Milosevic and the Impeachment of President Clinton

The trial of Slobodan Milosevic is expected to last for at least two years. On Feb. 12, 2002, the first day of the trial, Carla Del Ponte, chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, addressed the Tribunal. BBC News immediately excerpted her address on the Internet, with this summary of it under her photograph: "Del Ponte said Milosevic was driven by quest for power." (1)

What a triumph for a three-year criminal investigation! A startling prosecutorial discovery, indeed. Three years ago, Milosevic was being described by President Clinton, his State Department and the Tribunal itself as the Hitler of today, and Yugoslavia was attacked to save the Albanians of Kosovo from Hitler-like extermination.

For three years the Tribunal, headed by its chief prosecutor, had been working on the case of the Hitler of today, and here, on Feb. 12, 2002, she came up with the epoch-making and bloodcurdling discovery that Milosevic "was driven by quest for power."

As everyone knows, innocent people such as Carla del Ponte and Bill Clinton are never driven by "quest for power," "ambition" or any other such vices of Hitler and Milosevic.

True, some evil tongues may insinuate that Carla, a short time ago an obscure nonentity, mentally at the level of a "retarded 7-year-old" (as Milosevic put it, without naming her by name for obvious reasons), has been driven by the ambition to be a world celebrity, to be a new global Solon, who has appeared as a female about 26 centuries after the male Solon of Athens – nay, to be the founder of new international justice under which Hitler, Stalin and Mao would have been put on trial in The Hague at the first sign of their crimes against humanity, such as the invasion of the Netherlands.

But axiomatically, all of Carla's motives can be only virtuous. As for Bill Clinton, who can doubt that he has been as all-virtuous as Carla?

Inversely, listen in horror to what she said about Milosevic in the final one-third of her address, entitled on the Internet "Quest for Power." (Keep this from children under 12, for Carla's revelations of something so heinous may traumatize them psychologically.)

Thus we learn that "a mediocre strategist, Milosevic did nothing but pursue his ambition." (2)

Can you imagine Carla being mediocre and pursuing her ambition, or Bill Clinton being mediocre and pursuing his? On the other hand, this is how she describes the Hitler of today: "Everything, your honors, everything, was an instrument in the service of his quest for power." (3)

How could their honors listen to this without fainting? I hope there were no children under 12 in the audience! But this was not all. "One must not seek ideals underlying the acts of the accused," she concluded. (4)

Carla! Have a heart! You cannot do that to us! No ideals! Not only is he the Hitler of today, as everyone already knew three years ago, but he also has no ideals either! Such an unspeakable villain must be sentenced by the Tribunal to death by hanging at the very least!

Yet prepare for something even more heinous. While "the search for power is what motivated Slobodan Milosevic," he concealed that search behind ...

Some judiciary simpletons or laymen may suppose that he concealed his heinous motivation behind his brilliant speeches; Hitler was a brilliant speaker. Oh, no! Only innocent people, having ideals and unmotivated by power, ambition or vanity, such as Carla or Bill Clinton, can be brilliant, original and talented, while Milosevic concealed his vices behind "the grandiloquent rhetoric and the hackneyed phrases he used." (5)

You see? He is guilty of mediocrity – nay, a triteness, sterility, bad taste. Take any phrase of Carla or Bill Clinton. Can it be hackneyed? Never, ever! It is always a gem of intellectual brilliance, originality and profundity, to say nothing of ideals and other virtues.

If Carla or anyone else at the Tribunal had had a sense of humor, they could have been told Mark Twain's joke about someone first accused of having murdered his parents and then of having taken to smoking.

In 1999, Milosevic was accused of having been the Hitler of today, and in 2002, after nearly three years of building the case and collecting evidence, Carla accuses him of being mediocre, pompous, trite, seeking power and having no ideals. Has he taken to smoking, too?

In his speech, Milosevic spoke as a person abducted by criminals who are trying to prove that he is a criminal in order to justify their crimes, such as an attack on Yugoslavia.

I will not quote his speech (apart from his remark I quoted above about the mental level of Carla del Ponte), since he is an interested party and there are quite a few distinguished outsiders in all countries who share his view.

Thus, early in 2001, in the Ottawa Citizen of Canada, former Canadian Ambassador to Yugoslavia James Bisset summed up "the Tribunal" as follows:

As of Feb. 19, 2002 – a week after the beginning of the trial – the International Committee to Defend Slobodan Milosevic consisted of representatives of 20 countries. The United States was represented by 11 members of the committee, including former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark, its co-chairman.

On one occasion in the past, Clark and I spoke together publicly against Soviet persecution of dissidents under the pretense of a "trial." His attitude toward the trial of Milosevic is the same, that it is political persecution, not legal prosecution.

The committee's Internet postings, which occupied 29 pages as of Feb. 19, are sharper in their outspoken condemnation of the Tribunal than Milosevic was in his speech. They call it a kangaroo court.

The Web site's Internet reprint of a New Statesman article is entitled "Milosevic, Prisoner of Conscience." One of the committee's Internet postings describes a London meeting under this keynote: "Serbia on Trial – NATO Guilty: The 'Trial' of Slobodan Milosevic."

Accuracy in Media, headed by Reed Irvine, began to study the representation of Milosevic as the Hitler of today in early 1999, when that image began to be widely publicized by President Clinton, his State Department and the obliging U.S. mainstream media. I began to study the case for my book in progress about the same time.

I had been in close association with AIM during the time of our joint struggle against the post-1963 tendency to ignore the Soviet rulers' quest for world domination.

