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.
-So the Iraqi government has no idea what it is doing, so it has to get all it’s intelligence (about their own internal affairs) from Afghanistan?

-If the US knew about the link with OBL, than where is the evidence? Why is bush suppressing evidence that supports his case?

" I think we all know what that adds up to: Bush was right."

my own belief says that someone wants to kill you, take their word for it - We didn't do that with OBL and we paid the price. I would suppect as more and more of the documents gets translated, the Liberal's losers like Kos kiddies are going to have more egg on their face than they already dto

The left is so cemented in their cult-like beliefs that are based on little more than vehement hatred of Bush, that you could have Sadam Hussein and OBL admit that they were working together, along with photographs, video tape, memos, and all kinds of other witnesses and evidence, and it would all be denied by the left.

The left has a huge problem. They are morally and intellectually bankrupt, which makes them complete fools, unable and unwilling to grasp anything that would wake them up or bring them out of their cult.

I was going to post and then I read NDinformer's comments. All I can say is: MegaDittos.

I love the way that Matt, left this out:
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.)

Barney... I find the editor's note puzzling, because it seems to deny everything that was stated in the article. I'm curious as to how the editor came to that conclusion considering the information presented in the documents.

Frankly, to me, it sounds like he/she is trying to mitigate the damage to their cause... sticking their fingers in their ears and shouting "LA, LA, LA, LA, LA" at the top of their lungs.

Page 128: On November 4, 1998, the US Attorney for the Southern District of New York unsealed its indictment of Bin Ladin, charging him with conspiracy to attack U.S. defense installations. The indictment also charged that al Qaeda had allied itself with Sudan, Iran, and Hezbollah. The original sealed indictment had added that al Qaeda had “reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.” This passage led (Richard) Clarke, who for years had read intelligence reports on Iraqi-Sudanese cooperation on chemical weapons, to speculate to Berger that a large Iraqi presence at chemical facilities in Khartoum was “probably a direct result of the Iraq-Al Qaida agreement” Clarke added that VX precursor traces found near al Shifa were the “exact formula used by Iraq”.

CIA Director George Tenet’s October 7, 2002 letter to Congress, which asserted:

Our understanding of the relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda is evolving and is based on sources of varying reliability. Some of the information we have received comes from detainees, including some of high rank.

We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda going back a decade.

Credible information indicates that Iraq and Al Qaeda have discussed safe haven and reciprocal nonaggression.

Since Operation Enduring Freedom, we have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of Al Qaeda members, including some that have been in Baghdad.

We have credible reporting that Al Qaeda leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire WMD capabilities. The reporting also stated that Iraq has provided training to Al Qaeda members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs.

Iraq's increasing support to extremist Palestinians coupled with growing indications of relationship with Al Qaeda suggest that Baghdad's links to terrorists will increase, even absent U.S. military action.

...We have credible reporting that Al Qaeda leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire WMD capabilities. The reporting also stated that Iraq has provided training to Al Qaeda members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs... Posted by: theblksheepwasright

Black are you completely ignorant?

Headline: The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq.

A January 29, 2003 CIA report, "Iraqi Support for Terrorism," discusses the lack of "evidence of completed training," and says most of the reports of training "do not make clear whether training" was "actually implemented." It indicates that some number of the reports appeared to be based on "hearsay," and that others were "simple declarative accusations of Iraqi-al Qa'ida complicity with no substantiating detail or other information that might help us corroborate them."

Specifically, the DIA concluded the following in February 2002, which has never previously been publicly disclosed:
“This is the first report from Ibn al-Shaykh in which he claims Iraq assisted al-Qaida’s CBRN [Chemical, Biological, Radiological or Nuclear] efforts. However, he lacks specific details on the Iraqis involved, the CBRN materials associated with the assistance, and the location where training occurred. It is possible he does not know any further details; it is more likely this individual is intentionally misleading the debriefers (emphasis added). Ibn al-Shaykh has been undergoing debriefs for several weeks and may be describing scenarios to the debriefers that he knows will retain their interest.”
In February 2002, the DIA stated the following, which has remained classified until now:
“Saddam’s regime is intensely secular and is wary of Islamic revolutionary movements. Moreover, Baghdad is unlikely to provide assistance to a group it cannot control.”

I don't need the "editors" to tell me what I should think. Just let me read the documents myself and draw my own conclusions. Also, it's rich that the media will use unconfirmed sources all day long to push their agenda but then get holier than thou about unconfirmed sources in the documents.

Today, I read, that David Gregory once again showed himself to be the Bush-hater and loser of all time. He asked McClellan if Bush had started the Iraqi assault yesterday to draw attention away from his bad poll numbers and try to turn public opinion around on the war. There is something rotten about the press these days.

Yeah, the same commision that had Jamie gorelick on it, & ignored the able danger operations! Oh yah, there credible! Maybe if you libs came up with better sources than the tainted U.N. and the 9/11 commission you would have better luck! As it stands you can continue to kiss our as.es!

Oh Barneyg2000 would say the world was flat if the 911 commission said it was so.

9/11 commission didn't have access to these zillion documents to base their opinion on, if they did, they wouldn't need translated, now would they? 9/11 commission ends up looking like fools

9/11 commission didn't have access to these zillion documents ...Hey paul, neither did the bush administration! The documents were taken AFTER the invasion.

better sources than the tainted U.N. bear, how about the DOD and CIA? I sourced those as well.

LOL. Are you really questioning the credibility and competence of the 9/11 commision, while maintaining the utmost competence in the REST of the federal government, the part which coincidently doesn't contradict your position? Are you completely insane? How can you put all of your weight behind the government and then when they aren't acting in your particular interest come to sea change? Don't you have trouble talking to people that don't live in Kansas?

Steve, you make about as much sense as.......jamie gorelick being on the Bi-partisan(ha!) 911/commission! Facts are Facts boyz, fact is there is plenty of evidence-past & present that Iraq....no let me rephrase that, Saaddam was in contact and cooberation with Al-quaeda aaaaannnnnnndddddd........... wait for it, wait for it, that's right there WERE WMD's in Iraq & talked about by Saaddam and his cronies! You guys need to quit living in denial! It's doing way more damage than you can percieve!!!

Just a thought that popped into my head. Has anyone ever wondered if the Al-Qaida detainees had pre-planned to tell us they had ties to Iraq to draw our military over there and thus leave our borders under-secured? I mean we know Bin Laden isn't an idiot.

To bearman's comment, I was trying to find where steve said there was no WMD but I can't see it. You are right, he obviously DID have WMD's at one time. I think the point most in government have made, however, is that he did not have nukes, and he did not have anthrax, and though he did have some stockpiles of nerve gas, he did not have a mode to deliver them to the US. I believe the longest range missiles he had could only reach as far as Israel. Are we doing this all to protect Israel? I certainly hope not.