Replies

Read this and tell me if you read it, along with the other DAILY threats which, when the paperwork is stacked on top of each other reaches the size of 16 large phone books, if you would know what day and where exactly the attack would be coming from. Then tell me what you'd do about it and what you think the reaction would be in a pre-9/11 world:

(BTW - be careful - your anti-Americanism is showing).

More importantly, considering that less than two months before 9/11/01, the state-controlled Iraqi newspaper “Al-Nasiriya” carried a column headlined, “American, an Obsession called Osama Bin Ladin.” (July 21, 2001)

In the piece, Baath Party writer Naeem Abd Muhalhal predicted that bin Laden would attack the US “with the seriousness of the Bedouin of the desert about the way he will try to bomb the Pentagon after he destroys the White House.”

The same state-approved column also insisted that bin Laden “will strike America on the arm that is already hurting,” and that the US “will curse the memory of Frank Sinatra every time he hears his songs” – an apparent reference to the Sinatra classic, “New York, New York”.

(BTW - be careful - your anti-Americanism is showing)

If you're going to make idiotic claims, please back them up - unless, of course, you're one of those "patriots" who thinks criticism of government is anti-American.

More importantly, considering that less than two months before 9/11/01, the state-controlled Iraqi newspaper "Al-Nasiriya" carried a column headlined, "American, an Obsession called Osama Bin Ladin." (July 21, 2001)

Why do you insist on posting and re-posting the same circumstantial crap? If there was a clear indication that the Iraqi press knew of an attack on the U.S., our intelligence would have picked up on it. Besides, the articles you referenced are full of words and phrases like "prospects," "implications," "Senior officials claim," "likely," "said to be," "rumored," "could," "might have been," "reported," "possible" and "idea." Again, circumstantial at best.

Don't you think that if there was anything concrete at all in those reports, the Bush administration would have used that as its main justification for invading Iraq? Even I could accept that a direct link between 9/11 and Hussein would constitute an Iraqi declaration of war against the United States. Attacking Iraq in response to a specific act of war certainly makes more sense (and would convince many more people) than the current Wilsonian, socialist ideal of making the world safe for democracy.