Published on December 10, 2005 By Island Dog In Politics
Why do liberals forget this? Why aren't they held accountable for their actions?


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.

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."
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.
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."
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.
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."



Comments (Page 1)
2 Pages1 2 
on Dec 10, 2005
Exactly what "actions" are you calling them to be accountable for?

Do you have a link to where you got this info from or a link to the indictment documents that you mentioned?
on Dec 11, 2005
Do you have a link to where you got this info from or a link to the indictment documents that you mentioned?


Try this one from the Washington Times.

Link


Or this one:


Link
on Dec 11, 2005
Exactly what "actions" are you calling them to be accountable for?


Liberals and democrats said for years, even before Bush was elected, that Saddam had WMD's and he was a threat to the U.S. Now for reason when Bush says it he's a "liar", but when liberals say it nobody complains.

I think it's just called hypocrisy.
on Dec 11, 2005
Question for liberals:

Did Bill Clinton LIE when he said that Saddam had WMDs and that there was a connection between Saddam and Al-Qaeda.

Did George Bush lie when he said the same?
on Dec 11, 2005
Now for reason when Bush says it he's a "liar", but when liberals say it nobody complains.

I think it's just called hypocrisy.



I think it is just what Brad said. They cant and wont debate.
on Dec 11, 2005
Because (according to the Bash Bush Bus) the second Prs. Bush took office, everything from the economy to foriegn affairs became Prs. Bush's problem. Nothing that was said or done before that matters anymore... That's also why the democrat candidate could state that we were in "The worst economy in 50 years" two campaigns in a row without contradicting themselves... even among those who remember the economic fiasco that was the Carter administration. ;~D
on Dec 11, 2005
"The worst economy in 50 years" two campaigns in a row without contradicting themselves... even among those who remember the economic fiasco that was the Carter administration. ;~D


That is kind of funny to those of us who lived through the malaise years!
on Dec 11, 2005
I notice they won't answer Leauki's question.
on Dec 12, 2005
Still no answer.
on Dec 13, 2005
Where is the col's outrage? The President lied, right?
on Dec 16, 2005
Col, Clinton linked al-qaeda and Saddam. Where is the outrage?
on Dec 16, 2005
you won't get him over here....unless it is something to do with...well, you won't get him over here
on Dec 16, 2005
Col modos are "repetition is the key to success" and "if you can't beat them, repeat yourself till you beat them".
on Dec 16, 2005
or...."repeat yourself until they get tired and bored, and just simply leave....then declare victory and total political triumph"
on Dec 16, 2005

or...."repeat yourself until they get tired and bored, and just simply leave....then declare victory and total political triumph"

You mean he thinks he beat me because I ignore him now?

2 Pages1 2