Ask A Question
 
Richard0802
Fresh Boarder
Blog Posts: 0
Forum Posts: 14
Rating: 0ApplaudCriticize
Posted 1 Year, 3 Months ago permalink
The Truth Leaks Out About Kosovo

November 24, 1999 The embarrassing truth is starting to come out that the Clinton Administration lied to us about Kosovo atrocities which were supposed to justify the bombing of Yugoslavia. In five months of investigation and exhumation of the dead in Kosovo, United Nations war crimes investigators have found only 2,108 bodies.

Before the bombing, Clinton and Defense Secretary William Cohen repeatedly tossed out figures of 100,000 dead, and the State Department even claimed that up to 500,000 Kosovars were feared dead. Clinton claimed that his bombing prevented Milosevic from 'deliberate, systematic efforts at ethnic cleansing and genocide.'

The chief prosecutor for the UN war crimes tribunal, Carla Del Ponte, can confirm only the 2,108 figure. That's what she reported to the UN Security Council.

Pathologist Emilio Perez Pujol, who led a Spanish forensic team looking for bodies, found only 187, mostly in individual graves. He calculated that 'the final figure of dead in Kosovo will be 2,500 at the most. This includes lots of strange deaths that can't be blamed on anyone in particular.'

The British, who seem to be more interested in getting to the truth than Congress, are pressuring Foreign Secretary Robin Cook to answer claims that Tony Blair's government misled the public over the scale of deaths in order to justify NATO's bombing of Belgrade. Alice Mahon, the Labor MP who chairs the Balkans committee, said that the Kosovo deaths were tragic but did not justify the killing of Belgrade civilians by NATO's bombing.

Lacking a constitutional or national security basis for his Yugoslav adventure, Clinton relied wholly on the humanitarian argument. That rationale has fallen apart because the numbers of Milosevic's crimes in Kososo were so grossly inflated, the indiscriminate damage done by the Clinton/NATO bombing raids was so vast, and all the people he said he was helping are far worse off than before the bombing started.

The Clinton/NATO bombing was carried on for 78 days with total disregard for human life. The bombs killed thousands of innocent civilians and even destroyed hospitals and schools.

The Clinton/NATO bombing decimated Yugoslavia's economic infrastructure and created an environmental nightmare. Not only are water and power systems destroyed, but the lifeline of the region, the Danube River, is polluted and largely impassable because of destroyed bridges.

Repeated air strikes on the Serbian town of Pancevo enveloped the area in clouds of black smoke and flames for ten days and unleashed tons of chemicals into the air, water and soil. The fish, produce and water are all contaminated.

What was advertised as an air war against Yugoslavia's military capabilities was really a war directed against the Serbian people. Dropping cluster bombs from 15,000 feet and firing missiles from many miles away guaranteed 'mistakes' and 'collateral damage' and prove that the targets were civilian as well as military.

U.S. Air Force Commander Lt. Gen. Michael Short admitted that the goal was to break the will of the Serbs and make them so miserable that they would force Milosevic to pull out of Kosovo. Estimates of the cost to rebuild the damage range up to $100 billion, but the costs in human misery are incalculable.

The situation in Kosovo, the province Clinton was supposed to be protecting, is even worse. The danger from unexploded British and American cluster bombs and mines is at alarming levels, according to international aid agencies.

Before the bombing began, there was no humanitarian crisis in Kosovo. It was only after the U.S. and NATO air strikes began that the Serbs started to expel Albanians from Kosovo.

The NATO 'peacekeeping' force in Kosovo is completely unable to restrain the revenge-seeking Albanians who are beating and murdering the Serbs (even targeting grandmothers) and burning their homes and churches. More Serb civilians have been slaughtered in Kosovo than ethnic Albanians before the bombing began.

The daily violence continues even though there are now more NATO troops in Kosovo than Serbs. According to Human Rights Watch, 164,000 Serb civilians have been driven out of Kosovo.

The Clinton-Albright policy is based on the absurd fantasy that America and NATO can force the Serbs and Albanians to live together in a multiethnic society. Neither side wants that, and the attempt to impose our will means that U.S. troops will play the costly roles of global cop and social worker indefinitely.

The only people happy about the Yugoslavia debacle are the globalists who want America to be perpetually engaged in foreign conflicts. In a speech to the Canadian Parliament, Czech leader Vaclav Havel praised the Yugoslav war as 'an important precedent for the future,' saying that 'state sovereignty must inevitably dissolve' and nation-states will be transformed into 'civil administrative units.'

When Clinton's National Security Adviser Sandy Berger spoke to the Council on Foreign Relations on October 21, he described Clinton's foreign policy as grounded in the policy of 'engagement.' America will now be 'engaged' in Yugoslavia for the rest of our lives.

Phyllis Schlafly column 11-24-99

begin 666 cleardot.gif J1TE&.#EA'0'!'( '',# P '''''Y! $'''''+ '''''!''$'''(!1 'he Truth Leaks Out About Kosovo

November 24, 1999 The embarrassing truth is starting to come out that the Clinton Administration lied to us about Kosovo atrocities which were supposed to justify the bombing of Yugoslavia. In five months of investigation and exhumation of the dead in Kosovo, United Nations war crimes investigators have found only 2,108 bodies.

Before the bombing, Clinton and Defense Secretary William Cohen repeatedly tossed out figures of 100,000 dead, and the State Department even claimed that up to 500,000 Kosovars were feared dead. Clinton claimed that his bombing prevented Milosevic from 'deliberate, systematic efforts at ethnic cleansing and genocide.'

The chief prosecutor for the UN war crimes tribunal, Carla Del Ponte, can confirm only the 2,108 figure. That's what she reported to the UN Security Council.

Pathologist Emilio Perez Pujol, who led a Spanish forensic team looking for bodies, found only 187, mostly in individual graves. He calculated that 'the final figure of dead in Kosovo will be 2,500 at the most. This includes lots of strange deaths that can't be blamed on anyone in particular.'

The British, who seem to be more interested in getting to the truth than Congress, are pressuring Foreign Secretary Robin Cook to answer claims that Tony Blair's government misled the public over the scale of deaths in order to justify NATO's bombing of Belgrade. Alice Mahon, the Labor MP who chairs the Balkans committee, said that the Kosovo deaths were tragic but did not justify the killing of Belgrade civilians by NATO's bombing.

Lacking a constitutional or national security basis for his Yugoslav adventure, Clinton relied wholly on the humanitarian argument. That rationale has fallen apart because the numbers of Milosevic's crimes in Kososo were so grossly inflated, the indiscriminate damage done by the Clinton/NATO bombing raids was so vast, and all the people he said he was helping are far worse off than before the bombing started.

The Clinton/NATO bombing was carried on for 78 days with total disregard for human life. The bombs killed thousands of innocent civilians and even destroyed hospitals and schools.

The Clinton/NATO bombing decimated Yugoslavia's economic infrastructure and created an environmental nightmare. Not only are water and power systems destroyed, but the lifeline of the region, the Danube River, is polluted and largely impassable because of destroyed bridges.

Repeated air strikes on the Serbian town of Pancevo enveloped the area in clouds of black smoke and flames for ten days and unleashed tons of chemicals into the air, water and soil. The fish, produce and water are all contaminated.

What was advertised as an air war against Yugoslavia's military capabilities was really a war directed against the Serbian people. Dropping cluster bombs from 15,000 feet and firing missiles from many miles away guaranteed 'mistakes' and 'collateral damage' and prove that the targets were civilian as well as military.

U.S. Air Force Commander Lt. Gen. Michael Short admitted that the goal was to break the will of the Serbs and make them so miserable that they would force Milosevic to pull out of Kosovo. Estimates of the cost to rebuild the damage range up to $100 billion, but the costs in human misery are incalculable.

The situation in Kosovo, the province Clinton was supposed to be protecting, is even worse. The danger from unexploded British and American cluster bombs and mines is at alarming levels, according to international aid agencies.

Before the bombing began, there was no humanitarian crisis in Kosovo. It was only after the U.S. and NATO air strikes began that the Serbs started to expel Albanians from Kosovo.

