cross-posted at Expose the Left

This is a very long post, but after this I will try to keep my own comments on this (and stories on future released and translated documents) to a minimum, as I suspect we'll continue to see this kind of information roll in for quite some time. In the future, I'll most likely reference this post for background for people who need to catch up, that way I won't have to repeat all of this everytime we learn more. Don't expect to read this in one sitting, but you will probably want to use it as a reference and link resource and as this story continues to develop.

You should already be familiar with the fact that chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Rep. Peter Hoekstra had been pressing for the release of millions of documents and thousands of hours of tapes captured in Iraq and Afghanistan. Most of the documents and tapes have yet to be translated, but many conservatives have long believed that there was important information in these documents that would go a long way to reveal connections between Saddam and Al Qaeda (among other terror groups) and possibly information about an ongoing WMD program.

Many of the documents have just been sitting around in store houses not being translated for a number of years now, but Hoekstra and others have continued to put pressure on the administration to release them, something you'd think they would want to do anyway considering the information would seem to support the administration's position on Iraq. Many have wondered if the administration's reluctance to release the documents might be over concern of embarassing and alienating our Russian "allies", because we think we're going to need their help with the current Iran situation. This scenario makes sense considering the scattered reports of Russian involvement in transporting Saddam's WMDs to Syria in days before the war, among other things. And if these documents are damning for the Russians, that would most certainly make them our enemies, right? I mean, if they were actively working against us in the UN for their own sinister reasons (of course we already all know about oil for food anyway), how could they remain an ally?

Personally I say "screw Russia", let the truth come out. But as you know, the President and the administration don't concentrate on polls, instead they do what they believe is right in the face of all the media and hatred coming from the left that has now affected mainstream America's view of the war in Iraq. I have long believed that the WMDs were moved to/through Syria and that the information will come out eventually. The question is when? Will it be 20 years from now when it won't matter as much? Or will it be later this year? Imagine the global impact proof of WMDS would have on our country, the world, and public opinion everywhere.

Recent events have brought all of this "release the documents and tapes" talk to the forefront. First there was the Intelligence Summit, earlier this year, that gave an exclusive to ABC News (why them I don't know), releasing some translated Saddam tapes where he discusses WMDs and attacks on the United States (see here and here.) Then there has been coverage (though not as much as it deserves from the MSM) of Iraq's former Air Force General, under Saddam, who has written a book and continues to insist that Saddam had the WMDs flown and trucked to Syria shortly before the Iraq war. Recently I've seen interviews with him in which he says that he believes without a doubt that the information will all eventually come out in the near future.

I actually saw Sada on Fox & Friends being interviewed by Brian Kilmeade the other day, and this Sierra Times article sums up what they talked about. Basically Sada is claiming that Newsweek mistranlated (intentionally or not) some newly released tapes and used them to further push the "no WMDs" claim. Sada says they didn't take in to account the Tikrit dialect, etc. and that the tapes actually say that Saddam DID have WMDs.

General Sada says that the tapes were not translated correctly and his translation is that Saddam Hussein did have WMD. Why would Newsweek publish an erroneous story? Sada believes they used unqualified translators who confused Arab dialects. Others believe Newsweek may have a vested interest in perpetuating the story that Iraq had no WMD.

Despite the fact that the left blasts him as this "lone" voice who is just trying to sell books, he has not wavered, and he is not a lone voice.

General Sada's allegations are confirmed by others. A Pentagon official, John A. Shaw, who was responsible for keeping track of Iraq’s weapons programs, claims that special Russian troops in civilian clothes supervised the transfer of Saddam’s WMDs into Syria. An Israeli general, Moshe Yaalon, has made a similar claim. The general in charge of Pentagon spy satellites has admitted observing large truck convoys from Iraq to Syria before the war began.

Yet most of the 2 million documents have not been explored or even translated. It’s almost as if the CIA and the Pentagon don’t want to know what they contain.

