number? :(

[illflem]

3. Don't junior hear this

he'll accelerate the killing in order to beat Clinton.
The sanctions that killed so many were imposed by the UN not the US.

[TrustingDog]

4. I always understood that the US had the upper hand in

all things UN. Are you telling me that they would 'go along' with something not to their liking? Are you kidding me?

[TrustingDog]

5. Denis Halliday, UN SG & Humanitarian Co-ordinator:

"We are in the process of destroying an entire society. It is as simple and terrifying as that. It is illegal and immoral." Denis Halliday, after resigning as first UN Assistant Secretary General and Humanitarian Coordinator in Iraq, The Independent, 15 October 1998

Was it the fault of a weak and ineffective Clinton administration against the powers of the UN that tried to prevent these atrocities and failed, or was it likely very well recieved and agreed with. Keep in mind the bombing just keeps going on and on and on.

[freeplessinseattle]

6. what about all the children dying from malnutrition now? twice as many

as before the invasion. they are indirect casualties, and the most innocent.

[TrustingDog]

8. just because Bush is a bastard devil, means that Clinton

is a good guy compared, even tho he too is responsible (that is if we place such responsibility on the President and not on the shadow-slime machinery that runs the presidency-corporate interests, which we generally do) for the misery and deaths of untold thousands and thousands?

See, I really have trouble accepting this. Either one is totally this kind of horrific aggression or for it no matter who happens to be sitting in the big chair at the time.

[freeplessinseattle]

9. I didn't suggest that Clinton's policies were great. Starbuck's time:)

they both have committed atrocities, but that doesn't excuse * at all.

[TrustingDog]

11. who would even suggest that it excuses him...

that is no where near where I was going. but I find it a disturbing point of argument that I come across - that no matter what 'your guy' did, the other one 'did worser!'.
Like Abu Graib - but, but, Saddam was worser!

At which point I like to say: Well, if the US is the most benevolent, humanitarian country on the planet, how many atrociities is it allowed to be measured against the most brutal regime on the planet? 1 to 10, 1 to 100? another magic elusive number.

[clutchcargo]

16. You have your facts wrong---

There are far more people receiving food and medical treatment now than under Saddam. It does not excuse what Bush is doing there but for the average citizen their basic needs are being met better now. The real problem lies in the terrorist-insurgents-freedom fighters- mercenaries -patriots- call them what you like. They are disrupting the U.S. effort to rebuild and get out. Possibly for a good reason. Never the less many are from other countries so I do not think that the occupation is their concern. Besides one thing you can say about the good ole USA-----Once we defeat and bomb a country in to hell and submission, we at least usually at least leave. It's the little things that count!!

[freeplessinseattle]

17. Not According to UNICEF

http://www.unicef.org/media/media_24233.html

[Higans]

42. Here is an idea!

Why don't we tell all the terrorist-insurgents-freedom fighters-mercenaries-patriots to pick a deserted island, or plot of land to fight on. any one who wishes to fight can go there. once enough are gathered, we can just drop a big bomb on them, and schedule the next group of people wanting to fight to stand there next week.

May be this way all the people who don't want to fight, or blow things up can live peacefully.

* uses the excuse "If we fight them there, we won't have to fight them here."

My question is: "How many of the humans there, want to come here to fight?"

If I had opportunity to ask a second question I would ask: "how many Humans will be left on the planet after you have killed all of the ones that might think your evil?"

[clutchcargo]

49. At the rate we are going we will have to fight

almost evey Country in the World

[ScrewyRabbit]

7. I think by the end of Clinton's last term that they knew the sanctions

were resulting in harsh suffering on the part of the Iraqis. I think Al Gore would've changed the policy.

There were a lot of things I didn't like about Clinton, and certainly the way the sanctions were carried out was one of them. For me it's not black and white, there are things I admire about the guy but I don't think he was "some heroic scholarly saviour". Part of being a progressive is trying to see complexity in the world and accept nuance.

[Darranar]

26. They knew for several years. It was "worth it". n/t

[DerekG]

10. You're a brave one, TrustingDog

Many Democrats, even liberals, conveniently forget the role Clinton and his vizier Albright had in preserving that barbarous embargo.

With his propensity for masking his crimes with infinitesimal charisma, I've likened Clinton to Ted Bundy, as opposed to Bush's cultic, frothing Charles Manson.

[TrustingDog]

12. Time for some real painful soul searching, isn't it? n/t

[Radical Activist]

13. No self-respecting fan of Chomsky

Will go along with the Democratic mantra that Clinton was all things good and right in the world. Just remember that you can't paint all Democrats with the same brush-stroke. There were Democrats like Kucinich who opposed what Clinton did in Sarajevo and Iraq.

[wyldwolf]

18. Kucinich?

in 1998, under President Clinton, Kucinich voted for the Iraq Liberation Act.

In a February 2003 interview with "Meet the Press," he argued for the continuation of sanctions on Iraq.

[Radical Activist]

19. You sure about that?

He opposed them in February of 2000 very clearly. If he ever supported them he must have decided they were wrong at some point. Here's a quote and a link, I notice you don't provide one.

http://www.commondreams.org/news2000/0216-10.htm

Rep. Kucinich said that the sanctions are "not just counterproductive, but immoral." He added that "You can be opposed to the Iraqi regime and opposed to the sanctions at the same time and we must do that."

[wyldwolf]

21. yeah, very sure.

He's "changed" his mind on abortion for political reasons, too, so it doesn't surprise me he would modify his position on Iraq.

But, look, I could nit pic anyone's record and find something to disagree on. It all comes down to how consistant one wants to be in their criticism of politicians.

[Radical Activist]

25. Consistency is good

All politicians change their mind about something in their careers. I only get uptight when someone tries to have it both ways on an issue. You got any links for Kucinich supporting the sanctions after 2000?

[Darranar]

23. If he really did express support for the sanctions...

it would run contrary to his long-term position, so I doubt it.

Care to link to that?

[wyldwolf]

28. Partial transcript

MR. RUSSERT: It wasn't “thwart”; it was “remove the regime.” Are you still in favor of removing Saddam Hussein from power?

REP. KUCINICH: Oh, Saddam Hussein should be removed from power.

MR. RUSSERT: How would you do it?

REP. KUCINICH: But not by military force.

MR. RUSSERT: How would you do it?

REP. KUCINICH: I think the way that you do it is continue to use sanctions which thwart his efforts to grow. We've contained him. He doesn't have nuclear weapons. We do not know if he has biological and chemical weapons. That's going to be up to the U.N. inspectors to be able to determine if they're usable. The idea of Saddam Hussein continuing in power is something that I think most Americans support—can be removed. The question is: What is the most effective way to thwart Hussein? And I don't believe the most effective way is war. I think that will only make him a martyr and will cause the United States to be a target of terrorist attacks.

http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:3k5XJk-kUacJ:www.vote-smart.org/speech_detail.php%3Fspeech_id%3DM000017254+%22is+continue+to+use+sanctions+which+thwart+his+efforts+to+grow.%22+&hl=en

Researching it deeper, I found something else. So, in the spirit of fairness, Kucinich "clarified" his statement in a Salon interview: "I probably should have used a modifier on "Meet the Press." I should have said smart sanctions. I would oppose some sanctions..."

[Darranar]

30. So Kucinich opposed Clinton's sanctions, but not ALL sanctions...

which was the correct position to take.

[RafterMan]

32. There was no "correct" position

People who knew sanctions were bad policy but had no idea what else to do always used the term "smart sanctions". But what was meant in the content of that phrase did not and could not take away the fundamental problem with the sanctions, because it was structural -- Saddam had the power to prosper while his people suffered and blame the UN for their misery. Both of these worked to his advantage.

I can't kill Kucinich for not having a good solution to the problem. There wasn't one. But I can't credit him for pushing the "smart sanctions" crap either. It's just weasel words.

[wyldwolf]

33. that isn't even close to what he said

REP. KUCINICH: I think the way that you do it is continue to use sanctions which thwart his efforts to grow.

Since the only sanctions he could possibly be talking about "continuing" were the ones in place in the 90s, he was obviously referring to those.

Before Kucinich "clarified" his statement in a Salon interview, he felt a lot of heat for his statement from the left which probably prompted him to make the clarification.

But he has changed position before to appease the left and further his career (abortion), so I see nothing to convince me this is any different. He supported the first gulf war and supported the 1998 Iraq Liberation act.

[Darranar]

35. No. Kucinich had one position. He OPPOSED Clinton's sanctions...

but didn't oppose ALL aspects of those sanctions.

Nothing he has ever said contradicts that.

The 1998 Iraq Liberation Act was rather pointless, I believe all it did was express support for regime change there.

[wyldwolf]

47. you like Kucinich, so you're justifying his words

[Radical Activist]

40. Yet he opposed the sanctions in 2000 very clearly

So it would not be accurate to say he only opposed sanctions after complaints from the left in 2003.

I don't think there's anything unreasonable or that unclear about supporting sanctions that hinder Iraq's ability to attain materials to make WMD's and their "ability to grow" militarily; and opposing sanctions that starve the Iraqi people. Not all sanctions are alike.

I don't think you'll find any office holder who doesn't change at least one position in their career. Obviously abortion is very important to you. He never called for overturning Roe v. Wade, but Kucinich was very straightforward when he changed his views on abortion a year before he began to campaign for President. I'm glad he did.

[wyldwolf]

48. yet he clearly supported them in 2003 ....

..as an alternative to war.

[DerekG]

15. Howard Zinn warned us about so-called "progressive" Democrats

In his essay "Just and Unjust War", Zinn alludes to the dangers that come with administrations perceived as progressive/populist/liberal--men like Wilson, Truman, Johnson and Clinton were far more credible in shrouding their murderous foreign policies in righteousness due to their benevolent domestic visions. With men (and I use this term loosely) like Reagan and Bush, on the other hand, the imperial workings of America are laid bare for all the world.

Beware the militaristic liberal (or, in the case of Clinton, moderate).

[clutchcargo]

14. How soon we forget about the cost in LIVES of

our previous policy in Iraq of sanctions. It got us the Oil For Food scandal and allowed Saddam to starve to death thousands of his countrymen. Anyone who thinks the scandal brewing at the United Nations is not real should read again how many billions of dollars were involved. Even the most well intentioned of men and women will fall prey to those kind of riches(bribes) It seems to me that the whole world is corrupt!!

[eridani]

41. They weren't starving--food wasn't the problem

Food distribution was in fact very well run, despite Saddam's using Oil for Food as a cover to get money for other purposes.

The death rate from the sanctions was due mostly to two things
1. In 1991, Bush the 1st deliberately targeted water and sewage treatment systems for destruction. Rebuilding didn't do much good, because the US refused to let Iraq import chlorine for water treatment on the grounds that it could also be used for chemical weapons manufacture.
2. Medical supplies were gratuitously blocked due to supposed dual use for biological weapons.

[RafterMan]

20. The moralizing is tedious

but the honesty is refreshing.

[Darranar]

22. Per year, Bush has killed far more. n/t

[TrustingDog]

36. so what's the magic number?

How many do you have to kill to be not quite a mass murderer (for us simple folk, it's usually just one and you get a life sentence or a death sentence). How much do you have to steal to be forgiven? (if it's in the millions or billions, chances are you get off easier than robbing a 7-11)
I do not disagree that the Bushole is the anvil of all that was intended coming down on us all.... but the path was chosen and trodden by others to make it easier for him. We have accepted this and now it's too late.

[Darranar]

37. I never said that Clinton wasn't a mass murderer. n/t

[Sparkly]

24. There is NO comparison.

First, to estimate deaths in Iraq before Chimp's regime, you have to include Poppy's term, too. Moreover, I think there's blame to be laid directly on Saddam Hussein himself. Not to excuse Clinton, but the problems go back before him, and continue beyond him as well. Do we know how many would have been killed had he done nothing; do we know how many would have been killed if he'd done something different; do we know how many would have been killed if he'd have ordered more military force?

Second, is there a way to compare the situation as we found it last year with the situation as it exists today in Iraq, regarding how many people would have died under Saddam vs. Chimp? Supposedly (according to one of the many excuses for the invasion), we invaded to save people from Saddam's murderous regime. But how many did WE murder, and how many would Saddam have murdered during this same time period? I think the situation was under better control the way Clinton left it.

Third, given a realm of choices (doing nothing, doing something, going hogwild and invading), the use of force, threats, sanctions and inspections Chimp 'inherited' were having an effect on Saddam; the "mass graves" uncovered weren't new ones. Saddam was horrible, but even IF more needed to be done, there was a lot of room between the either/or of leaving it alone and doing what the Chimp did.

We can quibble about what Clinton should or shouldn't have done with a very difficult situation and a true tyrant. But there's no question in my mind that what the Chimp has done is FAR, far, far, worse and will have huge consequences for years to come, not only in Iraq, but in the middle east as a region and for the US -- in credibility, in military strength, and in economic stability. The cost in dollars and lives is tragic and will ultimately affect the entire world, imho. There's nothing Clinton ever dreamed of doing that comes close to matching this.

[Darranar]

27. Bush has killed tens of thousands more innocents...

than the sanctions would have killed, yes. His policies are worse than Clinton's were. But the fact remains that Clinton approved a plan of mass starvation directed at the people of Iraq. That's completely inexcusable.

[Sparkly]

29. I think that's a simplistic view

that imagines people would not otherwise have been killed. It's easy to blame Clinton (and many are great at it) by imagining an absence of all evil and ascribing all disasters as the direct result of Clinton's decisions, as if he actually said, "Hey, let's starve people!"

The situation was difficult and complicated, as are many. He did what he thought best to save more lives in the long run rather than ignore a tyrant's abuse and murder of people, OR invade the way the Chimp did. And again, look at the situation each 'inherited.' We could argue a long time about what Clinton might have done differently, but to state that he just "approved a plan of mass starvation" is over-simplifying it in a misleading way.

