Bill Clinton's other genocide

Discussion in 'Politics' started by -Cp, Jul 27, 2005.

  1. -Cp
    Offline

    -Cp Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,911
    Thanks Received:
    360
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Earth
    Ratings:
    +363
    Bill Clinton apologized last weekend for his "personal failure" to prevent the 1994 slaughter of 800,000 mostly Christian members of the Tutsi tribe in Rwanda.

    It was certainly appropriate – if a little late.

    But there was another genocide that took place during Clinton's watch that occurred not because of his inaction, but because of his deliberate, criminal and immoral military actions.

    Let me tell you the little-known story.

    In 1997, Osama bin Laden visited Albania to help establish the Kosovo Liberation Army. He provided between $500 million to $700 million and – according to an upcoming book by Paul L. Williams, "The Al Qaeda Connection" – 500 seasoned Arab Afghan troops to train KLA recruits at the al-Qaida headquarters in Albania and at another camp in Macedonia.

    Understand the KLA was, from its creation by bin Laden, a jihadist terrorist group.

    Here's how Williams tells the story from here:


    At this point in the twisted history of Kosovo, the CIA and the Clinton administration began to view the KLA as an army of 'freedom fighters' and offered aid in the form of military training and field advice. The United States, unbeknown to the American people, was now in league with a group that contained enemies who were intent upon its destruction. They were generally not the innocent people who had been targeted and attacked by the Serbs.


    A year later, with help from both al-Qaida and the United States, the KLA had an army of 30,000 with sophisticated weaponry, including anti-tank rocket launchers, mortars, recoilless rifles and anti-aircraft machine guns. Naturally, they began to use them – conducting hit-and-run attacks on Serbian special-forces police units.

    Slobodan Milosevic, the president of Serbia, responded by burning homes and killing dozens of ethnic Albanians. Soon, there was a little war raging – "culminating," Williams writes, "in the infamous 'Racak Massacre' of Jan. 15, 1999, when the bodies of 45 Albanians were discovered in a gully within the village of Racak."

    Milosevic insisted the bodies had been placed there by the KLA to implicate the Serbs and justify Western intervention. In fact, European papers found his claim was supported by the unnatural position of the bodies, the absence of cartridge shells and the inability of Racak villagers to identify the bodies.

    But, this time, Clinton wasn't going to sit on the sidelines and watch a genocide take place as he had done in Rwanda. On the basis of this "evidence" and amid international outcries of ethnic cleansing, the United States and its European allies became militarily involved – not as "peacemakers," mind you, but as partisans in an ethnic and religious conflict initiated by al-Qaida.

    At a cost exceeding $4 billion, NATO forces soon reduced Kosovo to rubble, flying 37,465 missions, destroying 400 Serbian artillery positions, 270 armored personnel carriers, 150 tanks, 100 planes, killing 10,000 Serbian soldiers and causing 1.4 million Kosovars to flee for their lives. Williams calls it "the greatest mass migration since World War II."

    Milosevic surrendered and NATO placed a force of 1,700 police officers on the ground to restore order.

    But those forces did little to restrain the "victorious" KLA. Over 200 churches were burned – including monasteries dating back to the 13th century. There were uninvestigated reports of mass executions of Serbian farmers, the murders of scores of priests.

    "Of the 40,000 Serbs who lived in Kosovo before the war, only 400 were left within a month after Kosovo became a U.N. protectorate," writes Williams.

    Soon, hundreds of Wahhabi mosques and schools were built.

    "Kosovo, with a Muslim population of 1.8 million now stood as an Islamic bulwark in the midst of the Balkans," Williams writes.

    And an even more strategic objective was won by bin Laden. He now had his European connection for the international drug-running operation that would subsidize his future terrorist attacks – including Sept. 11, 2001.

    http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45446
     
  2. Gabriella84
    Offline

    Gabriella84 Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    It will be a mighty boring day when Republicans run out of things to blame on Clinton. :bang3:
     
  3. Gem
    Offline

    Gem BANNED

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2004
    Messages:
    2,080
    Thanks Received:
    782
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +782
    Yes, because if Bush had handled Kosovo the way Clinton did the Democrats would be singing his praises.

