Clinton's misadventures in the Balkans cost American civilian lives.
Protecting Kosovo for whom, and from whom? The facts the KLA had at minimum friendly relations with al Qaeda, was serving the interests of Muslim Albanians, most of whom were illegal immigrants from Albania to Yugoslavia, and until Clinton decided to feed Serbia to the Islamist crocodile in hope of being eaten last, had been on the State Dept.'s list of terrorist organizations, make all the more poigniant the misdirection of priorities and resources, the alienation of Russia, the Balkan Muslim links to later terror plots, to drug-running and to sex slavery, and all the other downsides of this misbegotten policy.
If NATO needs more troops for Afghanistan, it has a ready source. Just stop protecting the Balkan arm of Islamic fascism and let the Serbs deal with them while we deal with the Taliban.
Hoppy, marky-mark, and that other loser are going to go ballistic when they see this one. They hate the truth!
Yes, yes and yes, except that it is too bad that people still believe that Iraq isn't/wasn't full of terrorists. WRONG!
This is an interesting perspective. In fact, I thought I recall reading a couple articles--including one from Michael Savage, about how Kosovo/Serbia and the Balkans in general was more about oil than Iraq ever was. From Holbrooke's personal interest's in the region to Clinton administration commerce trips, to Soviet interests in oil and pipelines from this region, is it possible that this was the real blood-for-oil war? Anyone have any details on this?
It is highly unlikely that the attack was "accidental".
The writer posits that there is an eqivalence between Kosovo and Iraq. Correct me if I am wrong: didn't Clinton tell us we would find mass graves of 300,000 people in Kosovo, where no such graves were found? And did we not find 300,000 bodies in mass graves in Iraq? What was the threat to the US?
If memory serves me correctly, this decision, like so many public-opinion driven decisions in this country in the last 20 years, was made on the basis of a picture of a Romeo and Juliet couple pinned down in crossfire in a village square. A picture is worth a lot more than a thousand words. We committed to defend Kuwait when we saw video of people describing the Iraqi occupuation, and stopped short when we saw pictures of the Highway of Death where so much of Saddam's men and machines were incinerated. We committed to Somalia on the basis of pictures of starvation--the issue had been there for some time, but became an irrestistible force overnight. We turned tail and ran from there at the sight of our mutilated Marine heroes. (Shame on us). The left raised a furor over the Abu Grab-ass issue, not because the issue had been concealed (it had been described for some time in public and private briefings and raised nary an eyebrow), but because the administration hadn't informed its opponents that there were PICTURES that they could put on the front page of the New York Times for 100 days. Of course, the PICTURES of genuine torture in the same prison carried out by Saddam were only viewed by 3 reporters, at least one of whom had to leave the room to vomit, and were far too violent to be put on the front page of the New York Times for any days at all.
Some days I fear we are just as shallow as the Islamofascists think we are.
But I am a Red Sox fan, familiar with disapointment, but knowing that sometimes you actually do win, when it looks pretty damn bad.