Clinton strikes terrorist bases By Tim Butcher, Defence Correspondent, Hugh Davies in Washington and Philip Delves Broughton in Martha's Vineyard . http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.jhtml?html=/archive/1998/08/21/wemb21.html Gen Henry Shelton, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said further military operations were being considered. The threat posed by terrorists meant no details would be given in case they endangered US troops. "Our target was terror. Our mission was clear," President Clinton said last night in a television address to the nation after America hit training bases in Afghanistan and a chemical plant in Sudan with sea-launched missiles. The offensive had been mounted to "counter an immediate threat". He said military intelligence indicated that a "gathering of key terrorist leaders" was planned yesterday at the site in Afghanistan. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Acting on information that he said pinpointed "one of the most active terrorist bases in the world" and a plant that made agents for chemical weapons, Mr Clinton said he ordered the attacks not only in response to the embassy bombings but also to pre-empt more planned terrorist attacks on Americans. In defiant tones, he said: "The United States wants peace, not conflict. We want to lift lives around the world, not take them." In an address from the Oval Office, just three days after he spoke to the nation about the Monica Lewinsky investigation, Mr Clinton said he ordered the strikes on the unanimous recommendation of his national security team. Mr Clinton, who interrupted his holiday at Martha's Vineyard to fly back to Washington, said: "The countries that persistently host terrorism have no right to be safe havens. No religion condones the murder of innocent men, women and children. "I want the world to understand that our actions today were not aimed against Islam, the faith of hundreds of millions of good, peace-loving people all around the world (but) at fanatics and killers who . . . profane the great religion in whose name they claim to act." Mr Clinton and defence officials said the facilities were linked to Osama bin Laden, a Saudi millionaire whom US officials say is a major sponsor of terrorism. Bin Laden was unharmed, according to a spokesman for Afghanistan's Taliban rulers. The attacks, starting at 5.30pm British time, took less than an hour, said William Cohen, the US defence secretary. Cruise missiles launched against Sudan came from navy vessels in the Red Sea, and those sent into Afghanistan came from ships in the Gulf. He said US forces alone were involved in the attacks on what he called a terrorist training and support compound in Afghanistan, 94 miles south of Kabul, and on the Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum. Democrat and Republican politicians rallied behind the President. Newt Gingrich, the House Speaker, called it "the right thing to do". Mr Clinton telephoned Tony Blair and several congressional leaders before the strikes, among them Mr Gingrich and the Senate Republican leader Trent Lott. With suspicions aroused that the attacks were timed to distract public attention from the grand jury's questioning of Miss Lewinsky, Mr Cohen was asked to respond to suggestions that the action bore a remarkable resemblance to a recently released film. Wag The Dog, starring Robert de Niro and Dustin Hoffman, concerns an American president who is caught fondling a teenage girl while she was touring the White House. As a diversion, his spin doctors invent a war with Albania. Mr Cohen stressed that "the only motivation driving this action today was our absolute obligation to protect the American people from terrorist activities. That is the sole motivation. No other consideration has been involved." Earlier, Mr Clinton said: "Today, I ordered our armed forces to strike at terrorist-related facilities in Afghanistan and Sudan because of the threat they present to our national security. I have said many times that terrorism is one of the greatest dangers we face in this new global era. We saw its twisted mentality at work last week in the embassy bombings, which took the lives of innocent Americans and Africans and injured thousands more. Today, we have struck back." Senior US military sources said cruise missiles were used exclusively in both operations although eye witnesses in Khartoum, the capital of Sudan, claimed that they saw at least two aircraft involved in a number of bombing passes over the factory. Mr Cohen said the Pentagon's aim was to wreck bin Laden's "terrorist infrastructure". America had credible information that the renegade Saudi was planning new attacks on US facilities and "the United States", although it was not known if the plots involved "truck bombs" or otherwise. Mr Cohen said: "We took this action to interrupt the training for these activities." He said the plant was producing chemicals to develop the deadly VX nerve agent. He said: "We have been planning this for several days. We are sending a very strong signal that there is nowhere safe to hide for terrorists." The Sudanese government reacted with anger to the allegation that a chemical weapons plant had been operating in the country. Abdul Rahim, the interior minister, said the area hit by bombs contained only legitimate commercial facilities. He said to reporters: "This has nothing to do with chemical weapons." The plant, which is set in a heavily industrial area, was shown on Sudanese television last night to be on fire. The attack took place at 7.30pm local time after most of the plant employees would have gone home. There were no immediate reports of casualties. Afghanistan's Taliban Islamic movement said US jets had bombed Khowst and Jalalabad in the east of the country, but claimed that bin Laden was safe. A spokesman, Abdul Hai Mutmaen, told Reuters by telephone from the southern Afghan town of Kandahar that the jets did not appear to have hit their targets and that Afghanistan would not be intimidated by the bombing. Mutmaen said the jets appeared to be aiming at alleged training camps run by bin Laden. He said: "I assure you that he is alive." The raids came as the Taliban, the fundamentalist Muslims who control Afghanistan where bin Laden is being given haven after being chased out of Sudan, opened the door to discussions with the US for his capture. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.jhtml?html=/archive/1998/08/21/wemb21.html ****CRICKETS*****
That's a tough spin, when Dubya only repeated, compounded, and multiplied similar mistakes of negligent intelligence-gathering, over-reach, and provocation. It's impossible for Busheviks to criticize these mistakes in any detail without making the similarities to neoconservative debacles more obvious.
