Proof of Saddam's Involvement?

Back on Monday, in my entry concerning the capture of Saddam Hussein, I reiterated my belief that Hussein had no involvement with the 9/11/01 attacks. My cautious statement was that I had yet to see or hear any credible evidence that he had any connection with those attacks.

A friend sent a link to this article from The Telegraph in which it is stated "Iraq's coalition government claims that it has uncovered documentary proof that Mohammed Atta, the al-Qaeda mastermind of the September 11 attacks against the US, was trained in Baghdad by Abu Nidal, the notorious Palestinian terrorist." My first reaction was one of skepticism, primarily because I had not heard a report on the document. Yet, the article states that Dr Ayad Allawi, a member of Iraq's ruling seven-man Presidential Committee, claimed the document was genuine.

One part of the document which made me especially suspicious was a section titled "Niger Shipment", which relates to the infamous "yellow cake" that was such an issue earlier this year. Seemed a bit too neat to me — like the denouement of a Perry Mason episode. As the old saying goes: if it seems to good to be true, it probably is.

Regardless, I decided to maintain an open mind, and to watch for other reports related to this document.

Sure enough, about two hours later, I was led to an article at MSNBC (reprinted from Newsweek) titled "Dubious Link Between Atta and Saddam". This article details how actions claimed in the document are contradicted by FBI reports as well as reports from other U.S. law enforcement agencies.

Those of you with long memories may remember I made a fool of myself not too long ago by citing as true an article about Rush Limbaugh which, as it turned out, originated from the satirical web-site the Onion. Although I could not find anything which substantiated that article, I still posted it as fact. All I can say in my defense is that I posted a disclaimer as soon as I learned the truth.

The point being, I was willing to believe that article because it substantiated an opinion I already held about Limbaugh. And, I assume my friend was willing to accept the Telegraph article as fact because it substantiated an opinion she already holds concerning Saddam's involvement in the 9/11 attacks.

There is, I believe, a lesson here. For me, I need to research stories more thoroughly before I pass them on as fact. For my friend, perhaps she needs to apply a healthy skepticism concerning claims made by the Bush administration. I imagine she was very skeptical of claims made by the Clinton administration; I would merely suggest that she have a similar wariness about the Bush administration.

It's good to know your prejudices, and guard against them. If they remain in the unconscious, you will inevitably be tripped up by them every time.