One of the worst aspects of the Bush administration is how tight they are with information. Sometimes I think they could be much more forthcoming, and the Iraq/al Qaeda connection is certianly one example.

First, concerning the 9/11 attacks and Iraq specifically:

Saddam Hussein was the only world leader to praise the 9-11 attacks.

Iraq's military went on "Supreme High Alert" the on Sept. 8, 2001. This state of alert had only been called once before - the day of Bush the Elder's deadline in 1991. This is a scrap of information I read a year or more ago - I will try to find the link.

The Czech government continues to stand by its assertion that Mohammed Atta met with an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague. There have been numerous leaks, all anonymous, from American officials saying that the meeting didn't happen. I think most of these are probably from CIA personnel who are still living in the 1980s.

None of these items above are an explicit Iraq / 9-11 link. I don't believe that Saddam Hussein knew specifically what was going to happen.

However, I do believe that Hussein was involved in al Qaeda operations from the mid-90's. He may have gotten a heads-up that a big attack was coming.

While I don't want to get into a "Iraq-did/didn't-have-WMD" debate right now, I believe it is crystal clear that Iraq passed know-how on to al Qaeda elements at least once. An attack was attempted, but stopped, through some luck (thought not for PC Oake) and good police work in Europe. Here are a few more examples of Iraq working with al Qaeda.

Here are a few more items that make me go "Hmmmmm..."

On 11 Feb 2003, Osama released a tape where he said his organization had a "convergence of interests" with Saddam Hussein's Iraq. This was never denied, even in part, by the Iraqi government.

Iraq gave shelter to one of the 1993 WTC bombers

The ringleader of that show was Ramzi Yousef. He subsequently moved to the Philippenes. After the bombing of PAL flight 434 on Dec, 11, 1994, Yousef vanished for a few days. Terry Nichols was in the Philippenes at the same time. Stephen Jones, Timothy McVeigh's defence lawyer, posited that Nichols and McViegh met for bomb-making lessons.

The New Jackals -by Simon Reeve. Northeastern University Press, Boston, 1999. pp. 81-84.

Reeve himself cites an interview with Stephen Jones and Petition for writ of Mandamus of Petitioner-Defendant Timothy McViegh, US Court of Appeals 96-CR-68-M, 25 March 1997.

This lady believes that the Oklahoma City bombing was an Iraqi operation from start to finish.

Who is Ramzi Yousef, anyway? He seems to be a Kuwaiti national, with a Baluchi father and a Palestinian mother. But this woman thinks Yousef has always been an Iraqi intelligence agent. She thinks that the Iraqis tampered with Kuwaiti files during the occupation, and some Iraqi agents were given new, "Kuwaiti" identities. She sees an Iraqi hand in other al Qaeda operations, too.

Mylroie even goes so far as to say, "Al-Qaida is a front for the Iraqi Intelligence Services." in this interview with World Net Daily. Now, I think that's taking things too far. Saddam Hussein and the Afghan Arabs (that the Saudis, Pakistani ISI, and the CIA created) faced a convergence of interests in the 1990s, but I don't think al Qaeda was ever Iraq's puppet.

Keep in mind that all of this information is in the public domain. God knows what kind of stuff is in the Iraqi intel archives, which I hope the US is now in possession of. Ditto debriefing Iraqi intelligence officers.

So, coming back to the Bush administration and the Iraq-al Qaeda-9/11 connection. The Bushies like to sit on information. It's their MO. I don't like it. The Bushies are all businessmen. In business, it is acceptable practice to sit on info, but running a government of the people, by the people and for the people is different than a buisness.

Bush did in fact draw a connection directly between 9/11 and Iraq. In Bob Woodward's book Bush at War, Bush is quoted: “I believe Iraq was involved but I am not going to strike them now. I don’t have the evidence at this point.” This was very shortly after - Sept. 17 I believe. A lot happened between then and when we went into Iraq. Zarqawi was probably the last straw.

I'm surprised that no one, especially certian would-be presidents, have brought up the quote from Woodward's book. But I guess they don't hire staffers that know how to use google. Or, heaven forbid, read a few books on current affairs.

Here's a theory on what Bush is doing - feigning confusion and so on, and then counter-punching when his political opponents overreach.

I've seen him do this at least once before - in the congressional-authorization-for-the-use-of-force-in-Iraq. The White House counsul (Gonzales?) put out a report stating that Bush probably didn't need congressional authorization for war in Iraq. Subequent leak to the media. Great hue and cry among Democrats in congress. Then, suddenly, Bush whirls around and congress is voting on the thing right before the election.

That's what he may be doing here. I do not agree with such tactics. This is a republic. All of the relevant info is in the public domain, so there is no reason Bush shouldn't make a big speech, or several speeches, laying out this info. Or one of his subordinates, if he can't get it together enough to go 5 minutes without flubbing a line so badly that it destroys the speech.