But after the Soviet dictatorship fell in 1991, I was out of touch with AIM, and hence all the greater was my satisfaction when I recently discovered through the Internet that having studied the Milosevic case completely independently and often through different sources available to us, we had come to similar conclusions.

What had Milosevic done to be indicted by the Tribunal (or kangaroo court) back in 1999? Speaking at the Brookings Institution on April 5, 1999, as Yugoslavia was being bombed by NATO, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright represented Milosevic as the Hitler of today, whom NATO attacked to stop his genocide of the Albanians in Kosovo.

But the only specific example of this genocide she gave was the alleged massacre of 45 Albanians in the village of Racak, Kosovo, on Jan. 15, 1999. In his last interview before the NATO attack on Yugoslavia (which I will quote from later on), President Clinton described the "Racak massacre" as the cause of the forthcoming attack.

Almost three years later, on Feb. 15, 2002, BBC News headlined on the first page of its Internet report and next to a photograph showing corpses:

Indeed, in The Indictment (May 22, 1999), The Amended Indictment (June 29, 2001), and The Second Amended Indictment (Oct. 17, 2001), the prosecutor of the Tribunal stated the following about the "Racak massacre":

At this point, let me just note some strange aspects of the paragraph above and of the list of alleged victims. The KLA is not mentioned, though all reporters present at Racak then and later described the event as a battle between the KLA and the Yugoslav forces.

Did the KLA exist at all, according to the Tribunal? The Yugoslav forces shelled the village with "VJ units" – or just shelled it, according to the Second Amended Indictment. Why on earth, if there was not a single armed KLA man anywhere in sight? To kill civilians?

Then why did not the three Indictments say how many civilians were killed by "VJ units" or other shells? Oddly, the list of victims does not say a word about how each of them was killed.

The list gives only their sex and "approximate age." There are only two females, and three males are aged 13, 70 and 60 (their "approximate age"). All the other persons whose "approximate age" is given are young men, starting from the age of 18 (the conscription age in many countries).

Why did not "VJ units" or other shells kill a single child, and only one adolescent of 13? Racak seems to have been populated almost exclusively by males of the age of soldiers.

Villagers who attempted to flee were shot. Is it mostly young men who attempted to flee, while children, women and elderly men did not, but bravely defied the killers and hence were not killed, with few exceptions?

Also, "approximately 25 men [!] attempted to hide," but were discovered and killed. All these 25 or so victims were men! Had they left their wives, children and parents to their fate and "attempted to hide in a building"?

On the other hand, surely the alleged killers must have understood that having left so many villagers alive, they preserved as many witnesses of their "massacre of 45 civilians." Weirdly enough, the three Indictments say not a word about how many people had been living in Racak, or how many of them had survived, and why the survivors, even under shelling, were mostly women, children and elderly men.

None of the three Indictments indicates the "approximate age" of one of the two women and 23 men. More than two years passed between the Indictment and The Second Amended Indictment, but the survivors at Racak, mostly women, children and elderly men, had not told the Tribunal even "the approximate age" of that woman and those 23 men, who were their neighbors or members of their families.

Why is only the "approximate age" indicated on the list? Do not the parents or siblings know that their son or brother is 13, and not 14 or 12? Can you imagine a village in which no one knows anyone's exact age, while neither the age of one out of two women killed, nor the age of 23 out of 43 males killed is known even approximately?

What about the records? Or would the inhabitants of Racak be born, go to school, acquire property, pay taxes, attend the mosque, marry, have medical treatment or receive social benefits – all without any records kept by anyone? What about the documents found on them? Also none?

What was the proclaimed cause of the NATO attack? In his last news conference before the attack, on March 19, 1999, President Clinton cited the Racak massacre. Later, after the NATO attack, Clinton claimed that its second cause was the banishment, by Milosevic and his entourage, of about 1 million Albanians from Kosovo.

Videos shown on U.S. mainstream television in 2001 recorded the flight of New Yorkers away from the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001. After that date, more Americans can understand the flight of Albanians and Serbs when NATO bombed Kosovo daily and no one knew when the bombing would end.

But the bombing was not all. Kosovo was the area of contention, and hence it was also to be the epicenter of a life-and-death ground war, should not the bombing alone be enough for Yugoslavia to capitulate. Then nothing but ashes and ruins would remain of Kosovo.

The flight of about 1 million people in a country where a private car, let alone a van or a truck, was for many a luxury, involved public transportation. Hence the myth that these Kosovars actually loved NATO bombs or found them harmless, but were carried on trains and trucks against their will away from Kosovo as a matter of "ethnic cleansing," though for some obscure reason not a single Albanian has ever been banished, even from Belgrade itself.

Crime exists in every country, and as in every war, the NATO attack increased the crime rate, but NATO, not Milosevic, was responsible for the war and hence for this war growth of the crime rate in Kosovo, seized by fear and in a vortex of a general stampede, producing anarchy, chaos and impunity for organized crime.

Nor is it impossible that the local nationalists, extremists and homespun strategists among the Serbs (and what nation does not have such in its midst?) interpreted the war, started by NATO, as the need, license or opportunity to add fuel to the stampede caused by the war.

But, amazing as it may seem to the Tribunal, it is not Milosevic who has invented ethnic and religious hatred, strife and crimes, especially crimes during a war. According to Steven Erlanger in the New York Times, over 380 persons were reported in May 1999 to have been arrested in Kosovo for such crimes as ordering Albanians to leave Kosovo (to rob their dwellings, for example) and given sentences of 5 to 20 years by military courts. (9)

After the NATO war on Yugoslavia had begun, President Clinton, NATO and much of the U.S. mainstream media had a bright idea. As Erlanger put it in May 1999: "NATO denies that its bombs cause anyone to flee." (10)

The three Indictments create the impression that not a single NATO bomb ever fell on Yugoslavia, or if such a bomb did fall, it was as harmless for civilians as a summer breeze. What flight could there be as a result?

