Unsubstantiated rumour or point of fact?

[kandrathe]

Last weekend I say an interview where Senator Lindsey Graham (who sits on the Select Committee on Intelligence), seemed to be indicating that something more substantial linking Iraq to terrorists would be released soon. Of course the idiot interviewing him didn't pick up on it and redirected the conversation to "Will the capture of Saddam make our troops safer?" Blegh.

I was going to reply to Warblades comment though as well, but your link highlights my thought. Without State sponsors, terrorists would not be as successful. They are successful in Iraq right now due to post war chaos, an administrative power vacuum, high availability of ordinance, but also because there are groups in Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, and Jordan who can smuggle in personel, and material support for a terrorist insurgency. It is due to the existence of all the training camps (Iran, Libya, Yeman, Somolia, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. ), and material support that nations gave to these groups that makes them so virulent. So while Saddam may not have been directly involved in 911, he and his ilk are indirectly responsible for sustaining the terrorism movement.

How many young Palestinians blew themselves (and a bunch or innocent Isreali's) up due to Saddam's blood money?