<<Wasn't the CIA or whoever is responsible for intelligence that told him who was responsible for the bombing of our embassies? And that they planned to strike again? >>
As is pointed out in the L.A. Times editorial from the previous post, and from numerous other newspaper articles in recent days, the "evidence" is turning out to be somewhat suspect. A single soil sample was taken, which scientists say could have been the result of fertilizer (bomb pre-cursors?). The White House overstated it's evidence regarding a connection between bin Laden and the factory (per the L.A. Times). Our allies say they knew of no such activity going on, but we declined to discuss the situation with them beforehand. As to the future strikes - notice how that was worded - future strikes are imminent - not immediate, just imminent. What does that mean? It means that at some future date, the terrorists will strike again. No kidding - for that we needed the CIA?
What would I have done? Spend the appropriate amount of time looking into corroborating evidence, and be very sure before I strike a civilian target. It may also be a military target, but you can't afford to make even one mistake in this kind of situation. Even giving Clinton the benefit of the doubt for the Afghani bombings (meetings of terrorist leaders dictated the timing), there was no urgency to the strike on the factory. Why not wait another week, be sure, get a buy-in from allies, and use the strike on the factory as proof that we weren't making a one-shot effort, but are committed to a war. |
