Somalia revisited

Looks like it might be payback time in Somalia:

The attack by the Air Force AC-130 gunship, capable of firing thousands of rounds per second, left casualties on the ground, but it is not clear if any of the dead were targeted terrorists, the official said.

The U.S. could have been targeting two terrorists — Fazul Abdullah Mohammed and Saleh Nabhan — who are connected to the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Africa that left more than 200 dead. Officials have long suspected those involved in the bombings have taken refuge in Somalia.

Hard to say if we got any of these guys, but surely that AC130 scared the pants off more than a few who weren't turned into desert.

The African Embassy bombings occurred in the Summer of 1998, right in the thick of the Monica Lewinsky brouhaha. While I blame Clinton for dipping his pen in office ink (something my dad always warned against) had it not been for the Republicans' zeal to tar him we might have paid more attention to speeches like this:

My fellow Americans, our battle against terrorism did not begin with the bombing of our embassies in Africa, nor will it end with today's strike.

It will require strength, courage and endurance. We will not yield to this threat. We will meet it no matter how long it may take. This will be a long, ongoing struggle between freedom and fanaticism, between the rule of law and terrorism.

We must be prepared to do all that we can for as long as we must. America is and will remain a target of terrorists precisely because we are leaders; because we act to advance peace, democracy and basic human values; because we're the most open society on earth; and because, as we have shown yet again, we take an uncompromising stand against terrorism.

And this one, from Sandy "socks" Berger on Newshour:

JIM LEHRER: Why has he-so much trouble to find out-I mean, why is it hard to track him?

SAMUEL BERGER: Well, he-he travels, obviously, in a way that is designed to try to avoid detection, to avoid being in a place where he can be apprehended.

He goes on to say:

JIM LEHRER: So we are after him?

SAMUEL BERGER: Certainly. We're after all not just him-I think it would be too simplistic to say he's the sole terrorist problem in the world. He happens to be an important non-state terrorist, who is focused on the United States. There are other terrorist groups, and we have to recognize we can't have our head in the sand, that this is a problem, and we will deal with it, as Americans always have, with persistence, with strength, with sThatteadfastness, with courage, knowing that there will be other incidents against us, but that also knowing that we're not simply going to be passive..

It's eye-opening to look back and see what was said back then. Very Bushian. Notice Berger refused to limit our targets to just one non-state terrorist--very important since they had targeted the pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum due to fears that Iraqi scientists were helping AQ bottle VX.

By the way, in reading through his comments it appears he made a slip-up:

They're all targets, as far as he's concerned. He's conducted a series of attacks in the United States. He has conducted-he has, in a sense, declared war on the United States.

Since this interview occurred in August of 1998 it's hard to understand what he meant by a "series" of attacks IN the US. The only prior attack I can think of was the 1993 WTC attack, although others were thwarted. According to some reports Yousef was not associated with bin Laden in 1993--he certainly had not pledged allegiance to him yet--although others think he received funds. Whatever the case, the record doesn't show a series of attacks, it shows one. The only other event even remotely close to being called an attack was the TWA 800 crash in 1996, so surely he meant to say "against", not "in". But we've been told ole Sandy can get a little confused at times.