- About Us
I'm going to disagree with two things that you say here. One, there is documented intelligence that high ranking members of Saddam's government met with Al-Queda leaders. No one has been able to prove any direct links between Saddam and 9/11, and no one is making that claim, not even Bush. What Bush et al. have claimed is that Saddam, though high level members of his regieme, if not personally, has sponsored, harbored and collaborated with terrorists in general and to some degree with Al Queda specifically. The logical mistake that you make is that Saddam not being involved in 9/11 attack does not equal Saddam not being involved with Al Queda at all.
While they certainly were not in agreement about many things, they did share many similar aims when it came to terrorism and the US. Thus it is not hard to see why they might have agreed to a sort of truce in order to further goals they found to be more important to both of them.
As for the "ample evidence" about terrorism. Yeah I agree, we should have known after the USS Cole incident, I mean the African embassy bombings, I mean the foiled 1997 airplane attacks, I mean the first WTC attack, I mean<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.........
People have, rightfully, been warning us for years that a major terrorist attack on US soil was imminent. Heck, we experienced a bunch of them, maybe not with quite the same death toll. But for some reason it wasn't a priority for either party. (So if you are gonna fault Bush you have to fault Clinton too and the majority of people in Congress and the public.) We KNEW this would probably be the biggest threat to the US and probably the EU to after the fall of communism. But apparently we needed something of this magnitude to happen to make it our top priority.