OOPS!! "a very prominent member of al Qaeda served as an officer in Saddam Hussein's militia"

[heartsurgeon]

TEXT: US GRAND JURY INDICTMENT AGAINST USAMA BIN LADEN

from 1998 - Clinton's Justice Department Issues Grand Jury indictment of OBL...

Al Qaeda, Bin Laden's international
terrorist group, forged alliances with the National Islamic Front in
Sudan and with the government of Iran and with its associated group
Hezballah to "work together against their perceived common enemies in
the West, particularly the United States."


Additionally, the indictment states that Al Qaeda reached an agreement
with Iraq not to work against the regime of Saddam Hussein and that
they would work cooperatively with Iraq, particularly in weapons
development.

You need to understand that no matter what Bush does or doesn't do, the Liberals/Democrats will rail against him.

If he hadn't attack Iraq, they would be criticising him for not doing the responsible thing to protect us. As it is, he did attack Iraq, so they have to criticise that.

Your uber-horny Clinton certainly believed Al Qaeda had an omminous relationship going on with Iraq...
Iraq, Iran, Syria, Afganista, Sudan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia....these countries are ALL going to have to change or be changed for the U.S. to be safe from terrorist threat. I am willing to debate about which one should have been chosen to be next after Afganistan, but i don't see how your going to defeat terrorism without eventually addressing all of these countries.

Oh yes, i understand that Democrats don't feel terrorism can be defeated, just like communism couldn't be defeated either.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
TEXT: US GRAND JURY INDICTMENT AGAINST USAMA BIN LADEN

from 1998 - Clinton's Justice Department Issues Grand Jury indictment of OBL...

Al Qaeda, Bin Laden's international
terrorist group, forged alliances with the National Islamic Front in
Sudan and with the government of Iran and with its associated group
Hezballah to "work together against their perceived common enemies in
the West, particularly the United States."


Additionally, the indictment states that Al Qaeda reached an agreement
with Iraq not to work against the regime of Saddam Hussein and that
they would work cooperatively with Iraq, particularly in weapons
development.

You need to understand that no matter what Bush does or doesn't do, the Liberals/Democrats will rail against him.

If he hadn't attack Iraq, they would be criticising him for not doing the responsible thing to protect us. As it is, he did attack Iraq, so they have to criticise that.

Your uber-horny Clinton certainly believed Al Qaeda had an omminous relationship going on with Iraq...
Iraq, Iran, Syria, Afganista, Sudan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia....these countries are ALL going to have to change or be changed for the U.S. to be safe from terrorist threat. I am willing to debate about which one should have been chosen to be next after Afganistan, but i don't see how your going to defeat terrorism without eventually addressing all of these countries.

Oh yes, i understand that Democrats don't feel terrorism can be defeated, just like communism couldn't be defeated either.

I'm still waiting for Communism to be defeated as there are almost 2 billion people living under the Iron thumb of Communist rule

 

[Jhhnn]

Gotta love it, HS- we return, inevitably, to the usual "But Clinton!" routine, over and over... along with the repetition of unsubstantiated allegation as somehow factual.

I recall a now famous remark from a prominent prosecutor, something to the effect that he could get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich, which seems entirely appropriate.

Irrational Faith is possibly the most powerful and least understood motivation- look at kamikaze pilots and the 9/11 attackers. Believers in the uber-right line of Bushit are little if any different, too bad they don't just step up and die for the cause... get it over with...

 

[heartsurgeon]

well the only "true" communist countries that remain are N. Korea and Cuba...i wasn't aware that their population has 2 billion....

i will concede that communism still exists in those two countries, and that the complete defeat of communism (the replacement of those goverments with some oter form of governance) is pending.

China has a system that does not qualify as communist (as defined by Marx, Engels, and Lenin). It has morphed into a communist - capitalist hybrid, perhaps you haven't read the newspaper recently and don't know this.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
well the only "true" communist countries that remain are N. Korea and Cuba...i wasn't aware that their population has 2 billion....

i will concede that communism still exists in those two countries, and that the complete defeat of communism (the replacement of those goverments with some oter form of governance) is pending.

China has a system that does not qualify as communist (as defined by Marx, Engels, and Lenin). It has morphed into a communist - capitalist hybrid, perhaps you haven't read the newspaper recently and don't know this.

