Ciao!

We'll be hearing about all that hopefully soon, as said dictator gets his day in court.

"No one's ever seriously argued that Saddam helped plan the 9/11 attacks."

Really? Then explain why over 40% of Americans still thought that Saddam was involved in 9/11 during election time? Could it be that this administration tried desparately to link them by any means necessary?

Get over it.

@buzz:

You said "get over it", which is nice. Since you didn't address the fact that Saddam *WAS* involved w/ al Qaeda, throughout the 1990s. Even if he didn't personally help plan for 9/11. Although ... al Qaeda members trained on how to hijack commercial planes w/ knives on a base ... in Bagdhad. But that's neither here nor there.

The question is merely whethere Saddam had links to terrorism in general, and al Qaeda groups in particular. There's too much evidence of that to ignore, just because believing it would be inconvenient for you.

Nice try Miguel. Nice try.

Saddam had nothing to do with 9-11. Period. End of story. There is no evidence of Iraq being involved in any way, at any level, or even of Iraq knowing of the 9-11 plot.

All this article says is that(according to US intelligence and the Iraqi National Congress) Saddam approached bin Laden and offered asylum.

Before I continue, please remember US intelligence and the INC also brought us such oldies but goodies as "drones carrying chemical weapons"(false), "mobile chemical weapons labs" (false), "nuclear weapons/yellowcake"(bogus), "tons of sarin nerve gas"(false), "tons of anthrax"(false), "Mohammed Atta meets with Iraqi intelligence"(false), and so on. Also, remember the head of the INC, Ahmed Chalabi has such a reputation for lying that the Pentagon decided to dump him just last year--not to mention Chalabi being wanted in Jordan for embezzelment.

So the sources of this article are already suspect. However, I do think it would be natural for Saddam to propose that bin Laden seek asylum in Iraq--after all bin Laden was fighting the US better than Saddam. Abu Nadal of the PLO had also been living in Baghdad for years. And Saddam had offered money to suicide bombers in Palestine, so he wasn't exactly guilt-free when it came to associating with terrorists.

That being said, Saddam was never a part of al-Qaeda--never supported them (beyond this offer)-- and had absolutely nothing to do with 9-11. Let me say that again, Saddam had nothing to do with 9-11.

I didn't mean to be too repetitive, but for some strange reason, in March of 2003 70% of the US population believed that Saddam was involved in 9-11. This belief probably had nothing to do with the Bush administration making (up) a case for invading Iraq.

Patrick:

My only point was that Saddam had links to terrorism. I'm more than willing to concede that there's no specific evidence of his involvement in 9/11. But many in the left today don't want to concede that Saddam had *any* links to terrorism, at all. That was my only point.

Did Saddam help plan 9/11? I doubt it. Did he give aid to terrorist groups, including al Qaeda-linkeds ones? There seems to be no doubt of that.

Also please note that I never argued that Saddam was behind 9/11. Seemy post/comments.

"But many in the left today don't want to concede that Saddam had *any* links to terrorism, at all."

And you never concede that this administration did the exact opposite : make a large number of Americans believe that Saddam was directly behind 9/11. Why don't you admit that this administration had an agenda of disseminating false propaganda? So self-righteous yet you're just as guilty as the far left.

@buzz:

So are you accusing me of being a member of the administration? Or are you agreeing that many in the (far) left are just as guilty? Hard to tell.

Look, I don't recall Bush or anyone in his cabinet making the explicit claim that Saddam helped plan 9/11. Although, we don't know for certain that he didn't, do we? Though, of course, 90% chance he had nothing to do w/ it. Still, my only point is that while this administration (and Clinton's) argued that Saddam sponsored terrorism in the 1990s, and the international media covered that, the tune suddenly changed after 2002-2003.

Sure, there are some idiots on the right. But if you want to be taken seriously, Buzz, don't lump all those you disagree w/ into one fits-all category (that's called stereotyping & bigotry). You end up sounding rather cookish.

E.g. it's one thing to argue that "this administration disseminated false propaganda" and another to say they have an "agenda of disseminating false propaganda" ... as if their *purpose* is to lie, rather than that they might lie (as all governments do) at some time to achieve their objectives. Immoral, yes, but there's a difference. The first way of saying it makes you sound like a nut, as if Bush were a vaudeville character, waking up in the mornings ready to spin new lies, not for any purpose, just to lie for lying's sake. When you use formulaic slogans like that ("an agenda of disseminating" you lose people's respect, they don't listen to you, and you can't change their minds. Ultimately, they won't vote for your candidates. Think about it. Do you want to be sure of your rightness? Or do you want to win elections and effect change?