<p>Nice</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.alternet.org/columnists/story/23493/[/url]”>http://www.alternet.org/columnists/story/23493/</a></p>
<p>More were killed by Clinton and Albright (and in a shorter time period), next to whom both Saddam and Bush look like Gandhi. And the majority of those were children. Accomplished mostly by bombing water purification equipment, and the embargo on simple antibiotics that would have cured dirty-water diseases. </p>
<p>"In 1996 then-UN Ambassador Madeleine Albright was asked by 60 Minutes correspondent Lesley Stahl, in reference to years of U.S.-led economic sanctions against Iraq, We have heard that half a million children have died. I mean, that is more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it? </p>
<p>To which Ambassador Albright responded, I think that is a very hard choice, but the price, we think, the price is worth it.</p>
<p>This is from Sheldon Richman, who is FAR from a liberal:</p>
<p>Albright Apologizes
by Sheldon Richman, November 7, 2003</p>
<p>In 1996 then-UN Ambassador Madeleine Albright was asked by 60 Minutes correspondent Lesley Stahl, in reference to years of U.S.-led economic sanctions against Iraq, We have heard that half a million children have died. I mean, that is more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it? </p>
<p>To which Ambassador Albright responded, I think that is a very hard choice, but the price, we think, the price is worth it. </p>
<p>That remark caused no public outcry. In fact, in January the following year Albright was confirmed by the U.S. Senate as President Clintons secretary of state. In her opening statement to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which was considering her appointment, she said, We will insist on maintaining tough UN sanctions against Iraq unless and until that regime complies with relevant Security Council resolutions. </p>
<p>Apparently no member of the committee asked her about her statement on 60 Minutes. Albright was confirmed. </p>
<p>Why bring this up now? Albright has just published her memoirs, Madam Secretary, in which she clarifies her statement. Heres what she writes: </p>
<p>I must have been crazy; I should have answered the question by reframing it and pointing out the inherent flaws in the premise behind it. Saddam Hussein could have prevented any child from suffering simply by meeting his obligations… As soon as I had spoken, I wished for the power to freeze time and take back those words. My reply had been a terrible mistake, hasty, clumsy and wrong. Nothing matters more than the lives of innocent people. I had fallen into the trap and said something I simply did not mean. That was no ones fault but my own. (p. 275) </p>
<p>In the paragraph before this one she complains about the 60 Minutes report because little effort was made to explain Saddams culpability, his misuse of Iraqi resources, or the fact that we were not embargoing medicine or food. </p>
<p>When one reviews the facts, it is clear that Albrights explanation is woefully inadequate. First, it contains an apparent contradiction. She says food and medicine were not embargoed, but then she says Saddam Hussein could have avoided the suffering simply by meeting his obligations. Does that mean more food would have been available had Hussein done what the U.S. government wanted? If so, werent American officials at least partly responsible for the harm done to the Iraqi people? Hussein certainly did not let his people starve. The New York Times and Washington Post have reported that in answer to the sanctions, Saddam Hussein maintained an elaborate food-rationing program for rich and poor, presumably to hold the loyalty of the Iraqi people, which the sanctions were supposedly intended to dissolve. Iraqis are reported to be reluctant to give up the program even though Hussein is gone and the sanctions are over. </p>
<p>Albright is being disingenuous. Although food wasnt formally embargoed when the sanctions began in 1990, Iraq was hampered in importing it because initially Iraqi oil couldnt be exported. No exports, no imports. The UNs oil for food program, started six years later, after Hussein dropped his opposition, was supposed to remedy that. But it didnt entirely. Counterpunch.org reported in 1999, Proceeds from such oil sales are banked in New York… Thirty-four percent is skimmed off for disbursement to outside parties with claims on Iraq, such as the Kuwaitis, as well as to meet the costs of the UN effort in Iraq. A further thirteen percent goes to meet the needs of the Kurdish autonomous area in the north. With the remaining limited amount of money, the Iraqi government could order food, medicine, medical equipment, infrastructure equipment to repair water and sanitation and other things. But and heres the rub the U.S. government could veto or delay any items ordered. And it did. </p>
<p>As Joy Gordon reported in the November 2001 Harpers, </p>
<p>The United States has fought aggressively throughout the last decade to purposefully minimize the humanitarian goods that enter the country… Since August 1991 the United States has blocked most purchases of materials necessary for Iraq to generate electricity, as well as equipment for radio, telephone, and other communications. Often restrictions have hinged on the withholding of a single essential element, rendering many approved items useless. For example, Iraq was allowed to purchase a sewage-treatment plant but was blocked from buying the generator necessary to run it; this in a country that has been pouring 300,000 tons of raw sewage daily into its rivers. </p>
<p>For Albright to say that food and medicine were not embargoed is to evade the fact that critical public-health needs could not be addressed because of the sanctions. Preventing a society from purifying its water and treating its sewage is a particularly brutal way to inflict harm, especially on its children. Disease was rampant, and infant mortality rose because of the sanctions. Lets not forget that destruction of Iraqs infrastructure was a deliberate aim of the U.S. bombing during the 1991 Gulf War. </p>
