UK Newspaper Says Documents Link Bin Laden to Iraq (The Telegraph Gets Another HUGE Scoop!)

Reuters ^ | April 26, 2003

[Tribune7]

Oh well. I guess the WSJ editorial page needs a token. Or a weekly laugh.

You make good point though. There are some hard-core leftys who write for the Journal news section which is why a lot of news stories get broken by the editorial writers.

[PGalt]

Thanks. Iraq, not only part of the axis of evil, it appears to be the engine and transmission of evil.

[bobzeetwin]

Drudge reporting that the French gave Iraq information on dealings with USA.

[flamefront]

From Drudge:

NEWSPAPERS: DOCS SHOW IRAQ/AL- QAIDA LINK
X X X X X
FRANCE BRIEFED SADDAM ON PRIVATE MEETINGS WITH U.S.

Therefore by implication, France supports Al Qaeda.

[William McKinley]

I'm looking forward to the war crimes tribunals, which should be taking place from around the time of the Iowa caucuses and continuing through the Democrat convention into November...

[HoustonCurmudgeon]

Dammit. I was hoping you were on vacation and wouldn't see this.

Can't take vacation NOW ... election week then OTC!

Now about those 61 beers ... how about you just buy several rounds at the next H.A.T. meeting.

[HoustonCurmudgeon]

It's getting difficult to keep count

Not really, I just keep picking random numbers of increasing size.

[Randjuke]

Of course, the Saddamophiles will claim this is another forgery, just as they have with every other incriminating document that has surfaced.

I have to think you're right - the "anti-war" folks are unlikely to acept any evidence as enough, whether it be related to WMD, Al-Queda or Saddam's atrocities. They've essentially painted themselves into a corner and will refuse to come out for any reason.

[Miss Marple]

Perhaps when the indictments start to be issued, they will begin to realize the truth.

[Southack]

These documents are very pleasant (at least, for them to be made public is pleasant), however, I suspect that we've known all along that Hussein was backing al-qaeda due to Ramsi Yousef's known Iraq/al-Qaeda/WTC Bombing back in 1993.

The connection that I want to see made public, however, is that of Hussein to Palestinians, in particular, the PFLP (aka Black September). The payments from Hussein to Palestinian martyrs (or at least, to their families), are just too overwhelming (evidentiary) to overlook, and I can't help but think that the connection goes deeper than mere money for anti-Israeli terror.

An Arafat to Hussein to PFLP to 9/11 connection would force even the recalcitrant UN to smack down the Intifada against the Israelis...and you know that the tool for the smackdown would be the U.S. military, something that even uneducated Palestinians understand is unstoppable.

As a betting man, I'd even go so far as to speculate that the Clinton administration had to keep the McViegh/OKC bombing a "domestic" issue due to some as yet unknown (by the public) connection to Palestinians. After all, Clinton could only get the Nobel Peace Prize if he brought peace to the Middle East, something that would incent him to coverup PFLP involvement, if there was any such actual involvement back then.

There are simply too many events that can be explained if one knows that the PFLP was an Iraqi-financed player. Such an explanation would wrap up nearly every loose end that is currently outstanding.

But who knows, I could be wrong, or worse, Arafat's luck might even continue to hold up.

[Mind-numbed Robot]

In light of the many excellent observations you have made, I myself have wondered from the beginning about the nonchalant attitude of Rumsfield, et al., concerning the looting. The fires, the stealing, the total trashing of records all seemed unnecessary destruction of valuable information that may possibly be needed for postwar justification and intelligence about other countries. Just saying, "Oh, let them go. Boys will be boys.", seemed awfully naive.

In retrospect I am assuming this bunch, the Bush administration, is not that dumb. I can only guess that somehow they already had all they needed from intelligence and inside sources. Nothing else makes sense to me.

[BARLF]

But the ransacking of the Iraqi National Museum Whitehouse by expresidents, Bill & Hill shows that no action was taken in response

[Allan]

Bump

[swheats]

But it should be a source of grave embarrassment to the British and American governments that it has taken a newspaper, trawling through the files in a burnt-out building, to finish the job.

You just can't please the media. You give 'em an all expense paid trip, protection and a mission; and they still can't seem to just report the bombshell. Journalists have to whine and complain about how it wasn't done right.

[Alamo-Girl]

Interesting... Thanks for the heads up!

[InterceptPoint]

We keep getting these newstories about this or that document discovered by this or that reporter that turns out to be really hot stuff. This leads me to this image of a bunch of reporters digging through Iraqi files that SHOULD be secured by American forces.

Something is wrong with this picture.

Surely we are not stupid enough to fail to guard these offices and buildings and to guarantee the security of documents that could point to the holy grail (WMD), confirm war crimes, help locate the old man and many other things of interest to the U.S. Government. Something just doesn't add up here. This doesn't look like your normally smooth CIA operation in good old Baghdad. Could it be that we are leaking these documents to friendly reporters.

Nah, we would never do that.

[redhead]

All this news is coming so fast that I am flabbergasted. We couldn't have prayed for a better windfall than the information that is dropping into our (American) laps with these documents. May there be millions more...

Oh. And, BUMP!

[cgk]

Nice catch! bttt

[Fishtalk]

This is some excellent reporting and writing. Kudos to the Telegraph. Would that American papers would do so well.

But, hey, maybe it's true. But again, I just don't think so.

All of those incriminating papers I simply do not believe were found at random, by some enterprising reporting sifting through the ashes.

I believe copies of these papers were in posession of someone, somewhere. Maybe one of the many in the deck of cards that the coalition captured.

Then the copies were sent to the British newspapers, interestingly enough, which published them after sending a reporter they liked to go and sort through the rubble at the Information Ministry....go quick, it's left unguarded just for you. Who knows what the reporter found, maybe some charred papers which the home office said were fine, we have good copies right here.

I think the plan to release this information via British newspapers had already been agreed on by Bush and Blair before the war. They both decided that when the information was found, a way would be found to funnel it to British newspapers. I don't know why, maybe it's what Blair wanted after the pounding he got by the public.

The Times and the other one, forget the name, agreed to make it look like the papers were accidentally "found". The papers required that they be able to say that their reporter found them and deny any governmental aid.

If these papers had been found by the coalition, who would have believed their authenticity? As it is, so far it is only the wise I who has figured out the truth.

Okay, maybe it's a wrong-headed idea but you can paint me green and put me on a stick if I believe some upshot reporter found these internationally important papers by sifting through the wet and dirty rubble of a bombed out Iraqi Information Ministry.

Your mileage may vary.

[votelife]

looking forwad to W's next national address...where he can rip into Al Quaida Saddam (and the Dems without clearly saying it) Imagine the Dems rebuttal speech...

uh, uh, Go Bush!