Asked by Stahl with regards to effect of sanctions against Iraq: "We have heard that half a million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?". Albright replied: "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price — we think the price is worth it."[6]

According to Colin Powell's memoirs, Albright once argued for the use of military force by asking, "What’s the point of having this superb military you’re always talking about, if we can’t use it?"

Wikipedia, Madeline Albright

How did Madeline Albright get in this?? It's 2007. You in some kind of time warp? You think the sanctions of the 90's were worse than the carnage of the last five years. Where the hell did you get 500,000 children dying? Got any quotes that are relevant from Rumsfeld, or Gates, or Rove?? WTF.

As to your question, the estimate of half a million children killed by the sanctions is actually from UNICEF -

UNICEF has put the number of child deaths to 500,000.[9] The reasons include lack of medical supplies, malnutrition, and especially disease owing to lack of clean water.

Wikipedia - Iraq sanctions

Is "time warp" the same as "not suffering Alzheimer's Disease re: past policy"?

I think the following posts bear me out.

Albright was a great lady. You totally take her out of context, the Clinton years nulled the need for Iraq today. You don't even respond to THAT. Give me a break.

love of the Clinton administration has you arguing that half a million children dying was an acceptable price? As if the only options were sanctions so severe they killed half a million children, or war and occupation? Say what?

...over Jeane Kirkpatrick, are ya Esch?

Not too hot, I trust?

...there's a lot in there that makes a good deal of sense. Also worth noting that, jingoism aside, it was the action that this grew to be that rendered the need for the subsequent invasion of Iraq null, subsequent stupidity to the contrary. Not bad for a moral retard.

Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright
Interview on NBC-TV "The Today Show" with Matt Lauer
Columbus, Ohio, February 19, 1998
As released by the Office of the Spokesman
U.S. Department of State

MR. LAUER: On "Close Up" this morning -- the showdown with Iraq. As UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan heads to Baghdad in a last-ditch diplomatic effort to end the standoff, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright is traveling around the United States making the administration’s case for a possible strike against Saddam Hussein. Madame Secretary, good morning to you, good to see you.

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Good morning, Matt, nice to see you.

MR. LAUER: Thank you. To put it bluntly, you were heckled yesterday. What was your reaction to the reception you received?

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Well, actually, I thought it was a very interesting meeting. There were a couple of dozen hecklers. But for the most part, there were some very serious people in the audience who had serious questions that we tried to answer. And we’ll continue to do so.

MR. LAUER: That’s true. You did have people who stood up and expressed their concern over military action against Iraq. Did you walk away from the meeting, Madame Secretary, with a different point of view, a different perspective on the situation?

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Absolutely not. I think that we know what we have to do, and that is help enforce the UN Security Council resolutions, which demand that Saddam Hussein abide by those resolutions, and get rid of his weapons of mass destruction, and allow the inspectors to have unfettered and unconditional access. That’s what we have to do.

Matt, we would like to solve this peacefully. But if we cannot, we will be using force; and the American people will be behind us, and I think that they understand that.

MR. LAUER: I’m just curious. Do you think yesterday’s session helped or hurt your case? I mean, back in the early 1990s, Madame Secretary, you used to appear on this show as an analyst for foreign affairs with William Hyland. And you’d come on and talk about the Administration’s reaction to foreign affairs. If you were analyzing yesterday’s performance by you and your colleagues, how would you rate it?

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: I thought our performance was great. But I think that the issue here is that there were people who disagree. I would probably say that there were a few dozen hecklers who disagreed. But what I would have said, actually, is that there were more people that asked questions and directed their thoughts about the fact that we ought to send in ground forces.

That’s what I found interesting -- that there are more Americans who really would like us to go in and finish off Saddam Hussein. That was the message that I got from that meeting.

MR. LAUER: And you lead me right into my next question, because one man you heard from yesterday was a retired serviceman named Mike McCall, whose son died during the Vietnam War. Here’s what he said.

(Audio clip.)

Madame Secretary, Secretary of Defense William Cohen attempted to answer that question yesterday. Why don’t you give it a shot for me today.

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Well, we had a half-a-million troops there in 1991. And the decision was that they could not take out Saddam Hussein. And I don’t think, frankly, that if we got into it, that the American people would want us to send in huge numbers of forces. So we are doing what must be done.

First of all, we would like to have a diplomatic, peaceful solution and have him give unfettered access to these places, so that we could tell what is happening with his weapons of mass destruction. But otherwise, the purpose of a very substantial strike will be to substantially reduce his weapons of mass destruction threat and his threat to the neighbors. We think that is an appropriate goal, and our goal -- and we’ve said this, Matt -- may not seem really decisive; but what we’re trying to do here is contain Saddam Hussein. We’ve managed to do that for seven years. This has been a successful policy. Whenever he puts his head up, we push him back.

MR. LAUER: Let me bring in the man who asked that question in Columbus yesterday, Madame Secretary. Mike McCall, good morning to you.

MR. MCCALL: Good morning, sir, how are you?

MR. LAUER: Oh, thank you, I’m fine. It was a bit impersonal and somewhat raucous in that room yesterday, so let me give you a chance to ask a question one-on-one to the Secretary of State.

MR. MCCALL: Good morning, Madame, how are you?

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Good morning, good to see you again.

MR. MCCALL: Thank you, kind of early in the morning. My question is, actually, more of a statement. I’m not a warmonger; I don’t want to see a war; and I don’t think there was any man in that room that was in uniform yesterday, if I’d have asked the question, who wants a war, who would have stood up.

My thought was, if we send in troops after a saturated bombing run and get this thing neutralized to where the troops could almost walk in there in parade formation as more or less of a police force to support the inspectors that come in; get those weapons; destroy them and then turn around to Saddam Hussein and say, "Hey, run your country now, run it like a human being, take care of your people, we’ll buy your oil, we’ll give you money for your oil, and make this country for your people." I don’t want to hurt those people.

MR. LAUER: Let me ask the Secretary of State, is that feasible?

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Well, first of all, let me say how much I admire the gentleman who asked the question; I did yesterday; he is clearly a great patriot.

I think the problem with the idea is that we would have to end up being an occupying force. The Americans don’t want to do that. I don’t think the American people would want us to do that. But after the substantial strike, I think we have a much better chance of having the inspectors go back in or make sure that these weapons are not reconstituted by being willing to do another strike.

This is a very serious problem. None of us are saying that there are easy solutions to it, but we have to contain Saddam Hussein. And, as I’ve said many times, we are prepared to deal, ready to deal with a post-Saddam regime.

But I appreciate what he’s saying, because I think he’s a very brave American and a patriotic American who understands why we have to do this.

MR. LAUER: Mike, let me ask you to stand by, and let me ask a couple more questions to Madeleine Albright.

Madame Secretary, your trip to the Middle East several weeks ago was not as successful as I think you would have liked, in building a coalition against Saddam Hussein at this point -- certainly not as successful as the coalition in 1991. Have you spoken to President Bush or former Secretary of State Baker and asked for any advice on gaining support from the Arab world?

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: First of all, I think my trip actually went pretty well, because this is a very different situation from ’91, when there was a cross-border invasion of one Arab country into another. And frankly, I got a lot more support than is publicly visible, because these people live in the region.

MR. LAUER: So they’re saying one thing in public, and saying something else to you in private?

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Yes, yes. And we feel comfortable that should we have to use military force, that they will be very cooperative.

And as a matter of fact, I did talk to both former President Bush and former Secretary of State Baker; and they both agreed that we have a much more complicated situation than they had on their hands. And they were very supportive, and I especially enjoyed -- well, I enjoyed talking to both of them, because they do have some very good points.

MR. LAUER: Will you speak for me, Madame Secretary, to the parents of American men and women who may soon be asked to go into harm’s way, and who get the feeling that many countries in the rest of the world are standing by silently while their children are once again being asked to clean up a mess for the rest of the world?

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Well, let me say that there are, a couple of dozen countries that are with us on this that are providing a variety of equipment, support and are willing to be with us. So there is a misunderstanding about saying that there is no coalition; there is. And the truth is that in the Gulf War, we did most of the work, too. There’s no question that we, with the British and French, did a large proportion of the work.

Let me say that we are doing everything possible so that American men and women in uniform do not have to go out there again. It is the threat of the use of force and our line-up there that is going to put force behind the diplomacy. But if we have to use force, it is because we are America; we are the indispensable nation. We stand tall and we see further than other countries into the future, and we see the danger here to all of us. I know that the American men and women in uniform are always prepared to sacrifice for freedom, democracy and the American way of life.

MR. LAUER: Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. Thank you so much again.

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Thank you.

One could (and definitely has) do a lot worse.

"The spectacle of this great nation which does not know its own mind is as humiliating as it is dangerous." ~ Walter Lippmann

worse. No matter how bad things are, they can always be worse.

But those half million kids aren't just a statistic and Clinton and Albright must bear the moral weight of their deaths.

Context it all you want Dave, she thought it was "worth it". That's a moral judgement.

And its one that Muslims noticed, I might add. I doubt anything would justify to Madeline, half a million dead American kids (scale up for population to get the real number, if you dare).

Because an American life is always worth any number of "ragheads" lives.

That's the subtext many Muslims read.

...subsequent repudiation of her remarks, which was pretty comprehensive. As to the condemnation, if you dig through the old agonist archives you'll find me characterizing the application of those sanctions as genocide. A slow motion genocide, but one that in my opinion legally merited the term nonetheless.

My point in all this would simply be that it's easy in isolation to play the outrage card, but there's a lot there that looks a good deal more sensible in the hard back lighting of retrospect. Reduce everything to one-liners and your chances of generating comprehensible policy trend even more to zero than they currently do. In large part, it's one-liners that got everyone into this mess. Outrage is easy, particularly when sitting on the historical sidelines - figuring out what do when you've been handed a shit sandwich is good deal harder.

One thing that I'd point out is that the SecState/Minister of Foreign Affairs should always view the lives of one's citizens as more important than the lives of non-citizens. The question's where one strikes the balance in terms of relative numbers.

"Ambiguously loose statements on the one hand, and euphemisms that link terrorism and fascism to Islam on the other, have created confusion and resentment on all sides." ~ Fariborz Mokhtari

id say the outrage is not without some justification if only because, well what exactly does committing slow motion genocide on iraqis have anything to do with stopping saddam from ever trying kill americans. why would he care when he spent his rule killing iraqis in wars or repressing them, he didnt seem to give a shit during the oil for food scandals either, having iraqis starve to death worked out in his favor with all his new palaces paid for by countries who were sympathetic enough to try and stop the famine but not sympathetic enough to not collude with him over the deals and prolong the suffering.

one war seemed at least to teach him that antagonizing america is the most dangerous thing he could do, there is still no evidence that he ever had any capacity to effect the us in any way, at least no real intention. why would he, saddam was an asshole, not suicidal. the first war almost saw his rule ended probably with his life and that was for picking on a buddy of america.

just what did half a million dead children stop saddam from doing, how was the slow genocide effective at protecting americans from nothing?
saddam was never a credible threat to america, even other world powers are only a threat because of the power of the nuke.
you might as well have tried to stop pol pot by bombing the countryside. starving iraq as a means of controlling saddam hinged on him actually giving a shit.

not even just against albright, we in the west were all colluding in the genocide, we let it happen when there was never any reason that could be justified , nothing could ever justify it. our leaders of that time all deserve to be convicted of human rights crimes and executed for even allowing the sanctions in the first place.

