This is my personal view and comments on the issues and events that I feel a need to talk about or express my view. You don't have to agree, but lets carry on a adult, discussion and maybe you will see it the right way, mine. ;)
NEWLY released documents seized in Iraq immediately after the American invasion in 2003 point to the presence of Al-Qaeda members in the country before the war and moves to hide traces of “chemical or biological materials” from United Nations weapons inspectors.

The documents were posted on the internet as part of a rolling program by the US government to make public the contents of 48,000 boxes of untranslated papers and tapes relating to the workings of Saddam Hussein’s regime. Saddam is said to have routinely taped talks with cabinet members and intelligence chiefs.

John Negroponte, the director of national intelligence, was ordered by President George W Bush to release the material. Hundreds of thousands of previously unseen documents and hundreds of hours of tapes will be placed on the web in the coming weeks.

The first documents to be released offer tantalising clues to possible Iraqi contacts with Al-Qaeda. An Iraqi intelligence report dated September 15, 2001 — four days after the attacks on America — says Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban were in contact with Iraq and Al-Qaeda members had visited the country.

It claims America had proof that the Iraqi government and “Bin Laden’s group” had agreed to co-operate to attack targets in America and that the US might strike Iraq and Afghanistan in retaliation.

Another document from a “trustworthy” source and dated August 2002 claims people with links to Al-Qaeda were in Iraq. There is a picture a few pages later of the Jordanian terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

Documents from 1997 confirm that Saddam was giving UN weapons inspectors the runaround by removing correspondence concerned with “prohibited weapons” and clearing “labs and storages of any traces of chemical or biological materials”.

The transcript of one tape recording shows an official named as Comrade Husayn expressing concern to Saddam that outsiders would find out about imported material, including some from America, apparently for chemical weapons.

“They have a bigger problem with the chemical program than the biological program,” he tells Saddam. “We have not told them that we used it on Iran, nor have we told them about the size or kind of chemical weapons that we produced and we have not told them the truth about the imported material.”

In another taped conversation from the mid-1990s, a man called al-Sahhaf — possibly a former information minister — says: “On the nuclear file, sir, are we saying we disclosed everything? No, we have uncleared problems in the nuclear field.”

Apparently confirming that the nuclear programme had been abandoned, he adds: “Everything is over, but did they know? No, sir, they did not know, not all the methods, not all the means, not all the scientists and not all the places.”

Saddam expelled the UN inspectors from Iraq in 1998.

Bush intervened personally to secure the release of the documents after Bill Tierney, an Arabic-speaking former UN weapons inspector hired by the government to translate

12 hours of Saddam’s tapes, revealed their contents at a private intelligence conference near Washington last month.

On one tape, recorded in the mid-1990s, the Iraqi dictator is heard to say: “Terrorism is coming. I told the Americans . . . and told the British as well . . . that in future there will be terrorism with weapons of mass destruction.”


Comments
on Mar 25, 2006
You realize of course that the left is going to poo-poo this. The right knew this was a "possibility" all along.
on Mar 25, 2006
"Hints" are meaningful or newsworthy only if they support the left's beliefs or otherwise serve to advance their agenda. "Hints" of anything else are to be dismissed as unreliable.

Thanks for the info, Shadow.
on Mar 26, 2006
You realize of course that the left is going to poo-poo this.


In light of Powell's performance in the UN with false evidence, what would you expect? This sudden flood of reports is but another ploy to justify a war that no longer has the people's approval. I indeed shall be surprised if a smoking gun comes out of all this.
on Mar 26, 2006
See what I mean?
on Mar 26, 2006
This is not really news, reports of these documents have been going around for about 3 months now.

The key word from all this is in ShadowWars headline; "hints".

From what I've read about them here Link there has been no definitive link established by these papers linking Al Qaeda and Saddam. And this is coming from a very conservative reporter (Stephen Hayes). It's almost like 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon, bubt with Saddam.
on Mar 26, 2006
From what I've read about them here Link there has been no definitive link established by these papers linking Al Qaeda and Saddam. And this is coming from a very conservative reporter (Stephen Hayes). It's almost like 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon, bubt with Saddam.


Better start doing a little more digging:


The answer to that last question is simple: lots. The CIA has confirmed, in interviews with detainees and informants it finds highly credible, that al Qaeda's Number 2, Ayman al-Zawahiri, met with Iraqi intelligence in Baghdad in 1992 and 1998. More disturbing, according to an administration official familiar with briefings the CIA has given President Bush, the Agency has "irrefutable evidence" that the Iraqi regime paid Zawahiri $300,000 in 1998, around the time his Islamic Jihad was merging with al Qaeda. "It's a lock," says this source. Other administration officials are a bit more circumspect, noting that the intelligence may have come from a single source. Still, four sources spread across the national security hierarchy have confirmed the payment.





The Clinton administration talked about firm evidence linking Saddam Hussein's regime to Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network years before President Bush made the same statements.
The issue arose again this month after the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States reported there was no "collaborative relationship" between the old Iraqi regime and bin Laden.
Democrats have cited the staff report to accuse Mr. Bush of making inaccurate statements about a linkage. Commission members, including a Democrat and two Republicans, quickly came to the administration's defense by saying there had been such contacts.
In fact, during President Clinton's eight years in office, there were at least two official pronouncements of an alarming alliance between Baghdad and al Qaeda. One came from William S. Cohen, Mr. Clinton's defense secretary. He cited an al Qaeda-Baghdad link to justify the bombing of a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan.
Mr. Bush cited the linkage, in part, to justify invading Iraq and ousting Saddam. He said he could not take the risk of Iraq's weapons falling into bin Laden's hands.



Maybe, just maybe you should read this..."especially the time line. Link