Hyde lied, says former lover Editorial
Political firestorm erupts against Salon "This hypocrite broke up my family"
Editorial
- - - - - - -
The full text of The Starr Report and The White House Rebuttal
T A B L E+T A L K
Why I am a Democrat/Republican/None of the above: Defend your affiliation in the Politics area of Table Talk
R E C E N T L Y
Grace under pressure The politics of paranoia A man for all seasons Loyal to the end Lives of the Republicans, Part Two - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Browse the - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
|
![]() ![]() |
|
![]() |
On Aug. 20, President Clinton personally ordered the leveling of the Al-Shifa pharmaceutical plant on the outskirts of Khartoum. More or less simultaneously, another flight of cruise missiles was dropped on various parts of Afghanistan and also -- who's counting? -- Pakistan, in an apparent effort to impress the vile Osama bin Laden. Bin Laden, of course, hopes to bring a "judgmental" monotheism of his own to bear on these United States, and is thus in some peoples' minds a sort of Arab version of Ken Starr. Sources in U.S. Intelligence apparently claimed that there was only one "window" through which to strike at bin Laden, and that the only time they could hope to hit his Afghan fastness by this remote means was on the night of Monica Lewinsky's return to the grand jury. Let's assume they were correct. After all, they helped build and equip his camps and they may know something we don't (even if they ended up missing him). Furthermore, the hideous Taliban regime is not available for the receiving of diplomatic notes, has even executed some Iranian envoys and seems in other ways to be deaf to shame. But Khartoum? There are two separate but related questions here. First, was the Al-Shifa factory a Tom Clancy cauldron of devil's brew? Second, did it have to be hit that very night? The first question does involve the second, but for convenience let's summarize its headings. The administration said that no medical or commercial products were made at Al-Shifa. It added that the factory was directly related to bin Laden's occult commercial empire. It further said that the traces of the chemical compound EMPTA had been found in the soil outside the plant. Within days, there was an amazingly swift climb-down from all these claims:
So much for the legitimacy of the "legally accurate" target. But suppose that all these suspicions could be dissolved, and that we knew the factory was run by Doctor No or Herr Blofeld of Fu Manchu. It still could not have been folded like a tent and spirited away in a day or so. And the United States has diplomatic relations with Sudan. (It even used these relations, not long ago, to press successfully for the deportation of bin Laden.) Was there a demarche made between the State Department and the Sudanese regime? (We want to see inside this factory right away and will interpret refusal as a hostile act.) There was not. Even Saddam Hussein was and is given more warning than that. Well then, what was the hurry? A hurry that was panicky enough for the president and his advisors to pick the wrong objective and then, stained with embarrassment and retraction, to refuse the open inquiry that could have settled the question in the first place? There is really only one possible answer to that question. Clinton needed to look "presidential" for a day. He may even have needed a vacation from his family vacation. In any event, he acted with caprice and brutality and with a complete disregard for international law, and perhaps counted on the indifference of the press and public to a negligible society like that of Sudan, and killed wogs to save his own lousy Hyde (to say nothing of our new moral tutor, the ridiculous sermonizer Lieberman). No bipartisan contrition is likely to be offered to the starving Sudanese: unmentioned on the "prayer-breakfast" circuit.
This is why I agree with those who say that we must put Monica behind us, and stop our comic obsession with sex (or "sex" as the president's filthy-minded and incompetent lawyers are still compelled, for perjurious reasons, to call it in their briefing). Clinton must not resign, nor should he be impeached. He and his fans have earned the right to serve out their whole sentence.
Christopher Hitchens is a columnist for Vanity Fair. Did Bill wag the dog? After Clinton called out the warplanes, Beltway skeptics said they'd already seen the movie.
Is bin Laden a terrorist mastermind -- or a fall guy? The Clinton administration accuses Saudi renegade Osama bin Laden of being
directly responsible for almost every terrorist act of the last decade. But
where's the evidence?
|
|
Arts & Entertainment | Books | Comics | Life | News | People
Politics | Sex | Tech & Business | Audio
The Free Software Project | The Movie Page
Letters | Columnists | Salon Plus
Copyright © 2000 Salon.com All rights reserved.