i mean fuck, duuuhh lets starve a nation so the brutal dictator who runs it wont ummmm brutalize his own people, or try to attack other nations when he knows the slightest provocation will get his ass bombed by the most powerful military in the world.

there was no logic behind it besides making the oil cheaper.
the same excuses used then were recycled for the new war, saddam was a threat, he will use WMDs on us or a neighbor blah blah blah
western imperialism in a more polite and prettier package. there is still blood on our hands even if we didnt actually shoot anybody.

something is terribly wrong when "peaceful" sanctions kill more people than a poorly executed war and near civil war conditions.

Blogger Oliver Willis: “I used to believe that a lot of these people were just talking over my head, their discourse too lofty for a regular guy like myself. But that isn’t true. They’re just stupid.”

for me. didn't sound like a fighter, sounded like a salesman, a bad one at that. but that's just me. that's why I asked.

My impression was that he meant every word.

n/t

I am not convinced that Bush is even trying anymore. He seemed exhausted, almost broken to me. I read in 'Dead Certain' that he told the author he cried almost every night. His voice was hourse, he had watery eyes (crying??), and he has taken on this look that is almost as if he is lost, wherever he is. A look of bewilderment.

And his words are the exact same set of platitudes we have come to hear since 2003. His arguments don't even make sense anymore, how can one speak of optimism after five years of failure and the same promises and platitudes. The case he makes is so divorced from reality.

Iraq is not a nation, it is not a people. It is not folks looking and dreaming of Democracy. How can he even think that?? It is a place devoid of trust, where people are moving themselves to safety based on their race and religion. It is the opposite of democracy, the opposite of humanity. It is a place where people murder and torture each other in empty homes, based on hundreds of year old grudges. Where a sectarian killing is measured by being shot in the back of the head, but an ordinary killing being one where you are shot in the face (and thus not counted as related to the conflict in the US statistical count of the dead).

And then to see Edwards when he speaks. The difference is amazing I must say.

But for Bush I could not even bring myself to anger, it was something else entirely. The failure is so palpable on his face. I think he is beginning to see it.

He's been played so hard and run so much he is just worn out. I think we can pretty much agree Bush isn't all that ambitious among ambitious men and women. To whatever extent he is ambitious, it doesn't seem to backed up by anything other than his privileged position in life. But breathing down his neck are world class egos with stifling amounts of ambition, expressed very well by Addington:

According to Goldsmith, Addington once expressed his general attitude toward accommodation by saying: "We're going to push and push and push until some larger force makes us stop."

Addington's attitude toward accommodating concerns of allies and international organizations was: "They don't have a vote," Goldsmith wrote.

Imagine all the energy it takes to keep up the charades produced by this declaration. Not to mention the rationalizations Bush has to keep up with concerning his own ego in believing he is actually the 'Leader', and perhaps the weight of that nagging, growing realization that he has indeed been taken to the cleaners, been set up as the fall guy, and still has to confront the parents of the fallen and, you know, be Preznit.

Of course, if George really had a conscience Mommy would have him under suicide watch. But she knows George too well for that.

There was no strut, no sass, no endorphins, no testosterone. He worked extremely hard at enunciation and a pale facsimile of sincerity. They fixed his hair to make it seem youthful, but patchy eyebrows, frown lines and his new turkey neck made it look like a rug.

I yelled something angry when he attributed success in Anbar to the surge, but mostly I was in awe of how utterly deflated he looked, esp. when only 2 weeks ago he was struttin' around with his chest puffed out.

Guess the Patreus / Crocker show wasn't a hit with his pals in Congress. Or, worse yet, the Pentagon.

... from a different angle.

I have one fear about Bush. He does not admit error, he changes the game, throwing the error into a bigger pond. A failure in Iraq could drive him to widen the game - Iran. The idea of such an exhausted presentation, the cornering. Just imagine the bad news he has been hearing behind the scenes. The extent of the carnage, the absence of troops, the inability to maintain the military past spring. He HAS to at some level know.

