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

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

--

FF