According to Clinton after the beginning of the NATO attack, about 1 million fearless Albanians (none of them afraid of NATO bombs) found themselves outside Kosovo because they had begun to be banished from Kosovo before the NATO attack, and hence the banishment was the second cause of NATO aggression, according to Clinton et al.

However, at Clinton's news conference of March 19, 1999, on the eve of NATO's attack on Yugoslavia, there was not a hint of the banishment of Albanians from Kosovo, though the New York Times text of his speech occupies four-fifths of a full page.

Clinton spoke of only one event that justified, required, demanded a NATO attack on Yugoslavia unless and until it left Kosovo and allowed NATO to occupy it. In the village of Racak, Kosovo, on Jan. 15, 1999, "Serb troops massacred 44 civilians," as one of the correspondents present put it.

Clinton described this massacre as the crime against humanity that made it imperative for NATO to launch war against Yugoslavia about two months later in order to save the Albanians of Kosovo, in cooperation with the "Kosovo Liberation Army," from Milosevic and his subordinates, who had killed 44 (or 45) Albanian civilians in Racak, and (consequently?) would kill all the Albanians in Kosovo.

Before quoting President Clinton's historic interview, it may be relevant to note that the "massacre of 44 [or 45] civilians" was a comically crude fake fabricated by the criminally ruthless but far from criminally savvy "Kosovo Liberation Army" (KLA).

Indeed, on May 10, 1999, the Chicago Tribune published a statement made in Washington by Walter J. Rockler, former prosecutor at the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials, who said that "the attack on Yugoslavia constitutes the most brazen international aggression since the Nazis attacked Poland to prevent 'Polish atrocities' against Germans."

The "Polish atrocities" had been fabricated. The "Serbian atrocities" against Albanians, viz., the "massacre of 44 [or 45] civilians," had also been fabricated. The brazenness of the NATO aggression, based on a fabrication, thus matched that of Hitler and those war criminals whom Rockler had prosecuted.

Rockler's indictment in the Chicago Tribune was not picked up by any other periodical or electronic program, as far as I know. The vast majority of people in the United States have never known that the "massacre" was a fabrication, which the former prosecutor of the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials compared to Hitler's fabrication of "Polish atrocities" as the "cause" of his war on Poland.

The above is an excerpt from Lev Navrozov's book in progress, "Out of Moscow and Into New York: A Life in the Geostrategically Lobotomized West in the Age of Terrorism and Post-nuclear Superweapons."

PUBLISHERS: Should you considering publishing this book (please bear in mind that a substantial advance is expected), the 27-page Proposal and the first 106-page section of the book can be mailed to you if you if you apply to me at navlev@cloud9.net, tel. 001 718 796 6028, or to my literary agent, Lenny Cavallaro, Janus Literary Agency (UBKlene@aol.com).

1. See: http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/europe/
newsid_1816000/1816719.stm Return

6. Cliff Kincaid, AIM, April 13, 2001. See: http://www.aim.org/publications/guest_columns/
kincaid/2001/12apr2001.html, p. 1. Return

9. AIM Report, May 13, 1999. See http://www.aim.org/publications/aim_report/1999/05b.htm. Return

Milosevic and the Impeachment of President Clinton

Lev Navrozov
Friday, March 22, 2002

[Editor's note: This is the second part of a two-part article. Read Part 1.]

Why did President Clinton need a war on Yugoslavia? Here we come to the real causes of this war.

Its first real cause was the safety of the NATO military.

In the 18th century China began to rule Tibet. In 1911, Tibet became independent and even today, Chinese account for only about 20 percent of Tibet's population. Yet Mao seized the country in the early 1950s and ruthlessly crushed its 1959 rebellion, adding Tibetan victims to millions of uncounted and uncountable other victims.

But what NATO officer has ever suggested since 1959 – even for a fleeting instant, under the influence of a good strong drink – bombing China until and unless its troops leave Tibet?

On the other hand, since the bombing of Yugoslavia was safe in 1999, why not recapture the thrill of the good old days when, for example, in 1900 the Chinese "Righteous Harmony Fighters with Bare Hands" imagined themselves to be invulnerable to bullets and fought with bare hands, without any firearms, against the firepower of Westerners, Japanese and Russians.

To shoot those "Righteous Harmony Fighters with Bare Hands" was as safe and hence as pleasurable as shooting wild fowl on an English estate. In 1999 tiny, defenseless Yugoslavia played the role of 1900 China.

If Russia had supplied to Yugoslavia even its obsolete air defense technology of the 1980s, a dozen or so NATO bombers would have been downed in the first week, and NATO would have followed the fate of the United States in the Vietnam War.

As it was, NATO could reduce Yugoslavia to dust and thus achieve a brilliant victory without a single casualty and hence with full approval of the vast majority of the NATO countries.

The second real cause of the attack on Yugoslavia was President Clinton's dire need to switch the mainstream media off his impeachment for perjury and obstruction of justice regarding his pathetic adultery, and off all the other skeletons in his closet, such as Paula Jones, his Chinese connection, and Vincent Foster's death (as described by Chris Ruddy in The Strange Death of Vincent Foster.)

The war did its job for President Clinton magnificently: It filled the television screens and newspaper front pages to the exclusion of everything else, for the commercial midstream media can devote their attention to only one obsession at a time.

