ARE AL QAEDA'S links to Saddam Hussein's Iraq just a fantasy of the Bush administration? Hardly. The Clinton administration also warned the American public about those ties and defended its response to al Qaeda terror by citing an Iraqi connection].
The Clinton View of Iraq-alqaeda ties.....Connecting the "dots" in 1998 - but not in 2003.
Very interesting article, imo.
[ edited by Linda_K on Dec 21, 2003 07:40 PM ]
posted on December 21, 2003 09:18:51 PM new
Interesting article...but a careful reading of it indicates the following:
1. Bin Laden's organization was most likely involved in the financing of the Sudanese plant.
2. The Sudanese went to some links to keep the connection to Bin Laden under wraps.
3. There were some visits and some phone calls by Iraqis to this plant. This is hardly a surprise, Hussein was know to be seeking outside expertise in production and procurement.
4.Clinton administration officials are quoted in this article as being doubtful that the Iraqis knew of the Bin Laden connection. The plant was bombed because it was a nerve gas plant funded by Bin Laden. It's connection to Iraq may have been independent of Bin Laden. I don't see any evidence here of collusion between Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden. Indeed, the Sudanese plant operators may have even kept their Iraqi contacts secret, given the unpleasant things Bin Laden had said about Hussein's secular government.
Although some here will never be convinced that there wasn't a direct connection between Iraq and Al Qaida, I could be convinced that there was. I certainly believe there may be now. This article though, isn't convincing. It's another typical Weekly Standard stretch.
___________________________________
The Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then gets elected and proves it.
-- P. J. ORourke (Holidays in hell, 1989)
posted on December 22, 2003 04:40:40 AM new
I have to agree with prof. I think there may be a tie now (a tie we forced when we invaded Iraq) and I don't see definitive proof their was a direct tie before. I also think we are going to pay dearly (more than we already have) for that invasion. Hussein was not the one we should have been worrying about. bin Laden is the man we should have spent all this money on going after. He's still alive and kicking and we're on orange alert.
We have given bin Laden an excuse to attack. Even if he and Hussein were enemies or just did not like each other and even though we attacked to stop the atrocities he (Hussein) and his regime were committing against their own people (if we are to believe all we've been told), in bin Laden's sick mind we attacked Muslims. And in his mind that is reason enough to attack us.
I'm glad Hussein is where he should be, but don't you think the price for that capture to the people of the U.S. is a bit high? Is it going to be safer to be in Iraq than it is to be here? Do I tell my children that what we did makes people all over the world safer when in fact we are more in danger now? I for one would feel safer with bin Laden locked up and Hussein still in power.
In spite of absolutely no evidence of Al Qaida ties, uninformed people will continue to be easily convinced that there were such connections. Beyond the political agenda of Bushco, for those people who supported the war, there is a psychological need to find something to justify the invasion of a poor defenceless country with no evidence of WMD. Wouldn't it be horrible to find that you supported a preemtive invasion against a country without a justifiable cause resulting in the needless deaths of thousands of people and hundreds of American and allied troops?
Conservative media sources exploit such feelings with articles like this one.
posted on December 22, 2003 08:16:00 AM new
One of the things I found interesting in this article was the fact that a **link between the two WAS accepted by those who supported clinton's actions**. There was no "definitive proof" then either. There had been no attack on our country then either.
In defending clinton's bombing of Iraq the 'ties' and the limitations of our intelligence was accepted:
according to Daniel Benjamin, who was a reporter himself before joining the Clinton National Security Council. "Intelligence is always incomplete, typically composed of pieces that refuse to fit neatly together and are subject to competing interpretations," writes Benjamin with coauthor Steven Simon in the 2002 book "The Age of Sacred Terror."
And that statements like the above were understood by those who supported the bombings then....but those same people now will only accept "definitive
proof." how funny
And helen....you must have miss the part about clinton's 'preemtive' actions. Iraq sure hadn't attacked our nation then. But somehow that's different....sure.
------------
Cheryl - "We have given BinLaden an excuse to attack". He doesn't need you to make excuses for why he's *still* trying to destroy our country. He had his plans for our country long before we invaded Iraq. Maybe 9-11 rings a bell with you.
------------
And after seeing the 'hard lefts' statements now that we've captured Saddam, I'd only expect to see the same thing when we do get BinLaden.
When he is captured he won't be important to the 'hard left' either.
After all, as you have said, saddam and BL are/were not operating alone. So, according to you, it won't really make any difference if they're caught. But you continue to make such a big deal out of it.
posted on December 22, 2003 09:43:41 AM new
Didn't intend to leave out 9/11. Let's say this gives him another excuse. We've attacked Muslims so he can reason in his sick little mind that he should attack us AGAIN. Clearer?
posted on December 22, 2003 10:19:53 AM newIn spite of absolutely no evidence of Al Qaida ties, uninformed people will continue to be easily convinced that there were such connections.
