That's really terrific information, makes me all warm and fuzzy inside, but Al Queda operated out of Irag. That has been provem often. Hell, look at Saddam's hometown. It was basically a stronghold for terrorists. Still stand by my opinion that having lattitude in that country is beneficial in fighting terrorists. The only reason the other surrounding countries are finding and elimiating terrorists in their own countryies is because we went into Irag.

>I posted a message 2 days ago titled 'My Rant'. I laid out some
>facts gained from research I did for a paper a while back.
>
>Here is a link to the 9/11 Commision's Report I used in my paper.
>
>The commision concluded that Iraq was not materialy involved. Iraq had had some low level
>contact with Al Queda over th years, but significant differences in their religious
>beliefs kept them from working closly together.
>
>I quote from page 352, in the section titled "“Phase Two” and the Question of Iraq",
>
>"Responding to a presidential tasking, Clarke’s office sent a memo to Rice on September
>18, titled “Survey of Intelligence Information on Any Iraq Involvement in the
>September 11 Attacks.” Rice’s chief staffer on Afghanistan, Zalmay Khalilzad,
>concurred in its conclusion that only some anecdotal evidence linked Iraq to al Qaeda.
>The memo found no “compelling case”that Iraq had either planned or perpetrated the
>attacks."
>
>The entire section on Iraq draw no conclusions that Iraq was invloved. To the contrary,
>while the report does discuss the issue, it comes away pointing soley to Al Quaeda.
>
>Summary: We attacked Iraq for no reason. They were not involved.
>
>
>
>>I was implying that. You clarified your position to some degree though. The fact that Iraq was involved has been proven to the extent that they protected and harbored the terrorists who were behind the attacks. They provided the resources and training facilities. Was it Iraq nationals that directly flew the planes into the buildings? No, but it was Iraq's infrastructure and political attitude that condoned and supported it. Not a very fine hair to split in my book.
>>
>>>Are you implying that I beleive we should not wage war on terrorists?
>>>
>>>I never said we should do nothing about terrorism. I think we should hunt
>>>down and destroy every last terrorist we can find.
>>>
>>>I said we should not have attacked Iraq.
>>>
>>>There never has been any proof that Iraq was involved in the 9/11
>>>attacks (or any other terrosist attacks, that we know of), so therefore
>>>the war against Iraq is unjustified. Just because Saddam Hussein was a bad
>>>bad guy and treated his people bady, doesn't make it the responsibility of
>>>the United States to take him out. And it doesn't make him an international
>>>terrorist with his sights on the US.
>>>
>>>I suppose one could argue that someday they might have launched attacks against
>>>America, but supposition is not justification.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>I see the 'peace loving' Islamics have struck again.
>>>>>
>>>>>My condolences to those in the UK.
>>>>
>>>>And what should we do about that? Oh, wait, I know. Nothing. That'll show them!