LOL, at the time of it's breakup the Soviet Union wasn't really Communist either (as defined by Marx and Engels)

 

[Bowmaster]

Just because I'm a liberal doesn't mean I blindly go around thinking Clinton = God. Sure he sucked, but sucked about 1000x less than Bush.

 

[GoPackGo]

I don't think the evilness of OBL has ever been in doubt...has it?

 

[heartsurgeon]

repetition of unsubstantiated allegation as somehow factual

Gee, i thought i just provided a link to a Grand Jury Indictment so you could read it (i am assuming of course that you didn't read it). I'm not making any allegations, i repeating what the grand jury found...

Clinton = God. Sure he sucked

Actually, i would have to disagree with you. there was never any evidence that "he" sucked.

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

repetition of unsubstantiated allegation as somehow factual

Gee, i thought i just provided a link to a Grand Jury Indictment so you could read it (i am assuming of course that you didn't read it). I'm not making any allegations, i repeating what the grand jury found...

Clinton = God. Sure he sucked

Actually, i would have to disagree with you. there was never any evidence that "he" sucked.

he was the suckee as far as i can recall....

From the actual indictement, it would seem that al Quaeda had made ties with just about anyone. I'd like to know where did they get the evidence for that, especially this is the first time im hearding about it. It's hard to believe that the administration wouldnt use this to defend all their claims...

Not to mention that Bin Laden didn't like Saddam at all, because of his pseudo-devout-muslim image he was trying to keep up. I can definitely seem him more in Saudi Arabia and Iran, rather than iraq. Bin Laden is a religious fanatic, where as Saddam was just a greedy bastard with no morals.

 

[NeoV]

really, why oh why oh why can't this administration ever say "we screwed up"?

Clinton's piece that you have linked here was based on the same 'meeting' in Sudan in 1994 - which, as it turns out, resulted in no further agreement between Al-Q and Iraq.


Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 - nothing at all. No evidence exists, 2 high ranking Al-Q officials in custody, who have given us useful information, vehemently deny any relationship ever existed.

Yet, this morning I had to listen to Dick "I'm smarter than everyone else and I'm also above criticism" Cheney say that he still isn't sure Iraq wasn't connected to 9/11, but that this administration never said they were.

Someone please correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't 9/11 mentioned in Bush's address to the nation before the war began, and wasn't it implied that Iraq had something to do with it?

Ok, so an Iraqi representative met with OBL in the Sudan in 1994 - and apparently an Al-Q guy went to Iraq for medical treatment after we bombed his 4ss in Afghanistan. Do those qualilfy as a 'relationship' worth mentioning as a justification for war?

Heart, I'm really not trying to pick fights with you, so let me repeat my stance on this. If Bush had come out and said something to this effect - "look, we can't afford to sit and react after the fact - Saddam is a bad guy, we are going to remove him from power and free the Iraqi people from his rule, we have a plan in place once he is ousted, we'll be there X length of time, it will cost X dollars, and if need be we'll use some of the proceeds from Iraqi oil sales to help pay for it" - I would have been pretty much ok with it. Instead, we presented a bunch of, what turns out to be, complete and utter CRAP intelligence - a taped conversation, that could have easily been any two people on the face of the earth - and we play that for the United Nations as proof of something? Rummy says "we know they have WMD, and we know where they are" - really? Wha happa? If we 'knew', why didn't we point the inspectors there? Not one shred of anything we presented as hard evidence in justifying our military action in Iraq has been justified, other than the fact that Saddam was a bad guy.

Now, the right looks absolutely pathetic in trying to defend what was said - the "we DID find WMD's" thread is a particularly awful attempt at tying the rationale to the reality of the war. Rush is even quoting internet-hack news "see folks, this is what I've been saying for some time now - this UK newspaper has a story...." Whoops, my bad - is the right going to start quoting Geocities web sites now? The whole issue of Iraq & Al-Q links reeks of the same 'clinging to straws' approach - They did meet in Sudan - see, told you there were links!

We screwed up. Plain and simple. Is Iraq better off without Saddam? Perhaps they are not there yet, but they should be in the long run. The fact remains, though, that isn't the reason we gave for going in, and now most of the world doesn't trust us, Al-Q is still very much alive and not facing a shortage of recuits in the near-future, and we still don't have a clue how long or how expensive Iraq is going to be for us. The whole thing has been horribly handled - other than the actual military invasion, which faced minimal opposition from what was left of the Iraqi military. No troops were 'readying chemical weapons' against us, despite the bogus 'intercepts' of Iraqi military communications.

