I guess, if you figure that Saddam knew that AMZ would turn out to be an important terrorist someday. AMZ was an Afghan trained extremist, but he had split with AQ years before to go his own route. It wasn't until during the Iraqi insurgency itself that he swore alliegence to UBL, and reflagged his organization as "al-Qa'ida in Iraq" (AQI). Even still, AMZ and the AQ senior leadership didn't see eye to eye on lots of things (like blowing up mosques, for instance). AMZ clearly did things as he saw fit, not on behalf of any master plan. It's not like Saddam played second fiddle to anyone else, either.
I really don't understand the push to link AMZ, who was an al-Qa'ida-gone-independent second stringer prior to the Iraq invasion, to Saddam, who was clearly a genuine threat. If that's the best arguement the VP can bring to the table, I wonder why you'd keep talking about it at all? Saddam needed to go, and he went. AQ needs to go, and they're going. Why can't we leave it at that?
Because the anti-war left is trying to use the "no link between terrorists adn Saddam" as proof that we should never have gone into Iraq, that Bush wanted to go into Iraq, "for oil" and that people should vote for the Dems this fall.
Because the anti-war left is trying to use the "no link between terrorists adn Saddam" as proof that we should never have gone into Iraq, that Bush wanted to go into Iraq, "for oil" and that people should vote for the Dems this fall.
Sound thinking....
We need more of it.
My regards.