So I was reading some Chomsky articles last night and came across this line "Clinton's bombing of the Sudan with no credible pretext, destroying half its pharmaceutical supplies and probably killing tens of thousands of people (no one knows, because the US blocked an inquiry at the UN and no one cares to pursue it)."
surely an exaggeration
Now, I only vaguely remembered this so had to look it up. It happened at the same time as those bombings of Afghan terror camps.
So anyway, I do a little more research and come across
this article detailing Clinton's decision to bomb a suspected chemical weapons plant in the Sudan and the subsequent claims that the US had "no evidence to support ... allegations that the plant was being used to produce chemical weapons and poisonous gases for terrorist purposes."
In response to asking for proof that the plant was being used to produce chemical weapons the adminstration said "the evidence, obviously, is highly classified. We're not going to release it, but I can say that I have no question and the intelligence community has no questions."
Sudanese officials responded with "Bin Laden never came near the factory, and there is no way that this factory could have produced chemical weapons."
Even more interesting is this: "The United States persuaded Sudan to expel bin Laden in 1995. The minister called that move a mistake. We gave U.S. officials a piece of advice that they never followed. We told them: 'Don't send him out of Sudan because you will lose control over him.' Now, the United States has ended up with war with an invisible enemy," Salah el-Din said"
I always find it interesting how similar doctrine is from one administration to the next and how differently everyone views it from the partisan "We're right, you're wrong" point of view.
Last edited by Colin at Jun 18 2004, 05:56 AM