My understanding is there's at least as much evidence pointing to Syria as to Libya on that, but it was important at the crucial point to mend a few fences with Syria because of how things were going with Iraq at that time, and putting Libya in the frame made a lot of practical sense. And the evidence against the two guys tried was pretty shaky, and no stronger against the convicted one than the acquitted one.

The impression seems that Gadaffi preferred to work through intermediaries, as exemplified by his practical help for the IRA.

The thing is, we're on the outside, it's all speculation. Which is why we should never get too heated about this kind of stuff. Thirty years down the road, if we are still around, maybe we'd get a clearer picture of the truth of what has been going on.

General reaction seems to be that people didn't think of Libya as having anything significant in the way of Weapons of Mass Destruction.