[lbo-talk] 'shillin' with Al Franken

[Luke Weiger]

1) The planners of the raid thought it was a plant for manufacturing
weapons; not medicine.  The intelligence, as we now know, was completely
wrong.  I don't think anyone has argued that the Clinton team intentionally
bombed what they knew to be a pharmaceutical plant; if that was the case, of
course they should be doing time.

2) The bombing raid was planned in such a way that the total of civilians
killed by the bombing itself was minimized (I believe only one person was
killed in the raid).

3) I think the US should've rebuilt the factory, though we have very little
idea just how "severe" the consequences were for the Sudanese people.  The
data is ambivalent at best, and Chomsky's assertion that the death toll was
substantially greater than 911 was not properly supported.

-- Luke

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at alexia.lis.uiuc.edu>
To: <lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org>
Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 5:46 PM
Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] 'shillin' with Al Franken


> Of course it wasn't "justifiable."  In a well-run society, it's one of the
> crimes that Clinton would be doing time for.  Chomsky said at the time,
> "What would the reaction have been if the bin Laden network had blown up
> half the pharmaceutical supplies in the US and facilities for replenishing
> them?"  He pointed out that the consequences were more severe in Sudan,
> with a death toll substantially greater than that of 911. --CGE
>
>
> On Fri, 26 Mar 2004, Luke Weiger wrote:
>
> > What reason is there to think that the cruise-missile bombing wasn't
> > justifiable?  Perhaps the US should've built them a new pharmaceutical
> > factory after the fact, but that's a different question.
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk