-Caveat Lector-
from:
http://www.aci.net/kalliste/
<A HREF="http://www.aci.net/kalliste/">The Home Page of J. Orlin Grabbe</A>
-----
Der Fuhrer Invades Yugoslavia
Clinton Appeals to Serbian-Americans for Help
Promises to send them Jesse Jackson
by Bob Djurdjevic
BELGRADE, Apr. 16 - While your editor was traveling to Serbia, an
extraordinary turn of events was taking place in Washington, DC. At the
initiative of the NSC (National Security Council), a group of
Serbian-Americans, mostly Democratic party supporters, was invited to
meet with some Clinton administration officials at the White House. The
meeting was convened at 1:00PM EDT on Apr. 14.
Taken at its face value, the reason for the meeting was that NSC
officials wanted to solicit the Serbian-Americans' help with respect to
feeding and taking care of Albanian refugees, displaced by NATO's war on
Serbia. But when the Serb participants demanded some reciprocity, given
the 600,000+ Serbian refugees which the Clinton administration's
policies had helped drive from their ancestral homes in Croatia and
Bosnia, the NSC hosts and their guests started to lock horns.
It is at this point that an "unexpected" guest "dropped in" on the
meeting - the U.S. president, Bill Clinton. The surprise, of course, was
all on the Serbian side of the table. Clinton's entry was evidently
highly PREMEDITATED by the losing side in NATO's war against Serbia.
Right off the bat, in his usual, inimitable ,"I feel your pain"-style,
this murderer of innocent civilians, both Serb and Albanians, not to
mention the commander-in-chief of American soldiers whom he had sent to
their needless deaths, proceeded to try to charm the members of the Serb
delegation. Never mind that this was the same American president who
used extreme profanities regarding the Serbs, according to his erstwhile
trusted aide, George Stephanopoulos. On Wednesday, Apr. 14, Clinton was
all sugar and spice and everything nice when it came to Serbs.
For example, Clinton lamented the expulsions, i.e., "ethnic cleansing,"
of all those hundreds of thousands of Serbs from Bosnia and Croatia,
claiming he had not heard about that before (implying that Sam Berger,
the NSC head, and Madeleine Albright, the secretary of state) were the
"bad guys" who had kept the president in the dark. And ignoring the fact
that he was the one who appointed these two, along with scores of other
incompetent U.S. foreign policy officials. And forgetting the key motto
of a Democratic President, Harry Truman was: "The buck stops here."
Clinton also lamented that the Rambouillet agreement, which his
secretary of state tried to shove down the Serbs' throats, was flawed.
In particular, Clinton said that the part about the referendum should
not have been included (meaning that the Kosovo Albanian could secede
from Serbia eventually because of their current demographic plurality in
the province).
Clinton also pledged that America would help rebuild Serbia once the war
ended. (Any of TiM's long-time readers recall the "perpetual war for
perpetual commerce"-motto of the New World Order? That you first knock
them down; then you rebuilt them? If not, search our Web site for
appropriate keywords, as there are a number of articles which elaborate
on this).
Clinton also said that he would like to see Serbia a part of the
European Union, after a transitional phase in which all former
Yugoslavia's entities were treated as a "mini-EU."
Finally, he said that the peacekeeping troops which may be needed in
Kosovo after the current war ends do not need to be NATO, but rather an
international peacekeeping troops.
As a result of this new-found Washington "flexibility" toward the Serbs,
the Clinton administration proposed to send to Belgrade Jesse Jackson,
on condition he would be allowed to see the three captured American
soldiers.
But when the Serb delegation suggested that he must first stop the
bombing, Clinton replied that he could not do that, as the very
existence of NATO was at stake.
[TiM Ed.: In other words, the American president had painted himself
into a corner, and was hoping that the Serbian-Americans, whose
relatives and friends he was killing, would bail him out. Maybe that's
the way the likes of Lewinsky, Albright or Berger would react to threats
and bombs. But Clinton's got another thing coming if he thinks he can
get the Serbs to kow-tow by promising reparations, or membership in the
new "socialist states of Europe" (the EU) New World Order "red light"
district. Especially coming on the heels of NWO's betrayal of its
favorite Balkan terrorists - the KLA, a group invented and financed by
the West (see Day 10, Update 2, Items 2 and 3, Apr. 2).]
"Well, it sure sounds as if the new Adolf has shit his pants," we summed
our reaction from Belgrade to our Washington source, a participant in
this Clinton/NSC meeting (with apologies to our lady-readers; but for
the sake of authenticity, we bring you the quote exactly as spoken). We
also reminded our source of another "Trojan Horse" which Clinton had
sent to the Bosnian Serbs - Jimmy Carter in December 1994 - when the
Serbs were on the verge of victory in western Bosnia (see "Jimmy Carter:
The Trojan Horse," written contemporaneously and available at our Web
site).
