JonL:
Quote:
|
I don't believe that even the most trigger-happy administration would go to war over a largely failed bombing attempt and the downing of a single airplane in a terrorist attack. If they had evidence, or could even concoct seemingly credible evidence linking Iraq to these events, the response would be severe but measured. A limited airstrike on military targets, a tightening of sanctions, even covert ops... but not the all-out war we waged.
|
There is a huge diff JonL between a pre-emptive war based on trumped up (or at least limited) evidence and a direct attack by a foreign power on American soil or interests. I believe downing a jet off NYC with a military S-A missile or bombing the WTC is an act of war. And further, if the perp is ALREADY on probabation, you've got to neutralize him permanently. And Clinton had already done the intense bombing stuff. Would have had to step up to a decapitation.
I think at first the Clinton Admin MAY have actually believed that the WTC 1 bombing should be a law enforcement problem (I disagree), but later discovered that they lost the ability to prove a state connection to Iraq by doing that. Couldn't reconstruct enough solid evidence after the fact to convince the public that Saddam needed to be taken out.
In the case of Flight 800, it was speculated that a "Stinger" type missile could easily be launched from a small craft off Long Island. And it would have been very embarrassing to pursue this since the USA GAVE those missiles to the Mujahadin in Afghanistan. It was that missile that TURNED the Russians out of that country. Gave the Arab fighters the ability to neutralize USSR helicopter, air cover. At that point, if the govt knew it was a terrorist action (sponsored by Saddam) , it might have been just made a note, closed the investigation because the larger concern was a possible "pre-emptive" strike against Al Queada first. Don't know. But I'm fairly convinced this was a terrorist act.