The NATO 'peacekeeping' force in Kosovo is completely unable to restrain the revenge-seeking Albanians who are beating and murdering the Serbs (even targeting grandmothers) and burning their homes and churches. More Serb civilians have been slaughtered in Kosovo than ethnic Albanians before the bombing began.

The daily violence continues even though there are now more NATO troops in Kosovo than Serbs. According to Human Rights Watch, 164,000 Serb civilians have been driven out of Kosovo.

The Clinton-Albright policy is based on the absurd fantasy that America and NATO can force the Serbs and Albanians to live together in a multiethnic society. Neither side wants that, and the attempt to impose our will means that U.S. troops will play the costly roles of global cop and social worker indefinitely.

The only people happy about the Yugoslavia debacle are the globalists who want America to be perpetually engaged in foreign conflicts. In a speech to the Canadian Parliament, Czech leader Vaclav Havel praised the Yugoslav war as 'an important precedent for the future,' saying that 'state sovereignty must inevitably dissolve' and nation-states will be transformed into 'civil administrative units.'

When Clinton's National Security Adviser Sandy Berger spoke to the Council on Foreign Relations on October 21, he described Clinton's foreign policy as grounded in the policy of 'engagement.' America will now be 'engaged' in Yugoslavia for the rest of our lives.

Phyllis Schlafly column 11-24-99

begin 666 cleardot.gif J1TE&.#EA'0'!'( '',# P '''''Y! $'''''+ '''''!''$'''(!1 '[ ' end

begin 666 blue-dot.gif
Answer
bluehorse
Junior Boarder
Blog Posts: 0
Forum Posts: 24
Rating: 0ApplaudCriticize
Posted 1 Year, 3 Months ago permalink
the fake Harry Hope posted:

The unofficial war: U.S., Britain led massive secret bombing campaign before Iraq war was declared

Larisa Alexandrova and John Byrne

A U.S. general who commanded the U.S. allied air forces in Iraq has confirmed that the U.S. and Britain conducted a massive secret bombing campaign before the U.S. actually declared war on Iraq.

The quote, passed from RAW STORY to the London Sunday Times last week, raises troubling questions of whether President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair engaged in an illegal war before seeking a UN resolution or congressional approval.

While the Downing Street documents collectively raise disturbing questions about how the Bush administration led the United States into Iraq, including allegations that “intelligence was being fixed,” other questions have emerged about when the US and British led allies actually began the Iraq war.

Advertisement

[Click Here]

According to the May 1, 2005 Downing Street Memo, official minutes of a 2002 meeting between British Prime Minister Tony Blair, members of British intelligence MI-6 and various senior level members of the Bush administration, air strikes had already begun by July 23, 2002.

U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld “said that the US had already begun 'spikes of activity' to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.”

The Ides of May-June

Starting in late May to June of 2002 a flurry of activity began both in the United States and in the Middle East. In what appears to be an admission of covert activity, chief allied air force commander Lieutenant- General Michael Moseley divulged in a little-noticed quote in the New York Times that US/British aircraft flew 21,736 sorties between June 2002 and March 2003.

Moseley said that some 600 bombs were dropped before the official start of the war, targeting 391 locations and/or installations.

Moseley explained that the combination of air strikes and covert raids occurred in the southern no-fly zone regions covered by routine patrols.

The targets of these strikes are difficult to pinpoint, but RAW STORY has found a clear divergence between U.S. and Iraqi reports at the time, as well as disagreement over what provoked the strikes.

GlobalSecurity.org, a military defense group, raised concerns about the air strikes when they mushroomed in early 2002, though their worries produced few press reports.

The group saw the strikes as a means by which the U.S. could degrade Iraqi defensive capabilities, and as a precursor to a declared war.

“It was no big secret at the time,” GlobalSecurity.org director John Pike told RAW STORY. “It was apparent to us at the time that they were doing it and why they were doing it, and that was part of the reason why we were convinced that a decision to go to war had already been made, because the war had already started.”

Pike says the allied forces used their position in the ‘No-Fly- Zone’ to engage in pre-emptive action long before war was formally declared.

