Mr. BullNBear52 Sir:
Read this then tell me how many AMERICANS died 2-3 years later thanks to Bubba and his human humidor.
WE MUST NEVER FORGET
BY CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS
On Aug. 20, President Clinton personally ordered the leveling of the Al-Shifa pharmaceutical plant on the outskirts of Khartoum. More or less simultaneously, another flight of cruise missiles was dropped on various parts of Afghanistan and also -- who's counting? -- Pakistan, in an apparent effort to impress the vile Osama bin Laden. Bin Laden, of course, hopes to bring a "judgmental" monotheism of his own to bear on these United States, and is thus in some peoples' minds a sort of Arab version of Ken Starr.
Sources in U.S. Intelligence apparently claimed that there was only one "window" through which to strike at bin Laden, and that the only time they could hope to hit his Afghan fastness by this remote means was on the night of Monica Lewinsky's return to the grand jury. Let's assume they were correct. After all, they helped build and equip his camps and they may know something we don't (even if they ended up missing him). Furthermore, the hideous Taliban regime is not available for the receiving of diplomatic notes, has even executed some Iranian envoys and seems in other ways to be deaf to shame.
But Khartoum? There are two separate but related questions here. First, was the Al-Shifa factory a Tom Clancy cauldron of devil's brew? Second, did it have to be hit that very night? The first question does involve the second, but for convenience let's summarize its headings. The administration said that no medical or commercial products were made at Al-Shifa. It added that the factory was directly related to bin Laden's occult commercial empire. It further said that the traces of the chemical compound EMPTA had been found in the soil outside the plant. Within days, there was an amazingly swift climb-down from all these claims:
Vials of medicine and other evidence of civilian pharmaceutical manufacture were visible in photographs of the first day's debris. The German ambassador to Sudan, Werner Daum, sent a sarcastic cable to Bonn saying that he knew this all along. The British engineer who built the plant, Tom Carnaffin, attested that the plant had no space for the off-the-record experimental work. Other engineers and architects pointed out that the factory had no air-sealed doors, essential if poison gas is to be on the menu. The Sudanese government called loudly for an international inspection, which the Clinton administration -- once so confident -- declined to endorse. By the first week in September, Defense Secretary William Cohen admitted that he "should have known" that Al-Shifa made medical and agricultural products.
Secretary Cohen also admitted in the same statement that there was no longer any "direct" financial connection to be asserted between bin Laden and the plant. But he was still pretty sure that there were indirect ones. That could be. There are also many straightforward connections between the turbanned one and Saudi Arabia. But does anyone believe that the United States would rocket a Saudi Arabian target and let the monarchs find out about it from CNN, or when the missiles fell?
The presence of EMPTA (O-ethyl methyl phosphonothoic acid) proves nothing on its own, whether found in the soil near a factory or inside the factory itself. I spoke to Professor R.J.P. Williams, who is Professor of Inorganic Chemistry at Oxford and considered something of an authority on biological systems and on EMPTA. It can be an intermediate in the production of VX gas, he told me, but it can be an intermediate for dealing with agricultural pests and for myriad other purposes. "We must be told where the compound was found, and in what quantity it is known to have been produced, and whether there is any ascertainable link to nerve-gas production. 'Trace' elements in adjacent soil are of no use. Either the administration has something to hide, or for some reason is withholding the evidence."
So much for the legitimacy of the "legally accurate" target. But suppose that all these suspicions could be dissolved, and that we knew the factory was run by Doctor No or Herr Blofeld of Fu Manchu. It still could not have been folded like a tent and spirited away in a day or so. And the United States has diplomatic relations with Sudan. (It even used these relations, not long ago, to press successfully for the deportation of bin Laden.) Was there a demarche made between the State Department and the Sudanese regime? (We want to see inside this factory right away and will interpret refusal as a hostile act.) There was not. Even Saddam Hussein was and is given more warning than that.
Well then, what was the hurry? A hurry that was panicky enough for the president and his advisors to pick the wrong objective and then, stained with embarrassment and retraction, to refuse the open inquiry that could have settled the question in the first place? There is really only one possible answer to that question. Clinton needed to look "presidential" for a day. He may even have needed a vacation from his family vacation. In any event, he acted with caprice and brutality and with a complete disregard for international law, and perhaps counted on the indifference of the press and public to a negligible society like that of Sudan, and killed wogs to save his own lousy Hyde (to say nothing of our new moral tutor, the ridiculous sermonizer Lieberman). No bipartisan contrition is likely to be offered to the starving Sudanese: unmentioned on the "prayer-breakfast" circuit.
