The Clipboard: Birds of a Feather

From an article¹:

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. (link)

At times when I look at the Bush Administration, I find myself feeling nostalgic for Clinton. Then I read about this (or about the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, the Illegal Immigrant Responsibility and Immigration Reform Act, the Defense of Marriage Act, welfare reform, radio deregulation leading to Clear Channel, and many other things) and I remember why I am no fan of Bill Clinton.

---

Complete text of the article, Bush and Clinton: Birds of a feather, by Matthew Riemer

Undoubtedly, all the die hard political partisans were shocked this week when Bill Clinton came out and essentially exonerated the Bush administration for its manipulation of critical intelligence and lying to the world in support of its drive to war.

Clinton told Larry King: "You know, everybody makes mistakes when they are president. I mean, you can't make as many calls as you have to make without messing up once in awhile. The thing we ought to be focused on is what is the right thing to do now. That's what I think."

The former president also went on subtly to bolster the Bush administration's case for war: "People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons."

Yet it shouldn't really come as too much of a surprise for an expert at lying to step forward and defend another of his ilk. Clinton has been called a wonderful Republican president, and the two men and their foreign policies are more similar than most will even care to consider.

But perhaps the greatest parallel between the two rulers is that they were (one of them still is) both involved in incidents where manipulated or fabricated intelligence was used to carry out their militaristic agendas and then sold that agenda to the public.

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." [http://www.yellowtimes.org/article.php?sid=692]

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.

reference=http://www.yellowtimes.org/article.php?sid=1498&mode=thread&order=0