Demosophia

Clinton Administration Took Qaeda/Iraq Link Seriously

The al Shifa pharmaceutical plant represents yet another instance where a campaign of disinformation from the left, together with a certain complacency, or inappropriate analysis, from the media, has distorted the historical record. Typically the bombing of the al Shifa pharmaceutical plant in the Sudan by the Clinton administration, in retaliation for the embassy bombings in Africa, has been represented as a grievous mistake. The bombastic Noam Chomsky even presented it as an instance of American atrocity, not only killing people on the site itself, but depriving untold thousands of Africans of life-saving pharmaceuticals and thereby representing a greater crime (or at least an offsetting justification) for 9/11. But according to a recent article by Steven Hayes in the Weekly Standard the Clinton administration was not only on solid ground when it identified the plant as a WMD site, but the plant was also a part of what the CIA concluded were overlapping interests between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein.

The clincher, however, came later in the spring of 1998, when the CIA secretly gathered a soil sample from 60 feet outside of the plant's main gate. The sample showed high levels of O-ethylmethylphosphonothioic acid, known as EMPTA, which is a key ingredient for the deadly nerve agent VX. A senior intelligence official who briefed reporters at the time was asked which countries make VX using EMPTA. "Iraq is the only country we're aware of," the official said. "There are a variety of ways of making VX, a variety of recipes, and EMPTA is fairly unique."

That briefing came on August 24, 1998, four days after the Clinton administration launched cruise-missile strikes against al Qaeda targets in Afghanistan and Sudan (Osama bin Laden's headquarters from 1992-96), including the al Shifa plant. The missile strikes came 13 days after bombings at U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania killed 257 people--including 12 Americans--and injured nearly 5,000. Clinton administration officials said that the attacks were in part retaliatory and in part preemptive.

In spite of the disinformation, and the widespread impression sewn to the contrary, former Clinton officials stand by the intelligence that links the plant to al Qaeda.

"The bottom line for me is that the targeting was justified and appropriate," said Daniel Benjamin, director of counterterrorism on Clinton's National Security Council, in an emailed response to questions. "I would be surprised if any president--with the evidence of al Qaeda's intentions evident in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam and the intelligence on [chemical weapons] that was at hand from Sudan--would have made a different decision about bombing the plant."

But even though the plant also apparently had strong ties to the Hussein regime in Iraq, the transitive conclusion, that if A is related to B, and B is related to C, then A must be related to C, is played down now. Back in 1998, however, the same administration used the A to C link as a justification for the bombing. What's up? How did we arrive at a "conventional wisdom" that is so counterintuitive? I mean, skepticism is fine, but so far not one single piece of evidence pointing to a tie between Iraq and al Qaeda has been discredited. Such evidence is simply ignored, or explained away by the ubiquitous "secularists never smooch with religionists" platitude. Isn't it about time that we began to consider the obvious to be at least plausible? After all, when my bowling ball is bearing down squarely on the 1 and 2 pins, I'm thinking "strike." 95% of the time I'm right. Every once in awhile I'll leave the 7-10, but it's not something I'd bet money on...

Posted by Demosophist at December 23, 2003 02:09 AM | TrackBack