Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Much of the current policy towards Iraq had its origins in the administration of Bill Clinton

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Emit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-23-08 12:15 AM
Original message
Much of the current policy towards Iraq had its origins in the administration of Bill Clinton
"Regime change will, of course, take longer but we must still work for it, nurturing all reasonable forces of opposition." ~ Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton
October 10, 2002, excerpted from Floor Speech on S.J. Res. 45, A Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq



~snip~

When he speaks himself on the Iraq War or is interviewed and asked his thoughts on the war, Clinton is almost never challenged on his policy in Iraq, nor is there much discussion of Clinton's Iraq policy. This is unfortunate, because much of the current policy towards Iraq had its origins in the administration of President Bill Clinton. During his eight years in the White House, President Clinton over saw an Iraq policy that killed over 350,000-500,000 children via sanctions, repeatedly bombed Iraq out of concern over WMD, and made regime change the official policy of the United States.

The most notable aspect of President Clinton's Iraq policy was his maintenance of a sanctions regime that decimated Iraq's economy and that was estimated to have killed 500,000 children. While the figures would later be disputed with lesser estimates of 350,000, their destructive impact is undeniable. Responding to concerns over the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children, Clinton's Secretary of State Madeleine Albright would famously state "I think it is a very hard choice, but the price -- we think the price is worth it." Ordinary Iraqis reported significant hardship from the sanctions, while food and medicine were lacking and the economy crumbled. Scholars of United States foreign policy including Edward Said and Edward Herman described Clinton's Iraq policy as a "war crime." It must also be remembered that the sanctions came on top of the devastation of the first Gulf War.

Despite the horrific impact of the sanctions regime on a generation of Iraqis, Clinton has been fairly silent on the impacts of the sanctions. While former Secretary of State Madeline Albright eventually said that she regretted her statement about the deaths being "worth it," Clinton has not shown similar remorse for his policy. In an interview in 2000 on Democracy Now, Clinton disputed the numbers over how many children died in Iraq under sanctions saying "that's not true." Clinton argued that Hussein "butchered the children of his own country" and that "if any child is without food or medicine or a roof over his or her head in Iraq, it's because he is claiming the sanctions are doing it and sticking it to his own children." Clinton accused Saddam Hussein of squandering the money and withholding it from children to create a death toll that would "build up pressure" to end the embargo so that he could rebuild his weapons programs. He further dismissed claims by two United Nations officials that quit their jobs because the sanctions were genocidal as being "wrong" to make such statements. Clinton's comments reflected what became the United States official response to critics of the sanctions blaming Saddam Hussein rather than acknowledging the United States' role.

The economic sanctions against Iraq during the Clinton administration were a product the same hysteria about WMDs that prompted Clinton to repeatedly bomb Iraq throughout the 1990s. In December of 1998, Clinton launched a three-day bombing campaign against Iraq. Clinton justified the bombing by claiming that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and that the United States had to enforce the will of the United Nations after the UN pulled its inspectors out of Iraq due to a lack of cooperation from Iraqis. At the time, the United States failed to show that the weapons existed, though it was willing to launch attacks to destroy both the weapons and the infrastructure necessary to manufacture them despite Pentagon estimates that the attacks could kill as many as 10,000 civilians. According to international law scholar Phyllis Bennis, the bombings were a violation of international law. Under Clinton, the United States repeatedly bombed Iraq in the US-imposed "no-fly zones," with the bombings reaching a high point in 1999.

In 1998, the Project for a New American Century-- involving many of the architects of the Iraq War including Paul Wolfowtiz, Donald Rumsfeld, and William Kristol--wrote a letter to Bill Clinton urging him to make removal of Saddam Hussein a foreign policy goal of the Untied States. While the Clinton administration responded that it believed containment was the best way to deal with Hussein, later that year Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act later that year. The Iraq Liberation Act made regime change the official policy of the United States.
http://www.mediamouse.org/features/053107clint.php

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-23-08 12:20 AM
Response to Original message
1. I didn't know this.
... Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act later that year. The Iraq Liberation Act made regime change the official policy of the United States.

