Posted on 10/11/2010 7:37:22 AM PDT by Kaslin
but Howard Dean said that Saddam was a nice guy
had no interest in partnering with Osama bin Laden, declassified documents show.
"Saddam did not trust Islamists," Aziz said, according to handwritten notes of a June 27, 2004 interrogation, although he viewed al-Qaida as an "effective" organization
PING
Every time I confront liberals with that they go ape-yogurt.
Thanks ExTexasRedhead.
Only you could read the clear results of such testimony and arrive at that goofy conclusion, not to mention the DOZENS of other terrorist groups inside Iraq.
Not much new here. Saddam was NOT being contained. He’d corrputed the Oil for Food program and provided active support for terrorism of many flavors thoughout the world. Just because he was not a card-carrying member of AQ does not diminish the power of the the WMD (aka the oil wealth) he possessed.
I should also mention that the US reportedly supplied Iraq with the anthrax in the first place - make of that what you will.
interesting, got links about OK bombing?
Saddam didn't trust anybody, but he was willing to help Al Qaeda when their aims overlapped his. That's good enough to make him an enemy, in my book.
Give me examples of those dozens....and if you want to cite the discredited Salmon Pak thesis, please provide some evidence. Oh....while you are at it, tell me WHY the pro-Iran regime in Iraq which has cleansed half the Christian population from the country and established the secular law of Saddam with Sharia law (courtesy of the U.S. taxpayer) is “better” than than Saddam.
This article presents great arguments why it was a good move for Bush to invade.....
Saudi Arabia.
President Bush’s strategy in Iraq and the middle east in general was spectacularly brilliant. And, it has worked quite successfully. Those who are too ignorant of military strategy are free to comment, but really do not add anything to the discussion.
Neither are better. And you well know who all the terrorist groups are, and we’ve been through this before and your answers were lame then.
Not according to the first link cited in this article which says he "had no interest in partnering with Osama bin Laden
Let's assume you are right, however, and (a la Stalin, Roosevelt and Hiter) they sometimes had common interests which "overlapped." Please compare that to the "overlapping" interests of the explicitly pro-Iran regime in Iraq which, courtesy of U.S. tax aid, cleansed half the ancient Christian population and established Sharia law in that country. Do those facts also make that regime an "enemy" according to your standard?
The OBL-funded Ansar al-Islam camps in northeast Iraq were well-documented to have provided safe-haven for al Qaeda fleeing Afghanistan. Sadaam apparently had no problem with it since it provided good leverage against the Kurds.
If that is the case, do we agree on the need to end tax support for the pro-Iran, Sharia-imposing Iraq regime? Specific answers please.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.