Redstate

In the first sentence.  I think even the MSM and Kos would have to concede the collaboration between Saddam and IRAQ in 1999-02. :)

And unfortunately if FOX breaks a story the real dinosaur media will bury it while they form a committee to decide if its harmful to their agenda. The swiftboat vets is the classic example.

Here is a compilation of some recent links regarding the Iraq/al-Qaeda connection and Saddam's WMD's:

Documents Support Saddam-Taliban Connection

June 16, 2006 - FoxNews

Terror Links to Saddam's Inner Circle

June 12, 2006 - FoxNews

Documenting Saddam's Link to Terror

June 11, 2006 - FoxNews

West Point Combating Terrorism Center

pdf of July 26, 2002 letter

Bush Did Not Lie

June 16, 2006 - Frontpagemag

At great risk of embarrassing Russia on the World's stage, it's way past time for the Bush Administration to go public with what it really knows about Saddam's WMD's and the Iraq/al-Qaeda connection.

 very early on.  Salman Park for example was not Saddam's answer to Disneyworld and though details were not all available it was ID'd as a terrorist training center.   If Bush spent half the time Clinton spent on defending his wretched self, and spent it on promoting the increasing info we have, there would be a different public perception of the war and it's causes.

       The media has betrayed the very reason for it's existence, it's legion of dullards believing that they should set the agenda, not just report it.A degree in journalism will do that to you.

       Nonetheless Bush & Co better get their butts in gear, the big '06 is less than five months away.

Slowly but surely, the evidence is coming out.  Saddam was a terrorist.

(http://cantotalk.blogspot.com/2006/06/great-article-about-saddam-and-zarqaw
i.html)

Got it--corrected.  Thanks!!

Slowly but surely, the evidence is coming out.

This a load of bull. You know it, I know it, and everyone on the left knows it!

THIS IS NOT NEW INFORMATION! We have known for 20 years that Saddam Hussein is a terrorist!

The fiction that the left has spun, for NO OTHER REASON than the fact that they hate President George W Bush, that Saddam Hussein was this peace-loving benevolent Groucho Marx, comic opera figure, is nothing short of INSANE!

Sorry, I am not really ranting at you, but at the HYPOCRISY of all the leaders on the left who paid lip-service to how evil Hussein was during the Clinton administration, but like Clinton, did nothing at all about him, except of course pay lip service!

OF COURSE SADDAM HUSSEIN WAS A TERRORIST! The fact that it is even necessary to do a diary suggesting it, is a testament to the entire loss of sanity of our dear friends on the left!

WOW! I feel much better now, for having gotten that off my chest! Oh, by the way, a nice companion piece to this one, would be this one which I penned earlier today.

Isn't this shifting the terms of the debate just a bit? I don't think that anyone has ever much cared whether there was a relationship between Saddam and the Taliban-- there were relations between the United States and the Taliban not so long ago, too. The claim used to support the invasion was that Iraq had a collaborative relationship with al-Qaeda. Obviously, despite their mutual support at times, it is clear that the Taliban and al-Qaeda are two distinct entities, and relations with one do not equate to relations with the other.

is that we don't have any readily available archive that we can just club new arrivals with!

The fact is the relationship between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda, Iran and al Qaeda, Talaban and al Qaeda, and so on and so on...have all been documented here so often..that it just gets too tiring to rehash it for the uninformed!

When something truly new, like these recently translated documents come along, they just add to the body of evidence already presented.  It might be new to you, but we've known about the connection for a long time!

See, the Left knows we know those things.  But what they think is that we know those things because the Administration invented them so that we'd know them.  The Onion knows that we created Zarqawi only to kill him when he became too much of a nuisance, and surely Norman Mailer could scrape the bottom of his nutsack and come up with that at the Huffington Post.  First, the connection between al-Qaida and Iraq didn't exist, and because of the war, it does exist now, which is why we should have never gotten into it in the first place, except that the Evil Republican in the White House and all his Big Oil buddies knew that it would fire up the Hicks from Jesusland™ to beat the drums of war and take us into Operation Oily Residue to the chagrin of Peace Workers everywhere.  

It's like arguing with a radical feminist:  you can't win.  Even when you're right, you're wrong. You might believe what you believe, but it doesn't matter, because they know the real reason you believe it, and it all has to do with Karl Rove, Big Oil, "Playing on Our Fears" and the Bilderbergers.  And the Joooooos.  And a few other people...

See?

Now, if all of that seems a bit fantastic to you, I can assure you that it really isn't that fantastic to people like Eleanor Clift, of Newsweek Magazine.

and of course you are right...it was just looking at his post...wanting to set him right...and realizing just how many times we've been down that same road, over and over again. Sometimes it's like the movie Groundhogs Day.

I honestly have to exercise extreme control over my tongue in the presence of libs that have self erarsed the whole history of Saddam and terrorism in the 90s and Bill Clinton's speeches, etc. I've lost a lot of respect for alot of people over this.

