Via Drudge, under the headline, “REPORT: Bin Laden sought ‘operational’ relationship with Saddam for attacks on U.S. troops… “:
Following are the ABC News Investigative Unit’s summaries of five documents from Saddam Hussein’s government, which have been released by the U.S. government.
The documents discuss Osama bin Laden, weapons of mass destruction, al Qaeda and more.
The full documents can be found on the U.S. Army Foreign Military Studies Office Web site.
Note: Document titles were added by ABC News.
“Osama Bin Laden Contact With Iraq”
A newly released pre-war Iraqi document indicates that an official representative of Saddam Hussein’s government met with Osama bin Laden in Sudan on February 19, 1995 after approval by Saddam Hussein. Bin Laden asked that Iraq broadcast the lectures of Suleiman al Ouda, a radical Saudi preacher, and suggested “carrying out joint operations against foreign forces” in Saudi Arabia. According to the document, Saddam’s presidency was informed of the details of the meeting on March 4, 1995 and Saddam agreed to dedicate a program for them on the radio. The document states that further “development of the relationship and cooperation between the two parties to be left according to what’s open (in the future) based on dialogue and agreement on other ways of cooperation.” The Sudanese were informed about the agreement to dedicate the program on the radio.
The report then states that “Saudi opposition figure” bin Laden had to leave Sudan in July 1996 after it was accused of harboring terrorists. It says information indicated he was in Afghanistan. “The relationship with him is still through the Sudanese. We’re currently working on activating this relationship through a new channel in light of his current location,” it states.
(Editor’s Note: This document is handwritten and has no official seal. Although contacts between bin Laden and the Iraqis have been reported in the 9/11 Commission report and elsewhere, (e.g. the 9/11 report states “Bin Ladn himself met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in Khartoum in late 1994 or early 1995) this document indicates the contacts were approved personally by Saddam Hussein.
It also indicates the discussions were substantive, in particular that bin Laden was proposing an operational relationship, and that the Iraqis were, at a minimum, interested in exploring a potential relationship and prepared to show good faith by broadcasting the speeches of al Ouda, the radical cleric who was also a bin Laden mentor.
The document does not establish that the two parties did in fact enter into an operational relationship. Given that the document claims bin Laden was proposing to the Iraqis that they conduct “joint operations against foreign forces” in Saudi Arabia, it is interesting to note that eight months after the meeting  on November 13, 1995  terrorists attacked Saudi National Guard Headquarters in Riyadh, killing 5 U.S. military advisors. The militants later confessed on Saudi TV to having been trained by Osama bin Laden.)
“Osama bin Laden and the Taliban”
Document dated Sept. 15, 2001
An Iraqi intelligence service document saying that their Afghani informant, who’s only identified by a number, told them that the Afghani Consul Ahmed Dahastani claimed the following in front of him:
That OBL and the Taliban are in contact with Iraq and that a group of Taliban and bin Laden group members visited Iraq.
That the U.S. has proof the Iraqi government and “bin Laden’s group” agreed to cooperate to attack targets inside America.
That in case the Taliban and bin Laden’s group turn out to be involved in “these destructive operations,” the U.S. may strike Iraq and Afghanistan.
That the Afghani consul heard about the issue of Iraq’s relationship with “bin Laden’s group” while he was in Iran.
At the end, the writer recommends informing “the committee of intentions” about the above-mentioned items. The signature on the document is unclear.
(Editor’s Note: The controversial claim that Osama bin Laden was cooperating with Saddam Hussein is an ongoing matter of intense debate. While the assertions contained in this document clearly support the claim, the sourcing is questionable  i.e. an unnamed Afghan “informant” reporting on a conversation with another Afghan “consul.” The date of the document  four days after 9/11  is worth noting but without further corroboration, this document is of limited evidentiary value.)
“Election Campaign Laws in France”
Documents dated July-August 1999
Correspondence regarding election campaigns in France. This includes a document from the Iraqi intelligence service classified as “secret,” ordering the translation of important parts of a 1997 report about campaign financing laws in France. It also includes a document from the foreign minister’s office indicating the report was attached. The attached translated report included very detailed information about all the regulations regarding financing of election campaigns in France. Translation was done by someone called “Salam Abdul Karim Mohammed.”
(Editor’s Note: This is an intriguing document which suggests Saddam Hussein’s regime had a strong interest in the mechanics and legalities of financial contributions to French politicians. Several former French politicians are implicated in receiving oil vouchers from Iraq under the U.N. Oil for Food program.)
“Hiding Docs from the U.N. Team”
Document dated March 23, 1997
A letter from the Iraqi intelligence service to directors and managers advising them to follow certain procedures in case of a search by the U.N. team, including:
Removing correspondence with the atomic energy and military industry departments concerning the prohibited weapons (proposals, research, studies, catalogs, etc.).
Removing prohibited materials and equipment, including documents and catalogs and making sure to clear labs and storages of any traces of chemical or biological materials that were previously used or stored.
Doing so through a committee which will decide whether to destroy the documents.
Removing files from computers.
The letter also advises them on how they should answer questions by U.N. team members. It says the intelligence service should be informed within one week about the progress made in discarding the documents.
(Editor’s Note: This document is consistent with the Report of the Special Advisor to the Director of Central Intelligence, which described a pattern of deception and concealment on the part of Saddam Hussein’s government towards the U.N. inspectors in the mid to late 90’s. Hussein halted all cooperation with those inspectors and expelled them in October 1998.)
“Al Qaeda Presence in Iraq”
Document dated August 2002
A number of correspondences to check rumors that some members of al Qaeda organization have entered Iraq. Three letters say this information cannot be confirmed. The letter on page seven, however, says that information coming from “a trustworthy source” indicates that subjects who are interested in dealing with al Qaeda are in Iraq and have several passports.
The letter seems to be coming from or going to Trebil, a town on the Iraqi-Jordanian border. Follow up on the presence of those subjects is ordered, as well as comparison of their pictures with those of Jordanian subjects living in Iraq. (This may be referring to pictures of Abu Musaab al Zarqawi and another man on pages 4-6) The letter also says tourist areas, including hotels and rented apartments, should be searched.
(Editor’s note: This document indicates that the Iraqis were aware of and interested in reports that members of al Qaeda were present in Iraq in 2002. The document does not support allegations that Iraq was colluding with al Qaeda.)
All emphases mine.
For those who have consisted chided the Bushies for “not connecting the dots,” I believe it’s time that they themselves at least considered picking up a pencil.
Again, there is no direct proof here that Saddam and UBL had “operational ties,” (so add ABC News to Stephen Hayes, General Sada, et al, as cranks for even looking into such nonsense) but such direct proof can only really come if a smoking gun is found—either a signed contract, or, as a mentioned earlier, perhaps a video of the two men, er, consecrating the bonds of obedience.
However, intriguing findings are coming out of this slow trickle of documents; and whether they prove an operational tie or not, what the DO suggest is that attempts had and were being made to negotiate such a tie.
And if I remember correctly, this was the primary reason for the Bush Doctrine: to prevent the cooperation of rogues states an stateless, embedded terrorist actors, particularly when the stakes (chemical, biological, nuclear) were so high—and given that we are a country that has an open way of life that makes defensive posturing alone an impotent strategy against terrorists who live within our borders and act in those gray areas of our law.
[See, for instance, NSA/FISA “scandal”]
The Left and Kevin Drum’s answer…”so what.”
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_03/008477.php
Let the spin games commence!
The Left knew it all along, of course. They were just waiting until President Kerry’s term in 2004 to trumpet the news.
Ah well, the best laid plans…
(and someone left the italics on again)
slash is missing…
BUSH PLANTED IT IT’S A BAD TRANSLATION IT DOESN’T PROVE ANYTHING NONONONONONONONONO
I’m waiting for actus to tell me what to think…
that said, SusanG *demands* unconditional surrender, by Jeff. She’s rendering him hors de combat.
…
As always, her logic is implacable.
