US fabricated evidence in Yugoslavia, says former official

Unknown News ^ | February 6, 2003 | Frank in Stockholm

[mark502inf]

Kosta, sometimes things are exactly what they appear to be. Not everything is a conspiracy. Look at history using primary sources and in the context of the times. Contemporary newspaper articles, letters, diaries, and official documents all support what I wrote about the Spanish-American War. Your counter-point is based on a quote and events that occurred decades later, or, in the case of America's "manifest destiny", you are wildly off-target in citing that as a motivator to "rule sovereign over the hemisphere, and now the world"--manifest destiny referred primarily to coast-to-coast expansion in the 19th century. I have never read or heard any American in my lifetime state that it was our "destiny", manifest or "providential" or otherwise to rule over either the hemisphere or the world. And the facts belie your characterization of the the USA as imperialist. America is far and away the biggest military and economic power in the world--you'd think we'd at least have taken some hemispheric low-hanging fruit; e.g. Panama--control the canal & collect some fees--whoops, we've given that away twice recently. Grenada--had that in 1983--tropical paradise and could of locked up the world's nutmeg supply--gave it back. Maybe Venezuela? Chavez is already hated by most of his people, the Army is small, and they have lots of oil much closer than Iraq. Haiti & the Dom Rep? Easy take-downs and jeez, we used to be there, but now we're gone--how could that be? And Cuba, heck, we were all over that one for a while, too; and now Castro does his best to poke his finger in our eye every chance he gets, but he's still in charge--and we haven't even covered all the places in Europe & the Pacific we once controlled and have left on our own--mostly with them much better off than before we arrived. Let's face it, Kosta, the USA is just plain absolutely incompetent when it comes to "imperialism"! Or perhaps, just try and consider these thoughts a little--as shattering as it might be to your world-view. The USA is not imperialist. The USA is primarily a force for good in the world. No other country in the world has brought freedom and prosperity to so many people or done so much to defeat oppressive regimes.

Now Kosta, having said all that, the USA is not perfect (Mex-Amer War, Kosovo, Amer-Indians, etc), but it is a long, long way from where you put it.

[kosta50]

Mark, I don't have a problem with a superpower exerting its might over the world, it's the way we lie about it that is wrong. Why can't we just tell the truth?

Manifest Destiny was a state of mind. Its original coast-to-coast vision later morphed, perhaps under a different name, different doctrine, all the way up to the present day. Mad Albright's "indispensable nation" -- the one the world cannot do without is an extension of the same belief. Faith-based politics and biblical undertones are indeed "providential," just as the original one was.

I have heard about our alleged "ineptness" at being colonizers. Even a man I respect a lot, Pat Buchanan, seems to think so. But, we were colonizers. Just ask the Filipinos. Taking the Philipines from Spain was easy. Taking it from the Filipinos was not. After much bloodshed, we prevailed. Whatever our motives were, please don't tell me we colonized the Philipines to "liberate" the Filipinos.

There is nothing inept about our military taking high ground on its terms. The American people, not our government, are inept at being good colonizers. We have compassion for the needy and the weak. We are also very generous. I remember in Bosnia the Task Force Eagle issued orders to shoot stray dogs, and the American military refused. Many of them took care of the pups, often using their own antibiotic creams to heal their wounds. The locals tried to tell everyone the dogs were "viscious." The dogs knew better!

Imperialism is a policy. Its about government, and not American people. Imperialism is being above international law. Imperialism is doing what I please, when I please and how I please and not be accountable to anyone. Only empires behave like that, but we don't want to face that truth. We see ourselves as compassionate people who could not possibly be imperialists. So, we always need a "just cause" to do what we really don't like to do. And the government and its presstitutes provide us with noble lies, something both are very good at.

No politicians will get your support if he says "Go fight for my oil!" or "Your taxes are going up, suck it up!" Politicians have to tell lies to get elected. It comes with a job, and I don't trust liars. Only fools do.