<p>No wonder two UN humanitarian coordinators quit over the sanctions. As one of them, Denis Halliday, said when he left in 1998, Ive been using the word genocide because this is a deliberate policy to destroy the people of Iraq. Im afraid I have no other view. </p>
<p>Albright now writes that her answer to Stahl was crazy and that she regretted it as soon as [she] had spoken. Yet she did not take back her words between 1996 and Sept. 11, 2001. According to journalist Matt Welch, after being plagued by student protesters she quietly expressed regret for her statement in a speech at the University Southern California shortly after 9/11. But neither her office nor the Clinton administration issued a prominent clarification to the American people or the world. Could that be because her initial answer was sincere and that her belated apology was issued with her legacy in mind? We can be sure of one thing: word of her response spread throughout the Arab world. Maybe even among some of the 9/11 terrorists.</p>
<p>Saddam looks like Gandhi? Excuse me that is a disgraceful thing to say. Not even funny.</p>
<p>AHHH, so know its ALBRIGHTS fault for 9-11? Couldn’t be any of our other flawed policies? Nope, lets blame Albright!!!</p>
<p>Relative to half a million dead children? You’re right, it ISN’T funny, and Clinton/Albright should be deeply, deeply ashamed. Dennis Halliday is no political hack, and when he calls what Clinton/Albright did genocide, I think we should sit up and take notice.</p>
<p>“I say genocide because it is an intentional programme to destroy a culture, a people, a country – the economic sanctions are known to do that. [Secretary of State Madeleine] Albright herself acknowledged half a million dead children back in 1996. Yet the member states – the United States and the United Kingdom in particular – have continued the economic embargo despite their knowledge of the death rate of Iraqi children. That is genocide.”</p>
<p>(And had nothing to do with 9-11 whatsoever, except to continue poisoning the well.)</p>
<p>Mini, the famous reply by Albright will forever remain a thorn in her side. </p>
<p>it’s a fact that the same people who decry the casualties in today’s Iraq did not show the same “moral character” when Clinton/Albright caused hundred of thousands of deaths. As long as we impose sanctions or lob missiles from a VERY safe distance, warring the enemy is popular. Showing the sky of Baghdad glowing like a Christmas tree made for good TV in the blue states as much as in the red states. Watching the war unfold on CNN was as popular in bars in NEw York or Boston as the World Series. The situation changed as soon as we started losing american lives. The rest is history. </p>
<p>As far Molly Ivins, the quoted article is so much … Molly Ivins. She has never been a stickler for facts and her column are worthy of the best of Comedy Central. Her position on the deregulation of the electric grid is plain dumb. But what is new? That poor misguided soul was born with a fat foot in her mouth and believes she is still funny. Indeed, we can always count on her being the village clown.</p>
<p>The fact remains the Iraqi government is responsible for the sanctions and evaded them when the wished to. The fault is within.</p>
<p>Possibly 1 million civilians killed? Doesn’t that put him on a scale with Pol Pot?</p>
<p>I don’t understand how people can say that some regime change was not necessary. I understand perfectly their objection to the U.S. leading it; but how can people be content with someone who killed as many as 1 million of his own people??</p>
<p>More were killed by Clinton and Albright (and in a shorter time period), next to whom both Saddam and Bush look like Gandhi. And the majority of those were children. Accomplished mostly by bombing water purification equipment, and the embargo on simple antibiotics that would have cured dirty-water diseases."</p>
<p>You know I despise Bill Clinton the man and a respectable number of his policies as well but you are full of it mini. Show me the embargo on antibiotics. If Iraq didn’t have antibiotics it was because Saddam was busy gold plating his commodes and bribing the frogs, krauts, russkies and Koffi Anan with oil for food money.</p>
<p>Xiggi writes, “it’s a fact that the same people who decry the casualties in today’s Iraq did not show the same ‘moral character’ when Clinton/Albright caused hundred of thousands of deaths.”</p>
<p>That’s true of many of those people, but far from all. I decry the casualties in today’s Iraq. I also vehemently decried the cavalier way Clinton and Albright allowed hundreds of thousands of children in Iraq to die through sanctions, in addition to denouncing Saddam Hussein for his willingness to sacrifice those same children for propaganda purposes.</p>
<p>All of those underscores the folly of anyone who feels they can confidently predict the major consequences of the chaos that ensues from going to war.</p>
<p>Willow_41z,</p>
<p>Most of those who Saddam Hussein killed were Kurds, or Shi’ites, or Marsh Arabs. It’s likely that his classification of them as “his own people” differs qualitatively from your estimation of your fellow Americans as “your own people.”</p>
<p>I don’t know anyone who was “content” with Saddam Hussein. I understand, though, why George H. W. Bush decided it was prudent not to invade Baghdad, given the pre-sanctions strength of Saddam’s armies, and given the unpredictable chaos and carnage that he knew could ensue can ensue when a tyrant, however deplorable, is toppled in a place like Iraq.</p>
<p>Tito ruled over Yugoslovia with an iron fist. We all remember the genocide that followed in that region of the world when the tyrant was gone.</p>
<p>Things are dismal in Iraq today. My biggest fear, though, is that we may have unleashed unimaginable horrors by our involvement, however benevolent our intentions.</p>