Dave said:
"I've yet to see any evidence more compelling than "it sounds like it ought to be true" to support the assertion that Hussein/the B'athist were funding Palestinian suicide bombers"

Well there is this Iraqi support for and encouragement of Palestinian terrorism
It is from Israel's ministry - but there is reams of documentary evidence which nobody is really disputing there - unlike other assertions such as al-queda links, which seem to have been mainly done by a shake of a hand, wink or nudge leaving no documentary trail. This was clearly quite an "official" backing from the Baathists. There was also a feeling of mutual moral support between them.

If it is interesting to talk about what was that WMD stuff all about - This is my thesis for what it's worth. Saddam Hussein was trying to have it both ways - Having the US think he had WMD so that they would be deterred attacking, and not actually having them so that any war would be unjustified vis a vis the UN. The US countered by also trying to have it both ways - knowing full well that there was no WMD, because all their intelligence + inspections were indicating this; and using Iraq's attempts at trying to make the US think he did have some as evidence that he definitely did to get a semblance of "International" backing + to keep their soldiers vigilant. This is just normal war logic and involves a lot of mischief on both sides. If one considers getting UN approval in the same way as getting a judge's warrant in civil law, than this war amounts to vigilanteism. However, vigilanteism worked fine in the time of the wild west of the US - mainly because the elements of the judiciary weren't functioning efficiently enough. I and Dr. Clam would argue that reform of the UN is necessary before it can be said to be functioning well enough to have exclusive veto rights over "police" actions of this kind.