1.) "Both sides" were not "hyping" atrocities. It was NATO and its supporters who were crowing about genocide. Opponents -- like Noam Chomsky in Nathan's quote from anti-war.com -- pointed out that the bombing only escalated the atrocities. That remains undoubtedly true. If the rate of killing had continued in Kosovo at its 1998 rate, less than 450 Albanians would have died between March 24 and June 10. Instead, 2,500 died, according to the head of Spain's forensic team in Kosovo.
2.) The genocide claim was *absolutely* crucial to the pro-bombing case. That is because the alternative to bombing was diplomacy -- a course whose rejection could only be justified by pointing to some imminent and catastrophic atrocity that could only be stopped with immediate military intervention. The question remains: How many lives would have been saved if the U.S. had not sabotaged Rambouillet and an agreement had been reached?
A lot of thoughtful opponents of the war would admit that if they thought NATO military intervention could avert some Rwanda-like episode of violence -- where 800,000 people died -- they would swallow their objections and choose the lesser of two evils. NATO's genocide mongering was specifically aimed at such considerations -- wavering German Greens, Italian Communists, human rights advocates.
The slinking evasions by the cruise-missile liberals are starting to get on my nerves.
Seth