:wow:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Occam Bandage Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-23-08 12:39 AM
Response to Reply #1
8. ...and was completely symbolic. This is just a repackaged RW attempt to deflect blame from Bush.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-23-08 12:42 AM
Response to Reply #8
9. How symbolic were all those kids that starved to death as a result
of sanctions?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Occam Bandage Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-23-08 08:47 AM
Response to Reply #9
26. And the sanctions were a different animal from this resolution. The sanctions
were wrong, but the "regime change" policy declaration did absolutely nothing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-23-08 09:42 AM
Response to Reply #26
31. They've of a piece. Our oil was under their sand
and that's the bedrock of US policy, regardless of the consequences to the Iraqi people or, to the American people for that matter.

It's a little slippery to say the regime change policy was only symbolic under Clinton if the same policy could later be implemented under the Torture president.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Occam Bandage Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-23-08 09:53 AM
Response to Reply #31
33. There was nothing to "implement." The ILA provided absolutely no concrete
policy changes. It was simply a symbolic declaration that America doesn't want a dictator in Iraq. It by no means authorized, required, or even suggested that Bush ought invade Iraq.

One can say, "Gee, our neighbor is awfully abusive towards his family and pets. Someone should do something about him." That is not the same as breaking into his house and killing him, nor could the murderer point to your statement as justification for his acts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-23-08 09:56 AM
Response to Reply #33
34. No. What I say in the privacy of my home is not the same
as the stated policy of the US government, signed into law by Clinton.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Occam Bandage Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-23-08 10:02 AM
Response to Reply #34
35. And the "stated policy of the US gov't" has all the weight of whatever you say in your own home.
Claiming "Hey, it's our policy that Saddam Hussein shouldn't be ruling Iraq" means nothing more than just that: America would really like it if Saddam Hussein were to not rule Iraq. It prescribes absolutely nothing. It is necessary for nothing, it enables nothing, and it leads to nothing.

"Regime change" was not US policy towards Afghanistan. We invaded and toppled that regime. "Regime change" is US policy towards Cuba. We didn't. It's a meaningless phrase.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-23-08 01:17 PM
Response to Reply #35
36. Not if you're in Iraq or in Cuba. For pete's sake. Today
Edited on Fri May-23-08 01:17 PM by sfexpat2000
Posada Carriles, a terrorist who is responsible for bombing a commercial aircraft and killing many people is free because of our Cuba policy. Oh and did I mention, 73 innocent people died? Last week, one of our diplomatic personnel was caught on tape ferrying money from Miami to Cuba to destabilize the Cuban government. That's not meaningless.

Between the sanctions and the no fly zone bombing that went on for the whole of the Clinton years, Iraq was softened up so little Bush could just roll in there with no consequences to his own regime. For one thing, there were very few foreigners in Iraq or else we could never have bombed it with such impunity. For another, the years of sanctions and bombing made sure Iraq couldn't rebuild its military assets and so, couldn't defend itself.

Without Clinton's Iraq policy, little Bush could not have waltzed into Iraq as he did. That's not meaningless.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Occam Bandage Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-23-08 03:49 PM
Response to Reply #36
37. The things you mention had little to do with "regime change" statements, but rather were
were resultant from specific policies. The "regime change" statements were merely public reflections of internal policies. You're confusing a symptom with a cause.

