Was Al Qaeda Really Behind 9/11?

It's funny how the Bush administration didn't think so-- at least initially.

In the aftermath of Sept. 11, President Bush ordered his then top anti-terrorism adviser to look for a link between Iraq and the attacks, despite being told there didn't seem to be one.

And this:

Clarke says that as early as the day after the attacks, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was pushing for retaliatory strikes on Iraq, even though al Qaeda was based in Afghanistan.

Okay, so maybe the Bush administration was rushing to judgement about Iraq, right?

But can't we interpret this story quite another way? Perhaps the linkage of 9/11 to Al Qaeda wasn't nearly as clear-cut as Clarke makes us believe. Perhaps the Bush administration simply didn't believe the Al Qaeda linkage, and had to be convinced of Al Qaeda involvement. Perhaps the linkage of 9/11 and Al Qaeda was simply NOT THAT STRONG. Indeed, if the 9/11 attacks were really some bizarre hijacking drill gone wrong, there may not have been much of a link, without the FBI and CIA framing Al Qaeda.

Clearly Clarke and the CIA wanted to blame 9/11 on Al Qaeda-- for their own reasons to be sure. But perhaps a clear linkage was never really there.

Perhaps some deal was worked out, where the Bush administration would agree to attack Afghanistan first, if the Clarke and the CIA would support an Iraq invasion.

And we all know how bogus the CIA data on Iraq was.