Ok, he seems to be referring to Kosovo, but he is NOT referring to a preparation/pretext/argument for war.  He is referring to Milosevic's election.  I don't believe that you can use it in an 'argument for war' section.

I feel that I am compromising too much, since the entire criticism is based on a few mentions of the word genocide.  Much more often the term "ethnic cleansing" was used, and the rest of the sentence you cut from the article, all of which is verifiable, "and all those hundreds of thousands of people were run out of their homes, and all those little girls were raped, and all those little boys were murdered," describes ethnic cleansing perfectly.  Are the few uses of the word 'genocide' indicative of the case made by the Clinton administration, or were the much more frequent references to ethnic cleansing the pillar of the argument?  I would say it was certainly the latter, but because he merely uttered the term genocide, proving my point would be a book-length endeavor.  I had not addressed this up until now because I have been acting under the assumption, and increasingly so, that you are writing with a partisan agenda.  In the rewrite you can demonstrate your objectivity in the matter by including the Big Picture.

We've already discussed the second paragraph to some degree.  But we can rehash it if necessary.  05:04, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)