Those polls don’t ask people where they got the idea that Saddam Hussein was involved with the 9/11 attacks. I know where they didn’t get it – from the American government.

I was laid up at the time and watching C-SPAN constantly. That’s raw unfiltered news, not what journalists then make of it. Never did I hear a government official connect Hussein or Iraq to the 9/11 attacks. To the contrary, when asked about a possible connection, the answer always was that there was no evidence of one. In almost the same words every time, as with an official talking point: “NO EVIDENCE OF THAT.” Such a connection couldn’t be ruled out, however.

What made the American people think Saddam was in on the 9/11 attacks? The anthrax attacks immediately afterward, that’s what.

The moment I heard the news break of the anthrax attacks, I suspected Iraq. Who wouldn’t? That’s biological warfare, and Saddam was the only man in the world who had ever waged it. He had already tried to assassinate the former President Bush. He had been the only world leader to praise the 9/11 attacks. Now this. The MSM, as always, speculated like crazy (that brings in money by making the “news” a soap opera). They are the ones who told us that this was “weapons grade” anthrax and that the only known source of this strain in the world was Iraq.

Now they blame “the administration” for the idea THEY planted in people’s heads.

Government officials were completely consistent. They said Saddam supported terrorists and had connections with terrorists groups, like the one that murdered hundreds of our peacekeepers in Lebanon. True. They told of contacts between Saddam and al-Qaeda operatives, characterizing the contacts as Saddam and al-Qaeda as feeling each other out, not having established a firm connection or even yet trusting each other – though an al-Qaeda affiliate was training in northern Iraq and could not have been there without Saddam allowing it. True. But no official ever made more of this “link” than that. They never made it out to be an “operational link” = Saddam and al-Qaeda working together. I never got the impression that our government even suspected that.

As for many of the 9/11 hijackers being Saudis, that is common knowledge.

This is a vast country. People travel great distances. Except on the east coast, we can’t take trains, busses or subways. The interior is so far from the ocean that it gets very cold in winter. Would you like to see my heating bill?

Oil isn’t wine or cheese. It’s a necessity. What? with China and India demanding more oil every day, we’re going to make the Saudis mad at us so they refuse to sell us any? Let’s get real folks. We aren’t suicidal. We are not morally obligated to harm ourselves by being nasty to the Saudis.

I’m mad about the predicament we’re in. They have us over a barrel. There will be joy here in Mudville when we can tell the Saudis to take their oil and shove it. But, till then, things are the way they are.

Besides, the problem is essentially a power struggle between Muslim religious and secular leaders in bed with each other, as in the Christian Middle Ages. When Arab secular leaders tame the monster they made, by bringing the religious leaders under the law, things will settle down. We don’t hasten that day by damaging the secular leaders. This can’t be done over night. Freedom and democracy (and the transparency and prosperity that comes with them) is indeed the answer to this blight on the planet.

Jorg,

Good questions.

"Why do many Bush voters (but hardly any Kerry voters) think Saddam was involved in 9/11?" At first the vast majority of Americans of both parties thought so. But during the election year, "their truth" got conveniently changed for those in New England and California. They religiously believe all sorts of irrational and known-to-be false things just because they want to. On this one, their preference just happens to probably be correct. The only reason I stopped suspecting Saddam for complicity in 9/11 is because I really followed events closely and eventually learned enough to doubt that. But most people aren't as interested in that stuff.

All the White House press conferences, Defense and State Department briefings, and government statements are on the Internet. Read them yourself. The government DID NOT MISLEAD THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. That is a verifiable fact for anyone who wants to know the truth. No matter how many times Senator Kennedy says otherwise. "Free speech" here means "freedom to lie your head off" even on the floor of the United States Senate.

"Is it also common knowledge that Saudi Arabia depends on the US for all security matters?"

No, not if I understand the question correctly. That would be news to me.

We of course know that the Saudis begged us to station troops there after the first Gulf War, to protect Saudi Arabia from Saddam Hussein. From watching C-SPAN, I also know that government officials often say that the Saudis cooperate with us against al-Qaeda and that this is a major change in their behavior since 9/11.

I also know that the Saudis are very short of technical expertise and beg us to send technical experts. It isn't easy to find Americans willing to work there anymore. I thought this was mostly in their oil industry, but I suppose it could also apply to security matters.

But "depending on us for all security matters" sounds like more than this. And, as I said, that would be news to me.

"Why did not you demand serious reform from Saudi Arabia after you saved them from Saddam in 1990-91?"

We did. Again I am relating what I heard directly from officials on C-SPAN, not from what the media make of it. It sounds like the Saudis promised everything and delivered nothing. 9/11 shocked them though, because Islamists want to topple the Saudi regime. American officials say the Saudis are now serious about democratic reform, because it is the only way to avoid a bloody revolution lead by Islamists.

Me? I'm skeptical. The Saudis throw a lot of money around at State Department officials upon their early retirement.

Frankly, I think our State Department is just too used to letting them get away with playing both sides of the fence. Congress recently held hearings investigating jihadist literature being distributed throughout the US by the Saudi Embassy. It was shocking. In other words, I don't think those Saudis can even walk without prevaricating.

"Even the latest Iraq war could be of great benefit to Saudi Arabia. No more Saddam threatening the region. How is Saudi Arabia thanking you?"

You know, we're used to what we call "free riders" inwardly delighted that we are solving some problem while condemning us for it, refusing to help, and even crossing us every step of the way. If Europe and Canada can do that, why can't Saudi Arabia?

To be fair, the Saudi princes really do have to put up a show of not being too friendly with America. If they acted too cozy with us, there'd be a revolution tommorrow.

We can't do anything that would force them -- to save face -- to shut off our supply of oil. Which, since it's a necessity for survival, would give us the legal and moral justification to, and force us to go and take it. It's best to avoid that -- to never let things get to the point where nations have no choice but to do what fuels a chain reaction. That is one thing I really think both sides are trying to prevent.