Readin' the news:

We took a look at this Reuters news item about Iraq - al Qaeda ties. And note the following:

Speaking at the Pentagon Rumsfeld said there was "solid evidence" of the presence in Iraq of al Qaeda members.

"We have what we believe to be credible information that Iraq and al Qaeda have discussed safe haven opportunities in Iraq, reciprocal non-aggression discussions. We have what we consider to be credible evidence that al Qaeda have sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire weapons of mass destruction capabilities," Rumsfeld told reporters.

That's pretty weak. "Discussions," and "seeking contact."

But this was strange:

One report, he said, indicated Iraq had provided unspecified training related to "chemical and/or biological matters" to al Qaeda, blamed by Washington for the Sept. 11 attacks on America that killed around 3,000 people.

Blamed by Washington? What's Reuters up to? Is there still no hard evidence that al Qaeda was behind the Sept. 11 attack? In fact, what is the evidence? We know bin Laden took credit, but has anybody reconstructed the command-and-control network to show that the 19 hijackers were "officially" part of al Qaeda? Our default position is that al Qaeda was responsible, but we don't recall any details other than the movements of the hijackers themselves. For all we know, the hijacking could have been a pure Saudi-centered operation, or an Iraqi one, or an Iranian one, or...

posted by Quiddity at 9/26/2002 06:32:00 PM