One of the things I hate most in life is to have my intelligence insulted , especially by someone that lies to my face, knowing that we both know the truth and yet they lie and stare with that glazed over look almost daring me to call their bluff, but counting on me not to hurt their fragile psyche.

arghhhhhh

You didn't actually respond to my post. My point was that the controversial issue is Iraq's relationship with al-Qaeda, not Iraq's relationship with the Taliban. The Taliban, at the time, was the de facto executive power of Afghanistan; it would be quite surprising if Saddam didn't have some history of relations with them under such circumstances. Has anyone ever taken the position that Iraq did not have a relationship with the Taliban?

But, how is any of this relevant to the actual issue in dispute-- whether the Hussein regime had any significant, ongoing contacts with al-Qaeda around the time of September 11? We know that the Taliban had connections with al-Qaeda, and no one of whom I'm aware has ever denied that Iraq had connections with the Taliban. How does that translate to "Iraq had connections with al-Qaeda"? Are we playing Six Degrees from Osama now?

Also, my argument is not necessarily that Iraq didn't have a relationship with al-Qaeda, either-- rather, my argument is that the evidence cited in this particular post is a red herring, in that it makes an uncontroversial claim that provides no evidence regarding the actual ongoing debate.

Saddam's answer to The John Denver Experience.

His case would be based on tainted evidence, no?

I AM laughing, but it is still wrong!

here

The Global War on Terror is not simply about one guy.  If we got Osama tomorrow, would the world be safe?  No.  It's not the Global War Against Al-Qa'ida or a war against Islam or a war against any particular group at all.  It's a war against an idea, which must be fought not only with better ideas, but with bombs, guns, and fixed bayonets.  

The Islamic terrorists (for example) will not stop until we (that is, you and I, our children, friends, and every human anywhere) convert to Islam, or until we are dead.  Understand that, and that they're all on the same side.  

In this war, hate is fungible.

In this war, hate is fungible.

I'm going to use that line! I'll give you credit the first three times, then it's mine!

between Iraq, Afghanistan and al-Qaeda has been well documented on numerous occasions here on Redstate and across a broad spectrum of internet news sites.  My comment posted above provides a compilation of links that reenforce that connection through this latest discovery and translation.  It's obvious from your comment that you did not follow the links provided by AcademicElephant.  The translated letter goes way beyond the Taliban.  Please take the time to read the information those links provide.

The ISI documents that were seized following the fall of Bagdad provide incontrovertible proof of the relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda.  The notebook and letter, the subject of AcademicElephant's post, is just one more piece of evidence in a clear-cut case that "Bush was Right"™.

"Only a fool, or a partisan liberal-democrat, could deny the collaborative relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda in the face of such overwhelming evidence." - rbdwiggins

Read the links...You have been provided a dozen or more links already, use them! You are trying to use the old dumbed-down leftist talking point that there was no connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda before 9/11...STOP! Get the Duct tape! My head is exploding!

Follow the links, do your homework...come back when you've finished!

  Put me out of my misery and show me the error of my ways.  I don't need all the levels, a few will do.  I promise to be brave.

We here in oceania do not speak of events that have unoccured. Please consult your 2006 newspeak dictionary so you can be properly current with engsoc.

...from one of the most tasteless episodes ever, and Mr. Hanky wasn't even in it!

I'm sorry, but I still don't see the relevance here. The post you cited and quoted from makes the valid point that militant Islam is a large movement that encompasses more than bin Laden and al-Qaeda. True enough. But I'm still not getting what relevance that has to the Fox News report and the claims made in the opening post here.

Specifically, the opening post says that

these documents appear to provide confirmation that could help clarify the situation for Americans that do not share the President's security clearance.

It isn't entirely clear, but I assume that this is a reference to the arguments that the invasion of Iraq was unwarranted because Saddam had no connection to al-Qaeda? If this report is intended to constitute evidence on one side of that debate, I don't see how it's relevant. Once again, the Taliban is not al-Qaeda. And, again, it's not particularly surprising, nor am I aware of any instance in which it has been denied, that the Hussein regime had connections to the Taliban. So, the fact that Hussein had connections to the Taliban doesn't really tell us anything about his alleged connections to al-Qaeda. The post you cited makes the valid point that the Taliban were also bad guys, and of course, Hussein was himself a bad guy. But, I don't see how any of that is relevant to the issue for which this report apparently purports to address.

Also, DAHmich-- None of my comments have anything whatsoever to do with whether Saddam did or did not have connections with al-Qaeda. My question focuses exclusively on the relevance of the Fox News report cited in this particular post, and whether it adds anything significant to the discussion. There is no "homework" to be done on that, because the sources you suggest consulting don't bear on that issue. The larger question of Iraq's relationship with al-Qaeda is not something that is at issue here.

what exactly is your point here? To question the connection of Saddam Hussein to the Taliban? To what end? Maybe, instead of us trying to point out the endless connections of Saddam to terrorist to al Qaeda to Iraq to Iran to Afghanistan...why don't YOU tell US what the point is that YOU are trying to make?