[mark502inf]

Kosta, again--the facts on the ground belie your accusations of imperialism. Where is the empire? You use the Philippines as an example, but it proves the opposite--within a few years after our arrival, the fighting was over (except for the Moros--whose goal was Islamic separatism, not anti-imperialist revolution) and soon afterward the Philippines had their own legislature and substantial self-government with a date set for complete independence--and that date was met.
As you said, imperialism is a policy--the essence of which is the expansion of a nation's dominion. What kind of imperial power releases possessions, withdraws from areas and countries where it has had military dominance, and does not take advantage of its overwhelming power to conquer or annex much weaker states right on its door-step? Objectively, USA behavior is simply not consistent with a policy of imperialism.

Nice comments about the American people; however, I believe our government is closer to a reflection of our people's traits than, apparently, you do.

[bob808]

Let's not forget William Randolph Hearst's famous quote prior to the Spanish American War - "You furnish me the pictures and I'll furnish you the war!"

Sadly, the modern day equivalent of that might have been "You furnish me the WMD's, and I'll furnish you the war!"

Except that so far we haven't those yet either.

:)

[kosta50]

No, but they were -- to quote one "shining" example -- something the Beltway boys could bureaucratically agree as the core reason for war.

If politicians are more like an average person, that is either an insult to the people or a scary reminder how rotten people are. I will choose the former.

One does not climb to the top of a pyramid of power by being a "nice guy."

[mark502inf]

Good discussion, although we've been wandering pretty far away from the Balkans topic. On the Iraqi WMD, the choices for where they are:
1. Destroyed by Iraq.
2. Still hidden in Iraq.
3. Hidden in another country (Syria? Libya? ????)
4. In the hands of criminals, terrorists or Hussein regime fugitives.
5. A combination of some or all of 1-4 above.

I tend to go with choice 5. And that is scary--there is no doubt that Al Qaeda will use whatever they can get; having some of that stuff loose means it is just a matter of time before it falls into the hands of people who will use it against us. Which is, BTW, another reason why we should have had more troops on the ground in the invasion of Iraq. We had insufficient ground forces to both defeat the Iraqi military and then occupy the entire country swiftly enough to forestall the WMD growing legs.

[kosta50]

So far we went to most likely places and found nothing. A huge political scnadal is brewing and something must be done. Do you think that desperate politicians could plant "evidence?" After all, who's chekcing what is being brought in and out of Iraq?

The target list provided to our pilots by the CIA of alleged WMD sites was characterized as "rubbish" by one official -- the target list included targets bombed in Gulf War I.

The British (who else!) alleged that Iraq could get nuclear weapons ready in a matter of months and had WMDs ready to be launched withing 45 minutes.

Do you honestly think the Iraqis could move huge quantities of weapons, stockpiles that were an "imminent" and present danger to US and "Friends" (is that a take on "Fox and Motards?"), especially with the bogus Al-Qaida links, under the watchful eyes of our Predators, USMC RC weee planes, satellites and "humint" source and for us to see absolutely nothing?

In the first stages of war, we hit a bus going to Syria -- full of civilians, thinking it may have something to do with...WMDs, of course, or Saddam and his lot. Bad intel. Ooops! Collateral damage. We thought it was ... military stuff, you know. In other words, our $30 billion dollar intel was relying on hearsay from its human "sources" who are willing to tell you anything for a buck. Now I am beginning to believe that during the Kosovo war CIA could not afford updated maps of Belgrade before hitting the Chinese Embassy with a B2 sent all the way form the US just for that purpose, and of course there was not a single Serb willing for a few dollars to walk past the object to verify it for us -- "humint" you know.

The mystery question of the day that remains shoved under the rug is: who was the "military source" that told the media that Pfc Jessica Lynch was shot a couple of times and stabbed while killing of Iraqis?

We will probably never know for the same reason we never learned the identity of the stealth bomber pilot shot down over Srem (Serbia) in 1999 -- the first grudgingly acknowleged but initially heavily denied dowing of a stealth plane. He sure was treated differently from AF Capt. O'Gready shot over Bosnia in 1995, who became an instant celebrity.