[Darranar]

31. No simplification involved. That's what he did...

"Saving more lives" by killing over a million doesn't make much sense to me, sorry.

Blocking food and medicine didn't undermine Saddam Hussein, in fact it strengthened him. It made the Iraqi people more dependent on his government and made many Iraqis more fearful of outside enemies.

[TrustingDog]

34. what would You The People have done if it were your choice?

I hope to believe that if it were really in your court, you wouldn't want to do harm to families over there somewhere just trying to survive like all try, everywhere.

Who wants to do harm and for what reason?

profit.

Which party has been harmless?

neither.

[WhereIsMyFreedom]

38. Who is to blame?

How do you determine which lives were Clinton's responsibility and which were Hussein's? Saddam Hussein had it in his power to prevent those million Iraqi deaths. As leader of that country, isn't it his responsibility? I'm not saying that I agree with Clinton's sanctions but you are taking a very simplistic view of the situation by blaming the deaths on Clinton.

I also don't agree that the sanctions strengthened him. It may not have hurt him but the effect they had was no different than one he could have emulated himself. He could have blocked food and medicine coming into Iraq himself and blamed other countries' sanctions. He did control the media after all.

[TrustingDog]

43. ""He did control the media after all.""

who, Billy?

lol.

[WhereIsMyFreedom]

51. The 'he' in that paragraph

very clearly referred to Saddam Hussein.

Darranar said:
Blocking food and medicine didn't undermine Saddam Hussein, in fact it strengthened him. It made the Iraqi people more dependent on his government and made many Iraqis more fearful of outside enemies.

WhereIsMyFreedom replied:
I also don't agree that the sanctions strengthened him. It may not have hurt him but the effect they had was no different than one he could have emulated himself. He could have blocked food and medicine coming into Iraq himself and blamed other countries' sanctions. He did control the media after all.

[Revillusion1]

53. Well said

I agree completely.

[Revillusion1]

39. Let's pose the question a little differently...

How many AMERICAN deaths has Bush caused, and continues to do so, as opposed to Clinton. That's certainly not to diminish the loss of so many Iraqi lives...but Bush doesn't care who dies, or how many...only that his agenda is furthered. NO ONE is safe as long as he's in power. Everything Bush touches turns to shit.

[TrustingDog]

44. agreed. but this is Not a new game. It's just closer to home.

[TrustingDog]

45. are american lives worth more than others?

I've heard freepers say upwards of 1 to 100 or so. What's your math on this?

[Revillusion1]

52. That would be why I said

that my intent was not to diminish the loss of life for the Iraqi people. Did I find those sanctions disgusting? Yes, I did. But I also believe that what Clinton did was preferable to war and is not even comparable to what the Bush regime has done.

Since you asked, my math tells me that Clinton's numbers have stopped and I see Bush's numbers continuing to swell for a long time to come, and presently, there is no end in site. So throw that 'freeper' crap out there all you want to. Constantly comparing someone whose opinion differs with your own to a freeper's views is lame, at best, and it just gives those jerks more power by even acknowledging their existence.

[high density]

46. I disagree

I see it like this:

Clinton kept sanctions on, and as such we had a neutered Saddam Hussein with no WMDs. Then we had this guy called Bush take office, and he said that Hussein had WMDs (even though the sanctions worked, and he didn't have WMDs.) Then Bush bombed the shit out of the country, killing 100k+ people in the process. Now the country is full of US troops that are there for no clear reason and are being killed daily. The future of Iraq is very unclear while defense contractors make a fortune over the death and destruction.

You're saying Clinton is worse? We know that Clinton's primary reason for the sanctions wasn't to starve the Iraqi children.

(By the way, is there a source for that 500k number?)

[TrustingDog]

54. no, I'm not saying clinton is 'worse'.

A System that kills and maims for corporate power and profit - does it really matter who has the bigger numbers in the end? The game is the same.

and back to abu Graib - that argument was also used. "Saddam did even more horrible things in Abu Graib, so what are you belly aching about."

[robbedvoter]

50. Was Nader also right when he said 'the missing explosives talk is a

distraction from the real issue - jobs?
This is sophistry, meant to discourage and keep people uninvolved in the political process. I am sure you can do better: why not have Clinton beat Gingis Khan, Hitler & Stalin - while the Bush family are still only beginning - and who knows - might be the ones to turn it around? (the later part would be from an article nader wrote in 2001 about W - right after the stolen election)
When one lacks a moral/political compas - bamboozling like this can go on forever.

[TrustingDog]

55. moral and political compasses have little to do with...

...groups and parties, Dems or Pugs. You either have it , or you don't - on a personal level.