U.S. Action Conjures Up Scenario From ‘Wag the Dog’

It is, perhaps, the most sensitive and stunning military operation that can be conducted--attacking distant, shadowy targets with utmost surprise. But it came at a time when political and social sensitivities were worn raw, when good faith had given way to the worst of suspicions.

And so it was only a matter of minutes before questions arose: Were the attacks on what the White House and Pentagon said were terrorist camps and operations in Sudan and Afghanistan a case of life imitating art? Had the movie “Wag the Dog” come to life?

The question raised hackles Thursday among government officials.

“The only motivation driving this action today was our absolute obligation to protect the American people from terrorist activities,” Defense Secretary William S. Cohen said. “That is the sole motivation. No other consideration has been involved.”

In the movie, a spin doctor working for a president under sharp political attack for behaving badly with a young woman in the Oval Office engages a Hollywood producer to stage a war--and distract the American public from the president’s personal problems.

Indeed, the attacks Thursday occurred as the nation’s attention was still firmly riveted on President Clinton’s acknowledgment in a televised address to the nation Monday evening that he had conducted a relationship with intern Monica S. Lewinsky that, he admitted, was “not appropriate.”

Less than 72 hours later--and now in full commander-in-chief mode--Clinton was again speaking to the nation, trying to demonstrate at their fullest the military, political and even moral leadership powers that are bestowed upon even a president struggling to restore the integrity of his office.

He spoke first from a school gymnasium on the resort island of Martha’s Vineyard, where he had arrived Tuesday afternoon for a family vacation.

Then, on arrival in Washington less than two hours later, Clinton met with his national security advisors and addressed the nation again, this time from the more familiar, and certainly more presidential, setting of the Oval Office, about a grave national security issue.

What could grab public attention with greater power than the president of the United States disclosing to an unsuspecting nation, and world, that he had launched simultaneous attacks--with cruise missiles, it turns out--on distant points in response to horrific twin attacks on American embassies in East Africa?

The seriousness of the issue came up against the extreme peculiarity of the timing--all against the backdrop of last winter’s Hollywood release. It was just too much for some to leave without expressing at least skepticism, if not drawing conclusions that tied up the missile strikes, the Lewinsky story and the movie together in a neat package.

Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), a former chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, said, “There is an obvious issue, which will be raised internationally, about the response here as to whether there is any diversionary motive involved.”

Another Republican, Sen. Dan Coats of Indiana, chairman of a Senate Armed Services subcommittee and a member of the intelligence panel, 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?”

Such talk underscored Clinton’s dilemma. Porter J. Goss (R-Fla.), chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, put it this way: “The fact that the question has even been raised when dealing with a national security matter of this importance shows how serious the question of the president’s credibility has become.”

Most Republicans, however, expressed support for the president’s actions, applauding a united stand against terrorism directed at Americans.

“Sooner or later, terrorists around the world will realize that Americans’ differences end at the water’s edge, and that the United States’ political leadership always has, and always will, stand united in the face of international terrorism,” said Sen. Jesse Helms (R-N.C.), one of the president’s more persistent critics.

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), admonished those who read any political motives into Clinton’s actions. “It’s very unpatriotic of them,” she said. “I think they should apologize.”

Others were less quick to judge the skeptical reaction. “The obvious question is, are the two connected?” asked Rep. Dave Weldon (R-Fla.), who chairs the National Security Committee’s research subcommittee. “That’s the unthinkable, and I would hope it would never occur in America, but I can tell you, a lot of people are wondering about it today.”

*

Times staff writers Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar and Jodi Wilgoren in Washington contributed to this report.