And Bush could certainly have waltzed into Iraq without Clinton's Iraq policy. Do you really, honestly think that Iraq could have stood a minute's chance against the American military? How did 1991 go for them?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Emit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-23-08 12:58 AM
Response to Reply #8
15. The Act was cited as a basis of support in the Congressional Authorization for use of Military Force
"President George W. Bush has often referred to the Act and its findings to argue that the Clinton Administration supported regime change in Iraq and further that it believed that Iraq was developing weapons of mass destruction. The Act was cited as a basis of support in the Congressional Authorization for use of Military Force Against Iraq in October of 2002 (Public Law 107–243—OCT. 16, 2002) "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Liberation_Act

Of course it was one of many things cited. Nevertheless, it helped to establish a US policy of regime change in Iraq that paved the way for W's pre-emptive war -- the authorization for which Hillary Clinton subsequently and with conviction supported.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Occam Bandage Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-23-08 08:50 AM
Response to Reply #15
27. Yes. They cited many things. They cited UNSC resolutions. Would you attempt to shift
any blame for Bush's war onto the United Nations?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Emit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-23-08 09:32 AM
Response to Reply #27
29. I wrote "Of course it was one of many things cited..."
No one is attempting to shift blame from Bush here. This all is part of our history.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Occam Bandage Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-23-08 09:40 AM
Response to Reply #29
30. Claiming that the ILA was the origin of Bush's Iraq policy is much like saying,
and if you'll excuse the Godwin, that Darwin was the origin of Hitler's Jewish policies. The latter were going to do what they were going to do, and were going to cite whatever they could to justify it. The ILA in no way called for, or justified, an invasion of Iraq, any more than our policy towards Cuba calls for or justifies an invasion of that island.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-23-08 12:43 AM
Response to Reply #1
10. Yep. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redstate_democrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-23-08 12:25 AM
Response to Original message
2. The Nation had a decent article a few weeks ago about some of this.
They tied Charlie Black's lobbying firm to the INC (Chalabi's former organization) and how Chalabi pushed through the Iraqi Liberation Act under Clinton. They discussed the millions of dollars that went along with that to fund the opposition groups in Iraq during that time - during 90s- the Act basically overtly gave money to support the opposition, but before that, it was covert work. Interesting. Chalabi is the guy who was feeding the Bush Administration a pack of lies, whom they trusted more than CIA analysts, and who was funded by the US and PR and lobbying done on behalf of the INC by Charlie Black's firm, paid for by the U.S.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-23-08 12:52 AM
Response to Reply #2
13. I know there's a McCain connection. I posted this earlier:
Black, Chalibi, McCain isn't that pure as the driven snow. I think there's lots of stuff that will trip him up.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3326945&mesg_id=3326945
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redstate_democrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-23-08 01:10 AM
Response to Reply #13
16. Oh, I didn't see this earlier. I'm going to read the link in your OP.
This whole thing is a time bomb waiting to explode on McCain. I mean seriously, who the hell does he think he is and who the hell does he THINK he is fooling with this nonsense. He has Charlie Black on the "straight talk express", who was the chief PR guy for Chalabi in pushing this bullshit war with fabricated "evidence", McCain co-sponsored the ILA, and everyone surrounding McCain are the architects, lobbyists, and assholes in the room regarding Iraq. Did he really think he was going to get far in this race and NO ONE was going to connect the dots?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-23-08 01:14 AM
Response to Reply #16
18. I hope it eats them alive. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Emit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-23-08 01:39 AM
Response to Reply #13
22. Thanks, babylonsister
for the link and info -- Seems I've got some more homework to do; the tentacles are spread far and wide


I was familiar with neocon Kristol's associations with McCain (below) -- but I was not aware of the McCain/Black/Chalabi thing. Thanks again :hi:


~snip~
McCain's affiliation with the neoconservative political faction reportedly extends to a relationship with Weekly Standard editor William Kristol: "Kristol is predictably modest about his influence on the Arizona senator, although he acknowledges, 'I talked to McCain on the phone and compared notes.' But when McCain wanted to hire a new legislative aide, his chief of staff, Mark Salter—himself a former aide to neoconservative Jeane Kirkpatrick—consulted with Kristol, who recommended a young protégé named Daniel McKivergan. Marshall Wittmann, one of Kristol's closest friends, became a key adviser during McCain's presidential campaign. Randy Scheunemann, who had drafted the Iraq Liberation Act and was on the board of Kristol's Project for the New American Century (PNAC), became McCain's foreign policy adviser. One person who has worked closely with Kristol says of Kristol and McCain, 'They are exceptionally, exceptionally close'" (New Republic, October 16, 2006).

