Saddam 'diverted aid to bomber families' Saddam Hussein diverted money from the UN oil-for-food program to pay millions of dollars to families of Palestinian suicide bombers who carried out attacks on Israel, say congressional investigators. The former Iraqi president tapped secret bank accounts in Jordan - where he collected bribes from foreign companies and individuals doing illicit business under the humanitarian program - to reward the families up to $US25,000 ($A32,000) each, investigators told The Associated Press. Documents prepared for a Wednesday hearing by the House International Relations Committee outline the new findings about how Saddam funnelled money to the Palestinian families.
Saddam is a bad man. Did the investigators also find the Saudi sources of payments to Hezbollah, Fatah, Hamas and other suicide bomb groups?
Of course, but those pages can only be seen covered with big black marker. How many pages of the 9/11 investigation from congress/CIA/FBI etc have more black ink than white space? Anyway, to those conservatives all upset over these findings - how cool would it be if we could bring Saddam to trial for this? Well, we might need an international court of justice, but that's unacceptable, right?
Remember that suicide bombing that killed 1200 of our troops? I don't want to say this is old news, but Human Rights Watch had this story two years ago. They did a lot more than simply pay suicide bomber families, too. But, so did lots and lots and lots and lots of other people. If this is meant to justify the Iraq invasion, well, then, we'd better breed that Clone Army to invade Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia, too.
No, but Conservatives always have to point out the few, flimsy facts they have to justify the war. After all "it's hard work". "There are a lot of good people working hard."
Have they presented their findings to the House International Relations Committee, yet? It would be fascinating to see how they did their forensic accounting, and why it couldn't be applied to Saudi / Swiss financial arrangements. All in the War on Terror, you know! And do we get our money back?
I see the liberals still cannot be depended upon to defend this nation. Looking for and using every excuse in the book to avoid the War on Terror.
By "this nation" do you mean Israel? I thought you Michigan Militia types hated ZOG? I'm really confused now.
If we were serious about the War on Terror, we wouldn't have started the invasion of Iraq. $150,000,000,000 and counting, 1100 US troops dead, 140,000 troops deployed, etc. aand what do we have to show for it? Saddam probably on did a fraction of the funding of the suicide bombings, compared to the Saudis (and others.) I do find it interesting that the forensic accounting can trace funds from the UN Oil-for-Food program, through the Iraqi system (which is not transparent) to the Jordanian banking system (which is not transparent) to the bombers' families. If that is possible, it is replicable, in which case we can figure out how to starve the terrorist of funding. PS. Wasn't Chalabi convicted in absentia of 29 counts of bank fraud in Jordan?
Hey, I'm all for disrupting the Saudis. But, you guys on the left keep bringing them up as if you are chomping at the bit to take them on. If I felt you were serious about it, I'd be with you. My guess is you guys are merely looking to make political points and not engage the Saudis in any meaningful ways. The fact of the matter is that Saddam supported terrorists and you guys are not even willing to fight that battle in the War on Terror.
What political points? I'm all for the War on Terror, if I thought you guys on the right were willing to go after the sources of terrorism, rather than just soft (relatively speaking) targets, I'd provide my support. But you guys are in power and my guys (Greens) are definitely not. You have to admit, the US leaders might be resolved, but what have they really accomplished? We are just wasting our bullets in Iraq. W and his adminstration created a perception that Saddam was involved in 9/11 and that was political justification for regime change in a country that was floating on a sea of oil. BTW, I've been pretty consistent for years on this. The invasion of Iraq was terribly misguided. Sure, some silver linings might appear, but those are put into the media for political purposes. They have not accomplished anything on the War on Terror. And unless they describe their forensic accounting techniques that enable them to uncover the money trail from the UN to the bombers' families, and then apply those techniques to the Saudis, I'm not going to believe this story. Plus I will continue doubting the Bush adminstration's willingness to go after the sources of terrorism in this War on Terror.
I understand your point but to be fair; he was a helpful pawn to put pressure on Iran during the hostage deal in '79, though I certainly wouldn't call him a great friend. But in hindsight, he hadn't shown any of the madman characteristics then that later became a trademark of this regime. To a certain degree it worked out because his presence became useful in the deal that eventually freed the hostages. How large a role he played I don't think we know. He was just a piece in the puzzle. Boy, didn't that ploy turn out well?
Rumsfeld, as Reagan's envoy, assured delivery of weapons systems to Iraq in 1983. This is well after the embassy hostages were freed. This is much further than just being a useful tool. Saddam and Reagan were obviously allies. But not very good ones. The Reagan adminstration also sold weapons systems to the Iranians in 1985. This deal turned out to be against US law. Didn't the Reagan administration also set up the Mujahedin in Afghanistan? Wow! Talk about some foreign policy fvck-ups. And many of the same doofuses are in power here? Makes you wonder what the world will look like in 20 years.
No really, I was in HS back then. I remembered who he was when I was in HS before the invasion of Kuwait. He was a friend of America and he was a dictator/strongman who could stop the fanatic Iranians. the press chose to ignore his brutal history in Iraq. Even before the invasion of Kuwait, I met this Iraqi guy in college. He was Saddam's relative or something. Everyone in the dorm knew of Sadam. Everyone knew Saddam was a friend of the US. Oddly, I still recalled reading an article on Saddam about his brutality in a SF newspaper during Accounting 101. I was interested in the story because his relative was studying in my school. Until then, I thought he was one of the "good" guys. A few months after, Iraqi invaded Kuwait. People who did not believe in the connection between Saddam and Washington DC just did not follow the Iraqi-Iranian War. It was not even news back then. Yes, they did. I saw Rambo III in HS. The Stringer missiles were one of the weapons that defeated the Soviets in Afghanistan and I did not learn that from the movie.