Clinton administration also linked al Qaeda to Saddam

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Clinton first linked al Qaeda to Saddam

The Clinton administration talked about firm evidence linking Saddam Hussein's regime to Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network years before President Bush made the same statements.

.....



In fact, during President Clinton's eight years in office, there were at least two official pronouncements of an alarming alliance between Baghdad and al Qaeda. One came from William S. Cohen, Mr. Clinton's defense secretary. He cited an al Qaeda-Baghdad link to justify the bombing of a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan.



http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040624-112921-3401r.htm

[aerocontrols]

They don't care.

It's well known that when Clinton bombed that factory in Sudan, the reason was because that the Administration claimed that Saddam and Al Qaeda were cooperating on manufacturing chemical weapons there.

Remember Richard Clarke?

At the time, Clarke defended the bombing in almost the same words, telling the press that he was "sure" that "intelligence existed linking bin Laden to Al Shifa's current and past operators, the Iraqi nerve gas experts and the National Islamic Front in Sudan."

Source (http://slate.msn.com/id/2097901/)

[varwoche]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the pharmaceutical plant in Sudan just that -- a pharmaceutical plant? Wasn't this a screw-up?

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Originally posted by varwoche
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the pharmaceutical plant in Sudan just that -- a pharmaceutical plant? Wasn't this a screw-up?

what would you suggest they should have done to divert attention away from him using manatee lewinsky as an ashtray ?

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by varwoche
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the pharmaceutical plant in Sudan just that -- a pharmaceutical plant? Wasn't this a screw-up?

Maybe Clinton answers that question in his book, but he has yet to say anything that I am aware of.

Or maybe Clarke has changed his mind. If so, I'm not aware that they've told anyone. Kerry foreign policy advisors Sandy Berger and James Rubin haven't reversed their positions on that link, either.

[varwoche]

Originally posted by aerocontrols
Or maybe Clarke has changed his mind. If so, I'm not aware that they've told anyone. Kerry foreign policy advisors Sandy Berger and James Rubin haven't reversed their positions on that link, either.
I don't mean the link. I mean the bombing in Sudan. Isn't it semi-accepted knowledge this was a screw-up?

[Nie Trink Wasser]

The other pronouncement is contained in a Justice Department indictment on Nov. 4, 1998, charging bin Laden with murder in the bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa.

The indictment disclosed a close relationship between al Qaeda and Saddam's regime, which included specialists on chemical weapons and all types of bombs, including truck bombs, a favorite weapon of terrorists.

The 1998 indictment said: "Al Qaeda also forged alliances with the National Islamic Front in the Sudan and with the government of Iran and its associated terrorist group Hezbollah for the purpose of working together against their perceived common enemies in the West, particularly the United States. In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the government of Iraq."

[DavidJames]

Clinton first linked al Qaeda to Saddam But mommy, Billy did it too!

When you grow up, you will learn people are responsible for their own actions and doing something because someone else did it is generally accepted

[hgc]

But in the end, who started a "pre-emptive" war over it? Who tied up the entire U.S. Army in a place it doesn't need to be? Who's war will end up costing us half a trillion dollars?

I would gladly have us bomb pharm plant in half the countries in Africa based on this mistake, rather than the have the Iraq debacle.

[Nie Trink Wasser]

I absolutely love to watch you slime justify this !

its great !

this has nothing to do with "but they did so it must be okay"

it has everything to do with liberals/leftists IGNORING time and time again that the things they call Bush a liar over now was justified when one of their own did it.

so f*cking annoyingly stupid.

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Originally posted by hgc

I would gladly have us bomb pharm plant in half the countries in Africa based on this mistake, rather than the have the Iraq debacle. [/B]

yeah......having a genocidal dictator who funds terror groups removed from power is such and "debacle"

maybe we should trust liberals and fling flaccid missles at ridiculous targets and accomplish nothng in the process !

[wjousts]

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser


what would you suggest they should have done to divert attention away from him using manatee lewinsky as an ashtray ?

So Clinton did nothing to stop Al Qaeda and 9/11 was all his fault but whenever he tried to do something it was an attempt to divert attention from Lewinsky? So exactly what was he supposed to do in the eyes of the far right?

[wjousts]

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser

maybe we should trust liberals and fling flaccid missles at ridiculous targets and accomplish nothng in the process !

What like operation Desert Fox which [former weapons inspector] Scott Ritter claimed pretty much ended Saddam's weapons program? Or the strikes on Al Qaeda camps? but that was all an attempt to distract from Lewinsky wasn't it?

[Nie Trink Wasser]

so we're ignoring that Saddam and Al Qaeda were linked by Clinton too ?

can we talk about that and why no one seems to mention it while screaming that Bush is a liar for saying so ?

[gnome]

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser
it has everything to do with liberals/leftists IGNORING time and time again that the things they call Bush a liar over now was justified when one of their own did it.

so f*cking annoyingly stupid.

Fine, let me be the first to say that I don't think it was justified, even if Clinton did it. Especially if he was manipulating the facts to justify his actions, as we suspect Bush of doing.

[DavidJames]

so we're ignoring that Saddam and Al Qaeda were linked by Clinton too ? What Clinton thought a couple of years ago is irrelevant. Things change, new intelligence arrives, old intelligence become outdated. All of it should be interpreted by those that are responsible for taking actions now. Even if Clinton had the exact same information and none of it changed (highly unlikely), he choose a different course of action than Bush. Bush is being judged on the actions he took.

A sitting president has to rely on current information, not something from a previous administration. Does this not make sense?

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser
so we're ignoring that Saddam and Al Qaeda were linked by Clinton too ?

can we talk about that and why no one seems to mention it while screaming that Bush is a liar for saying so ?

OK, they're both liars.

Happy?

[Gem]

maybe we should trust liberals and fling flaccid missles at ridiculous targets and accomplish nothng in the process !

Like Ronald Reagan did when he sent a missle in Libya?

Gem

[AtheistArchon]

can we talk about that and why no one seems to mention it while screaming that Bush is a liar for saying so ?

- Clinton lied. Bush lied and started a bogus war. *shrug* I'm no Clinton fanatic.

- What's your point? I mean apart from trying to divert from the Bush lunacy?

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by AtheistArchon


- Clinton lied. Bush lied and started a bogus war. *shrug* I'm no Clinton fanatic.

- What's your point? I mean apart from trying to divert from the Bush lunacy?

In the sad little world of the conservative groupie, getting those who criticize Bush to also criticize Clinton is a victory.
I guess they think it absolves Bush somehow. Y'know, two wrongs always make a right!