03-17-2004, 09:40 PM
"How then could these terrorists move freely within his society without his approval?"
Well, they probably didn't. But that hardly means he was supporting them. One of the basic principles of survival as a middle east dictator is the "enemy of my enemy" principle.
Not cracking down on Zaraqawi? Well, why should he? They're not harassing anyone but the Kurds, and that's perfectly okay with him. Does that mean he endorses all aspects of their platform, or would even like to see them more powerful than they are? Very unlikely. But so long as all they're doing is harassing Kurds? He's going to give them leeway. They're doing his work for him, after all.
Ditto with Palestinian extremists. Would he like them running his country? No. But is he going to stop them at his borders? No. They're not hurting him, but they are hurting his enemies. What kind of message would turning them away give? That Saddam's gone over to the Zionists?
"Succor", if by that you mean not closing your borders to them (and that single incident where he hospitalized Zaraqawi) is rather different from the kind of support the administration directly stated they gave to terrorists (Al Qaeda in particular), and they continue to imply, despite a complete lack of evidence. No money, no weapons, no secret meetings, no coordinated attacks, no steady stream of Al Qaeda recruits coming out of Iraq, *certainly* no WMD. Just open borders and one case of medical treatment.
If this is the sum total of everything that will be unveiled about the "connection" between Iraq and terrorism, I feel perfectly justified in saying it doesn't amount to a hill of beans.
Jester
Well, they probably didn't. But that hardly means he was supporting them. One of the basic principles of survival as a middle east dictator is the "enemy of my enemy" principle.
Not cracking down on Zaraqawi? Well, why should he? They're not harassing anyone but the Kurds, and that's perfectly okay with him. Does that mean he endorses all aspects of their platform, or would even like to see them more powerful than they are? Very unlikely. But so long as all they're doing is harassing Kurds? He's going to give them leeway. They're doing his work for him, after all.
Ditto with Palestinian extremists. Would he like them running his country? No. But is he going to stop them at his borders? No. They're not hurting him, but they are hurting his enemies. What kind of message would turning them away give? That Saddam's gone over to the Zionists?
"Succor", if by that you mean not closing your borders to them (and that single incident where he hospitalized Zaraqawi) is rather different from the kind of support the administration directly stated they gave to terrorists (Al Qaeda in particular), and they continue to imply, despite a complete lack of evidence. No money, no weapons, no secret meetings, no coordinated attacks, no steady stream of Al Qaeda recruits coming out of Iraq, *certainly* no WMD. Just open borders and one case of medical treatment.
If this is the sum total of everything that will be unveiled about the "connection" between Iraq and terrorism, I feel perfectly justified in saying it doesn't amount to a hill of beans.
Jester