This blog explores the contemporary political and cultural trends from a distinct perspective
WHY CLINTON CANNOT ESCAPE THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE IRAQ POLICY
Published on November 27, 2005 By Bahu Virupaksha In Politics
In a speech in Dubai, Bill Clinton declared that the Iraq War was a "big mistake". The speech was made in the context of rising civillian and US casualities in Iraq. Clinton by referring to the Iraq War as a mistake is obviously playing to the domestic Democratic lobby in order to gather support for the next Pesidential candidate from the Democratic party, who could even be Hiliary Clinton. Of course, a consumate politician like Clinton can paly politics and thetre is nothing wrong in that per se. However,he implies that he had no real responsibility for the happenings in Iraq. Hence I would like to set the record straight.

First of all, Clinton gave unqualified support to the invasion of Iraq ibn 2003. As former president he cannot claim that he was misled by the false propaganda emanatinf from the White House. If the truth be told George Bush was only follwing in the path alid out by Bill Clinton during his twi terms in the White House.

Second, Bill Clinton was primarily responsible for imposing the UN sanction regime on Iraq qhich resulted in creating a huge humanitarian crisis in Iraq. In fact half a million Iraqi children perished as a direct consequence of the ruthlessly inhuman sanction's regime of the UN. Clinton cannot escape the responsibility for that.

Third, Bill Clinton along with the British Government subjected Bagdad to weeks of ariel bombardment in 1993. Further in 1998, he signed the Iraq Liberation Act which made regime change the ofricial policy of the US Governemt. On the pretext of allowing the UN Weapons insectors the protection for carrying out their task, Clinton ordered the bombing of Bagdad for 4 days. Need we forget the bombing of Kossovo which resulted in thousands of fatalities.

Given the record of his Administration, Bill Clinton cannot really distance himself from the killing fields of Iraq. In fact it was his administration that laid the ground for US involvement and George Bush II blundered into the mess aided and abetted by the faulty intelligence.

Comments (Page 2)
2 Pages1 2 
on Nov 27, 2005
True BakerStreet, but the Colon isn't the only one reading, and quite often the answers he ignores can help someone else understand.
on Nov 27, 2005
Never EVER blame the fascist dictator.


Now I am not an admirer of Saddam, but I can tell you with all certainity that his was not a fascist regime. He did modernise Iraq, provided women's empowerment through educationa and tried hard to buid a civil society internesting ethnic, tribal and sectarian divides. Unfortunately, Western media projects only the seemy side of his regime but not his record of governance. His was a brutal regime and by all accounts less uncivilised than the crew currently running Iraq with its torture chambers located in ministerial buildings. Now I am sure you do not want to hear this: Saddam would have made an excellent ally in the war against Terrorism for the simple reason he detested Islamic Fundamentalism and he was basically an Arab nationalist. Unfortunately the War on Terrorism, a legitimate and just war, was hi jacked for purely partisan purposes and the world is paying a price for that. It is just a matter of time before the USA withdraws from Iraq. Senatoe Murtha and Co will ser to thAt. Then you will have to answer the question: What was realised through all that savage bloodletting? Dis the USA gain anything at all? Is the Middle East safer? Thanks to the war in Iraq Islamic Terrorism has found a new soil to grow and an endless pool of faNATICS TO DRAW UPON.
on Nov 27, 2005
Main Entry: fas·cism
Pronunciation: 'fa-"shi-z&m also 'fa-"si-
Function: noun
Etymology: Italian fascismo, from fascio bundle, fasces, group, from Latin fascis bundle & fasces fasces
1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control


Hussein was most certainly a fascist, Bahu, and one that used every evil in the book to retain his power. His minority Baathist party was a elitist club like the nazis, and Shiites and Kurds need not apply. Toture, amputation, shoving people off buildings as example, mass killing of whole towns. There was zero opposition that wasn't violently suppressed.

Go back and look at his eerie national "patriotic" monuments, his status as eternal leader, his behavior toward people who opposed him, his crimes against nations he considered his property. You may not think he was a threat, but there's no way you can make the point he wasn't a fascist.
2 Pages1 2