Vincent Bugliosi: Impeach Bush Hearing (7-25-08) CSPAN

[Brixtonbulldog]

And the joke is on you, and anyone else who chooses not to use them, ...cause the guys that do are saving a fortune in fuel costs, and those of us helping them to save money are making a fortune helping them to do it!

There's a private conference call tonight at 8pm eastern, that's in 2 hrs & 35 mins for those who have an interest in hearing some valid truths about it, ...and for those who know both where and how they can access it. 

Same shit.. dif day.

[TerminalPower]

Even if half of your allegations re Clinton are true and not rightwing spin, those incidents pale in comparison to the death, suffering and destruction Bush wrought with the illegal Iraq invasion.

100,000- 650,000 dead.  3-5 million displaced.  hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars wasted.  Untold amounts of property damage...

All b/c Bush attacked a country that was no threat to the USA.

Numbers like that get you a niche in the war crime tribunal....crimes against humanity, against the peace...and murder in our federal jurisdiction.

Exactly what I thought...justifying murder by pointing to other murders.  Your boat is sunk. 

My take on both is... it needed to be done and I stand by both Bush and Clinton in those acts.  BTW, read up on Kosovo and Belgrade, Clinton took out duel purpose bridges and B92 Radio station.  The Chinese Embassy was no mistake, trust me, I know.

[Decker]

You might be right about the inspectors however my statement is still accurate.

I'm not asking for your opinion.  Your statements are false b/c of this standard set by Commander in Chief President Bush:

Bush said, “I’ll be making up my mind (to invade Iraq) based on the latest intelligence.”
http://premium.asia.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/08/16/bush.iraq/index.html

What is the latest intelligence re Iraq's disarmament and threat to the US?  Is it intel from 10 years ago or Bush's gut feeling?  No.  The latest intel was provided by the WMD inspectors on the ground in Iraq and they weren't finding much, were they?

AFTER it was believed in the intel communities abroad and many others and once it came time to action Bush would have had to "sell" the war to the American public.  Then it becomes necessary to present the information to support it.  It's not fraud.  Since when is the populace privy to every scrap of sensitive intel so as to decide what decision a commander in chief should make?

Here's when the populace has a right to countervailing intelligence:  when Bush made his case to the American people to send their husbands, wives, sons and daughters into a meatgrinder in Iraq.  Bush is the People's employee and not the other way around.

Bush's lies about Iraq's threat, WMDs, and Al Qaeda connection are fraud b/c he dismissed any evidence to the contrary and he recharacterized the evidence as a "slam dunk" instead of what it was--hotly contested intelligence.

That is called lying. 

Bush is like a used car salesman telling you how fine the ride is but neglecting to mention that the transmission is shot.

Would you buy a car from that man?

Once an overwhelming majority believed Saddam had WMDs Bush's actions were still appropriate.  As Obama has said "Hindsight is 20/20."

What do I care what Obama said.  Bush (and his administration)was lying methodically, constantly and with impunity.

  Many other countries and entities believed the threat based on their own intel regardless of what the inspectors said.  Bet every other country can deny and disavow after the fact and Bush cannot.

This is irrelevant according to the evidentiary standard set by Bush himself to use the latest intel available to make his decision to attack Iraq.

 

  A large part of the threat was accurate when it comes to Saddams weapons potential, even though no huge stockpiles were found.  It was just one aspect of the threat that was Saddams Iraq.  Weapons factories, agents in development, active diversion, mobile weapons manufacturing, and even small amounts of WMDs themselves were all credible.

Not true.

 

I don't believe the US has to justify an attack to the rest of the world when our allies were on the same page, at least at the time.

The US, as a charter member of the UN, has to do exactly that.

 

China and Russia, for example, who sell weapons and secrets to Iran and other enemy hostile regimes are certainly not necessary to consult before the USA makes a strategic decision.

Reagan tried that with the Iran/Contra Affair--selling weapons to our enemy Iran to fund rightwing deathsquads in El Salvador--and if not for the clemency of the Independent Investigator, Reagan would have been impeached.  Same for Bush except for this:

[Decker]

Exactly what I thought...justifying murder by pointing to other murders.  Your boat is sunk. 

