I believe there were connections between Iraq and Al Queda. I think there was some evidence that Iraq was involved in the first WTC bombing. As to whether Iraq knew or planned 9-11 my gut, similar to you, tells me it was possible but I don't want to veer into tinfoil hat territory by insisting it had to be so without better evidence.

Agree with AWW.

With AWW, but noting what survivors of Saddam's government & weapons programs have said of his last few years of power (that he was becoming more & more delusional), it's believable that people in Saddam's government knew, but Saddam didn't. Of course, with a regime like that, it could be that Saddam knew, and almost no one else did!!

You also need to differentiate between "did he know of the specifics of the attack" like timing and targets, and didn he know of a general plan to try such an attack." The latter is probably true, while we may never know the former.

Raoul -- Right. I edited that point, which is crucial, out of the post. What I believe is that, more likely than not, the Iraqis had at least a "heads up."

Surely all Arab gov'ts knew something was up, as they all must have infiltrated AQ, since doing so is in their own self-interest. I'm pretty convinced that the timing of Libya's coming clean was related to knowledge of planning for another mega-attack. I believe it was last December, and the terror alert level was jacked up at the same time, with hints that there was new and detailed info about terror plans in the works...

David:

I've felt for a long time that Hussein not only knew, but may have given some indirect aid. Thus I am not surprised when polls show 40% of Americans believe as I do. Its simply a matter of drawing inferences. The major media, however, remain baffled why many Americans hew to this belief.

Fred:

It's best to look at their bafflement the same way the left was baffled in August 1939, until they switched their voice and became Germany's best friends (until June 1941).

The media cannot accept even the proof of middling contact between Iraq and Al Qaeda because it means their whole rationale for supporting Democratic 'toughness' in Afghanistan (but not anywhere else) COLLAPSES.

During the part of the presendential debate which dealt with the Iraq/elQaida connection, Hanoi John let slip a line that almost no one has caught up on, least of all the President, to the effect that there was no connection, unless the WOT is a war on all of Islam.

No one is going to go there, but is it not? Is not the taming of Qadaffi part of the WOT? Is not cutting off the $25K bounty for the suicide bombers part of the WOT? Is not our incorporation of Saudi Arabia by coercion and bribery part of the WOT?

Just as in the war against Communism, it is fitting indeed and just to strike the enemy always and everywhere. Iraq does it just fine.

It should be, Lou.

The first task of high policy is to decide who your enemies are.

This turns out to be surprisingly difficult.

In fact, the difficulty might be considered one of the main themes of Orrin's blog.

>It's best to look at their bafflement the same
>way the left was baffled in August 1939, until
>they switched their voice and became Germany's
>best friends (until June 1941).

Immortalized in the Hate Week finale where Oceania Has Always Been At War With Eurasia, NOT Eastasia.

(Orwell's fictionalization is NO exaggeration; some Leftists actually did the one-eighty flip regarding Eurasia (I mean Germany) and Eastasia (I mean Germany) in mid-sentence of mid-speech. Orwell didn't make up that scene or shtick. IT REALLY HAPPENED.)

Up to 5 Rooms FREE, FREE Standard Installation, FREE Shipping, FREE Choice of DVD Player, Digital Camera or Luggage/Backpack, FREE HBO and Cinemax for 3 Months, the best freeking deal on the planet