After 78 days of bombing Yugoslavia, the impeachment and other dangers to President Clinton were gone, since the commercial midstream media have no memory.

The legal investigation of the president of the United States was replaced by the bombing of Yugoslavia after the KLA's (Kosovo Liberation Army's) crude fabrication of the "Racak massacre" and the "trial" of the "Hitler of today," allegedly responsible for that "massacre" and having allegedly intended to massacre all the Albanians of Kosovo.

True, before the NATO attack, there were "negotiations" with Milosevic, but Secretary of State Madeleine Albright insisted on the right of NATO forces to move freely throughout all of Yugoslavia (a virtual occupation), apart from the independence of Kosovo, the heartland of Serbian history.

These "negotiations" were Albright's ultimatum, which she counted on to be unacceptable, thus ensuring for President Clinton a war, so necessary for him to stop the impeachment and put all his skeletons safely back into his closet. (11)

A major aspect of the disintegration of Yugoslavia in the 1990s was the war between Moslems and Christians (Serbs). The KLA had been engaged in prototypical Islamic terrorism and guerrilla war, aimed at the "liberation" of Kosovo.

In the 1980s, the Albanian Islamic-revolutionary militants had already been looking forward to "Greater Albania," including "western Macedonia, southern Montenegro, part of southern Serbia, Kosovo and Albania itself." (12) But in the 1990s, it was all a "national liberation movement" to the U.S. State Department.

In 2001, the U.S. State Department even referred to the ubiquitous diabolical bin Laden and al-Qaeda in the KLA as well. But before Sept. 11, 2001, the phrase "Islamic terrorism" was virtually unknown in the United States, and President Clinton's State Department perceived Yugoslavia as an outdated colonial empire, the Serbs as the Europeans, Christians and hence colonialists, and the Moslems as oppressed victims of colonialism, fighting for their liberation – hence the Kosovo Liberation Army.

What about Milosevic? In 1996 he was regarded as the benign head of his antiquated empire, presiding over its disintegration, while in 1999 he was perceived as the Hitler of today, determined to annihilate the Albanians in Kosovo to prevent its independence.

The Sunday Times of London published the claim that William Walker, the U.S. diplomat and head of the Kosovo Verification Mission – who "discovered" the "Racak massacre," fabricated by the KLA, and called it "an unspeakable atrocity" – was working with the CIA, which was reportedly assisting the KLA. (13)

Why not? Surely the colonized nations must be helped in their fight for independence from the European colonialists. Before Sept. 11, 2001, the U.S. State Department regarded Islamic terrorism in Kosovo as a national liberation movement, the Islamic terrorists as freedom fighters.

The KLA killed not only Serbs but also "Albanian collaborators," including women and children. Well, surely those Albanian men and women who collaborated with the Hitler of today deserved to be killed, while an adolescent collaborator could hardly be regarded as an innocent child bearing no responsibility.

In August 1995, the Clinton administration supported the Croatian army's expulsion of up to half a million Serbs from Krajina. Ethnic cleansing? A crime against humanity?

Oh, no! Quite the contrary! That was a heroic struggle of victims of colonialism (Moslems) for their liberation from the colonialists (European Christians). The U.S. Military Professional Resources Inc. had been training the Croatian and Bosnian Moslems. (14)

It was publicly assumed in the United States that Krajina was the Croatian Moslems' indigenous or primordial land, seized by the Serbian colonialists. Actually, just as the Serbs had lived in Kosovo before the Albanians, the Serbs had lived in Krajina since the 15th century, and if they had to be banished, then the entire population of the United States except the "Indians" has to be banished as well.

Just like 'Kosovo,' the word 'Krajina' is Slavic. It means "Edge," as does the root 'kraina' in the word 'Ukraina' (Ukraine). It is worthwhile to quote in this connection the following paragraph from the Accuracy in Media Report of May 4, 1999:

Along with Senator Joseph Lieberman, who now supports the arming of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), Dole [the then Senate majority leader who became the Republican candidate for president a year later] was a big supporter of breaking the United Nations arms embargo of the former Yugoslavia by arming the Bosnian Muslims against the Serbs. Although the Clinton administration claimed to be opposed to this scheme, it was later proven and acknowledged that the Clinton administration approved Iranian arms shipments through Croatia to the Bosnian Muslims. Croatia took some of those weapons for itself. Galbraith himself told a Croatian newspaper, "Congress clearly knew, and the public and the Europeans knew, that the weapons were coming in, from Iran among others, that the U.S. government had not objected, nor had any other government.

Against this background it is clear how what happened in Racak on Jan. 15, 1999, was perceived in Yugoslavia and in the United States. President Clinton falsely declared in the New York Times of May 23, 1999, that Milosevic had violated (oh, that Hitler of today!) the peace between the terrorist KLA and the Yugoslavian government.

President Milosevic saw that the KLA never desisted in its terrorism under the assumption that it is often impossible to prove beyond doubt that certain anonymous terrorist attacks have been perpetrated by a certain specific terrorist group. As the KLA's terrorist attacks continued, the Yugoslav forces moved against the KLA at Racak.

The KLA took positions in the terrain outside the village and lost over 40 of its men, owing to the massive superiority of the Yugoslav forces with their mortars, tanks and armored vehicles.

Then the KLA picked up their fallen comrades, dressed the corpses in civilian clothes, shot them pointblank, and complained to William Walker, head of the observer mission in Kosovo, that these were civilians the Serbs had shot for being Albanians. Walker evaluated what the KLA had told him as genocide, conducted by the Hitler of today.

