US Administration Links Saddam and fundamentalists - evidence please?

ISAW

the recently released Senate Report (Friday 8 Sept. ref-http://intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf) mentions (see pp. 22, 32, 41,and 67) that the CIA in October 2005 reported that Saddam and his government
did not have a relationship with al Khyda
did not harbour Al Khyda
did not turn a blind eye to Al Khyda

well! Tell me something I don't know!

Of course we know in spite of the claims by the Us authorities that it was certain that
no WMD were found in Iraq
no links to supporting muslim fundamentalists were found

In fact we know most of the 9/11 attackers were from saudi arabia which is a muslim fundamentalist state controlled by a single family, as is Kewait.
Saddam was an ally of the Us but he was never a supporter of Muslim Fundamentalism.

Ironically in the last week
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/08/20060830-1.html

and in a speech in Omaha by vice president chaney
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/08/20060829-4.html
he (surprise surprise) begins with 9/11 and the "war" on terror but then

Five years ago Iraq and Afghanistan were both in the grips of violent, merciless regimes. Now they have democratically-elected governments, the dictators are gone, and 50 million people are awakening to a future of hope and freedom. And Americans who return home from that part of the world can be proud of their service for the rest of their lives. (Applause.)

We maintain forces in those countries because we're a nation that keeps its word and because we understand what is at stake in that part of the world. The terrorists understand it as well. The terrorists know that as freedom takes hold, the ideologies of hatred and resentment will weaken, and the advance of free institutions in the broader Middle East will produce a much safer world for our children and our grandchildren.

He goes on to claim that

The terrorists have made Iraq the central front in this war.

In spite of the fact as reported by the CIA that there was no threat from fundamentalists in Iraq when Saddam was there. Isnt this just clouding the issue and trying to link Iraq to muslim fundamentalists (like those in Kewait and Saudi Arabia while the government there is coseyed up to)?

In this weeks "Fact sheet" about the war on terror (on which I could go into detail and not just with respect to the history lesson ) one glaring statement jumps out http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/08/20060831.html

The Battle For Iraq Is Central To The Ideological Struggle Between Freedom And Terror

But the CIA has already told you NO MUSLIM FUNDAMENTALIST TERRORISTS IN IRAQ UNDER SADDAM!!!

an in another speech to reelect Orin hatch Bush also repeats the "Iraq is a central fromt " phrase and describes saddam as

a tyrant who previous administrations had declared a state sponsor of terror;

he continues

we gave the tyrant one last chance to disclose and disarm, or face serious consequences.

But how can anyone disclose links with fundamentalists or show you WMD???

-There weren't any WMD!
-There were no links with al khyda in fact Saddam was opposed to muslim fundamentalists!

so why is Iraq so important? Well, Bush goes on to say

If we leave before Iraq can defend itself and govern itself and sustain itself, this will be a key defeat for the United States of America in this ideological struggle of the 21st century

Which brings me back some of the history not mentioned in the "fact sheet". When the US pulled out (were forced out) of Iran it was the nadir of their foreign interventions. They have now reached the zenith again. Whence shall they proceed?
Anyway my point is surely such disinformation cant fool most of the people even most of the time? surely it is a case of fool me once shame on you , fool me twice shame on me? Mind you Bush was apt top forget that adage.
http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/multimedia/bushism_fool_me_once.mp3
http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/multimedia/foolbush.mov

P.S. He may not know from what language the terms zenith and nadir are derived? Wait till he used them in a speech, probably with the word "crusade" again.