My take on both is... it needed to be done and I stand by both Bush and Clinton in those acts.  BTW, read up on Kosovo and Belgrade, Clinton took out duel purpose bridges and B92 Radio station.  The Chinese Embassy was no mistake, trust me, I know.

Justifying murder?  This thread is about Bush.  If you wish to delve into the Clinton administration, I suggest you start another thread.  Why?  B/c I am not going to accept your facts at face value.  And I'm not going to fill up this thread with talk of Clinton.

Let's look at Kososvo (in another thread).  How many Americans died in that 'humanitarian' effort?

[Brixtonbulldog]

I'm not asking for your opinion.  Your statements are false b/c of this standard set by Commander in Chief President Bush:

It' not an opinion that those countries believed as we did at the time.  It's a fact.

Bush said, “I’ll be making up my mind (to invade Iraq) based on the latest intelligence.”
http://premium.asia.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/08/16/bush.iraq/index.html
What is the latest intelligence re Iraq's disarmament and threat to the US?  Is it intel from 10 years ago or Bush's gut feeling?  No.  The latest intel was provided by the WMD inspectors on the ground in Iraq and they weren't finding much, were they?

Intelligence is NEVER derived from what a hostile country "allows" some weapons inspector to see.  It is derived from deception, coercion, and discovering those things that country DOESN'T want you to see.. Spying.  Saddam proved countless times that he would selectively deny and allow access to the UN whenever he saw fit.  It should be no wonder why very little water was put into what the UN said.  Maybe our quality of intelligence gathering would have been better if Clinton had not gutted the intel community.

Here's when the populace has a right to countervailing intelligence:  when Bush made his case to the American people to send their husbands, wives, sons and daughters into a meatgrinder in Iraq.  Bush is the People's employee and not the other way around.

5000 casualties is hardly a meatgrinder.  In fact it's a far lower number than expected considering the length of time the war has gone on and compared to the the kill numbers against, first Saddams regime, and then the insurgency.  Just because the people elect a president that doesn't mean there will ever be a time where top secret matter is disclosed to the public for the purpose of making a military decision.  You must be out of your mind. 

Bush's lies about Iraq's threat, WMDs, and Al Qaeda connection are fraud b/c he dismissed any evidence to the contrary and he recharacterized the evidence as a "slam dunk" instead of what it was--hotly contested intelligence.
That is called lying. 
Bush is like a used car salesman telling you how fine the ride is but neglecting to mention that the transmission is shot.
Would you buy a car from that man?

I find it hard to believe it was hotly contested when so much of the world came to the same conclusions we did through their own intel.  But I know as long as you keep this line up that it was "hotly contested" it allows this myth that Bush is horribly guilty to continue.

What do I care what Obama said.  Bush (and his administration)was lying methodically, constantly and with impunity.

No matter.  Liberals lie constantly to get the reactions they want from the American public and no one bats an eye.  "Drilling here won't provide oil for at least ten years."  What a horse load.

This is irrelevant according to the evidentiary standard set by Bush himself to use the latest intel available to make his decision to attack Iraq.

Yep, I don't think we needed those countries permission either.

Not true.

Yes it is,  but lefty news always buries this information.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=F715A709-2614-4EA5-967C-F6151F94A364

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38213

The US, as a charter member of the UN, has to do exactly that.

Eh, no we don't.  And we didn't.

  Reagan tried that with the Iran/Contra Affair--selling weapons to our enemy Iran to fund rightwing deathsquads in El Salvador--and if not for the clemency of the Independent Investigator, Reagan would have been impeached.  Same for Bush except for this:

I'm a little young to know the details of this but considering the types like you who wish Bush would be impeached I'm sure that wasn't nearly the case for Reagan either. 

[Decker]

It' not an opinion that those countries believed as we did at the time.  It's a fact.

10 year old opinions on Iraqis WMDs are opinions/estimates.  Not facts.

Intelligence is NEVER derived from what a hostile country "allows" some weapons inspector to see.  It is derived from deception, coercion, and discovering those things that country DOESN'T want you to see.. Spying.  Saddam proved countless times that he would selectively deny and allow access to the UN whenever he saw fit.  It should be no wonder why very little water was put into what the UN said.  Maybe our quality of intelligence gathering would have been better if Clinton had not gutted the intel community.

Maybe.

