Here's a quote from your first link:
"The authors also point out that there are intelligence officials who still say that Idris is a front man for Osama bin Laden. Their response is to repeat that Idris? lawyer says his client has never met bin Laden. However, if Idris eventually proves to have been connected to bin Laden in some way, is bombing the plant before it could be proven to be a chemical weapons facility an example of our democratic beliefs?"
Have you guessed yet where the allegiance was in this writing?
Here is a quote from your second link:
"Bill Clinton declared that the target was a "terrorist network" and he said that the United States' "war against terrorism" is "a struggle between freedom and fanaticism."
This statement came from the head of a government that has thrown hundreds of thousands of poor American children off welfare and into destitution and suffering. Clinton claimed that the United States wants "peace, not conflict...to lift lives around the world, not take them." These words come from the top representative of a country that launched tens of thousands of bombs against Iraq in 1991, killed hundreds of thousands of people, and now seems determined to starve the remainder into submission. The same world power that just wiped out a factory that reportedly made half the medicine in the desperately poor, famine-stricken country of Sudan."
Guess what kind of opposition characters this came from?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
Here is a quote from the third link:
"Nontheless, Clinton's Secretary of State William Cohen, testified to the 9/11 Commission in 2004, characterizing Al Shifa as a "WMD-related facility", which played a "chemical weapons role" such as to pose a risk that it, with the help of the Iraqi chemical weapons program connections he also testified to, might help Al Qaeda get chemical weapons technology.
Sudan has since invited the U.S. to conduct chemical tests at the site for evidence to support its claim that the plant might have been a chemical weapons factory; so far, the U.S. has refused the invitation to investigate. Nevertheless, the U.S. has refused to officially apologize for the attacks, suggesting that some privately still suspect that chemical weapons activity existed there."
Wonder why the US government in 2004 can't go and get the goods? Political agenda, maybe?
Here is a quote from the fourth link:
"In the same issue of CAQ (Winter, ‘99), Lee Siu Hin finds a troubling connection between the multitudinous airstrikes launched on 8/20/98 and the Raytheon Company. He says the number of missiles launched at the Middle East targets that night astounded some former Persian Gulf war commanders. A former Operation Desert Storm planner added “during Desert Storm, they would never have dreamed of putting more than 8 or 12 Tomahawks on one target.” This is because, at about $750,000 each, Tomahawks are very expensive."
Expensive, huh? They don't know shit from shinola, I say!!!!!!!!!!!!! Shallow thinking, don't you think?
Here is a quote from the fifth and last link:
"In its most recent comment on the issue, State Department spokesman Philip Reeker said last week the administration stands by its initial justification for the bombing. He said evidence suggests that bin Laden was seeking to acquire weapons of mass destruction, including chemical weapons, for use against American targets. He said Empta, used to make chemical weapons, was found outside the al-Shifa facility."
All of these links and stories have redeeming qualities. I would suggest you read them all, search out a few more and read them as well.
Clinton did far better than you might think only hearing one side of the argument. He certainly did far better than the current chickenhawk-in-chief.