.
hit ‘submit’ instead of ‘preview’
SusanG’s not calling out Jeff by name, but merely as one who was wrong.
Wrong.
||:
Wrong.Wrong.Wrong.Wrong.Wrong.Wrong.Wrong.Wrong.
Wrong.Wrong.Wrong.Wrong.Wrong.Wrong.Wrong.Wrong.
Wrong.Wrong.Wrong.Wrong.Wrong.Wrong.Wrong.Wrong.
Wrong.Wrong.Wrong.Wrong.Wrong.Wrong.Wrong.Wrong.
Wrong.Wrong.Wrong.Wrong.Wrong.Wrong.Wrong.Wrong.
Wrong.Wrong.Wrong.Wrong.Wrong.Wrong.Wrong.Wrong.
Wrong.Wrong.Wrong.Wrong.Wrong.Wrong.Wrong.Wrong.
Wrong.Wrong.Wrong.Wrong.Wrong.Wrong.Wrong.Wrong.
:||
Just ask her.
.
</i>
</i> Did it work?
Guess not.
Sounds like this is the smoking gun, as it were. Will the liberals retract their claim that there was no connection, now? Somehow I doubt it. They’re about as likely to admit that global warming is a hoax with no sound science to support it.
You simply cannot force democracy on another nation at gunpoint.
I guess we need to withdraw from Afghanistan also?
Not to mention (yeah, not original) Germany and Japan?
Anyway, it seems to me that the above is a fundamentally incorrect argument; at least when it is applied to the situation in Iraq.
Democracy (or some rough form of representative self-government) is not being rejected by the Iraqi people. It’s being embraced by the vast majority of Iraqi citizens. Remember the 60-70% turnout in elections? If the Iraqi people did not want to be forced into accepting democracy, why the high turnout?
The people opposing democracy are a small desperate minority of former Baathist regime types along with foreign al-Qaeda fanatics that do no want to join in with the political process. They wish to have total power. None of this stuff about elections or the rule of law or shared power.
We are simply not forcing democracy upon the people of Iraq. They are accepting democracy and are trying to prevent this nascent institution from being destroyed by a small minority that do not wish to live under such a system.
So What?
Blog archives are going to be a bitch for some people.
So what it’s old news and please forget all the stuff we said about Osama hating Saddam and they would never in a million years work together.
Remember the discliamer last week, that such documents have no probitive value?
exactly. SO WHAT.
What difference does it make that you and your friends all interpret some document to seemingly tie osama and saddam together, in some nebulous, hard to prove or define way?
what about the pakistani ties to osama? why isn’t that an issue with you? or do you guys like to support countries just because georgie the little monkey does, even if pakistan sold our ‘triumverate of evil’ enemy, N. Korea, nukular (to quote your idol) technology, which ultimately ended up giving them the bomb. way to go georgie.
the iraq war was a horrendous ‘mistake’ that made our country less safe and more poor. thanks for nothing.
please fix all the crap you guys broke before you get your asses handed to you in the next elections.
Prof. Thierry Meyssan actually proved that the whole 9-11 circus was engineered by rogue rightwing operatives within the Pentagon and the office of the Vice-President…
Professor Meyssan was even banned from entering the US territory for fear of him telling the truth about the Rumsfeldcheneysharon conspiracy… so much for “freedom of speechâ€Â!
Ironically, the storyline of September 11, 2001 echoes in many ways the plot of “The Long Kiss Goodnight†a 1996 action movie with Geena Davis and Samuel Jackson.
In the movie, Samantha Caine (Geena Davis) discovers that her former boss at the Pentagon has allied with some US-trained terrorists in a plot to detonate a chemical bomb in New York, frame a moustached Arab for the crime and thus secure more funding for the Pentagon…
Sounds familiar?
Come on people. If you are going to pretend to be a troll, at least put a little effort into it. I mean, prozacula?
That’s just lame.
look, Dr Victorino de la Vega, can we please have a discussion that doesn’t involve tinfoil?
thanks.
Will the liberals retract their claim that there was no connection, now? Somehow I doubt it.
