So even your own source admits that estimates vary wildly, from 170,000 to 500,000? Look, however many of these deaths occurred, it is a tragedy. But settling on the high number so you can attack does not help your cause.
I think we can pick apart the foreign policy decisions of every American President if we try hard enough and look at it from enough angles. But each of them, regardless of party, has been forced to make tough decisions on a daily basis most of us cannot imagine having to make.
1. totally off topic
2. thats not my source, thats what I believe Leslie Stahl was referring to...
You posted about the 500,000 dead kids. If you didn't want to go there, then you shouldn't have gone there. If that isn't your source then what is?
So even your own source admits that estimates vary wildly, from 170,000 to 500,000?
replies with...2. thats not my source, thats what I believe Leslie Stahl was referring to...
You posted about the 500,000 dead kids. If you didn't want to go there, then you shouldn't have gone there. If that isn't your source then what is?
explain to me my source of what? I quoted an interview where Clinton's Sec of State did NOT deny the killing of innocent Iraqi children NOR did she deny the number of children killed (500,000). Im guess the Stahl got the 500,000 number from the UNICEF report but since Im not Leslie Stahl I dont know for sure, but its my best guess. ANYWAY.........Without any estimates or fact finding from Unicef, the UN, and etc I would tend to think that hundreds of thousands of children were killed simply because Albright didn't flatly deny it, she actually justified it on national tv! "...we think the price is worth it.” "We" being Clinton and cabinet and the "price" being hundreds of thousands of Children.
NOW......
Do you want to rethink this one or are you OK with how callous and tone deaf it reads?
So you do have no second thoughts about this comparison? 100% A-OK in your mind?
So even your own source admits that estimates vary wildly, from 170,000 to 500,000?
replies with...2. thats not my source, thats what I believe Leslie Stahl was referring to...
You posted about the 500,000 dead kids. If you didn't want to go there, then you shouldn't have gone there. If that isn't your source then what is?
explain to me my source of what? I quoted an interview where Clinton's Sec of State did NOT deny the killing of innocent Iraqi children NOR did she deny the number of children killed (500,000). Im guess the Stahl got the 500,000 number from the UNICEF report but since Im not Leslie Stahl I dont know for sure, but its my best guess. ANYWAY.........Without any estimates or fact finding from Unicef, the UN, and etc I would tend to think that hundreds of thousands of children were killed simply because Albright didn't flatly deny it, she actually justified it on national tv! "...we think the price is worth it.” "We" being Clinton and cabinet and the "price" being hundreds of thousands of Children.
NOW......
Do you want to rethink this one or are you OK with how callous and tone deaf it reads?
So you do have no second thoughts about this comparison? 100% A-OK in your mind?
You posted about the 500,000 dead children claim first, then pulled out the Stahl interview, then posted an article that clearly indicated the true number was unknown. And when questioned on that, THEN you played the off-topic card.
ok, i see your point... lets at least agree on a number of children killed by the iraqi sanctions, about the same age of the 20 children killed in newtown, ct...
100,000?
150,000?
200,000?
250,000?
i will let you pick the number then i will go with it...thxs and sorry i inadvertently pulled the "off topic" card, it wasnt met as a distraction or tactic to evade
I don't know the number. I do think whatever the true number is it represents a tragedy. I'm not convinced Albright meant what she said there but I have not seen the interview.
In supporting the bill, President Obama gave away the one bargaining chip – the expiring Bush tax cuts – that he could have used in the upcoming negotiations on spending cuts and the debt ceiling. Not only did Obama get little of substance in return for his only bargaining chip. He actually ceded nearly half the $1 trillion in new revenue that John Boehner agreed to, (getting only $600 billion in tax increases on the wealthy over the next decade).
Comments
You posted about the 500,000 dead kids. If you didn't want to go there, then you shouldn't have gone there. If that isn't your source then what is?
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
(who is the "we" she is referring to when she says "...we think the price is worth it.”
... no reply
And who is the source when Lesley Stahl says "We have heard..."?
replied with...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctions_against_Iraq
So even your own source admits that estimates vary wildly, from 170,000 to 500,000?
replies with...2. thats not my source, thats what I believe Leslie Stahl was referring to...
You posted about the 500,000 dead kids. If you didn't want to go there, then you shouldn't have gone there. If that isn't your source then what is?
explain to me my source of what? I quoted an interview where Clinton's Sec of State did NOT deny the killing of innocent Iraqi children NOR did she deny the number of children killed (500,000). Im guess the Stahl got the 500,000 number from the UNICEF report but since Im not Leslie Stahl I dont know for sure, but its my best guess. ANYWAY.........Without any estimates or fact finding from Unicef, the UN, and etc I would tend to think that hundreds of thousands of children were killed simply because Albright didn't flatly deny it, she actually justified it on national tv! "...we think the price is worth it.” "We" being Clinton and cabinet and the "price" being hundreds of thousands of Children.
NOW......
Do you want to rethink this one or are you OK with how callous and tone deaf it reads?
So you do have no second thoughts about this comparison? 100% A-OK in your mind?
You posted about the 500,000 dead children claim first, then pulled out the Stahl interview, then posted an article that clearly indicated the true number was unknown. And when questioned on that, THEN you played the off-topic card.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
100,000?
150,000?
200,000?
250,000?
i will let you pick the number then i will go with it...thxs and sorry i inadvertently pulled the "off topic" card, it wasnt met as a distraction or tactic to evade
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
http://www.jillstein.org/stein_bipartis ... _austerity
"...I changed by not changing at all..."