[ladtx]

I suppose we can expect to see this covered by the big 3's news reports this evening. < /sarcasm>

[RoughDobermann]

We need to give inspections more time, period!

[ventana]

Things that make you go: hmmmmmm. V's wife.

[alloysteel]

If this is true, it directly contradicts all the blather pouring out of the anti-war crowd, who continue to insist that there could not be any ties between Osama bin Ladin and Saddam Hussein. After all, bin Ladin is a DEVOUT Muslim, and Saddam is only going to mosque for show, he is much too irreverent to be able to communicate with the most conscientious of believers. Couldn't possibly be working together.

[Mister Baredog]

"I believe it is definitely more likely than not that some degree of common knowledge between (al Qaeda and Iraq) was involved here," Woolsey told a Manhattan Federal Court on Monday, according to the New York Daily News

So does this mean that if other media outlets don't cover this then it isn't true?

[aristeides]

"I believe it is definitely more likely than not that some degree of common knowledge between (al Qaeda and Iraq) was involved here," Woolsey told a Manhattan Federal Court on Monday, according to the New York Daily News.

In a civil suit in the U.S., the standard of proof is preponderance of the evidence. That means all you have to show is that something is more likely than not. Very different from proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

[SunStar]

The information on Salman Pak has been available for over a year... No one in the "mainstream" believed it.

[Plummz]

Where is Salman Pak? Is this another of those "terror training camps" protected by US/UK planes in the northern no-fly zone?

[FirstTomato]

Since 9/11 I've done extensive reading on the whole of the Middle East,and the attacks by Muslim radicals in the last few decades on American interests, and after analyzing the information, and using a little bit of common sense, I am convinced that there was a Iraqi connection to both 93 WTC and 9/11.

It makes sense. Its logical. The info is out there, only it requires that folks be able to draw lines from point A to point B, which many people refuse to do.

I'm also convinced we're in the middle of World War III, a war which has been waged against us by Islamofascists for decades, and 9/11 was only the date on which we entered.

[VRWCmember]

I have yet to see anyone else connect the very obvious dots that both Iraq and Al Qaeda refuse to use a "U" after the "Q" in their names. Coincidence? I think not.

[HighRoadToChina]

Mega BUMP!

[the_doc]

At the very least, Saddam Hussein is guilty of aiding and abetting the activities of al-Qaeda, Woolsey contended.

He also offered evidence suggesting that Baghdad had prior knowledge of the 9/11 attacks.

A July 21, 2001 article in an Egyptian newspaper article headlined, "America, an Obsession with Osama bin Laden" indicated that Baghdad knew what was coming three months later, the former U.S. intelligence chief told the court. The report, written by an Iraqi, predicted bin Laden would target both New York City and the Pentagon....

....No Iraqi journalist would write such a report without his government's knowledge and approval, Woolsey testified.

FYI.

The article about Woolsey's testimony is interesting for the fact that it doesn't bother to mention several other things which have been reported as establishing the existence of a meaningful link between Saddam and Osama.

For example, the article doesn't specifically mention the Al Qaeda poison guy who is known to travel freely within Iraq and who has a production facility in Northern Iraq. It also does not mention the fact that some of the more moderate members of the Taliban once offered to give Woolsey proof of a solid connection, through Pakistan, between Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein.

It also doesn't mention the Czech reports which have tied one of the key 9/11 hijackers (Atta?) to Iraqi intelligence.

***

Our war on terrorism is a pretty broad war involving serious national security issues, not just a narrowly selective vengeance against the 9/11 perpetrators themselves. So, I would say that we don't need to prove that the Saddam was a sponsor or accomplice in the 9/11 attack itself.

However, I think that it's interesting that some folks believe that they can prove that very connection in a court of law.

[honway]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/742323/posts

Limbaugh to White House: What About Salman Pak?
Newsmax.com ^ | 8 30 2002 | Carl Limbacher

[xm177e2]

Even if Saddam was not involved in 9/11, the Salman Pak airplane incident shows Iraq was involved in planning airliner terrorism.

[AmericaUnited]

I have always believed that Saddam was behind WTC I, OKC (with McViegh as the useful idiot), and 911

I think Bush knows is too but can't share the intel. That's why Saddam is going to die, he's been weighed and found wanting. Bye, bye.

[habaes corpussel]

"At the very least, Saddam Hussein is guilty of aiding and abetting the activities of al-Qaeda, Woolsey contended."

If Woolsey thinks Saddam is quilty whats he think about Iran. They have a closer relationship to AQ than Iraq. Soemthing stinks about this article. Woolsey is smarter than this......... OH NEWSMAX! some source.....They should call Newsmax the Moron Daily.....