[billbears]

Do you really think that Zarqawi would go to Baghdad for treatment if he had never been there before and if he didn't have some assurances from Saddam Hussein or the Mukhabarat?

Wait a minute... nope, I don't care. To rely your entire argument on one or two men visiting Baghdad is a bit weak. Tie this also into the fact that Hussein's regime was the only secular government in the region. The man oppressed Islamic fundamentalists. Sounds a bit off for someone that supposedly had strong ties to Islamic terrorists

As to your point in #48, considering Hussein probably thought he still had WMDs I'd say a lot of things were overlooked by him. Oh, but the Weekly Standard and the NRO aren't using the WMD argument anymore are they? Wonder why?

[nuffsenuff]

My argument does not rely on one or two men visiting Baghdad.

You are aware that Iraq was on the list of "terrorist sponsoring regimes" long before Bush was elected in 2000, right?

Secondly, Hussein oppressed IRAQI'S. Some of which happened to be fundamentalists. You are as confused as the liberals are about this issue. When it came to FOREIGN terrorists, though, he would work with the ones he thought he could keep tabs on and drive out or kill the ones who got out of hand.

It has NEVER been about his own personal religious beliefs. It was ALWAYS about who he could use to accomplish whatever he wanted to accomplish.

[optimistically_conservative]

The man oppressed Islamic fundamentalists.

No, Hussein oppressed Shiites. However, if you have evidence of Hussein oppressing Sunni/Wahabi Islamists, and not building Mosques of War in deferrence to his loyal Islamists ...