James Lileks recommends this article, and then cuts through the poo poo:

If ... Saddam was indeed funneling money to and through al-Qaeda-connected banks, what does this do for John Kerry’s credibility? He stated on Sunday that Saddam had no connections to Al-Qaeda, an assertion that has now taken on the mantle of Absolute Fact. Nowadays the idea that Saddam had anything to do with terrorism is regarded as proof of a mind that refuses to accept reality. This, despite the payments to the suicide bombers’ families. This, despite the terrorists who had refuge in Iraq. This, despite the training camp. This, despite al-Ansar. This is something I’ve never understood: the belief that Iraq was somehow hermetically sealed off from the politics of the Arab world, as though it was actually located somewhere north of Turkey, as though it was immune to the temptation of using these transnational forces to its own advantage. At the very least you’d expect Saddam to buy these guys off, if only for insurance purposes. But no: Saddam was the one principled leader who refused to deal with terrorist organizations, because . . . he was secular? Please. A guy who commissions a Qu’ran in his own blood is not exactly unaware of the fundamentalist currents in his culture.

I don’t think he was behind 9/11; I don’t think he organized it, supported it overtly, or even knew what was up. That’s different from saying “Saddam had no connection to Al-Qaeda,” which strikes me not only as a rash and premature judgment, but one that seems willfully blind to the realities of the region. To say something like that with confidence does not suggest, shall we say, evidence of a flexible, nuanced worldview. Because, well, you might be proven wrong. And then what? How do you recover from such a conspicuous admission of naivete?

The electorate might want to inquire: who else don’t you suspect?