Republicans back Clinton on military strikes decision
Senator Alfonse D'Amato, a Republican from New York, said: ``If people think the Congress is not going to be totally supportive of the commander-in-chief, they're just mistaken.
``This may serve notice that whatever our local disagreements, we stand with our commander-in-chief, and he was absolutely proper and forceful.''
Representative Dan Burton, a Republican from Indiana, said: ``I take the action for what it was: to stop the terrorists and to make them pay for what they did. And that was the right thing to do.''
A handful of others, however, harboured some scepticism of the timing of the attacks, coming the same week Mr Clinton admitted to the American public that he had an ``inappropriate relationship'' with Monica Lewinsky.
Some suggested an analogy to the recent Hollywood movie Wag the Dog in which a president stages a fake war to divert attention from a sex scandal at home.
Senator Dan Coats, a Republican from Indiana, said: ``While there is clearly much more we need to learn about this attack and why it was ordered today, given the President's personal difficulties this week, it is legitimate to question the timing of this action.
``The President in his statement indicated that these were groups that had attacked Americans before, so then why did we wait until now to do something?
``Once the President has broken the bond of trust with the American people ... it raises questions about everything he does or does not do.''
Senator Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, echoed those sentiments, saying: ``The President's current problems have to be on the minds of many people.''
Others said they supported Clinton, if only because his decision to attack was backed by military leaders they trust.
Ted Stevens, a Republican from Alaska and chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, said he knew the top military leaders well. ``I think they would be the first to jump up if our military people were being put in danger for political reasons,'' he said.
Speaker of the US House of Representatives Newt Gingrich expressed full support for the military strikes in Sudan and Afghanistan and said the United States should be ready to attack again if needed.
``I hope today's strikes will be the first step in breaking apart the murderous terrorist organisation that sponsored the recent attacks in Africa, and I hope the administration will take any additional steps needed to ensure that our citizens, our embassies, and our interests remain secure,'' the Georgia Republican said.
``I think the United States did exactly the right thing today,'' Gingrich said.
``We cannot allow any terrorist group to attack our citizens or our interests without forceful and focused retaliation when we identify those responsible.''
Earlier, the speaker told the CNN television network in a telephone interview that he knew ahead of time about the military strikes.
``It's very important that we sent a signal to countries like Sudan and Afghanistan that if you house a terrorist you become a target.''
The speaker turned aside questions about whether the timing of the US attacks might have been linked to the sex scandal surrounding President Clinton.
``I've been involved in briefings for the last two weeks and I think it's been done a methodical, professional way and I strongly support the United States government having acted that way,'' the House Speaker said.
UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan yesterday condemned terrorism but said he was concerned about the US military strikes.
Annan, in a statement issued by his spokesman, said he had been informed by Washington of its military actions minutes before the strikes occurred.
``He is concerned over these developments and awaits further details,'' the statement said.
``The secretary-general, sharing the views of both the Security Council and the General Assembly, condemns terrorism in all its forms,'' the statement added.
The United States has not had official relations with Afghanistan since 1979 and the US embassy in Sudan has been closed since January 1996 because of security concerns.
UN Ambassador Bill Richardson became the highest ranking US official to visit Afghanistan since 1979 when he traveled there in April, mainly to promote an end to the civil war there.
Since the radical Islamic Taliban group seized control of Afghanistan in September 1996, its relations with the United States in general have not been good.
The Clinton administration does not recognize the Taliban as the legitimate authority in Afghanistan. It also has accused the Taliban of gross mistreatment of women in its application of Islamic law. Another sore point for the United States is the presence of international terrorists in Afghanistan.
Sudan has been on the US list of countries that support terrorism since 1993. A key source of US concern have been the close links the Sudanese government has maintained with Iran. Although the US embassy in Khartoum has been closed since 1996, American diplomats make occasional visits there for talks with government authorities. Like Afghanistan, Sudan has been plagued by a bloody civil war between the Islamic north and the Christian and animist south.
The US State Department's annual report on global terrorism, released in April, listed both Sudan and Afghanistan as refuges for international terrorist groups.
