That Clinton would consider an obvious question asking why he didn't go after bin Laden 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 the Kosovo province of Serbia, 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, President of Pakistan, 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 Moslem 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."

MI-6's involvement, meanwhile, is more than just "believed" or "said" to have taken place, and Sheikh wasn't the only one the Brits recruited to wage a terror campaign in Yugoslavia. See this Fox News video/transcript from Dayside just three weeks after London got a taste of what it (and we) gave Belgrade.

As the UK Guardian reported late last year, "Britain now faces its own blowback: Intelligence interests may thwart the July bombings investigation."

It is significant that in Musharraf's book Daniel Pearl is mentioned on the same page as the Western-promoted Kosovo jihad -- as it is that Pearl's kidnapper fought in Kosovo. For it was Daniel Pearl who first brought us the following revelation about the alleged Serb "aggression": "[A]llegations -- indiscriminate mass murder, rape camps, crematoriums, mutilation of the dead -- haven't been borne out in the six months since NATO troops entered Kosovo. Ethnic-Albanian militants, humanitarian organizations, NATO, and the news media fed off each other to give genocide rumors credibility. Now, a different picture is emerging." The article was printed on the day the jihad was scheduled to come to our shores but was averted -- December 31, 1999.

In retrospect, the Serbian "aggression" Musharraf mentions appears to have been uncannily similar to the "Israeli aggression" that we hear so much about -- that is to say, a military response to provocations that are designed precisely to elicit such response, to be followed by international condemnation and, next, international intervention (which then enables the jihad to proceed unhampered, as happened in Bosnia and, with even greater success, in Kosovo).

Forward to pages 242-43 of Musharraf's book: "Before the subway operation, however, al-Qaeda ... decided not to use too many Arab hijackers, to avoid suspicion. Instead, it planned to use hardened European Moslem veterans of the Bosnian jihad ..."

Again, a Moslem leader broaching the subject that our own leaders and media have blacked out: Bosnia was likewise a jihad on whose side we fought -- against the Serbian nation, whose people saved 500 downed U.S. pilots during WWII, at their own peril.

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.

Peter Brock's new book Media Cleansing: Dirty Reporting reveals that of the 8,000 Srebrenica "dead," 5,000 were Moslem troops who fled the enclave before the Serbs took Srebrenica -- after regularly ambushing nearby Serb villages -- to join other fighting. Their families claimed they had been killed, but 3,000 have since registered to vote in elections (though some of them are no doubt among the voting dead). The 2,000 to 3,000 bodies that have been unearthed belong to people who died during all three years of fighting around Srebrenica -- not just from the time the Serbs took Srebrenica. Nor is it clear how many of the bodies are Moslem and how many are Serbian. Brock's messier version of the otherwise tidy "8,000 slaughtered" event is consistent with this easy-to-read "Srebrenica Fact Sheet," as it is with this Globe and Mail article last year by the United Nations' first peacekeeping commander in Sarajevo, retired Major General Lewis MacKenzie.

The 2,000 to 3,000 count is on par with the number of Serb civilians killed in and around Srebrenica, but no agency was tasked with counting dead Serbs and no humanity cries out for or commemorates dead Serbs. Indeed, upon being convicted of war crimes at the Hague, Srebrenica's Serb-hunter-in-chief Naser Oric was immediately released -- and got a hero's welcome home. As most Serb-killers do before pursuing political careers in the region. 

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 (Moslem) 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 indictment … 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.

"The resultant emergence of terrorist coordinating centers in the Balkans, intimately involved in the 9/11, Madrid, and London attacks, can be laid directly at the door of the editors who allowed bias to rule their coverage of the Balkan wars. We have yet to see the full consequences of the media's shameful unprofessionalism in the Balkan wars of the 1990s. Peter Brock's book should be the basis for both Congressional and independent media enquiries."