If you want more information on this subject, go to the Weekly Standard web site (weeklystandard.com) and do a search on pretty much anything written by Stephen F. Hayes. A lot of information on this subject--at least nine articles, of which only one or two have seen wide distribution.

You would second-guess the conclusions of US Intelligence? Why do you hate America so much?

This article lays out a pretty devastating case for the Saddam/terrorism connection.
http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock200310210934.asp

Bush is probably witholding this information until the timing is right to maximally embarass the democratic candidate.

Good one, HC. Now, do you have something cogent to add?

Surely the biggest puzzle of the war is the decided reluctance of the Bush Administration to highlight the connections between Iraq and Al Queda. The backpedaling from Cheney's vague comments when he told Mr. Russert in an interview that he could understand why the American People would believe that Saddam was linked to 9/11 was absolutely stunning. Both Donald Rumsfeld and President Bush made sure to throw cold water on even the appearance that anyone in the Administration believed the linkage existed.

Nevertheless the links exist, Edward Epstein
http://www.edwardjayepstein.com/index.htm
himself went to the Czech Republic to understand the evidence of the meeting of Atta and Al Ani. He states on his site that the meetings took
place and that not only had Atta gone in April but he had also apparently gone several other times as well.

About the Jet at Salmon Pak the Marine 1st Division reported took Salmon Pak and did in fact discover a terrorist training base as reported by several defectors. As well as the terror training base they discovered the Aircraft that had been used for training. Saddam said it was to train his Anti Terror Squads...pretty funny.

I believe that what is happening in the Administration is a huge bureaucratic war is being waged and there may be parts of our government basically a bit out of control. It would be difficult if you think about it, to fire some of the characters involved when you consider of what sort of damage they could do if they werent being restrained by being in the Government.

PAPADOC

You expect liberals who still deny Alger Hiss' guilt to own up to the obvious and numerous contacts between Saddam and Al Qaeda? People who still swear those nice Rosenbergs would never have betrayed atomic secrets to the Soviets? Or who speak of gangster Fidel Castro as a "source of inspiration to the world"?

You are dealing with people who have constructed a world of their own as they want it to be, and there is nothing that will ever change their minds, such as they are.

Spikey and Hosenball are more or less hacks when it comes to the subject of the connection between Iraq and al-Qaeda - they bought Shadi Abdallah's testimony to German authorities (which even the Germans didn't believe) hook, line, and sinker because it played to their anti-administration biases.

Here's my thoughts on the Feith memo and the Isikoff/Hosenball responses to both it and the Telegraph story on Abu Nidal:

http://windsofchange.net/archives/004286.html
http://www.regnumcrucis.blogspot.com/2003_11_23_regnumcrucis_archive.html#106979903100963270
http://www.regnumcrucis.blogspot.com/2003_12_14_regnumcrucis_archive.html#107177394802744422

Just my own $0.02.

Some sort of cooperation between AQ and Iraq seems reasonable; there is evidence of same, and not only that summarized in the Hayes article (see DCI letter to Senate committe); the very reasonable concern that such cooperation (with AQ or others) might in the future include unconventional weapons technology was the key reason Saddam was taken down.

With all that as background, it still seems unlikely Iraq was involved with or knew about 9/11. Why? There was no need -- the AQ playbook relied on surprise, not esoteric tools or training available only from a state collaborator.

AQ's operational security for 9/11 was hermetic -- naturally, since surprise and novelty were the key elements. Seems unlikely either Iraq or Iran (per reports this week) were let in on the secret.

It may yet be shown that Iraq did indeed have a role in 9/11 -- it just seems unlikely and illogical.

None of which bears in the slightest on the decision to effect regime change in Baghdad, which was a prudent judgement call given the reality revealed by 9/11 -- whether there was an operational AQ-Iraq link or not.

You know we have a real problem when the Government isn't talking and the media doesn't care to ask. Keep up the good work, Eric.

