[optimistically_conservative]

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.

[optimistically_conservative]

Fixed links from above:

http://www.newyorker.com/printable/?fact/030210fa_fact
http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/hearing3/witness_yaphe.htm

[John Beresford Tipton]

"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.""

You can't read too much into that decision because of the procedural posture in which it was rendered. It was a suit in which the defendants did not appear. The plaintiffs moved for a default judgment. In those circumstances the judge has to weigh the evidence in favor of the plaintiffs making all necessary inferences in their favor. It's sort of like a soccer game when one side gets a free kick at the goal. It does not mean that if the defendants appeared the result would have been the same; maybe yes, maybe no.

[mil-vet]

You raise excellent points and ask a good question! Within two days of 9/11, the mosad (Isreali intel service) offered clear proof that Saddam had bankrolled both the '93 and 9/11 attacks on the WTC.

The USS Liberty debacle notwithstanding, if the Israelis don't know what's going on in that part of the world, nobody does!!

Haven't heard anyone mention this financial connection for quite some time, but at the time the proof was unquestionable and unquestioned. I have no clue why such an obvious connection should be so ignored.