    Come on, Gabby, you can like Clinton for a number of reasons...but the way he handed Kosovo, Somalia, and the terrorist attacks that occurred during his presidency CAN'T be some of those reasons.
     
  4. Gabriella84
    Offline

    Gabriella84 Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    I actually can't find many reasons to like Clinton. But the truth is, Clinton has been out of office for FIVE YEARS. And people are STILL bashing him and blaming stuff on him.
    At the same time, you can't blame anything on Reagan, since he is on the fast track to political sainthood. Reagan was a bad president. Clinton was a bad president. The difference is, Reagan is dead and Clinton is not.

    It's just too easy to pick on Clinton. Just like it is easy to pick on Nixon. The most bogus defense of any Bush wrong doing is "hey! Clinton did the same thing!" The same people say "one sin is not greater than another."

    Clinton is laughing at every attempt to smear him. He seriously is. He makes a killing on personal appearances. "Yeah, I did all that stuff. Buy my book and read about it!" He's laughing all the way to the bank.
     
  5. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    hey, I can make good fun of LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, what do you all want?
     
  6. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    BTW they are not all equally bad or good.
     
  7. Gabriella84
    Offline

    Gabriella84 Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    I personally think Clinton had a Kennedy Complex. Only Marilyn Monroe was dead and Madonna wouldn't return his phone calls. Monica and Gennifer were the best he could do. :eek:
     
  8. Gem
    Offline

    Gem BANNED

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2004
    Messages:
    2,080
    Thanks Received:
    782
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +782
    The reason irrational people are still talking about Clinton is because he is an easy target for their ire.

    The reason rational people are still talking about Clinton is because many of the mistakes he made while in office FIVE YEARS AGO still resonate strongly today. His decision to leave Osama bin Laden when he had several opportunities to arrest him is just one example.

    To state that a President's legacy no longer matters because he has left office is short-sighted. George Bush's decision not to go into Baghdad and remove Saddam Hussein from power during the first Gulf War (thanks UN for forcing that decision) was absolutely disasterous...leading to the massacre thousands of Iraqis who had aided and assisted us and the notion that supporting the United States when we say we are going to help you overthrow your terroristic dictator of a leader is dangerous because we have a tendancy to cut and run leaving you for dead...a belief that has certainly hurt us in Iraq under this administration....and the first Bush presidency was well over TEN YEARS AGO!!! ANCIENT HISTORY!!!

    I understand completely, that pointless Clinton bashing is tiresome and overdone...but to look critically at what past Presidents have done (or not done) and how it has effected us and put us where we are today is not neccessarily meaningless bashing, but rather a critical look at what mistakes (or good decisions) we have made in the past.

    The fact that Clinton is the predominantly mentioned figure is simply because many of the Democrats who are clamoring to bash Bush's decisions were lining up to sing Clinton's decisions...many of which were disasterous.
     
  9. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770

    Bottom line, Clinton's dalliances made for a more dangerous world. Whether one is speaking of WOT or China or Supreme Court filabusters.
     
  10. Stephanie
    Offline

    Stephanie Diamond Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2004
    Messages:
    70,236
    Thanks Received:
    10,818
    Trophy Points:
    2,040
    Ratings:
    +27,361
    Was a total waste, as a president, he did nothing for our country, that wasn'st already started on tract by Reagan, and he got a free ride. His legacy will be Monica and BJs, in the oval office. And just what do you know about Reagan, you must off been 10yr old when he was elected to office????? Oh thats right it's what was told to you........... As far as Billy clinton , he's the one who keeps seeking the spotlight so he's fair game as far as I'm concerned, he thinks he's someone special, he can't just go off into the sunset like a good retired president, Just like Jimmy carter, he still cant get over the fact that he was a worthless president, yet he has done some good,with habitat for humanity, but clinton has done nada, nothing, zip... And your cloating over the fact that he is making zillions and laughting at all the people he served, what the hell does that say about him and you for that matter.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1

Share This Page