>Ummm... we knew Osama Bin Laden and al-Qaeda were involved the moment the second tower was hit. I was watching live tv when that second plane hit. Networks were almost instantly showing photos of Osama. The link didn't have to be "determined" -- no Sherlock Holmes moment necessary.

And that's exactly my point. We knew so much about al Qaeda, that we were able to pin it on them the moment it happened. We knew who they were, and where they were. After attacking Afghaninstan and capturing so many of those terrorists, interrogating them for years, we still had nothing to suggest collaboration between al Qaeda and Saddam. While we certainly gained a lot of other intelligence from the captured terrorists, we had nothing about a relationship between the two. You don't need to be Sherlock Holmes to figure out what that means.

>Do you honestly believe there are "from the desk of Saddam" memos or great banks of e-mail repositories we'll suddenly stumble across -- or maybe an old hard-drive clumsily "erased"?? I think too many people are still waiting for Ed Bradley and a camera to burst through the doors of an Al-Qaeda boardroom meeting and catch them in action, complete with little 007-ish mock-ups of NY or Paris. This is a people game. And it was severely limited for years by the unfortunate consequences of our own 1990s laws governing how we deal with terrorist types. We need to find the right people and ask the right questions. Much like the WMD search, the evidence is out there somewhere... it takes time.

Somehow we were able to come across a videotape in Afghanistan with bin Laden practically admitting to orchestrating the 9/11 attack. And as I noted above, all the intelligence we gathered from interrogating the captured terrorists. Yet somehow, nothing about a collaborative relationship between Saddam and al Qaeda. Truly amazing.

>Meanwhile, back at the ranch circa 9/11, Al-Qaeda was on the run, putting Saddam as the next most visible, stationary rogue terrorist type. Remember, this is a leader who threatened us, gassed his own people, attempted to annex Kuwait, routinely tortured his own people, and was thought by everyone -- including the UN -- to be seeking WMDs. He was the obvious next terrorism target, regardless of his tenuous links to Al-Qaeda. Keep in mind this is supposed to be a war on "terror," not just getting even with those who did us harm a few years ago. For obvious reasons, that's too narrowly focused.

And so goes the continuing slippery slope of reasons we went to war. It's amazing how they have flip-flopped.

>Not understanding what you're getting at here. I pointed out that previously, before 9/11, we were attacked and the world did nothing. A few words spoken, but no action. Not surprisingly, doing nothing on the world scale allowed these organizations to become stronger, more entrenched, and obtain more support. So yes, I accuse the world of standing by and doing nothing for almost a decade after the first Osama bin Laden/Al-Qaeda attack in 1993, until we finally had an attack occur that was so blunt, so egregious, that no one could just pay it lip service anymore.

You can't very well blame the rest of the world for not doing anything before 9/11 when we didn't do much ourselves. Other than the missle attack after the embassy attacks, what did we do? When the IRA was blowing up Brits, were we there helping? How about the Palestinians blowing up Israelis? Did you see any U.S. troops on the ground?

>Maybe you're saying that we didn't mobilize, so the world merely followed our non-lead? Are you really claiming that we always have to make the first move? Shouldn't the rest of the world want to be rid of these people, too? There are reports that Clinton was offered bin Laden's head by Pakistan in the 90s. Why didn't Pakistan just take care of him themselves if they knew he was such a problem and linked to sponsored terrorism?

No, you just can't blame others for what we didn't do ourselves.

>>Of all these source you have read, watched, and listened too, which of them produced any evidence, no matter how flimsy, of collaboration between al Qaeda and Saddam?
>
>Chris, Chris, Chris... do the research yourself, man. Apparently, you're the only source you'll believe.

I always love this argument. It usually indicates you don't have any, but I'll play along. Here are my two arguments:

1. No one has produced any credible evidence indicating a collaboration between Saddam and al Qaeda.

2. The 9/11 Commission report concludes there isn't any evidence of a collaboration:

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm

That's my source. I'll be anxiously awaiting yours.