Prominent Democrats have wasted no time accusing President Bush of using doctored intelligence about Baghdad's weapons of mass destruction to justify the Iraq war, while like-minded pundits have already begun hinting darkly about the possibility of impeaching Bush if the WMDs don't turn up soon.
But there was no similar outcry five years ago after the Clinton administration came up empty on evidence that Sudan was producing weapons of mass destruction, a claim the White House used to justify slamming some 20 cruise missiles into Khartoum's Al Shifa pharmaceutical plant - a facility it also claimed had ties to Osama bin Laden.
A little more than year later, the New York Times revealed:
"Officials throughout the Government raised doubts up to the eve of the attack about whether the United States had sufficient information linking the factory to either chemical weapons or to Mr. bin Laden, according to participants in the discussions. They said senior diplomatic and intelligence officials argued strenuously over whether any target in Sudan should be attacked."
Aides passed on their doubts to Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, the Times said. "But the national security adviser, Samuel R. Berger, who played a pivotal role in approving the strike, said in an interview that he was not aware of any questions about the strength of the evidence before the attack."
But diplomatic insiders told the Times that senior officials moved to suppress internal dissent. "Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright and a senior deputy, they said, encouraged State Department intelligence analysts to kill a report being drafted that said the bombing was not justified," the paper said.
In fact, the attack was so controversial within the Clinton administration that not even the Joint Chiefs of Staff were warned in advance. Only Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Henry Shelton was informed before the strike, which included a failed, simultaneous cruise missile strike on Osama bin Laden's terrorist training camp in Khost, Afghanistan
According to The New Yorker magazine, Gen. Shelton faced a firestorm of outrage for keeping Pentagon decision makers in the dark. He promised his colleagues that nothing like that would ever happen again.
It certainly didn't help that the missile strike seemed timed to coincide with Monica Lewinsky's scheduled testimony before a grand jury probing Mr. Clinton's attempts to obstruct the Paula Jones case.
Still, the mounting evidence that Mr. Clinton had committed an act of war to distract the media from his own legal problems failed to rekindle calls for impeachment.
Clinton-friendly media organs, however, did voice their discomfort with the deception.
"After repeated investigative reports and repeated evasions by the Clinton administration, it is clear that the missile attack was a mistake," noted The New Republic magazine. "It's time to say so."
"In the attack's immediate aftermath, the administration made many claims on its behalf. Few have withstood scrutiny," the magazine noted.
"Contrary to government assertions, the plant was indeed manufacturing medicines (about half of Sudan's pharmaceutical needs). There was no heavy security at the facility, and it was not patrolled by the Sudanese military, as was alleged. It was not owned or controlled by the Sudanese government, but by a Saudi banker with anti- fundamentalist ties. ...
"Subsequent testing at the site has found no materials associated with chemical weapons. And no evidence directly linking the factory to Osama Bin Laden has ever surfaced."
TNR concluded, "If the Clinton administration has information to the contrary, it has not produced it."
As Democrats and their media friends now feign outrage about missing weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, it's worth noting how tepid the response was after the Clinton administration invoked WMD intelligence it knew was suspect to justify attacking a sovereign nation that posed absolutely no threat to the U.S.
Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics:
Clinton Scandals
War on Terrorism
Let 'em try. It won't even get to the floor.
They should be investigating Clinton's role in 911 instead of Bush, but then, that ain't gonna happen is it?
