Madeleine Albright makes me feel so proud

[eleny]

C-Span is now repeating their earlier coverage of the Miami Book Fair. She's answering questions and just asserted that Blackhawk Down during Clinton's administration was America's fault. And how much she and Clinton have accepted this, awful as it is.

Albright makes me proud to be a Dem. There's something about people who take it on the chin that hold my trust. She is so articulate and open.

[jpgray]

1. Albright is very smart, but the Clinton Admin also sent out war feelers

I can't remember what college it was at, but Albright did some sort of posturing for escalating hostilities with Iraq and got booed. Does anyone remember the specifics?

[HFishbine]

2. I remember that

She and William Cohen. Don't remember where though.

[eleny]

3. I don't remember this...

So, it was back in the 90s when it was beleived that he still had WMDs, I suppose.

[RichM]

4. It was somewhere in Ohio. I think OSU.

[jpgray]

10. Good, I was about to say Oklahoma and embarrass myself.

:)

[Ilsa]

12. ITA. I think it was Ohio also.

It might have been a nearby "midwestern" state, but Ohio seems to ring a bell. They were chewed on very heavily by the student body there.

[Tinoire]

13. Ohio State University Albright and Berger war reconnoitering 4 Clinton

and damn it, if it hadn't been for student and anti-war activists heckling the crap out of them the war against Iraq would have been waged by Bill Clinton who sanctioned and pulverized Iraq for 8 straight years. When Republican point to our hypocrisy, we should acknowledge it, hang our heads in shame and resolve not to allow any non-Progressive Democratic administration to hood-wink us so much that we seriously believe we aren't as complicit a part of the same war machine.

There are many many more articles along these lines if you just do a google search of OSU Albright Berger . Albright is no hero- she is a scary old witch. I hate very few people in this world but she is near the top of the list. In a just world Albright would hang from the same gallows as Bush.

'Things worth fighting for'
Foreign policy team visits OSU

COLUMBUS - President Clinton's foreign policy team met yesterday at Ohio State University with a rowdy crowd in a town hall meeting to discuss the current situation in Iraq.

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Secretary of Defense William Cohen and National Security Adviser Sandy Berger met for 90 minutes with a crowd that often yelled and chanted in protest of possible U.S. military action against Iraq.

Albright said the goal of the meeting was to "explain the policy ramifications" of the Iraqi situation.

<snip>

The discussion was interrupted early and often. Protesters began chanting anti-war slogans during Albright's opening comments and continued through much of the debate.


Berger said the aim of a possible airstrike would be twofold: to diminish Saddam Hussein's weapons and reduce the threat to Iraq's neighbors. "We will send a clear message to would-be tyrants and terrorists that we will do what is necessary to protect our freedom," Berger said.

Albright said Iraq will not easily recover from airstrikes if they occur.

http://www.pub.umich.edu/daily/1998/feb/02-19-98/news/news1.html


Iraq rally at OSU backfires
Boos greet pleas to support attack
By Randy Ludlow, Post Ohio Bureau


COLUMBUS - In a raucous town meeting Wednesday, President Clinton's national security team found that not all of the heartland is behind bombing Baghdad.

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Defense Secretary William Cohen and National Security Adviser Sandy Berger were dispatched to St. John Arena at Ohio State University to seek public support as the United States nears air attacks on Iraq.

But an audience of 5,000 loudly called - and cat-called - for both war and peace in a media event gone awry for the Clinton administration.

The security team - when they were allowed to speak - insisted that the United States will not be deterred from raining destruction on Iraq if leader Saddam Hussein, an ''armed and dangerous bully,'' insists on hiding and stockpiling chemical and biological weapons that threaten its neighbors.

The meeting made for compelling TV during a live 90-minute international broadcast exclusively by CNN, but left moderators Bernard Shaw and Judy Woodruff periodically flustered as the three Clinton advisers faced repeated jeers.

