Maybe I’m dense, but I just don’t get why anyone would cover up an attack. What would be the point of that?
If it were an attack wouldn’t there be a strong probability that the perps would do it again, seeing how easy it was and successful they were at carrying it out and avoiding capture?
It it had been a deliberate attack and by a foreign power, not some yahoo with a shoulder rpg being an idiot (like the dopes aiming laser lights at commercial airplanes from their yards) what would the Clinton administration, or any administration for that matter, have to gain by hiding it?
They all have loved ones traveling by commercial aircraft.
I just don’t get the conspiracy angle.
As for the so called eye-witnesses, I just don’t put much stock in them. Ever hear the conflicting eyewitness accounts of a shooting, or accident or other traumatic event? Not that reliable at a close distance, much less miles away.
Clinton was into the “why can’t we all just get along” theory, where the US was always wrong and our hated military was not to be relied on, and any threat was just an alarmist illusion. Look at all the foreign terrorist attacks he completely ignored; if we were lucky and one of the planners lived here, there’d be trials in US courts, but there was never any serious retaliation for any of them.
It was very important to him to avoid challenges from other countries and to court our enemies; why do you think we were on the side of the Muslims in the Balkans?
“Maybe I’m dense, but I just don’t get why anyone would cover up an attack. What would be the point of that?”
I’m not sure what the point is, but if you remember the first WTC attack, the administration played it down as much as they could.
For many hours, the “official line” was that there had been a transformer explosion!
In later press conferences the president kept referring the first major attack on the continental United States by foreigners as a “police matter” or words to that effect.
And the perps, or buds of the perps, did attack again.
One thing to keep in mind, and I’m not saying it was an attack just pointing out possibilities, is that after Somalia Clinton developed a serious case of bodybagphobia. Notice that while he did many military interventions during his presidency most of them were bombings and other plane/ missile oriented missions, stuff that’s low risk for the US military and when something bad does happen it usually leaves no body. There’s no way Clinton was going to get into a real war after the Blackhawk Down situation, he was afraid of the bad press that comes with bodybags.
To avoid panic in the general public. Such panic would mean the virtural end to commercial air transportation, a vital national interest.
"If it were an attack wouldn’t there be a strong probability that the perps would do it again, seeing how easy it was and successful they were at carrying it out and avoiding capture?"
Precisely. Very few American travelers would take the risk in the immediate aftermath.
Presidential election looming may have played a part.
They were planning more.
And the gubermint was quiet in order to protect the airlines and the economy.
Re-election, maybe?
Some Presidents don't like to deal with messy problems. It could be bad for their poll ratings. Sometimes, events like this can be turned to their advantage.
Recall that Algore chaired a committee that was appointed to develop a special airline security program. Their security recommendations were dropped after the airlines came thru with about $8 million for the 1996 campaign.
You could ask the same question about Oklahoma City...and get pretty much the same answer.
The incident occured in July 1996. The Atlanta Summer Olympics were just beginning. There was a Presidential election just four months later, and the campaign was in full swing.
Clinton had every motive to make this go away.
-PJ