As for WMDs we will "find" them, regardless what has to be done to "find" them. Heck, we need to do anything to save face. Just ask Robert McNamara. He will tell you in his memoirs that he knew we would lose Vietnam, but saving face was worth 59,000 American lives -- not to talk of a hundredto two hundred fold Vietnamese losses. Hey, he is a politician -- and politicians are just like the rest of us common people, except they have some uncommon powers they like to (ab)use.

There are a lot of questions, aren't they? And they all revolve around -- who's fabricating and falsifying and why?.

[bob808]

Well, I think you need take #1 off your list.

If they were destroyed (assuming they existed in the first place), then technically he fulfilled the terms of the UN Resolution and could have saved his bacon simply by showing inspectors.

If you're thinking they were destroyed after the war (again, assuming they existed in the first place), why didn't he use them? Why would Saddam let himself and his regime perish protecting weapons he did not intend to use?

#2 and #3 are still a possibility.

It would be terribly ironic, however, if it was #4 and the war that was about saving us from WMD's actually sent them to terrorists' hands.

[mark502inf]

I think it highly likely at least some chem weapons were destroyed as war became imminent or soon after it began. Put yourself in the shoes of the Iraqis in charge of those stocks--the best thing for you personally is to make that stuff disappear! And, if you recall, there were reports of traces of mustard agent found in the Euphrates--dumping it in the biggest river around makes sense to me! (Bob--it is not an assumption that they had the stuff; the UN inspectors had seen it, the Iraqis admitted it, and even Al Gore and the French said they had it). The question is not whether or not they had WMD, but what happened to it?

Kosta, you give our surveillance capability too much credit--first, we don't have enuf to even cover all of Iraq with actionable levels of resolution. Then when you add in the competing demands in Afghanistan, supporting the search for our downed airmen in Colombia, trying to identify Abu Sayef boat traffic in the Philippines, etc, etc; that leaves even less for Iraq.
-second, darkness, rain, cloud cover, & sandstorms all degrade our surveillance capability.
-third, Iraq has played this game for years & knows our capabilities very well: we can't see through roofs or trees or underground or even through the canvas tops of cargo trucks. There is a lot of normal military and civilian traffic and activity that can be used to disguise WMD movement. Again, put yourself in the shoes of an Iraqi who has been told to surreptitiously move some WMD--you could easily figure out a way to do it & so could they.

Bob, I don't know why Hussein did not use what he had while we were building up and concentrated in Kuwait--at that time we were a large, stationary target. One theory is that he had moved the stuff out of the country and/or hidden it very well with the expectation that the UN/international community would prevail on the USA/UK not to invade and all he had to do was to wait out the next round of weapons inspectors. Then when the invasion came, he wasn't ready. Who knows for sure? Time will tell.

It wouldn't just be ironic, but tragic if some Iraqi bugs & gas is floating around in the hands of international terrorists/criminals because Rumsfeld, in his arrogance and hubris, did not allow the operational commander sufficient troops to quickly and adequately secure the country. There are STILL some places in Iraq where no American troops have gone, much less searched or established positive control.

[kosta50]

Your points are valid, Mark. However, without any solid Hussein-Al Qaeda connection, the urgency was lacking. Remember, we couldn't wait for Hanx Blix and his team to finish the search. But now, Tony Bliar is asking us to be "patient."

A lot of things were also exaggerated. Take for instance the Iraqi deadly "drone" -- an RC plane. One single toy plane! Or the one hundred or so missles that had a 15-mile longer range than allowed -- hardly a WMD threatening us, or something the terrorist could use against us, and so on. The question that remains unanswered: what was the sudden urgency? Was it Dick Channey's assertion almost a year ago that there is "no doubt" that "Hussein has weapons of mass destruction?" And we believe him because hes says so? Or is it because of Tony Blair's government made-up fairytales and a 45-minute ready-to-fire lie?

The plan to invade Iraq, Syria and Iran were made in tghe middle 1990s by the people who call themselves the "Cabal." From a geostrategic point of view, I would recommend that we control the earth's richest oil reserves as well. That's just like the gestrategic proposal that was circulating and influencing American policy before the Spanish war -- that called for US to take the Caribbean islands, Hawaii and the Philipies before the war was even close. Things don't just happen, Mark. Foreign policy is "shaped" with determined goals and outcomes.

