I don't see this as a "wacky coincidence," but neither do I see it as evidence of a connection. All it really shows is that two bad people knew a third bad person who did the same kind of work for each. I suppose it is theoretically possible that one day, Saddam and Osama were kicking back, and Osama said, "I need to launder some money - you know anybody?" But I think it is far more likely that the launderers were simply known to a certain type of clientele, and they attracted that type of clientele.

I'm disinclined to read into this story anything more than that.

Aaron,

I think you're probably right. But I would make the point that the left doesn't claim that there's no "smoking-gun proof" of a connection, but rather there's no evidence whatsoever.

This is "evidence." It is not dispositive evidence. It does not, as you point out, prove the case by itself. Like circumstantial evidence in a murder case, it may tend to prove the case when amassed with other non-dispositive evidence.

But it's evidence.

The left needs to look up the definition of evidence. According to the Federal Rules of Evidence, "relevant evidence" is a fact which makes a material claim more likely to be true.

More likely. Not "necessarily." Not "dispositively."

Ace, you've accurately paraphrased the Federal Rules of Evidence, but you omitted the Media Rules of Evidence, which are as follows:

Rule 401: Relevance Defined

All evidence that President Bush is an idiot, incompetent, corrupt, a religious zealot, favoring the rich, or leading the worst economy in the history of the world is relevant, no matter the news story you're ostensibly reporting on. Evidence contradicting such a worldview is irrelevant for all purposes.

Rule 402: Relevant evidence admissible and to be beaten to death

(1) Unless otherwise provided for in these Rules or in the personal agenda of your editor-in-chief, all relevant evidence is admissible, no matter what the news story.

(2) Irrelevant evidence is to be ignored, and if mentioned by lunatic right-wing conspiracy theorists who think that sarin in Iraq is evidence of sarin in Iraq, that irrelevant evidence shall be admissible as evidence of the lunacy of those same right-wing conspiracy theorists.

Rule 403: Relevant evidence admissible in spite of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, or later contradiction

The possibility of unfair prejudice or confusion of issues shall have no impact on the relevance of the evidence, or on the admissibility of same. Later contradiction of relevant evidence, even if well-documented and incontrovetible, is to be rigorously ignored as irrelevant.

Rule 404: Evidence of prior crimes relevant when they refer to Republicans, irrelevant when the refer to Democrats

(a)(1) All evidence of prior crimes, bad acts, mistakes, changes of opinion, bad haircuts, humiliating moments, gaffes, or stuff that people just made up is both relevant and admissible against Republicans, under all circumstances, no matter how dubious the reliability or probative value of that evidence.

(2) All evidence of prior crimes, bad acts, mistakes, changes of opinion, bad haircuts, falling off of snowboards or bicycles, war crimes, letting girls drown while contemplating future political career, membership in the Ku Klux Klan, accusing Latinos of being racist white men, lying to Congress under oath, or general douchebaggery is neither relevant nor admissible as against Democrats, although the same shall be admissible in all cases against the right-wing fanatics to demonstrate their fanaticism and fascism.

Rule 405: Reputation and Character evidence

Evidence of reputation in the community shall be inadmissible as against Democrats, because the ghastly poor can't reasonably be expected to come into contact with John Kerry enough to really understand his depth and nuance anyway. All evidence of reputation or character, when it tends to demonstrate ordinary human weaknesses or mistakes, shall be admissible against Republicans, and shall be conclusive proof that they are, in fact, worse than Hitler.

There's an old saying, "You string enough pearls together, sooner or later you have a necklace."

Aaron,
Can I quote that on my blog?

In securites analysis, there is a term called mosaic theory. An analyst's job is to collect as many bits of data on a company as he can, legally, and then massage these bits into an opinion on the company's stock.

In the course of collecting the bits, the analyst may come to a conclusion that would create the appearance that he had inside information.

He didn't, of course, and this theory is in place to protect him.

This news of a common banker between Saddam and Usama is just another "tile" in the mosaic, but the picture becomes clearer every day.

BTW, employment just came out:

May - +248K
April - revised to +346K
March - revised to +353K

Paul Krugman has a ringing in his ears...and that ringing is COWBELL!!!

Nathan,

Of course you may, as may anyone else. But the more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that only lawyers/law students will really get it. BTW, I found out this week that I got an A- in Evidence. I wonder what I would have gotten if I had paid attention in class...