If you want something to be true, you might eventually find evidence to support your view. But you'll be (dis)missing a whole bunch of other evidence that may go against your beliefs. "Science proves it."
So it's a shame that Charles Clarke is going on faith rather than evidence when it comes to the connectedness of various bombers. Perhaps this is in response to Saturday's story in the Independent (reg required now, but see this article which seems to mirror it) about an MI5/MI6/GCHQ/Police inquiry into the links finding, well, none.
Yet despite "the biggest anti-terrorist investigation held in the country", Clarkey still holds out. Is there any point to these inquiries if the government continue to ignore them?
And doesn't Charles' attitude hold a certain resemblance to previous "certainties"?