[hchutch]

Well, let's look at this item from the London Observer:
http://www.observer.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4296646,00.html

In addition to said meeting with Mr. al-Ani (the London Observer gave it as Muhammed, most others have given the name as Ahmed), we've got Salman Pak, where the same method of hijacking airlinera as wa sused on 9/11 was taught.

[Aristophanes]

Thanks, that helps.

I'm still left with my original question, though: if the Bush adminstration really believes this report, and they're facing an increasingly skeptical and reluctant body of opinion (domestic as well as foreign), why in the hell don't they put this forward?

I don't claim to know the answer to that question, I'm simply baffled by the Bush adminstration's lack of defense. If you have proof that Iraq is involved, put it out on the table and let everyone see it.

This doesn't negate the fact that the Saudi's may have been involved in 9-11 up to their eyeballs, either.