Hmmmmmm.

Full article <a href='http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040624-112921-3401r.htm' target='_blank'>here.</a>

Quote: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.

Quote: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.&nbsp; 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.

Quote: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."&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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.

Where are the Bush haters? Working up some spin? :drink:

Ninerfan1 Wrote:Where are the Bush haters? Working up some spin? :drink:

:stupid:

Almost 2.5 hours, still no liberal response.

Hmmmmmm. :chair:

Almost 4.5, still no response.

Hmmmm. :laugh:

So if this info was available to the Bush administration why did he wait until the United States was attacked before going into Iraq?

doh

Coach Doh Wrote:So if this info was available to the Bush administration why did he wait until the United States was attacked before going into Iraq?

doh

:laugh: :laugh:

Priceless. No comment on the link, no retraction of your insane insistence and bashing of Bush that there was no link, just a dodge and an effort to assign more blame to Bush.

Clearly you have no concept of the timeline we're talking about here. Iraq was not involved in 9/11. Al Queda hadn't attacked us until 9/11 here. Would have been pretty hard to justify going into Iraq based on the fact that Iraq had ties to terrorists, EVERYONE knew that. What we didn't know is if Iraq was part of the attacks that Al Queda had perpetrated to that point. If we had, there would have been a better case for it. However people like you would still have screamed for us not to go, since people have to die before you think self defense is worth it.

Keep dodging though. I'm sure you'll do anything to avoid admitting you were wrong. :rolleyes:

Coach Doh Wrote:So if this info was available to the Bush administration why did he wait until the United States was attacked before going into Iraq?

doh

So, you favor pre-emption now?

RebelKev Wrote:

Coach Doh Wrote:So if this info was available to the Bush administration why did he wait until the United States was attacked before going into Iraq?

doh

So, you favor pre-emption now?

He raises a good point.

We know Clinton fired missiles at bin Laden in an attempt to kill him. (We also know Republicans harshly criticized that decision at the time).

We also know, from Clinton's new book, that Clinton sat down with Bush for a couple hours to talk about the transition. We know, from the book, that Clinton brought up the subject of bin Laden and the threat he posed to America. We also know, from the book, that Bush changed the subject.

(In fairness, Clinton has been careful to try to make sure people don't read too much into that.)

We also know Bush talked about Osama bin Laden little, if at all, before the Sept. 11, 2001 attack.

Now, I wish there was a way to do a comprehensive search of every public statement Bush made before that attack. I don't know of one.

Nevertheless, just for kicks, I did do a search of the White House Web site. I found just five references to the word "Osama" before Sept. 11, 2001.

In each case, the word was uttered by a reporter* asking whether the Bush administration was going to send troops to the Middle East and finally deal with bin Laden. In each case, Ari Fleischer referred to reporter to the Department of Defense -- in the process never uttering the word "Osama."

I don't know if Bush ever uttered the words "Osama bin Laden" in his life before Sept. 11, 2001. Maybe he did. If so, he certainly didn't do so often.

It is obvious Clinton was far more focused on the danger posed by bin Laden to America than Bush. I think it's hard to argue otherwise.

That's the question Doh raises. And it is significant.

That said, don't read into my defense of Doh a defense of preemption. Preemption, by definition, violates international law and the traditional moral standard for going to war. Tony Blair has acknowledged as much by <a href='http://politics.guardian.co.uk/speeches/story/0,11126,1163046,00.html' target='_blank'>suggesting international law needs to be changed to accommodate preemption.</a>

----
* My money says most -- if not all -- of the questions were posed Middle Eastern reporters, either from Israel or from Islamic nations. They came off a little loopy.

Clinton didn't do a damn thing to quell terrorism OR Bin Laden. He lobbed missiles to please the masses, however, I was NOT pleased with his firing of the missiles only because "I" didn't think it was NEARLY enough. UBL was a terrorist on the FBI's most wanted and posed a HUGE threat to the USA, he lobs missiles. Serbia was NO threat to the USA, yet he sends in the 3rd Armor and 82'd Airborne division. You tell me what's wrong with this picture.

RebelKev Wrote:Clinton didn't do a damn thing to quell terrorism OR Bin Laden. He lobbed missiles to please the masses,

He didn't exactly please the masses.

<a href='http://www.cnsnews.com/indepth/archive/199812/IND19981217g.html' target='_blank'>http://www.cnsnews.com/indepth/archive/199...D19981217g.html</a>

Anyone who thinks there were no ties between Al Q and Iraq either doesn't have the facts or refuses to accept them.

SDSundevil Wrote:Anyone who thinks there were no ties between Al Q and Iraq either doesn't have the facts or refuses to accept them.

Anyone who thinks they are relevant hasn't read the 911 commission report.

Schadenfreude Wrote:Anyone who thinks they are relevant hasn't read the 911 commission report.

Anyone who was intellectually honest would have seen the numerous reports that the chairs of the 9/11 commission said the staff were wrong in what they wrote and jumped the gun.