So you are stating that you'll go with divided intelligence, old intelligence and Bush's gut feeling on the matter of Iraq's WMD/Al Qaeda connections over the findings of world class scientists actually on the ground in Iraq where Iraq was complying with unannounced inspections and being forthright with information.  Was Iraq's compliance perfect?  No.

But to say that justifies war, death and destruction is foolish.

5000 casualties is hardly a meatgrinder.  In fact it's a far lower number than expected considering the length of time the war has gone on and compared to the the kill numbers against, first Saddams regime, and then the insurgency.  Just because the people elect a president that doesn't mean there will ever be a time where top secret matter is disclosed to the public for the purpose of making a military decision.  You must be out of your mind. 

This sentence wreaks of  arrogance.

I take it you  did not have your life or your family's life ruined by news of the death of a loved one in the Iraqi disaster.

"top secret"?  Are you thinking clearly?  Bush published white papers that buried the countervailing evidence and added stuff that he pulled out of his ass. 

It's very easy to tell that you have no part of your humanity invested in this Iraq debacle since you are so callous with your arguments.

I find it hard to believe it was hotly contested when so much of the world came to the same conclusions we did through their own intel.  But I know as long as you keep this line up that it was "hotly contested" it allows this myth that Bush is horribly guilty to continue.

Now we can get to the long, long list of Bush's lies.

It’s hard to believe but some people still assert that President Bush was somehow “misled” by poor intelligence into attacking Iraq.

We’ll look at some of the 55 documented lies of Bush on the matter.

A lie occurs when a false impression is made knowingly. That includes exaggerations and omissions used to create that false impression.

Bush Lie #1

Statement: "We recently found two mobile biological weapons facilities which were capable of producing biological agents."
Source: President Talks to Troops in Qatar, White House (6/5/2003).

Fact: the Defense Intelligence Agency who examined the trailers concluded that they were most likely used to produce hydrogen for artillery weather balloons.

Lie: This statement was a lie because it claimed the purpose of the trailers was to produce biological weapons in contradiction of the intelligence provided.


Bush Lie #2

Statement: "Here's what -- we've discovered a weapons system, biological labs, that Iraq denied she had, and labs that were prohibited under the U.N. resolutions."
Source: President Bush, Russian President Putin Sign Treaty of Moscow, White House (6/1/2003).

Fact: This statement was a lie because it claimed the purpose of the trailers was to produce biological weapons in contradiction of the intelligence provided.

Lie: This statement was a lie because it claimed the purpose of the trailers was to produce biological weapons in contradiction of the intelligence provided.


Bush Lie #3

Statement: "The regime . . . has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda. The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other."
Source: President Says Saddam Hussein Must Leave Iraq Within 48 Hours, White House (3/17/2003).

Fact: This statement is a lie because it suggested that Iraq, at the time, was providing support to al Qaeda. The U.S. intelligence community had conflicting evidence on this issue and was divided regarding whether there was an operational relationship. Bush omitted this part of the matter in his statement to push Iraq as a threat to us. This statement also was misleading because it evoked the threat of Iraq providing al Qaeda with weapons of mass destruction. According to the National Intelligence Estimate, the intelligence community had "low confidence" in that scenario.

Lie. Omitting relevant, key countervailing information is lying.

Only 52 more to go. And that’s just Bush’s lies.

Source: http://oversight.house.gov/IraqOnThe...orge+W%2E+Bush

No matter.  Liberals lie constantly to get the reactions they want from the American public and no one bats an eye.  "Drilling here won't provide oil for at least ten years."  What a horse load.

Fantastic.  The liberals are just liars.

And Bush and the Bushbots are all beacons of truth and light.

Yep, I don't think we needed those countries permission either.

Actually we did need the UN Security Council's permission to attack Iraq since it was Bush that ran to the UN and asked to enforce UN disarmament resolutions against Iraq.

Yes it is,  but lefty news always buries this information.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=F715A709-2614-4EA5-967C-F6151F94A364

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38213

Why do you post this?

I'm a little young to know the details of this but considering the types like you who wish Bush would be impeached I'm sure that wasn't nearly the case for Reagan either. 

Yes.  Everyone is out to get the poor conservative victims.  You poor babies.  How do you manage with all the persecution from the big bad liberals.

You sound like Johnny Sacramoni (The Sopranos) whining about the persecution the mafia faces from the law.