It suffices to say that, as of the time of this writing, Belgrade and
Moscow are probably also aware of the above meeting having taken place,
and of its general contents. So we can only pray to God that reason and
justice do prevail in the end, given that the alternative to NATO's
continued wanton bombing of Serbia may be WW III. It is time for Clinton
to sue for peace. Meaning stop the bombs. Period. And then start
apologizing to the Serbian people.
This is Bob Djurdjevic reporting from the bombed-out, but un-kowed,
Belgrade, still the capital of the free world.
Truth in Media Global Watch Bulletin, April 16, 1999
Der Fuhrer Invades Yugoslavia
American Lives for NATO Credibility?
by Gary Dempsey
Citing the preservation of NATO credibility as a policy imperative, a
growing number of political figures and foreign policy experts are
calling upon the Clinton administration to dispatch U.S. ground troops
to Kosovo. For example, former secretary of state Henry Kissinger, who
originally opposed air strikes, now says that if Yugoslav strong man
Slobodan Milosevic doesn't give in, "there will be no alternative to
continuing and intensifying the war, if necessary introducing NATO
combat ground forces . . . to maintain NATO credibility." Similarly,
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) concludes, "now that we're in, we must win."
But should the United States really risk the lives of thousands of its
soldiers to win back the NATO credibility that was irresponsibly wagered
in the Balkans in the first place? And if so, how many American lives
should we be prepared to sacrifice to make up for NATO's bad judgment?
Some analysts have suggested that if NATO doesn't achieve its goals in
Kosovo, the alliance's credibility will be irreparably damaged and NATO
will collapse. But that is an exaggeration. If NATO fails in Kosovo, it
will simply mean that the alliance's credibility in carrying out
ill-conceived missions will be lost. There is no reason to conclude that
Russia or any other country will suddenly start doubting NATO's resolve
to carry out its core task: defending member states against foreign
attack.
Moreover, the argument that NATO must escalate its war in Kosovo to
preserve its credibility should make Americans nervous. In the past, bad
policies have been prolonged in the name of maintaining credibility.
President Reagan, for example, argued that intervention in Lebanon was a
matter of U.S. credibility: "We cannot simply withdraw unilaterally
without raising questions about the U.S. commitment to moderation and
negotiations in the Middle East." To leave, he argued, would set back
U.S. foreign policy and diminish America's standing in the world. Some
241 U.S. Marines perished in the rubble of their barracks as a result of
that reasoning.
Similar arguments prolonged the Vietnam War. In 1965, for example,
President Lyndon Johnson warned, "around the globe, from Berlin to
Thailand, are people whose well-being rests, in part, on the belief that
they can count on us if they are attacked. To leave Vietnam to its fate
would shake the confidence of all these people in the value of an
American commitment and in the value of America's word. The result would
be increased unrest and instability, and even wider war."
What's more, the "credibility" argument undermines Congress's
constitutional war-making power. It in effect gives the president the
authority to undertake military campaigns, however ill-conceived.
Indeed, what member of Congress is going to vote against preserving NATO
credibility once the president has put it on the line? The "credibility"
argument thus functionally transfers the nation's war-making authority
to the executive branch by virtually ensuring congressional acquiescence
after the fact.
Instead of being persuasive, the "credibility" argument also raises
serious questions about the prudence of the Clinton administration's
foreign policy. Indeed, by involving the United States in Kosovo in the
first place, the administration has transformed a conflict that posed no
threat to the territorial integrity, national sovereignty or general
welfare of the United States into a major test of American resolve. That
means the administration has deliberately exposed the United States to
the possibility that it will be dragged into a conflict in which there
is neither a vital national security interest at stake nor the prospect
of sustainable public tolerance for heavy casualties.
To a great extent, such a predicament would be a logical consequence of
the Clinton administration's six-year devotion to the mantra of "global
leadership," which has repeatedly involved the United States in regional
matters of secondary or tertiary importance. According to the
administration's "global leadership" thinking, the United States has an
obligation as "the sole remaining superpower" to exert its influence
around the world, otherwise it gives regional bullies a license to kill.
But that is a dubious formulation: it implies that the United States is
somehow responsible for emboldening violence wherever it does not get
involved.
As a consequence of such reasoning, the United States now finds itself
on the verge of fighting a ground war in the Balkans, not for national
defense, but for NATO credibility.
Of course, all of this could have been avoided. If the Clinton
administration's national security strategy were based on the protection
of vital U.S. interests, politicians and foreign policy experts would
not now be justifying the invasion of Yugoslavia to rescue NATO's
squandered credibility.
Gary Dempsey is a foreign policy analyst at the Cato Institute.
Central Europe Online, April 16, 1999
------
Aloha, He'Ping,
Om, Shalom, Salaam.
Em Hotep, Peace Be,
Omnia Bona Bonis,
All My Relations.
Adieu, Adios, Aloha.
Amen.
Roads End
Kris
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance�not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