But then recognizing that wouldn't make for good Bush flame now would it?

SDSundevil Wrote:Anyone who thinks there were no ties between Al Q and Iraq either doesn't have the facts or refuses to accept them.

.............or just makes facts up as they go.............

Schadenfreude Wrote:

RebelKev Wrote:

Coach Doh Wrote:So if this info was available to the Bush administration why did he wait until the United States was attacked before going into Iraq?

doh

So, you favor pre-emption now?

He raises a good point.

We know Clinton fired missiles at bin Laden in an attempt to kill him. (We also know Republicans harshly criticized that decision at the time).

We also know, from Clinton's new book, that Clinton sat down with Bush for a couple hours to talk about the transition. We know, from the book, that Clinton brought up the subject of bin Laden and the threat he posed to America. We also know, from the book, that Bush changed the subject.

(In fairness, Clinton has been careful to try to make sure people don't read too much into that.)

We also know Bush talked about Osama bin Laden little, if at all, before the Sept. 11, 2001 attack.

Now, I wish there was a way to do a comprehensive search of every public statement Bush made before that attack. I don't know of one.

Nevertheless, just for kicks, I did do a search of the White House Web site. I found just five references to the word "Osama" before Sept. 11, 2001.

In each case, the word was uttered by a reporter* asking whether the Bush administration was going to send troops to the Middle East and finally deal with bin Laden. In each case, Ari Fleischer referred to reporter to the Department of Defense -- in the process never uttering the word "Osama."

I don't know if Bush ever uttered the words "Osama bin Laden" in his life before Sept. 11, 2001. Maybe he did. If so, he certainly didn't do so often.

It is obvious Clinton was far more focused on the danger posed by bin Laden to America than Bush. I think it's hard to argue otherwise.

That's the question Doh raises. And it is significant.

That said, don't read into my defense of Doh a defense of preemption. Preemption, by definition, violates international law and the traditional moral standard for going to war. Tony Blair has acknowledged as much by <a href='http://politics.guardian.co.uk/speeches/story/0,11126,1163046,00.html' target='_blank'>suggesting international law needs to be changed to accommodate preemption.</a>

----
* My money says most -- if not all -- of the questions were posed Middle Eastern reporters, either from Israel or from Islamic nations. They came off a little loopy.

Thank-you sir for some insight on a question I thought was relevant.

Apparently it was not recognized as a direct question. Or at least not the one the response had been prepared for.

doh

Quote:Apparently it was not recognized as a direct question. Or at least not the one the response had been prepared for.

Actually it was recognized for exactly what it was, a dodge and an effort to change the subject.

The fact is you were wrong about there not being a link between Al Queda and Iraq, you were wrong to attack Bush for it. If you don't believe you were wrong then you therefore must now attack Clinton for making the same claim.

So the question is, are you intellectually honest enough to a) stick by your assertion that there was no link and therefore rebuke Clinton for trying to deceive America, or b) admit you were wrong and there was a link.

I look forward to your next dodge.

Quote:We also know, from Clinton's new book, that Clinton sat down with Bush for a couple hours to talk about the transition. We know, from the book, that Clinton brought up the subject of bin Laden and the threat he posed to America. We also know, from the book, that Bush changed the subject.

I think the key you seem to ignore is the term "Clinton's book."

Clinton has proved time and time again he has no problem tailoring a story to make him look the best.

Anything that he has written must be taken with a grain of salt and has little to no credibility by any objective standard. His track record for lying and dodging makes him a completley unreliable source on such matters. And any argument based on his version must also be deemed without merit.

Ninerfan1 Wrote:

Schadenfreude Wrote:Anyone who thinks they are relevant hasn't read the 911 commission report.

Anyone who was intellectually honest would have seen the numerous reports that the chairs of the 9/11 commission said the staff were wrong in what they wrote and jumped the gun.

But then recognizing that wouldn't make for good Bush flame now would it?

So you are saying you are smarter than all people on the 911 commission?

Did you know they have top security clearance? They have access to any document they want (or, at least, that the Bush administration will give them).

Also, on that indictment cited in the Washington Times story -- most of the language alleging a connection between al Qaeda and Iraq was later withdrawn.

Schadenfreude Wrote:

Ninerfan1 Wrote:

Schadenfreude Wrote:Anyone who thinks they are relevant hasn't read the 911 commission report.

Anyone who was intellectually honest would have seen the numerous reports that the chairs of the 9/11 commission said the staff were wrong in what they wrote and jumped the gun.

But then recognizing that wouldn't make for good Bush flame now would it?

So you are saying you are smarter than all people on the 911 commission?

Did you know they have top security clearance? They have access to any document they want (or, at least, that the Bush administration will give them).

Also, on that indictment cited in the Washington Times story -- most of the language alleging a connection between al Qaeda and Iraq was later withdrawn.

I have a TS-SCI, do you think I'm privy to certain information as well? Wrong.