Milosevic vs Clark: From the Heavily Edited Transcripts

un.org/icty ^ | 15-16 December 2003 | ICTY

[Hoplite]

Hey, interesting statements today from the Clark and Dean camps, in light of your take on Clark's candidacy.

Might turn into a nice piece of deduction on your part - we'll see.

[duckln]

Your buddy Clark was/is saying W should concentrate on getting Osama, not Saddam.

Why then did Clark/Clinton concentrate on getting Slobodan and not Osama or Saddam?

Is the question too confusing for you? Try, why did Clark/Clinton side with the 'head choppers'and the terrorists raising hell in Bosnia, Kosovo and worldwide?

Even an amature can figure it out. One answer is that both wanted a War for legacy, and any war and the easiest war was their 'no brainer' answer.

Milosevic denied them victory in that Kosovo is still part of Yugoslavia and NATO's German boots aren't tramping all over Serbia.

Milosevic should be Time's man of the year.

[mark502inf]

the KLA were terrorists

Well, contrary to FReeper mythology, the KLA was never on the State Dept's list of foreign terrorist organizations. The source of the characterization of the KLA as terrorists was U.S. Envoy Robert Gelbard's comments to that effect in February 1998 at press conferences in Begrade and Pristina where he said "[I] condemn the attacks against the police and others by the group that calls itself the UCK [Kosovo Liberation Army]. As I have said before, I consider these to be terrorists actions and it is the strong and firm policy of the United States to fully oppose all terrorists actions and all terrorists organizations".

Gelbard's comments have gone down in U.S. diplomatic lore with Ambassador Glaspie's July 1990 statement to Saddam Hussein that "We have no opinion on your Arab - Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait" and Dean Acheson's 1949 (50?)speech in which he left South Korea out of the U.S. security "perimeter".

There is a school of thought that says in both the Korea and Iraq cases, the U.S. remarks caused N. Korea and Hussein to believe they had received a "green Light" to attack and both did. Gelbard's description of the KLA as terrorists is similarly thought by some to have led Milosevic to believe he would be OK to launch a major Serb offensive in Kosovo against "terrorists".

But it was the Serb brutality and atrocities committed during that March 1998 offensive and its follow-on operations aginst not terrorists, but ordinary Kosovar citizens that transformed the KLA from a few hundred extremists and terrorists into a broadly supported popular rebellion against Serb rule with thousands of fighters and tens of thousands of supporters.

Gelbard probably should have known better than to give Milosevic even an indirect "out" for taking action. He already knew of the brutality of Serbian tactics as evidenced by earlier comments at the same press conference when Gelbard said: "We... condemn the violence which is occurring. The official violence, promulgated particularly by the police, we believe accounts for the great majority of the violence which is going on in Kosovo. We feel it is unwarranted and (inaudible). If there are concerns about public security, they could be managed in a much better way, geared to building confidence with the population..."

As a final thought, Gelbard called the KLA terrorists, but then also said the Serbs were responsible for most of the "unwarranted" violence. What does that make the Serbs?

[Destro]

That they were not on the State Dept's list damns the State Dept not the Serbs. The FBI considered the KLA terrorists. When did the Taliban make the list?

[Destro]

At least the Bush State Dept was on the right track - July 01, 2001 The US Black List of Albanian Terrorists (July 1) Last Wednesday, the President of the U.S.A. George W. Bush issued an executive order condemning the actions of the Albanian terrorists, restricting access to funding to the terrorist groups (including the NLA) and forbidding entry to the U.S. to some known terrorists (including most of the leaders of the NLA and KLA).

[mark502inf]

Your buddy Clark was/is saying W should concentrate on getting Osama, not Saddam.

False dichotomy made for political purposes. We can, and will, get both. Half-way there right now.

Why then did Clark/Clinton concentrate on getting Slobodan and not Osama or Saddam?

Again, we could have and should have done all of the above, but not getting all the rats doesn't mean we should get none. Putting Slobo behind bars is a positive step forward. Legitimate question on why Clinton did not take more aggressive action against bin Laden after numerous attacks against Americans by Al Qaeda. One of the many reasons I detest Clinton. Clark, however, was the military commander of U.S. European Command. He did not have responsibility for Iraq or the area where bin Laden was active nor for the CIA and other intell and special ops forces involved in the hunt. Lots of things wrong with Clark, screwing up the hunt for bin Laden isn't one of them; and neither was the Saddam situation.