The whole thing stinks.

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: NeoV
really, why oh why oh why can't this administration ever say "we screwed up"?

Clinton's piece that you have linked here was based on the same 'meeting' in Sudan in 1994 - which, as it turns out, resulted in no further agreement between Al-Q and Iraq.


Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 - nothing at all. No evidence exists, 2 high ranking Al-Q officials in custody, who have given us useful information, vehemently deny any relationship ever existed.

Yet, this morning I had to listen to Dick "I'm smarter than everyone else and I'm also above criticism" Cheney say that he still isn't sure Iraq wasn't connected to 9/11, but that this administration never said they were.

Someone please correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't 9/11 mentioned in Bush's address to the nation before the war began, and wasn't it implied that Iraq had something to do with it?

Ok, so an Iraqi representative met with OBL in the Sudan in 1994 - and apparently an Al-Q guy went to Iraq for medical treatment after we bombed his 4ss in Afghanistan. Do those qualilfy as a 'relationship' worth mentioning as a justification for war?

Heart, I'm really not trying to pick fights with you, so let me repeat my stance on this. If Bush had come out and said something to this effect - "look, we can't afford to sit and react after the fact - Saddam is a bad guy, we are going to remove him from power and free the Iraqi people from his rule, we have a plan in place once he is ousted, we'll be there X length of time, it will cost X dollars, and if need be we'll use some of the proceeds from Iraqi oil sales to help pay for it" - I would have been pretty much ok with it. Instead, we presented a bunch of, what turns out to be, complete and utter CRAP intelligence - a taped conversation, that could have easily been any two people on the face of the earth - and we play that for the United Nations as proof of something? Rummy says "we know they have WMD, and we know where they are" - really? Wha happa? If we 'knew', why didn't we point the inspectors there? Not one shred of anything we presented as hard evidence in justifying our military action in Iraq has been justified, other than the fact that Saddam was a bad guy.

Now, the right looks absolutely pathetic in trying to defend what was said - the "we DID find WMD's" thread is a particularly awful attempt at tying the rationale to the reality of the war. Rush is even quoting internet-hack news "see folks, this is what I've been saying for some time now - this UK newspaper has a story...." Whoops, my bad - is the right going to start quoting Geocities web sites now? The whole issue of Iraq & Al-Q links reeks of the same 'clinging to straws' approach - They did meet in Sudan - see, told you there were links!

We screwed up. Plain and simple. Is Iraq better off without Saddam? Perhaps they are not there yet, but they should be in the long run. The fact remains, though, that isn't the reason we gave for going in, and now most of the world doesn't trust us, Al-Q is still very much alive and not facing a shortage of recuits in the near-future, and we still don't have a clue how long or how expensive Iraq is going to be for us. The whole thing has been horribly handled - other than the actual military invasion, which faced minimal opposition from what was left of the Iraqi military. No troops were 'readying chemical weapons' against us, despite the bogus 'intercepts' of Iraqi military communications.

The whole thing stinks.

interesting read,
i figured it must've been something like that because logically (all politics aside) if there was any ground breaking evidence linking al Q to iraq, im sure the administration would use it to preverbial bitchslap the acusers. Especially with the approvment rates slipping.

In terms of idealogy, it didn't add up much either. Saddam was far from a good muslim errr person errr human and the fundies strongly disapproved of him. In late 80s he had an Iranian religious revolutionary cleric murdered (they hammered nails into his head) because the religious revolution and the regime could've spilled to iraq.

 

[Harem184]

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/interviews/khodada.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,314700,00.html
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/salman_pak.htm
http://www.state.gov/www/global/terrorism/1998Report/sponsor.html

 

[wkabel23]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
TEXT: US GRAND JURY INDICTMENT AGAINST USAMA BIN LADEN

from 1998 - Clinton's Justice Department Issues Grand Jury indictment of OBL...

Al Qaeda, Bin Laden's international
terrorist group, forged alliances with the National Islamic Front in
Sudan and with the government of Iran and with its associated group
Hezballah to "work together against their perceived common enemies in
the West, particularly the United States."


Additionally, the indictment states that Al Qaeda reached an agreement
with Iraq not to work against the regime of Saddam Hussein and that
they would work cooperatively with Iraq, particularly in weapons
development.

You need to understand that no matter what Bush does or doesn't do, the Liberals/Democrats will rail against him.

If he hadn't attack Iraq, they would be criticising him for not doing the responsible thing to protect us. As it is, he did attack Iraq, so they have to criticise that.

Your uber-horny Clinton certainly believed Al Qaeda had an omminous relationship going on with Iraq...
Iraq, Iran, Syria, Afganista, Sudan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia....these countries are ALL going to have to change or be changed for the U.S. to be safe from terrorist threat. I am willing to debate about which one should have been chosen to be next after Afganistan, but i don't see how your going to defeat terrorism without eventually addressing all of these countries.

Oh yes, i understand that Democrats don't feel terrorism can be defeated, just like communism couldn't be defeated either.

Didn't the 9/11 commission say something about this the other day? Like there wasn't a link between 9/11 and Iraq?

 

[J Heartless Slick]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
TEXT: US GRAND JURY INDICTMENT AGAINST USAMA BIN LADEN

from 1998 - Clinton's Justice Department Issues Grand Jury indictment of OBL...

Al Qaeda, Bin Laden's international
terrorist group, forged alliances with the National Islamic Front in
Sudan and with the government of Iran and with its associated group
Hezballah to "work together against their perceived common enemies in
the West, particularly the United States."


Additionally, the indictment states that Al Qaeda reached an agreement
with Iraq not to work against the regime of Saddam Hussein and that
they would work cooperatively with Iraq, particularly in weapons
development.

You need to understand that no matter what Bush does or doesn't do, the Liberals/Democrats will rail against him.

If he hadn't attack Iraq, they would be criticising him for not doing the responsible thing to protect us. As it is, he did attack Iraq, so they have to criticise that.

Your uber-horny Clinton certainly believed Al Qaeda had an omminous relationship going on with Iraq...
Iraq, Iran, Syria, Afganista, Sudan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia....these countries are ALL going to have to change or be changed for the U.S. to be safe from terrorist threat. I am willing to debate about which one should have been chosen to be next after Afganistan, but i don't see how your going to defeat terrorism without eventually addressing all of these countries.

Oh yes, i understand that Democrats don't feel terrorism can be defeated, just like communism couldn't be defeated either.

Why are you writing about Clinton? He isn't president anymore. Is this another effort to divert attention away from GWB?

 

[DT4K]

Originally posted by: J Heartless Slick

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
TEXT: US GRAND JURY INDICTMENT AGAINST USAMA BIN LADEN

from 1998 - Clinton's Justice Department Issues Grand Jury indictment of OBL...

Al Qaeda, Bin Laden's international
terrorist group, forged alliances with the National Islamic Front in
Sudan and with the government of Iran and with its associated group
Hezballah to "work together against their perceived common enemies in
the West, particularly the United States."


Additionally, the indictment states that Al Qaeda reached an agreement
with Iraq not to work against the regime of Saddam Hussein and that
they would work cooperatively with Iraq, particularly in weapons
development.

You need to understand that no matter what Bush does or doesn't do, the Liberals/Democrats will rail against him.

If he hadn't attack Iraq, they would be criticising him for not doing the responsible thing to protect us. As it is, he did attack Iraq, so they have to criticise that.

Your uber-horny Clinton certainly believed Al Qaeda had an omminous relationship going on with Iraq...
Iraq, Iran, Syria, Afganista, Sudan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia....these countries are ALL going to have to change or be changed for the U.S. to be safe from terrorist threat. I am willing to debate about which one should have been chosen to be next after Afganistan, but i don't see how your going to defeat terrorism without eventually addressing all of these countries.

Oh yes, i understand that Democrats don't feel terrorism can be defeated, just like communism couldn't be defeated either.

Why are you writing about Clinton? He isn't president anymore. Is this another effort to divert attention away from GWB?

I think the obvious point is that Bush didn't just fabricate all of this. Right or wrong, Clinton also believed there were ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

So whether or not you agree with Bush or think he manipulated information, it is just ignorant to say that he fabricated this link just like he fabricated the intelligence about WMD's. Conservatives don't talk about Clinton in these matters to distract, they do it to show that the information was already there and was believed by Clinton and all our European allies as well.

The point is that whether or not the intelligence on all these issues was correct, it was certainly not fabricated by Bush for political purposes.