<snip / please read on>

http://www.cincypost.com/news/1998/iraq021998.html

[snoochie]

16. Well done.

"When Republican point to our hypocrisy, we should acknoledge it, hang our heads in shame and resolve not to allow any non-Progressive Democratic administration to hood-wink us so much that we seriously believe we aren't as complicit a part of the same war machine."

When ANYONE points out our hypocricy, this should be the reaction. Unfortunately most of the time I see kneejerk defenses going up.

On the bright side, Howard Zinn is supposed to be on that same show, discussing his book, "A People's History of the United States". I hope I haven't already missed it. :)

[jpgray]

18. Second that (nt)

.

[eleny]

22. Zinn is next n/t

[Tinoire]

30. Welcome to DU Snoochie!

:toast:


http://kucinichwatch.com/

[lancdem]

20. Airstrikes aren't the same as a war

I think you would admit that. Clinton never had any intention of INVADING Iraq.

[jpgray]

21. We don't know that for sure, but some familiar faces pressured him

Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld et al were pushing a very similar policy in his face at the time.

[Tinoire]

27. Lancdem

I'm no Spring chicken here... Air-strikes is what he pounded Iraq with for 8 years straight. Air-strikes here is nothing but a nice eupheumism.

You might want to acquaint yourself with the letters Clinton was getting from Lieberman, Kerey, Perle, Feith, Wolfowitz at the time...

Clinton had every intention of keeping Iraq down and cowered. By the time Bush came on-board, the UN was already peeved beyond imagination at the heavy-handed tactics the US had used to impose sanctions on Iraq and manouver into such a corner that it would always look like the bad guy.

Bush's biggest crime isn't what he did, it's that he gave the game away in the way he did it.

Not trying to knock down our Party but until we face the truth about our complicity, this vicious cycle will continue.

There are war mongerers among the 9 Democratic candidates up there right now. To deny our past is to deny current truth and walk into the next phase of this dreadful game.

Peace

[RichM]

5. Sorry to pop your bubble, but Albright is no hero. She's as bad as

most of the other apologists for US violence & aggression (including Clinton, who has in no way voiced opposition to the war in Iraq, apart from minor quibbles about the manner in which it's been carried out).

Do you know about Maddy's famous "We think the price is worth it?" remark on "60 Minutes?"

===============

Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it.

--60 Minutes (5/12/96)

http://www.fair.org/extra/0111/iraq.html

[sujan]

6. yep

I was going to post that.

[wuushew]

7. I have heard rumors she apologized for that remark?

Is this a DU legend?

[Tinoire]

15. This is no DU legend

just click here to put your mind at ease on that one.

And here are the pictures of the children] that old witch was talking about. They rival the photo ops Bush has created. Half a million... God.

http://www.firethistime.org/extremedeformities.htm
http://www.web-light.nl/VISIE/extremedeformities.html

And we dare ask "Why do they hate us?"

Gosh, I hope we, as a people, wake up soon. We are standing on the verge of an absolute catastrophe. I really shudder for my country. The US has just turned the entire world into the Gaza Strip. I hope we understand before we start scraping our children off the pavement because by then it will be too late.

The beast has been unleashed and Bush is not the only one who had a hand in this.

Thou shalt not steal. 4 little words...

[kodi]

33. I do not understand what you are saying.

The links on the deformities indicated that the Iraqi children with birth defects after the 91 war were caused by either the mother being "deficient in folate or other methyl donors" in the imported food stuffs the UN coordinated, or more facilely presented by the 1st link

“I why it was that, given the worse diet of the Iraqi people in the years before the actual arrival of food under the 'Oil-For-Food' programme in 1997, that such deformities were not more numerous? Why was it that they began to increase in siginifcant numbers from 1997 onwards? She never replied to this question, though it could simply be co-incidence. She did, however, previously supply the following links, and recommended that readers of this site investigate for themselves:"

www.thefetus.net/sections/articles/Aneuploidy/Tri_13_Boujemaa.html
www.medgen.genetics.utah.edu/photographs.htm

which I certainly did check out. heartbreaking photos, truly heartbreaking photos. it hurt me physically to see them.


but, the birth defects of Iraqi children were presented as being caused by depleted uranium from US weapons discharged in the ’91 Iraq war. The original site also showed these children and finger pointed to this.