This is why I agree with those who say that we must put Monica behind us, and stop our comic obsession with sex (or "sex" as the president's filthy-minded and incompetent lawyers are still compelled, for perjurious reasons, to call it in their briefing). Clinton must not resign, nor should he be impeached. He and his fans have earned the right to serve out their whole sentence.
Did Bill wag the dog?
After Clinton called out the warplanes, Beltway skeptics said they'd already seen the movie.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
BY DAVID CORN / WASHINGTON -- It took only a few minutes for one of the reporters in the Pentagon pressroom to ask Secretary of Defense William Cohen the question on many minds: "Have you seen the movie?" He was referring to "Wag the Dog" and the unsettling coincidence between Thursday's military strikes and a movie in which political fixers concoct a war to distract public attention from a presidential sex scandal.
Cohen adopted a steely expression as he replied, "The only motivation driving this action today was our absolute obligation to protect the American people."
But cynicism could not be avoided. I was eating lunch with a prominent Republican official when his office called to inform him of the Clinton-ordered attacks on terrorist installations in Afghanistan and a supposed chemical-weapons factory in Sudan. The official immediately asked the caller, "Is CNN airing video footage of a young girl running with a kitten?" -- a direct reference to a scene in the film. He got up to leave, noting, "Clinton will do anything to get away from Hillary."
It's inevitable. After what seems a week of media elites venting about The Speech -- and it's only been three days! -- nothing Bill Clinton says can be taken at face value in this town. Some of us have long believed he is a fellow not to be trusted, based on his policy decisions on campaign finance reform, global warming, budget politics, Lani Guinier, welfare legislation, mass murder in Rwanda and other matters. But now the core of Washington's ruling class appears to have turned on the man, as well.
It's tough to argue that he doesn't deserve this. But Republicans ought to be careful about going too far in dismissing Clinton. When Sen. Dan Coats, R-Ind., questioned Clinton's motives in launching the attacks -- "Why did he wait until now?" -- reporters at a press conference (which Coats opportunistically called minutes after the news broke) harshly cross-examined the senator. Didn't he take Bill Cohen, an ex-senator and Republican with whom Coats served, at his word? Coats had to pause before continuing his anti-Clinton spin.
Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., also rushed before television cameras to suggest that Clinton may have had more than national security on his mind in deciding to bomb. Oddly, two days ago, the president's critics were arguing that his scandalous behavior rendered it difficult for him to act decisively. Then when he did move forcefully, that aggravated his antagonists.
But there were different takes among Republicans. House Speaker Newt Gingrich stated plainly the assault "was the right thing to do." And Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, remarked, "We should all back the president of the United States." Clearly, Republicans were unable to get all their voices in tune with one message. Some simply couldn't resist the urge to whack at the president -- an impulse that could help Clinton should the public become annoyed with GOP eagerness to exploit Monicagate.
Monica Lewinsky aside, there is always reason to worry that military actions are motivated by political needs. Two days after a 1983 terrorist bombing at the U.S. Marines barracks in Lebanon killed 241 Americans, President Reagan invaded the tiny island of Grenada in a move that seemed designed to substitute a military romp for a deadly disaster.
President Bush's invasion of Panama in 1989 was questioned as a politically convenient operation aimed to dispose of an embarrassment to the U.S. government: the drugged-up, onetime C.I.A. asset Manuel Noriega. The Panama action also afforded Bush the opportunity to counter criticism that he was a bit of a wimp.
In 1993 Clinton ordered the air strike on Iraqi targets in retaliation for an alleged assassination plot against former President George Bush. At that time, I asked a senior White House aide what justified this act of war. "If we don't do anything, the media will be all over us," he replied. The bombing appeared to work. Afterward, the Christian Science Monitor ran a piece that noted, "By slamming cruise missiles into Baghdad in retaliation for a plot to kill his predecessor, President Clinton has struck a blow that may help overcome his public image of wavering leadership."
"Wag the Dog" has merely given a name to what has always been true: Presidents, when they assume their commander-in-chief duties, do not ignore political considerations. Skepticism is always warranted when a president orders a unilateral military action (particularly since the Consitution delegates the power to declare war to Congress, not the chief executive).
But the best skepticism is that which is guided by principle. Was the evidence strong enough to justify the possible loss of life? Will this action prompt more or less terrorism? How does this strike affect the international rule of law? Might it have been more effective to continue pushing Afghanistan to turn over suspected terrorist kingpin Osama bin Laden?
In this summer of scandal, however, that kind of skepticism takes a back seat in Washington to the widespread desire to score a cheap political hit.
