It said "Terrorist groups" from Iraq. Not the government. Saddam Hussein's government went after terrorist groups in his country, they were a threat to his power. So what group are they referring to, Ansar Al-Islam?

It still doesn't convince me that there could be any relationship between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda. All I've read about each tells me it's illogical.

Saddam Hussein wanted to stay in power, and wanted his quasi-socialist dictatorship to stay strong. He even executed people who went to the mosque too frequently to prevent any Islamic revolution from fomenting. He kept religion under wraps, as Iran was his enemy. He wanted his dictatorship, not an Islamic state.

Al Qaeda has said many times that they want to overthow all non-Islamic governments, including the ones in Muslim countries. They wanted the dictator, the "socialist infidel" as CNN translated Osama Bin Laden's statements from Arabic, out of power as well.

Both wanted each other dead, as they were blocking the interests of the other. Saddam wanted power, Al Qaeda wanted an Islamic government. Only one could exist. Both were competing, I don't see how or why they'd cooperate.

Sulayman, no one says that they have to share the same ideology to cooperate on shared goals to some degree, such as getting the U.S. to capitulate on ME issues. Arabs certainly are believers in the idea of the enemy of my enemy is my friend. After all if we could cooperate with Stalin in our fight against Hitler, and if Hitler's Germany and Japan could cooperate against us, Saddam and al Qaeda, factions in al Qaeda, or other similar organizations could cooperate. Any cooperation will intentionally be covert because Saddam would be aware overt help is an invitation to be further penalized.

Might I further suggest that as Hitler and Stalin were also able to ally themselves when it suited them, that is, until Hitler invaded the USSR, Bin Laden would be satisfied to plan with Hussein, at leat until it no longer suited him?

I have to say that every time I rush to check out the revelations of new found connections, I end up with another set of word games and subtle speculations on syntax. It's as if those looking for the connections are grasping at wisps of smoke in the air.

I read the excerpt of the Commission's report several times and all I come up with is that terrorist groups were recruited, and at least one from each of the named countries came on board. I can't rationally draw a conclusion out of the statement that tells me Saddam even knew of this activity. Perhaps he did, and even actively participated. Give us something more substantive to chew on.

And to think that Mr. Bush and his cohorts had no more than this on which to base such a critical life-and-death decision.

Sooner or later, these claims will have to make real sense to many Americans who so far have granted unquestioning faith and great personal sacrifice.

I don't see any connection between the Hussein regime and Al Qaeda sufficient to make invading Iraq a rational move in the war on terror.

I don't, however, find it implausible that such a connection existed. Certainly differing ideology wouldn't prevent Hussein and fundie Muslim groups from cooperating. In the same way that civil rights groups in many countries have disagreed with yet cooperated with socialist movements, Hussein and Bin Laden could easily have cooperated where their interests overlapped.

So it's plausible, but nobody has shown a real relationship of cooperation and joint action or support between Bin Laden and Hussein. Certainly, nobody has shown a level of intertwined power and intent as between, say, the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

So now we're taking the word of Osama and Saddam as to whether they were in cahoots? Brilliant. How gullible can you be? Assuming OBL is still alive, they're both laughing their asses off.

If you can't fathom a deliberate lack of record keeping on this stuff, you're just not trying. What would you do if you were OBL or Saddam? Leave a paper trail? Leave people who know secrets alive? Leave WMD laying about when you have months to get rid of them?

Honestly, how can liberals treat every Bush act and statement as the basis for an X-Files episode, but everything OBL says is frickin' gospel?

This armchair quarterbacking by everyone with a computer is getting more and more idiotic. The chance that any of us will have a clear picture of ME events is tiny. Stop pretending to be experts. You're not.

I think 1st Lt. Mark V. Shaney USMC said it best when he said:

"...this is not defined as an absence of war. It is the presence of liberty, stability, and prosperity. In the face of the enemy. Don't buy into the pessimism and apathy that says, "It's hopeless," "They hate us too much," "That part of the men and women serving here in Iraq the enemy wherever you are. You are a mighty force for good, because truth is on your side. Together we will ultimately fail. That is why I am asking for your support. Become a voice of truth in your community. Wherever you are fight the lies of the men and women serving here in Iraq the enemy wherever you are. You are the soldiers at home fighting the war of perception with the media and American people. Our enemy has learned that the people in the highest regard. We love to criticize ourselves almost to an endless degree, because we care what others think. "

Raymond Onar
And as always: "Quidquid excusatio prandium pro!

I'm not positive, but the "at least one" from Iraq might have come from Northern Iraq. "Bin Laden had in fact been sponsoring anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan, and sought to attract them into his Islamic army." (9/11 Report, pg 61). You assume that because it happened in Iraq, it must be linked to Saddam Hussein. That is not the case.