I have absolutely no qualms about vociferiously decrying the despicable use of such weapons, but i dont see the connection that allows one to use this as evidence in attacking Albright or Clinton on this. Is the thesis being presented that Clinton and Albright caused these defects because they did not clean up the Iraqi countryside still held by Hussein or that the food the UN sent in was somehow poisonous?

One poster connected Albright’s statement of accepting a rhetorical and as yet unsubstantiated figure of 500,000 Iraqi children dead because of UN (not just US) sanctions as an acceptable price to pay for sanctions with the aforementioned tragedy of iraqi childbirth deformations.

how are these connected?

I have not seen that there has been a substantiated count by independent sources of the figure of 5000,000 Iraqi children dead because of these sanctions, nor did I see any evidence presented that the Clinton administration be held accountable for the birth detects arising from the use of weapons in Iraq by a previous administration 2 years before he become president.

I may have missed it, perhaps I did, but where is the connection with Albright in these links?

[jonnyblitz]

11. thank you! you beat me to it.

I cringe everytime somebody praises that witch.

[eleny]

14. My bubble isn't popped

Today, she said that when you deal with dictators, you have three choices. To use carrots, to use sanctions or to go to war. That assessment doesn't sound off base.

I wouldn't want to be in her shoes. I wouldn't have know what to do about Korea now, or Saddham back in the 90s. Evidently, he did prove a threat after he invaded Kuwait. Yes, he was our bastard. But when he threatened our ally, I suppose there was a need for us to protect our need for fuel since we have no alternative plan for powering ourselves. Until then, we're left with some barbaric responses.

I don't claim to have all the answers to the very sticky international problems. I am still proud that she is a Dem and was our SOS. I admire her interest in dealing with world issues on that level along with her willingness to come clean when things go sour. It contrasts well against the current administration. And that's all I have to say about it.

[Dirk39]

24. Using sanctions against someone like Saddham Hussein???

This strategy is like kidnapping children from parents, who couldn't care less anyway, and to blackmail them with the threat to kill their children, if they don't follow your advice. This is just stupid.
And these words are just among those atrocities that make you speechless. What has become out of a human being to be able to make a statement like this?
"there was a need for us to protect our need for fuel since we have no alternative plan for powering ourselves..." isn't bad either. Did you think about what you were writing?
How many children would you kill to be able to drive your car. US people use 100 times the energy, the average human being is using. So, in order to protect the need for fuel of mankind: Don't you think, it would be the most human decision, to simply start killing Northamericans? We would just have to kill 1% of the people. Wouldn't this just be a pragmatic decision?

Hello from Germany,
Dirk

[snoochie]

25. I'm with you, Dirk.

Wars to 'protect' or acquire natural resources -- imperialism -- are just WRONG, PERIOD!

It really makes me sad to see how far to the right this party has willingly gone. :(

[eleny]

31. Dirk, I don't know what the answer should have been

The Clinton administration used sanctions as well as bombings. I don't know what we should have done in answer to the intelligence that told us Saddham was developing WMDs back in the 1990s. I do admit, however, that I would not want to see all my country's industries come to a halt. I'm referring to those industries that gobble up the oil we purchase. Nor would I want Saddham to have the power to control the Middle East and its resources if this was his intent by developing WMDs back in the 1990s. That would not have benefitted America or Europe.

I might ask you, did Germany want Saddham to stay in power and harm people in his country just to satisfy the economic interests of Germany? Of course not. But didn't Germany go along with the sanctions, as well? Pardon me if I'm wrong about this. But I thought the sanctions were U.N. sanctions and that Germany agreed with them. I hope you elaborate about how you feel about your own country's policies and provide alternative methods for how Germany should have interacted with Saddham.