No, they will move the goalposts, re-define the goalposts and crawl into their time-machines to report first hand accounts Osama-Al Queda/Iraqi meetings were freedom party preparations.
You remember exactly what year that happened and who was in the Oval Office when it happened?
Now you go upstairs and have your momma wash your mouth out with soap, hear.
mr. tomb, I ain’t pretendin. that’s my ‘nom de plume’ if you will.
what about the pakistani ties to osama?
Damn, I took a phone call which interrupted my post.
It’s like clockwork though, isn’t it?
here you go, all googled and served up for you, rls:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Qadeer_Khan
looks like 2003. axis of evil being sold nukular tech by our ‘ally’ in the war on terror.
Wrong verb. Should be alleges. That shit has already been debunked, more than once.
Go shit in your hat.
looks like 2003. axis of evil being sold nukular tech by our ‘ally’ in the war on terror.
And exactly (or somewhere thereabouts) how does this have to do with the reports of Iraq and al-Qaeda working together?
Brief me, please.
Let’s see: Bin Laden/al-Qaeda declares war on the US. Iraq is (reportedly) found to be providing assistance to al-Qaeda, including (again, reportedly) sending 2,000 fighters into Afghanistan to fight us in 2001/2, and the response is to bring up Pakistan?
One of us needs directions.
Goalposts
Lying sack of shit. How about 1995? Now go ask your momma for some more soap.
The whole “Osama could never work with Saddam the apostate” argument has always been the weakest link in the left’s argument against the war, back from the days before the war when they believed Saddam still had weapon stocks too but opposed war against Iraq anyway. The rules of logic were simply against them: it’s simply impossible to prove a negative. But yet it was the only argument they could come up with to rebut the rationale behind pre-emptive military action, and at the end of the day, they were stuck in the same boat as their opponents, the USS We Don’t Really Know for Sure.
If you’re like me and hate the sound of goalposts being ripped from the ground and dragged across the field more than the sound of nails being dragged on a chalkboard, you’d better grab something to bite on fast. The only question now is whether or not the left is going to wind up stuck holding the goalposts with no place to plant them by the time all of these documents are translated.
yours/
peter.
looks like 2003. axis of evil being sold nukular tech by our ‘ally’ in the war on terror.
So Abdul Khan is the government of Pakistan? Damn! Who knew? Thanks prozacula, you’re better than CNN!
And to think, as recently as last week I felt a little bit ashamed of making fun of our esteemed Dr. de la Vega for being a crackpot.
No more. Jesus, what a nutball.
Poor prozacula… S/he evidently thinks there’s even one reader of this blog who isn’t aware of the Khan network – or, not incidentally, of the role the Bush Doctrine is ascribed in bringing it down.
Yup, Bush is the only person in the United States who mispronounces “nuclear.” Not only do we worship him despite it, we worship him because of it.
Prozacula, a map of the region would be helpful at this point. Here are a bunch. Note that Pakistan, an ally if not our ideal best friend, is mighty convenient to Afghanistan. It’s a bit on the realpolitik side to continue our alliance in spite of Khan’s pardon, but honestly, it’s only in the minds of non-neocons that neocons are without nuance… The part of the Wiki entry that deals with the pardon is instructive, too – blackmail is suspected.
Two hours without rebuttal, and then flailing subject-changing and high-altitude moonbattery within moments of one another.
This is one agonizing trickle of documents I might actually enjoy for a change.
I don’t recall any lefties screaming PAKISTAN HAD TO TIES TO 9/11!
What was the question again?
less safe and more poor
More poor?
Pablo
I was thinking that also.
The wiki timeline is lost on Prozac.
IIRC Carter misprounounced nuclear, too.
Not that we want that comparison, either.
Sorry. CNN can’t find the time to mention any of this. There’s been a cruise boat fire, you know. OH! And MoDo said something bad about Rumsfeld. That’s news. Maybe tomorrow CNN can find a little time to even mention that these documents exist.
This stuff is going to be ignored. There’s too much invested in the opposite narrative at this point.
