Twice as Many Iraqis Died During Clinton Years-

dapoes

Veteran
May 17, 2008
3,543
2,716
Egyptian scholar Sheikh Yousef Al-Qaradhawi announced this week that twice as many Iraqis died during the Clinton years as during the Bush years.

In a statement published Al-Yawm Al-Sabi' on November 4th Al-Qaadhawi said he favored John McCain for president:

In a fatwa published on the eve of the U.S. elections, Sheikh Yousef Al-Qaradhawi expressed his preference for Sen. John McCain as president: "Personally, I would prefer for the Republican candidate, [John] McCain, to be elected. This is because I prefer the obvious enemy who does not hypocritically [conceal] his hostility toward you... to the enemy who wears a mask [of friendliness]."

Al-Qaradhawi added: "Whoever thinks that the Democrats are less hostile to [the Arabs] than the Republicans should know that the number of Iraqis killed during the siege [of Iraq] by the Democrat Bill Clinton is twice as high as the number of [Iraqis] killed by the Republican [George] Bush.

"The Democrats kill you slowly without you noticing it - and therein lies the danger. They are like a snake whose touch is not felt until its poison enters your body.

Daniel Pipes has more Muslim reaction to the election.

Then again back in 1996 Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said that Clinton's policy that may have resulted in 500,000 dead Iraqi children was worth it.

In a much forgotten exchange between Lesley Stahl and Madeleine Albright on "60 Minutes" back on May 12, 1996:


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.


It's worth noting that on 60 Minutes, Albright made no attempt to deny the figure given by Stahl--a rough rendering of the preliminary estimate in a 1995 U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) report that 567,000 Iraqi children under the age of five had died as a result of the sanctions.
 
Egyptian scholar Sheikh Yousef Al-Qaradhawi announced this week that twice as many Iraqis died during the Clinton years as during the Bush years.

In a statement published Al-Yawm Al-Sabi' on November 4th Al-Qaadhawi said he favored John McCain for president:

In a fatwa published on the eve of the U.S. elections, Sheikh Yousef Al-Qaradhawi expressed his preference for Sen. John McCain as president: "Personally, I would prefer for the Republican candidate, [John] McCain, to be elected. This is because I prefer the obvious enemy who does not hypocritically [conceal] his hostility toward you... to the enemy who wears a mask [of friendliness]."

Al-Qaradhawi added: "Whoever thinks that the Democrats are less hostile to [the Arabs] than the Republicans should know that the number of Iraqis killed during the siege [of Iraq] by the Democrat Bill Clinton is twice as high as the number of [Iraqis] killed by the Republican [George] Bush.

"The Democrats kill you slowly without you noticing it - and therein lies the danger. They are like a snake whose touch is not felt until its poison enters your body.

Daniel Pipes has more Muslim reaction to the election.

Then again back in 1996 Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said that Clinton's policy that may have resulted in 500,000 dead Iraqi children was worth it.

In a much forgotten exchange between Lesley Stahl and Madeleine Albright on "60 Minutes" back on May 12, 1996:


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.


It's worth noting that on 60 Minutes, Albright made no attempt to deny the figure given by Stahl--a rough rendering of the preliminary estimate in a 1995 U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) report that 567,000 Iraqi children under the age of five had died as a result of the sanctions.

If I have an alarm and you break in my house and get arrested for B&E, did I get you arrested or did your actions get you arrested?
 
Guess we are not going to talk about the over 4,000 US soldiers who have been killed in Iraq huh? I can see how you would rather focus on the 500k Iraqi children as they are far more important for your argument.

Also, according to this site (and others). over 655k Iraqi civilians have died in the war with who ever it is we are fighting with in Iraq. I am sure you are far more concerned about them than the US soldiers who have perished in this conflict seeing as you never even mentioned them. Curious. Curious indeed.
 
Guess we are not going to talk about the over 4,000 US soldiers who have been killed in Iraq huh? I can see how you would rather focus on the 500k Iraqi children as they are far more important for your argument.

Also, according to this site (and others). over 655k Iraqi civilians have died in the war with who ever it is we are fighting with in Iraq. I am sure you are far more concerned about them than the US soldiers who have perished in this conflict seeing as you never even mentioned them. Curious. Curious indeed.
Ain't it amazing how just 5 short years ago, dead Iraqi children were referred to as "collateral damage".
 
