Saddam's Ties to Terror Still Denied by the Left

Multiple Sources ^ | various | Multi

[walford]

Ratman wrote:

1. Give me one instance of Saddam financing, training and equipping international terrorists. That's unmitigated rubbish.

2. Saddam was not a facilitator of terror. Me was a cruel idiot who raped his country. Not unlike Dubya. Facilitators of terrorism abound - Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran... But not Saddam. You've been hypnotized by the bright light of Fox News and White House talking points.

Sorry, none of these are from Le Monde or al-Jazeera:

Quote:

Saddam Hussein - the terrorists' banker
...The UN’s oil-for-food programme was protecting him from the United States threat while helping him to bribe aides of Jacques Chirac, the French president, and the office of Vladimir Putin, then the Russian prime minister.

But to extend this to the PFLP was extraordinarily brazen. He was daring to bankroll international terrorists - with sums of money which could keep the cells financed for years....*snip*

So begins a series of multiple sources. This is from discussion on a message board that is frequented by people with a wider variety of views. It is very stimulating and fun.

[walford]

This is the comment that impelled the skeptical response:

The Wahabbis were against Saddam, but they shared the same enemy. So they colloborated in financing, training and equipping terrorists who targeted the West.

The 'entire world' -- or more specifically Kofi and his sychophants -- ostracized the Bush admin for having the temerity to assert that the ultimate arbiter of American foreign policy is the US Constitution, not the UN Charter. Kofi's son and others were making too much money from Saddam to allow its resolution to allow weapons inspections or face the consequences to actually be enforced. It was meant as an empty threat and Bush spoiled the party by actually taking action to enforce it when it became clear that Saddam would never voluntarily cooperate.

Removing Saddam is not a diversion from the War on Terror. He was a facilitator who had to go. Leaving him in power indefinitely to brutalize his own people and enable terrorism abroad was not workable. The only option was to take him out then or wait until he got stronger -- which was another proposal that was being floated at the time.

Click here to get the multiple sources that are cited. This is humbly offered if there is a need to a good starting point for evidence of Saddam's terror ties -- which were extensive. Please feel free to post any additional sources. It would be greatly appreciated.

[SunkenCiv]

If The Bush Administration Lied About WMD,
So Did These People
compiled by John Hawkins

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002

[many others]

Panel: Iraq Data Wasn't Hyped
by Ed Johnson, AP
9-11-03
[no link]

Prime Minister Tony Blair's government did not deliberately "sex up" a dossier on Iraqi weapons by including a disputed claim about chemical and biological weapons, Parliament's Intelligence and Security Committee ruled Thursday... A separate inquiry being led by Lord Hutton also is looking into the issue as it relates to the apparent suicide of arms expert David Kelly, who was named by officials as the possible source of a British Broadcasting Corp. report alleging the government exaggerated the threat from Iraq. The government denies the claims, which sparked a bitter feud between Blair's office and the British Broadcasting Corp. BBC reporter Andrew Gilligan subsequently said his source had blamed Blair's communications chief, Alastair Campbell, for insisting on including the claim. The Intelligence and Security Committee rejected those charges, and accepted the government's assertion that the Joint Intelligence Committee, which prepared the dossier, did not come under political pressure... The House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, in a report issued July 7, also absolved the government and Campbell.

from the June 7 2003 issue, this next one has a reverse spin goin'. The subtitle is "If there were no weapons, why didn't Saddam let his scientists talk?" But the editorial talks mostly about the partisan harping on the supposedly faked evidence. Of course the evidence for Iraqi WMD is real.

A Question of Proof
editorial
New Scientist
[no link]

In November 2002, the Security Council told Iraq to provide such verification of face the consequences. Even if Iraq really did give up its weapons, where was the proof? It could have supplied documents, dug up destroyed armaments, and allowed scientists to talk.

Nuke program parts unearthed in Baghdad back yard
Mike Boettcher,
David Ensor,
and producer Maria Fleet

Experts said the documents and pieces Obeidi gave the United States were the critical information and parts to restart a nuclear weapons program, and would have saved Saddam's regime several years and as much as hundreds of millions of dollars for research. David Albright, who was a U.N. nuclear weapons inspector in Iraq in the 1990s, said inspectors "understood that Iraq probably hid centrifuge documents, may have had components, and so it is very important that those items be found." ...Obeidi said he felt unsafe in Iraq after the U.S.-led invasion and that he was getting pressure from different corners of the country. He also said other Iraqi scientists were watching to see if he was safe after he cooperated with the U.S. government. Now that he and his family are safely out of Iraq, Obeidi said he believes other scientists would come forward with other components of Iraq's weapons program.

Saddam Had No WMD, But Was Importing Materials
Friday, September 17, 2004

According to people familiar with the 1,500-page report, the head of the Iraq Survey Group, Charles Duelfer, will find that Saddam was importing banned materials, working on unmanned aerial vehicles in violation of U.N. agreements and maintaining a dual-use industrial sector that could produce weapons. Duelfer also says Iraq only had small research and development programs for chemical and biological weapons. As Duelfer puts the finishing touches on his report, he concludes Saddam had intentions of restarting weapons programs at some point, after suspicion and inspections from the international community waned.

And, of course:

Saddam's Bombmaker by Khidhir Hamza with Jeff Stein