Ironic, given that Carter was a nuclear engineer while he served in the Navy.
Either that, or mispronouncing ‘nuclear’ don’t mean doodley-squat.
And what does this fine example of the reality based community give us for evidence of a conspiracy?
Well, to starters there’s the nutjob who wrote a book claiming a missile hit the Pentagon.
And…?
An action movie. A somewhat enjoyable action movie, true. But still a movie.
And…?
That’s it.
That’s it!?
Yep.
But Saddam hates Islamists becauze he’s sekular so in fackt he is an ally against UBL. Mayhaps he was trying to set up a Sting and put the evil Saddam down for us?
I like to mention the US Civil War, that usually twists them up well enough.
Hmmm.
Frankly I’m rather disappointed in the rather vague and unimpressive leftwing trolls we’ve been getting lately. I’ve thought of going and complaining to the Democratic Party or perhaps DailyKos, but I doubt there’s much talent there either.
It’s all so sad.
I know I’m getting old but what I didn’t realise is that I’m getting old in blogging years too. I can tell this because the leftwing trolls we get now aren’t a shadow of the ones we used to get.
It’s a terrible feeling when you suddenly realise the current crop of leftwing trolls are just so lame. I’m going to get a shot of single malt scotch and go to bed. This is so depressing.
Cry with me my brothers. We’ve gone from leftwing trolls that were giants to … midgets shouting about following a yellow brick road.
It’s all so sad.
Dr. de la Vega, your eloquence is matched only by your naivete.
Has it ever been achieved any other way?
to be far, sometimes it has been forced on a part of a nation by another part…and at sword-point.
And there are a few recent examples where the shift has been almost purely peaceful (the Ukraine, although there are obviously still problems).
But the crux of the “you can’t force democracy by gunpoint” arguement is the idea that “they don’t want to be free”. The problem, however, is that the second statement is a logical absurdity that I am always shocked to hear in serious discourse.
*You simply cannot force democracy on another nation at gunpoint.*
I think this was pointed out but the comment itself speaks volumes about the left’s perception of Iraq.
News to Liberals : ALOT of people actually LIKE democracy and WANT to operate a society under it. I realize, for many of you Che fans, this is difficult to understand but democracy actually gives people more freedom then communism and alot of people, even GASP “brown people” (their words not mine) want democracy and self rule.
Notice how we never get these book-length “Ed. notes”, disclaimers and caveats when, say, Dan Rather reports on Bush’s National Guard service? Or when the Times reports on the NSA–“Ed.’s note: Although we believe that the Times is exempt from the Espionage Act, we have retained counsel…”?
You know we’re really getting somewhere when the wittier commentors to the post actually beat the tin-foil wackos to the punch with their own arguments–and then de-bunk them effortlessly. Looks so gracefull. Like the Mick in his prime.
“You simply cannot force democracy on another nation at gunpoint.”
It reminds me of the old Leftist argument that everyone in the Soviet Bloc wanted a strong whip-hand over them. It was just the wayy those people had always been. They got a bit uncomfortable when you mentioned Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary or the Baltics. But that did not prevent them from sticking to their argument.
Brrrr. I feel old.
Hmmm.
They also very much enjoyed standing in long lines for hours for sandpaper-like toiletpaper.
It must be a cultural thing.
Well, at last we now know the true identity of Dr. de la Vega.
He’s Charlie Sheen!!
Oh, now that’s weird. TW is “john”. Like, well, Charlie Sheen.
Contrary to Drum, Kos, etc., former Dem. Sen. and 9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerry thinks it’s significant and believes we will learn even more from these docs as they are declassified and translated.
I couldn’t decide on the punchline so take your pick:
1. But what does he know?
2. And he served in Vietnam!
Dear God, Dr. V actually stumbled upon the fact that all our neocon plots are based on Geena Davis movies! We must destroy him before we launch Operation Cutthroat Island!!
What a maroon.
TW: yes, as in ”Yes, I meant to spell it that way.
I’m advocating for Operation Earth Girls are Easy, myself.