The former Directors of CIA and NSA, JAmes Woolsey and Lt Gen William Odom, said on CNN'S Late Edition last night that Osama Bin Laden could not have done this himself, period. What does that tell you? Begs a lot of questions as to who else was involved. And if all of the authorities are so focussed on Bin Laden, what are they hiding? Do they just want to go into that area and bring these states into line?

The relevant part of yesterday's Late Edition transcript (draft version) is here, thanks to the efficiency of CNN (no objections I hope - such a small clip):

"..BLITZER: Director Woolsey, we spoke about this before and I know how feel. But just to review, you're increasingly coming around to the conclusion that the first World Trade Center bombing, which Ramzi Yousef was the mastermind of, that he perhaps was an agent of the Iraqi government. And, if fact, he was, what does that say about this current terrorist attack?

WOOLSEY: I think that it's a testable hypothesis whether he was an agent of Iraq or not. I think they can go back into some of the evidence in the first World Trade Center bombing, including some of materials that are now in the hands of the British government, and see whether or not Yousef was, in fact, an Iraqi asset.

WOOLSEY: If he was, that doesn't mean that Saddam was the Wizard of Oz behind the curtain that pulled all the levers for what happened on September 11, but I think it would make people think a lot harder about the possibility that foreign states' intelligence services such as Iraq and possibly Iran and others, but Iraq would come first to mind for me, were involved. Because a lot of this looks to me as if it's not something that a fellow sitting out in the middle of Afghanistan is going to be orchestrating -- able to orchestrate by himself even if he has several hundred million dollars.

BLITZER: General Odom, do you agree?

ODOM: I think the point made about -- it was his last points absolutely critical to think that this operation took place purely on the basis of assets and capabilities of a non-governmental organization is not very credible with me. The intelligence support for this operation pretty clearly had to depend on some country like Iraq, Syria, Libya, who knows how many are involved.

I think the clear intelligence picture you have of what we're up against, the more disturbed we're going to be about who our enemies are, and I think you'll find some states with very good relationships with the U.S. that you'll feel very ambivalent about, and it's not clear what the policy implications of this will be. ..."

An earlier posting on the general question of intelligence etc, with a bit more analysis, is at:
 http://www.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=64457&group=webcast
(However, I would play down even more the thing on the Palestinians on TV, as there seems to be some disagreement about that.)