That is what I hear as well. Some of the rabidly anti-Clinton conservative sites (cf. Washington Hill Blue) even speak of near-mutiny attitudes among military officers regarding the Yugoslavia issue.
As always, the situation appears more complex and multi-faceted than initially meets the eye. I can understand the US motives in the Kosovo adventure as a collusion of various interests ranging from hawkish -such as demonstration of the US hardware or perhaps even more importantly boosting US interest in Europe and creating new legitimacy for NATO - to misguided and misinformed bleeding heart liberalism that wants "piece" (of Eastern Europe).
What I do not understand is the position the Europeans are taking - it seems so antithetical to their most vital interests. The bombing will solve nothing, but will stirr up national animosities, refugee problems, and fuel a conflict that is likely to spread to the neighboring regions; it will alsoe strengthen the position of the US vis a vis Europe (united or not) and antagonize Russia. It just does not make sense to me why the continetal Europe is doing that (despite the position taken by the UK that one British columnist described as the "doormat of the US").
>4) There was a vote about this in the US Senate, approving
>it by 58-41. Somehow in the midst of all its stories the W. Post
>failed to say who voted how, although obviously this was not
>party line. I gather most (if not all) of the 41 were Republicans.
>But, is there anybody out there who knows what the actual
>lineup was?
I do not know the actual lineup either, but I understand that there is subtstantial GOP/conservative opposition to Clinton's war in the Balkans, including an initiative by Ron Paul (TX) prohibiting Clinton from sending troops to the region. There is also a split between GOP presidential wannabies on the issue.
Wojtek Sokolowski