In Front of Your Nose: Yes, Saddam did have terrorist connections

Slate ^ | October 25, 2004 | Christopher Hitchens

[Stoat]

In Front of Your Nose
Yes, Saddam did have terrorist connections.

By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Monday, Oct. 25, 2004, at 12:22 PM PT

 

In what was to be his last book, The Evidence of Things Not Seen, about the murders of black children in Atlanta in the early 1980s, the great James Baldwin had the following reminiscence:

Some years ago, after the disappearance of civil rights workers Chaney, Goodman and Schwirner in Mississippi, some friends of mine were dragging the river for their bodies. This one wasn't Schwirner. This one wasn't Goodman. This one wasn't Chaney. Then, as Dave Dennis tells it: "It suddenly struck us – what difference did it make that it wasn't them? What are these bodies doing in the river?"

I wouldn't ordinarily rest anything on an assertion from the Apostle Paul, who described faith itself as "the substance of things hoped for; the evidence of things not seen." But a whole school of pseudo-empiricism is now springing up, concerning the "evidence" from Iraq. In Slate a few weeks ago, reviewing the new book by Saddam's one-time chief physicist Mahdi Obeidi, I pointed to some important facts about Iraq's weaponry that have only become known to us as a direct consequence of regime-change. Some of these things—the buried nuclear centrifuge, or the attempt to purchase missiles from North Korea—were rather worse than had been previously alleged by the administration. Moreover, nobody before the war had claimed that Iraq had no covert weaponry at all.

[CWOJackson]

Slate. Will wonders never cease.

[sully777]

Extra points for eliminating the "can't see the forest" cliche at the introduction with a dark story of dredging the river for bodies. It fits with Saddam's world and the Coalitions grim task of dredging his killing fields for clues to his conviction on WMDs.

[tdewey10]

Good read.

[nuconvert]

bump

[Bearshouse]

I adore Christopher Hitchens. I believe he is a 9/11 convert from his leftist ways. Now he's our elitist snob.

[cgk]

Hitchens ping...

[T. Buzzard Trueblood]

Hitchens bump.

[Peach]

Thanks for the ping; Hitchens is so clear.

[wisconsinconservative]

Hitchens BTTT

[CWOJackson]

Isn't it ironic. You have the liberal Slate saying this, and the so-called American Conservative saying the opposite.

We live in strange times.

[Capriole]

Hitchens is still a leftist on every subject except the War on Terrorism. We may embrace him, and I'm grateful for his words, but don't be surprised if he displays just as much incising British wit and cold analysis when the subject turns to something on which he is not allied with us.

[ServesURight]

But this can't be. Iraq never had ties to terrorists.

[Salvation]

Amazing -- didn't he have his coffee today?

[wimpycat]

I think most of us aren't under any illusions about Hitchens. Witness his attitudes on Mother Theresa, Christians in general, Henry Kissinger, etc.

I've gotten to where I do not have to agree with somebody on everything to agree with them on one or two things. And Hitchens makes the case for why we're in Iraq very eloquently.

[Betis70]

I think Hitchens is a war on terror convert, but pretty much leftist on everything else. However, I could mistaken on that.

Still he is a gifted writer.

[GretchenM]

marker

[christie]

.
Yes, indeed, Saddam had terrorist connections. To quote Deroy Murdock, from his web site, HUSSEINandTERROR.com:

Actually, Saddam Hussein knew plenty about terrorism. In essence, he owned and operated a full-service general store for global terrorists, complete with cash, diplomatic aid, safe haven, training, and even medical attention. Such assistance violated United Nations Security Council Resolution 687.

They connected the dots in 1998 but Senator Kerry and MSM can't seem to connect the dots in 2004.

Here is an easy to read chart of what the media was saying pre-911 (and after): Connect the Dots...Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.

Lots of facts and quotes about the president-wannabe at the John F. Kerry Timeline.
.

[ml1954]

I have mixed views on Hitchens. He is impressive, especially when I agree with him, but when I disagree with him he makes me think. In this case I agree with him.

My own speculations follow--- Bin Laden is a megalomaniacal pseudo intellectual Hitler/Lenin type. Zarqawi is an unsophisticated uneducated street fighting Stalin type. But they are both terrorists. Zarqawi is a Bin Laden wannabe, as Stalin was a Lenin/Hitler wannabe (Hitler played Stalin like a fiddle as no one else could). Saddam (another Stalin type) probably would have liked to foster an alliance with Bin Laden but was spurned. He courted Zarqawi instead.