Can you please quote the post in which I have said that there was no connection between Saddam and al-Qaeda? I have never said that, nor have I implied it. What I have said is that, a report showing a connection between Saddam and the Taliban is of little relevance to the question of connections between Saddam and al-Qaeda.

My only point is that this report, which details the relationship between Iraq and the Taliban before September 11, doesn't seem very relevant to the "justification for the war" debate, since the issue in that debate is not whether Hussein had connections to the Taliban, but whether he had connections to al-Qaeda; the Taliban and al-Qaeda are not the same thing.

I do apologize that my post is not clear to you.  Do let me try again:

It is indeed my opinion that Saddam's intel connections to the Taliban as revealed in this document (in conjunction with the other documents that are being translated) bolster the broader argument that he was an emerging state sponsor of terrorism whose WMD programs, in whatever state they were in 2003, formed an unsupportable danger to the US.  I believe this because I also believe that al Qaeda was an integral part of the Taliban as it existed in Afghanistan before 2002.  It seems rather naive to assert that this document is not relavant to that argument because the Taliban was somehow the legitimate government of Afghanistan and al Qaeda was a seperate entity that happened to operate out of the same country, and so to conclude that we shouldn't presume to surmise that this contact between Saddam and the Taliban was necessarily nefarious.  What do you think they were doing--discussing a secret intel collaboration independent of al Qaeda?  Nonsense.  The Taliban and al Qaeda were symbiotic--perhaps mutually parasitic would be a better term--and the connections Saddam was making with them as detailed in this document did not involve the standard diplomatic exchanges one would have with a regional neighbor.  They were not chatting about trade issues or water rights.  This was covert intel sharing that would have been used to further terrorist acts, which we know all too well al Qaeda and the Taliban were planning during this period--that is if you believe that al Qaeda would not have been able to execute 9/11 without the active support of the Taliban.  Furthermore, as other documents demonstrate, Saddam was also planning terrorist strikes.  Against whom?  We can't say for sure because, and follow me closely here, he never had the chance to execute them.  The fact that we stopped him does not negate his planning, and it seems to me that it wouldn't take a terribly onerous amount of homework to identify his intended target(s).  If you are resolved to live in a universe where that answer is obscure, or perhaps even more precisely is obviously not the US, then that's your own business--but it makes me more thankful than ever that someone of what appears to me to be a willfully self-delusional global viewpoint was not in power in 2003, and is not today.

At least we have a place to start. The Taliban and al Qaeda are not the same. The fact that the Taliban supported and harbored al Qaeda inside Afghanistan is, of course irrelevant! That there has been a proven link of Hussein to al Qaeda before 9/11 as well Hussein and Taliban, before 9/11 and al Qaeda and Taliban before 9/11, of course is also irrelevant.

Equally irrelevant is this link from frontpagemagazine.com

On the issue of Saddam's ties to Al Qaeda, newly released documents captured in Iraq and Afghanistan corroborate a strong connection between Iraq, Al Qaeda and the Taliban, the Sunni Islamic nationalist movement that formerly ruled Afghanistan. These documents include a recently translated notebook kept by an Iraqi intelligence officer and a four-page, typed letter from Afghanistan, dated July 26, 2002, apparently written by Al Qaeda or Taliban operatives and used by the U.S. Army in a report about Al Qaeda. The letter has subsequently been posted by the West Point Combating Terrorism Center. The notebook contains minutes from meetings among Taha Yassin Ramadan, former vice president of Iraq, and other high-level Iraqi officials with Al Qaeda and Taliban supporters. (Interestingly, a 2002 BBC report claimed that Ramadan hosted in Baghdad in 1998 Ayman al-Zawahri, a deputy to Al Qaeda leader, Osama bin Laden.).

Further, the notebook mentions Maulana Fazlur Rahman, often described as the godfather of the Taliban, and his connection to Al Qaeda through a friend, Mullah Omar. Rahman is believed to have organized the Taliban under Omar and to have sheltered bin Laden in Pakistan following the Coalition's invasion of Afghanistan. The notebook contains a statement by Rahman that he met with Omar, requested a meeting with Saddam and invited Iraqi officials to Afghanistan. It indicates that Rahman welcomed the establishment of relations with Iraq and hoped that Saddam could be instrumental in garnering Russian support for the Taliban.

Because, after all, the document in question does not further the proposition that BushLied™ Now that we have finally arrived at YOUR point of this entire discussion...I will ignore you as, well...irrelevant!

but irrelevant, as I pointed out in #30! He really knows the answer, and simply doesn't care because BushLied™!