[mark502inf]

July 01, 2001 The US Black List of Albanian Terrorists (July 1) Last Wednesday, the President of the U.S.A. George W. Bush issued an executive order condemning the actions of the Albanian terrorists, restricting access to funding to the terrorist groups (including the NLA) and forbidding entry to the U.S. to some known terrorists (including most of the leaders of the NLA and KLA).

This item is from 2001 and refers to National Liberation Army (NLA) ethnic Albanians in Macedonia; not the KLA as erroneously listed in the parentheses. Go to the list and do a search, there is not a single KLA leader on it. Confusing the KLA and NLA is a common error since the Albanian acronym of UCK is used by both groups. K for the UCK in Macedonia stands for Kombetar--meaning National in Albanian. K for the UCK in Kosovo stands for Kosovo.

[mark502inf]

Amateur hour is over

I suspect only temporarily.

[duckln]

Not False dichotomy at all. Clark actually said that. Other Democrats running for president are also against the war in Iraq claiming that Homeland Security and the war on terrorism should be first. Putin's on the same bandwagon, yesterday saying we don't belong in Iraq but they support us on the war on terrorism.

Putting Slobo behind bars is a positive step forward Rewarding the Islamist terrorists with defacto title to Bosnia and Kosovo was a step back. As will be rewarding them with a Palestinian state.

was the military commander of U.S. European Command. He did not have responsibility for Iraq NATO, the US and Britain, was keeping Iraq in a box. If it wasn't Clark, then who? There were Muhajeen, imported from Afghanistan to fight the Serbs, who were trained and reported to Asama. They are still in the Balkans.

Britain, Russia, including Serbia are what we need to help contain Islamists. Supporting Osama recruited Islamists against Russia and now Serbia, is a Foreign Policy plunder.

Why didn't we side with Serbia? Watching the 'tribunal' I don't see where Milosevic was anything but a 'fuzz' ball' in what went on in Bosnia who did the best he could to protect Kosovo from Islamists anarchists.

[faithincowboys]

I'm not denying his crimes-- I have said repeatedly that I wish he would be executed. I don't mitigate his crimes, I am sickened by them and think the trial has obscured his crimes.

My beef relates to Clark and the Euro-Leftists who are elevating him. Can you please acknowledge that Clark's present political philosophy and exploits in the Balkans eliminate him from being a useful witness against Slobo?

Answer this directly, had Clark's Iraq doctrine prevailed in the Balkans, would Slobodan be at the Hague?

If you answered my queries honestly, there is only one honest judgement. He should not have testified. He is a disgrace and a morally blind self promoter. I say "Death to Slobo and political Death to Clark." You should feel the same way!

Would you have had Joe Kennedy or Charles Lindbergh testify at Nuremberg?

[faithincowboys]

Are you aware of Clark's recent comment that he told President Clinton that the threats to the US emanated from the Balkans and not the Mideast. Talk about being clueless.

Serbian militarism posed zero threat to US national security. Our friends in Old Europe should have tended to their own backyard, especially given their obstruction of us in Iraq.

The threat to this country emanates from the Middle East. Any thinking person who suggests (suggested) otherwise is not fit to be President of a college fraternity let alone the leader of the Free World.

[Hostage]

I think Clinton was within bounds of the War Powers Act but that he abused his priviledge.

The War Powers Act was passed post-Vietnam/Nixon to impede a long-term military campaign without Congressional Approval. Basically the President has 60 days to justify continuation of a military action. The President needs this discretion because Congress realizes that as a legislative body, it is too slow to act in matters that require decision in possibly seconds.

What I recall happening was there were several press releases and reports, CNN included (Clinton's friend Rick Kaplan was in charge of CNN's reporting), there reports of genocide and ethnic cleansing of Kosovo Albanians by Yugoslavian Serbs. This caught the U.S. Congress by surprise, with no ability to immediately verify the facts on the ground. But the impression given was of hundreds of thousands of Kosovo Albanians being systematically tortured, raped and executed, buried in mass graves. It was made to appear absolutely imperative that something be done without hesitation. Anyone in Congress that was compelled to object would be made to be seen as insensitive to the plight of those persecuted by this Yugoslavian 'Hitler'. That was the way it was portrayed in the early weeks of the Kosovo campaign.

As it became clearer that the facts of ethnic cleansing, Racak, and others may have been exaggerated, that the Kosovo action by the Clinton Adminstration was a distraction from Clinton's legal problems, and other such impressions regarding press bias, for example the credibility of such CNN reporters as Christine Amanpour, the Congress and the American people began to wake up to the notion that they had been lied to. Senators and House Reps, espacially Tom Campbell R-Calif. began introducing resolutions to defund the U.S. Kosovo action. When the Clinton people saw this they appear to have made a decision to bomb Belgrade, including civilian targets that they claim as collateral damage. It is believed that this was a message sent to Milosevic that innocents would suffer unless he ordered withdrawal from Kosovo.

