Conservative Bastion
The only blog that can factually claim to shift the Bell Curve, along with the hearts & minds of America, to the right.
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Don't Give Up Now
Clinton is responsible for more Iraqi deaths than Bush.

How could you forget?

According to the most outrageously high estimates, the Iraq war has killed 700,000 civilians. The most accurate account that actually ties names to the people who have died has a number of around 80,000. Don't get me wrong. Both numbers, regardless of which one is closer to the truth, are tragic. What makes it worse is that those numbers should be lower and would be if it wasn't for the undeniably poor execution of the war.

However, don't forget that 500,000 children alone died in Iraq during Clinton's years because of US led sanction against Iraq.

Again, another tragedy.

What is the point of this blog...

Understand that Iraq was a danger to the US and its interests. You may not like that, but it was a reality to the point that a Democratic administration chose US interests over the lives of 500,000 Iraqi children. Not to mention, our lack of action allowed Saddam to stay in power and kill and terrorize God knows how many others.

You may not like the Iraq war, but unlike economic sanctions, the war has a chance of actually creating a better Iraq in the long run. Remember that the next time you want to sound smart by saying you think the president and his policies are moronic.


Sources:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/10/11/iraq.deaths/
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/story/0,3605,232986,00.html
StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
9 Comments:
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Clinton is absolutely not responsible for more iraqi deaths

I Think their are a couple of factors that you should consider about the Iraq sanctions.

1. The Sanctions were started in the UN while George bush was president not Bill Clinton.

2. In response to the outcry that the sanctions were overly affecting the civilians, the Clinton administration introduced the oil for food program. This was very effective in the autonomous Kurdish region in the north, where the child mortality actually lowered from the 70s era. (they did not compare the 80s because of the Saddam attacks) The only places where the child mortality where in regions that Saddam controlled. Which would leads to my opinion that Saddam caused most of the death of these children.

As to the statement "Iraq was a danger to the US and its interests"

I will cite from your own source http://www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/story/0,3605,232986,00.html
Scott Ritter, the senior weapons inspector state "If I had to quantify Iraq's threat, I would say [it is] zero" Keep in mind that this guy was not anti-war, because this article was written pre-9/11.
I am not sure if you actually read this article all the way through, did you? But it talked about how the sanctions essentially neutered Saddam's ability to be aggressive. I really liked this article because it really brings things to light about Iraq.

As to the civilian death toll, I think you are referring to the study in the British medical journal the lancet. The study is by far more accurate, because the actually went to Iraq and did survey asking to see death certificates, while the iraq body count justs looks for deaths published in media sources coming out of Iraq. If you still the 80,000 is more accurate than the 655,000 as of last October .Here is an article talking about the methodologies. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/10/AR2006101001442_2.html

Blogger Media Tycoon said...
Um, yes he is. I mean, if you want to say Saddam is responsible for the deaths of those children (which I wouldn’t necessarily argue again) then you have to say that Saddam and terrorists are responsible for the death of Iraqis since the war started.

The fact is the US should have invaded Iraq a long time ago. In fact, it was Al Gore who was a big supporter of regime change for a long time. It has been reported that Clinton was fairly close to invasion at a couple points during his presidency.

Throughout the 90s there was an outcry to end sanctions on Iraq because of its devastating effects on the Iraqi people. The US could have ended UN sanctions in a second if they chose to.

The oil for food program, as everyone, (except possibly you) knows that it was good for making Saddam and high ranking UN cronies lots of money. It never accomplished what it was supposed to, that is end Iraqi suffering.

I have read, and I believe posted the major flaws with the study claiming 655,000 Iraqis have died during the war. I don't have them off hand, but it looks like it is time to post them again.

As for the "Iraq was a danger to US interests" comment...

I was referring to the first Iraq war. As for the second war, I still believe that we could have done a 10x better job than we did. Had that happened, no one would have cared about WMD not being there. In fact, no one really cares about WMD today. What people care about is us getting our asses kicked for 5 years by people with no real strategy or resources. It is embarrassing.

I am not sure if we will ever succeed in Iraq. It is really up to George Bush and unfortunately he has already done a lot to ensure we do not succeed. However, if we do succeed, a free and prosperous Iraq would be extremely valuable. Why else do you think the terrorists are flocking there by the 1000s? They aren't there by accident. They know they are doomed if Iraq becomes a successful democracy.

My whole point of writing this is to show that Iraq was not a great place before we invaded. People were still dying by the 100,000’s when Clinton was in power. Had Clinton invaded, he could have stopped all those deaths. That coupled with the fact that he lead the push for sanctions on his watch, makes him very responsible.

