That's some pretty creative reading between the lines you're doing there,while ignoring the text that states quite clearly "found no evidence".Of course,that's of little significance for those to whom absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Pick up (and read) a copy of Ghost Wars by Steve Coll is you really want to learn about state complicity in international terrorism,particularly as it pertains to Afghanistan,bin Laden,and al Qaeda.

Krugman's statement was that the Iranians "nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11". If he wanted to say that they were not deliberately in on the plot - the "no evidence" part you point to - he could have done so. What he is ignoring is their knowing assistance to Al Qaeda, which, in turn, facilitated the attacks.

You can argue the point all you like, but you can't defend Krugman. He isn't interested in arguing that the Iranian role is overrated. He's interested in saying it's a right-wing fiction, and to make that claim he has to ignore the actual evidence.

Please point me to some factual evidence of the Iranians facilitating the 9/11 attacks.
A more direct connection can be made between the 9/11 attacks and Jimmy Carter,Zbigniew Brzezinski, Ronald Reagan, & William Casey,as well as Saudi and Pakistani intelligence,than between the Iranians and 9/11.
It's deliberately and dangerously inflammatory to be making specious links between Iran and 9/11 at a time when the administration is beating the war drums (again),similar to the (non-existent) link they successfully created in the public mind between Iraq and 9/11 prior to their initiation of the ongoing debacle there.

The 9/11 Comm. did NOT say Iran helped the attack.....jeez. CIA agents met with KGB agents.....does that make the US complicit in the Gulag?

Honesty (or compassion) aint a real priority for this blog....

Honesty (or compassion) aint a real priority for this blog....

Nor the columns Crank links to. I unpack the bullshit in the looting piece here.

From Maguire's own excerpt:

"...We have found no evidence that Iran or Hezbollah was aware of the planning for what later became the 9/11 attack. At the time of their travel through Iran, the al Qaeda operatives themselves were probably not aware of the specific details of their future operation....

As far as Krugman is concerned, the Iran/9-11 topic is an afterthought to the column, not central to it. He mentions it only as a preemptive strike against the use of a link to justify military action in Iran, like was done with Iraq.

His column is about fear-mongering, and anyone who is hyping non-existant links or over-drawing conclusions about Iran is doing exactly that.

How's that for defending Krugman.