(Excerpted from "Embassy Attacks Thwarted, U.S. Says; Official Cites Gains Against Bin Laden; Clinton Seeks $10 Billion to Fight Terrorism," Vernon Loeb, Washington Post, A02, January 23, 1999.)
I think a key element to this story is the fact that it was Clarke himself who had convinced President Clinton to make the strike. So, in defending Clinton in 1999, he was actually defending himself while, at the same time, making the case for a link between Saddam and multiple terrorist organizations, including Al Qaeda.
So, did Clarke later learn that the intelligence linking Al Qaeda and Iraq was wrong? If so, why didn't he point this out in his book and subsequent interviews? If he was wrong, then the people killed in the El Shifa factory were innocent civilians, killed because of his personal error. One way or another, the bombing of the El Shifa factory did significant damage (no pun intended) to US relations with the Middle East for some time afterward.
More to come.
David Flanagan
Viewpointjournal.com
Article comments
1 - Hal Pawluk
Can you provide a link to the original story?
Searches on Google for phrases from the story turn up nothing, and I found nothing on the Washington Post site.
Searching for "Official Cites Gains Against Bin Laden" turned up nothing on the Web at all.
2 - Hal Pawluk
Never mind - found it in their archives (pilot error).