Knowing to what lengths will the government go to "save face" I am skeptical as heck that we are being told the whole truth.

[wonders]

Ref your post #24 and #38: Good posts. My thoughts and sentiments exactly.

Ref the article: Pellnas must have been before my time, as he didn't hold that position when I was there. Do you know the dates of his term, by chance? (Pinging Wraith in case Pellnas was there during his tenure in UNPA West)

They placed 18 members of my family in a Serbian church in Krajina during WW2 and burned the church to the ground killing all of them. Glina? Where ever it was, I am so sorry.

[getoffmylawn]

Glina?

They lived in Petrovo Selo, Lika. Thank you. I suppose I should be pretty happy that my great-grandmother made it to America between the wars. As far as I know, she's the only one from my mom's side of the family to survive the Holocaust.

[chichipow]

"The plan to invade Iraq, Syria and Iran were made in tghe middle 1990s by the people who call themselves the "Cabal." From a geostrategic point of view, I would recommend that we control the earth's richest oil reserves as well. That's just like the gestrategic proposal that was circulating and influencing American policy before the Spanish war -- that called for US to take the Caribbean islands, Hawaii and the Philipies before the war was even close. Things don't just happen, Mark. Foreign policy is "shaped" with determined goals and outcomes. "

Link please? I hope it isn't the one about the caspian sea pipeline myth. Would like to know about this 'cabal' too. Thanks.

[uplandgame]

This might help ....

The story of how neoconservatives (“Cabal”(?)) took over Washington and steered the U.S. into a Middle Eastern war unrelated to any plausible threat to the U.S., is here.

President Bush seems genuinely to believe that there was an imminent threat to the U.S. from Saddam Hussein's "weapons of mass destruction," something the leading neocons say in public but are far too intelligent to believe themselves. The Project for the New American Century urged an invasion of Iraq throughout the Clinton years, for reasons that had nothing to do with possible links between Saddam and Osama bin Laden.

Whatever you make out of this, it’s an interesting read, isn’t it?

[Guillermo]

Well, we all know that Clinton, COhen and Albright lied, so they could commence a 79 day campaign of terror against Serbia.

Were were all the "mass graves?"

Remember how they were shouting that Milozevic had filled up a stadium with male Kosovars, then slaughtered them? 100,000 of them at once?

I wonder why the media totally ignored the fact that all of their justifications for that terror campaign were ALL lies.

[kosta50]

From the source: 1890U.S. foreign policy is influenced by Alfred T. Mahan who wrote The Influence of Sea Power upon history, 1600-1783, which advocated the taking of the Caribbean Islands, Hawaii, and the Philippine Islands for bases to protect U.S. commerce, the building of a canal to enable fleet movement from ocean to ocean and the building of the Great White fleet of steam-driven armor plated battleships.

[kosta50]

The "Cabal" is the name the neocons gave themselves. Formerly Troskyite leftists turned conservative right wings, their character has not changed. Most of them were students and admirers of Leon Strauss, hence their nickname "leo-cons." Apparently, most of America doesn't know about this group of people mostly associated with the Defense Department. How could they?! Most of America watches the heavily "edited" news networks, some of which (Fox) can be considered government mouthpieces.

[CyberAnt]

I was wondering why the dems were so hot and heavy about claiming Bush had "fabricated" information. This is what they always do. It's called a pre-emptive strike agains negative info being released about x42. They have been doing this for years.

This is just par for the course. The dems knew this was going to come out - because x42 claimed there were 100,000 graves of muslims who had been killed - the UN only found 2,200. As usual, the media has ignored the story and has since turned their attention to blaming Bush for "fabricating" the intel to go to war with Iraq.

Just more of the dem's "everybody does it". Amazing!!!

[chichipow]

I appreciate both your reply and kostas.

I don't have any knowledge of neo conservatism. Any other pertinent links or articles that you could recommend?