Won't you please advise me of what you think the U.S. should have done with Saddham back in the 1990s. And also, what we might do now regarding Korea since it's an immediate issue. I happen to agree with Albright since she kept dialog going with Kim Jong Il and thinks we should be doing that now. I don't expect you to have all the answers. If you think we should have done nothing, then I accept that in advance and won't argue. But I would appreciate learning what you think in terms of concrete policies. Thanks.

[Dirk39]

32. Thanx for your reply!

There are so many things to consider. At first, I have to say that I'm just happy that Germany and our corporations aren't as powerfull as the US. I don't have any illusions about our government and the reasons for them, to oppose the war against Iraq. And I don't have any illusions about Germanys' most powerfull corporations. They are among the most aggressive in the world. And german corporations already tried to take advantage of the situation in Iraq, 'caused by the sanctions.
If the USA would have a government that cares about the interests of the majority of people instead of caring about the interests of a few corporations, this problem (your country's industries come to a halt) wouldn't exist. They are the ones to stop any improvements in favour of their short-time profits.
They are the ones, who destroy our infrastructure, our jobs, our lives.
And on the other side: if other countries really would have tried to liberate Iraq, there would have been a chance. The majority of the people in Iraq did rather welcome the "liberators".
And living in a country, liberated by the USA, I have no problems at all to admit this:-)

Just about a few days ago, Saddhams party tried to organize a general strike: nobody cared, despite the hate against the occupation troops now.
If anyone in the Iraq is doing a great advertising job for Saddham Hussein now, it's the US army.
And if you think it's justified to start a war to rob things from other people, supposing that you really need them, than you turn the whole world into a darwin-kind of nightmare. Then there would be no other thing than power and force and the survival of the fittest. But don't call this politics and don't ever use words like human rights or democracy again.
Starting wars for human rights? Maybe. Starting wars, simply to exploit other nations: No!
Your arguments to support the sanctions are perfect arguments to support the war, Hussein started against Kuweit. Kuweit gave a huge credit to Iraq. When the Iraq was obliged to start paying the credit back, the Kuweitis manipulated the oil price to an all time low, knowing that the Iraq could only get the money for the credit from selling oil. Hussein just had the same pragmatic values you have. He only didn't have enough WMDs.

Dirk

[eleny]

34. Derek....

Quoting you - "And if you think it's justified to start a war to rob things from other people, supposing that you really need them, than you turn the whole world into a darwin-kind of nightmare."

Before we get off track. I don't agree with this war against Iraq.

Regarding your analysis of Iraq/Kuwait - should we have let the chips fall where they may and not gone to the aid of Kuwait, then? My own position was that we should not have gone in as we did.

Frankly, I think that discussing all this on the net seems disingenuous. Where I live, coal is used to fire most power plants that provide electricity. Yet, I enjoy using my computer and other things I could surely do without and benefit the earth. Even the rail and trucks that transport recycled materials use diesel fuel that we probably import. So, the very means of discussing and conserving likely depend on fuels that harm in one way or the other. How much cheap labor manufactured and assembled our computers? Yet, here we are, discussing these issues linked together by our collective gross consumption.

[Dirk39]

35. This whole thing isn't about the energy, we need...

it's about the "energy" that allows to make the most profit with the lowest kind of input. One more thing about Mrs. Albright and Clinton: if Bush would be serious about his war against terror, Clinton and Albright would be already dead for supporting the UCK in yugoslavia: terrorists, supported by Bin Laden and involved into the worldwide transfer of women and drugs. The CIA would be a thing of the past, 'cause they made Bin Laden big, they've destroyed Afghanistan, when it was much closer to a civil society than ever before or after.