We recall that Yeltsin was furious that nothing could be done short of a nuclear exchange between Russia and the USA. It is believed that Milosevic conferred with Yeltsin and agreed that there no other options that were manageable, so the order was given to withdraw. At that time, the U.S. military press, CNN and others had touted the destruction of the Yugo Army in Kosovo, but Americans saw their withdrawal from Kosovo and they were intact. This added further doubts of press complicity in exaggeration. Fox News was only two years old at the time and was fighting Ted Turner to get carried on cable for the New York market.

The resolutions to defund Kosovo came at the deadline established by the War Powers Act. There were many pundits at the time that also discounted the authority of the WPA, saying it was never paid attention to and should have no weight under the present circumstances. But we recall that Congress did move to cut off funding but that it was moot at the time because just days before the Belgrade bombing forced a withdrawal.

Our sources in Yugoslavia and Croatia confirm that Milosevic was a murderer of not only KLA terrorists but also of his own political opposition. He appears to have acted as a Serb nationalist, polarizing the many etnic groups with Yugoslvia. However, we believe his actions did not warrant U.S. intervention on the pretext of ethnic cleansing on the scale of a 'Hitler' as reported. That is what the ICTY is charged with finding and so far reports are that they are not doing well, hence the rise in popularity of Milosevic in Yugoslavia. He was more accurately depicted in non mainstream press outlets as "a tough guy in a tough neighborhood". His actions, although criminal, would appear to be no more severe than those of Fidel Castro and other despots. His actions may have been more aptly tried in his home country. So the credibility of the ICTY seems to be at stake.

The difference between U.S. military reponse in Kosovo and in Iraq lies in the subtle distinction of attacking a nation that historically has been an ally of the U.S. to one that has engaged the U.S. in combat and has violated numerous sanctions of a cease fire agreement. Also the Americans are out for blood in the Arab world to send a message post-9/11 that there will be consequences.

We believe that part of the intransigence over Iraq of the 'Axis of weasels', Germany-France-Russia is partly due to the loss of credibility suffered by the U.S. in Kosovo. Clinton, his recklessness, his lies and personal problems, the lack of an objective press, all these things were highlighted in the European press. When the mass graves of hundreds of thousands of Kosovo Albanians failed to materialize, the Euros took a new view of the U.S. and it was one of doubt, or some doubts.

So the Iraq compaign must succeed not only as a compaign against a source of terror, it must also succeed in reestablishing the reputation and trust that America has with some of its major allies. Reports are that the Europeans are starting to come around about Iraq, but the legacy of Clinton and Kosovo leaves them cross-eyed.

As Americans we are relearning an age-old lesson, that it is difficult to establish a good reputation and so very very easy to lose it. It is of crucial importance to the American future that its President be above approach, respected and admired for moral leadership.

[Destro]

A vote was called for authorization and it FAILED. War powers becomes moot after that.

[Hoplite]

Clark's present political philosophy and exploits do not have any bearing upon his testimony - they speak to his (lack of) suitability for the office of President, not to what transpired in the Balkans in the 1990's.

His testimony isn't about what he would have done in regards to Iraq, it was about what he actually did do and see, so his position on Iraq and all the pollster driven hypotheticals therein are immaterial to the evidence he gave at Milosevic's trial.

Look, I'm not the person you're looking for - you need to find someone with a "Clark 2004" bumper sticker and vent your spleen upon them - just do yourself a favor and make sure they're smaller than you.

[faithincowboys]

Don't reply to me if the discourse is beneath you. I find you profoundly condescending.

It is an objective truth that Clark didn't need to be called. Dick Holbrooke is the guy that should be called and the prosecution's resistance to do so suggests some vulnerabilities in the case.

[mark502inf]

Keep up the fire, Hoplite and have a Merry Christmas!

-Mark

[dfwgator]

As far as Slobo and Clark, a pox on both their houses.

[Hoplite]

You're not looking for discourse - you're looking for someone to rubber stamp your views and agree with your version of "objective truth".

I don't agree with you, and I have stipulated the reasons why. If you find that profoundly condescending, then here's some more condescention for you - grow up.

[Hoplite]

Red and green tracers - it's so festive.

Merry Christmas back at ya!