As Bill Clinton Once Said . . . there were links between Saddam's Iraq and al Qaeda

Wall Street Journal ^ | October 27, 2004 | STEPHEN F. HAYES

[OESY]

Well, it appears that Messrs. Clinton and Bush have [much] in common.... Both have warned -- Mr. Clinton first, of course -- that the nexus between rogue states like Iraq and terrorists like al Qaeda poses the greatest threat to America. On this point, in fact, Mr. Clinton has much more in common with Mr. Bush than he does with John Kerry.

According to 9/11 Commission co-chairman Thomas Kean, Mr. Clinton believed with "absolute certainty" that Iraq provided al Qaeda with weapons of mass destruction expertise and technology in the 1990s. He believed it as president when he ordered the destruction of the al Shifa pharmaceutical factory in Sudan, and he believes it now.... Sandy Berger and others -- told us with absolute certainty that there were chemical weapons of mass destruction at that factory and that's why we sent missiles."

...Under press scrutiny, the Clinton administration vigorously defended the strikes: "Sudan's support for terrorism, their connections with Iraq on VX... and Sudan's leadership support for Osama bin Laden."....

That journalists also seem to have forgotten that the Clinton people made the Iraqi connection is strange. The central question of the presidential campaign is this: Was the Iraq war a diversion from the war on terror, as John Kerry claims, or the central front of the war on terror, as George W. Bush contends? Recent intelligence that Iraqi scientists provided WMD expertise to al Qaeda -- especially if that intelligence led to military action -- seems highly relevant.

So who is right? Did Iraq provide al Qaeda with WMD technology and expertise, as Bill Clinton claimed in the late 1990s and continues to believe today? Or is John Kerry correct when he claims, as he did last week in Dayton, Ohio, that Iraq "had nothing to do with al Qaeda?"....

[OESY]

Mr. Hayes, of The Weekly Standard, is the author of "The Connection: How al Qaeda's Collaboration with Saddam Hussein Has Endangered America," recently published by HarperCollins.

[OldFriend]

The irony that X42 had to make a strong case of how dangerous Saddam Hussein was to negate the 'wag the dog' comments being made the world over. He was fighting the monica scandal and everyone distrusted him and his motives.

[Grendel9]

IMO, 1/2 the population are ignorant of the protocol that takes place when an incoming President meets with the ex-Pres. and his cabinet. Before January, there are meetings to clue the new man in on what big issues are going on in the world. And these are not photo ops for either man. But at those meetings, the outgoing administration is obligated to inform the incoming just where the nation stands with regard to possible security breaches, foreign communiques, CIA info, etc. As much as I disliked Bill Clinton on a personal level, and even though there was bitter feelings following the 2000 election, I don't believe Clinton would deliberately misinform or "under-inform" his replacement.

[RockinRight]

I almost wonder if privately, in the voting booth, Slick Willie just might pull the lever for Dubya. I don't think him and Hillary really want Kerry to win, it will all but destroy her Presidential chances.

[Grendel9]

IMO there will be more than a few Dems who will be casting
their vote for Bush secretly...an not just to have Hillary
seeking the Dem nomination in 2008.

That aside, I still don't believe this nation is ready for
a woman President. For one thing, the world would not
respect a woman in such a high position. Look how the Asians sniggered behind the back of Clinton's Secy of State, Ms. Allbright! She did more harm than good over there...also in the other arena with the Israeli/Pakistani sessions.

[Doc-Joe]

bump

[churchillbuff]

I watched Colin Powell on 20/20 last night. He said he had seen NO evidence of an Iraq link to 9-11.