Typical response from a "shaking in my shoes" left wing fanatic that only believes in what they can see after it happens. Too afraid to fight for what is right. It's a good thing Helen is a woman that has never felt the need to defend her family from anything more deadly than a invasion of insects.
"Terror is not a new weapon. Throughout history it has been used by those who could not prevail, either by persuasion or example. But inevitably they fail, either because men are not afraid to die for a life worth living, or because the terrorists themselves came to realize that free men cannot be frightened by threats, and that aggression would meet its own response. And it is in the light of that history that every nation today should know, be he friend or foe, that the United States has both the will and the weapons to join free men in standing up to their responsibilities." --John F. Kennedy 1961
"Another plague upon the land, as devastating as the locusts God loosed on the Egyptians, is "Political Correctness.'" --Charlton Heston
posted on December 22, 2003 12:20:55 PM new
Anyone who doubts or questions the current administration's actions is *hard left* or a *fanatic* here eh? No room for difference of opinion on the right apparently...with us or agin' us...if you aint right, yer wrong....yawn..... I have no doubt that Bin Laden is still a danger to this country. I also don't think we're any safer now than we were on sept. 10th... I'd just like to know why we spent 91 billion dollars chasing somebody else?
___________________________________
The Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then gets elected and proves it.
-- P. J. ORourke (Holidays in hell, 1989)
posted on December 22, 2003 12:31:35 PM newTypical response from a "shaking in my shoes" left wing fanatic that only believes in what they can see after it happens. Too afraid to fight for what is right. It's a good thing Helen is a woman that has never felt the need to defend her family from anything more deadly than a invasion of insects.
Only 10 posts on this thread and you bend down to personal insults....why don't you try staying on topic and point out where in that article there is an admission from someone in the Clinton administration that they thought there was a clear link between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, the link between Bin Laden and the plant is pretty clear, and that's why Clinton bombed it...the headline, as is so typical of the Weekly Standard, screams some point that the article does not in fact prove...READING is fundamental
___________________________________
The Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then gets elected and proves it.
-- P. J. ORourke (Holidays in hell, 1989)
posted on December 22, 2003 02:10:27 PM newAnyone who doubts or questions the current administration's actions is *hard left* or a *fanatic* here eh? No room for difference of opinion on the right apparently...with us or agin' us...if you aint right, yer wrong.
Cheryl supports and works for a getting a socialist elected who is anti-war and wants us to run from Iraq with our tails between our legs. To ME that is someone on the 'hard left'. ..yes.
And since we all know I think helen is even further left than socialism, politically, I put her in that catagory too....yes. HARD ANGRY left.
To blame this president for 1) acting preemptively, when clinton did the same thing 2) for saying there was no 'definitive proof' when clinton had none either, and HIS OWN security advisor defended his actions - a standard clinton wasn't held to, but Bush is 3) when clinton said Saddam needed to be removed from power 4) etc. etc.
is hypocritical.
posted on December 22, 2003 02:35:44 PM new
Prof,,,,just a response to a accusation & snide comment uninformed people will continue to be easily convinced that there were such connections.
"Another plague upon the land, as devastating as the locusts God loosed on the Egyptians, is "Political Correctness.'" --Charlton Heston
posted on December 22, 2003 02:40:22 PM new
Saddam didn't end his threat to the world after clinton bombed his country on 12-16-98. Nothing changed...he was still there...still presenting the same threat....still playing the same games with the UN he always had. Game over. Bush took action.
Quotes from clinton's 1998 speech to our nation as he ordered bombs to fall on Iraq.
"The hard fact is that as long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world."
"The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government."
"Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a greater threat in the future."
"And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, he will use them."
Many republicans believed what clinton said. Just as many democrats now believe what this President has said.
[ edited by Linda_K on Dec 22, 2003 02:46 PM ]
posted on December 22, 2003 03:17:37 PM new"Prof,,,,just a response to a accusation & snide comment uninformed people will continue to be easily convinced that there were such connections."
Bear
We should make it clear that I made that statement that you consider a snide accusation ....not profe. Just based on your comment without mention of my name, that is not clear.
posted on December 22, 2003 03:47:28 PM new
The American - Iraq - Al Qaeda Ties are there and clear for all to see.
American ‘interests’ have played a central role in the evils perpetrated in this region.
How America is absolved of sins because ‘Clinton agrees’ is beyond me.
Is it naivete or deceitfulness that prevents so many Americans and others from acknowledging the ‘American evil ties’, while demanding killings of innocent people who happen to be geographically placed near certain ‘evil axis’; and leaving the American ‘axis’ to continue doing it’s thing.
If the whole cancer isn’t removed, it will spread again.
