Bush is wrong. I don't know what is going on or why he is denying so much evidence to the contrary (there are people in jail for life, convicted on far flimsier circumstantial evidence!), but he should know better. A fairly decent, but not complete, treatment of the subject is given
here.....
What really strikes me about this is I can't help but wonder what al Ani and Farouk Hijazi have told their interrogators.
The New Yorker had an interesting article about the intelligence debate concerning ties between Iraq and AQ (
http://www.newyorker.com/printable/?fact/030210fa_fact) and I think Judith S. Yaphe presented a good case on the unconvincing nature of the relationship between the two (
http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/hearing3/witness_yaphe.htm). I, like 7/10 of America, find it hard to believe that not one of the 9/11 hijackers received any training, funds or intelligence from Saddam's regime - not from the Mukhabarat, and not at Salman Pak.
I think Judge Harold Baer (who has a history of letting bad guys go despite solid evidence) concluded that there was enough evidence "albeit barely," for a reasonable jury to infer "that Iraq provided material support to Al Qaeda and that it did so with knowledge and intent to further Al Qaeda's criminal acts." How could Iraq be held liable in the 9/11 assault with no evidence of a tie between Iraq and AQ? That's right, there is a tie, just no evidence Saddam ran the show.
A second lawsuit on behalf of FBI agent John O'Neill's estate claims "Al Qaeda, backed by Iraq, carried out the September 11th terror attacks with the financial and logistical support of numerous individuals and organizations, .... These individuals and organizations provided Al Qaeda with the means to recruit, train, and employ thousands of terrorists." The evidence includes documents seized from the bombed headquarters of the Iraqi intelligence agency.
I wonder if Bush's comments have hurt their case.