Vindicating the Serbian People: An 'Aerial' Counter-Attack

The last of Clinton’s bombs fell on Serbia over five years ago. But now, America is focused on another war, so that the media in the U.S. can treat Clinton’s debacle in the Balkans, and its ongoing aftermath, as though they were yesterday’s news. It is easy to see why the American public has not yet come to terms with a number of vital issues connected with those events.

Where is the evidence of “ethnic cleansing” in Kosovo - and where are those “mass graves”?

Each war gets a different media “spin.” The direction of “spin” depends upon whether the media intend to help or to hurt the current administration. For several years, the U.S. media have been relentlessly harping upon the question of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, and demanding to know whether any of them have been found. We know that Iraq once had them. We know that they once used them. We know that Iraq did not side with the U.S. in the so-called “war on terrorism.” (Considering that radical factions of Islam have declared war on the U.S., it is a nonsequitor to declare war on a tactic rather than an enemy. See Rip Snortin' Van Winkle & Strange Bedfellows--Then and Now for our earlier comments.) We know that Saddam Hussein publicly offered large sums of money to the families of suicide bombers. Yet we keep encountering the same public expressions of outrage in the U.S. Many continue to ask, “Where are those weapons that were supposed to be in Iraq?”

Well, Serbia was never allied with anyone who attacked the US—never ever! Out of the blue, the Clinton-dominated media began concocting tales of “ethnic cleansing” that accused the Serbs of atrocities comparable to those of the Third Reich. As the war against the Serbian people raged on, the American public was fed a steady diet of what were purported to be “aerial photos of mass graves.” So, five years later, where are those “mass graves”?

Why won’t the current administration in the U.S. denounce Clinton’s support of bin Laden’s allies in the Balkans?

We are getting almost daily reports of the ongoing mess that has followed the Bushes’ war in Iraq. This is a valid concern. Many have pointed out the dismal failure of America’s attempt to force its own idea of “democracy” on the Iraqi people.

But where is the outrage over the mess that US foreign policy has made in Kosovo? The people that the U.S. and its NATO allies were allegedly fighting to protect were, and still are, the worst violators of minority rights on the planet.

Following my article, The Tale of Two Shquiptars, I heard from a number of individuals who claimed to be young Albanians. They all engaged in polite dialog. They all told me, in one way or another, that Islam played no role in the reasons for the conflict between their people and the Serbs in Kosovo. They also scoffed at my claims that al-Qaeda and the KLA had any connection with that war. In every other way, their stories diverged so much that they each seemed to be talking about a different conflict. Most of them asked me to set the folks at Serbianna straight.

After I referred them all to the detailed information available on Emperors Clothes at Bin Laden in the Balkans, none of them could give me a cogent reason to doubt the information presented there. Since then, we have received permission from Emperors Clothes to post the data on our website, www.tvweber.com, also, at www.tvweber.com/binLaden_KLA.htm. So why won’t the current administration in the U.S. denounce Clinton’s support of bin Laden’s allies in the Balkans?

One of the reasons for getting my book to press was that it would afford an opportunity to vindicate the Serbs. The title of the book, The Crumbling Wall Against Tyranny: a/k/a The United States Constitution, does not give the slightest suggestion that there is anything in it that would remotely relate to the Balkans. Even so, in the span of seven pages, the reader sees a clear link between Clinton’s radical Muslim allies in the Balkans and the perpetrators of the 9-11 attack upon the United States. Those tragedies exemplify what can happen when the president is permitted to flout the Constitution with impunity, and to usurp powers not granted to the Presidency under the Constitution.

Using talk radio, we now have a chance to get these messages to the Christian people in America. It is my personal “aerial attack” upon the misinformation and propaganda that bombards us all.

Hence, among the suggested questions for discussion that my publicist sends to radio talk show hosts is: “Why do you call President Clinton, ‘al Qaeda’s man in the White House?’”

With the world listening, I explain in concise, “sound bite” language that Clinton conducted a war against the Christian people of the Balkans, on behalf of bin Laden’s allies. I don’t even need to say the word “Serb.” Some listeners understand immediately; others will need to think about the message first. But a Christian audience should have no trouble getting the message.

My book is about the American system of government, how it should work, and why it no longer works so well. It roundly condemns the actions of those U.S. presidents who have—contrary to their Constitutional status—assumed the powers that allowed Clinton to launch his war against the Serbian people without interference from Congress.

Only Congress has the power to declare war, and there had been no declaration of war, yet Congress sat back and let the war continue. It is illegal for a President to do as Clinton did; yet the American people accepted it. Neither Congress nor the American people attempted to stop him.

The potential for tyranny is great when one man can single-handedly start a war and no one dare raise a hand to stop him.

The bitterness of the 2004 campaign season is one more piece of evidence that the US has lost its Constitutional moorings. Every four years, we can each offer a miniscule degree of input regarding who our next dictator will be. Except for those who have already resigned themselves to the idea of being, in effect, slaves to the government of the United State (intentionally leaving the “s” out of “States), and those who feel that the U.S. is beyond hope, citizens are in absolute horror over the outcome of each election.

With the Clinton administration long out of power, it is time for America to make amends. Both Democrats and Republicans need to take an honest look at Clinton’s failed foreign policy and assume responsibility for setting matters aright.

With the President’s new administration about to begin, there is absolutely NO excuse for retaining anyone in the federal government who still considers the Serbs to be “war criminals,” the Russians to be our “geopolitical rivals,” and the KLA and Bosnian Muslim fanatics to be our “friends.” It is not our purpose to raise the issue of the Constitutional definition of treason, which was once a capital offense rather than a prerequisite for entry into America’s self-styled elite. But it is entirely reasonable to insist that the federal government cease to employ those people in any position of public trust!

The administration needs to look for honest and capable people who are free of racist bigotry against Slavic peoples, and free of religious bigotry against Orthodox Christians. It may even be necessary to recruit candidates from sources other than the Ivy League, the University of Chicago, or the Beltway “think tanks,” which evidently have become breeding grounds for their own particular prejudices and distorted worldviews.

The Serbs have been an ally of the U.S. since there was a free Serbia in the 19th century. Isn’t it time to renounce Clinton’s failed Balkans policy, apologize to the Serbian people, and restore the lands that they have lost due to the wrongful intervention of the American military?

If not, let us remind you of the slogan, “Serbia, the land where empires die.” Who would have expected the once-mighty empire of the Ottoman Turks, the Austro-Hungarian empire of the Hapsburgs, and the formidable Nazi empire of the Third Reich, all to become extinct after picking on tiny Serbia? On what basis do the American government and people claim to be the sole exception to the principles of history and of common sense that apply to everyone else? Is America too blinded by vainglorious pride to see that it is following the same downhill path that landed its old enemies in the dustbin of history?

Far better for the US to swallow its national pride, repent of its errors, and join hands with Serbia in heartfelt cooperation—so that al-Qaeda can be the next empire to die in the Balkans rather than America’s empire.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=1144

By David Horowitz
FrontPageMagazine.com | April 28, 1998
An "investigative" piece by Murray Waas and Jonathan Broder, has ratcheted up the Clinton assault on special prosecutor Ken Starr. (Disclosure: this author has never met or spoken to Ken Starr). The Salon piece purported to reveal that the "right-wing conspiracy" (aka Richard Mellon Scaife), provided cash payments to anti-Clinton witness David Hale. The payments were made through intermediaries running his "Arkansas Project" which apparently was a project to fund investigative reports by The American Spectator into various threads of the Clinton scandals. A follow-up piece by the same reporters explained: "The nagging problem for Starr is that the same Scaife-controlled foundations that funneled money to the Arkansas Project have also contributed more than $1 million to the Pepperdine University School of Public Policy in California, where Starr will become dean after he completes his duties as independent counsel. Following the money trail of the alleged payments to Hale inevitably would lead to Pepperdine benefactor Scaife."

As I have pointed out before, the Pepperdine connection does not rise to being a tenuous thread of conspiracy. It flatly contradicts the conspiracy assumption. Richard Scaife famously underwrote journalist Chris Ruddys efforts to insinuate that Vince Foster was murdered, the very hypothesis Starrs own investigation and report shot down. Equally indigestible for the conspiracy hypothesis is the fact that if Starr had taken the Pepperdine job when and as it was offered, there would be no Starr investigation of Monica Lewinsky, Kathleen Willey, Vernon Jordan et al. If one nonetheless insists on a conspiracy explanation of these events, then the only plausible interpretation of Scaifes gift to Pepperdine would be that he wanted to buy Starr off the case because he thought Starr was not pursuing his investigation of Clinton malfeasance aggressively enough. This, indeed, was the conventional conservative wisdom before the Clintons launched their scorched earth campaign against Starr a first strike that seems to have forced him into an aggressive mode out of sheer self-defense.

Janet Reno, Clintons attorney general, has now taken up the Broder-Waas lead. But others, less obligated to Clinton, may wonder about the reliability of their story about Judge Hale. The chief sources of this story (which Hale denies) are an ex-girlfriend of one of the Arkansas project sleuths and her son. The ex-girlfriend is a psychic who claims to know where Jimmy Hoffa is buried. This doesnt mean her story is conjured, but one would have more confidence if the reporter wasnt Murray Waas, one of the conspiracy hounds who has tried unsuccessfully to persuade the journalistic fraternity and the rest of the country that Ronald Reagan and George Bush are responsible for the crack cocaine epidemic in our inner cities.

