In the context of the almost-unheard-of declaration of the Duke lacrosse players’ innocence by the state attorney general, I would note that (former federal prosecutor) Andrew McCarthy has some thoughts on the distinctions between “not (yet) guilty” and “innocent,” and between 911 and Al Qaeda:

To be clear, I don’t understand Jonah to be saying anything other than that no connection has been proved, and assuming that’s what he’s saying, I agree. But there is a big difference between saying no connection has been proved and saying no connection is likely, or at least conceivable. The debate on this has become so perverted by those hell-bent on discrediting the American invasion of Iraq (aided and abetted by the administration’s infuriating failure to defend itself), that it seems people feel compelled to make an opening concession that there is no connection between Iraq and 9/11 in order to be taken seriously in arguing that there is a connection between Iraq and al Qaeda. But it would be more accurate to say that the evidence of connection between Iraq and al Qaeda is extensive, and there is enough troubling circumstantial evidence of Iraqi ties to central 9/11 players that Iraq’s participation in 9/11 cannot be discounted.

The left and their enablers in the media are now fully invested in the notion that Saddam provided no support for Al Qaeda, and doubling down. As always (the Duke case being a prime example) the appropriate narrative continues trump reality. It is two different things to say that Saddam coordinated with bin Laden, and that Saddam was involved with 911, and they continue to muddy the waters by conflating the two.