From: "Tony Ingenoso" 

"Robert Comer"  wrote in message
news:42be29ff$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>
> That still doesn't follow, like I said, Saddam probably never sought
> permission for raids on terrorists in the North, if indeed there were
> terrorists in the North.  All I know for sure is that there was Kurds, and
> that we would not have let Saddam attack them

I wasn't aware Zarqawi and his crew were Kurds.  Naturally you can document
this "fact" somewhere.

> So am I, but that's not because of my political leanings, I'm an
> independent

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, its
probably a duck.  What you're registered as means nothing.

> I don't see it as so odd, they were out of his hair effectively, so why
> would he do anything?

To demonstrate good faith that he was ready to become a normal member of
the family of nations.  He did want the oil restrictions removed.

> Now how was he harboring him if he had no control over the area, it just
> doesn't make any sense at all. And yes, real "harboring"
implies something
> known by both parties and it's agreeable to both, so there would be a link
> of some kind.  If Zarquawi was just there and Saddam didn't know, that's
not
> harboring.

If we knew Zarqawi was there (and everyone knows we had minimal intel
assets on the ground), how could Saddam not know?  His internal security
organization was world renowned for its "efficiency".

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5