To: epicure who wrote (172034 ) 10/6/2005 7:40:44 PM From: Brumar89 Read Replies (1) | Respond to I've seen no evidence that the folks you mention were given sanctuary by Saddam. I don't believe you. All the people I listed have been listed in the press. I think you are well read enough to know this. As I mentioned, Richard Clarke described Yasin as being "given sanctuary" by Saddam in his 911 commission testimony. Surely you read this. The fact that Abu Nidal's bullet filled corpse was found in Iraq sort of implies the opposite The fact he'd lived in Baghdad for years does more than imply my claim was correct - it constitutes real evidence. Now what evidence do you have that Saddam actually approved of the terrorists' entry into Bagdad? Saddam's Iraq was a controlled police state, consciously modeled on Stalin's regime, with an extensive internal police that monitored everyone in the country. People got arrested and sent to prison in Saddam's Iraq for telling jokes unfavorable to Saddam - even being present and hearing such a joke told. I recall hearing one such person interviewed on NPR - he was with a group of young men when an anti-Saddam joke was told. They were informed on and the whole lot rounded up. The interviewee was the sole survivor.There were (and probably still are) terrorists in the US- using US passports, using our hospitals, calling people, making contacts, training on airplanes- but I am assuming Mr. Bush didn't offer them sanctuary. We don't have a Stalinist-style police state, unlike Saddam. So, what's your proof? You just have to use your head. Yasin, for instance, had a multimillion reward on his head. His presence in Iraq was verified by western reportes who saw him there. Surely Yasin's status as a wanted criminal would have not have escaped the attention of Saddam's government. Most of the other names I mentioned were big names - well known worldwide for their terrorist actions. It is amazing that you are actually pretending that Saddam had no idea these folks were in his country . Isn't this an embarrassing position to take? You know better. Because if you let something lapse long enough, your response begins to look like "revenge" rather than "protecting yourself". I am opposed to letting things lapse. It is perceived as weakness and encourages bad things. We shouldn't let the mere passage of time be used as an excuse.
