« The Shift from "Kinetic" to "Non-Kinetic" Operations | Main | There They Go Again »
December 13, 2005
History Lesson
The Washington Times has a "History Lessons" section on their editorial page that has become a must-read. From today's edition:
From "Why the U.S. bombed," The Washington Times, Oct. 16, 1998, by National Security Adviser Samuel R. Berger:"Following the Aug. 7 bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, the United States launched a missile strike against a factory in Khartoum, Sudan, as well as against terrorist camps in Afghanistan. Since then, some critics have suggested that we acted precipitously when we struck the Sudanese Al Shifa plant. But, given what we knew, to not have acted against that facility would have been the height of irresponsibility.
"First, we knew that the Osama bin Laden terrorist organization was bent on large-scale violence against Americans... And we had information that bin Laden has been seeking chemical weapons to use in his terrorist acts.
"Second, we had physical evidence indicating that Al Shifa was the state of chemical weapons activity... We found the presence of EMPTA, a chemical essential for making deadly VX nerve gas...
"Other products were made at Al Shifa. But we have seen such dual-use plants before -- in Iraq. And, indeed, we have information that Iraq has assisted in chemical weapons activity in Sudan.
"Third, we had information linking bin Laden to the Sudanese regime and the Al Shifa plant. Bin Laden lived in Sudan ... until he was expelled under international pressure. He left behind associates and facilities and has maintained a close relationship with the government...
"To those who assert we did not act appropriately, I would ask: With information that bin Laden had attacked Americans before and planned to do so again, that he was seeking chemical weapons to use in future attacks, that he was cooperating with the government of Sudan in those efforts, and that Sudan's Al Shifa plant was linked both to bin Laden and chemical weapons, didn't the United States government have a responsibility to the American people to counter this threat? I believe the unequivocal answer is yes."
I recall clearly when this happened, and in my opinion this incident does not get the attention it deserves.
Consider what happened:
- President Clinton received intelligence that a plant in Sudan was producing chemical weapons.
- The President acted on that intelligence by having our military destroy the plant.
- Later it was discovered that the intelligence was faulty and that the plant was not producing chemical weapons.
Anyone beside me see an analogy here?
My Position on President Clinton
I did not vote for Bill Clinton in either 1992 or 1996. I supported his impeachment and removal from office for lying under oath. I disageed with many of his policies.
But in this and other policies toward Iraq I supported him. At the time I thought that he did the right thing by having the pharmaceutical plant in Sudan destroyed. Yes, like many other conservatives I too wondered if maybe it wasn't meant to divert attention from scandals at home. I won't deny that. But I said at the time that in the end I thought he did the right thing.
And he did. In fairness to President Clinton, he is not trained in intelligence matters. He's a smart guy, I'm sure he asked tough questions, but what the intel people told him made sense. I'd have done the same thing.
At the time he was criticized once it was discovered that the intelligence was faulty, but it was nowhere near the level of attack that has been leveled at President Bush. To be sure, a ground invasion is a much more serious affair than letting loose a few cruize missiles. But by the same token, the intelligence saying that Iraq had quantities of WMD was a lot stronger than the intel on Sudan.
In the end it's pretty simple: Before April of 2003 everyone who mattered thought that Iraq had quantities of WMD, and had good reason for thinking so. Iraq was a threat, and the sanctions were falling apart. President Bush was presented with this information, and did what any prudent person would have done; taken military action to end the threat. He did, and the world is better off for it, WMD or no.
Posted by Tom at December 13, 2005 9:58 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.theredhunter.com/mt/refer.cgi/539
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference History Lesson:
» Best Of Homespun Bloggers December 18th, 2005 from Homespun Bloggers
Best Of Homespun Bloggers December 18th, 2005 [Read More]
Tracked on December 19, 2005 7:19 AM
Comments
"Anyone beside me see an analogy here?"
Oh boy do I. Amazing isn't it? They state "given what we knew then it would have been irresponsible not to attack" but the same argument is not good enough for Iraq? WTF!
I was completely for Clinton bombing that plant back to the stone age, and still agree with it. Because I do see that given what they knew then they HAD to. Why is it that those on the left cannot see the same thing? Or is it they do see it, but wish to ignore it so they can hate Bush more? Just sad.
Posted by: Curt at December 13, 2005 11:49 PM
But it was Clinton and all is forgiven when you are a Democrat. Look at all he's been forgiven for, the immoral sleaze!
Posted by: Anna at December 15, 2005 10:33 PM
