Originally posted by wvrevy
Ok, they obviously were not the first to suspect a link. What, exactly, does that prove in your mind ?
I think you know exactly what my point is.
Your own first post on this thread said:
After all, most of them seem to think there is a link between Saddam and Al Queda, just like ol' Dubya told 'em
The general assertion is that the Bush administration came up with this Saddam/al Qaeda link to gain support for war. On the thread that mysteriously disappeared, there were posters who didn't believe that the two had been linked by the media and the previous administration years ago.
Okay, so you agree that the Bush administration didn't invent the Saddam/al Qaeda connection and aren't the first to say there is one.
The Clinton administration obviously did not go to war over this "suspicion"...and had they, I would have been just as against it. You simply do not invade another nation based on supposition and conjecture. We thought there was a link, so that makes it ok, is that it ?
Not at all what I said. And I'm not arguing for or against the probability of the link, though I'm willing if you'd like. I'm arguing against the notion that Bush fabricated the idea and used it to sell the war. There's been evidence of it for ten years.
Um, no, actually, it isn't. The Post article you cited shows indications of a link between Sudan and al Queda, but not much on the Iraqi front.
I didn't say that the article showed a link. I said that the Clinton administration said there was a link.
All it mentions in terms of Iraq is that one line saying "the Clinton administration asserted that Iraq provided technical assistance in the construction of a VX production facility in Sudan, undertaken jointly with al Qaeda, " with no evidence to back that assertion up.
Oh, okay--I see you
did read that part.
Clinton's statement stands as what it is...he said he never saw evidence of any link. Yet a Washington Post article that contains no quotes and offers no proof is supposed to be more credible ? Based on what ?
Well, again, the article did not say there was proof of a link (and I never said it did). The article said that the
Clinton administration said there was a link.
In your cite of Clinton's salon.com article, he says he never saw any links. Yet above, the administration says Iraq provided technical assistance in construction of a VX production facility, undertaken jointly with al Qaeda. That's solidly collaborative. That's not just meetings and contacts.
So my question about Clinton's salon.com article was not about whether or not he was factually correct in asserting the links between Saddam and al Qaeda. Back in 1998 he said there was, now he says there wasn't. So, did he forget he made that claim back in 1998 or was he lying when he gave that interview to salom.com?
Which do you think it was?