EDIT: and yes, the commission said there was no evidence Iraq was involved in 9/11 (which is what the Bush admin has said since the beginning), but they did NOT say there were no ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda as widely misreported yesterday. In fact, they said there were ties between the two, but no evidence of operational collaboration. In other words, there had been contact between the two, but they hadn't really worked together. This contact supports what Bush talked about when discussing the risk of terrorists getting their hands on Saddams weapons.

 

[heartsurgeon]

The Washington Post
January 23, 1999; Page A02

Embassy Attacks Thwarted, U.S. Says; Official Cites Gains Against
Bin Laden; Clinton Seeks $10 Billion to Fight Terrorism

By Vernon Loeb

U.S. intelligence and law enforcement agencies have prevented Osama
bin Laden's extremist network from carrying out truck-bomb attacks
against at least two American embassies since the bombings of U.S.
embassies in Kenya and Tanzania more than five months ago, the Clinton
administration's senior counterterrorism official said yesterday.

Clarke did provide new information in defense of Clinton's decision
to fire Tomahawk cruise missiles at the El Shifa pharmaceutical plant
in Khartoum, Sudan, in retaliation for bin Laden's role in the Aug. 7
embassy bombings.

While U.S. intelligence officials disclosed shortly after the missile
attack that they had obtained a soil sample from the El Shifa site
that contained a precursor of VX nerve gas, Clarke said that the U.S.
government is "sure" that Iraqi nerve gas experts actually produced a
powdered VX-like substance at the plant that, when mixed with bleach
and water, would have become fully active VX nerve gas.

Clarke said U.S. intelligence does not know how much of the substance
was produced at El Shifa or what happened to it. But he said that
intelligence exists linking bin Laden to El Shifa's current and past
operators, the Iraqi nerve gas experts and the National Islamic Front
in Sudan.

Given the evidence presented to the White House before the airstrike,
Clarke said, the president "would have been derelict in his duties if
he didn't blow up the facility."

Gee, Richard Clarke seem's darn sure there is a relationship between Al Qaeda and Iraq that at the very least includes developing WMD components (nerve gas).

hmmmmm........

 

[conjur]

Good grief! When will you drop this wild goose chase?

El Shifa's been discussed up here over and over and over and over and...


THERE IS NO IRAQ/AL QAEDA LINK!

 

[GrGr]

But there is a US/Al-Qa'ida link from the Reagan era.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
well the only "true" communist countries that remain are N. Korea and Cuba...i wasn't aware that their population has 2 billion....

i will concede that communism still exists in those two countries, and that the complete defeat of communism (the replacement of those governments with some other form of governance) is pending.

China has a system that does not qualify as communist (as defined by Marx, Engels, and Lenin). It has morphed into a communist - capitalist hybrid, perhaps you haven't read the newspaper recently and don't know this.

LOL, at the time of it's breakup the Soviet Union wasn't really Communist either (as defined by Marx and Engels)

no, but it was shortly before the time of it's breakup.

really, why oh why oh why can't this administration ever say "we screwed up"?

how is a grand jurry proc. during 99 proof that BUSH screwed up?

Didn't the 9/11 commission say something about this the other day? Like there wasn't a link between 9/11 and Iraq?

in what way does that change the facts as the US knew them in 99-02?

Didn't the 9/11 commission say something about this the other day? Like there wasn't a link between 9/11 and Iraq?

it's historical context. Try to call bush a liar when facts are that the Clinton team said the exact same thing.

 

[Jhhnn]

it's historical context. Try to call bush a liar when facts are that the Clinton team said the exact same thing.

Not exactly. The Clinton Team didn't use scaremongering and the backdrop of 9/11 to actually engage us in a ground war/occupation. Nor did they drag out old and discredited intelligence over and over again to justify such an invasion...

Clinton was merely mistaken, which is one kind of wrong. Bush and his advisors deliberately deceived the American People into the invasion of another country, which is another matter entirely.

Even Dubya admitted that he had no proof of any links, while in England with Tony Blair.

Faith is a funny thing- true believers still carry on, even when the high priest has given up the crusade... or at least tried to revise history as to why he went on one in the first place...

 

[heartsurgeon]

The Clinton Team didn't use scaremongering and the backdrop of 9/11

what an utterly feckless statement.

9/11 was real

thousands died

the actual attempt was to kill over 50,000

you call the responsible protection of the United States from additional attacks "scaremongering"...that's an obscene statement..

