For the sake of argument, let’s assume your statement is correct:
“The only terrorism that it reported Saddam Hussein being involved in was the killing of Iraqi ex-patriots who Saddam believed were actively working to overthrow him. “
What then is the point of praising him as an anti-terrorrist? How, given your position here, judge the statement: “But you know what he did well? He killed terrorists. He did that so good.”
It’s not my statement. It’s the conclusion of the Iraq Study Group that Bush convened and sent in after the fighting stopped.
‘What then is the point of praising him as an anti-terrorrist? How, given your position here, judge the statement: “But you know what he did well? He killed terrorists. He did that so good.”’
I’d say the point is mistaken. Saddam was killing off perceived threats against his rule, not terrorists. These killings are what got Saddam himself listed as a terrorist, he was having exiles killed outside of Iraq.
My point as objecting to the American Thinker piece that (falsely) claims that Saddam backed Islamic terrorists. He didn’t. He regarded them with suspicion. Saddam’s one overriding concern was remaining in power. If he regarded Islamists as a threat he would have killed them just as enthusiastically as he killed any other rivals. From what I’ve read Islamists left Iraq alone while Saddam was in power. Either they weren’t interested in Iraq or they feared Saddam. Maybe a mixture of both is what was going on.