Predictably, Finnish, Yugoslav, Byelorussian and Polish teams of forensic pathologists found that, first, the civilian clothes the corpses were wearing did not have the bullet holes in the appropriate spots, and second, these fatal bullets had been fired from afar, while the bullets that were fired pointblank were fired at corpses.

Finally, the corpses tested positive in paraffin tests, indicating that the men had fired arms, that is, they'd not been unarmed civilians.

In keeping with the forensic reports were many European newspaper dispatches from Kosovo, such as those of Christophe Chatelot in Le Monde of Jan. 21, 1999, and of Renaud Girard reporting from Racak in Le Figaro of Jan. 20.

An essentially identical account was independently published in Die Welt (Jan. 22) and reported on the BBC World Service and Radio France International. But how many Americans read Le Monde, Le Figaro or Die Welt or listen to French radio or the BBC?

According to the New York Times of April 18, 1999, Gen. Wesley Clark, NATO commander, was so outraged by the "Racak massacre" that he met with Milosevic and presented him with photographs of the alleged victims. The president of Yugoslavia repeated the findings of the four teams of forensic pathologists.

At this time Gen. Wesley, President Clinton and anyone else, professing to believe that the KLA fabrication was not a fabrication but an honest-to-goodness massacre of 44 or 45 Albanian civilians, should have said that Milosevic was lying.

They should have said that the four teams of pathologists from four countries had conspired to lie also, that this was a conspiracy to malign President Clinton, NATO and all honest people and justify attacks on the Hitler of today.

Honest believers in the "Racak massacre" ought to have said that a top-level forensic team from NATO countries had also done autopsies on the 45 corpses and proven that the four forensic teams from four non-NATO countries had been lying in conspiratorial unison, along with all those European correspondents in Kosovo.

Neither the New York Times itself, nor Gen. Clark in the New York Times, nor any other source said a word in response to Milosevic's explanation and the findings of the four forensic teams. No forensic team from any NATO country conducted independent autopsies to disprove the findings of the four forensic teams and the reports of European correspondents in Kosovo.

Led by President Clinton, the advocates of the "Racak massacre" have simply ignored for over three years the findings of the forensic teams and the reports of European correspondents in Kosovo.

A criminal conspiracy can be impugned not to the forensic teams and the correspondents, but rather to President Clinton, Gen. Clark, Carla del Ponte and all the others who have spread an intentional lie, which led to the NATO attack on Yugoslavia, and have deliberately ignored all data showing that the "Racak massacre" was a KLA fabrication, justly compared with Hitler's fabrication of the Polish massacre of Germans in Poland.

When fighting the KLA at Racak, the Yugoslav forces had invited, in particular, the Associated Press TV to videotape the operation. First of all, why on earth would the Yugoslav forces invite an American television team to videotape the massacre of civilians (which even Hitler himseld had concealed) rather than an operation showing how dangerous the KLA terrorists were and how the Yugoslav forces coped with them?

I have never seen the Associated Press TV videotape shown in the United States. But not trusting my own experience, I have applied to the best (in my opinion) authority on the U.S. mainstream media – Accuracy in Media.

This is its conclusion as of April 2000 – that is, more than a year after the attack on Yugoslavia. Some of the Associated Press TV footage

was shown on television in Europe the next morning. [Renaud] Girard [covering Kosovo for Le Figaro] said no one linked it to the massacre because it showed no bodies. Some of it was used on a PBS "Frontline" documentary about Racak. At AIM's request, Jack Stokes of the AP's headquarters in New York viewed all the segments of the footage that had been shot on Jan. 15 that had been aired. He said that none of it, like the portion shown on "Frontline," showed any villagers or bodies. (15)

Still, the best proof that the "Racak massacre" never existed except as a KLA fabrication is found in the Indictments I have quoted (see Part 1). They make it abundantly clear that the 45 corpses are those not of villagers of Racak, but of total strangers. Forty-three of them were males, and of those whose "approximate age" is indicated, only three males were not of the regular conscription age.

No army does without any women, and two women (as medical nurses, for example) versus 40 men is a likely proportion. The youngster could be what is known in many irregular armies as "a son of our regiment," and the two elderly men homeless loners, serving as cooks or other noncombatants and also useful to make fun of for general entertainment.

In his historic interview of March 19, 1999, describing, on the eve of NATO's attack on Yugoslavia, "the Racak massacre" as the first and only cause of this attack, President Clinton said:

We should remember what happened in the village of Racak back in January: [forty-two!] innocent men, [two!] women and children [one youngster of 13] taken from their homes [the Indictments say that some villagers "attempted to flee," and 25 men "attempted to hide in a building"] to a gully [the Indictments say that 25 men "were removed to a nearby hill, where they were shot and killed"], forced to kneel in the dirt, sprayed with gunfire [the corpses were found to be shot at point-blank range one by one rather than "sprayed with fire"], not because of anything they had done, but because of who they were.

What is true in this moving fantasy is that when the KLA men dressed the corpses of their comrades in civilian clothes, they could not make the corpses stand on their feet. As they put civilian jackets on them, they stood the corpses on their knees and held up their torsos, onto which they pulled the jackets and at which they shot point-blank.

According to Clinton's statement, this "massacre" happened in Kosovo more than two months earlier – on Jan. 15 – for the first and last time. But Clinton believed that a similar "massacre of civilians" would happen again and again until all the Albanians in Kosovo were thus annihilated, as were the Jews in Nazi Germany:

Now roughly 40,000 Serbian troops and police are massing in and around Kosovo. Our firmness is the only thing standing between them and countless more villages like Racak, full of people without protection, even though they [the KLA] have now chosen peace.
Make no mistake: If we and our allies do not have the will to act, there will be more massacres.

