Further proof of Clinton-Gore's less evil killing in Iraq...

Seven years after the imposition of the blockade on the people of
Iraq, more than 1.2 million people, including 750,000 children below the
age of five, have died because of the scarcity of food and medicine. 32
percent of children under age 5, some 960,000 children, are chronically
malnourished, a rise of 72 percent since 1991.

Approximately 250 people die every day in Iraq due to the sanctions.
(UNICEF, 1998).

Death, Disease, and Malnutrition in Iraq --Each month 5,000 to 6,000
children died as a result of the sanctions. (World Health Organization, 1998).
______________________________

The official US statement, the US Secretary of State:

VIDEO: WE THINK THE PRICE IS WORTH IT

____________________________

"We Think the Price Is Worth It"

Media uncurious about Iraq policy's effects- there or here, (translation, "don't show the sheep").

SOURCE HERE

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)

Then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright's quote, calmly asserting that U.S. policy objectives were worth the sacrifice of half a million Arab children, has been much quoted in the Arabic press. It's also been cited in the United States in alternative commentary on the September 11 attacks (e.g., Alexander Cockburn, New York Press, 9/26/01).

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. In general, the response from government officials about the sanctions’ toll has been rather different: a barrage of equivocations, denigration of U.N. sources and implications that questioners have some ideological axe to grind (Extra!, 3-4/00).

________________________________

REGIME CHANGE STARTS HERE:

VIDEO: GORE ON IRAQ, TERRORISM, AND WMD

Here's Clinton, you could paste a picture of Bush over Clinton's face and get the same speech we get from Bush  today. Same shit, different President, I guess......

VIDEO: UNICEF: CLINTON'S WMD INTELLIGENCE KILLED MORE THAN BUSH'S

I guess this is what Clinton meant when he said in the video above that the US is determined to change the government of Iraq:

VIDEO, KILLING CHILDREN FOR REGIME CHANGE: CLINTON BOMBING DOWNTOWN BAGHDAD

Shock and Awe Version 1.0, The Clinton-Gore administration bombing downtown Baghdad in 1998, (and yes Jimmie, children died).

____________________________

October 25, 2000

By James Wall

SOURCE HERE

AS THE FIRST national election of the 21st century draws to a close, neither of the two major presidential candidates has given any attention to a shameful part of our foreign policy, one which history will record as both a failure and a murderous blight on our national conscience.

As former UN relief official Denis Halliday has said, we are destroying an entire society. It is as simple and terrifying as that

Meanwhile, Al Gore and George W. Bush concentrate on winning support from senior citizens who, they presume, are more concerned with the price of their own prescription drags than with Iraq, where over 1 million people have died as a result of the [Clinton-Gore] sanctions (according to the World Food Organization and UNICEF). Children under five account for 600,000 of these deaths.

In a CBS interview with Leslie Stahl, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright was asked: "We have heard that a half million children have died [as a result of economic sanctions against Iraq]--more children than died in Hiroshima ... Is the price worth it?" Albright's response: "I think this is a very hard choice, but we think the price is worth it."

And yet, while millions of advertising dollars are being spent to discuss issues in the presidential campaign, the suffering of Iraqi civilians is not on either the Bush or Gore campaign agenda. [baddy's note: Don't talk about it and the sheep won't know about it. Similar to last night's 90 minute Hillary/Obama debate where an hour and 20 minutes in Iraq was FINALLY mentioned, and generalities discussed for five minutes].

____________________________

Al Gore's Peace Prize

It's As Ridiculous As If They'd Given Goebbels One in 1938

By ALEXANDER COCKBURN

SOURCE HERE

"When Gore goes to get the prize he shares with the pr hucksters and falsifiers at the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Gore should be forced to march through a gauntlet of widows and orphans, Serbs, Iraqis, Palestinians, Colombians, and other victims of the Clinton era.

Back in Clinton's 1992 presidential campaign Gore was told to earn his keep with constant pummeling of George Bush Sr for having been soft on Saddam. Gore duly criss-crossed the country yoking Saddam and Bush in fervid denunciation, his press aides passing out speeches flatteringly footnoted with references to the work of the journalists covering his campaign. Gore charged that Bush had given Saddam "one of those milquetoast routines George Bush is so famous for". "The cover-up of Bush's arming of Saddam was", Gore shouted, "bigger than Watergate ever was."

Right before the 2000 election Gore called for expansion of the no-fly zones in Iraq and said that any Iraqi plane venturing into such zones should be shot down."

A Grand Misjudgment

SOURCE HERE

"The 2007 Nobel Peace Prize - particularly the part to Al Gore - is a populist choice that cannot but devalue the Prize itself.

Children continuing to die as US proves its ability to override all opposition

SOURCE HERE

By Ramzy Baroud
[Crescent International, August 1-15, 2000.]

A few months ago, there appeared to be emerging an international campaign to force the US to lift its sanctions against Iraq. The campaign has virtually died, as it has become clear that the US is absolutely determined to maintain its genocidal policy, and the rest of the world has accepted its determination to prolonging the devastation in Iraq.

If the purpose behind the imposition of the sanctions was truly "ridding Iraq" of its weapons of mass destruction, why aren’t the nearly daily testimonies of former Untied Nations weapons inspector, Scott Ritter, enough to deflate the tireless American myth?

While both Al Gore and George W Bush stand at odds on most issues, they can never be in more agreement on their inhuman policy in Iraq. The only rivalry between them is on who can prove harsher than the other on the Iraqis.

____________________________

and so on and so forth...

I think it's fairly clear by now that with over a million dead under his belt, it would be clearly evil to put the VP of this mess in charge as President in the next election of 2000. It's easy to see people would continue to die by the hundreds of thousands as a result of voting for Gore. Of course knowing all this, and still voting for more of it, would make one clearly fit the definition of evil.

And ESPECIALLY with LIEBERMAN as VP.

It's amazing how the Iraqi people can be bombed and starved by the US for eight years, and if you keep the killing off of the TV's, the masses will still vote for more killing, ...and still make pro-Gore statements which show a profound lack of knowledge of (the above shown), reality, ...such as:

Let's see...with Gore as VP, 1, 200, 000 dead, with Bush, 1, 200, 000 dead. That kinda looks like twins to me, (unless Clinton-Gore's 1, 200, 000 dead don't count as bad deaths because Democrats killed 'em, instead of Republicans).

And BTW....my statement in the above (that we'd be out of Iraq), remains true. The comment was in reference to my Nader vote. It is true that we wouldn't be in the mess we're in now had we voted for Nader, we wouldn't be in the mess in Iraq, in the mid-east, and even at home, (Nader promised out of NAFTA and the WTO on his first day in office).

This less evil killing, ugly, isn't it.