Secretary Albright greets Hahim Thaci, UCK leader August 1999, after the war
"I just can't help, my pussy gets wet from mass murders and drug dealers, I just feel attracted to those freedom fighters. I don't even need oil anymore... I just get high, when I see millions of people die for Bin Ladens, Halliburtons or Bushs' kind of freedom.
Didn't you read it in your weekly womens' magazin: power is so erotic. And I'm just one of you.
I want blood, ähhh, no I sorry don't get me wrong, sometimes, you have to balance your interests, that's the way the world is, I'm coming right now, forever yours: call me Maddy!"

We just loose time, making a difference between nations, having illusions about Europe or a more moderate democratic president in the USA. I don't trust anyone, who doesn't make it 100% clear, that he doesn't support the global players, wherever they might be, if it's Germany and the Deutsche Bank or Daimler or Volkswagen or the USA with their banks and Halliburton etc. etc. I don't care anymore.


Dirk

[Tinoire]

29. Eleny- the sanctions weren't to punish Sadaam

they were to weaken and destroy the country to facilitate the coming invasion. It was an calculated 8 year campaign of low altitude raids and bombings to get the people to think that Saadam should do whatever it took to get it to stop.

A stupid immoral idea which completely back-fired... Why do you think the US- both Dems and Republicans were in such shock when the Iraqis didn't open them with welcome arms? They had worked on this together Eleny. We needed oil badly... we needed control of those wells and we needed to ensure that neither gold nor the Euro became OPEC's standard currency.

((If anyone has a link to the Clinton Administration correspondence on this subject, please link it here. ))

==========

<snip>

The president then played psychic, insisting that unless we bomb, "Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again" -- ignoring the fact that he did not use them during the Gulf War.

"Without the sanctions" against Iraq, Clinton continued, there would be "less food for people." Can anybody believe that? UNICEF studies show that 5,000 Iraqi children are dying every month as a result of the sanctions. The sanctions are the opposite of "smart bombs" (inflated as that concept is): Sanctions actually target the weakest people in society -- children, the elderly, the sick.

Clinton is being disingenuous when he says that "so long as Iraq remains out of compliance, we will work with the international community to maintain and enforce the economic sanctions." In fact, the administration has undermined the international consensus by insisting that the economic sanctions continue even if Iraq complies with the weapons inspectors.

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright in March 1997 declared: "We do not agree with the nations who argue that if Iraq complies with its obligations concerning weapons of mass destruction, sanctions should be lifted." This twisted U.S. policy is totally contrary to U.N. Resolution 687, which states that when Iraq complies with the weapons inspectors, the sanctions "shall have no further force or effect."

<snip / great article>

http://www.accuracy.org/articles/twisted-policy.html

[Guaranteed]

26. Yeah...I saw her on too many talkshows

pre-war with her half-assed "resistance" to Bush's foreign policy.

She used to be so strong. What the FUCK happened?

[gone2thechase]

8. Blackhawk Down during Clinton's administration was America's fault

We shot our own chopper down and dragged our own soldiers through the streets?

That's news to me. Got a link?

[eleny]

9. She said that we tried to leave the country too hastily...

and it led to the downing. I saw her say this on C-Span today when she was at the Miami Book Fair. I'm sure they'll air the coverage again. Perhaps during the week some evening.

[KG]

17. albright makes me nauseous.

another RWer in dems clothing. :puke:

[Zorra]

23. And an unabashed globalist.

[Pastiche423]

19. She is the epitome of the fem warmonger

I find her a disgrace to my gender.

P.S. KG!

[KG]

28. Torie, dahling!

:* smooches!

[DemExpat]

36. She is a mighty special woman. We see her on BBC and Dutch

tv quite regularly, and our Democrats Abroad group went to see her speak in Amsterdam last month. A memorable evening.

I am also proud and grateful that her voice is regularly shown here to balance out the Bush crap.

She is a true globalist in the best sense of the word - linking her European roots, her extensive studies in International Development, and her vast experience and expertise to a world view of increasing connections and interependiencies.
I share her view.

This really is one world.

DemEx