I can only second that. Keep up the good work. By the way, Arthur Silber links to a contest where a small number of blogs have been nominated as the best Non-Liberal (i.e., Non-Leftist) blog. I voted for Arthur, but I didn't see you listed, so I put in a good word for you as well. In my opinion, yours is the best blog in the blogosphere that I have yet seen.

I believe that the Atta meeting in Praque, the testimony of at least 5 defectors (according to James Woolsey) who described how Salmon Pak was used to train "Arabs" on how to take over planes without weapons, the quality of Anthrax delivered to the Senate, Saddams attempts to kill former President Bush all point to Iraqis State involvement.

Furthermore I dont believe its rational to assume that Al Queda would recieve the sorts of funding, logistical support, and training that Saddam provided then turn around and surprise its main benefactor with an attack of such magnitude that it would be certain to attract violent attention by the US. Can you imagine the phone call of Bin Laden to Saddam? Hey Saddy babeee, guess what we just killed upwards of 6,000 people and caused the two tallest buildings in NYC to collapse, just thought you might want to DUCK. Im joking of course but is it rational to assume that Saddam would lend his Weapons such as he had to an outfit that would surprise him with a disaster like that? I doubt it.

I also had an article on that Newsweek pair of bumpkins Isikoff/Hosenball Fisking that bunch of nonsense.

http://www.papadoc.net/2003_11_16_dregs#106937039338082215

PAPADOC

LOL! If I want the truth about something, I'm not going to read the puppet propoganda press of one of the political parties! That's just the Party commissars giving marching orders to their apparatchniks (the Weakly Standard and the Nuterly Review, that is).

Here's the thing, people. Everything you read in the press -- *ANY* press -- is a lie. It doesn't matter whether it's a lie you agree with or not, it's still a lie. I've been interviewed by reporters twice in my life. Both times, what appeared in print had everything to do with the reporter's biases, and nothing to do with what I told the reporter.

If you believe it's true because it was in the Weakly Standard (or in the New Yoke Times or Washington Post Hole, for that matter), I have a bridge in Brooklyn that I'd love to sell to you. Arriving at truth with all these damned liars about isn't easy, requiring gathering info from a variety of sources, and trying to sort out the bull**** from stuff that makes sense. There is no (ZERO) reliable source of news in America right now -- which is a damned shame, because it sure is a PITA trying to piece together the truth from the few little shards that make it through the grist mill of what we laughably call a "free press" in this country.

After much reading of hundreds of sources, including correspondence with actual Iraqis in a better position to know than those of us who are here, what I've arrived at is this: al Qaeda had an agreement with Saddam wherein, if al Qaeda would quit trying to kill Saddam, Saddam would quit trying to kill al Qaeda operatives. It seems clear, from what's been corroborated by both the lefty press and the righty press, that al Qaeda operatives could move around in Iraq relatively freely.

On the other hand, there has been no credible evidence that Saddam ever gave a single dime to al Qaeda, or ever helped them operationally. The only "evidence" to such effect has been published in right wing journals (i.e., professional liars -- like all reporters) and I can find no independent corroboration anywhere else, whether from Iraqi sources or even official U.S. government reports. Saddam didn't even give money to Palestinian terrorists -- he gave money to their widows and orphans after they blew themselves up (thus increasing the average IQ of the planet, BTW), but there are no credible reports that he gave money to the terrorists themselves.

Now, you can point me to all the Party press you want, whether it's the Weakly Standard or the Nutterly Review or any of the other Party doctrinal organs, but unless you can find corroborating evidence elsewhere (official government sources, overseas reporting, correspondence with actual people who are in a position to know), I'll just call it like I see it -- just more babbling by a bunch of paid liars (reporters).

A link to newsmax? Jeez. Give me a break, newsmax makes FOX look like Pravda.

A link to newsmax? Jeez. Give me a break, newsmax makes FOX look like Pravda.

Hey, I'd link to Pravda (or any other "Party commissars") too! I did not say these stories were all true either; please reread the title of this post.