And then my mind goes to that weird little story a few weeks ago about 'lost' nuclear weapons.

----------

First of all there was no ERROR related to the 'misplaced' nuclear weapons. It simply is not possible.

The nuclear warhead in question was an AGM-129. It is a NUCLEAR only delivery weapon, nothing else like it.

These warheads were mounted on the exterior of the B-52 according to the story. Plainly Visible.

IMPORTANTLY The B-52 flew to Barksdale, THE staging area for transit of weapons to Iraq/Iran.

This was a test run. There is no way it could have possibly taken off from Minot, North Dakota without clearance. Nuclear weapons clearly visible dangling from the wings? It could not have been anything else, and it would have had to be on the orders of the President of the United States.

But here is where it gets dicey.

The story was leaked somehow, and they had to pull the planes back to Minot. The Military is in open revolt over the whole Iran expansion concept of the civilian military leadership. Someone in the Pentagon had to have leaked the movement of the warheads, and that is when it was declared a 'mistake.' Bush and Cheney are gearing for expansion.

There is no other way.

And the Military itself is trying to stop the civilian leadership from their military options. This was likely a direct violation of the chain of command to the extent it could be accomplished. The nuclear weapons had to be returned, or the test had to be ended. It kept nuclear weapons out of the Iraq/Iran theater - this time.

Any thoughts? I believe the White House is planning nuclear air attacks on Iran, and the military is in open revolt. They are blocking all the back-channel military operations, but at some point will need to acquiesce.

This is possibly why the President is looking so exhausted these days

-

He is planning the apocalypse.

And, yes, the difference matters.

"The spectacle of this great nation which does not know its own mind is as humiliating as it is dangerous." ~ Walter Lippmann

They were ACMs.

Dunno where I got it into my fool head they were ALCMs - I've read about four separate articles on the event.

Apologies.

And, yes, the difference does make it less comprehensible. /petard, hoist on own

"The spectacle of this great nation which does not know its own mind is as humiliating as it is dangerous." ~ Walter Lippmann

There may (or may not) be one missing.

Lots of info about these miserable killing machines at WIKI

...like the dummies they replaced. It was only discovered when someone noted (at Barksdale) that one of the stickers was loose, and pulled it off.

The aircrew thought they were flying dummy headed ACMs to Barksdale for decommissioning (which is done at Barksdale). The real trick is how did repainted & stickered warheads get swapped with dummies at Minot.

More here.

One really really wonders. I hadn't heard that part of the story.
Thanks.

how in the hell are the nukes moving around? they are supposed to be the crown jewels of the international system.

additionally there is some conflict about the number 5 or 6 total. and how they were not noticed at barksdale for many hours.

the whole thing reeks. and then it got converted to media spin threatening Iran - makes me think the Iran threat was an ad-lib to take notice off of the 'chain of command' breakdown.

bonus: does anyone recall how the Secret Service received weird nuclear code words during 9/11? (for some, this is the big hint that the Big Conspiracy was involved. in any case it should be investigated.)

abovetopsecret is kinda conspiracy forum d'jour. see here for a good parsing of the case - if a jumpy conclusion.
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread302187/pg1

--
Hongpong.com

...was "disrespect". A perfectly good word, of long standing pedigree.

"The spectacle of this great nation which does not know its own mind is as humiliating as it is dangerous." ~ Walter Lippmann

- eom

"Disrespect" as a noun I'm just fine with, but it completely took me aback as a transitive verb. And now it pops up everywhere. (Who started that train?)

I will not, however, cede ground on "impact" as a transitive verb -- no matter how sloppy its usage by US news personalities. That one makes me grind my teeth. (Yes, including impacted molars.)

on "update". Oy.

about the use of "conflicted". Who created that? Is there some way to have that person violently and publically eliminated?