Return to P.S. FAQ  or to FAQ Home

Hussein and 9/11:  Was there a link?  When did Al Qaeda come to Iraq? What has Richard Clarke added to the debate? What did the 9/11 Commission conclude? Is al-Qaeda part of the 2008 Presidential campaign? How is al Qaeda active in 2009 and 2010?
(Also see Nukes/Al-Qaeda" FAQ section on pre-war details)  
Also see Post-Saddam "Was the War Inevitable?" for evidence and analysis since March 2003.

In mid-September of 2003, Vice-President Cheney continued to make vague allegations of the connection between Hussein and Bin Laden's 9/11.  "I think it's not surprising that people make that [Hussein 9/11] connection," Cheney said on Meet The Press.  He referred to Iraq as "the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault for many years, but most especially on 9/11."

Part of Cheney's evidence was an alleged meeting between Mohammed Atta and an Iraqi official.  The Tribune replies, "Czech officials disputed that story in December 2001 and intelligence officials have said that Atta was actually in the U.S. at the time of the alleged meeting" (9/18). However, the President contradicted his Vice-President 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25571-2003Sep17.html
and on September 18, the Chicago Tribune headline blared, "Bush:  No Iraqi link to Sept. 11".  

Why is this a headline story in September? The White House spokesman claimed, "We never made that connection." Given the repeated innuendo by many members of the administration and the repeated use of Hussein and 9/11 in the same sentence, it is sad but not surprising that 70% of Americans think Hussein may have been behind the 9/11 attacks.  This number decreased to 43% by the fall of 2006, when asked if Saddam was "personally responsible." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32862-2003Sep5.html

Return to Top

When the war began, about 40% of Americans felt Hussein was behind the terrorist attacks and that some or many of the hijackers were Iraqi.  Most of the hijackers were Saudi.

November polls described in the Chicago Tribune showed that 84% say the U.S. has not found WMD in Iraq and 52% said "this county has found clear evidence that [Hussein] was working closely with Al Qaeda" (11/14/03). Americans continue to be sadly misinformed. 

In December 2003 The Weekly Standard  wondered why the Bush administration was not making a bigger issue of the new Pentagon memo to the Senate Intelligence Committee detailing 50 bullet points of possible or likely linkage between Saddam and Bin Laden.  "The story generated lots of discussion on talk radio and on the Internet, but the establishment media did their best to take a pass."  The editors speculate as to why the coverage was thus. "We do have a complaint about the Bush administration" who repeatedly say that "'Iraq is the central front in the war on terror.' They produce a memo..laying out the connections between Osama and Saddam...But now the administration--continuing a pattern of the last several months--shies away from an opportunity to substantiate its own case before the American people and the world..."  They discuss the lack of need for proof, training in Iraq for al Qaeda and quote from Bush and Powell speeches before the war.  The editors conclude, "The U.S. government has 1400 people on the ground in Iraq searching for evidence of Iraq' WMD program. Is there any similar effort to examine Iraqi ties to al Qaeda?  Why not?  Wouldn't such an effort to give us insight into the nature of the relationship between Baathists and al Qaeda before the war, and into the ongoing fight against al Qaeda today?  We at The Weekly Standard have long believed that the war in Iraq was, indeed, central to the broader war on terror.  This argument never depended on particular connections of Saddam and al Qaeda, but such connections are certainly relevant.  Based on all the evidence we have seen, we believe that such connections existed.  Does the Bush administration agree, or doesn't it?"
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=3428&R=79E12AE70

Just hours before the announcement of the capture of Hussein in mid-December, as the Halliburton overcharges were still in the headlines, we learned more of the Atta story.  Investigators, perhaps at detention centers in Cuba, admitted that the former Iraqi intelligence officer who allegedly met with Atta in Prague has said the meeting never happened.  This was not the answer the interrogators were seeking.  (NYTimes, 12/13/03, "Fresh Doubt Is Cast on Qaeda-Iraq Link").  