[Brixtonbulldog]

10 year old opinions on Iraqis WMDs are opinions/estimates.  Not facts.
Maybe.
So you are stating that you'll go with divided intelligence, old intelligence and Bush's gut feeling on the matter of
Iraq's WMD/Al Qaeda connections over the findings of world class scientists actually on the ground in Iraq where Iraq was complying with unannounced inspections and being forthright with information.  Was Iraq's compliance perfect?  No. But to say that justifies war, death and destruction is foolish.
This sentence wreaks of  arrogance.  I take it you  did not have your life or your family's life ruined by news of the death of a loved one in the Iraqi disaster.
"top secret"?  Are you thinking clearly?  Bush published white papers that buried the countervailing evidence and added stuff that he pulled out of his ass. 
It's very easy to tell that you have no part of your humanity invested in this Iraq debacle since you are so callous with your arguments.
Now we can get to the long, long list of Bush's lies.
It’s hard to believe but some people still assert that President Bush was somehow “misled” by poor intelligence into attacking Iraq.
We’ll look at some of the 55 documented lies of Bush on the matter.
A lie occurs when a false impression is made knowingly. That includes exaggerations and omissions used to create that false impression.
Bush Lie #1
Statement: "We recently found two mobile biological weapons facilities which were capable of producing biological agents."
Source: President Talks to Troops in Qatar, White House (6/5/2003).
Fact: the Defense Intelligence Agency who examined the trailers concluded that they were most likely used to produce hydrogen for artillery weather balloons.
Lie: This statement was a lie because it claimed the purpose of the trailers was to produce biological weapons in contradiction of the intelligence provided.
Bush Lie #2
Statement: "Here's what -- we've discovered a weapons system, biological labs, that Iraq denied she had, and labs that were prohibited under the U.N. resolutions."
Source: President Bush, Russian President Putin Sign Treaty of Moscow, White House (6/1/2003).
Fact: This statement was a lie because it claimed the purpose of the trailers was to produce biological weapons in contradiction of the intelligence provided.
Lie: This statement was a lie because it claimed the purpose of the trailers was to produce biological weapons in contradiction of the intelligence provided.
Bush Lie #3
Statement: "The regime . . . has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda. The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other."
Source: President Says Saddam Hussein Must Leave Iraq Within 48 Hours, White House (3/17/2003).
Fact: This statement is a lie because it suggested that Iraq, at the time, was providing support to al Qaeda. The U.S. intelligence community had conflicting evidence on this issue and was divided regarding whether there was an operational relationship. Bush omitted this part of the matter in his statement to push Iraq as a threat to us. This statement also was misleading because it evoked the threat of Iraq providing al Qaeda with weapons of mass destruction. According to the National Intelligence Estimate, the intelligence community had "low confidence" in that scenario.
Lie. Omitting relevant, key countervailing information is lying.
Only 52 more to go. And that’s just Bush’s lies.
Source: http://oversight.house.gov/IraqOnThe...orge+W%2E+Bush
Fantastic.  The liberals are just liars.
And Bush and the Bushbots are all beacons of truth and light.
Actually we did need the UN Security Council's permission to attack Iraq since it was Bush that ran to the UN and asked to enforce UN disarmament resolutions against Iraq.
Why do you post this?
Yes.  Everyone is out to get the poor conservative victims.  You poor babies.  How do you manage with all the persecution from the big bad liberals.
You sound like Johnny Sacramoni (The Sopranos) whining about the persecution the mafia faces from the law.

Saddam went back and forth with the UN for years.  His picking and choosing when and where he complied were an obvious defiance against accurate fact finding missions and only lasted until the UN got mad.  Then he would comply after having plenty of time to move/hide/destroy what he didn't what inspectors to see.  It reeked of deception.

I posted the links so that I could show how it's going to take a while for Bush's name to be cleared.  A lot of our initial intelligence was correct about a great number of things.  Bush lies that you listed #1 and #2 are the same.  I don't remember and I don't have the time or the patience to look it up but if the trailers were, at first, thought to be weapons factories than that could have been when he made the statement.  That is, before closer inspection.  As far as #3 I think stopping the problem before it got bigger was a smart move in this instance.  And, yes, I believe Al-Queda was in Iraq long before 2003 and with time that information will be revealed as well.  You forget that I had a clearance shortly after the invasion began and was privy to some of this.

On that note I did have a vested interest in Iraq and Afghanistan.  While I was in I volunteered to go but some specialties in the Navy are not permitted to leave their duty station considering the time and $$$ put into specialized training.  I have close friends that have been back and forth several times.  One is in Afghanistan now for the second time.  Another friend I've had since high school just came home without any legs and one arm because of an IED.  My own 60 yr old mother came within a month of going to Baghdad as she is a DOD adjudicator and acting security manager which the Army is in dire need of.

[Decker]

Saddam went back and forth with the UN for years.  His picking and choosing when and where he complied were an obvious defiance against accurate fact finding missions and only lasted until the UN got mad.  Then he would comply after having plenty of time to move/hide/destroy what he didn't what inspectors to see.  It reeked of deception.

So you and your sources have an inside track as to not only Hussein's WMD possession but precisely how he duped inspectors. 

After 11/2002 Iraq's compliance with inspections took a turn for the better.  The saber rattling worked.  The inspectors had unimpeded access for unannounced inspections.  I have yet to see valid evidence that Hussein not only had the WMDs but he could move them without detection by the inspectors.  I find that very hard to believe.

I posted the links so that I could show how it's going to take a while for Bush's name to be cleared.  A lot of our initial intelligence was correct about a great number of things.  Bush lies that you listed #1 and #2 are the same.  I don't remember and I don't have the time or the patience to look it up but if the trailers were, at first, thought to be weapons factories than that could have been when he made the statement.  That is, before closer inspection.  As far as #3 I think stopping the problem before it got bigger was a smart move in this instance.  And, yes, I believe Al-Queda was in Iraq long before 2003 and with time that information will be revealed as well.  You forget that I had a clearance shortly after the invasion began and was privy to some of this.

For #s 1&2, why was Bush telling everyone that the trailers were absolutely vehicles for WMDs?

The evidence didn't say that.  The intelligence was divided as to what those trailers were for.  For example, the evidence 'says' they might be WMD factories but they might not be(oversimplification), why is Bush telling everyone they are WMD factories.

Even if we accept as true that Al Qaeda was in Iraq in 2002 and before, Bush's own handpicked oversight board found No operational relationship btn Hussein and Al Qaeda.  This is an example, again, of calling an allegation a fact and cherrypicking only that spin on the matter.  That's still lying. 

On that note I did have a vested interest in Iraq and Afghanistan.  While I was in I volunteered to go but some specialties in the Navy are not permitted to leave their duty station considering the time and $$$ put into specialized training.  I have close friends that have been back and forth several times.  One is in Afghanistan now for the second time.  Another friend I've had since high school just came home without any legs and one arm because of an IED.  My own 60 yr old mother came within a month of going to Baghdad as she is a DOD adjudicator and acting security manager which the Army is in dire need of.

That's hard row to hoe my friend.  Good luck.

[Brixtonbulldog]

So you and your sources have an inside track as to not only Hussein's WMD possession but precisely how he duped inspectors. 

After 11/2002 Iraq's compliance with inspections took a turn for the better.  The saber rattling worked.  The inspectors had unimpeded access for unannounced inspections.  I have yet to see valid evidence that Hussein not only had the WMDs but he could move them without detection by the inspectors.  I find that very hard to believe.

While I was in I saw some things although I don't claim to be an expert.  I think a lot of what happened hasn't been exposed yet.  Duping inspectors sure wouldn't have been hard.  Saddam did it many times by saying the equivalent of "You're not getting in here today."  It's not like inspectors ever had the chance to change his mind until months later when the world finally started rattling those sabres.  Maybe you're assuming the inspectors had access to the same intel that was monitoring Saddams activities not put out right in front of the UN.  That just wasn't the case.  Even before he began to comply (mostly) inspectors would show up at one site and not know that US imagery showed trucks burning up the desert with a 30 mile head start heading the opposite direction.  I guess the good ol US intel community didn't feel like calling the inspectors to say they were an hour late.  Hmm..   

For #s 1&2, why was Bush telling everyone that the trailers were absolutely vehicles for WMDs?

The evidence didn't say that.  The intelligence was divided as to what those trailers were for.  For example, the evidence 'says' they might be WMD factories but they might not be(oversimplification), why is Bush telling everyone they are WMD factories.

