[WhistlingPastTheGraveyard]

Seems pretty clear that Saddam had no direct involvement in 911

Less than two months before 9/11, the state-controlled Iraqi newspaper "Al-Nasiriya" carried a column headlined, "America, An Obsession Called Osama Bin Ladin." [July 21, 2001] In the piece, Baath Party writer Naeem Abd Muhalhal predicted that bin Laden would attack the U.S. "with the seriousness of the Bedouin of the desert about the way he will try to bomb the Pentagon after he destroys the White House."

The same state-approved column also insisted that bin Laden "will strike America on the arm that is already hurting," and that the U.S. "will curse the memory of Frank Sinatra every time he hears his songs" - an apparent reference to the Sinatra classic, "New York, New York." [Two 9/11 families were awarded over $100 million last May by U.S. District Court Judge Harold Baer based on this and other evidence that Iraq was involved in 9/11]
Saddam Warned of Attacks Before 9/11

[cgk]

The date I have on this is April 11, 2003. I can't remember where it was taken. It's a mural.

[Intolerant in NJ]

Seems pretty clear that Saddam had no direct involvement in 911...I certainly would not want to end up in the position of arguing that Saddam did not have any direct involvement in 911, but I suppose it depends on what the meaning of "direct" is. During Hayes' discussion this afternoon (or actually last week) he was very careful not to overstate his case or overgeneralize from the evidence he presented - mentioning often that some of it was circumstantial, we couldn't always be certain who actually attended certain meetings, etc. At one point I heard him summarize that it was pretty clear that Saddam's regime and Al-Quaeda had consulted, but that "operational collaboration" was not that obvious.

Anyhow I think Bush is wise to maintain his position that there was an Al-Quaeda/Iraq link, but no real evidence of involvement of Saddam in 911. It seems a much easier and compelling case to demonstrate, what with the multiple meetings between top officials of both sides, sharing of information on chemical weapons, and the rest. The Iraqi war is no less justified - we're still dealing with a network of terrorist organizations supported by rogue states, and when you can't attack that network directly, it's perfectly appropriate morally and srategically to go after those who support them.....