“They I think had decided to take advantage of Southern Watch and Northern Watch to go ahead and take the air defense system apart and attack any other targets that they felt needed to be preemptively destroyed,” Pike asserted.

“They explicitly altered the rules of engagement,” he added, “because initially the rules of engagement had been that they would shoot back if [someone] shot at them. Then they said that if they were shot at, they would shoot at whatever they wanted to.”

One U.S. Air Force vet told a hearing in Istanbul this weekend, “I saw bombing intensify. All the documents coming out now, the Downing Street memo and others, confirm what I had witnessed in Iraq. The war had already begun while our leaders were telling us that they were going to try all diplomatic options first.”

Iraq complained about the air raids to the UN Secretary-General May 27, 2002. Iraq’s Minister for Foreign Affairs Naji Sabri wrote:

On instructions from my Government, I have the honour to transmit to you herewith a letter dated 27 May 2002 from Mr. Naji Sabri, Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Iraq. The Minister calls attention to the ongoing wanton aggression against Iraq by United States and British aircraft in the unlawful no-flight zones and to the fact that in the period from 16 April to 16 May 2002 they carried out 844 armed sorties, 52 of them from Saudi Arabia, 656 from Kuwait and 136 from Turkey, as shown in the statement enclosed with the letter. On 19 April and 1 May 2002, United States and British aircraft bombed civilian and military sites in Ninawa Governorate, killing one citizen and wounding five others and damaging a number of civilian and military installations.

The Minister reaffirms the Government of Iraq’s position that the United States of America and the United Kingdom must bear full international responsibility for these acts of aggression and terrorism, and he further states that Iraq reserves its right, as established by the Charter of the United Nations and international law, to defend itself against this ongoing hostile, terrorist activity. He expresses the hope that you will perform the duties assigned to you under the Charter, that you will urge the governments of the countries in question to halt forthwith their constant aggression against Iraq and that you will call upon the regional parties to desist from providing the necessary facilities.”

In another letter to the UN, Naji Sabri stated that on May 28, 2002,

“American and British aircraft dropped heat flares on crops of barley in the governorate of Ninawa, burning large areas of these crops: 1,630 dunums in the district of al-Hamdaniya and 400 dunums in the district of Hamam al Alil.

This new incident of burning crops illustrates the inhumanity and the immorality of the policy of these two States towards Iraq, which seeks to inflict maximum damage on the Iraqi people and target its source of domestically produced food after imposing comprehensive sanctions on Iraq. This policy constitutes an act of terrorism and a crime against humanity which the international community must not ignore.

The U.S. account differed. The U.S. European Command issued this statement about an attack the following day:

Iraqi forces threatened Operation Northern Watch (ONW) coalition aircraft today. Iraqi forces fired anti-aircraft artillery (AAA) from a site in the vicinity of Saddam Dam while ONW aircraft conducted routine enforcement of the Northern No-Fly Zone.

Coalition aircraft responded to the Iraqi attack by delivering precision ordnance on elements of the Iraqi integrated air defense system.

Coup De Main?

Michael Smith, the British reporter who broke the Downing Street leaks, revealed in the Daily Telegraph that on June 8, 2002 roughly 100 US/British crafts engaged Iraq's major western air defence installation. Smith adds that although “only 12 aircraft dropped precision-guided bombs on to the H3 airfield, 240 miles west of Baghdad and close to Jordan, many support aircraft took part.”

According to the report, Iraq made 130 attempts to shoot down coalition aircraft in 2002.

The public reasons given for at least some of these air strikes generally involved purported violations of the no-fly zone region in Southern Iraq or the disabling of air defense installations.

But the timing and intensity of the strikes suggest otherwise. As the U.S. quietly moved heavy armor to the region in early 2002, along with supplies of ammunition from Qatar in August of that year, the strikes mushroomed.

The number of days per month that allied planes attacked installations in Iraq leapt from six to nine between July and August of 2002, then skipped to thirteen from December to February of 2003.

Congress had approved the use of force pending the exhaustion of diplomatic options in October 2002, and UN inspectors returned in November, while an aggressive air campaign was in full swing.

