Wesley Clark Admits Targeting Civilians In Yugoslavia

Great post, DTA...thanks...

Here's a little Q+A for y'all:

What's the difference between IRAQ and KOSOVO?

Q: Why did America bomb Serbia?

A: Clinton claimed in 1999 that a genocide was taking place. His administration claimed that over 100,000 Albanians were being killed. But today, the UN has determined that none of that was true. Less than 3,000 people died. There was no genocide.

Q. Why would they lie about a genocide?

A. Because they had no other reason to attack Serbia and drive the Serbs out of Kosovo. They needed a reason, something in which the public would believe.

Q. But why did they need a reason?

A. Because they needed to find a reason for NATO to exist. Some also claim that America needed a reason to show off it's military power and might in the world. Send a message to countries like China and Russia that they were the most powerful. (It is ironic that they accidentally hit a Chinese Embassy in Belgrade, Serbia)

Q. Why did they pick on Serbia?

A. Because after four wars in the balkans, they thought the Serbs would cave in easily and give up without a fight. When Clinton was asked days before the bombing, how long the war would last, he said less than a week. The war lasted for over 78 days. Longer than the Gulf War!

Q. How is it possible that so many people believed in the lie about genocide?

A. Simple. They showed a few dozen dead bodies from one town and claimed it was a masscare. In fact, they once showed satellite images of what they claimed were mass graves. After the war it was determined that the images were fake. It is not very hard to make one side look like the Nazis. Many countries consider the Isralies and Americans to be genocidal. Just depends on how you spin the images on the news.

Q. But why didn't anyone question these numbers of 100,000 killed and other claims? Why didn't people call the administration on that lie?

A. It's very hard to take a stand on the issue of genocide. The other side simply wins based on a few images. If you take a stand agaisnt it, you appear cold and inhuman. If someone shows a picture of a dead child, it is hard to argue. You take a few images of refugees, a few dead bodies, and you repeat them over and over again until it becomes a fact. The truth has come out now, but it's AFTER THE FACT. (Imagine if a police officer heard screaming coming from your house. The cop kicks down the door and shoots you because he thinks you're killing your wife. Later the truth comes out: It was just wild sex. Well, nothing can be done after the fact. It was assumed murder was taking place, so it is all okay.) Today when Clark is questioned on the lies about genocide, he says: "We thought a genocide was taking place. So our motives were good."

Q. So Clark and Clinton thought people were being murdered?

A. No, they knew it was a lie. But today they use that excuse to avoid attacks like Bush is getting on WMD in Iraq.

Q. What's the difference between the Clinton/Clark lie on genocide and the Bush lie on WMD?

A. First of all, there was proof that Iraq had WMD before the war. Even Clinton said this was a fact! The CIA told Bush there were WMD. And we know Saddam used WMD on his own people. Before Bush went into Iraq, the idea of WMD were simply an idea. There was no proof. When Clinton and Clark claimed there was a genocide, they used one massacre as their proof. So they had something to show for it from day one. LATER it was revealed that the massacare was a lie and that no genocide took place.

Q. So there's proof that there was no genocide and no mass graves. Why doesn't the world stand up in outrage?

A. Because no Americans are being killed in Kosovo. So they consider it a success. No reason to complain if your own people are not being killed daily. Would the Iraq war be debated today if no US soldiers were being killed? Politicans shout in outrage when they see blood. They use it for their own needs. Kosovo didn't kill any US soldiers, so there's nothing more to be said.

Q. Who did the Americans help in Kosovo?

A. The KLA (Kosovo Liberation Army). A group the US State Department classified as a TERRORIST group in 1998. A group funded and linked to Osama Bin Laden.

Q. But how can Clinton and Clark support a group linked to Osama Bin Laden?

A. Because it was before 9-11. And it was not an outrage to support terrorists. Today the idea of it would make most people sick, but not in 1999. Also, Clinton and Clark needed ground troops in Kosovo to avoid losing their own men. So the KLA worked perfectly. Clark provided them air-cover, the KLA provided the boots on the ground.

Q. Why didn't American soldiers die in Kosovo, but they're dying in Iraq?

A. In Iraq you have terrorists and angry Iraqis doing the killing. In Kosovo, the Americans were on the side of the terrorists - KLA. So the terrorists in Kosovo are more than happy with their pals and allies.

Q. But why didn't the Serbs rise up and fight?

A. Because there are hardly any Serbs left. The Americans helped the KLA drive the Serbs out of Kosovo. Over 250,000 Serbs, Roma, Bosnians, and Jews were driven from Kosovo. Today Kosovo is nearly 97% Albanian. America took one side against the other. The other side is mostly gone. There's no threat when the entire population was on your side.

Q. But in Iraq, ordinary civilians are killing Americans.

A. That's true, but that's because there is no ONE SIDE that feels any loyalty for America. Everyone equally views the Americans as the enemy or problem. In Kosovo, you have a group of people who fear the Serbs will return. So they embrace the American soldiers as protectors. No one wants to kill the Americans and return to Serbian rule.

Q. How could America help ethnically cleanse a part of Europe?

A. They did much worse before. In 1995, Clinton helped the Croats drive over 300,000 Serbs from Croatia. http://www.balkanpeace.org/rs/archive/july00/rs60.shtml

Q. Why was Kosovo so important to the Serbs?

A. Kosovo was their birthplace. Imagine if America lost New York, or if Israel lost Jerusaleum.

Q. I thought Milosevic was the evil man?

A. Nearly 95% of Serbs supported Milosevic in Kosovo. Today there are no Serbs who consider what the Americans did a favor, or a good thing. To the Serbian people, the bombing in 1999 was their September 11th.

Q. Is Milosevic like Saddam Hussain?

A. Milosevic was elected. Saddam was not. Serbs supported Milosevic. http://www.rense.com/general9/dif.htm

Q. Isn't the world safer without Milosevic in power?

A. Unlike Saddam, Milosevic NEVER invaded another country, or used Weapons of Mass Destruction. Milosevic never gassed anyone. Milosevic never used missiles on another nation. The only war Milosevic sent troops in was Kosovo: And that was a CIVIL WAR. Imagine Lincoln during the American Civil War. During the Civil War, over 500,000 Americans died, but Lincoln is considered a hero. The war is not viewed in a bad light because by nature a Civil War is natural to most nations.

Q. How can America get involved in a Civil War?

A. It may be the first time in history that America attacked a soverign nation with an internal dispute.

Q. But I thought the first time America attacked a country without provocation was in Iraq?

A. No. America attacked Serbia, which posed NO THREAT, for the first time. They simply used the title NATO member so they could justify NATO's existence. But America supplied over 90% of the planes and bombs.

Q. Did America get UN approval for Kosovo?

A. No way!!! Today democrats are attacking Bush on skipping the UN, but in 1999 Clinton skipped UN altogther. The reason was because he knew Russia would veto the vote.

Q. Today in Iraq, many people are being killed. But in Kosovo, no one is dying. Why is that?

A. Actually, in Kosovo people ARE being killed. But they're not American, so no one cares. Those being killed are Serbs and Gypsies. A few weeks ago two Serb children were gunned down. The other crimes in the past week: A fisherman killed. A farmer killed. A bus blown up killing eleven. A gypsy girl raped and stabbed. A nun pelted with rocks. Children beat up by gangs. http://www.kosovo.com/default2.html

Q. How many Serbs have suffered since the end of the war?

A. Over 1,200 Serbs are still missing. Most of them abducted or killed after Wesley Clark marched into Kosovo. Over 150 Christian churches have been blown up and destroyed. Some of them as old as 600 years old. Today Serbian children can barely go to school. Women are raped in the street. Even those Albanians who are friendly to Serbs are gunned down and killed.

Q. Why is no one saying anything against this?

A. Because America is afraid if they stand up to it, they will have to fight these terrorists. As long as no one is killing them, it's okay.

Q. The KLA are linked to Osama Bin Laden?

A. http://www.realitymacedonia.org.mk/web/news_page.asp?nid=365

Q. Does the US know about this?

A. Oh YES!! http://www.diaspora-net.org/food4thought/binladen__kla.htm

Q. What are the other countries in the region doing about it?

A. Actually, Macedonia has been destabalized because of Kosovo. And there are chances the same could happen in neighboring Greece!!

Q. Macedonia? What is happening there?

A. Pretty much the same thing. The KLA simply changed their name to UCK or NLA and crossed the border into Macedonia to stir up hell. A few hundred people died before a peace deal was signed. But most Macedonians consider them to be TERRORISTS also. Macedonia is on the verge of being split in half because of the KLA (UCK, NLA). Today Macedonians living in the regions controlled by the KLA are living in terror. People are being killed, beaten, raped, and terrorized on a daily basis. Read more on Macedonian problems: http://www.realitymacedonia.org.mk/web/news_page.asp?nid=417

Q. So let me get this straight: Clinton and Wesley Clark bombed Serbia for 78 days so they could find a reason for NATO to exist in the world. They used a LIE about genocide in Kosovo to go to war. Everyone went along with it because it was hard to dismiss. Clinton and Clark used a TERRORIST group in Kosovo to help drive the Serbs out. And today Kosovo is peaceful, but only because most minorities were driven out?

A. YES!!!!!!

Q. So Iraq and Kosovo are very similar in more ways than one?

A. If you're against the invasion of Iraq (we do not take a stand on that war) then you should naturally be disgusted and angered by the Kosovo conflict. If you're disgusted by the fact that no WMD were found in Iraq, then you should be shocked that no genocide was found in Kosovo. If you are angered that America bypassed the UN to bomb a soverign nation, then you should be pissed that Clinton avoided the UN vote to bomb Kosovo. If the deaths of innocent lives in Iraq disturbs you, then you should be upset that thousands of innocent people were killed in Kosovo at Wesley Clark's hand. Unless of course, you are partisan and only interested in the suffering of American lives.
http://build.tripod.lycos.com/trellix/sitebuilder/f_edit_page.html

Bump...

I've always doubted the guilt of Milosevic!The way and timing of this war was highly suspect as it coincided with Clinton's domestic problems and i think in large part,because Milosevic was not willing to give up his country's sovreinty.This was a u.n.induced war to further its control and agenda.It just seemed strange that CNN was sitting there at a certain border crossing for days knowing which direction the refugees were coming out!

God bless the questioner-- this man needs to be grilled and exposed for the low life he is.

How about this here...???

Published on Wednesday, September 10, 2003 by CommonDreams.org

Was Gen. Clark Also "Unprepared" for the Postwar?
by Zoltan Grossman

In his apparent quest for the Democratic Presidential nomination, General Wesley Clark rightly criticizes President Bush for waging a "pre-emptive" invasion of Iraq, and in particular for being "unprepared" for the post-invasion occupation of the country. Some Democrats are being drawn to the former NATO Supreme Commander as an authoritative voice against the Iraq debacle, and a "pragmatic" alternative to the disastrous Bush Presidency.

Yet these Democrats apparently have short memories. It was only four years ago that General Clark waged a war against Yugoslavia that had similarly shaky motives and spiraling postwar consequences. Clark has whitewashed the 1999 Kosovo intervention as a "humanitarian" campaign to rescue Kosovar Albanians from Serbian "ethnic cleansing," even though it actually helped fuel the forced explusions. The General credits NATO bombing of Serbian cities for bringing about the fall of Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic, even though Serbian democrats loudly objected that it undermined and delayed their ultimate victory. Clark claims that the postwar NATO occupation brought "peace" to Kosovo, but he was clearly unprepared for the violent "ethnic cleansing" that took place on his watch, largely facilitated by his decisions, under the noses of his troops.

First, the NATO intervention made a bad situation worse in Kosovo. The nasty civil war between Milosevic's Serbian nationalist government and the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) militia in the Albanian-majority province had heated up in 1998-99. About 2,000 people had been killed, including civilians on both sides. Voices within the Clinton Administration clamored not only for "punishing" Milosevic, but for (pre-emptively) ejecting Serbian forces from Kosovo to prevent him from carrying out ethnic cleansing. Under Western pressure, Milosevic offered to withdraw from Kosovo, but the peace talks broke down.

Hours after the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia began on March 24, 1999, the Serbian ethnic cleansing campaign began, expelling hundreds of thousands of Albanians, and creating an enormous refugee crisis. CIA director George Tenet had predicted in February that a NATO "stick in the nest" could provoke just such ethnic cleansing. Accused of being "unprepared," General Clark defended the war as "coercive diplomacy," saying "This is the way the NATO leaders wanted it." The bombing was not in response to the ethnic explusions, but gave Milosevic the excuse and justification for them. The Kosovo disaster was a self-fulfilling prophecy, much like President Bush invading Iraq to eject phantom "terrorists," and in the process creating a new cause and battleground for them.

