Read other letters about this article

• Thursday, January 8, 2009 08:06 AM

  @libertyson

  "Also as I seem to recall Clinton DID retaliate and right-wingers simultaenously whined about him both "wagging-the-dog" by launching an unnecessary attack and not doing enough by merely "bombing aspirin factories.""

  This is a blatant falsehood. There was not a single member of the GOP leadership who did not express support for Clinton.

  When Clinton retaliated against al Qaeda after they bombed two U.S. embassies in Africa in August 1998, the Republican leadership offered nothing but support for Clinton. According to an August 21, 1998 Washington Post article, "President Clinton won warm support for ordering anti-terrorist bombing attacks in Afghanistan and Sudan yesterday from many of the same lawmakers who have criticized him harshly as a leader critically weakened by poor judgment and reckless behavior in the Monica S. Lewinsky scandal."

  According to the article, House Speaker Newt Gingrich said, "I think the president did exactly the right thing. By doing this we’re sending the signal there are no sanctuaries for terrorists."

  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/react082198.htm

  Gingrich also worked to make sure other conservatives did not question the timing of Clinton’s retaliation.* The Boston Globe reported the following on August 23, 1998:

  "Indeed, Gingrich even saw to it that one of his political associates, Rich Galen, sent a blast-Fax to conservative talk radio hosts urging them to lay off the president on the missile strikes, and making sure they knew of Gingrich’s strong support.

  "That’s the same Rich Galen, by the way, who is openly urging Republican congressional candidates to try to take political advantage of the president’s sex scandal in their television advertising this fall."

  Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott called the attacks "appropriate and just," and House Majority Leader Richard Armey said "the American people stand united in the face of terrorism."

  And, contrary to the Clinton’s claim that Republicans thought he was doing too much to counter al Qaeda, Sen. Orrin Hatch said, "In the past I was worried that this administration didn’t take this threat seriously enough, and didn’t take Osama bin Laden seriously enough; I’m going to support him, wish him well and back him up."

  Porter J. Goss, who was then chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, echoed Hatch. "If anything, this was somewhat overdue, and I’m not talking days, but months and years. This needs to be the first punch we land. We need to land more."

  Unfortunately, this so-called first punch against al Qaeda would also be the last punch that Clinton threw at al Qaeda. Even with Republican support and support from two-thirds of all Americans, Clinton decided to throw no additional punches at al Qaeda. Instead, he opted to throw a few punches at Saddam Hussein in December 1998 during the preemptive attack known as Operation Desert Fox. After throwing those punches, he then decided, without congressional or UN approval, to throw punches at Slobodan Milosevic in Kosovo during the spring of 1999.

  * Of course, there were those who did criticize the timing of Clinton’s retaliation. One such critic was Scott Ritter, a chief United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq from 1991 to 1998 and hero amongst the anti-Bush left. Christopher Hitchens in "No One Left To Lie To" quotes Ritter as telling him the following: "Of course, though [Operation Desert Fox] is, it isn’t quite like Sudan and Afghanistan in August, which were Wag the Dog pure and simple."

  —Groenhagen Read Groenhagen's other letters
  Permalink
  Flag
  Click "Submit Flag" if you feel this post is inappropriate. Explain why below if you wish.

  Cancel