3 ms·

I'll have to look into more of the story of her involvement in 1990s actions against Iraq. Whatever it is I am sure it's not as bad as what the other party did

I'll have to look into more of the story of her involvement in 1990s actions against Iraq. Whatever it is I am sure it's not as bad as what the other party did in 2003. Need to vent about something your comment is reminding me of. I saw it in Putin's speeches, and a recent RT clip -- this notion that what the US did to Iraq in 2003 justifies actions in Ukraine. As an American who was very opposed to the second Iraq war I find this false justification very disappointing. Firstly, that one bad action does not justify another. Second, the story that the US tells about itself is that we sometimes make mistakes, then our political process tries its best to correct them as time goes on. See also: slavery. Or the fact that the Iraq war is pretty unpopular in retrospect. We openly admit to not being perfect, but try to commit ourselves to continuous improvement. That's an important point.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
kennywinker 5y ago
> Whatever it is I am sure it's not as bad as what the other party did in 2003. ... > Firstly, that one bad action does not justify another. I'm not trying to start a fight, because I agree with your overall point - learning and growing as a nation is important. That's honestly a big part of why I believe political figures obituaries should include their full context. But these two sentences seem to me to sharply contradict each-other.
- asveikau 5y ago
  I think in this case it's important to note that many public officials stopped short of boots on the ground in Iraq because they knew it was trouble. In this thread i feel like some are conflating the two gulf wars and the sanctions in between. (I seem to recall there was also a Clinton air strike in the middle) Albright was really against the second war if i recall correctly.
zardo 5y ago
> Whatever it is I am sure it's not as bad as what the other party did in 2003. Democrats don't get to wash their hands of that invasion. Both parties supported it. Sanctions and sporadic bombings on critical infrastructure under Clinton was estimated to cause on the order of a million deaths, mostly children dieing of disease because the US destroyed water treatment facilities. Albright infamously defended the deaths of 800,000 children as worth the cost in a 60 minutes interview. (Unfortunately the political lesson from that wasn't don't cause mass death, it was don't acknowledge that you've caused mass death)
- asveikau 5y ago
  Republicans used this as a campaign issue in the 2002 midterms. They wanted to paint a no vote on Iraq as weak. I believe this is a substantial component for why many congressional and senate Democrats voted for it. It was a really ugly thing to see playing out in public and media... Policy was set arbitrarily in the executive branch and media and congress were ... Yes also responsible, and not really exercising their full power and responsibility, but also some of them bullied into it. The patriotism of anyone against the war was very harshly attacked and unfortunately it seemed pretty effective at the time.
- AutumnCurtain 5y ago
  215 (96.4%) of 223 Republican Representatives voted for the resolution. 82 (39.2%) of 209 Democratic Representatives voted for the resolution. 6 (<2.7%) of 223 Republican Representatives voted against the resolution: Reps. Duncan (R-TN), Hostettler (R-IN), Houghton (R-NY), Leach (R-IA), Morella (R-MD), Paul (R-TX). 126 (~60.3%) of 209 Democratic Representatives voted against the resolution. The only Independent Representative voted against the resolution: Rep. Sanders (I-VT) Reps. Ortiz (D-TX), Roukema (R-NJ), and Stump (R-AZ) did not vote on the resolution. 29 (58%) of 50 Democratic senators voted for the resolution. 48 (98%) of 49 Republican senators voted for the resolution. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Iraq_Resolution_of_2002?wprov=sfla1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Milit...
  - jsiaajdsdaa 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

kennywinker 5y ago

> Whatever it is I am sure it's not as bad as what the other party did in 2003. ... > Firstly, that one bad action does not justify another. I'm not trying to start a fight, because I agree with your overall point - learning and growing as a nation is important. That's honestly a big part of why I believe political figures obituaries should include their full context. But these two sentences seem to me to sharply contradict each-other.

asveikau 5y ago
I think in this case it's important to note that many public officials stopped short of boots on the ground in Iraq because they knew it was trouble. In this thread i feel like some are conflating the two gulf wars and the sanctions in between. (I seem to recall there was also a Clinton air strike in the middle) Albright was really against the second war if i recall correctly.

zardo 5y ago

> Whatever it is I am sure it's not as bad as what the other party did in 2003. Democrats don't get to wash their hands of that invasion. Both parties supported it. Sanctions and sporadic bombings on critical infrastructure under Clinton was estimated to cause on the order of a million deaths, mostly children dieing of disease because the US destroyed water treatment facilities. Albright infamously defended the deaths of 800,000 children as worth the cost in a 60 minutes interview. (Unfortunately the political lesson from that wasn't don't cause mass death, it was don't acknowledge that you've caused mass death)

asveikau 5y ago
Republicans used this as a campaign issue in the 2002 midterms. They wanted to paint a no vote on Iraq as weak. I believe this is a substantial component for why many congressional and senate Democrats voted for it. It was a really ugly thing to see playing out in public and media... Policy was set arbitrarily in the executive branch and media and congress were ... Yes also responsible, and not really exercising their full power and responsibility, but also some of them bullied into it. The patriotism of anyone against the war was very harshly attacked and unfortunately it seemed pretty effective at the time.
AutumnCurtain 5y ago
215 (96.4%) of 223 Republican Representatives voted for the resolution. 82 (39.2%) of 209 Democratic Representatives voted for the resolution. 6 (<2.7%) of 223 Republican Representatives voted against the resolution: Reps. Duncan (R-TN), Hostettler (R-IN), Houghton (R-NY), Leach (R-IA), Morella (R-MD), Paul (R-TX). 126 (~60.3%) of 209 Democratic Representatives voted against the resolution. The only Independent Representative voted against the resolution: Rep. Sanders (I-VT) Reps. Ortiz (D-TX), Roukema (R-NJ), and Stump (R-AZ) did not vote on the resolution. 29 (58%) of 50 Democratic senators voted for the resolution. 48 (98%) of 49 Republican senators voted for the resolution. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Iraq_Resolution_of_2002?wprov=sfla1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Milit...
- jsiaajdsdaa 5y ago