But there isn't any amount of info which will convince the press, short of finding an order to Atta with Hussein's signature on it in his very own blood. (They would simply claim it is a forgery.) Even than, I doubt the press will not quit their mantra that Hussein wasn't involved in 911 or the later attacks like the anthrax, any more than they have quit their mantra that Bush said Iraq bought yellowcake in Niger... they don't care that Bush never said it, or that the UK still stands by their assertion Iraq did try to purchase uranium in Africa, or that Iraq had already purchased uranium from Niger in the past- the press only needs to keep repeating their false claims against the war and Bush until people come to accept it.
Bush doesn't have the level of proof neccessary for the press' standards to say that Hussein actually ordered the attacks. We do have good reason to assume Iraq knew in advance there were going to be attacks because of what Iraq put in its state-run press before 911, but Iraq's knowledge may stem from Iraqi intel on al Qaeda rather than bin Laden asking Hussein for permission to pull it off. We do know Iraqi intel officials did meet with bin Laden, that bin Laden went to Iraq, that Zarqawi did as well, that Iraqi officials went to Afghanistan and to Sudan to meet with al Qaeda leaders, that an Iraqi was involved in one of the Malaysia meetings with the hijackers, that Iraq did carry out an act of war against the uS when it tried to assassinate Bush 1, that Iraq shared bioweapons info with Zarqawi's group, that Iraqi supergun plans ended up in Afghan al qaeda hands, that Zarqawis Milan terrorist group did recruit fighters to fight the US in Iraq, that Iraq was running funds to Lebanese banks which ended up in terrorist's hands, that Iraq did bribe western and UN officials as well as journalists, that an Iraqi diplomat was involved in the murder of a US Green Beret in the Philippines, that Iraq has close ties to the same Philippines terror groups al Qaeda is tied with, that Iraq had numerous front companies smuggling weapons and supplies and people worldwide, that it had set up many "charitable" front groups dedicated to lobbying for it and influencing US officials, that Iraq did train some al Qaeda people at Salman Pak, that Iraq had indeed ordered the assassinations of many people worldwide, including people in the uS and Americans, that Atta was in Prague as was the Iraqi al Ani, that Iraqi agents were caught by the Germans scouting US bases near Heidelberg, and much, much more.
But we cannot yet prove beyond any doubt that the 9/11 attacks specifically took place on Hussein's orders, or that he ever issued such orders in a way we could verify, on paper or electronically- al Qaeda is difficult to penetrate and Saddam isn't talking, so those details may never be available, and everything may have been coordinated through fronts and aliases rather than by the book, making proof scarce. Bush simply can't say Iraq ordered it- al Qaeda may have been supported by both Iraq and Iran for all we know on that attack, or maybe Iraq paid them to do a different one, or perhaps al Qaeda just went on their own while Iraq cheered. The attacks on 911 likely would have occured whether Hussein ordered them or not.
(The anthrax attacks may be another matter entirely as al Qaeda may have needed Iraqi permission to acquire the anthrax, but Atta certainly didn't need Iraq's OK to ram a building with a passenger jet.)
But at this time, we cannot say for certain just why Atta met with al Ani. While we know Atta was in Prague when al Ani was there, and the Czechs shared more intel complete with photos so we hear, the US may yet be bound to maintain discretion on intel provided by a foreign country, just as the UK was bound by its treaties to be discrete with passing on intel other countries gave to UK intel agencies on Niger and Iraq.
Because of treaties with such countries, because informants may be damaged, or because foreign intel may not be backed up substantially by CIA or FBI intel, the US cannot simply issue statements about such foreign intel "as fact," even if it is fact. Bush caught hell for mentioning intel on Iraq's interest in Niger's uranium from Great Britain in his SOTU speech, for example. The intel may have been 100% correct, but the intel depended on UK info acquired from various sources and had not been or could not be doublechecked by the CIA, which only had one document of questionable origins passsed on to it. Maybe this is because the UK couldn't reveal enough of its sources for security reasons, leaving the CIA with nothing to go on but the UK's word, or because the CIA simply doesn't have its own people inside al Qaeda or Niger to acquire its own intel.
A president has to be much more careful with his words, and conservative with the proof, than we do as private citizens.