MICHAEL SAVAGE INTERVIEWS GAIL SHEEHY (Hillary! pushed Bill to bomb Kosovo)

NewsMax.com ^ | December 18, 1999 | Transcript of Interview

[Marianne]

M. Savage:...Camille Paglia was not really that nice to this book, where she said Gail Sheehy’s gushy new book, Hillary’s Choice, contains enough negatives to prove why Hillary has no business meddling in electoral politics. And then she goes on to confirm that Gail Sheehy confirms that indeed Hillary was the hardliner who refused to settle with Paula Jones.

Sheehy claims it was Hillary who pushed the president into bombing Kosovo. And she also implies that, according to this new book Hillary’s Choice, it was Hillary Clinton who leaned on Janet Reno to order the disastrous assault at Waco. Therefore, Gail Sheehy, welcome to the Savage Nation. . . .

G. Sheehy: Hillary did persuade Bill Clinton to bomb in Kosovo, and what she said to him in phone calls over 48 hours from North Africa in March of ‘99: "You can’t let this ethnic cleansing go on at the end of the century that has seen the Holocaust."

M. Savage: But it turns out that was false because the original estimates of 100,000 were now reduced to 10,000 by the State Department, and yet the UN inspection team has only found 2,200 bodies. So this could turn out to be the greatest disaster of her, of her entire life.

G. Sheehy: Well, I don’t know about that. But we’re getting way, way far away from any...

M. Savage: Well, wait a minute, we’re not far away from the UN, which went to the ground, looked for the bodies, and found 2,200 dead bodies. This was one of the greatest war crimes of our age according to many international people who know that, including liberal democrats.

G. Sheehy: Well, I really don’t know what, whether, the facts have all come out. And I don’t think we will know for a while. It’s one of those ongoing stories...

M. Savage: No, it’s not. Here, wait a minute, before we go on, we can’t just say the facts don’t exist. The UN spent a lot of time looking for the mass graves. They said there were only about 2,200 bodies that were found. They don’t even know how many of those are Serbian bodies. And then just last week the State Department revised downward their 100,000 figure of dead Kosovar Albanians to 10,000 even though the UN only said 2,200. This is turning out... and I don’t think you, I don’t think you want to defend Hillary on this.

G. Sheehy: [Unintelligible] ... a small number. In any case,...

M. Savage: But does that, wait, does that justify bombing an entire nation into the stone age?

G. Sheehy: Wait, wait. We, they didn’t, they didn’t bomb it into the stone age...

M. Savage: There are no bridges left on the Danube River. The people have no heating oil; they have no food.

G. Sheehy: I’m not going to sit here and debate with you the rightness and the wrongness of the bombing in Kosovo. All I’m telling you is what I know. That’s all I can tell you.

M. Savage: But what you don’t know is that there is more to it than what you do know.

G. Sheehy: Well, Hillary and you and the American public did not know any of this at that time...

M. Savage: Yes, we did. I beg... Excuse, excuse me, Gail Sheehy, many Jewish people who had been sheltered by the Serbian people were on this program and were outraged that we were killing our allies who rescued our airmen in World War II. We got people on who were former prosecutors at Nuernberg against Hitler, on this program, liberal Democrats, going back to FDR, who were outraged at what the Clintons had done with our airplanes, giving them to NATO. So don’t say that we didn’t know. We knew it even then.

G. Sheehy: No, we didn’t know. They...

M. Savage: How can you tell us we didn’t know, when we debated it here?

G. Sheehy: Well, they didn’t have observers; they didn’t even have UN observers at that point...

M. Savage: So how did they make up a hundred thousand?

G. Sheehy: Conditions were so severe they couldn’t even keep... they pulled out the UN observers -- if you remember.

M. Savage: So how did they raise it to a hundred thousand if they didn’t know?

G. Sheehy: I don’t know. That’s the reporting that we had at that time.

M. Savage: In other words, it was propaganda that Hillary Clinton used. It was propaganda that Hillary Clinton used in order to justify the unjustifiable.

G. Sheehy: They didn’t know any better than you knew.

M. Savage: Oh, they didn’t know any better than I did, and they’re the president and his wife. So what does that say about them?

