May 26, 1999
President Clinton has had several good opportunities to stop his
Yugoslav war: Jesse Jackson's successful mission to bring home our
POWs, the embarrassing bombing of the Chinese embassy, and Milosevic's
feeble overtures about withdrawal of his troops. But it looks like
Clinton wants to keep the war going even though it hasn't accomplished
any of his stated objectives.
Why? It's hard to avoid the conclusion that he wants to continue
the bombing in order to distract attention from the daily China
scandals. Another explanation might be that he wants the drama of war
to define his legacy rather than impeachment and Monicagate.
After all, he complained at the White House Correspondents dinner
that he ranked only 53rd on the list of the top news stories, asking,
"What do I have to do to make the top 50?" The answer is, start a war.
Clinton bombed a remote camp in Afghanistan and a drug store in
the Sudan just three days after his non-apology about the Monica
scandal was such a PR flop. He bombed Iraq the day before the House
was scheduled to begin impeachment proceedings.
Was it mere coincidence that Clinton started bombing Yugoslavia
just as the bad publicity started coming out about the Chinese
espionage at Los Alamos, and keeps the bombs falling as every day's
news confirms that it happened on Clinton's watch? When you add
Bulgaria, mistakenly bombed during his attacks on Belgrade, Clinton has
bombed five countries in the last year.
By using anti-population "dumb" bombs for "area bombing," Clinton
has abandoned all pretense that his accelerating air strikes are aimed
only at military targets. His Administration has already had to
apologize 13 times for what he calls "collateral damage," including the
bombing of a refugee convoy, a bus on a bridge, a marketplace, a
hospital, a playground, a passenger train, and a sleeping refugee
Yugoslavia claims that the U.S./NATO bombing has killed 1,200
civilians and caused 5,000 casualties. Soon, we will be asking the
question: Since the bombing started, who has killed more people,
Milosevic or Clinton?
It's not surprising that the Chinese don't believe that the
bombing of their embassy in Belgrade was a mistake. They think that
blaming it on a two-year old map doesn't ring true and, besides, nobody
has been fired or punished.
This fatal and expensive bombing hasn't achieved any purpose
except to distract public attention from the transfers of U.S. missile
technology to Communist China and the Clinton Administration's coverup.
It's also made Milosevic a Yugoslav hero.
Clinton and NATO have done over $50 billion worth of damage to
Yugoslavia without achieving any strategic or humanitarian objective.
Of course, we all know exactly who will be called upon to rebuild the
Danube River bridges, the civilian property, and the water and electric
infrastructure that Clinton's bombing has destroyed.
When the 106th Congress convened in January and Republicans were
talking about passing a tax cut, Clinton got up on his soap box and
sanctimoniously demanded that we save the surplus for Social Security.
He rejected a tax cut because, he said, the American people might not
spend it "right."
Now Clinton has spent our Social Security surplus on his losing
war. And the Republican Congress appropriated the money to pay for it.
For the first time in history, the United States is the aggressor
in war, thereby forfeiting our reputation as a peace-loving nation.
For the first time in history, a President has taken us into war when
we were not attacked or threatened, and where we have no discernable
national interest at stake.
Clinton's talk about our "moral" duty to take "humanitarian"
action is as phony as his lies about his private misbehavior. All the
people he said he wanted to help are now worse off than before his
bombing started, and the State Department admits that 90 percent of the
refugees became refugees after the bombing started.
Clinton says we must push on with the bombing in order to save
NATO's credibility. On the contrary, Clinton's war is well on the way
to destroying NATO's credibility because the bombing of Yugoslavia is
so clearly in violation of the terms of the NATO treaty.
The officials of the 19 countries who caroused in Washington, D.C.
in celebration of NATO's 50th anniversary adopted a "new strategic
concept" that pretends to authorize intervening by force against any
government they don't like (of course, using U.S. money and manpower,
not NATO's). But none of the heads of state, including Clinton,
bothered to get approval for this dramatic change of mission from his
The NATO countries think it's a neat idea to have a Spanish
Marxist, Javier Solana, order the U.S. air force into action to cope
with European conflicts. Clinton Administration officials, who are on
record as making demeaning remarks about the concept of national
sovereignty, also think it's a neat idea for a U.S.-financed NATO to
police a new world order.
How much more damage will Clinton do before the 2000 elections
bring the warmongering politicians back to reality?