I guess they think people are so stupid....they don't review history!!
My emphasis in red:

The Clinton administration's bombing of al-Shifa in 1998:


".....the intelligence surrounding al-Shifa was not limited to a single soil sample. Instead, the Clinton administration relied on multiple threads of intelligence, all of which pointed to Iraqi collaboration with al Qaeda in Sudan.

First, al-Shifa was not the only suspected facility in Sudan. It was merely the easiest target. As John Gannon, a former deputy director of the CIA, told THE WEEKLY STANDARD, "The consistent stream of intelligence at that time said it wasn't just al-Shifa. There were three different structures in the Sudan. There was the hiring of Iraqis. There was no question that the Iraqis were there. Some of the Clinton people seem to forget that they did make the Iraqi connection."

Second, because the attack on al-Shifa was somewhat controversial, President Clinton authorized the intelligence community to discuss this evidence with the press shortly after the strike."
Sound familiar? Yep....he declassified Classified reports to help explain what he did and why to the public!!

"....Richard Clarke defended the intelligence linking Iraqi scientists to al Qaeda in the months following the strike. The 9-11 Commission's report adds that Clarke "for years had read intelligence reports on Iraqi-Sudanese cooperation on chemical weapons." McCarthy's fellow NSC staffers Daniel Benjamin and Steven Simon give an impassioned defense of the strike on al-Shifa in their book The Age of Sacred Terror. Not to mention that the CIA reported to Congress that Iraq was working on chemical and possibly biological weapons programs in Sudan every year from 1998 through 2002. The language used in 1999 was typical:


In the WMD arena, Sudan has been developing the capability to produce chemical weapons for many years. In this pursuit, it has obtained help from entities in other countries, principally Iraq. Given its history in developing CW and its close relationship with Iraq, Sudan may be interested in a BW program as well.


WHERE DOES ALL OF THAT LEAVE US? In a rather bizarre circle of logic. McCarthy's former colleagues Clarke, Benjamin, and Simon argue that: (a) the decision to strike al-Shifa was justified because (b) the intelligence connecting Iraqi chemical weapons experts to al Qaeda's chemical weapons efforts was sound, but (c) this doesn't mean that Iraq and al Qaeda had a significant relationship because (d) somehow this collaboration occurred without either party realizing that it was working with the other

All of which is to say that Mary McCarthy's cohorts on the National Security Council's staff have played games with the intelligence surrounding al-Shifa, Sudan, Iraq, and al Qaeda for years. Maybe they've all got "independent streaks."

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...uivdz.asp?pg=1

__________________
Clintonite after Clintonite. My question is, "So when does this so-called CHANGE start?"

Bill Clinton is a hypocrite and a proven liar, but for that very reason, I don't consider his administration's claims about Iraq to be valid in and of themselves. I certainly don't base my opposition to the war in Iraq on anything Clinton has said, and I wouldn't support the war based on what Bill Clinton said in the past either. It has already been well established that Iraq and Al-Qaeda did not have any significant ties when we invaded Iraq in 2003, nor did Iraq have a working nuclear program. There would need to have been both for me to support the war, and there was neither. By the way, I started another thread in support of bombing Iran. I don't think about foreign policy in partisan terms- just in case that occurred to you.

__________________
"I am a Tory Anarchist. I should like every one to go about doing just as he pleased- short of altering any of the things to which I have grown accustomed." (Max Beerbohm)

__________________
"The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left."
Ecclesiastes 10:2 (NIV)