http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/11/AR2008031102799. html

An examination of more than 600,000 Iraqi documents, audio and video records collected by U.S. forces since the March 2003 invasion has concluded that there is "no smoking gun" supporting the Bush administration's prewar assertion of an "operational relationship" between Saddam Hussein and the al-Qaeda terrorist network, sources familiar with the study said...

...while Hussein had no direct connection to al-Qaeda, he had ties to other regional and global terrorist organizations, including Palestinian groups. But it concludes that these links were largely nonoperational and were aimed to bolster his credentials as an Arab leader.

Hmm, Cheney was right again!

Andrew

Andrew, I started this thread in Bush lies ...

Notice it says operational ties, President Bush claimed there were financial ties. Saddam gave money to lots of terrorist groups. And provided some of them a safe haven to operate from in Iraq.

Nwokie full of shit as usual. Your breath must reek.

There's a difference between supporting the families of terrorist "martyrs" and providing real financial backing to the organizations.

Cons seem to be intentionally conflating the former with the latter.

Its one thing to believe the BS, but to foist it on us as the truth is another.

Money is fungible, if Saddam gives money to terrorist groups, it can be used for anything, plus a terrorist is more likely to risk his life if he knows his family will be taken care of.

What's the difference in giving someone $50,000 to blow up a building or saying, if you blow up that building, and get hurt, I will give your family $50,000.

Saddam didn't give any money to al Qaeda (the group in the north of Iraq that was there when we invaded, Saddam had no control over). But we invaded him anyway, with Cheney swearing Saddam was working with them. How did we deal with the nations, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, that most helped al Qaeda with money? Oh, yeah, we either give them billions in aid (Pakistan) or buy billions of dollars of their oil (Saudi).

So don't tell me Saddam's providing tiny amounts of money to Palestinian terrorists' families had anything to do with our invading Iraq - it's just one more of a string of failed rationalizations for invading Iraq that don't hold water in context.

Andrew

Saddam gave money to lots of terrorist groups.

So do the Saudi's and DUHbya and Co. LOVE the living crap out of them.... When do we start BOMBING Saudi Arabia?
I say tomorrow!

Another failed rationalization was blind revenge.

Lock up the red phone.

"What's the difference in giving someone $50,000 to blow up a building or saying, if you blow up that building, and get hurt, I will give your family $50,000."

The obvious difference would be that the 50k would go to food, shelter, etc for family members rather than planning and executing terrorist acts.

I could be wrong but my understanding is that Saddam was giving money directly to families, not to "organizations".