Evidence doesn't support Iraq's role in 9-11

To the editor:

Again the myth that Iraq is connected with 9-11 appears on the Opinion pages as justification for invading Iraq. Were there such a connection, I would support any actions against Iraq needed to defend our nation. But there isn't.

None of the alleged 9-11 hijackers were Iraqis. Most were Saudis. Their ringleader was Egyptian. None of the hijackers' money came from Iraq. Rather, wealthy individuals (including Saudi royalty) provide much of al-Qaida's funding. None of the hijackers were trained in Iraq. Much of their training (particularly flight training) took place in the United States.

However, since 9-11 there have been many failed attempts by the Bush administration to link the attacks and al-Qaida to Iraq. Suffice it to say that the recent report from the joint congressional investigation into the 9-11 attacks found no such links.

Furthermore, any alliance between Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein's Iraq was very unlikely since the two were ideologically opposed. As a secular leader who violently repressed his Shiite Muslim majority, Saddam was exactly the type of Arab ruler that bin Laden sought to overthrow in favor of establishing fundamentalist Islamic regimes.

Continued insistence by war proponents to justify this invasion on the basis of 9-11 without any evidence of Iraqi involvement makes it appear they only wish to satisfy their bloodlust. Blowback from this sort of indiscriminate revenge killing will haunt our nation for decades.

MARCUS R. BOND

Cape Girardeau