Noting that Bush had to be "reeling" in the wake of the attacks of September 11, 2001, Clinton said Bush's first priority was to keep al Qaeda and other terrorist networks from obtaining "chemical and biological weapons or small amounts of fissile material."
"That's why I supported the Iraq thing. There was a lot of stuff unaccounted for," Clinton said in reference to Iraq and the fact that U.N. weapons inspectors left the country in 1998...' You couldn't responsibly ignore [the possibility that] a tyrant had these stocks," Clinton said.

God save us if you ever have any position of authority over anything...

 

[heartsurgeon]

this is an interesting article...

Iraqi Officer Tied to Al Qaeda - 9/11 Commissioner

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks has been told "a very prominent member" of al Qaeda served as an officer in Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)'s militia, a panel member said on Sunday.

now i am going to wait and see how this plays out..
possible massive amounts of cold, dead crow will be dished out to all liberals and Mssr. Kerry to eat...time will tell.

isn't it great when a plan comes together!!

never misunderestimate W

"Some of these documents indicate that (there was) at least one officer of Saddam's Fedayeen, a lieutenant colonel, who was a very prominent member of al Qaeda," Lehman said.


"That still has to be confirmed, but the vice president (Dick Cheney (news - web sites)) was right when he said that he may have things that we don't yet have," said Lehman, a former Navy secretary.

now, even if this proves true..i already know what the liberals will say (since facts don't matter):
what? only one person?
what? well it wasn't like Bin Laden spoke with Saddam..
what? doesn't prove anything...not a "substantive" relationship
Bush still lied
Bush is stupid

 

[Jhhnn]

Yeh, well, don't get dizzy from the spin, HS...

Try to remember that the head of Al Qaeda is a member of a family with close and personal ties to the Saudi royals and the Bush family, too...

Pre-War, the Bushies claimed that these elusive links existed, apparently on the basis of some ouija board divinations, and they're still failing to offer up any shred of actual proof. Even if some vague linkage is established today, it still doesn't vindicate the distortions and lies promulgated at the time.

Facts DO matter, and Dubya didn't have any at the time of the original accusations, still doesn't, probably never will...

Saddam Hussein had as much or more trouble with Islamic Fundamentalists as anybody, and had a history of dealing with them in a ruthless and brutal fashion. I rather strongly suspect that finding an Al Qaeda sleeper in his organization would have been dealt with very efficiently, along the lines of a single bullet to the back of the head...

Even if this whole thing is true, it's like saying the US govt has "links" to the KGB because of Aldridge Ames...

This whole "Linkage" routine is pitifully weak, propaganda for the true believers, preaching to the choir, yet another exercise in innuendo and false attribution...

Basic desperation from a failed presidency...

 

[conjur]

How does one person as an officer in a militia be the link between Iraq and Al Qaeda and 9/11?

There is no confirmation on this either.

 

[cash1220]

Originally posted by: wkabel23

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
TEXT: US GRAND JURY INDICTMENT AGAINST USAMA BIN LADEN

from 1998 - Clinton's Justice Department Issues Grand Jury indictment of OBL...

Al Qaeda, Bin Laden's international
terrorist group, forged alliances with the National Islamic Front in
Sudan and with the government of Iran and with its associated group
Hezballah to "work together against their perceived common enemies in
the West, particularly the United States."


Additionally, the indictment states that Al Qaeda reached an agreement
with Iraq not to work against the regime of Saddam Hussein and that
they would work cooperatively with Iraq, particularly in weapons
development.

You need to understand that no matter what Bush does or doesn't do, the Liberals/Democrats will rail against him.

If he hadn't attack Iraq, they would be criticising him for not doing the responsible thing to protect us. As it is, he did attack Iraq, so they have to criticise that.

Your uber-horny Clinton certainly believed Al Qaeda had an omminous relationship going on with Iraq...
Iraq, Iran, Syria, Afganista, Sudan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia....these countries are ALL going to have to change or be changed for the U.S. to be safe from terrorist threat. I am willing to debate about which one should have been chosen to be next after Afganistan, but i don't see how your going to defeat terrorism without eventually addressing all of these countries.

Oh yes, i understand that Democrats don't feel terrorism can be defeated, just like communism couldn't be defeated either.

Didn't the 9/11 commission say something about this the other day? Like there wasn't a link between 9/11 and Iraq?

no direct evidence iraq was involved in 9/11 but in the same breath they said there were ties between iraq and al-qaeda