Responding to: joe from Lowell 12/14/2011 at 6:12 pm
The fact that you make an assertion does not mean that that assertion is true and in this case your assertion is demonstrably false. She condemned herself out of her own mouth furthermore her actions as Secretary of State both before and after that interview prove that she supported the policies leading to those childrens' deaths and that she did indeed consider their deaths worth it.
As to this:
Of course, you know this. You’re just deliberately trying to hide that fact.
Unlike Albright and her defenders I don't have to resort either to deliberate falsehoods or to trying to conceal things. Both in word and deed she repeatedly showed she did consider that killing all those children was "worth it" and no amount of ex post facto weasel wording from either her or you will alter that fact.
And this despite the fact that the U.N. has admitted the figure to be correct. Your diversionary tactic of citing Spagat's article won't work in the light of the inconvenient fact that the organisation which ran the sanctions at the behest of the U.S. government admits to the figure. Spagat's article is an outlier as well you know.
No it is not a misrepresentation of her position. Which I note you have avoided quoting:
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)
Perhaps she was horrified by the fact that she'd inadvertently told the truth.
Those interested and with a strong stomach can watch her calmly dismiss the deaths of more than ½ million babies, infants, and other children under the age of 5 as "worth it" at the following URI:
It's just one of many cynically vicious remarks made about the peoples of the Middle East by American Secretaries of State such as the pack of lies knowingly told by Colin Powell to the U.N. and Condoleeza Rice's barbaric "birth pangs" commment.
The figure of slightly over ½ million babies, infants, and other children under the age of 5 who died as a direct result of the sanctions is admitted to both by the American government and by the U.N.
And yes I have read Spagat's article in full, want to try some other diversionary tactic as that one didn't work?
Yes indeed let us consider that and once we've done considering you can push out your chest with pride at the fact that record in Irak of the government and people of the United States of America and their armed forces is worse than that of Saddam.
I know what the place was like under Saddam - I lived there. I saw what the sanctions did and experienced at first hand the viciousness of the American officials enforcing it, (and don't even think of trying to pretend that the U.N. was a free agent in the sanctions the sanctions were an American effort). Tell me Nick what about the more than ½ million very young children who died directly as a result of the American led and enforced sanctions? Do they count? Or do you agree with President Clinton's Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, who said that their deaths were "worth it"?
I also know what the place was like after the invasion and for the same reason - I've seen at first hand the arrogance and viciousness with which the American forces behave.
I hope you're really proud of yourself Nick that the record of the government and people of the United States of America and their armed forces is worse than that of a man so evil that "vile" does not even begin to describe him.
But thank you Nick Reeves for your weasel words and your list of neocon talking points. I'm really grateful to you for providing such an excellent example of why America and Americans are loathed in the country that your country cynically, viciously, with malice, and with forethought turned into a very good facsimile of hell.
Responding to: joe from Lowell 12/14/2011 at 6:12 pm
The fact that you make an assertion does not mean that that assertion is true and in this case your assertion is demonstrably false. She condemned herself out of her own mouth furthermore her actions as Secretary of State both before and after that interview prove that she supported the policies leading to those childrens' deaths and that she did indeed consider their deaths worth it.
As to this:
Unlike Albright and her defenders I don't have to resort either to deliberate falsehoods or to trying to conceal things. Both in word and deed she repeatedly showed she did consider that killing all those children was "worth it" and no amount of ex post facto weasel wording from either her or you will alter that fact.
And this despite the fact that the U.N. has admitted the figure to be correct. Your diversionary tactic of citing Spagat's article won't work in the light of the inconvenient fact that the organisation which ran the sanctions at the behest of the U.S. government admits to the figure. Spagat's article is an outlier as well you know.
No it is not a misrepresentation of her position. Which I note you have avoided quoting:
Perhaps she was horrified by the fact that she'd inadvertently told the truth.
Those interested and with a strong stomach can watch her calmly dismiss the deaths of more than ½ million babies, infants, and other children under the age of 5 as "worth it" at the following URI:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbIX1CP9qr4
It's just one of many cynically vicious remarks made about the peoples of the Middle East by American Secretaries of State such as the pack of lies knowingly told by Colin Powell to the U.N. and Condoleeza Rice's barbaric "birth pangs" commment.
The figure of slightly over ½ million babies, infants, and other children under the age of 5 who died as a direct result of the sanctions is admitted to both by the American government and by the U.N.
And yes I have read Spagat's article in full, want to try some other diversionary tactic as that one didn't work?
Yes indeed let us consider that and once we've done considering you can push out your chest with pride at the fact that record in Irak of the government and people of the United States of America and their armed forces is worse than that of Saddam.
I know what the place was like under Saddam - I lived there. I saw what the sanctions did and experienced at first hand the viciousness of the American officials enforcing it, (and don't even think of trying to pretend that the U.N. was a free agent in the sanctions the sanctions were an American effort). Tell me Nick what about the more than ½ million very young children who died directly as a result of the American led and enforced sanctions? Do they count? Or do you agree with President Clinton's Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, who said that their deaths were "worth it"?
I also know what the place was like after the invasion and for the same reason - I've seen at first hand the arrogance and viciousness with which the American forces behave.
I hope you're really proud of yourself Nick that the record of the government and people of the United States of America and their armed forces is worse than that of a man so evil that "vile" does not even begin to describe him.
But thank you Nick Reeves for your weasel words and your list of neocon talking points. I'm really grateful to you for providing such an excellent example of why America and Americans are loathed in the country that your country cynically, viciously, with malice, and with forethought turned into a very good facsimile of hell.