an it be true that both Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein have worked with - or for - the CIA, and have received support of one sort or another from our government while they did most of their early evil deeds?
h it's true alright - we - our government, that is, supported Saddam diring the period when he was
usiing chemical weapons and ignored it in the interests of punishiing his
enemy Iran, and we supported bin Laden while he fought the Russians in
Afghanistan.
ow there's a link that really works, unlike the one about the fanatics of
Al Quaeda working with the secular Baath Party of Iraq - ridiculous! The Taliban were much more to Osama's liking - those terrible persecutors of women. But then, we used to like them too - right up till August of 2001, the Bush administration was trying to negotiate a pipeline through Afghanistan - then someone seems to have outbid us, and they became the evil monsters in our government's eyes that they already were to most people who knew anything about their rule in Afghanistan. 
till another: both of them kind of telegraph their moves, don't they?
oor, innocent (well, naive) Saddam Hussein asked our permission to invade Kuwait - and
got it, so I bet HE was surprised when we (perhaps in response to Thatcher's
complaint on behalf of Kuwait) turned on him like that.
nterestingly, other countries tried to warn us that something really big was in the works in 2001. It seems like every country in the world had an inkling of 9/11 but our
government, which wasn't opening its mail at the time I guess.
emarkable, when you consider Osama's earlier connection with the WTC, and
his expertise in construction - which we had to know about, since we aided
his contruction of those caves in Afghanistan.And then, there is the infamous business and personal connection between the bin Laden family (who baled out W's first failed venture, Arbusto Oil) and the Bush family. Somebody in that family must have known - did they tell anyone here that we were facing grave danger? Or is blood still thicker than water (and oil)? See, either way, there's a big problem. . . .
lso, research our procedures in case of a hijacking - or even a deviation
from a flight plan by a big plane: it was standard operating procedure to
scramble military jets within minutes!onsider: no special order from anyone was required for this to happen - it's
by the book, and thanks to Air Controllers, everybody had to know when it
happened. Rumsfeld testified at the 9/11 Commission that he changed that rule, so that, should a hijacking occur, he would have to be contacted before any defense was undertaken. That means that either they didn't know where to find him during the crisis, or hewasn't taking phone calls. Again, either way it doesn't look good. Not to mention that this control freak rule resulted in the horrible deaths of around 3000 people.
ou can see what an astonishing coincidence it is that FOUR such
flights were ignored for so very long - even after one of them had
already found its target. How odd it was that after one building had been hit, the president was not warned that three other hijacked planes were heading the wrong way. And what about that look on Bush's face when he was told our country was "under attack?" Many people have tried to analyze his calm and distracted demeanor. I, for instance, will not soon forget the look on my man's face when I woke up that morning! Shock mixed with extreme bewilderment. My god, he was exclaiming - are you hearing this??!! See - that's because he was surprised, while the President of these United States, when told of this most dire and terrible thing, only nodded - as if in assent, or confirmation of something he'd expected all along.