Even if we accept as true that Al Qaeda was in Iraq in 2002 and before, Bush's own handpicked oversight board found No operational relationship btn Hussein and Al Qaeda.  This is an example, again, of calling an allegation a fact and cherrypicking only that spin on the matter.  That's still lying. 

I don't know why he said that.  Maybe, when he said it was before they had been further inspected, as I said.  Since then everyone has admitted to the artillery balloon nature of them so it would have been impossible to deny after closer examination.

I do know that intel on the training camps was rock solid however due to how difficult it would be to intercept evidence of a relationship between AQ and Saddam it's easy to see how proof of a relationship wasn't found other than the camps themselves.  The radical Islamic world presented the toughest intel challenge as far as comms intercepts are concerned, especially before Iraq was invaded.  Keep in mind we're dealing with the hardest enemy to infiltrate and methods that are deceptively simple.  We weren't dealing with Soviet bloc espionage anymore.  It's easy to see us missing a lot including that relationship.  Evidence still pointed to the likely existence of a relationship no matter if spies could actually find it. 

That's hard row to hoe my friend.  Good luck.

My friends appreciate that mentality.  I don't need the luck.. I get to come home every night in the 'burbs.

[Decker]

While I was in I saw some things although I don't claim to be an expert.  I think a lot of what happened hasn't been exposed yet.  Duping inspectors sure wouldn't have been hard.  Saddam did it many times by saying the equivalent of "You're not getting in here today."  It's not like inspectors ever had the chance to change his mind until months later when the world finally started rattling those sabres.  Maybe you're assuming the inspectors had access to the same intel that was monitoring Saddams activities not put out right in front of the UN.  That just wasn't the case.  Even before he began to comply (mostly) inspectors would show up at one site and not know that US imagery showed trucks burning up the desert with a 30 mile head start heading the opposite direction.  I guess the good ol US intel community didn't feel like calling the inspectors to say they were an hour late.  Hmm..   

The UN inspections after 2002 were done on an unannounced basis.  No forewarning was given.

The thing about the US imagery or satellite picture proof of Iraq's WMDs is that it is worthless.

During Powell's presentation to the UN, he showed satellite images of WMDs being moved.  If that were the case, why didn't Powell just tell Blix where to look for the WMDs?  Why?  B/c the pictures did not show such images.  Powell was lying/exaggerating.

For your theory that WMDs were moved by Hussein, several unlikely things would have to fall in line:

1.  WMD inspectors don't have the capacity to detect areas "cleaned" of weapons,

2.  Satellite imagery stopped working on alleged WMDs and WMD facilities,

3.  A conspiracy of Iraqi scientists, armed forces and civilians was executed to perfection...comparable to the 9/11 conspiracy theorists.  No government is that efficient to hide the truth.

I don't know why he said that.  Maybe, when he said it was before they had been further inspected, as I said.  Since then everyone has admitted to the artillery balloon nature of them so it would have been impossible to deny after closer examination.

For whatever motive, the Bush administration wanted war with Iraq at all costs.  The wmd trailer vehicles, the wmd drones, the reconstituted nuclear program, the tons of chemical/biological agents somewhere in Tikrit, the bellicose angle of Hussein on the US, the Al Qaeda working connection and on and on.  They were all lies of fabrication or omission.

I do know that intel on the training camps was rock solid however due to how difficult it would be to intercept evidence of a relationship between AQ and Saddam it's easy to see how proof of a relationship wasn't found other than the camps themselves.  The radical Islamic world presented the toughest intel challenge as far as comms intercepts are concerned, especially before Iraq was invaded.  Keep in mind we're dealing with the hardest enemy to infiltrate and methods that are deceptively simple.  We weren't dealing with Soviet bloc espionage anymore.  It's easy to see us missing a lot including that relationship.  Evidence still pointed to the likely existence of a relationship no matter if spies could actually find it. 

Hussein was a monster but he wasn't crazy.  He knew any overt/covert act against the US would be his death warrant.  These rulers might be fanatics but when it comes to personal survival, they are as calculating and conservative as any western ruler.

My friends appreciate that mentality.  I don't need the luck.. I get to come home every night in the 'burbs.

It's your Mom I'm more worried about.