Huh? The Kay report said there were no WMD found. Bill O'Reilly is the most stubborn man in the universe and he already apologized over this.
You have satellite imagery of weapons facilities? You have mountains of documents and defectors who came to talk to you? Or you mean the US government has these things? The US government is not claiming that it's been "proven" that Saddam or Iraq was involved in 9/11. If they did, they would be denying justice to the families of 3,000 victims.
If you are so convinced WMD were found, send it to the New York Times, I'm sure they'll print a story as big as that. As for one of your sources being a newspaper, your assertion is that Iraq was involved in 9/11. That is not what the newspaper source says. It said Iraq secretly invited an Al Qaeda person to Baghdad in 1998. That's it. Sounds bad, but after conquering the entire country, that's what we found. If we conquered Libya (or Syria, or Algeria, or Sudan), we would probably find the same thing.
Harvard Professor, newspaper & former CIA director: If you read closely you will find that NONE of those people/sources claimed that Iraq was involved in 9/11. One of them said something about Iraq and a Al Qaeda member possibly cooperating...but didn't say the nature of the cooperation. Another one was talking about the WTC bombing in 1993, or what Iraq did after the Persian Gulf war... none of this stuff proves your assertion at the top of the post, and some of which has a pretty weak connection with the topic at hand. The assertion that "only a government" could be sophisticated enough to carry out something like 9/11 doesn't make sense because after 9/11 and up to today the entire global establishment seems to think it was not done by only a government. The only evidence you have is from an Iraqi defector claiming "I can assure you" that people trained by Saddam did 9/11, but he has no evidence, all he has is photos of a plane. So these witnesses were called on to testify in a trial we know nothing about in terms of background, or the specific charges. If Hussein's government was a defendant (if that's even possible), Hussein himself was not present. What kind of trial is this? It can't be a criminal trial because there's no defendant. To sue for money damages means a civil trial, but that's between two private parties, who are US citizens. If I remember correctly the familites of 9/11 also sued the pants off the Saudi government for
trillions of dollars. Does that mean we should go charging into Riyadh? Overall, it looks like the entire trial and judgment was a political ruling.
As for your last point, you claim we would never believe Bush if he compelling made an argument that Iraq did 9/11.... hmmm, how do I know Osama bin Laden did 9/11? How did I know that on September 12? It was because my government, led by George W. Bush, told me! And guess what, I believed him, and still do, and would even without the videotapes. I believe because the story was picked up by the global press, because it is widely accepted, because a global diversity of sources and experts has had the opportunity to challenge it and have not substantially done so. I also believed Colin Powell after his presentation that there probably were WMD in Iraq.
