(Fred the Red Shirt) wrote in
om:

Jim Yanik wrote in message
...
(BUFDRVR) wrote in
:

Emmanuel Gustin wrote:

In the case of Afghanistan this was
an entirely valid reason. In the case of Iraq it was never more
than a transparently flawed excuse

I guess Abu Nidal and Abu Abbas were just vactioning in Iraq?

Both of these men had proven track records of operations against
the U.S. You don't need to have an Al Queda stamp on your forehead
to be a threat to U.S. national security. Our big nemesis in Iraq
now, al Zarqawi, fought against U.S. forces in Afghanistan, was
injured and received treatment where? That's right, Bagdad, Iraq.

Before the USA invaded
the radicals had to remain in parts of the country that Bagdad
did not control

Abbas was caught in Baghdad and Abu Nidal was killed there. Are you
saying the Iraqi government didn't control Baghdad?

When and when, respectively?

...


"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if
it harelips everyone on Bear Creek"


The 9-11 Commission report says that Saddam had contacts with
Al-Queda. Perhpas not directly connected with 9-11,but still,contacts
with them.

They did not say 'Perhpas not directly connected with 9-11' They
were clear that there was no such connection.


That they could FIND no connection.
Of course,there also was a lot of Iraqi records BURNED before they
collapsed entirely.

Just like the WMD materiels may be sitting in Syria,moved before the
invasion.

They also made it clear
that the contacts never advanced to cooperation, let alone support.


Just allowing them safe haven and passage is support.
I wonder about that airframe Iraq had for "hijack training"...


Saddam also funded the families of the Israeli homicide bombers.
Al-Zarqarwi was there for hospital treatment;that's support,too.


Too many people seem too willing to believe the worst about the US and the
current administration,and not believe about Saddam's dangers.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net