Second, the NATO bombing alienated Serbian civilians who had led the opposition to Milosevic. Cities that had voted heavily against Milosevic were among those targeted with bombing. U.S. jets dropped cluster bombs on a crowded marketplace in Nis. Civilian infrastructure, such as trains, busses, bridges, TV stations, civilian factories, hospitals and power plants, were repeatedly hit by NATO bombs. Depleted Uranium munitions left behind radioactive dust around targets, and bombed chemical plants released clouds of poisonous smoke. Estimates of civilian deaths in the bombing range from 500 to 2,000, with the Washington Post estimating 1,600 (a tally is at www.counterpunch.org/dead.html ) These civilian casualties are largely forgotten by those who feel that bombs dropped by a Democratic president are somehow more noble than those dropped by a Republican president.

The Serbian democratic opposition strongly condemned the bombing as undermining and delaying their efforts to oust President Milosevic, and as strengthening his police state. It was not the NATO bombing but Serbs' largely nonviolent revolution that overthrew Milosevic in October 2000, and replaced him with democratic leader Vojislav Kostunica, who had opposed NATO's war. In much the same way, many Iraqis who hated Saddam Hussein have criticized U.S. betrayals and sanctions--under both Bush and Clinton administrations--for strengthening Saddam's hand. Many of these same Sunnis and Shi'ites repressed by Saddam are today calling for the U.S. to withdraw from Iraq, in order to regain their sovereignty.

Third, as NATO troops occupied Kosovo in June 1999, Albanian nationalists unleashed their own program of ethnic cleansing. They attacked and expelled not only thousands of Serbs from communities that had survived in Kosovo for centuries, but also Roma (Gypsies), Turks, Jews, and any other non-Albanians. The Western media defined these attacks as "revenge" or "retaliation" for Serbian ethnic cleansing. But the KLA militia, like its right-wing nationalist counterparts in Bosnia, had long had the goal of an ethnically pure state. Instead of cracking down on the KLA fighters, NATO invited them to join its new Kosovo Protection Corps police force. In the months after the NATO occupation began, Kosovo became far more ethnically "pure" than Milosevic had ever made it, with the percentage of ethnic minorities lower than ever in its history. Amnesty International observed that General Clark's NATO was "unprepared for the massive abuses of human rights" under the postwar occupation.

Most U.S. media reviews of the wars in former Yugoslavia describe U.S. and NATO interventions as well-intentioned efforts to halt "ethnic cleansing." Yet the perception in the Balkan region is far different. The U.S. never dropped a single bomb to stop Croatian forces from ethnic cleansing of Serbs or Bosnian Muslims (in fact, U.S. bombing backed up Croatian forces hours before they forcibly expelled Serbs from Croatia in 1995). The memory of NATO in former Yugoslavia is not of a neutral "peacekeeper," but of a military that took sides with Croatian and Albanian ethnic cleansers against Serbian ethnic cleansers. Postwar agreements (with Clark's involvement) merely rubberstamped the de facto ethnic partitions of Bosnia and Kosovo that had long been sought by their nationalist militias.

Like in Iraq and Afghanistan, the U.S. interventions in ex-Yugoslavia left behind a new cluster of U.S. military bases, including the sprawling Camp Bondsteel in U.S. Sector Kosovo. Together, this string of permanent U.S. bases stretching from Hungary to Pakistan is creating a new U.S. "sphere of influence" in the strtegic region between the European Union and East Asia. General Clark was surely aware that the U.S. presence in Kosovo would not be temporary, and uses the prospect of ethnic instability to justify it, much as President Bush does to justify a long-term presence in Iraq. Earlier this year, as one of the slew of cable news "armchair generals" coldly assessed the advance of the Iraq invasion, Clark never challenged the underlying premise that the U.S. military should oust Saddam, rather than the Iraqi people, or that the U.S. should have a permanent presence in the Gulf region.

The 1999 Kosovo War had similar origins and outcomes as the 2003 Iraq War. In the 2004 election, do we face the hideous prospect of voting for one flawed war over another? Far from posing a "pragmatic" alternative to President Bush, Clark's ascendancy would be a failure for the peace movement that has made such advances in community organizing over the past year. In order not to alienate the large segment of the electorate energized by the movement, Democrats are well advised not to nominate a leader with blood on his hands.

Dr. Zoltan Grossman is an Assistant Professor of Geography at the University of Wisconsin - Eau Claire.

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0910-07.htm

"During the Rambouillet conference, one Clinton Administration official explained to reporters: "We intentionally set the bar too high for the Serbs to comply. They needed some bombing, and that’s what they’re going to get."
After the 78-day bombing campaign, with much of Serbia’s infrastructure — including bridges, hospitals, schools, and power plants — in ruins, Mr. Clinton announced that Serbia would be excluded from a proposed Balkan reconstruction program. "What the Serbian people decide to do, of course, is their own affair," stated the President in a June 25th press conference. "But they’re going to have to come to grips with what Mr. Milosevic ordered in Kosovo. They’re just going to have to come to grips with it. And they’re going to have to get out of denial.... And then they’re going to have to decide whether they support his leadership or not."
Invoking the image of "all those tens of thousands of people … killed, and all those hundreds of thousands of people [who] were run out of their homes … all those little girls [who] were raped, and all those little boys [who] were murdered" by Serb forces in Kosovo, Mr. Clinton concluded: "If [the Serb people] think it’s okay, they can make that decision. But I wouldn’t give them one red cent for reconstruction if they think it’s okay, because I don’t think it’s okay, and I don’t think that’s the world we’re trying to build for our children."

--------------
Bill Clinton’s legendary empathy flags when the subject is the plight of Kosovo’s Serbs, who are being "cleansed" from their homes under the largely indifferent gaze of UN/NATO "peacekeepers." During his June 25th press conference, Mr. Clinton was asked by a reporter about "Serb homes that are being burned, Serb stores that are being looted, and Serb civilians that are being terrorized" by KLA-led mobs. The impeached President actually defended the perpetrators: "I’m not particularly surprised after what they’ve been through."

--------------
During a March 31st interview, Dan Rather asked Bill Clinton if he had given the order to (in military parlance) "go downtown" — that is, to bomb non-military targets in Belgrade. Seeking refuge in circumlocution, the impeached President drawled out an answer worthy of a Soviet commissar: "We are attacking targets that we believe will … raise the price of aggression to an unacceptably high level so that we can get back to talking peace and security."
SOURCE

JEREMY SCAHILL: But do you feel any remorse for the killing of civilians that you essentially were overseeing?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Yes, I do.

-unindicted war criminal in his own words

Indeed! I do believe the Geneva Convention ('49?) prohibits targeting of civilian non-combatants!

Peter J. gets it right on this one. I nearly fell off the sofa when he asked that question!

Dork is not a word that I would use to describe Clark. He is a traitorous treasonous dog.

Thanks, OldFriend. My kingdom for a thesaurus.

Call on me anytime......I have some choice words that apply to demons.

When will Michael Moore produce "Bowling for Kosovo"?

bump for later read.

bump

Now this is some serious SMACK!

"GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I want to answer this fellow. Because the truth was that that -- first of all, we gave warnings to Milosevic that that was going to be struck. I personally called the CNN reporter and had it set up so that it would be leaked, and Milosevic knew."

I couldn’t find confirmation for this story. To your knowledge had anybody from CNN confirmed his claims?

Hoplite's Hero Gen. Clark not only admits being a war criminal, but is proud of it.

Gen Clark is a disgrace to the entire US officer corps and professional soldiers everywhere.

Thankfully, they have distanced themselves from Clarke as much as possible.

>>>>I couldn’t find confirmation for this story. To your knowledge had anybody from CNN confirmed his claims?<<<<

Gen. Clark's claim may serve to confirm another story:

"“A day later, Serbian Information Minister Aleksander Vucic received a faxed invitation from the Larry King Live show in the US to appear on CNN. They wanted him on air at 2:30 in the morning of 23 April and asked him to arrive at Serb Television half an hour early for make-up.

“Vucic was late—which was just as well for him since NATO missiles slammed into the building at six minutes past two. The first one exploded in the make-up room where the young Serb assistant was burned to death. CNN calls this all a coincidence, saying that the Larry King show, put out by the entertainment division, did not know of the news department's instruction to its men to leave the Belgrade building.”

Coincidence ? No, if Clark is telling the truth.

How do such seriously disordered people get into such high positions of power in our military? (Okay, I know the answer with Clark.) But, truly, it frightens me! He and Jamie Shea creeped me out during "Operation Allied Farce." They appeared mentally unhinged at times. I had to keep pinching myself -- is this real? Is this really happening?

Gee, the Dims have some real loo-loos to choose from. Clark and Dean both display traits of Nacissistic Personality Disorder and I've wondered if Dean's "prescribing" himself a few "picker-uppers." And these loons are running for President of the United States.

Whatever one thinks of Lieberman's politics, at least he's sane. Yet the dings are voting for the nutcases and poor old Joe is Loserman again. Go figure. The country's gone mad.