afparent Posted June 25, 2004 Share Posted June 25, 2004 CLINTON FIRST LINK SADAM TO AL QAEDA By Rowan Scarborough THE WASHINGTON TIMES Published June 25, 2004 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. The issue arose again this month after the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States reported there was no "collaborative relationship" between the old Iraqi regime and bin Laden. Democrats have cited the staff report to accuse Mr. Bush of making inaccurate statements about a linkage. Commission members, including a Democrat and two Republicans, quickly came to the administration's defense by saying there had been such contacts. 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. Mr. Bush cited the linkage, in part, to justify invading Iraq and ousting Saddam. He said he could not take the risk of Iraq's weapons falling into bin Laden's hands. 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." Shortly after the embassy bombings, Mr. Clinton ordered air strikes on al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan and on the Shifa pharmaceutical factory in Sudan. To justify the Sudanese plant as a target, Clinton aides said it was involved in the production of deadly VX nerve gas. Officials further determined that bin Laden owned a stake in the operation and that its manager had traveled to Baghdad to learn bomb-making techniques from Saddam's weapons scientists. Mr. Cohen elaborated in March in testimony before the September 11 commission. He testified that "bin Laden had been living [at the plant], that he had, in fact, money that he had put into this military industrial corporation, that the owner of the plant had traveled to Baghdad to meet with the father of the VX program." He said that if the plant had been allowed to produce VX that was used to kill thousands of Americans, people would have asked him, " 'You had a manager that went to Baghdad; you had Osama bin Laden, who had funded, at least the corporation, and you had traces of [VX precursor] and you did what? And you did nothing?' Is that a responsible activity on the part of the secretary of defense?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted June 25, 2004 Share Posted June 25, 2004 i would love to see the spin on this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest SkinsHokie Fan Posted June 25, 2004 Share Posted June 25, 2004 More things that liberals and the media just love to sweep aside. Its kind of funny that liberals think Bush just made up the evidence in his 2 years in office before the war. The facts show that the evidence had been mounting for over a decade and Clinton/Gore knew it. However they were not about to anger their Pro-Saddam base and launch military action Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted June 25, 2004 Share Posted June 25, 2004 Here's some more. From the NYT no less. June 25, 2004, 1:41AM Document describes al-Qaida, Iraq links New York Times WASHINGTON -- Contacts between Iraqi intelligence agents and Osama bin Laden when he was in Sudan in the mid-1990s were part of a broad effort by Baghdad to work with organizations opposing the Saudi ruling family, according to a newly disclosed document obtained by the Americans in Iraq. American officials described the document as an internal report by the Iraqi intelligence service detailing attempts to seek cooperation with several Saudi opposition groups, including bin Laden's organization, before al-Qaida had become a full-fledged terrorist organization. Bin Laden was based in Sudan from 1992 to 1996, when that country forced him to leave and he took refuge in Afghanistan. The document states that Iraq agreed to rebroadcast anti-Saudi propaganda, and that a request from bin Laden to begin joint operations against foreign forces in Saudi Arabia went unanswered. There is no further indication of collaboration. Last week, the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks addressed the known contacts between Iraq and al-Qaida, which have been cited by the White House as evidence of a close relationship between the two. The commission concluded that the contacts had not demonstrated "a collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al-Qaida. The Bush administration responded that there was considerable evidence of ties. The new document, which appears to have circulated only since April, was provided to The New York Times several weeks ago, before the commission's report was released. Since obtaining the document, The Times has interviewed several military, intelligence and U.S. government officials in Washington and Baghdad to determine that the government considered it authentic. The Americans confirmed that they had obtained the document from the Iraqi National Congress, as part of a trove that the group gathered after the fall of the regime last year. The Defense Intelligence Agency paid the Iraqi National Congress for documents and other information until recently, when the group and its leader, Ahmad Chalabi, fell out of favor in Washington. A translation of this Iraqi document was reviewed by a Pentagon working group this spring, officials said. It included senior analysts from the military's Joint Staff, the Defense Intelligence Agency and a joint intelligence task force that specializes in counter-terrorism issues, they said. The task force concluded that the document "appeared authentic," and that it "corroborates and expands on previous reporting" about contacts between Iraqi intelligence and bin Laden in Sudan. It is not known whether some on the task force held dissenting opinions about the document's veracity. Return to top -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted June 25, 2004 Share Posted June 25, 2004 hmm where is buff and the gang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest SkinsHokie Fan Posted June 25, 2004 Share Posted June 25, 2004 Chirp chirp....... this should be front page news worldwide but we find it on page Z 26 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted June 25, 2004 Share Posted June 25, 2004 This one is too easy. Clinton didn't send us to war, the burden of proof falls on the person who did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ross3909 Posted June 25, 2004 Share Posted June 25, 2004 But wait guys...Almost President of the US Gore told me that there was no relationship between Al Qaida and Iraq before the war??? He also told me that the news of weapons of mass destruction was a lie but then people tell me that we have found Serin Gas fired at our troops and Mustard Gas in a stock pile. He would not be politicizing this war for his parties political gain...would he? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ross3909 Posted June 25, 2004 Share Posted June 25, 2004 Did you notice that with that beard, Gore is looking more and more like Michael Moore...coincedince, maybe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbear Posted June 25, 2004 Share Posted June 25, 2004 Just curious...why Gore? Ah I see...you couldn't possibly say Clinton said x because you don't believe anything from him... Nah seriously, that someone thought there was a link...not too surprised. However, when all the data was looked at together, no credible evidence of a link, at least with what the commission was given. What has changed? from this article? From the article, it seems it was stuff given by Chalabi. It doesn't seem a stretch to view info gained from him and those working with him as possibly tainted. I'd be curious how they tell authentic from faked among the stuff supplied by Chalabi. I'm not saying it's fake, I'm just curious. Does anyone know beyond partisan guesses? Heck, i hope this is proof positive. Part of my complaint about the way riaq has been handled is what it has done to our international credibility. If it were true, at least this would help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted June 25, 2004 Share Posted June 25, 2004 Originally posted by ross3909 He would not be politicizing this war for his parties political gain...would he? you mean like the GOP has been doing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ross3909 Posted June 25, 2004 Share Posted June 25, 2004 New Democratic credo(the true legacy of Clinton): Be on both sides of every issue. That way you will never be all wrong. It is much better than taking a stand and meaning what you say. If your opponants know where you stand on a issue they might be able to critisize it. "It all depends on what the meaning of "is" is..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted June 25, 2004 Share Posted June 25, 2004 Originally posted by gbear Nah seriously, that someone thought there was a link...not too surprised. However, when all the data was looked at together, no credible evidence of a link, at least with what the commission was given. What has changed? from this article? From the article, it seems it was stuff given by Chalabi. It doesn't seem a stretch to view info gained from him and those working with him as possibly tainted. The article says that members of the commision agree there was a link. The commision was just a political move, they don't care about finding out the truth, it was a waste of time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbear Posted June 25, 2004 Share Posted June 25, 2004 Ross, Would the republican credo be "Everything bad goes back to Clinton?" I'm still trying to figure out the link between the thread title and subject. and now back to the subject...please? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ross3909 Posted June 25, 2004 Share Posted June 25, 2004 Sorry I thought we were talking about Gore... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted June 25, 2004 Share Posted June 25, 2004 Originally posted by gbear Ross, Would the republican credo be "Everything bad goes back to Clinton?" I'm still trying to figure out the link between the thread title and subject. and now back to the subject...please? No the republican credo is "Everything not Republican is a threat to America" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbear Posted June 25, 2004 Share Posted June 25, 2004 I thought the article said there "was no collaborative link." Now what I don't see in the article was I thought the commission said there was no collaborative link on the planning of 9-11. To my mind at least there is a difference. I'm pretty sure the commisision was bipartisan. Why is everything not favorable to the president imediately a partisan hack job? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted June 25, 2004 Share Posted June 25, 2004 Originally posted by gbear Ross, Would the republican credo be "Everything bad goes back to Clinton?" I'm still trying to figure out the link between the thread title and subject. and now back to the subject...please? I believe it is in reference to Mr. Gore's recent animated speech. http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&u=/ap/20040624/ap_on_re_us/gore_1&printer=1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
