« Ceasefire in Gaza | Main | A History Lesson for Bush Haters Part II »
January 18, 2009
A History Lesson for Bush Haters
Attention all Bush Haters
Consider your reaction if this story came across the wires today:
As was reported last week, President Bush launched cruise missiles at Al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory in Sudan as part of what he called "Operation Infinite Justice". The missiles destroyed the factory, Sudan's primary source for ant-malarial and veterinary drugs. The day after the attack, which took place at night, Bush claimed that the factory was producing chemicals used in the production of VX nerve agent. He also claimed that the factory owners were tied to al Qaeda.In the days since serious doubt has been cast on both of these claims. The evidence for the production of VX nerve agent is particular shaky. It has been revealed that it was based on a single soil sample taken by a CIA agent outside of the factory, which seemed to show the presence of EMPTA (O-Ethyl methylphosphonothioic acid), a VX precursor. But experts now say that testing errors could have been responsible for a "false positive," and at any rate there is no proof that the EMPTA was tied to the factory. Further, although Bush Administration officials first said that EMPTA was banned by the Chemical Weapons Convention, they have since backed off this claim.
Ties to al Qaeda are vague, with administration officials only stating that "intelligence sources" as the basis for their actions.
Administration officials have conceded that they had no congressional or UN authorization for the attack, which was on a sovereign nation not at war with the United States.
Experts say that as a humanitarian crisis looks as a result of the destruction of the Al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory. Werner Daum, the German ambassador to Sudan, says that it is possible that tens of thousands of Sudanese may die because they won't be able to get the medicines they need.
Everything in the above paragraph is true. It all actually happened. Ok, it's all true except for one thing:
The president that ordered the attack wasn't George W. Bush.
It was William Jefferson Clinton.
The attack described above took place on August 20, 1998. And tens of thousands of Sudanese probably did die as a result. Further, although Sudan demanded an apology, President Clinton never offered one. Look it all up if you don't believe me.
Here's another way to look at what happened: From an editorial published December 13, 2005 in the Washington Times:
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."
Berger was exactly right. President Clinton made his decision based on the best intelligence available. He didn't want to risk VX nerve agent making it's way into the hands of al Qaeda, which was known to operate in Sudan (bin Laden even living there in the 1980s).
No serious person, certainly no Republican of any stature that I know of, has suggested that Bill Clinton or any of his officials be prosecuted for war crimes. Yet it is is entirely accurate to say that based on flawed evidence he destroyed a pharmaceutical plant in a poor third world nation which produced badly needed medicines. We don't know how many black Africans died, but it was surely many, given that the factory was Sudan's primary source for anti-malaria and veterinary drugs.
The left is forever insistent that George Bush and various administration officials be indited for war crimes.
Where are their calls for the indictment of Bill Clinton?
Posted by Tom at January 18, 2009 8:45 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.theredhunter.com/mt/refer.cgi/1270
Comments
I read on another blog that 7000 approx. US armed forces personnel died under Clinton's presidency - 4000 approx. in Iraq. I read all sorts of things about Clinton's presidency. You know, as a conservative - I didn't run around "bashing" Clinton and appreciate his service now that it's done - even though there were many irregularities including impeachment. That doesn't stop me from respecting that he served as POTUS. I don't feel the need to "bash" him. The treatment of GWB is really out of context. I don't agree with much GWB has done, but the total contempt for him is symptomatic of why it is that this nation is not going to be able to support democracy and is going to be taken over from the left by dictatorship. They are so vicious and hateful a people in relation to Bush - and now they do a pendulum worship of Obama - it's the LEFT in the USA that cannot support or sustain democracy.
They've become, well, incapable of supporting democracy in their partisan hate. They will reap what they have sown. There's a heavy price to be paid, and they will pay it. (I do believe the nation will fracture in times to come as the result of the nihilism of the left. They're morally destroyed from within... and they are not capable of sustaining democracy... the right is...and the split will happen,imo, because we are not so morally bankrupt as to embrace the surrender of national sovereignty as well as democratic rule trading it in for UN dictates as well as totalitarian socialism via Obama, etc.)
Things have gone to extremes... imo... the left has... and it's only prudent to really know it... and it's what I'm seeing. The left has gotten... that bad, imo.
Posted by: l at January 18, 2009 11:11 PM
The nation will fracture because of the left, only the right is capable of sustaining democracy?
The last two hundred years of a function bipolar democratic system in America mean nothing? I´m not even sure how to respond to this kind of bizzare ranting.
Clinton did many things that were ill advised, I think Bush did more and on a larger scale. History will judge, not just the right or the left.
The National Review (Decider or Dissenter) has an interesting view of BNush:
'Two kinds of problems can result, and Bush suffered from both of them. One major problem arises when there are deep disagreements among strong cabinet secretaries; these only the president can resolve. And second, even when there is consensus, it can be a lowest common denominator—a papered-over compromise that conceals the president’s real choices.'
Oh, but maybe this is just the nihilism of the leftwing National Review.....
Posted by: jason at January 19, 2009 10:15 AM
"And tens of thousands of Sudanese probably did die as a result."
For me, this statement requires some statistical proof.
Given the challenges that confront us, I am quite certain that President Obama will concentrate on them, rather than prosecuting Georege W. Bush or members of his administration.
I confess, however, when I read the post that I thought somehow there was going to be a comparison equating failures of intelligence in the Sudan w/ failures of intelligence w/ respect to WMDs in Iraq.
I agree w/ Jason w/ respect to numbers of mistakes and scale.
TLGK
Posted by: The Loop Garoo Kid at January 19, 2009 2:01 PM
Thank you for the lesson, Tom. Your Jason & Loop put it all into perspective.
That said, I did come out against the aspirin factory debacle at the time. (T'was pre-blog, of course, but I did write several letters to my representatives and local media.) Clinton really screwed up on that one.
(Apparently, Donald isn't the only one who doesn't know the meaning of "nihilist"... ...unless that double-posting character with the single letter name is him, anyway... Sad.)
Posted by: repsac3 at January 19, 2009 3:23 PM
Clinton didn't order an invasion of a country that was no threat. And to the gut that said 4000 Troops died in Iraq under Clinton. While I would like to see the real number before getting into that, are you saying the invasion and occupation are justified because our Soldiers would have died there anyway? So you're insinuating that our Troops are safer under Bush because they only die in roadside bombings and combat. Not accidentally. It's good to know that although Bush and Rummy didn't think it necessary to send our Troops to Iraq with inferior body armor and inferior armored vehicles they cared enough to tell them to watch their steps and wear their seatbelts.
Posted by: truth101 at January 19, 2009 5:55 PM
If you didn't like this post, you'll really hate my next one: A History Lesson for Bush Haters Part II
Posted by: Tom the Redhunter at January 19, 2009 10:33 PM
"And tens of thousands of Sudanese probably did die as a result.""
Come on, you guys have Google on your computers
Werner Daum, German ambassador to the Sudan at the time, cited the figure in an article he wrote for the Harvard Review titled Universalism and the West. I guess I should have put it in the post.
Regarding the scale issue, yes, Iraq was bigger than Sudan.
So when Clinton is brought up on war crimes charges we'll give him a sentence less than the one given George Bush.
But you do agree that he's a war criminal, right?
Posted by: Tom the Redhunter at January 27, 2009 5:25 PM