When President Bush formally declared war on Iraq in March 2003, allied airstrikes in Iraq actually declined.
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/The_unofficial_war_U.S.
Answer
vespaGuy
Junior Boarder
Blog Posts: 0
Forum Posts: 26
Rating: 0ApplaudCriticize
Posted 1 Year, 3 Months ago permalink
Please don't feed the troll. You can't reason with Harry the Dope who is embarrased to use his own name these days so why even try. Bob
Answer
johnke7cw
Junior Boarder
Blog Posts: 0
Forum Posts: 29
Rating: 1ApplaudCriticize
Posted 1 Year, 3 Months ago permalink
What the 'F' are you babbling about? Your post makes no sense whatsoever. You always try to deflect the facts with bullshit conspiracy.
Answer
Jasmine
Fresh Boarder
Blog Posts: 0
Forum Posts: 11
Rating: 0ApplaudCriticize
Posted 1 Year, 3 Months ago permalink
c-bee1 objects to the following:

by stating...

We went over this 6 weeks ago...

Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.republican
http://www.cnn.com/US/9607/29/clinton.terrorism/

There is a lot more, but you'll have to do your own research.
Answer
duck
Junior Boarder
Blog Posts: 0
Forum Posts: 21
Rating: 0ApplaudCriticize
Posted 1 Year, 3 Months ago permalink
c-bee1 objects to the following:

by stating...

We went over this 6 weeks ago...

Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.republican
http://www.cnn.com/US/9607/29/clinton.terrorism/

There is a lot more, but you'll have to do your own research.
Answer
linanne
Junior Boarder
Blog Posts: 0
Forum Posts: 25
Rating: 0ApplaudCriticize
Posted 1 Year, 3 Months ago permalink
Sneak-and-peek searches? Seizure of library records? This is not the U.S.A.P.A.T.R.I.O.T. act, never has been, never will be.
Answer
tigdenax
Junior Boarder
Blog Posts: 0
Forum Posts: 20
Rating: 0ApplaudCriticize
Posted 1 Year, 3 Months ago permalink
Sneak-and-peek searches? Seizure of library records? This is not the U.S.A.P.A.T.R.I.O.T. act, never has been, never will be.
Answer
PicsJks
Junior Boarder
Blog Posts: 0
Forum Posts: 34
Rating: 0ApplaudCriticize
Posted 1 Year, 3 Months ago permalink
Common c-bee1. I respect you, but you are splitting hairs. Clinton was, indeed the Father of the Patriot Act. You asked me two months ago for a 'cite.' I gave you the CNN story and suggested that you were capable of researching the matter further, if you were interested in the subject. Alas, you need some help; here goes. Start by reading the biography of James Ridgeway. He's no Newsmax goon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Ridgeway

Now read what one of America's greatest investigative journalists writes about the origins of the Patriot Act.

I'm presuming that you recognize the Village Voice as not being a right wing rag.
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0331,mondo3,45882,6.html

You should recognize that Bill Clinton was, by far, the most conservative Democratic President since JFK. Clinton may well have been even more conservative then JFK. NAFTA. Welfare reform. Cooperating with the GOP to hold the line on govt spending and being a deficit hawk. Meekly dropping healthcare reform for the last 7 years of his Presidency. Authoring the Patriot Act. etc. The GOP hated him for his incursions onto their turf.

I personally agree with virtually everything Clinton did outside of what should have been his private life, save perhaps for the Kosovo/Serbian War. I particularly admire his steadfastness in defending the Presidency against the politics of personal persecution and, by doing so, ensure that never again will a sitting President be subject to the attacks of a permanent prosecutor/inquisitor in residence and thus be distracted from doing his job.

Larry Weisenthal
Answer

Spread the Word!

Four out of five users would recommend us to a friend. Shouldn't you?
Link to Us    Tell a Friend

Related Posts:

The Content on this site is provided for general information purposes only. Your use of the Content, or any part thereof, is made solely at Your own risk and responsibility. By entering this site you declare you read and agreed to its Terms, Rules & Privacy.
Copyright © 2006 - 2010 The Republicans Online