afparent Posted June 25, 2004 Author Share Posted June 25, 2004 Originally posted by gbear Ross, Would the republican credo be "Everything bad goes back to Clinton?" I'm still trying to figure out the link between the thread title and subject. and now back to the subject...please? Dude, where have you been...Gore gave a speech yesterday in D.C. saying that Bush misled the country by claiming their was a connection between Sadaam and Bin Laden. His own administration said the same thing. His own administration has said their were weapons of mass destruction. So what exactly is Al Gore's position? Was their a connection or not. Your administration said there was so why are you bashing the Bush administration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ross3909 Posted June 25, 2004 Share Posted June 25, 2004 I have no problem with political debate of current issues and the war is a current issue. However, making statements like Gores saying that Bush decieved the country to take us to war, Sen Kennedy saying the President knowingly lied to the American public, and Sen (KKK) Bird saying that Bush knew of 9/11 before it happened is dangerous and irresponsible statements that are not based on any facts made by the leadership of this country. Especially while there are men and women of our armed forces dying over seas to protect us from Islamic Extremists that want nothing less than the destruction of the Western World. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
afparent Posted June 25, 2004 Author Share Posted June 25, 2004 Originally posted by ross3909 I have no problem with political debate of current issues and the war is a current issue. However, making statements like Gores saying that Bush decieved the country to take us to war, Sen Kennedy saying the President knowingly lied to the American public, and Sen (KKK) Bird saying that Bush knew of 9/11 before it happened is dangerous and irresponsible statements that are not based on any facts made by the leadership of this country. Especially while there are men and women of our armed forces dying over seas to protect us from Islamic Extremists that want nothing less than the destruction of the Western World. agree my man, we should be together on all this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbear Posted June 25, 2004 Share Posted June 25, 2004 thanks stu. I missed the link to Gore till then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cskin Posted June 25, 2004 Share Posted June 25, 2004 This one is too easy. Clinton didn't send us to war, the burden of proof falls on the person who did. That's the type of Liberal reaction i was looking for... pure denial or ignoring the facts. Aren't you forgetting something very important Destino? Like the horrific events of 9-11-01? It was only then, when the US realized that Al-Qaeda had the wherewithal to attack on that kind of level and kill thousands.... did the threat of Al-Qaeda planning and executing an attack on that scale with WMD's provided by Hussein become and issue. It's when an US ADMINISTRATION FINALLY understood the threat, instead of the previous administration's incompetence and unwillingness to pull the trigger. I expected more of you... but we got the same "song and dance" jitterbug typical of the Left. Ignore... Ignore... accuse... ignore... fiery speeches of condemnation.... ignore.... accuse.. blah..blah..blah... The Liberal Left... the enemy within. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ignatius J. Posted June 25, 2004 Share Posted June 25, 2004 Cskin, 9-11 does not give us an excuse to lower our burden of proof. What it should do is get us off our collective butts to try and do something real to prevent terrorism. Here's an important question no one seems to ask. What if we could take the number of innocent iraqis who would have been executed under sadam's regime and subtract it from the number of innocent iraqis who died as a result of this war. Does anyone care if that number is greater than 3,000? To me 9-11 is a call to better ourselves and defend ourselves from our true enemies, not a blank check to go about killing people because we can. Let's all agree that Clinton was not capable of pulling the trigger for the sake of argument. IT does not change the fact that when bush picked up the gun he shot us in the foot while injuring his opponent. If you learn nothing else from this thread Cskin, learn this. Most Democrats supported the move to go to war in iraq. So the fact that clinton supported this is irrelevant. Seriously, why is this so tough to understand? Listen to john Kerry's platform and look at his history of votes. John Kerry's Criticism is not that bush dropped the ball by going to war in iraq. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wicked Wop Posted June 25, 2004 Share Posted June 25, 2004 Kerry Blasts War in Iraq on Bay Area Visit Wed Jun 23, 5:54 PM ET Anna Duckworth Democratic presidential hopeful John Kerry (news - web sites) blasted President Bush (news - web sites) for the war in Iraq (news - web sites) while on a wide campaign swing through the Bay Area Wednesday. • Kerry Fundraises in the Bay Area The Massachusetts senator was greeted with a rousing standing ovation at a fundraising breakfast at the St. Francis Hotel Wednesday morning. Some 1000 people paid $1000 to hear Kerry's half-hour speech. "We deserve a president who understands the United States of America never goes to war because it wants to. We only go to war because we have to," Kerry said to the cheering crowd. Kerry also focused on his health care plan for the country, which he unveiled in television ads Tuesday. "When I am president of the United States, the first legislation I will introduce will end the shame of the United States of America being the only industrial nation on the face of this planet that doesn't understand health care is not a privilege for the elected or the connected or the wealthy. It is a right that ought to be affordable and accessible for every single American," Kerry said. Wednesday afternoon, Kerry spoke to thousands of union members at San Francisco's Moscone Center. Wednesday night, he will attend another fundraiser at the San Jose Tech Museum. The Kerry campaign says that this will be the candidate's last Bay Area stop before this summer's Democratic convention. http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=350&u=/kpix/20040623/lo_kpix/10479&printer=1 Ign, sounds to me like Kerry does believe we dropped the ball by going to war.....not just the way it was handled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.