And you think Clinton actually accomplished something? As for the wag the dog theories, I generally dismiss those kinds of speculations. In this case, I am at least open to the possibility since a Hollywood producer couple were staying at the white house to help Clinton burnish his tarnished image. Earlier that day, Clinton boarded the helicopter for a family vacation for a famous photo op, Chelsea in the middle of her Father and Mother strolling to the helicopter, a poignant picture of the anguish the President was suffering. Now, at that moment, Clinton knew he was returning to D.C. later in the day. The official explanation was that the ruse was to lead al Qaeda to not expect an attack. This seems a little disingenuous to me, I really doubt Bin Laden was monitoring Clinton's movements in that way.
In any event, though I approve of Clinton's attack of the training camps, the intelligence was faulty, and no significant deterrent to Bin Laden's ability to attack us was accomplished. Further, it should be at least a little unsettling to liberals, that a President would undertake an attack on a sovereign nation solely on his own prerogative.
No one seems to want to comment on Clinton's simultaneous attack on a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan, another unprovoked act of war on a sovereign nation, exercised by the sole authority of the President. There was no Afghanistan or Sudanese War Resolutions passed by congress. The intelligence supporting the Sudan attack appeared to be very weak from the beginning, and the Clinton administration chose not to defend their actions before the World Court, and paid compensation to the victims. As far as I know, the U.S. has not apologized to the Sudanese people. Even more remarkable, is that the mainstream media quickly lost interest in the attack. Had a Republican been in the White House, this would still be in the news cycle.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
