I didn't say "evidence" of a link between Al Qaeda and Saddam was coming out; I called it the first real proof. Evidence is what you bring to a courtroom before the verdict, and there's been evidence for years. The new papers from Baghdad's intelligence office are starting to close the case. Steve at Golgonooza is arguing with me about this. He writes that a single meeting with Al Qaeda members in Iraq five years ago doesn't mean Saddam was on the verge of handing his weapons to Bin Laden. True, but it does mean he was lying about having "no relationship" — and a relationship with Al Qaeda, plus weapons of mass destruction, would have equaled an imminent threat. Still would, in fact. I'm worried the war may have convinced Saddam to empty his arsenals into the hands of terrorists from Al Qaeda or Hezbollah.
Of course, Baghdad's relationship with the U.S. in the 1980s — through Donald Rumsfeld — did help cause the threat. No argument there.
posted by Michael Scott Moore |
11:08 PM
