The left wants to measure Bush against utopia, not against their own policies

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by ilikefox es, Jul 1, 2008.

  1. "On May 11, 1996 this woman ( Clinton Sec of State Madeleine Albright) was asked by a television interviewer for "60 Minutes" whether she was troubled by the fact that Clinton-supported sanctions had resulted in the death of 500,000 Iraqi children. "It's a hard choice," she replied, "but we think it's worth it."

    Leftists should keep Albright's response in mind when they wail about civilian casualties as a consequence of Bush's war in Iraq. Iraq Body Count keeps track of these casualties, and they are less than one-fifth the number of innocent civilians (mostly children) killed in the aftermath of sanctions. Sanctions had no effect on Saddam or his henchmen, who didn't miss a meal. Rather, they hurt the most vulnerable members of Iraqi society.

    These facts remind us not only of the shortcomings of sanctions, which are not likely to work better with Iran than they did with Iraq. They also remind us that bad things in the world must be measured not against utopia but against what came before. Bush's Iraq war has resulted in a steep reduction of Iraqi deaths compared to the 300,000 people Saddam deposited in the mass graves and compared to the even greater number of deaths that Clinton's policies seem to have produced."

    http://news.aol.com/newsbloggers/2008/06/29/frankenstein-endorses-obama/
     
  2. For some reason, the Left seems to think sanctions are the end-all in diplomacy, not force. They don't seem to understand that sanctions only work when the leadership of the targeted country is concerned about the welfare of the general public. Saddam didn't give a shit about starving Iraqi children - as long as he and his cronies, their families, and the military had enough to eat, all was good. Not to mention the billions he squirreled away via his illegal oil voucher system during the embargo...
     
  3. Bush doesn't give a shit about starving Iraqi children - as long as he and his cronies, their families, and the military have enough to eat, all is good. Not to mention the billions he squirreled away via his illegal oil no-bid system during the occupation...
     
  4. I wonder why there are no Adopt an Afghani/Iraqi/Palestine child programs in america? No soccer teams or PTAs holding bake sales to help them? Surely the liberators care?

    Operation Iraq Liberation (O.I.L.)
     
  5. piezoe

    piezoe

    If you're dead, I don't think it matters anymore what killed you. The Johns Hopkins study estimated 600,000+ excess deaths (2006) Since the start of the Iraq war, add to that an additional 500K from UN sanctions, or so (but i think the latter figure is likely to be a politically influenced rather than one from a disinterested party) and it is likely that the US has been responsible for quite a few more deaths in Iraq than Saddam was. A sobering thought.
     
  6. Not to mention the minimum $22 billion the UN and their cohorts got caught stealing from the so called oil for food program, that got a minimal mention on the evening news, maybe because $22 billion worth of food and medicine would only have saved all of those children and then some.
     
  7. Right, Bush=Saddam.

    Grow up.

    At the very least, get some reliable sources to back your moonbat fantasies.