The Clinton View of Al Qaeda Ties

The Weekly Standard ^ | December 29, 2003

[Peach]

Thoughts you'd be interest, Dog, in reading that CLinton believed in an OBL/AQ and Iraq link.

Gotta run for dinner; later.

[Angelus Errare]

Read the 1998 indictment of bin Laden and Co for the Embassy bombings, it says right up-front that he worked with Iraq, Iran (and by extension Hezbollah), and Sudan. The Sudanese only tried to ditch him after they started getting afraid that he was going to move against them and once he left for Afghanistan they resumed their working relationship.

[Molly Pitcher]

Hi Peach. Thanks for posting this long piece.

[driftless]

Libs like Matthews have a typical tendency to argue backwards. They want things to be a certain way, so they try to bend reality to fit their warped theories. To wit the postulation that Bin Laden and Hussein could never join forces because they hated each other. Well we hated Stalin but we were staunch allies if only for the duration of WWII to defeat Hitler. Libs have to learn to deal with reality. Why wouldn't Hussein support Al-Qaeda? He supported many other strongly Islamist terrorist groups...why not Bin Laden's. Libs again just end up looking foolish as another of their pet theories gets blown out of the water.

[RandyRep]

I can state logically that Saddam Hussein is directly responsible for 9/11:

1) In 1990, Saddam Hussein invaded and took over Kuwait.

2) In response, the USA and the coalition assembled a force that drove the Iraqis from Kuwait in 1991.

3) The USA kept 100,000 troops in Saudi Arabia, for which Osama bin Laden took great offense.

4) As a consequence, ObL and Al Qaeda proclaimed war against the USA and the west, and proceeded to bomb the WTC in 1993, helped drive the US and UN out of Somalia in 1993, set up Project Bojinka and tried to kill the Pope in 1995, attacked the US embassies in 1998, the USS Cole in 2000, and the WTC and Pentagon on 9/11/2001.

Ergo, Saddam Hussein is directly responsible for the 9/11 attacks. If he hadn't invaded Kuwait, would any of this happened?

The best documentation of this is in the book "Losing Bin Laden" by Richard Miniter. Fascinating read.

[lepton]

According to Bush officials, two factors contributed to their reluctance to discuss the Iraq-al Qaeda connection suggested by al Shifa. First, the level of proof never rose above the threshold of "highly suggestive circumstantial evidence"--indicating that on this question, Bush administration policymakers were somewhat more cautious about the public use of intelligence on the Iraq-al Qaeda connection than were their counterparts in the Clinton administration. Second, according to one Bush administration source, "there is a massive sensitivity at the Agency to bringing up this issue again because of the controversy in 1998."

Low standard of confidence, and wag-the-dog underpinnings. Radioactive.

I absolutely agree - in regards this Sudan act.

[optimistically_conservative]

US Case for Al Shifa Attack Disintegrates

SUDAN, THE UNITED STATES AND ALLEGATIONS OF BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS: IRRESPONSIBLE AND UNSUSTAINABLE

[larryjohnson]

To be fair is it time to drop the wagthedog and aspirin factory taunting at FR

[Paladin2]

Save it along with Osama's capture until next October!

[Peach]

Losing Bin Laden is on order at our library and sounds like a most excellent read. I look forward with anticipation to reading it.

[Peach]

You are most welcome, Molly Pitcher.

[Peach]

If you happen to have a link to that 1998 indictment, I'd love to read it and save it to my file.

There's no doubt in my mind they are linked and I like to gather articles.

[Peach]

Hi, just got back and saw your post regarding a link to Guliani saying he believed there was a link between Iraq and AQ.

I've spent the better part of 15 minutes looking for it, using every search title I could think of and nada.

I KNOW I read it and it was either FR or possibly Lucianne, although a search on that site turned up nothing. Sorry...wish I could find it.

[Peach]

Oops - as I read down I saw that someone else provided you with the link. I was misspelling his name, to my embarrassment.

[Angelus Errare]

Here you go:

http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/98110402.htm

According to the indictment, bin Laden and al Qaeda forged alliances with the National Islamic Front in Sudan and with representatives of the Government of Iran and its associated terrorist group Hezballah with the goal of working together against their 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," the indictment said.

Enjoy.

[Peach]

Thanks! Going there now to read and save it to my Iraq/AQ personal file. This time, I'll put them all on disk too. Had a computer crash at the beginning of the year and lost everything. Live and learn.

This and the anthrax are the most interesting points to the war on terror.

Thanks for taking the time.

[ALOHA RONNIE]

.

'Remember the Lost and Suffering on September 11, 2001'

http://www.TheAlamoFILM.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=33

.

[GWB00]

Libs like Matthews have a typical tendency to argue backwards

For some crazy reason I have been watching alot of Chris Matthews. I guess since they snatched Saddam, it is fun to watch these guys make fools with their ridiculous comments.

Matthews has his head so screwed on backwards. He plays so stupid about the real reasons why we went to war in Iraq. He acts like Ted Kennedy and pretends the war was made up in Texas.

If the Weekly Standard and other journalist can make these connections, you know Matthews you has to be aware of the same info. He is either purposely setting himself up to look like a fool, or he is hoping that he can convince enough of his viewers that there is no connection and when the connection is actually made, his viewers will be so conditioned that there isn't any connection that they won't believe it.

It is a game you play with children, but then again Matthews probably looks at his viewers like children.

[Joy Angela]

IMPEACHMENT IS FOREVER - HAPPY CLINTON IMPEACHMENT DAY!

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1043404/posts


Never Forget!

[HarleyD]

Seems like this puts the RATS in a difficult position. If the pharmaceutical company was manufacturing chemical weapons (can anyone say WMD) then aren’t prominent Klintoon RATS supporting GWB? And why did Klintoon reimburse the Sudan government for it after he blew it up? (Something rarely mentioned.)

If it was a legitimate pharmaceutical company than this would lead credent to the argument that Klintoon blew it up only to divert attention from Monica. If the RATS want to have hearing on GWB “lying” to us then calling these people before the Senate would make for some interesting hearings.