NYT follow-up on Sudan plant bombing

[Brett Knowlton]

Yeah, and even now they portray it as an understandable mistake.  One guy
is quoted as saying something to the effect that evidence linking Bin Laden
to the plant was circumstantial, but strong, as if bombing was a reasonable
position to take, he merely disagreed with it personally.  Of course this
circumstantial evidence is never discussed.  And then there was the noted
restraint of the Administration in not bombing the suspect tannery as well.

 And one apologist gravely acknowledges that we had to respond somehow to
show Bin Laden and other terrorists that we were "serious," whatever that
means.

The fact is any evidence linking Bin Laden to the fertilizer plant existed
mostly if not wholly in the minds of the Administration.  On the whole,
even this article makes Clinton and his cronies look good.

Brett


>[The following is from today’s NY Times.  So, gracias, Andrew Rosenthal –
>now what about that “accident” at the Chinese embassy?]
>
>To Bomb Sudan Plant, or Not: A Year Later, Debates Rankle
>
>-------------
>
>better late than never.  The Post had a big piece on this
>months ago, affirming the merits of legal suit brought by the
>owner of the plant.
>
>mbs