This is all very interesting, especially coming from the magazine that broke the first story on Saddam Hussein BEFORE he invaded Kuwait (i.e., U.S. News and World Report), but I see no reason to put any faith in this angle.Said faith in that angle simply isn't needed.
We KNOW that Iraq and Iran have aided Arafat in his Israeli uprising.
We KNOW that Arafat's Black September organization of hijackers and terrorists had the most experience in the world at commandeering commercial jet aircraft, blowing many of those jets up.
We KNOW that Arafat was involved in suicide attacks on U.S. troops in Lebanon in 1983.
Suicide attacks against America + world-authority on hijacking = Prime Suspect for the September 11 attacks.
We KNOW that Atta met with Iraqi intelligence in Prague.
Frankly, we know terrorism when we see it, and Iraq is implicated in numerous incidents.
But that's not why we are waiting. Clearly we are building a case again Iran. Let's face it, Iraq is already implicated. It's Iran that needs more evidence for our ire.
So to me, all the stories about more evidence against Iraq are merely serving as distractions from the main game, which is to likewise convict Iran before we unlease Hell in the Middle-East.
