The track is possible crimes against humanity by Bushes and Clintons. We are exactly on track.
With regard to Bushes, we have arrived at your statement:
"there are probably some in the Bush administration who deserve to be prosecuted."
With regard to Clintons, we are not there yet. A step forward would be you committing to either:
"there are probably some in the Clinton administration who deserve to be prosecuted."
or
"there are probably none in the Clinton administration who deserve to be prosecuted."
I am going on in good faith that you will not avoid the discussion.
And so, I re-ask my question from post #79:
Would you put the number of Iraqi civilian deaths from Bill Clinton ordered bombings and sanctions at over or under 100,000, a Rwandan genocide type number?
You do realize you're trying to be as manipulative as possible here, and are way overboard on the interrogation shtick. You go from horrible assumptions about my beliefs to pretending you're on television. You're still a fucking clown. But I also don't mind answering in a reasonable way.
There is a huge problem in your Clinton inquisition, because you're attempting to lump Bill Clinton's presidency with Hillary Clinton's culpability. You tried this earlier by pretending that her senate vote for the second Iraq war was cause for criminal charges, when it really isn't.
There's also a problem in holding both prewar mongering and postwar sanctions to that standard, as if it's more honest to assert about them equally. When you start a war on a fabrication, you are morally responsible for everything you do, and a great deal of what the enemy does (within reason). When you sanction a country after a war, you're not morally responsible for something like Saddam and his cronies not distributing food properly. There are conflicting reports about how much and in what way food was distributed. Is Bill Clinton responsible for the mismanagement of agriculture in Iraq after the war?
Is Bill Clinton criminally responsible for dropping bombs when Iraq violates the terms of its surrender? You would have to go back and look at individual bombings and make those determinations- which ones were justified and which ones weren't? You see how much harder it is to mine the moral and criminal responsibility from postwar reconstruction? This is why I can't begin to answer questions like this. Never mind that nobody can agree on even what methods to use to determine how many died during sanctions, much less agree on a number that we can pin on Bill Clinton. It's much easier to draw conclusions from the beginning of a war rather than from the end of it.
For example, is Bush Jr a criminal with regard to postwar Iraq? I couldn't say. I suspect he's a criminal for starting the war on fabricated evidence (though I don't think it's provable or actionable). Is Obama then responsible for the horrors in Iraq today? I wouldn't know where to start determining that.
What metrics are you proposing to use to answer your question? How are you counting your dead? How are you distinguishing between deaths because of Saddam and deaths because of Bill Clinton? How are you determining which deaths are attributable to, and who is to blame for agricultural mismanagement or food distribution failures/corruption? We do have some major scandals in Oil For Food, but Bill Clinton hasn't been implicated there to my knowledge.
This is the problem with the way you think and the way you communicate. You aren't thinking much past your emotions and your prejudice.
