No Evidence?

As war opponents continue their strategy of “proof by repeated assertion” that there is “no evidence” of Iraqi links to Al Qaeda, it may be an opportune time to pull out the dictionary.

The relevant Cambridge Dictionary entries are as follows:

Evidence: one or more reasons for believing that something is or is not true.

Proof: a fact or piece of information which shows that something exists or is true.

In short, evidence is weaker than proof in that it is allowed to inform belief.

Why do the majority of Americans still believe that Iraq is linked to 911 if not actually responsible for it – much to the apoplexy of war opponents? Are most Americans really a bunch of stupid, brainwashed apes that just don’t understand evidence -- as many columnists and letter-writers seem to think?

Do we have proof that Iraq is linked to Al Qaeda? Perhaps not – but we certainly have a lot of evidence…

For openers, the U.S. Military now holds hundreds of foreign terrorists captured in Iraq – 19 of whom so far are Al Qaeda. That would seem to be at least evidence that Iraq sheltered terrorists if not Al Qaeda itself.

War opponents will then argue that you can’t prove that all of them didn’t enter Iraq after the war started so therefore Iraq didn’t shelter or have links with them. But you can’t prove that’s true either – certainly not yet.

Overshadowing that, there’s another problem with this counterargument: Even if the terrorists only entered Iraq after the war started then that’s still proof that they will support Saddam when he’s attacked. But if you apply that logic consistently, why wouldn’t they have supported him during the first Gulf War when we attacked him – and maybe even have hung around for a decade or so?

In fact, many of the newly liberated Iraqis say that’s what happened – and are even rightly resentful that the non-Iraqi terrorists got “red carpet” treatment from Saddam while the Iraqis suffered and starved. Evidence? At least. [UPDATE: Just in today. (Hat tip to LGF.) More here and here.]

The next retort of Saddam-supporters is that there is no evidence Saddam supported Al Qaeda because “it’s well known that Saddam was a secularist and not an Islamist and the two don’t work together.” Aside from the obvious fact that they both see America as a common enemy, there is another common enemy they share that unfortunately provides abundant examples that disprove this: Israel.

We do have proof that Saddam supported Islamists in his “blood money” payments for both the (supposedly) secular Arafat and the (known) Islamist Hamas and Islamic Jihad. And news media wasn’t exactly filled with stories of indignant Hamas families returning Saddam’s checks rewarding suicide attacks – so that’s at least evidence -- and almost certainly proof -- of Islamist acceptance of “secular” support.

Bin Laden may be more “principled” than the Palestinians, but there’s no proof that he is -- if he’s still alive.

At this point let me spare you all the evidence Colin Powell and the administration presented for yet another item that has gone largely unreported: There is strong evidence that Iraq had ties to Abu Sayyaf – the Philippine terrorists that are known to be affiliated with if not integral to Al Qaeda.

Ponder this snippet from a story in the Bangkok Times: “What is more, Abu Sayyaf leader Hamsiraji Sali told a reporter from the Philippine Daily Inquirer he had collected cash from Iraqi diplomats several times, to finance violent acts including a mass kidnapping of 78 students and teachers three years ago.” (Hat tip: Darren Kaplan.)

Evidence? At least. Proof? Enough evidence like this and it starts to seem like it...