SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: pezz who wrote (1408)9/2/1998 8:59:00 AM
From: j_b  Read Replies (2) of 67261
 
<<Waiting a week or so might have been ok but it seems that to wait to long after the attack on our embassies may have lessened the effect of a swift and strong response>>

As far as I could tell from the speeches, the strikes were not in retaliation for the embassy bombings, but for numerous past strikes, and to prevent future strikes. The link to bin Laden is still somewhat suspect, as the two people charged have only said that they a)had trained at the Afghan camp (as have any number of people not aligned with bin Laden) or b)attended a rally with him. Neither makes bin Laden responsible for the bombings. Also, look at our previous responses to terrorist bombings during Clinton's administration - is the silence deafening? With that kind of track record, this strike doesn't exactly look like a swift and inevitable retaliation, especially due to its timing.

If you get a chance, look at the Investors Business Daily back page editorial for Sept. 1, 1998. It looks at the various evidence that the President was looking at to make his decision concerning the strike, and shows that calling the evidence weak would be too generous. If you can't find the copy, I'd be happy to post it tomorrow. Even if you don't agree with the conclusions, it's interesting reading.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext