This just in! Saddam denies connection with Al-Qaeda!


And in other news, the Pope is still Catholic and Generalissimo Franco is still dead.

Ya know what would be funny? If he was right… Didn’t he send a boatload of humanitarian aid following 9/11, like, hundreds of millions of dollars?

Yeah, Yeah…and Oj was innocent, and Clinton did not have sexual relations with that woman and Nixon was not a crook and Al Sharpton is smart and etc. etc. etc.

Why did he bother? It’s not like it matters anyway. The decision to bomb the crap out of his country was made two years ago, and nothing’s gonna stop it.

Well, maybe I’m not as cynical as you are, but if a murderous, psychotic despot says he doesn’t have his fingers in the Al-Qaeda pie, I for one am inclined to believe him.

(Anyone remember that “Kids in the Hall” skit?)

Umm, folks, I really don’t believe he does have any at all. If you read the foreign press, they clearly don’t believe it either. It is only a propaganda statement from the Bush admin. distributed by the US press that makes such a claim.

Some basic facts: OBL is a Saudi with close ties to Iran. Neither country likes SH in the least. Remember the Iran-Iraqi war???

Take the last alledged OBL tape: He explicitly bad mouths SH and only gives support to the Iraqi people.

A story I read yesterday about the hunt for an OBL flunky mentioned we might have recently been in a Al-Qaida camp in the Kurdish controlled section of Iraq. Note that the Kurds are really, really strong anti-SH types. I seriously doubt that SH would support a group that works closely with the Kurds (who are supposedly on “our side”.)

SH is an evil, bad bad guy. But he appears to have no links to OBL at all, and is apparently considered by OBL to be an enemy.

(I’m trying to be factual as possible. But I don’t think a GD can be avoided.)

In case anyone missed my point here, it’s that I’m getting tired of being bombarded with this newsbite. I fail to see what is so newsworthy about it. Of course he says that he has no ties to Al-Qaeda! Sorry, people saying exactly what we expect them to say is not news.

Oh, great, I just heard about Barbara Walters interviewing Robert Blake tonight. Anyone want to bet he says he’s innocent?

Considering that OBL is an extreme Islamic fundie, and Saddam is seen as something of a heretic, I highly doubt he has anything to do with Al Qaeda.

From now on, anyone who engages in stalling and lying shall be accused of Saddamy!

Saddamy. Haha.

Just because he dosen’t have tangible ties to Al-Qaeda dosen’t mean he is suddenly a Good Guy ™.

No one said he is.

Of course not, but doesn’t it mean that yet another one of the Really Important Reasons we Have to Go to War Right Now falls on its face?

For sure:

Of course, you have to squint real hard to ignore Saddam’s history of antagonizing fundamentalists and al qaeda’s opposition to Hussein’s “apostate” regime, voiced even in the tape in question.

Al qaeda probably has a collective hard-on about the US’s ambition to bomb the hell out of Iraq. A “regime change” would bugger an old enemy, and the inevitable collateral damage would go along way to help foster resentment against American hegemony and to radicalize potential al qaeda recruits. What’s not to like?

Iraq is a secular state (with a predominantly Muslim population, granted). Al-Qaeda is a fundamentalist Islamic terror group. Islamic fundamentalists regard secular states as intrinsically wrong, say that no true Muslim owes allegiance to secular authority, and generally work against secular states wherever they find them. You can look up fatwahs on this subject on the Net, there’s no secret about it.

Iraq is a secular state which has been openly at war with one fundamentalist Islamic theocracy - it’s probably in Osama bin Laden’s list of Top Ten Regimes To Destroy. (I’d put it at number six on his hit list, after Israel, America, Saudi Arabia, Britain, and probably France.) Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein are natural enemies - the suggestion that Saddam is actively supporting al-Qaeda is intrinsically ludicrous.

What Larry Mudd said.

On thetape, Osama bin Laden encourages the Iraqi people to fight against the “crusader” oppression from America, no matter what happens to Saddam and his “infidel” socialist government. The message is that Iraqis should fight Americans as Muslims against infidel oppressors, not as subjects of Saddam against Saddam’s enemies.

In addition to the comments above re:al-Qaeda and Iraq - i.e. ObL and his ilk are on record as despising Saddam Hussein as an apostate, ObL even offered the use of his Afghan guerillas to defend the Saudi border from Iraq in the immediate pre-Gulf War period, before breaking with the royal family - I’ll add that whatever ObL’s ties to Iran are, they likely aren’t very friendly.

Iran loathed ObL’s allies the Taliban and have no higher regard for ObL’s own theology - Iranian revolutionary Imami Shi’ism and al-Qaeda’s Sunni-based Jihadist-Salafism may both be forms of fundamentalist Islam, but they are versions of fundamentalist Islam that are fundamentally at odds ( if you will :wink: ).

This doesn’t rule out temporary alliances of convenience of course. But I find hard to believe even those extend very deep and indeed I’ve yet to see solid evidence that they do. Iraq, Iran, and al-Qaeda all exist on very different and opposing ideological axises.

Of course this still doesn’t mean that every other word that comes out of Saddam’s mouth isn’t a lie. Or that his claim, even if proved true, is going to save his butt. It almost certainly won’t.

  • Tamerlane

Are they on the same “our side” that bin Ladin used to be on? If so, we need to get that side fixed.

Here we go: Saddam’s links to al-Qaeda (Great Debates)