The election story they pulled.

URL for this article is http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/sinclair/andnow.htm
This version is printable.

The Election Story They Pulled

www.tenc.net
[Emperor's Clothes]

Commentary by Max Sinclair, followed by the story that disappeared.

It was called "Yugoslav polls fair, unfair, depending who you ask." It was a 'Reuters' dispatch. It appeared in the AOL "World News - Europe" section this afternoon (1:03 PM Eastern Standard Time, US). And it's not there now. AOL stories stay in "World News" section for at least two days. This one lasted a few hours.

Fortunately I copied the story and posted it to friends so you can read it, below. You will note that it quotes Canadian and British election observers saying that the Yugoslav vote is NOT being "stolen by Milosevich." In place of this article, AOL has posted stories dominated by the "He's-stealing-the-election" line of argument; the opposing side is presented rarely, and when it is the people quoted are Yugoslav government spokesmen, whom we have been taught not to believe.. This is consistent with the US/NATO game plan, evident for some time, to wildly inflate "democratic" opposition strength while predicting a Milosevich victory based on "stealing the vote".

We have learned that a week ago a group of Serbian-American activists were invited to meet with James O'Brien, Special Assistant to Secretary of State Albright for Balkan Affairs. He was trying to see if the Serbian-Americans would publicly attack Milosevich if the Yugoslav Presidential candidate whom most of them supported, Kostunica, lost the election. Mr. O'Brien ran into some difficulty, for the Serbian Americans wouldn't accept his assertion that the U.S. government wanted the best for the Serbs. "Then why did you bomb Yugoslavia,' they asked.

They were not cooperative. Mr. O'Brien's patience was tested. Finally, O'Brien lost it and banged his fist on the table.

As the meeting ended, one of the Serbian-Americans asked O'Brien's assistant to clarify U.S. plans. The assistant said: "If our [!] exit polls show Kostunica has won, and Milosevich claims victory, we will we will recognize Kostunica as the legitimate President and urge our European allies to do likewise."

The following story has plenty of pro-NATO misinformation, which I will comment on, but it does include some truth. Apparently that is too much truth in the New World Order. - Max Sinclair

***

Want to send this story to another AOL member? Click on the heart at the top of this window.
Yugoslav polls fair, unfair, depending who you ask

By Philippa Fletcher

"BELGRADE, Sept 24 (Reuters) - While local independent monitors reported numerous irregularities in Yugoslav elections on Sunday, a small group of international observers allowed in by Belgrade said everything seemed to be fine and democratic."

[Sinclair comments: Note how differently 'Reuters' treats the two different groups of observers. First, we are told, there are some "local independent monitors" who report "irregularities." But who are these "monitors"? Only one group is named in the article. That's the "Center for Free and Democratic Elections." or CISED.

Calling the CISED "local" and "independent" is prejudicial and absurd. CISED is funded by and works closely with US agencies. Are people trained and paid by the US government "independent"? What does "local" mean when you're a foreign agent? Clearly 'Reuters' is trying to give readers the impression that these are grass roots organizers, fighting repression, when in fact they work for the most powerful government on earth.

On the other hand, we are informed, there is a group of "international observers allowed in by Belgrade." Aside from the fact that the first group gets to be official-sounding "monitors" (though they have no official status) while the second is only "observors," the "allowed in by Belgrade" is marvelous. It simultaneously suggests dictatorial rule, with the harsh "Belgrade" instead of the more accurate "Election Commission," and paranoia, with the nervous "allowed in" rather than the more relaxed-sounding "invited." ]

[According to Reuters:] "Marko Blagojevic from the non-governmental Centre for Free Elections and Democracy (CESID) said earlier the presidential and parliamentary polls were a 'complete mess,' citing reports from activists around the country."

[Sinclair comments: Note that 'Reuters' does not identify the "Centre for Free Elections, etc." except to say it is non-governmental. But is it non-governmental? It depends on which government. The CISED is definitely not tied to the Yugoslav government. But it is very much associated with the U.S. government and its fake-private agencies, such as Freedom House and the International Republican Institute, which recently set up shop in Sofia, Bulgaria, working through a Bulgarian government front group (1) to coordinate a disinformation campaign in conjunction with the "Centre for Free Elections and Democracy." How much credence should we give this CISED, which is the agent of the U.S. which has declared loud and often that the Milosevich government will definitely "steal" the elections?]

[According to Reuters:] "He said opposition representatives on electoral commissions had been banned from some polling stations or barred from watching preparations for the vote. At one station police were called when they complained."

[The key phrase here is "opposition representatives on electoral commissions." Who , what commissions, and where, and what were they trying to do? One of the tactics used by the "democratic" local organizations set up by US agencies in other people's countries is to stage provocations. Example: you send in a member of the "Centre for Free Elections" who is not officially recognized as an election monitor and then when he is tossed out you complain that a "member of an electoral commission" has been banned.]

[According to Reuters:] "One female CESID monitor was detained by police for four hours on the eve of the poll after reporting finding what appeared to be a genuine ballot paper in her mail box with Milosevich's name ringed in advance. Police said was lying."

[Sinclair comments: Ahhhh, suspicion confirmed. Keep in mind that the CESID is NOT an electoral commission. It is the agent of a foreign power. Can you imagine what would happen if a group, calling itself "Committee for Free Elections," but paid by the Serbian government, tried to "monitor" a U.S. election? So here you have it - they send her in; she is (understandably) treated with suspicion, and the CESID has a worldwide talking point!]

[According to Reuters:] "The group of more than 200 foreign observers from 52 countries allowed in to monitor the poll after Belgrade barred Europe's leading electoral monitoring body, the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), were not impressed by her story. "

[Sinclair comments: Note how 'Reuters' has to modify every statement to give it the proper spin. The OSCE is openly hostile to Serbian sovereignty. When OLSCE monitors entered Kosovo in the fall of 1998 they used their presence on Yugoslav territory to organize and train the Kosovo Liberation Army terrorists and to map out future bombing targets. That has been admitted in the Western press. Why in the world should the Yugoslav government allow these vicious enemies of Yugoslavia to monitor their elections? Isn't it self evident that they would use their "first hand knowledge" to present a lying picture to the world?]

[According to Reuters:] "'So? I've been arrested several times at demonstrations by the authorities back home,' said Marjaleena Repo, an observer from Canada calling herself a 'social justice activist.'"

[Sinclair comments. Note that "social justice activist" is put in quotes but 'Reuters' refers to the CESID which is a U.S.-controlled agency as "an electoral commission" - with no quotes. And by the way, this writer knows Ms. Repo's writings from the Internet and she IS a social justice activist!]

[According to Reuters:] "Liz Screen from Britain's Socialist Workers' Party said the story of the Milosevich ballot paper sounded suspicious, 'like classic Western misinformation.'''

[Sinclair comments: "Far left"? Again, everything possible is done to discredit the witnesses on one side, whereas the most obvious point about the other side - that it is paid by the U.S. government, enemy of Serbia - is overlooked. Also, BTW, we have been informed that Liz Screen is a member of the Socialist Labour Party not the Socialist Workers Party. The SLP is a large group formed by members of the British Labour Party who became disenchanted with its policies, including its support for foreign aggression.]

[According to Reuters:] "Some are activists from Western countries critical of their governments, notably over NATO's bombing of Yugoslavia, launched by the alliance last year to halt what is saw as Belgrade's repression of Kosovo's Albanians."

[Sinclair comments: This is sheer disinformation. The writer not only repeats a lie - that NATO acted in response to Yugoslavia suppressing "the Albanian population" but goes so far as to assert that NATO leaders believed this lie. In fact NATO only started talking about repression of Albanians AFTER the bombing had been going on for several days and it was clear that the public was overwhelmingly opposed. As for what was happening before that, we have the evidence of the German courts and Foreign Ministry, which ruled on Kosovo Albanians' applications for refugee status. Based on investigation, the courts and ministry ruled in every case that the Yugoslav government had not targeted civilians in its war with the Kosovo Liberation Army terrorists. (2) ]

"Others are mavericks like Russia's flamboyant ultra-nationalist leader Vladimir Zhirinovsky or his fellow Slavs, the Cossacks."

[Sinclair comments: Note the effort to paint the observers as extremists.]

OTHER SIDE OF STORY

[According to Reuters:] "Put up in one of Belgrade's top hotels, they are feted by officials anxious to tell their side of a story they feel has been distorted by the world's media."

[Are we seriously supposed to believe that these people will lose their objectivity because somebody put them up in a hotel? Why mention that in a sentence that includes "officials anxious to tell their side of a story they feel has been distorted by the world's media." Unless the purpose is to use the hotel to discredit the story.

Meanwhile, 'Reuters' still has not mentioned that the pro-NATO side is on the receiving end of millions of dollars in cash. A story in the 'NY Times' said that "suitcases full of cash" were being brought across the border to the "independent" NGOs like CESID and that their U.S. handlers were telling them to spend as much as they could because more money was "in the pipeline."]

[According to Reuters:] "Most of those asked about the elections on Sunday said the voting was going fine, as they had been told it would be in official briefings."

[Sinclair comments: Again, the sentence that reports the observers' opinions ("all is going fine") is offset by the derogatory phrase ("as they had been told it would be in official briefings.") What about the U.S. paid "independent observers" who have been told by hundreds of articles and TV shows to expect fraud and whose boss, the U.S. government, obviously wants (and damn well expects!) them to find fraud!]

[According to Reuters:] "My first impression of the election procedure is that the practice is in line with the theory we have learned in the last few days...a clear, democratic, normal, Western standard,'' Elmar Schmaling from Germany said at a polling station."

[Sinclair comments: I noted before that 'Reuters' went out of its way to discredit the observers as extremists. Interesting that they don't identify Schmaling. He is a former Admiral in the German Navy. He was assigned to NATO but resigned in 1990 because he realized that NATO was becoming an aggressive force, the biggest threat to peace. It is impossible that the Reuters reporter could talk to this man and not find out he is a retired Admiral; I have spoken with the Admiral at some length; he is a very intelligent man and of course would be aware of the importance of telling 'Reuters' about his former NATO status. So the writer or more likely the editor, cut out this fact, critical for Schmaling's credibility as a witness.]

[According to Reuters:] "'Everything is clear and democratic. We spoke with the representatives of the opposition and they said that everything is going fine so far,' said Markos Domich from Bolivia.'

"None of the observers attended the news conference by CESID's Blagojevic in which he outlined what he said were just a few of a string of irregularities."

[Sinclair comments: Again we see the use of a phrase that is meant to color our perception: "None of the observers attended." Why should the election observers attend a CESID press conference? 'Reuters' fails to point out some obvious problems with this press conference. If Blagojevic knew about real irregularities, why is there no mention in this article of an actual time and an actual place where some irregularity took place? Wouldn't the CESID spokesman want to be specific? Or was he afraid that if he named actual places he would open himself to refutation by the foreign observers who might have witnessed that no irregularities occured at those polling places?]

[According to Reuters:] "Screen said Western media coverage of Yugoslavia was heavily biased, saying the opposition posters pasted alongside, and sometimes over government ones on Belgrade streets proved that the country was no dictatorship.

"A senior official of Serbia's opposition Democratic Party, Cedomir Jovanovic, said off the monitors: 'DOS (the Democratic Opposition of Serbia bloc) does not consider them international observers but foreign citizens brought here by Milosevich to verify election results which he himself will declare valid regardless of the electoral will of citizens.'''

[Sinclair comments: Apart from the lack of content here (are people legitimately "observers" only if they are approved by a U.S. paid party like the Democratic Party, led by the U.S. paid crook Zoran Djindjic? Apart from that, why is so little said by the monitors, and so much said about them? Is that to make sure we don't listen to their observations?]

[According to Reuters:] "Western diplomats in Belgrade also fear the monitors will be used by the government to legitimise its victory whatever the results.

"'I think it is a fig-leaf operation, a Potemkin operation,' said one.''

[Sinclair comments: Perfect conclusion. An unnamed "Western diplomat" makes an unsubstantiated accusation, and that ends it. And yet even this story had too much of "the other side" to stay posted in the AOL "World News-Europe" Section.]

13:03 09-24-00