Heres a question for the editors of Salon: Where did the Broder-Waas story actually originate? Was Murray Waas in contact with the Clinton camp before they wrote the story? Did he visit the White House and get a briefing on the "Arkansas Project?" Is he on Sidney Blumenthals direct feed? Salons rival, Slate, has already reported seeing Waas, Broder, and Waass other Scaife-conspiracy writing partner, Joe Conason, at a Salon party with Blumenthal. At this festivity, Waas and Blumenthal were seen to step outside for a private consult. Its an intriguing possibility, and Im just asking.

Having asked, I guess it is now incumbent on me, in the present political atmosphere, to engage in a ritual disclaimer: I am not now and have never been a member of any right-wing conspiracy. If I had failed to swear as much, in the current atmosphere of suspicion generated by the Clinton hot-air machine, I would subject to automatic dis-creditation. I would also, in all likelihood, be the target of yet another letter from Waas cohort and Clinton apologist Joe Conason, similar to the one he sent to me after my last column:

"Unlike Horowitz, Im just a journalist, not a hired propagandist. My views are my own. I have never taken a penny from anyone resembling Richard Mellon Scaife, on the left, right or center, let alone the White House or any of its friends. But Horowitz himself dines regularly at the Scaife trough. Just for the record: Between 1994 and 1996 Horowitz's Center for the Study of Popular Culture received at least $1.75 million from the Sarah Scaife Foundation, one of the two tax-exempt entities that funded the anti-Clinton Arkansas Project.

The records for 1997 are not publicly available yet. So tell us, David, how much did Scaife give your outfit last year? How much are you getting this year, while you defend the poor, beleaguered billionaire in the pages of Salon? And how big a tip do you expect next year, in recognition of services rendered?"

This is a nice hit. Richard Scaife, who it should be noted was also (and ecumenically) a leader of the campaign to topple Richard Nixon, has been funding conservative policy projects and intellectuals for decades. Given Scaifes resources, these are not as numerous as the liberal and left-wing projects funded by Rockefeller, Ford and MacArthur, but they are considerable and would include most of the conservative intellectuals engaged in the nations debates over policy and ideas. How convenient, if ones purpose is to link and destroy by association every conservative in sight, especially if one doesnt have an actual conspiracy like a Communist Party to make the links. (Richard Scaife, it must be reiterated, has so far not been accused let alone convicted of anything more terrible than funding investigative reporting into the shadowy activities that the Clintons have spent millions of tax-payer dollars in an effort to cover up. (Just to invoke a less partisan opinion, according to Stuart Taylor, writing in the National Journal of March 21, "[there is] powerful evidence ... implicating the President of the United States in dozens of perjuries [and] efforts to obstruct justice and cover up" matters both sexual and financial. Taylor voted for Clinton.)

Conasons accusation that I am a "hired propagandist" is actionable, but unlike his friend, Sid Blumenthal, Im not a particularly litigious fellow and I think these matters should be left to the arena of public debate. Anyone who has followed my long public career or read my autobiography, Radical Son, knows at what personal cost I have arrived at my present opinions. They could probably guess, therefore, that having paid so high a price to remain faithful to what I have learned and believe, I would be a poor candidate at this late stage in life for a career as a hired gun.

It is true that, like the Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute, the Institute for Justice, and similar efforts, my Center for the Study of Popular Culture has received funding from the Scaife charities, all public, all on the record. But there is an irony even in this fact. In addition to monies that the Center receives from the Sarah Scaife Foundation, Scaifes personal fund, the Carthage Foundation, regularly gave the Center $250,000 annually prior to the launching of the Arkansas project. In 1995? that sum went to zero, as Scaife apparently directed his resources into the investigation of the Clintons. In other words, my operation lost money as a result of the campaign that Joe Conason thinks I am an enthusiastic participant in.

Personally, as I have elsewhere noted, I have met Richard Scaife the man so unjustly maligned only twice in my life, and not at all since the launching of the Arkansas adventure. I have not had one conversation with Richard Scaife or with any officer of the Sarah Scaife Foundation since the fall of last year, before the Matt Drudge suit and the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Moreover, despite my low opinion of Bill Clinton the man, I had not written a single anti-Clinton paragraph during the first six years of his presidency. It was only when my effort to provide legal help for Matt Drudge, elicited attacks on me from the Clinton camp that I was thrust unavoidably into the fray.

Heres a more hopeful irony. In the midst of this descent into the least attractive practices of the nations political past, the brightest spot for me, at least is Salons ecumenical provision of a platform from which I can write these columns and respond to these slanders.

The present political donnybrook affords us many examples of why a two-party system and a multi-vocal dialogue are essential to a democracy like ours. It was conservatives who were the original targets of the special prosecutors office and the sexual harassment laws, and who were its original critics. It was liberals, on the other hand, who were the archetypal victims of McCarthy-like witch-hunts, and accusations of guilt-by-association. Now the shoes are on the other feet. We would all do well to take a deep breath, and think twice about this, before we rush precipitously to judgment about conspirators and conspiracies.

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.