I guess what really interests me is how people are so willing to hold Bush accountable, and try so hard to get Clinton off the hook.

Blogger Media Tycoon said...
I just read the article about the "methodology" regarding the survey...

With statements like...

"I expect that people will be surprised by these figures," she said. "I think it is very important that, rather than questioning them, people realize there is very, very little reliable data coming out of Iraq."

It's hard to take this seriously. Basically, please don't question us, just get scared and hyped up about retreating from Iraq. Sorry if I like to ask questions before I believe something.

This was a gem too...

"He thinks further evidence of the survey's robustness is that the steepness of the upward trend it found in excess deaths in the last two years is roughly the same tendency found by other groups -- even though the actual numbers differ greatly."

HAHHAHAHAHAHHA

Anonymous Anonymous said...
I think the best way to make Iraq free and prosperous is to leave as soon as possible and be and an example and trade with them. If you look at the example of Vietnam. We have done far more to make the nation 'free and prosperous" by trading with them than by warring against communism.

The Clinton administration was wrong when Albright essentially said that Iraq's compliance essential does not matter and that the sanctions would not be lifted. The Clinton adminstration was just trying to get Saddam out of power. and using the Sanctions to accomplish this, I believe that the U.S. should not try and build nation that have the policies we want.

I Think that once again the Bush administration is wrong again with the Sanctions against Iran. It will just breed more ill will toward America.

The Iraq war is economically horrible for the U.S., What is Fiscally conservative about this war. Over 80 billion is unaccounted for. No one says we are more safe because of it, in fact many commissions have said were are less safe because of it. I do not see how America is benfiting from the war.

If your point was that Iraq was not a great place before we invaded. I think there are better ways of making Iraq better that are more cost effective and will not breed hatred against the U.S. that invading it.

Do you think Iraq is better off now , post invasion than pre invasion.

Blogger Media Tycoon said...
History is not on your side. We left Vietnam and Somalia and now they are both shit holes that no one wants to live in.

We stayed in Japan, South Korea, and Germany, and they are all some of the best places to live. Be real. Leaving Iraq would destroy it.

As for sanctions...

It is interesting that people pick and choose on this subject. We do business in Iraq and all of a sudden people say we put Saddam in power (not true) or propped up his government. We put sanctions on him and all of a sudden we are baby killers. Same with Iran. If we allow American companies to do business with Iran we will hear all this crap about greedy business and how we need to be careful about who we are friends with.

First...any action whether it be military or economic will have collateral damage.

Second...doing business with outlaw regimes can put us in a bind down the road. As dangerous as North Korea may be, we are sure lucky we have not been doing business with them over the last 50 years. Can you imagine what North Korea would be like if they were as rich as the South?

China is a good example of trade that may come back to hurt us. They are now a powerful country with an extremely large military. They are not a free country - they are totalitarian. Rich totalitarians do crazy things like start WWII. We need to cripple regimes like these in their infancies.

Anonymous Rama's SCREEN said...
Dude! you have got to watch the movie LIONS FOR LAMBS!

It's a political drama that's out in theaters right now.
and I thought it was hilarious.

I'd like to hear what you think about it :)


Rama's SCREEN
www.ramasscreen.com

Blogger Proletariat said...
Media, it's been a long time since I've posted on your blog. Been a long time since we've talked (if you remember who I am).

Anyway, I'm in between on this issue. I can see where Media is coming from, however, I don't know if I'm prepared to equate sanctions that may or may not result in deaths to an all out war that, in fact, will equate to deaths.

Tough one.

Blogger J. V. said...
"Second...doing business with outlaw regimes can put us in a bind down the road. As dangerous as North Korea may be, we are sure lucky we have not been doing business with them over the last 50 years. Can you imagine what North Korea would be like if they were as rich as the South?"

Actually if North Korea had been trading with us for the last 50 years they would undoubtedly be many times more free than they are today and would probably not be our sworn enemies. With increased trade comes more contact with foreign ideas(in this case liberty and rule of law) and increased wealth. It is usually countries with larger middle classes that push for changes away from dictatorships and towards greater political and social freedom. Also it has been demonstrated that countries that have greater economic ties are less likely to start war with each another, because of increased cost of war-fighting on the economies of both countries.

Blogger Media Tycoon said...
I pretty much already addressed this. I don't totally disagree with you, but I do not think North Korea falls under the list of countries who would have been made better by trade.

Links to this post:
Create a Link