Clinton assumed that "40,000 Serbian troops and police were "massing in and around Kosovo" not to fight NATO and the KLA but to kill Albanian civilians as they had killed 44 or 45 of them (that is, as the KLA had faked their killings) two months earlier.

In short, Milosevic is the Hitler of today, Yugoslavia is today's Nazi Germany, and the Albanians, especially the KLA, supported by international Islamic terrorism, are the Jews. But the disaster, said Clinton, was global and centennial:

This is a conflict with no natural boundaries. It threatens our national interests. If it continues, it will push refugees across borders and draw in neighboring countries. It will undermine the credibility of NATO, on which stability in Europe and our own credibility depend.
It will likely re-ignite the historical animosities, including those that could embrace Albania, Macedonia, Greece, even Turkey. And these divisions still have the potential to make the next century a truly violent one for that part of the world that straddles Europe, Asia and the Middle East.

On the other hand, "by acting now," NATO would not only save the Albanians in Kosovo from Nazi-like extermination, but also benefit all of Europe and hence the entire world for "a long time to come":

I honestly believe that by acting now, we can help to give our children and our grandchildren a Europe that is more united, more democratic, more peaceful, more prosperous, and a better partner for the United States for a long time to come.

What global and epoch-making consequences Clinton was able to foresee on March 19, 1999, from a crude fake, fabricated by the KLA on Jan. 15! And from NATO's forthcoming bombing of defenseless Yugoslavia on the pretext of that fake!

Actually, NATO's aggression, provoked by the KLA, may yet lead to an Islamic-fundamentalist Greater Albania, incorporating all territories where Albanians live and pushing global Islamic terrorism into the heart of Europe.

There has been yet another and perhaps more important geostrategic result of NATO's aggression. In "The World and the West," Arnold Toynbee begged the West to remember that it was, despite its conquests for four centuries, still only part of the world, that its military superiority was a "wasting asset," and that it should heed what people in the world at large think and feel.

It has not even been noticed in the United States what effect NATO's glorious victory over Yugoslavia had on the three and a half billion people in China, India, Russia and the Islamic world. The effect was a mental revolution in their minds.

Before NATO, a military organization, attacked a sovereign small and defenseless country, it had been universally assumed that "the democratic West" was peaceful or even somewhat pacifist, while those aggressive Western wars from the late 15th to the early 20th century were history.

The attack on Yugoslavia, which is already being forgotten in the West as a trifling local episode, negated that 20th-century-peaceful/pacifist image of "the democratic West" for the non-West.

So its "vast majorities" were peaceful/pacifist when they anticipated war losses or some troubles for themselves as a result of a military measure.

But if an attack on a sovereign country – contrary to all international laws and conventions and provoked by a fake – was to be just a parade of Western military power, with all the losses and troubles on the other side, then the "vast majorities" of the "democratic West" were no more against the military parade in Yugoslavia than the "vast majority" of Britain had been in the Boer War a hundred years earlier.

However, the West's indifference to how it is perceived by the people of the world combines with the West's eagerness to appease the powerful rulers.

The West's only woe in that military parade in Yugoslavia in 1999 was the accidental killing of three Chinese civilians. It was almost as upsetting as the killing by mistake of three crown princes during the shooting of wild fowl on an English estate. President Clinton could not stop apologizing to the power holders of China, like a timid clerk in Chekhov's short story to an irascible general.

Now, on April 14, 1999, in the vicinity of Djakovica, Kosovo, NATO aircraft killed in one bomb swoop 70 Albanians (not Serbs!) and wounded as many as 100. But this was no news in the U.S. mainstream media. That was the shooting of wild fowl.

Perhaps the power holders of China will be able to annihilate the West with superweapon No. 3, now being developed in China, just as NATO killed those three Chinese with firearms, weapons known in China about four centuries ahead of the West.

About 3,000 civilians were killed in the Islamic terrorist attack in the United States in 2001. This is less than the number of civilians killed in Yugoslavia in the NATO 78-day bombing in 1999, based on a fabricated massacre.

But if there is no international law, if might is right, as it was for the British Empire a century ago, and anyone can kill several thousand civilians in a foreign country for any goal or reason, real or proclaimed. ...

On July 3, 2001, CNN showed former Yugoslav President Milosevic arraigned before the International War Crimes Tribunal in The Hague on charge of "crimes against humanity." CNN could have recalled in this connection what the mainstream media, including CNN, seemed to have forgotten.

Up until his death in 1980, a Croat named Tito, who had been put into power by Stalin and was Stalin-like enough to hoodwink Stalin himself, held together, with his Stalinist fist, that ethnic conglomerate called Yugoslavia ("Land of Southern Slavs") and in which Christian nations had been fighting against Islamic invaders for more than half a millennium.

Not that the Croat Tito was lenient with Croats; when they tried independence, he swatted the separatists like so many flies. But Serbians seemed to him especially dangerous because they were the largest nation. While he held all nations under his Stalinist fist, he encouraged the Albanian police in Kosovo, for example, to ride roughshod over the Serbs.

With the emergence of a multi-party system and other elements of "Western democracy" in Yugoslavia and in Soviet Russia in the early 1990s, both countries began to disintegrate ethnically.

Croatia became independent just by a vote. President Milosevic also bade farewell to Slovenia and Macedonia, as President Yeltsin had to Byelorussia and Ukraine.