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/3890.html



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-23-08 02:21 AM
Response to Reply #22
23. You are more than welcome, Emit! I hope you can connect some more
dots. :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chknltl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-23-08 12:26 AM
Response to Original message
3. Thank you for this
Stunning revelation...I am even more determined to aid Senator Obama against this gang.
KnR and bookmarked
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-23-08 12:26 AM
Response to Original message
4. Yes it was formulated during Bill Clinton's administration. It was pushed by the Republican Senate
and House.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
democrattotheend Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-23-08 12:29 AM
Response to Original message
5. Interesting, but I don't think it's relevant to the campaign
Hillary may have been influential in her husband's administration on the domestic side, but she did not have a security clearance. she wasn't in the Sit Room when the president made military decisions. So I don't think it's fair to blame her for things like this, nor can she take credit for military and national security successes during the Clinton Administration. That's why the 3 AM ads were such bullshit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Emit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-23-08 12:38 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. My posting of this article is not meant to blame Hillary -- my intent was merely to inform and open
up discussion on the matter -- to offer an historical look into things.

What is interesting, however, is the pattern that has occurred from Bush Sr., to Bill Clinton, then on to Jr. -- it does leave one wondering what 'grand plan' is/was intended on the part of these two families. <adjusts :tinfoilhat:>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-23-08 01:26 AM
Response to Reply #5
20. She has the same team of advisers
Albright, Holbrooke, Cohen. The ones who were against the Iraq war went with Obama. I wish people would connect the dots.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TacticalPeek Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-23-08 12:36 AM
Response to Original message
6. It is Bush's war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redstate_democrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-23-08 12:45 AM
Response to Original message
11. Here, read this.




http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080421/roston

Chalabi's Lobby

...

Then there is the matter of how much money the American government itself spent on the services of Chalabi and his INC. One former member of the INC put it at about $90 million, but a safer and more conservative estimate of the total American taxpayer subsidy to Chalabi and his organization is $59 million over the course of eleven years. This includes an estimated $20 million from the CIA secret budget in the early 1990s (although it may be far more); add to this $33 million from the State Department in the years leading up to the war in Iraq and $6 million from the Defense Intelligence Agency starting in 2002.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-23-08 12:54 AM
Response to Reply #11
14. McCain's connection at #13. What a tangled web... nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Emit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-23-08 01:10 AM
Response to Reply #11
17. Thank you, redstate_democrat -- I'll check it out
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redstate_democrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-23-08 01:17 AM
Response to Reply #17
19. You're welcome.
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jasmine621 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-23-08 12:50 AM
Response to Original message
12. Have you read the Act?
Our Iraqi policy started long before Clinton. Even before Bush Sr. You have to go back to Reagan to find the real seeds of this policy but certainly Papa Bush had the first war with Iraq. A scandalized Bill Clinton, pushed by the Republican Congress and the RW media kept the bombing up. Looking back, the containment policy was working and the rest of the world agreed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bhikkhu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-23-08 01:29 AM
Response to Original message
21. Yes, I read the news. It has sucked for many, many years.
I blame Clinton for not making a difference, where he could have made a big difference. But he is in very populous company on that one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VotesForWomen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-23-08 02:45 AM
Response to Original message
24. is there anything that *isn't* the fault of the clintons? you guys have really gone off the deep end
Edited on Fri May-23-08 02:45 AM by VotesForWomen
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-23-08 09:50 AM
Response to Reply #24
32. everything is their fault
get with the pogram
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-23-08 03:55 AM
Response to Original message
25. The fact is there isn't a single opponent of the war
who in the time of the vote, called for an ending of the sanctions. Not a one. Not Dennis, not Bonier, not Byrd, not a one. Instead they insisted that the sanctions were why we didn't need a war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
invictus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-23-08 08:53 AM
Response to Original message
28. K & R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri May 03rd 2024, 08:23 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC