OK Alba let's turn the clock back. Let's see what could have turned out differently.

Aftermath of 911:
- Al-Qaeda claims responsibility (Which they did).
- Saddam Hussein in Iraq is the only National Leader and Head of State who openly and publicaly applauds the attacks (Which he did).
- US goes to the United nations (Which they did).
- US demands that the Taleban (A Government that only Saudi Arabia and Pakistan recognise) surrender Bin Laden and the leadership of Al-Qaeda to US justice for the murder of over 3000 people on American soil (Reasonable request which was denied - it offended the sense of Islamic hospitality - Have always wondered what the take would have been if the boot had been on the other foot - somewhat different I believe)
- Taleban refuse to hand over Bin Laden & Co but offer to try him under Sharia Law, which would automatically exonerate him, so not really much point in pursuing the exercise.
- US does not invade Afghanistan but supports the Northern Alliance Forces fighting the Taleban within Afghanistan (Which they did)
- Taleban defeated and overthrown. Al-Qaeda and hardline Taleban followers flee to Iran; N-W Frontier provinces of Pakistan and to Iraq (Documented fact)

Go back a bit further, 1998, Iraq a known sponsor of international terrorist groups and causes is adjudged by US intelligence and security agencies as being a potential threat to the United States of America, the interests of the United States of America, the allies of the United States of America and destabilising force and general threat in the middle-east region.

911, 2001 the United States of America is attacked on American soil by an international terrorist group. This attack being the latest in a series of attacks against recognised American sovereign territory (USS Cole, the East African Embassies, etc).

OK Alba that is the back-ground what do you do?

- Evaluate the threat (remember this is only the second time in your county's entire history that anybody has done this sort of thing to you)
- The result of this threat evaluation is that the United States of America is particularly vulnerable to an anonymous indirect attack mounted by an as yet undisclosed international terrorist group with access to WMD courtesy of a rogue state intent on causing the maximum amount of harm to the United States of America.
- This is explained very clearly to the American people in January 2002 and again in January 2003. The "Threat", i.e., that which could destroy your very way of life is described as being "An Axis of Evil comprising of, a) An international terroist Group, backed by; b) A rogue state with a known grievence against the USA, which also has; c) Access to technology relating to WMD.

Now Alba all this has been looked at and evaluated over the course of at least five years, more likely ten, by the people you are paying and the people you have adjudged to be the most professional, dedicated and trustworthy in your entire country - you don't know any better you are merely a politician who has been elected, and who has accepted that the burden of ensuring the safety and well-being of your country, it's boundaries, it's citizens and it's interests - What do you do Alba? Do you believe them? Do you ignore them?

If you elect to the latter please explain to us the grounds upon which you, as a career politician would dismiss the expert advice, and opinion, that you have been given. What is it that would cause you to dismiss out of hand the likelyhood of your country being attacked indirectly and anonymously by an international terroist organisation armed with some form of WMD. Their proven track record being that they have tried with somemarked degrees of success with conventional explosives on a number of occasions.