With the independence of Bosnia, however, there was trouble. In Bosnia, Moslems accounted for 40 percent of the population, and Serbs (Orthodox Christians) for 30 percent. The Moslems proclaimed an independent Moslem state with a Moslem at its head.

Since Islamic fundamentalism was now a global force, invoking in Bosnia the erstwhile power and glory of the Ottoman Empire, the Serbian minority could well be exterminated or banished, and a ruthless Islamic-Orthodox Christian civil war began, during which only Orthodox Christian – but not Islamic – atrocities attracted attention in the United States, that is prior to Sept. 11, 2001.

What about Milosevic? After Tito's Albanian persecution of the Serbs in Kosovo, he helped them regain safety and self-esteem. At the same time, even in its tiny item on Yugoslavia, my "Information Please Almanac 1996" stated that when his appeal to the Bosnian Serbs to accept a plan to stop the civil war and create an independent Bosnia had been rejected, Milosevic "thereupon imposed an embargo on all supplies but medical and humanitarian goods to the Bosnian Serbs."

The embargo worked. Late in 1995 President Milosevic came to Dayton, Ohio, and an independent Bosnia was established, with its capital in the hands of a Moslem-dominated government.

According to such gathering-dust-on-the-shelves snippets of information in the U.S. mainstream media between 1995 and 1998, President Milosevic appeared to be not only a president as "democratically elected" as Yeltsin or Clinton, but also a statesman above national egocentrism and a great peacemaker: The Dayton treaty was a great achievement that would have been impossible without him.

As the threat of Clinton's impeachment grew, the hero of Dayton, the great democrat and peacemaker, was transmogrified by President Clinton into the Hitler of today, against whom a war should be launched to prevent his genocide of the Albanian people of Kosovo and beyond, and a world catastrophe in general.

But why did not the mainstream U.S. media recall in 1999 the role of Milosevic in the Dayton Accords? In his 2000 book, entitled "Virtual War: Kosovo and Beyond," an "internationally renowned journalist and commentator" provided the best answer in one short sentence: "Dayton brought peace to Bosnia but it perpetuated [!] an American illusion about Milosevic."

So what the mainstream U.S. media, U.S. government and U.S. Congress had thought and said about Milosevic between 1995 and 1998 (when the threat of "impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton" began growing) had been an illusion or even the perpetuation of an illusion.

On the other hand, the 215-page book published by the "internationally renowned journalist and commentator" in 2000 contained 215 pages of fashionable, flippant and self-contradictory lies, representing Milosevic as the Hitler of today.

But in 2000 these were not considered lies, not even illusions or delusions, but truths, because, in 2000, they were fashionable lies. After Sept. 11, 2001, when Kosovo was listed (by the U.S. State Department) as an operational area of the diabolical bin Laden's al-Qaeda, such thoughts will possibly be regarded as illusions or delusions or lies, and they will gather dust on library shelves.

Naturally, on July 3, 2001, CNN did not want to show its pre-1998 illusions, but wanted instead to show the fashionable lies – that is, the "truths" – and as of July 3, 2001, the fashionable lie/truth was that the hero of Dayton was the Hitler of today, arraigned before the International War Crimes Tribunal and held in prison (along with those Bosnian Serbs whose ruthless civil war with the Bosnian Moslems he had stopped).

So, what were the "crimes against humanity" of this Hitler of today? He began to be otherwise called by the mainstream U.S. media in 1999 the "butcher of Belgrade" (by analogy with the "butchers of Beijing," who had quickly become dear friends and strategic partners of President Clinton).

Yet CNN did not show Milosevic's butchery in Belgrade, since during his presidency not a hair had fallen from the head of any Albanian in Belgrade, which was no more a place of butchery than was New York or Washington, D.C.

Before 1999, Milosevic was repeatedly re-elected, because Yugoslavia owed a lot to his leadership (as in Dayton) and the opposition parties were not united. As soon as they formed a coalition in 2000 and he became the scapegoat, as every head of state does after a disastrous war, he lost the election.

World-famous in 1999 was the CNN footage showing the alleged deportation of about 1 million Albanians from Kosovo, on orders from the Hitler of today. In the CNN program of July 3, 2001, about his "crimes against humanity," there was not a hint of any deportation.

In 1999, CNN had filmed the camps of fugitives from the NATO attack (since no one could tell how long the bombing and subsequent possible ground war would continue) and called them the camps of deportees. But the KLA controlled most of the mountains, villages and forest paths. How could 1 million Albanians be deported by force without a single attempt on the part of the KLA to rescue them?

Why was there not a single photo of the alleged forceful deportation or of an attempt to rescue at least 2, 20 or 200 deportees? The alleged forceful deportation of 1999 had disappeared from the CNN program of 2001, which showed only the "crimes against humanity" committed by the Hitler of today.

As soon as NATO occupied Kosovo in the summer of 1999, the International War Crimes Tribunal and an array of Western mainstream media, with CNN at the top of the list, began their field investigations to detect crimes against humanity and Milosevic's complicity in them.

The anti-Milosevic coalition in Yugoslavia had also been seeking incriminating evidence against Milosevic, just as Democrats and Republicans in the United States seek such evidence against each other. In power since the autumn of 2000, the coalition had all the government electronic, written and printed records at its disposal, as well as witnesses willing to testify as the government expected them to.

[cont.]

[last part]

What were the results of more than half a year of this government search? As of July 31, 2001, the government had exhumed in Kosovo "800 to 1,000 bodies," as the New York Times reported in a huge dispatch from Belgrade on that day. So, 800 to 1,000 corpses after 78-days of NATO bombings and fighting for many years between the KLA, the regular government troops, the police, paramilitaries, "different volunteer forces and different local groups," and just common criminal gangs that become active during war.

