Wow Kerry took the Florida primary!

[kandrathe]

Again, since harassing Kurds was on his "to do" list, and defending Israel was absolutely not, I see no reason why this paints a portrait of Saddam as any different from what we already knew for certain: that he was a pragmatic, ruthless, *secular* dictator. His support of terrorism was, as far as we can tell, entirely limited to these two areas, and did not include any support for Al Qaeda, or any other group except Ansar al-Islam. As for his tiffs with the Saudis, that's all neighbourhood business. The Saudis offer a thousand times the support to terrorism Iraq ever has. If Saddam was stonewalling them, it's because he hates the Saudis, not because he really loves terrorism.

Please read and digest at least the the Jonathan Schanzer article, because it draws all kinds of lines with names from Queda, Ansar Al Islam and other terrorist groups to Zarqawi, and Abu Wael aka. Colonel Saadan Mahmoud Abdul Latif al-Aani of the Mukhabarat. I can put the evidence in front of your eyes but you are blind. I can show you that all kinds of terrorist groups had access to facilities, weapons, money and safe haven in Iraq, and you then you become an apologist for Saddam.

Not six degrees, and since when did we assume that this evidence must lead to a memo from OBL. I very much doubt that he drew it out for them on a napkin, and then signed it. Zarqawi is a Queda leader, he is known to have run a Queda camp in Afghanistan. The Jonathan Schanzer article shows that Zarqawi is operating freely, at the direction of Saddam through Abu Wael of the Mukhabarat. From the article, " 'Abu Wael's wife is Izzat al-Douri's cousin,' making him a part of Saddam's inner circle. Al-Douri, of course, was the deputy chairman of Saddam's Revolutionary Command Council, a high-ranking official in Iraq's armed forces, and Saddam's righthand man. "

"I see no reason why this paints a portrait of Saddam as any different from what we already knew for certain" -- the difference is that these are not just military groups harrassing the Kurds within Iraq, these groups are the same ones that fund cells, and train them, and then blow up trains in Spain, assassinate ambassadors, tried to use chemical weapons in France, and then Britian or fly planes into buildings. In many ways Iraq was able to provide for terrorists much more than Afghanistan ever could.

"... not a hill of beans" <-- What does that mean anyway? Is there some level at which harboring (aiding and abeting) murderers is acceptable to you?