|
In the much talked-about Chris Wallace-Bill Clinton interview on Fox, Clinton made several pointed insistences to Wallace that "at least I tried" to confront terror. This of course implies that the Clinton administration gave a damn in the first place. But how does one reconcile that with the fact that this man allied us with al Qaeda in the Balkans? That Clinton had a tantrum over an obvious question asking why he didn't go after bin Laden, that he would consider such an interview a "hit job," is high comedy. This diva, unused to being challenged by the media except on sexual matters, can't even appreciate that in seven years, not one interviewer has ever asked him a single question about why he allied us with al Qaeda-trained terrorists who fabricated a genocide in Kosovo, in a war of aggression against a multi-ethnic European nation that never threatened any of its neighbors, much less the United States. On page 225 of his new book "In the Line of Fire," Pervez Musharraf writes that it is believed that Omar Sheikh, the mastermind behind reporter Daniel Pearl's kidnapping, "was recruited by the British intelligence agency MI-6. It is said that MI-6 persuaded him to take an active part in demonstrations against Serbian aggression in Bosnia and even sent him to Kosovo to join the jihad." Here we have a Muslim leader admitting what our own leaders will not: that with the U.S.-led mischief in the Balkans, the West was facilitating, supporting and financing a jihad in Europe. Musharraf's statement is consistent with the 9/11 Commission's finding that the "groundwork for a true terrorist network was being laid" in 1990s Bosnia, as former Senate Republican Policy Committee analyst James Jatras described it in his testimony at the Milosevic trial in 2004. And in the Commission Report this has stayed, never to be spoken of since by any of our hard-nosed journalists of varying political stripes who dutifully "question" politicians' motivations for war. Understandably, they wouldn't want to alienate the President of Peace by bringing up not only that he didn't go after bin Laden, but that he did his bidding. For they would get more than the knee-poking that Chris Wallace got. But as early as 1997, there was a Senate Republican Policy Committee report titled "Clinton-Approved Iranian Arms Transfers Help Turn Bosnia into Militant Islamic Base." And in 2003 Gregory Copley, president of International Strategic Studies Association, wrote an analysis titled "Bosnian Official Links With Terrorism, Including 9/11, Become Increasingly Apparent as Clinton, Clark Attempt to Justify Support of Bosnian Militants." ,,, That much hyped (and ever-mutating) figure of 8,000 Bosnian-Muslim bodies in Srebrenica ensures all the immunity the former Clinton officials could hope for, by silencing any poor-taste, would-be questioners. Thanks to which Hillary Clinton -- who, despite her unofficial capacity at the time, green-lit the 1999 Kosovo war crime three days before we embarked on it -- stands a serious chance of becoming a presidential candidate and reinstating the band of war criminals from her husband's administration: Albright, Holbrooke, Clark, Berger and Cohen et al. ... Unfortunately, the Bush policy on the Balkans has been to default to the pro-terror policies of the Clinton era, while the still-powerful Clinton cronies, including Wesley Clark and Richard Holbrooke, have been very busy burying their defecation in Kosovo. To that end, Congress, the State Department and almost every last NGO remain committed to Kosovo independence by early 2007, that is to the establishment of a mono-ethnic mafia-terror state headed by indicted war criminals. All the while, the original architects of this nail in our own coffin continue to wax authoritative on talk shows, freely touting their "successful war" in which they "stopped a genocide" -- knowing the statement will go unchallenged. And it does. Though the dots remain purposefully unconnected, history, karma and consequence prove that what happens in the Balkans doesn't stay in the Balkans. Witness Madrid, London, Netanya and, as the Commission found, even 9/11. As Copley wrote of Brock's Media Cleansing: "That there were genuine initial misunderstandings on the part of the world's media with regard to the Balkan situation is clear. But the fact that the media -- on whose judgments governments made policies -- allowed itself [sic] to be duped by propagandists, and that editors then refused to recant when their errors became obvious: there lies the essence of Brock's indictmentÖ.If Watergate was the modern starting point for agenda-based reporting, then the Balkan wars showed that, unchecked, the media could, without accountability, bring about the downfall of nations. And that Wasn't Even the Tough Question, Primadonna Bill
By Julia Gorin
Jewish World Review
Oct. 4, 2006 / 12 Tishrei, 5767
|