G. Sheehy: Well, what did they know about the Los Alamos spying?

M. Savage: What did they know about it? Aren’t they supposed to know about it? What the hell are they doing there?

G. Sheehy: There’s a lot of agencies, and they often don’t do their job, do they? Whether it’s the FBI or the CIA, they often don’t do their job very well.

M. Savage: Well, it sounds like you’re apologizing for every one of their mistakes.

G. Sheehy: I’m not apologizing for any of their mistakes. I’m saying to you that at the time, in March ‘99, this whole country was in a dilemna about what to do about what appeared to be a massive, minor holocaust in Kosovo.

M. Savage: Wait a minute. What do you mean "it appeared to be"? It was a complete fabrication of the KLA. It was propaganda pure and simple.

G. Sheehy: It wasn’t a complete fabrication. 10,000 people...

M. Savage: No, Mam. It was not 10,000. I just told you they only found 2,200 bodies...

G. Sheehy: But you said 10,000...

M. Savage: No, I said the State Department revised their figure from 100,000 down to 10,000, when the UN says there were only 2,200. The State Department is notorious for lying.

G. Sheehy: Alright, so there are two figures there, the 2,200 and the 10,000. That’s why the... I don’t know that the...

M. Savage: So wait a minute. Again, I don’t want to turn the whole show into that...

G. Sheehy: This is not about Hillary’s Choice. This is about your problem with Kosovo. So you can argue about...

M. Savage: No, No, but you’re...

G. Sheehy: I don’t know anything about Kosovo. Let me just put that right out there.

M. Savage: Alright, I know a lot about Kosovo...

G. Sheehy: ...Hillary convinced the president to bomb, and that’s my contribution.

M. Savage: OK.

G. Sheehy: Don’t you want to talk about the book?

M. Savage: Before we go on, I want to say this. In your book you say it was Hillary who pushed the president into bombing Kosovo, correct?

G. Sheehy: I said she convinced him to do it.

M. Savage: OK, but if it turns out that she was doing it based upon wrong information, what would that make of her in your mind?

G. Sheehy: Well, I don’t have any... I’m not going to speculate. I don’t know that you’ll ever find out what information she or the president had. Nobody ever comes up with those things. I’m not going to speculate on that.

M. Savage: But you’re speculating on the fact that Hillary did it based on good information.

G. Sheehy: I’m going to tell you this: Hillary Clinton, for her many flaws and foibles, which every human being has, is a person who, who is honest and who acts on her convictions. In this case, I believe that her conviction was that this was a massive ethnic-cleansing campaign that was killing innocent...

M. Savage: But what if it turns out it was all propaganda?

G. Sheehy: She, I don’t believe that she would have done it. Why would she want to risk the presidency doing something based on propaganda?

M. Savage: Well, yeah, let me ask you this. Have there been no other people in history who have done things, either mistakenly or on purpose, for other reasons than they appear to be doing them for?

G. Sheehy: Look, I’m not going to speculate on this. It’s just lunacy. We don’t know any more, you don’t know any more and...

M. Savage: Excuse me, you keep putting words in my mouth. I know an awful lot about Kosovo. You may know nothing about Kosovo.

G. Sheehy: ...You can’t get anything out of me because I don’t know anything more...

M. Savage: Alright, so you don’t know anything about Kosovo. I know a lot about Kosovo...

G. Sheehy: That’s great. Then you should lecture on Kosovo...

M. Savage: I have done many lectures on Kosovo. But I’m asking you how it is that Hillary Clinton could take a figure like 100,000 people, push the president into bombing Kosovo, and get away with it? Isn’t there some kind of connection between that and a massive government-media-complex cover-up? Why don’t they go there and investigate it like the UN has?

G. Sheehy: Look, they thought, like many people thought at the time, that this could not go on at the end of the century that had seen the Holocaust. That...

M. Savage: But there was no holocaust.

G. Sheehy: ...the rape of women and children because they were of a certain ethnic background...

M. Savage: OK, how about the Serbs being killed now? How about the Serbs being killed now by the Kosovar Albanians?

G. Sheehy: I don’t want to talk about this any more. If you want to talk about Hillary’s Choice, we can continue the conversation...

M. Savage: But what about the holocaust against the Serbs right now?

[Jonez712]

Oops.

This one should work!

[William Tell]

playball0 said: "If they divorce, they can be compelled to testify against each other."

I doubt that any spousal privilege regarding matters during the marriage would be affected by a divorce.

Do you have reason to believe differently?

[visualops]

(c) Exceptions. There is no privilege under this rule in any civil proceeding in which the spouses are adverse parties, in any criminal proceeding in which a prima facie showing is made that the spouses acted jointly in the commission of the crime charged, or in any proceeding in which one spouse is charged with a crime or tort against the person or property of (i) the other, (ii) a minor child of either, (iii) an individual residing in the household of either, or (iv) a third person if the crime or tort is committed in the course of committing a crime or tort against any of the individuals previously named in this sentence. The court may refuse to allow invocation of the privilege in any other proceeding if the interests of a minor child of either spouse may be adversely affected.

[dennisw]

Michael Savage in his prime!

[LiteKeeper]

read later - SPOTREP

[nutmeg]

ping!

[DestroyEraseImprove]

bump

[Dragonfly]

Great post. Thanks for the timely reminder.

[William Tell]

visualops provided excerpt: "There is no privilege under this rule ... in any criminal proceeding in which a prima facie showing is made that the spouses acted jointly in the commission of the crime charged, ..."

This excerpt seems to address cases in which spousal privilege does not apply, whether a marriage has ended in divorce or not.

In the specific case mentioned, each spouse would be entitled to plead the fifth amendment. Perhaps then a grant of immunity to one spouse could then allow testimony to be compelled which might incriminate the other spouse.

I was not aware that spousal privilege required that one of the two be recognized somehow as being innocent of the crime being charged of the other.

Isn't there also a legal constraint on granting immunity to one member of a conspiracy in order to obtain testimony against the other conspirators? I have heard of co-conspirators copping a plea in exchange for testimony, but I thought perhaps that there can be no outright immunity to a co-conspirator.

I vaguely recall during the Watergate era that there was a legal necessity to name Nixon as an "unindicted co-conspirator". Failure to do this had some legal consequences which might have affected the cases of other conspirators. Perhaps a Freeper legal eagle can help out here.

[visualops]

"Isn't there also a legal constraint on granting immunity to one member of a conspiracy in order to obtain testimony against the other conspirators? I have heard of co-conspirators copping a plea in exchange for testimony, but I thought perhaps that there can be no outright immunity to a co-conspirator."
I can't name them off-hand, but I recall several cases where immunity was granted in exchange for testimony.

With regards the spousal priviledge, divorce has no bearing. The crux is that the marital communication in question was intended to be private. This priviledge is extended to the 'communicating' spouse (thus the one who is potentially being testified against), in both civil and criminal cases. The intention of the law as such is to encourage, or at least not discourage, marital communications.

Nixon, hmm, I'm barely remembering, but I think in his case it wasn't pursued to hand down an indictment and charge him with an actual crime. I would imagine some of this is the purview of the prosecutor. He could then be named as a co-conspirator, but not indicted.

[Andy from Beaverton]

Kosovo bump

[Brimack34]

This just proves once and for all that the Media is Bias. Slam Dunk. No questions anymore. Where is Nightline!!

[ladyinred]

M. Savage: In other words, it was propaganda that Hillary Clinton used. It was propaganda that Hillary Clinton used in order to justify the unjustifiable.

Oh my gosh! We need investigations! She needs to be removed from the Senate! She lied to us about this, causing us to go to war! Such irony.

[Doctor13]

Lest we forget, we were all forewarned when Clinton said, "If you elect me president, you get two for the price of one!"

According to Sheehey, Hillary was so angry with Bill over the Monica Lewisnky scandal that she didn't speak to Billy Boy for eight months - and broke her silence only when she told Billy Boy to bomb the Serbs after seeing the horrendous pics on CNN of alleged Serb atrocities; atrocities that were self-inflicted by Bosnian Muslim forces.

Like a good husband, the day AFTER Hillery broke her silence, Billy Boy bombed the Serbs.

I guess he didn't know when he was well off. As they say, "Silence is Golden!"

[risk]

I'm not convinced that only finding about 2,000 bodies proves that there wasn't genocide. The Serbs were supposedly using acid and other extreme methods for obliterating corpses. They were using refrigerator trucks to move bodies to places where they could process them out of existence.

On the other hand, even those of us who avoided criticism of the breakup of Milosevic's tyrannical regime were wondering at the time if we were making an historic mistake. It's downright erie to hear him scoff at us from prison saying that he was the fighting the original war on terror.

The crisis between the Serbs and Muslims in Kosovo presented the west with a challenge of conscience that we failed in more ways than one. We failed to plan ahead diplomatically for Tito's death, and we ignored the signs of impending disaster after he died.

I now realize the Serbian-Kosovar conflict is symptomatic of a wider clash of civilizations, something I didn't understand before 9/11. Hopefully we can defend ours without making some of the mistakes of hatred and anger that the Serbs did, and I hope we never come to look back on Milosevic as a hero. But the more we learn about the history of violent Islamic empire building, the more sympathetic Milosevic appears.

I think what gauls me the most today is the chastizing bin Laden repeats again and again that the west, specifically Americans, are responsible for the suffering of Kosovars. Like his failure to acknowledge American aid during the Afghanistan war with the Soviet Union, his understanding of history leaves out all mention of positive American involvement in matters of Muslim suffering.

Perhaps saint Mark d'Aviano, the inventor of cappuccino used a better model in defending Vienna than Milosevic's approach to ethnically cleansing Yugoslavia. He fought decisive wars against Muslim armies, and converted as many people to Christianity (and therefore the enlightenment) as he could.

[risk]

Madeline, I meant to include you on this.

[Incorrigible]

Or the troll washerwoman, Dullbite?
 

[Doctor13]

Your reply simply amazes me. You wrote that you are not convinced that only finding about 2,000 bodies proves that there wasn't genocide. The Serbs were supposedly using acid and other extreme methods for obliterating corpses. They were using refrigerator trucks to move bodies to places where they could process them out of existence.

It appears to me that you are only too willing to believe everything the Serbs are accused of - without taking into consideration that the vast majority of the alleged atrocities were, in fact, hoaxes such as:

The Trepca mines - a hoax exposed by Daniel Pearl in 1999 in the Wall Street Journal that over 700 "poor Albanians" had been slaughtered, ground up and thrown into the mines and incinerated! Investigators couldn't even come up with traces of ground up teeth!

Operation Horseshoe - the plan by which Milosevic allegedly intended to exterminate all the Albanians, except that the plan was a hoax also - a plan devised in Germany by Germans and Bulgarians easy enough for the stupid West to find. Isn't it amazing that when NATO began to bomb, over 200,000 ethnic Albanians ran to Belgrade for refuge to join their friends and relatives.

Racak massacre - a hoax exposed by Il Manefesto. Upon investigation, it showed that there was a fight between the KLA terrorists and Serb forces.

The claim of over 100,000 bodies that were alleged to have been murdered by the Serbs. You say that just because only 2,000 haven't been found, that doesn't mean there was a genocide. I remind you that even Elie Wiesel wrote in a NY Times article that there was no genocide in Kosovo.

You wrote:

"On the other hand, even those of us who avoided criticism of the breakup of Milosevic's tyrannical regime were wondering at the time if we were making an historic mistake. It's downright erie to hear him scoff at us from prison saying that he was the fighting the original war on terror."

Not being a defender of Milosevic, he should have been, however, tried for betraying his own people and not by some kangaroo court at The Hague of whom he is making clowns, exposing them every step of the way. Is he any worse, any more "tyranical" than Bosnian President Izetbegovic who slaughtered his own people at the breadlines on two occasions and at the Markale market place, also on two occasions, they were the excuses Clinton used to bomb the Bosnian Serbs? Izetbegovic played Clinton like a fiddle when he wrote, "There can be no peace or coexistence between Islamic faith and non-Islamic faith political institution . . . The Islamic movement must and can take place as soon as it is morally and numerically strong enough, not only to destroy the non-Islamic one, but to build up a new Islamic one (From his The Islamic Delcaration). Is Milosvic any worse than Croatian president Tudjman when he ethnically cleansed over 250,000 Serbs from the Krajina, 650,000 from all of Croatia? The Croatian government issued two daily doses of cocaine and heroine to their soldiers so that they could go out and slit the throats of Serbs without conscience.

Remember the Medak Pocket massacre whereby Canadian soldiers came under attack from Croatian forces because the Croats were slaughtering Serb civilians, young and old? They found 14 black plastic bags full of Serbian children's body parts slaughtered by Croatian forces. It was the worst battle for Canadian troops since the Korean War. With friends like these, who needs enemies? After all, Tudjman was only finishing the job that Hitler had started.

And let's not forget that the Serbs were also accused of cannibalism and people believed! Just as you believe far too easily that the story of the refrigation truck is true. I would venture to guess that this was nothing more than illegals (some sosrt of Turkish language was heard to be spoken)trying to get into Kosovo and when they were caught, as too often, the victims were dumped by their smugglers before they were caught.

Your use of the word, "Kosovars" leads me to believe that you are only too willing to hand over Serbia's Jerusalem to Osama bin Laden's KLA terrorists. Let's not forget that the Serbs were at one time the majority and the Albanians became the majority by crossing into Kosovo illegally (invited by Tito in his hatred for the Serbs) and had huge families. The latest atrocity if the butchering (literally) of two elderly Serbs and their 55 year old son (did you hear this reported on CNN?) So now let's reward Osama bin Laden's KLA terrorists for their ethnic cleansing of the Serb minority by granting them their independence as Representatives Hyde and Lantos have submitted in their HR28.

Should America be chastized for the "suffering" of the Kosovars? Aren't the Serbs suffering too? If Clinton, with his egomania, had not had a plan to destroy this tiny nation that defied his New World Order, the poor "Kosovars" would not have suffered and furthermore, should not have been in Kosovo in the first place. And this is what "gauls" me. We supported the Bosnian government at the same time Osama bin Laden was issued Bosnian passports! This is insanity! We denied the Serbs the same right to defend themselves against al-Qaeda that we reserved for ourselves."

Cheers!

[Doctor13]

You wrote:

I now realize the Serbian-Kosovar conflict is symptomatic of a wider clash of civilizations, something I didn't understand before 9/11. Hopefully we can defend ours without making some of the mistakes of hatred and anger that the Serbs did, and I hope we never come to look back on Milosevic as a hero. But the more we learn about the history of violent Islamic empire building, the more sympathetic Milosevic appears."

Are you just now starting to wake up? I believe that even if Israel did not exist, we would have our clash of civilization. You talked about "hatred and anger that the Serbs did." Totally unfair when you consider that over one and a half million Serbs, Jews and Gypsies were exterminated in Croatia's death camps (ably assisted by Bosnian Muslims and ethnic Albanians)so brutally that even the German Gestpo was appalled! Now, this is REAL hatred! And even with that the Serbs were willing to put things behind them. Not one Croatian was ever sent to Nuremberg for their hatred of the Serbs and actions against them, just as they are refusing to hand over their war criminals during this latest "hatred" for the Serbs when they welcomed German peacekeepers with the offensive "Sieg Heil," and they were not even condemned yet the Serbs held up the three-finger salute for the Holy Trinity, and were accused of giving the fascist salute.

As I previously mentioned, with U.S. military aid and technology, Croatia launched Operation Storm, ethnically cleansing Croatia of all Serbs, a "final solution" that Hitler could only dream of. In 1941, Hitler recognized the "Indepdent State of Croatia" as a reward for being his fascist puppets. Croatia today has it's pure Croatian state that Hitler could only envision. If you don't know of the history of WWII, the Croats and the Muslims, then I suggest you do some reading before you talk about hatred by the Serbs.

[risk]

We denied the Serbs the same right to defend themselves against al-Qaeda that we reserved for ourselves.

You're confirming my worst fears about the situation: Americans got into the middle of something they didn't understand, and made a worse mess out of it. The accusation that Clinton's government had an impossible World Order in mind also rings true. What about history just a little further back in the rear view mirror? Would you say that Tito's "peace" was temporary at best, and only relied on totalitarian rule?

I'm sorry if my remarks were insensitive and ignorant. I'm learning what I should have learned in the 1980s.