I am a bit puzzled over where people get the idea that I believe everything I read -- least of all because it is in the Weekly Standard. In this blog (like so many other blogs), I merely try to make sense out of whatever I can find.

But I am quite taken with the BadTux pronouncement: "Everything you read in the press -- *ANY* press -- is a lie."

Knowing that certainly makes life easier!

I too find it somewhat odd that Bush is not playing up Saddam's connection to Al Qaeda more. But then, I think I see the answer.

Implicit in all the critism from the left prior to, and now after, the war is that Saddam should not have been removed from power. But actually saying that would be detrimental to the left as it would invalidate its image as a "defender of the little guy".

So, they have instead argued legalities, argued that the intel was erronous, or some such, without having to explicitly state what they would have done differently, or even the consequences of any alternative.

There were many reasons for supporting the war. Some for oil, for Halliburton. Some to protect another country in the region. Some, for the violations of the 1991 armistice, and as a debt of honor owed to the Shia and Kurds who rebelled after the 1st gulf war. Some, as one co-worker put it, based on the "prison yard theory of international politics" sometimes you have to smack a bad mofo down to keep the rest of the inmates off your back. Some, as a means of beginning a democratic revolution throughout the Arabian world, and thereby make them successful and prosperous, which would reduce the threat to the US. And some because of Saddam's WMD and connection to terrorism

And some because of Saddam's terror against his own people. To put an end to the rape rooms, children's prisons and mass graves.

None of the reasons I have just gone through are exclusive to any other. And in the end, regardless of how much money Halliburton makes, or whether or not Israel is safer, the Iraqi people are free of Saddam's tyranny. Even if the US is no safer, even if such a charge is validated, the fact remains that for the Iraqi people, Saddam's removal is a good thing.

So, by ignoring publically all these connections between Saddam and Al Qaeda, and the recent comments by outgoing weapon's inspector David Kay, it allows the liberals to move their argument to its natural conclusion. And thereby face the fundamental contradiction in their own principles.

In short, it allows the left to make the argument that would publically identify them as supporters of tyrants and dictators. Which in turn would identify them as frauds, and quite possibly, traitors. At least, it would generate a lot of soul searching within the left.

It would help the Republicans in November, but also it would help the Democrats gain some semblance of sanity and a return to its core ideals and principles. Instead of this apparent abandonment because the guy doing it is a Republican.

Re: Not believeing anything you read in the press. Naturally more than one source is a good thing. Who says reports of a Al Queda Saddam Link up are only reported in the US Press, much less the {EVIL NEO CON} Press? My sources for believing that Al Queda and Saddam are linked range from Janes News to the Middle East Intelligence Bulletin, to Washington Post, from there to the Telegraph, to Global Security the sources are wideranging and they present evidence that the link indeed existed.

To those who say this is an evil plot to gain access to the ME Oil Fields, we had them lock stock and barrel 12 years ago and gave them back, and if this were some sort of evil plot why not plant the WMD's? Anyone evil enough to plot a war under false pretenses is evil enough to plant evidence.

Finally the puzzle isnt that the Liberal Media doesnt want to admit to the links of Al Queda and Saddam, after all to these people the danger is past and its back to figuring out how to defeat George Bush. No the real puzzle is WHY the Bush Administration doesnt highlight the evidence and sell the invasion strictly on those terms. I have read that its because the British forced Bush to pursue the WMD route. Why?

For anyone wanting to see a fairly comprehensive list of links visit my blog. These are just links to stories, you make up your own mind.

PAPADOC

Can anyone dig up news articles from just before Gulf War I where Saddam promised to retaliate against the US directly? I haven't been able to dig up any links to the story, but I vividly remember the public scorn for Saddam's threats.

"Everything you read in the press -- *ANY* press -- is a lie."

That's true. I don't believe *ANYTHING* I read in the press. I believe *ONLY* in what I read in the Gospel of John and the Book of Revelation. Or in the Elder Edda.