Re: transcript of Clinton's radio interview 11-7-00

["tim buckley" <tim.buckley@DELETETHIStesco.net>]

----- Original Message -----
From: <hsbj2@cam.ac.uk>
To: <mbakery@erols.com>; <iac-discussion@egroups.com>
Cc: <soc-casi-discuss@lists.cam.ac.uk>
Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2000 11:39 AM
Subject: Re: transcript of Clinton's radio interview 11-7-00


>
> Apparantly, Saddam Hussein is now getting $19 billion whereas he was
> getting only $16 billion before the gulf war, from oil.
>
> What I think it's important to know is whether this is a lie,
> a misleading statement, or true.

[TPB] I agree. Can anyone tell us whether this $16 billion is the figure you
get
    after reparations, (currently running at 25% of oil revenues, I
believe,) are
    deducted, or before.

   Let's say the figure is accurate. Would it be fair to say that it has no
impact    whatsoever on the fundamental argument of ex-UN Co-ordinator for
Iraq Halliday and others that the oil-for-food programme is incapable of
resolving the humanitarian crisis in Iraq?

>
>
> Anyway, what I really want to know is whether Bill Clinton genuinely
> believes what he is telling the interviewer or whether he is hiding
> the fact (?) that he is knowingly and willingly complicit in a rather
> large scale genocide (if indeed he is).  And ditto Madeleine Albright and
> Peter Hain etc.
> Do these politicians and others regularly make up answers to keep the
> media happy when really they are holding a deep dark secret, or do they
> genuinely believe that their policies are fair?
>

[TPB] It's like the question: " Did Hitler know he was a nasty person?"
Probably not..
I would think that most politicians genuinely believe that they are
reasonable [eople and that their policies are fair. Apparently, people
cannot stand too much "cognitive dissonance" - the difference between what
you believe to be true and what you have to pretend to believe, let's say,
to promote the interests of large corporations and an aggressive government.
The result is
that politicians end up believing what is socially acceptable, good for
their
careers and social status. Toeing the line always pays social/political
dividends and I think many people tailor their beliefs accordingly. The
downside is that the most horrific acts can then be carried out, with
complete disregard for their consequences. The blockade of Iraq is a classic
example of such an act: evidence from the people on the ground, eg. UNICEF,
ex-UN Co-ordinators of Aid to Iraq Halliday and von Sponeck(together with
many others) suggests that the sanctions policy is criminal and catastrophic
for the civilian population of Iraq, yet the policy remains in place, with
Clinton and Hain blaming Saddam, in the face of the evidence, for the
effects of sanctions.




> Peace,
>
> Hugh.

Best wishes, Tim
>
> --On Wednesday, November 8, 2000 11:03 -0500 Ramsey Kysia
> <mbakery@erols.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > PRESIDENT CLINTON: And, you know, remember, this is the only guy,
> > the only world leader today who has used chemical weapons on his own
> > citizens. And the American people in my judgement should give him all
> > the money he needs to take care of his kids. But should do everything
> > we can, and even if we are alone, to try to stop him from being in a
> > position of murdering his kids again, and murdering other children in
the
> > Middle East. That's what I believe.
>
>
>
>
> --
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> This is a discussion list run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq
> For removal from list, email soc-casi-discuss-request@lists.cam.ac.uk
> Full details of CASI's various lists can be found on the CASI website:
> http://www.casi.org.uk
>


-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a discussion list run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq
For removal from list, email soc-casi-discuss-request@lists.cam.ac.uk
Full details of CASI's various lists can be found on the CASI website:
http://www.casi.org.uk