The following is from: http://www.awtw.org/news/halabja.htm Halabja, 1988: When America Helped Iraq Gas the Kurds
A World to Win News Service, February 3, 2003. A correspondent for the British daily Guardian for 23 March 1988 described what he saw in the Kurdish town of Halabja after the bombing like this:
“No wounds, no blood, no traces of explosions can be found on the bodies - scores of men, women and children, livestock and pet animals - that litter the flat-topped dwellings and crude earthen streets in this remote and neglected Kurdish town...
“The skin of the bodies is strangely discoloured, with their eyes open and staring where they have not disappeared into their sockets, a greyish slime oozing from their mouths and their fingers still grotesquely twisted.
“Death seemingly caught them almost unawares in the midst of their household chores. They had just the strength, some of them, to make it to the doorways of their homes, only to collapse there a few feet beyond. Here a mother seems to clasp her children in a last embrace, there an old man shields an infant from he cannot have known what....”
In March 1988, during the Iran-Iraq war, Saddam Hussein sent in his air force to bomb Halabja for three days. This Iraqi Kurdish town is 11 kilometres from the Iranian border, and Saddam wanted to punish its inhabitants for taking advantage of the war to rise up against his regime. On March 16, Iraqi jet fighters made 20 bombing runs, dropping chemical and nerve gas on Halabja. They killed more than 5,000 people within a few hours.
Now, in his 29 January State of the Union speech, President Bush used this incident as a reason for the US to go to war against Iraq: “The dictator who is assembling the world’s most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages, leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind or disfigured.”
The problem with Bush’s story is that the US helped Iraq perpetrate that attack and then covered up for Saddam. In fact, Bush’s own people are personally responsible.
In 1980, alarmed by the overthrow of the keystone to American influence in the Middle East, the Shah of Iran, the US encouraged Iraq to attack Iran. As the current issue of A World to Win magazine explains, “Later, as famously revealed in the ‘Iran-Contra’ scandal, the US also gave weapons to Iran to prolong the war and make sure that there was as much killing and mutual weakening of both regimes as possible. (A million people died in this war.)
“The US first sent anthrax stock to Iraq in 1978, with seven shipments in all in the following decade. President Reagan sent Rumsfeld as his special envoy to meet with Saddam in December 1983, and re-opened the US embassy in Baghdad. In March 1984, the day that the UN released a report condemning Iraq’s use of poisonous gas against Iranian troops, Rumsfeld was meeting with Saddam’s Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz. In 1986, the Pentagon assigned officers to work with their Iraqi counterparts to increase the killing power of Saddam’s air force. In March 1988, that air force dropped gas bombs on Halabja, an Iraqi village under the control of rebel Kurds, killing several thousand civilians. German companies provided the gas itself. Amidst world uproar and protest, US officials claimed that they had reviewed the evidence and found it ‘inconclusive’. That year, under the presidency of Bush the father, Washington approved the export of virus cultures for military use to Iraq, as well as a $1 billion private contract to build a petrochemical plant designed to be equally usable to make mustard gas. Bush senior also approved sending Iraq $500 million in aid (in the form of subsidies to buy American farm products) and doubled that the following year. The UK, too, sent Iraq weapons-related equipment after the Halabja attack.… Eventually, the Iranian regime became more ‘reasonable’ by US standards and Saddam’s ambitions proved to be a less than perfect fit with those of the American imperialists, so Bush the father set out to destroy Iraqi power in 1991.”
In fact, in 1988, Bush’s father prevented the UN Security Council from condemning Iraq for the same crime that Bush the son is now trying to use as a moral pretext to once again bomb and invade Iraq.
-end item-
posted on December 22, 2003 05:07:04 PM new
If getting out of Iraq and allowing the rest of the world to take over is running with our tails between our legs then I guess you are right, Linda. If getting out of Iraq and saving countless American lives is running with our tails between our legs, you are also right. To clarify what I thought I had already clarified, Dennis is not anti-war. He is not against the U.S. defending itself against attack - and to clarify again WE WERE NOT ATTACKED BY IRAQ. He supported the attack on Afghanistan because in a broad sense we were attacked by them. But, I guess "nip it in the bud" has become the mentality around here. Dennis is anti-Iraq. He is anti-deceit, he is anti-cover-up. We went into Iraq and much to your delight (and the delight of many war mongers) we killed many people and to that end many of our people are killed each week. I could just picture you guys sitting in front of the TV grunting like a bunch of happy football fans. We were big, bad-ass Americans coming in to force our way of life on people who really don't want our way of life. Get it yet? Or are you of the mindset that the whole world should do as we do because what we do is so darned perfect?
I could care less what you or anyone else on this board calls me. Socialist, anti-American, whatever. I know who I am. And if who I am is someone who thinks that someday the people of the world can live a peaceful co-existence I'm happy with that. If that makes me some kind of anti-American deviant in your mind I could care less. I'm sorry for all of you who are so anti-peace.
