someone check the oval office drinking water

[kobayashi]

from the yellow times

By Matthew Riemer
YellowTimes.org Columnist (United States)
Everyone's read a thousand articles and op/eds by now regarding the Bush administration's intentional inclusion of intelligence that was widely known to be untrue to further sensationalize its argument for preemptive action in Iraq. But how many have read about the Clinton administration's Tomahawk cruise missile strike on a pharmaceutical factory in Khartoum, Sudan in 1998, and how it was based on bogus intelligence?

In August of 1998, the U.S. destroyed a factory owned by the al-Shifa pharmaceutical company because Washington alleged that the factory was making "precursors" for chemical weapons, was being supported by Osama bin Laden, and was shipping these "precursors" to Iraq. It was soon revealed that the factory had contracts with the United Nations and was part of the Oil for Food program, supplying vital medicines to Iraq. A British engineer, who helped design and worked at the factory, came out and said the Clinton administration's claim was outrageous. Soil samples from the site all tested negative for any indication of the chemicals claimed to be in use at the factory. Finally, the owner of the plant, whose law firm was based in Washington, pressured the Clinton administration to prove their allegations and they backed down. For a comprehensive report on the incident, see "The destruction of the al-Shifa pharmaceutical company." {part 1, part 2, part 3}.

In both cases, an argument was presented to the public to justify the respective actions. In both cases, as time went by and more scrutiny was given to Washington's argument, those arguments began to fall apart quite quickly and convincingly amidst a clamor of excuses, rationalizations, and doubletalk.

Luckily for the Clinton administration, the incident in Sudan was a minor event right before a larger war in Yugoslavia, and Clinton wasn't up for reelection in 14 months. The situation is obviously different with the current president. George Bush is finding himself in an increasingly difficult position with each passing day, as he and his administration are no longer convincing in their morally wrapped rhetoric and unbelievable justifications.

having read the three part report, for which links are reported, it seems quite apparent that the clinton administration had little to no justification for bombing the factory in sudan. scrambling to offer a reasonable explanation in the days following the attack, their story changed often and ultimately all the irrefutable facts which they proposed have been proven wrong.

parallels?

most definitely. though clinton bombed first and then explained and bush attempted to justify previous to attacking, it could be argued that the collective mind that is the bush administration was intent on overthrowing the hussein regime for a good time and thus the justification was of no import. perhaps that is why many agree it was poorly done and unsuccessful.

regardless, however, why the hoopla surrounding bush and not so much clinton?

im sure a lot of the present backlash against the president is fuelled by the democrats. does this however, qualify as a liberal bias in the media?

there are some differences. the current controversy has in part been fuelled by a much larger international focus, and a conflict which is much more dramatic.

 

[BVS]

regardless, however, why the hoopla surrounding bush and not so much clinton?

Well like they said Clinton wasn't up for re-election.

They were too busy inquiring about his blow jobs.

Like you said it wasn't such an international affair.

Should it have been looked in to more? Yes.

Liberal bias? I've never bought that crap, but if it is true don't worry about that, the conservatives will have close to complete control of the media if this administration has it's way...

 

[verte76]

Just for the record I knew some people who demonstrated against this 1998 bombing. Yes, it should have been looked into. I didn't like it either but I wasn't able to attend the protest (I had to work) But it wasn't on the scale of the activities in Iraq, thus it wasn't as serious a matter.

 

[kobayashi]

no it certainly wasnt the same scale. the iraqi situation involves a full fledged war. having said that this situation was deplorable and we are unlikely to ever know the full human cost of the attack.

the injustice of the situation, though disgraceful, was not the only reason for my bringing it up. the actions of the bush administration are not unique from those who held the positions previously.

the bush team seems, to me, to have taken us to a new level.

 

[sue4u2]

Well, Clinton WAS impeached. Not precisely for the bombing reason, but for a lesser reason. If they try to hold Bush up to that same standard of punishment, for whatever precieved reason, geez- he could get a lethal injection.

 

[Dreadsox]

There are some big differences in the two situations....

1) Congress passed a law and Clinton signed it. The law said that the United States would do what it could to remove Saddam. This technically covers Bushes actions.

2) The Congress last fall authorized the use of force in Iraq, while no one authorized the use of force in the Suddan. TO the contrary there were many high ranking military officials that did not agree with the attack on the Suddan and were vocal about it. They were told to follow orders.

3) Because the Intelligence COmmittee does not disclose what is presented to them it still remains to be seen if they feel that the President lied to them before their vote to grant use of force. The vote last fall was extremely bi-partisan, yet I have not heard many if any, Senators saying Bush mislead them before their vote giving him the power to go to war.

4) They accusations of lying are based on the State of the Union. Because of this fact, and the fact no on is screaming that they were lied to before the vote to give the Power to invadfe Iraq to the President, I am very inclined to believe that this is partisan crap.

Clinton's situation is NOT really similar. It is actually worse. He had no case to stand on when he attacked Suddan as time has shown, and it looks more and more like this was to take our minds off of his problem with defining the word "is".

 

[Dreadsox]

By the way, if you check the "IMPEACH" thread this is the point I was making in that poll. I posted the article later in the thread after people had voted to impeach. The poll was really about CLinton.

Peace