Bombing Sudan

September 16, 1998
When President Clinton ordered the bombing of a chemical plant in Sudan, most Americans backed him up even if there was some concern about the timing of the action. But a few weeks after the bombing, many are wondering if we should have taken him at his word.

An editorial in Investor's Business Daily raises questions about the president's statements. First, the plant was supposedly heavily guarded. But British engineer Tom Carnaffin, who worked at the plant from 1992-1996, said it was never a plant of high security, and that people could walk around wherever they liked. Second, it was supposed to be a military industrial complex, yet records show it was owned by a Saudi Arabian banker with offices in London.

Third, it supposedly produced no commercial products. Not so. The plant supplied malaria tablets for kids and drugs for livestock. Pill bottles were found in the debris. Fourth, the soil sample that supposedly linked the site to VX nerve gas production was never identified or discussed in any detail. And finally, there's lots of evidence that seems to directly contradict the claim that this was a chemical weapons plant. Such a plant would need special glass-lined reactors and tubes to withstand the corrosion of highly toxic chemicals. It would need lots of storage space. Moreover, its contents might leak when bombed. Did you see the pictures of Sudanese firefighters dousing the flames? No one died of VX nerve gas poisoning.

Well, I could go on but you get the point. If this were a chemical weapons plant, then there should have been some evidence that it was. The conflicting statements and changing statements do not reassure us. If anything, it creates even more suspicion. Was this a necessary action? Was this a strategic target? I guess we will never know since most of the action will remain classified. But it does make you wonder, doesn't it?

I'm Kerby Anderson of Probe Ministries, and that's my opinion.

© 1998 Probe Ministries International