And just exactly did Clinton hit? How much damage did he do to the al Queda organization? What did he accomplish? did he get Bin Laden? or did he kill some innocent people who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, tell us all what did Clinton accomplish with this shot in the dark, a day late and a dollar short, he missed, so what did he accomplish? He blew up a aspirin factory, so again what did he accomplish? he wiped out the Pharmaceutical supplier for a whole region, so what did he accomplish? Really what did Clinton do that made a difference? http://www.mega.nu:8080/ampp/khartoumbomb.html
This from Legacy of Ashes, by Tim Wiener: "The evidence (for the Cruise missile attacks) was a very slender reed. ... Clinton's inner circle claimed that the evidence for attacking Sudan was air tight. ... The case was a dozen dots connected by inference and surmise." Sounds like W, doesn't it? Here's some more... "From the fall of 1998 onward, 'The US had the capability to remove OBL from Afghanistan or kill him,' but it quailed when it came time to pull the trigger. ... The White House continually backed down from the political gamble of a military mission against Bin Laden." The book, along with Bamber's Body of Secrets, actually lays most of the blame at the feet of Tenet, who was too cautious and didn't think he had presidential authority to kill OBL. The CIA internal report released this week also comes down hard on Tenet...
As far as evidence for the strike, yes, but there's a huge difference between using iffy intel on a cruise missile attack vs re-invading a whole country that Cheney and Bush Sr. knew would wind up in a chaotic civil war. - N
I never said there wasn't, I was commenting on the similarity of the behavior behind the decision-making. Remember, Bush is the one who critics like to talk about "politicizing intelligence" and the like, as if no other president has ever done this...
I basically agree with this. "Clinton gave it a half-assed try" is too slight praise to be worthy of that long initial post. I'm on the fence over whether it's any better than the "no try at all" Bush gave it before 9/11.
Oh, I know, but it'd be a better comparison [even if you didn't try to make it one, but others (such as certain Bush defenders) will take it, and have taken it, as such] if you would have mentioned some other president invading another country on a similar scale over iffy intelligence rather than some Clintonian airstrike. - N
Yeah, the Gulf of Tonkin incident that never happened where McNamara had to start something to save face up faulty NSA intel. Wait, but I thought people don't like comparing Iraq to Vietnam, thinking it's nothing alike.. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! - N
They're different conflicts from different eras, so one must be wary of making too many apples-to-apples comparisons. But both seem to have been started from invented dangers and flawed intelligence reports...
...and both have resulted in massive civilian deaths, chaos, and loss of US credibility. There are often lessons in comparisons.
I agree. Foreign Policy magazine recently did an excellent story where it took a CIA briefing from the 60s on the Viet Cong and crossed VC out and replaced it with insurgent and replaced Vietnam with Iraq, etc. It worked so well, it made for some spooky reading.
Bush's speechwriters had it right the first time (at least in serving the neoconservative agenda) when the Presidential talking-point was that comparisons of Iraq with Vietnam are not valid. The reversal was another big mistake for this consistently mistaken Administration.
I've already said what I think about such comparisons and I encourage you to track down the article I mentioned. It's called "The Endgame in Iraq" and it was in Foreign Policy. I agree with you that it's strange Bush is now making Vietnam comparisons after his administration has thrown cold water on such comparisons for years. Obviously, he's banking on the fact that most people have short memories.
Well, you know the old saying: ----------------- edit below ----------------- countezero: "I encourage you to track down the article I mentioned. It's called "The Endgame in Iraq" and it was in Foreign Policy." Without a subscrition to Foreign Policy I can't read that piece from the source, and I haven't been able to access the article through another. I am interested in reading more, but don't want the subscription right now. Below is all that is given us in the teaser: Formatting Note: Sorry for the omission of vB code [strike_temp]strike-through[/strike_temp] toggling, which would have better reflected the article snippet quoted. I don't know why it's not enabled.
And if I remember it was under a Democratic Administration, and a Democrat President. Ah yes the liberals hate the comparison of Iraq to Vietnam, why? because it brings up the subject of what happened after we with drew from Vietnam, the 100eds of thousands who died as boat people, the millions who died as the communist took over in Cambodia, the thousands killed in reprisals in Vietnam after the war, the genocide of the Hill People in Laos, the lost of respect and confidence around the world in Americas commitment to its treaty commitments, the surge of Wars of Liberation that were sparked by our countries failure to Hold Fast, and win in Vietnam. How many millions died in the Communist wars of expansion around the world from the 70tys and 80tys? yes the Liberal hate to be reminded of their failure of vision of the results of their actions in and after Vietnam.