In more than half a year the Yugoslav government has not published a single official record of the Milosevic era or a single affidavit suggesting his complicity in any harm done to a single civilian.

To defend themselves, those Bosnian Serbs who were tried by the Tribunal for the killing of Bosnian Moslems could have testified that they acted on President Milosevic's orders. But none of them said that, for President Milosevic's orders were to the contrary, to stop the civil war – and he finally stopped it at Dayton.

So what "crimes against humanity" by the Hitler of today did CNN show on July 3, 2001, as Milosevic was arraigned before the International War Crimes Tribunal? Where was his genocide of the Albanian people, for which he had been in prison without bail?

You guessed it: the "Racak massacre." Nothing else had been found by CNN in more than two years.

Imagine what a program CNN could have produced if the "Racak massacre" were a real event, not a KLA fabrication. Forty-five villagers murdered. Their photographs, their homes, their families recalling their murdered children, spouses, siblings, parents, or just neighbors. Interviews, recollections, testimony, concrete details.

Instead, the "coverage," presumably from Racak, was not as detailed, specific or colorful as Clinton's interview of March 19, 1999. All CNN showed more than two years later were some unnamed weeping old women – presumably from Racak and presumably weeping over the "Racak massacre."

The problem for CNN was that those killed were 42 KLA men, two women (the approximate age of one of them is 30), and one youngster of 13, none of whom had anything to do with Racak, and hence the only solution was to show some unnamed weeping old women.

The Hitler of today had been whisked out of Yugoslavia to The Hague Tribunal contrary to the decision of the Yugoslav Constitutional Court, after President Kostunica had failed to receive the approval of the Federal Parliament, and without informing any legal assistant of his, let alone his family or any member of his party.

According to a New York Times report from Belgrade (June 29, 2001, p. A10), a "history professor," opposed to Milosevic, nevertheless said that "we sold our president." He was sold for $1 billion, which was especially coveted, since the NATO bombing damage far exceeded this gift.

The "history professor" added that Milosevic was "guilty," but of "a war," not of any "war crime."

The "history professor" forgot that historically the head of state has always been blamed for his country's unsuccessful war. Thus, a wave of revolutions swept continental Europe after World War I, including eastern Europe and Russia, and Czar Nicholas II was even shot, though how was he to blame for the war with Germany?

Milosevic's alternatives had been either NATO attack or NATO's virtual occupation of the whole of Yugoslavia plus the independence of Kosovo. NATO occupation he could not accept. But what about Kosovo's independence?

Indeed, why had Milosevic not forced the Kosovo Serbs to accept an independent Kosovo as he had forced the Bosnian Serbs to accept an independent Bosnia?

The KLA, nourished from Albania and relying on global Islamic militancy, and with the Kosovo Serbs constituting only a one tenth minority, an independent Kosovo was bound to destroy or banish that tiny minority (along with the Serbian Christian culture going back to the sixth century) and become part of the global Islamic militancy active in Israel and in Chechnya in Russia, and in 2001 showing its hand in the United States as well.

For President Clinton, the bombing of Yugoslavia was safe and suited his own personal goal. On the other hand, before the terrorist attack on America of Sept. 11, 2001, the U.S. State Department had seemed to be oblivious to the fact that there are about 1 billion Moslems in the world, and that Islamic terrorism may destroy the United States even sooner than will China, if only differently.

The war of which the Belgrade "history professor" accused Milosevic occurred in particular because Milosevic had sensed the danger of Islamic militancy, while the geostrategically lobotomized West had not – until September 2001.

By buying Milosevic for $1 billion in 2001, the West delivered a mighty blow to President Kostunica and his anti-Milosevic coalition: In 2001, quite a few of once pro-Kostunica Serbs came to consider Kostunica a political prostitute, a violator of laws and a traitor.

While a century ago the colonial wars of the West still added to Western global expansion and power, the NATO attack on a small, defenseless country with bombers was an inane farce, doing enormous strategic damage to the West. The buying of Milosevic for $1 billion, to "try" him as the Hitler of today, will merely aggravate that damage.

On Sept. 11, 2001, Milosevic was kept in prison without bail as the Hitler of today, guilty only of having tried to stamp out the KLA as part of global Islamic terrorism. And here the United States was, attacked by Islamic terrorism, the struggle against which Milosevic had been indicted as the Hitler of today, abducted for $1 billion, and kept in prison without bail.

But the good news? President Clinton got rid of the impeachment, all the skeletons were put safely back in his closet, and it all seems to have happened a century or a millennium ago.

The above is an excerpt from Lev Navrozov's book in progress, "Out of Moscow and Into New York: A Life in the Geostrategically Lobotomized West in the Age of Terrorism and Post-nuclear Superweapons."

Source Notes

11. See "Kosovo: The Hoax-Begotten War," AIM Report, April 4, 2000. See http://www.aim.org/;ublications/aim_report/2000/04a.html, p. 2. Return

12. David Binder in the New York Times: see Reed Irvine, AIM Report, April 13, 1999, p. 1. Return

13. Reed Irvine and Cliff Kincaid, AIM, Media Monitor, Feb. 21, 2001. See http:///www.aim.org/publications/media_monitor/2001/02/21.html. Return

14. AIM Report, May 4, 1999, p. 1. Return

15. See http://www.aim.org/publications/aim_report/2000/04a.html. Return

Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics:
Al-Qaeda
War on Terrorism
Clinton Scandals
Kosovo / Yugoslavia

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.