If you'd like to see and listen to a couple Sada interviews, Ian at Expose the Left has some:
- Daily Show (of all places) interview
- Radio interview with Mark Rosen - Part 1, Parts 2 & 3

As for others making claims that WMDs did in fact exist, here are just a few articles of the many out there. Again, no smoking guns here, but a lot of information that has been out there and has only gotten brief mentions (if that) by the MSM:

CNSNews.com: Exclusive: Saddam Possessed WMD, Had Extensive Terror Ties
This rather long article, dated October 04, 2004, is a report on documents released to them from "a senior government official who is not a political appointee" The documents seem similar to the newly released documents, in that they discuss Saddam's extensive terror ties (but it's totally different information separate from the ties detailed in the new docs). The reports apparently also claim that the documents show that Saddam bought mustard gas and anthrax in the summer of 2000.

They detail the Iraqi regime's purchase of five kilograms of mustard gas on Aug. 21, 2000 and three vials of malignant pustule, another term for anthrax, on Sept. 6, 2000. The purchase order for the mustard gas includes gas masks, filters and rubber gloves. The order for the anthrax includes sterilization and decontamination equipment. (See Saddam's Possession of Mustard Gas)

read more

Washington Times: Syria Storing Iraq's WMDs
This article, dated October 29, 2003, cites a higly credible source who claims that in weeks leading up to the war, Saddam hide, moved, and destroyed his WMDS:

Iraqi military officers destroyed or hid chemical, biological and nuclear weapons goods in the weeks before the war, the nation's top satellite spy director said yesterday.

Retired Air Force Lt. Gen. James Clapper, head of the National Imagery and Mapping Agency, said vehicle traffic photographed by U.S. spy satellites indicated that material and documents related to the arms programs were shipped to Syria.

Iraqi government officials "below the Saddam Hussein and the sons level saw what was coming and decided the best thing to do was to dispose, destroy and disperse," he said.

Gen. Clapper said he felt strongly that the satellite imagery of Iraq's weapons facilities before the war was "accurate and balanced."

"Based on what we saw prior to the onset of hostilities, we certainly felt there were indications of [weapons of mass destruction] activity," said the retired general and former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency.

read more

The American Thinker: A second Iraqi former commander confirms WMDs
I don't see the date on this, but I believe it was from mid-February of this year. The article discusses claims made by Ali Ibrahim al-Tikriti, a southern regional commander for Saddam Hussein’s Fedayeen militia in the late 1980s and a personal friend of the dictator, that parallel General Sada's comments. Ibrahim's comments come from an interview by Ryan Mauro, which the article uses for it's source, including this quote:

I know Saddam’s weapons are in Syria due to certain military deals that were made going as far back as the late 1980’s that dealt with the event that either capitols were threatened with being overrun by an enemy nation. Not to mention I have discussed this in-depth with various contacts of mine who have confirmed what I already knew. At this point Saddam knew that the United States were eventually going to come for his weapons and the United States wasn’t going to just let this go like they did in the original Gulf War. He knew that he had lied for this many years and wanted to maintain legitimacy with the pan Arab nationalists. He also has wanted since he took power to embarrass the West and this was the perfect opportunity to do so. After Saddam denied he had such weapons why would he use them or leave them readily available to be found? That would only legitimize President Bush, who he has a personal grudge against. What we are witnessing now is many who opposed the war to begin with are rallying around Saddam saying we overthrew a sovereign leader based on a lie about WMD. This is exactly what Saddam wanted and predicted.

He goes on to discuss Saddam's Al Qaeda ties and debunking the myth that we brought Saddam to power and gave him WMDs. He actually says that it was the Soviet Union who supported the Ba’athist Revolution, and that the KGB was actually there training Iraqis. Again, this is all very interesting considering the newly released and translated documents we're seeing this week.

read more

Washington Times:
This article, dated October 28, 2004, cites controversial source, former deputy undersecretary of defense John Shaw. Shaw has been one of the few voices maintaining that the weapons were moved to Syria and Lebanon with Russian military assistance. This article is talking specifically about the now famous Al-Qaqaa facility, and the missing materials used for making high explosives and nuclear devices.

Pravda.RU: Pentagon thinks Saddam bought WMDs in Russia and hid them in Syria
This is another article that relies heavily on the testimony of John Shaw. Pravda, a Russian paper, discusses a Shaw report based on documents received from the friendly Ukraine, as well as British Intelligence:

“Weapons of mass destruction bought by Saddam in Russia were taken to Syria and Lebanon,” announced the former deputy undersecretary of defense for international technology security, who was speaking at the summit held in Arlington .

