[Peace-discuss] Eight years too late...

[John W.]

At 01:30 AM 1/9/2008, C. G. Estabrook wrote:

>Lesley Stahl of CBS's 60 Minutes interviewing Clinton Secretary of 
>State  Albright in 1996: "We have heard that half a million children have 
>died [from the US-administered sanctions on Iraq]. I mean, that's more 
>children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?"
>
>Albright: "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price -- we think 
>the price is worth it."
>
>Successive UN administrators resigned, calling the US program "genocidal."
>
>It was one of three motives put forward by Osama bin Laden for what he saw 
>as the counter-attack of September 11, 2001.  (The other two were the 
>suppression of the Palestinians and US military investment of Saudi 
>Arabia). --CGE


I'm with Carl and bin Laden on that one.  I don't know what Al Gore would 
have done as President - I do NOT think he had a full-scale plan for the 
invasion of Iraq in place before he even ran for the office - but I was 
never able to get past that statement by Madeline Albright (not only cruel 
and genocidal but profoundly misguided as a matter of foreign policy 
strategy), and I never thought of the Clinton administration in quite the 
same way again.

Women like Margaret Thatcher and Madeline Albright and Condoleezza Rice, 
incidentally, firmly give the lie, to my way of thinking, to the old notion 
that women are somehow "softer" and "kinder" than men, and that female 
politicians would be less likely to resort to violence and cruelty in their 
foreign and domestic policies.  For that same reason the notion of Hillary 
Clinton as President terrifies me, as she seems as much or more 
militaristic than most of the male candidates.

[By the way, my posts to the OTHER peace-discuss e-mail address are STILL 
bouncing back.]

John Wason



>Jenifer Cartwright wrote:
>>Isolated stats don't begin to tell the whole picture, Carl. You surely 
>>cannot mean that Clinton was nearly as dreadful and destructive as Bush, 
>>nor that Gore would have been???
>>  --Jenifer
>>
>>*/"C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at uiuc.edu>/* wrote:
>>
>>     The Clinton administration is probably still responsible for more
>>     dead Iraqis than the Bush administration -- by sanctions and air
>>     attacks. And they showed themselves perfectly prepared to launch an
>>     illegal war to ensure the neoliberal order in the "greater Middle
>>     East" -- the attack on Serbia that Gore (and Hillary) supported. --CGE
>>
>>     ---- Original message ----
>>      >Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2008 23:54:48 -0800 (PST)
>>      >From: Jenifer Cartwright
>>      >Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Eight years too late...
>>      >To: "C. G. Estabrook"
>>      >Cc: Peace-discuss List
>>      >
>>      > Y're saying Iraq/restructuring the middle-east was
>>      > in Gore's crosshairs from the git go?? If so, pls
>>      > include a link to enlighten me.
>>      > --Jenifer
>>      >
>>      > "C. G. Estabrook" wrote:
>>      >
>>      > Oh, come on. Anyone who thinks everything would
>>      > have been OK if only a
>>      > "good guy" had become president in 2000 has
>>      > forgotten the (first and one
>>      > hopes only) Clinton administration and should read
>>      > Alexander Cockburn
>>      > and Jeffrey St. Clair's book, Al Gore: A User's
>>      > Manual (Verso, 2000).
>>      > The neocons' original focus was the Clinton
>>      > administration, and Gore was
>>      > a hawk within it. --CGE
>>      >
>>      > Jenifer Cartwright wrote:
>>      > > Isn't it too bad it took Ralph Nader eight years
>>      > to notice the
>>      > > significant difference between "the lesser of
>>      > two evils" and (finally)
>>      > > endorse a Democratic candidate (Edwards) when he
>>      > could have saved the
>>      > > world the EXTREME evil of the Bush regime by
>>      > endorsing Gore, or at least
>>      > > not running because there was "no difference"
>>      > between the two candidates???
>>      > > --Jenifer