On the eve of the January 2004 Carnegie report (see PS-WMD section) Powell pre-empted the report and admitted that there was no "smoking gun" of proof of an al Qaeda-Hussein link despite his and administration specific pre-war claims. In February 2003 at the UN, Powell had said, "Iraq today harbors a deadly terrorist network, headed by [al-Zarqawi], an associate and collaborator of Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda lieutenants" (NYTimes, 1/9/04).  Focusing on Hussein's intentions, Powell said the Iraqi leader was "trying to get rid of any potential future inspections."  The war accomplished the end of inspections.  The Carnegie report had concluded there was "no solid evidence of cooperation."
http://www.commondreams.org/cgi-bin/print.cgi?file=/headlines04/0109-01.htm

Return to Top

Mullah Krekar, leader of Ansar al-Islam (see Al Qaeda FAQ section) was arrested in Norway in early January.  The 600 or so militants of Northeast Iraq are labeled "a very dangerous group" by Attorney General Ashcroft. Krekar was released by authorities a few weeks later.

Richard Clarke's mid-March 2004 accusations also raised controversial issues. The former anti-terrorism official had worked under the Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush administrations.  He resigned in 2003.  Clarke's new book (Against All Enemies: Inside the White House's War on Terror--What Really Happened) and his March 21 60 Minutes appearance criticized the President for fighting the wrong war, not taking seriously his warnings of al Qaeda prior to 9/11, and fixating on Iraq after 9/11.  Clarke's allegations are similar to those made in a book and interview by former Bush Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill.  For more on O'Neill, see "P.S.: Where are the WMD?"

On 60 Minutes, Clarke quoted Rumsfeld on 9/12/01 as pushing for war against Iraq rather than Afghanistan and Clarke reminded him that al Qaeda is in Afghanistan not Iraq.  The Secretary of Defense urged action against Iraq because "there are not enough good targets in Afghanistan, and there are lots of good targets in Iraq."  On March 24 Clarke was one of many current and former officials to testify to Congress about pre-9/11 intelligence in the Clinton and Bush years.  The Washington Post's Barton Gellman reports on Clarke's book in "Memoir Criticizes Bush 9./11 Response." 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A13607-2004Mar21?language=printer

Clarke alleges that on September 12, 2004 the President urged him three times to "go back over everything, everything...See if Saddam did this."  When Clarke replied that al Qaeda did this, the President responded, "I know, I know, but...see if Saddam was involved.  Just look.  I want to know any shred."  The third time was reiterated "testily." Clarke writes that the rapid shift of focus to Saddam "launched an unnecessary and costly war in Iraq that strengthened the fundamentalist, radical Islamic terrorist movement worldwide...[We have produced] more terrorists than we jail or shoot" (Wash Post, 3/22/04).

On Iraq, Clarke "could hardly believe" that Wolfowitz pressed the "totally discredited" theory that Iraq was behind the 1993 World Trade Center truck bomb attack.  Wolfowitz was dismissive and cited Powell and Tenet's public statement about Iraqi links to al Qaeda.

The administration's response to Clarke's front page story was first to attack the messenger not the message with claims that Clarke is paying politics, is upset over not being made leader of Homeland Security, and being friends with a leading John Kerry supporter. White House spokesman replied that the President does not recall the conversations of September 12 focusing on Iraq and that there was no record of the talks. But perhaps because Clarke had other witnesses, on March 29 the White House acknowledged that Bush did press Clarke that day on Iraq.  The issue might be to what degree was the President fixated on Iraq at the cost of fighting terrorism?  In the Weekly Standard, one response to Clarke came from Stephen Hayes (3/22/04), who felt that he should answer this among other questions in front of the 9/11 commission:  "Is...Tenet wrong about Iraqi support for al Qaeda?"

Rice also responded:  "Once advised that there was no evidence that Iraq was responsible for Sept.. 11, the president told his NSA on September 17 that Iraq was not on the agenda and that the initial US response...would be to target al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan" (Wash Post, 3/21/04). Rice testified before the 9/11 commission and the world watched and listened on the morning of April 8. She defended the President's actions prior to 9/11.

The Clarke debate raged in the news for days, with the New York Times Paul Krugman weighing in on April 2 with his "Smear Without Fear."
http://www.commondreams.org/cgi-bin/print.cgi?file=/views04/0402-08.htm

On June 2, 2004 CIA Chief Tenet resigned.  The President praised him; Tenet stated that his resignation was for personal reasons. For more on Tenet, see "Will Tenet or Rumsfeld resign?" FAQ.

Return to Top

In mid-June the 9/11 Commission released their tentative report; the final report was due later in the summer.  This "staff report" found that not only was Iraq not connected to 9/11 (as most Americans had believed less than one year ago) but that there was no substantive relationship between Al Qaeda and Iraq and "no collaboration" and "no credible evidence."  With missing WMD, this second major cause for war made the administration's rationales seem even more full of holes. Cheney strongly attacked the media and continued to allege "ties" and "connections" between Iraq and Al Qaeda.  He again brought up the alleged Atta meeting in Prague, specifically discounted by the bi-partisan, Presidential-appointed 9/11 commission, discounted by the FBI and others.  Cheney also said he "probably" had more evidence that the commission did not. It seems to me that Cheney is trying to muddy the waters and does not want to admit another major pre-war error.

In the lead-up to war, the administration had often used the terms "ties" and "connections" with Al Qaeda, but at other times stated the link more assuredly.  One example was when he had declared "major combat" over on May 1, 2003, President Bush told us that "an ally" of Al Qaeda had been defeated on the war helped make us safer after 9/11.

Another confusing aspect is a Hussein general with a similar name to a man who went to Afghanistan for Al Qaeda training.  The pattern of disseminating unfounded rumors continued as the administration admitted that only the spelling of this man's name was similar to an Al Qaeda connection.

One response to the findings was "The Plain Truth", a N.Y. Times editorial and another was from the Post's Richard Cohen, called  "Grand Delusion."
http://www.commondreams.org/cgi-bin/print.cgi?file=/views04/0617-08.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59146-2004Jun21.html

In August and September, Bush and Cheney continued to link 9/11 and the War on Terror  to the war with Iraq.  But Colin Powell said there was "no direct link".
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A16707-2004Sep12?language=printer

A CIA report came out the same week of weapons inspector Duelfer's report of no WMD. Again, this cast doubt, according to the New York Times of October 6, "on a central piece of evidence used by the Bush administration before the invasion of Iraq to draw links between Saddam Hussein's government and Al Qaeda's terrorist network."  Policy makers received the CIA report in August.  It concludes that "it is now not clear whether Mr. Hussein's government harbored members of a group led by...Zarqawi was the primary basis for the administration's prewar assertions" making the connection.

A new government report, revealed in mid-January 2005, showed that Iraq has become a top terror training spot.  The Washington Post's Dana Priest reported the details.  Again in mid-February, Priest's story told of the war helping to recruit terrorists.  "The insurgency...continues to baffle US military and intelligence communities," the article opens, and has become a "potent recruiting tool for al Qaeda and other terrorist groups" according to top US national security officials testifying in Congress.  For example, CIA Director Porter Goss told a Senate committee, "Islamic extremists are exploiting the Iraqi conflict to recruit new anti-US jihadists."  Said another top official, "Our politics in the Middle East fuel Islamic resentment.  Overwhelming majorities in Morocco, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia believe the US has a negative policy toward the Arab world."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A28876-2005Feb16?language=printer

Return to Top

Zarqawi, who had been relatively quiet in December 2004, made the news again when Osama bin Laden, in an alleged tape, endorsed Zarqawi as his al-Qaeda deputy in Iraq.  In January, Zarqawi promised a "holy war" against the occupiers (and against Shiites).  He first attacked in Shiite areas in January, with a bomb outside of a mosque on a holy Friday. Zarqawi claims that Shiites aren't true believers of Islam. In the days leading up to the Jan. 30 , 2005 elections, it was announced that Zarqawi aides had been arrested, including his alleged top bomb maker.

What is the Zarqawi-bin Laden connection?  Is was not a strong connection before the war began in the spring of 2003,. By the spring of 2005 the connection became more tight.  In early March we learned of the alleged message from bin Laden to Zarqawi to spread his attacks "outside of Iraq", including the US.  Zarqawi is regularly cited as a "top lieutenant" of bin Laden.  For more on Zarqawi, also see "Americans Being Killed" and "Post-Election Violence" and "Iraq Violence 2005" FAQs.

Has the war in Iraq made the U.S. safer from Al Qaeda?  A 119 page report in January 2005 from the CIA says that despite the President's description of Iraq as an integral part of the "war on terror", the conflict has helped terrorists.  "At the moment, Iraq is a magnet for international terrorist activity." said the chairman of the council for the CIA. 

A few weeks later CIA director Porter Goss told a Congressional committee in February 2005, "Islamic extremists are exploiting the Iraqi conflict to recruit new anti-US jihadists."  Iraq has replaced Afghanistan as the #1 training and recruitment ground. 

Polls in March 2005 showed that:

In January 2006, a few weeks after Iraqi elections, 55% told Gallup that Iraqi is not part of the war on terror. 

Times columnist Maureen Dowd, often a harsh critic of Bush, Cheney, and Wolfowitz, expresses the 9/11 "logic" used in Iraq (10/1/05).  General Myers used "circular logic, warning that a US defeat would invite another 9/11.  The Bush administration used 9/11 as a pretext for invading Iraq and now say it can't leave for fear of spurring another 9/11.  Wolfie and fellow hawks turned Iraq into a harbor for Al Qaeda with an invasion they justified by falsely calling Iraq a harbor for Al Qaeda." 

Who fabricated?  We learned in November 2005 from newly declassified documents that a high level Al Qaeda figure, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, was the foundation for Bush administration claims that Iraq trained Al Qaeda to use explosives, biological, and chemical weapons. The Defense Intelligence Agency of February 2002 (14 months before war) said it was probable that the source "was intentionally misleading the debriefers." (Tribune/NYTimes, 11/6/05). Bush, Cheney, and Powell repeatedly cited Mr. Libi's information as "credible" leading up to the war. The CIA withdrew the information only in March 2004. The story grew in early December, when the front page Times reported that Libi recanted and admitted that he lied while in Egyptian custody (via US rendition) for fear of being abused. Libi, a Libyan, was taken into custody in Pakistan in late 2001 and was the highest ranking Al Qaeda figure in custody at the time. His whereabouts now are not known. Also see "Torture 2005" FAQ.

Return to Top

The President gave four speeches leading up to the Dec. 15 Iraqi elections.  In only the third did he take questions.  He was asked why he invoked the attacks of 9/11 as a justification for the invasion when "no respected journalist or other Middle Eastern experts confirm that such a link existed."  The President replied that "there was a serious international effort to say to Saddam Hussein, 'You're a threat,' and the 9/11 attacks extenuated that threat.  Knowing what I know today, I'd make the decision again."

"What we know today" was a special report/review in a series from the Chicago Tribune.  On December 7, they reviewed what the administration argued (see pre-war Al Qaeda FAQ) and them summarized today's ideas:  On Al Qaeda, "based on what we know now, the White House fanned more fear about those links than subsequent disclosures have justified...Taken as a whole, though, the administration's assertion that Hussein was, in Bush's words, 'harboring terrorists and the instrument of terror' overstates what we know today.  The Bush administration portrays conflict in Iraq as part of a challenge to terror prompted by Sept. 11, 2001." 

Author of The Next Attack, who formerly worked with the Clinton administration, discusses his conclusions on NPR.  When Al Qaeda alleges that the US only wants to occupy Arab countries and take their resources, they say, "You see, we were right" after the US invaded Iraq. The author, David Benjamin,  adds that we should have attacked Zarqawi in 2002 or 2003 when he was in Kurdistan. 

A September 2006 Presidential speech mentioned bin Laden 17 times, though he had rarely mentioned him for years. According to the Post's Dionne, "Bush touted bin Laden's dream of a 'caliphate' that 'would be a totalitarian Islamic empire encompassing all current and former Muslim lands, stretching from Europe to North Africa, the Middle East, and Southeast Asia." Dionne thinks Bush is being political in the lead up to 9/11 and the November elections.

In the lead up to the 5th anniversary of 9/11, the Post reported that "Iraq's Alleged Al-Qaeda Ties Were Disputed Before War." This Senate report, overwhelmed in the media by the coming anniversary, was declassified by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and revealed, officially, that "US intelligence analysts were strongly disputing" the links" while senior Bush administration officials were publicly asserting those links to justify invading Iraq." Two Republicans on the committee supported the findings. The story was front-page in the Times and the Tribune, whose article said the report "debunks" previous White House claims of "operational ties." The Chicago paper reminds us of the pre-war allegation from Bush that "Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Iraq could decide on any given day to give a dangerous weapon to a terrorist group." The Times emphasized that the report goes beyond 2004 conclusions and its editorial "finally made official ...what pretty much everyone" but Bush and Cheney "had already acknowledged."

The report concludes that Hussein rebuffed al-Qaeda overtures and tried to capture Zarqawi, a quite different story than told by Powell in his UN speech. Powell's speech came despite warnings in reports from the CIA. Bush and Cheney made allegations rebuffed a year earlier by the Defense Intelligence Estimate. Bush had said, "Iraq has also provided al-Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training." In fact, after the CIA in 2005 concluded that Zarqawi had no connections, Bush's speeches still told of the link

Even in August, Bush was linking Zarqawi and Saddam. The INC influence used defectors to lie about nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. Committee Chairman Pat Roberts (R-KS) replied that the INC did not have much influence on shaping intelligence. But he acknowledged that "the long-known fact is that the prewar intelligence was wrong." How was that intelligence used or misused was still not answered by the Committee. As the Times put it, what was not addressed was "the politically divisive question of whether the Bush administration had exaggerated or misused intelligence as part of its effort to win support for the war."

Return to Top

Several Republicans on the committee were strong dissenters. However, added committee member Carl Levin (D-MI), "The president is still distorting. He's still making statements which are false." Concurred John Rockefeller (D-VA), "It is such a blatant misleading of the US, its people, to prepare them, to position them, to, in fact, make them enthusiastic or feel that it's justified to go to war with Iraq. That kind of public manipulation I don't know has any precedent in American history."

The more interesting part of the report, long delayed, is how administration statements compared with intelligence reports, is not due out until after the November 2006 elections.

The 9/11 connection was hard for Cheney to let go of. In fact, 43% of Americans, polled in August 2006, thought that Saddam was "personally responsible" for the 9/11 attacks. Of course, all investigations, even by the administration, have shown otherwise. Some chuckled when the President told CBS' Katie Couric, "One of the hardest parts of my job is to connect Iraq to the war on terror."

In his 9/11 anniversary prime-time speech President Bush spoke of Saddam and 9/11: "I am often asked why we are in Iraq when Saddam Hussein was not responsible of the 9/11 attacks." Mr Hussein was "a threat....On September 11, we learned that America must confront threats before they reach our shores...My administration, the Congress, and the UN saw the threat, and after 9/11, Saddam's regime posed a risk that the world could not afford to take. The world is safer because Saddam Hussein is no longer in power."

However, just a few weeks later, the National Intelligence Estimate concluded that the war is making us less safe. The study, completed in April before violence in Baghdad increased, was very candid and direct. The Iraq War is a prime recruiting tool for Al Qaeda. The CIA concluded such over a year earlier. Parts of the classified report were leaked to the New York Times. President Bush has repeatedly stated that the war in Iraq is "the central front in the war on terror." Administration officials counter the report by saying this point is only one made by the NIE. One may recall the faulty NIE rushed together in October 2002 which led many in Congress to vote for war.

One doubter of the Estimate is hawk Charles Krauthammer. His column "Intelligence estimates: Are we safe?" of fall 2006 examines the National Security Estimate and suggests that "it demands debunking" becuase Iraq war critics have "spun" the report to conclude that "Iraq has made us less safe because it has become a 'cause clebre' and rallying cry for jihad. Become?...The irony is that the overthrow of Hussein eliminated these two rallying cries [of sanctions and US troops in Saudi Arabia]: Iraqi sanctions [of the 90s] were lifted, and US troops were withdrawn form the no longer threatened Saudi Arabia." Krauhammer concludes, "Does the war in Iraq make us more or less safe today? What about tomorrow? The fact is that no dfinitive answer is possilbe. Except for the following truism: During all wars we are by definition less safe--and the surest way back to safety is victory."

David Ignatius examines the changes made in Saudi Arabia after 9/11, and how we can attempt to apply some of these to Iraq (11/22/06). Al-Qaeda's "game plan", and some ways, "has worked: America's botched occupation of Iraq triggered a ferocious reaction there, and now the American public is losing patience with the war, just as bin Laden would have predicted" that we were "weak" in Lebanon and Somalia. What should Iraqis do? Life the Saudis, the Iraqis "will have to save themselves, working within the authentic political framework of their culture, religion and region. The more we try to substitute our will for theirs, with more American troops or exhortation, the more we enfeeble them. As in Saudi Arabia, we must move slowly but deliberately out of the spotlight and into the shadow, with a sustainable mission of training and advising Iraqi troops." Ignatius concludes, "Only the US can broker the regional conference that will allow a political transition in Iraq. That's our leverage now--diplomatic clout, more than military power. If the neighboring powers can help apply a tourniquet to stop the bleeding in Iraq, American can begin to step away."

In early December the President, contradicting the Pentagon, said that the primary cause of violence in Iraq came from al Qaeda.

An early 2007 NIE conlcuded that al Qaeda is less of a threat in Iraq than the Sunni-Shiite violence.

In February 2007 we were reminded about how the Pentagon misrepresented the pre-war intelligence, specifically claiming a strong relationship between Saddam and al Qaeda. Douglas Feith was on the hot seat for politics rising above intelligence, accroding to a report from the Pentagon.

Richard Perle, a strong advocate for the war and adviser to Rumsfeld from 2001-2004, said in a series of interviews and articles in March that "we didn't go there for imperial reasons." Perle still supports the decision to go to war but feels the occupation was bungled, because we should have turned the country over to the Iraqis. Perle continued to insist that Saddam Hussein had links to al Qaeda.

Cheney kept beating a dead horse, linking Iraq to 9/11 in a speech of mid-March, 2007. However, in early April Hussein's pre-war ties to Al Qaeda were again discounted, this time by the Pentagon. They had captured Iraqi documents and interviewed senior officials from the Hussein era.

Would "Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia" attack in the US? This fear has long been a prime reason from the administration to keep all our troops in Iraq. If we leave, "they will attack us on our streets." However, US intelligence officials see little threat to our homeland from this Iraqi group.

However, intelligence concluded in spring 2007 that Al Qaeda is now being funded, to a substantial degree, by Iraq, from kidnappings, missings US cash, and possibly smuggled oil.

At this time (May 23) , the President spoke at the Coast Guard Academy and spoke of previously public but until now classified information. Bin Laden, he alleged, is trying to turn Iraq into a "terrorist sanctuary" or "power vacuum" from which Al Qaeda could attack the US. Bin Laden, the information says, was working with Zarqaqi.

A reaction from Richard Clarke, former counter terrorism adviser to President and Bush before him, was critical of the comments. "One day Bush tells us we are fighting in Iraq so that terrorists won't come here, then he releases intelligence that says terrorists trained in Iraq are coming here. Which is it?"

"Completing ridiculous," believes a nonpartisan terrorism specialist, Thomas Sanderson. Iraq would not have become a training ground if the US had not invaded. "We created the biggest terrorist training ground known."

This chaos of Iraq was predicted by US intelligence, it was revealed in late May, 2007. Al Qaeda would have new opportunities and sectarian violence would flare. Further warnings were that Iran could be provoked. The report was released by a Senate Intelligence Committee. The President did not focus on this part of his pre-war message.

The Looming Tower won the Pulizter Prize in April, 2007. Lawrence Wright was interviewed in detail on Fresh Air with Terri Gross. Wright writes compellingly on the birth and growth of al Qaeda, and the early influence of The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.

Has the Iraq war made us safer? This question came up again in the May/June Presidential debates. Clinton feels that "we are safer than we were" but "not yet safe enough." Edwards termed the Global War on Terror a "bumper sticker, political slogan" which was "intended" to be used by Bush "to justify everything he does. The ongoing war in Iraq; Guantanamo ; Abu Ghraib; spying on Americans; torture; none of those things are OK." In general the 29% of Americans who support Bush tend to feel that Iraq is the central front on the war on terror and "we have to fight them there or they will follow us home. In contrast the majority of Americans who oppose the war feel it has made us less safe and distracted us from bin Laden.

How does the "War on Terror" relate to Iraq? Not very much, concludes an NPR piece in early December 2007. Republican language doesn't fit with the reality.

2008 post-war evidence included an exhuastive Pentagon study of 600,000 Iraqi documents finding no link between Saddam and Al Qaeda. It also concluded that Saddam did have strong links with other terrorist groups. The Pentagon originally planned for a broad public release of the study, but changed their mind. The report will not be posted online nor will officials be made available to discuss it. Reporters who wish for a copy will be mailed it, if they request it.

Gov. Sarah Palin, selected as Mc Cain's VP in September, brought up 9/11 on the 7th anniversary of the attacks. As her son left that day for Iraq, she said to a crowd in Alaska that these soldiers would be fighting "the enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced in the death of thousands of Americans." Times columnist Bob Herbert wonders is she was "deliberately falsifying history, or does she still now know that Iraq and Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with the Sept. 11 attacks?" In "She's Not Ready" Herbert expresses the "scary feeling" "for the first time in my life, that dimwittedness is not just on the march in the US , but that it might actually prevail." In fairness to Palin, I might point out, she may have been referring to the remnants of Al Qaeda, not in Iraq before the war, but now there.

Al Qaeda officially endorsed McCain for President, feeling that his policy in Iraq would help their recruitment. With the election, al Qaeda insulted Obama, calling a US withdrawal "admission of defeat." The President-elect is also described as "a hypocrite and a traitor to his his, comparing him unfavorably to Malcolm X.

Reaction to Obama's victory came from the leader of the Islamic State of Iraq, an umbrella group which claims links to Al Qaeda. They see Obama's win as their victory, too. If Obama pulls out troops quickly, al Qaeda may try to claim victory of America. Yet, if he keeps troops in longer, their recruiting will likely improve.

A few weeks after Obama's election, US Intelligence determined that al Qaeda influence is waning. Muslim supporters have been alienated by indiscriminate killing and "inattention to the practical problems of poverty, unemployment, and education."

Also see Post-Saddam "Was the War Inevitable?" for evidence and analysis since March 2003.

Bin Laden may be dead, asserting at least one guest on the December 8, 2008 Worldview on Chicago Public Radio. Host Jerome McDonnell gave an entire hour to the question of whether bin Laden was still alive.

Israel began its bombing of the Gaza Strip and Hamas on December 27, 2008. A even more deadly ground war followed one week later. The media coverage, though reporters were banned from Gaza by Israel, showed dead Palestinian women and children. The death toll of Palestinians reach 500 in less than two week and over 1000 by early January, about half of which were civilians. Israel seemed to be using White Phosphorus and civilian areas. The UN suggested that bombings of schools and UN buildings was a war crime. How does this relate to Al Qaeda? Though the media didn't seem to notice the connection to Al Qaeda, I have little doubt that Bin Laden was hoping that this killing of his "fellow Arabs/Muslims" would stir recruiting. As we might have guessed, bin Laden took advantage of the anti-US and anti-Israel fervor in the Muslim world and made his first statement in months if not years. He called on fighters from around the world to kill Israelis.

On New Years Day, 2009, we learned about 10 days later, the US claimed confidently that two leader al Qaeda leaders had been killed in Pakistan. Though the CIA refused comment, per usual, remotely piloted Predator drones carried out the missile attacks. Some of these attacks have moved up to 25 miles from the border with Afghanistan, in South Wazaristan. Usama al-Kini and Sheik Ahmed Salim Swedan were accused of carrying out multiple bombing and attacks since the 1990s. Both were citizens of Kenya, where the US embassy in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed in 1998. These two were also purportedly behind the failed assassination attempt of Benazir Bhutto and the truck bombing in September at the Marriott in Islamabad. At least eight senior al Qaeda leaders have been killed by the US. There was no comment or the usual complaint from the Pakistani government.

Do former Gitmo prisoners ever return to threatening Americans? This question became more important with new President Obama's announcement on his first day in office: he would close Gitmo. For much more on Gitmo, see "Torture III" FAQ chapter. Two ex-detainees showed up on a video put out by the Yemen branch of Al Qaeda, we were told in late January. Both had passed through a Saudi "rehabilitation program for jihadists." That same week the Saudis arrested nine "alumni" of their program for jihadists.

What was the Saudi link to 9/11? We know that most of the hijackers were Saudi, but were they in any way supported by the government, our allies? In June lawyers of the 9/11 families showed documents that Al Qaeda was supported by members of the royal family. The material may never make its way into court due to legal and diplomatic obstacles. The Saudis deny any links. There is no smoking gun linked to 9/11.

In July 2009 there were unconfrimed reports that a missile strike in Pakistan killed Bin Laden's son, Saad, an al Qaeda member but not a top leader.

Bin Laden's new recording in late September included a threat to attack Germany, as Madrid and London had been attacked for their support of the Iraq War. The tape came out just prior to German elections. Germany has about 4000 NATO forces in Afghanistan, where a recent airstrike called in by Germans killed scores of civilians.

A new plot with links to al Qaeda, was uncovered in Colorado and New York city in September. The defendant was Najibullah Zazi, age 24, who allegedly recieved explosives training in Pakistan. He was charged with preparing to make explosives. One target was said to be New York City transportation. The FBI had been following him for weeks before the arrest. Zazi is a legal resident of the US, born in Afghanistan.

Al Qaeda was back in the news in October 2009, when the Pakistani Army found a passport of a former associate of Mohammed Atta, the 9/11 lead hijacker. Said Bahaji, a German citizen, has not been directly implicated in the 9/11 attacks. The 9/11 Commission Report concluded that Bahaji lived with Atta in Hamburg.

Bin Laden was nearly caught in December 2001. We have know this for years but a new Senate report in November 2009, confirmed that the US was very close to catching him at Tora Bora. He was allowed to escape to Pakistan and thus inpired others in the coming years. US troops were not sent to block his escape.

The 20th hijacker, Zacarias Moussaoui, was convicted after pleading guilty in 2005. On appeal, this conviction was upheld.

For the Christmas Bomber of 2009, go to "Next" FAQ section.