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #5
Guess we are not going to talk about the over 4,000 US soldiers who have been killed in Iraq huh? I can see how you would rather focus on the 500k Iraqi children as they are far more important for your argument.

Also, according to this site (and others). over 655k Iraqi civilians have died in the war with who ever it is we are fighting with in Iraq. I am sure you are far more concerned about them than the US soldiers who have perished in this conflict seeing as you never even mentioned them. Curious. Curious indeed.

Maybe you cant read between the lines or look deeper then the printed page. Those events at that time were so minimized, but set the stage to why we are here today. Our soldiers (god bless them) had to get involved in something unnecessarily that took roots back in the Clinton days.
 
Maybe you cant read between the lines or look deeper then the printed page. Those events at that time were so minimized, but set the stage to why we are here today. Our soldiers (god bless them) had to get involved in something unnecessarily that took roots back in the Clinton days.


You'll have to explain to me how Clinton set the W invasion of Iraq in motion.
 
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #9
You'll have to explain to me how Clinton set the W invasion of Iraq in motion.

Maybe you were to young to remember that era, but much of the intelligence and information/views regarding Iraq was established in the Clinton years. And if you recall Clinton was in full support of the Invasion.

The Clinton View of Iraq-al Qaeda Ties
Connecting the dots in 1998, but not in 2003.



There you have it in black in white. Like I said before the US has a very short memory.
 
Maybe you were to young to remember that era, but much of the intelligence and information/views regarding Iraq was established in the Clinton years. And if you recall Clinton was in full support of the Invasion.

The Clinton View of Iraq-al Qaeda Ties
Connecting the dots in 1998, but not in 2003.



There you have it in black in white. Like I said before the US has a very short memory.
Yep he was. But Clinton would have been derided by the neocons because unlike George "Bring 'em on" Bush, he would have wanted a much larger "coalition of the willing"...and he knew that you don't get that by thrusting your middle finger in the air and declaring "your fer us or agin' us". Look at what Bush did...right up until March 2003, a very large percentage of the world was right behind us. France is a good example - they expressed reservations of doing it the way Bush wanted...and they became freedom fry eating surrender monkeys. I think if Clinton would have invaded Iraq, he would have had France...Germany...Russia....China...and most of the rest of the world as part of this "coalition of the willing" instead of Britain and Lichtenstein.
 
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #11
Yep he was. But Clinton would have been derided by the neocons because unlike George "Bring 'em on" Bush, he would have wanted a much larger "coalition of the willing"...and he knew that you don't get that by thrusting your middle finger in the air and declaring "your fer us or agin' us". Look at what Bush did...right up until March 2003, a very large percentage of the world was right behind us. France is a good example - they expressed reservations of doing it the way Bush wanted...and they became freedom fry eating surrender monkeys. I think if Clinton would have invaded Iraq, he would have had France...Germany...Russia....China...and most of the rest of the world as part of this "coalition of the willing" instead of Britain and Lichtenstein.

You aren't going to get any argument from me on how poorly Bush handled it, but to speculate how a president would handle something after the fact is moot.
 
You aren't going to get any argument from me on how poorly Bush handled it, but to speculate how a president would handle something after the fact is moot.
You mean stuff like this??
Maybe you were to young to remember that era, but much of the intelligence and information/views regarding Iraq was established in the Clinton years. And if you recall Clinton was in full support of the Invasion.

The Clinton View of Iraq-al Qaeda Ties
Connecting the dots in 1998, but not in 2003.


There you have it in black in white. Like I said before the US has a very short memory.
 
Maybe you were to young to remember that era, but much of the intelligence and information/views regarding Iraq was established in the Clinton years. And if you recall Clinton was in full support of the Invasion.

The Clinton View of Iraq-al Qaeda Ties
Connecting the dots in 1998, but not in 2003.



There you have it in black in white. Like I said before the US has a very short memory.


Yes he supported the idea but he was smart enough to realize that there was no justification for acting on his support. Bush is his own person. He chose to invade a sovereign with no involvement with 9/11 as an act of retribution to placate the ignorant masses, finish what daddy did not (at the advise of his counsel) and to get by force a oil reserve.

Bush did this on his own. Clinton never put troops on the ground. Never initiate conflict.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top