Replies

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.