“They were moved by Russian special forces dressed in civilian clothing, who had been instructed to enter Iraq to move the weapons and destroy all the evidence that would prove their existence,” he declared.

The Ukraine, as a way of expressing their gratitude for the US’s help in them gaining independence, has pulled certain highly important documents out of their archives. The documents give evidence of the transfer of weapons from the Soviet Union to Iraq and also show that Russia has given support to Saddam Hussein’s regime. In 2004, when John Shaw presented his information to the Defense Departments of both the USA and the Central Intelligence Agency, they unanimously declared it be to false intelligence. However, thanks to Shaw’s connections in Great Britain and in the Ukraine, his report has been released.

The article also adds retired General-Lieutenant of the US Air Force Thomas McInerney's comments in to the mix:

"Iran’s nuclear program is advancing more quickly than anyone can imagine. The USA now relies on Russia, China and France. The Bush administration does not want to release any information which would cast them in a bad light.”

read more

The New York Sun: Ex-Officer Spurned on WMD Claim (original article was located at the NY Sun's site here, but now you have to be a subscriber to read the whole thing. Luckily someone pasted the entire thing at ChronWatch Forum.
This article, dated February 8, 2006, is about David Gaubatz, a former member of the Air Force's Office of Special Investigations, and his claims about WMDs that he believes are still in Iraq and he knows the locations, but for some reason they aren't being checked out:

David Gaubatz, a former member of the Air Force's Office of Special Investigations, was assigned to the Talill Air Base in Nasiriyah at the launch of Operation Iraqi Freedom. His job was to pick up any intelligence on the whereabouts of senior Baathists and weapons of mass destruction and then send the information to the American weapons inspectors gathering in Baghdad that would later become the Iraq Survey Group.

Between March and July 2003, Mr. Gaubatz was taken by these sources to four locations - three in and around Nasiriyah and one near the port of Umm Qasr, where he was shown underground concrete bunkers with the tunnels leading to them deliberately flooded. In each case, he was told the facilities contained stocks of biological and chemical weapons, along with missiles whose range exceeded that mandated under U.N. sanctions. But because the facilities were sealed off with concrete walls, in some cases up to 5 feet thick, he did not get inside. He filed reports with photographs, exact grid coordinates, and testimony from multiple sources. And then he waited for the Iraq Survey Group to come to the sites. But in all but one case, they never arrived.

read the entire article for much more

I think this is an important article that seems like it barely got anyone's attention, even less than the rest of these.

This web page cites comments from Paris-based Syrian dissident, Nizar Nayuf (Nayyouf-Nayyuf), about whom a January 5, 2004 article in the Dutch paper De Telegraaf was based. Nayuf has maintained that he knows the locations of Iraq's WMDs in Syria, though I would assume they are no longer at these same locations (but who knows.) There is more information about these claims out there, I just happen to have this bookmarked from a while back. See this page for maps and coordinates of where he claims the weapons of mass destruction are being stored.

Jumping back in this post, but ahead in news stories, let's look again at the Weekly Standard article from earlier this week, dated March 20, 2006 (based on the WS issue release date, the article was done and online a while earlier). In light of the ABC News story on the Intelligence Summit tapes, Congressman Pence and Congressman Hoekstra asked the President, in a briefing on Iraq, about releasing the millions of documents and thousands of hours of tapes. The President seemed interested in getting them released, and he apparently expressed the same thing last November with some of the same players around:

Bush replied that he wanted the documents released. He turned to Hadley and asked for an update. Hadley explained that John Negroponte, Bush's Director of National Intelligence, "owns the documents" and that DNI lawyers were deciding how they might be handled.

Bush extended his arms in exasperation and worried aloud that people who see the documents in 10 years will wonder why they weren't released sooner. "If I knew then what I know now," Bush said in the voice of a war skeptic, "I would have been more supportive of the war."

Bush told Hadley to expedite the release of the Iraq documents. "This stuff ought to be out. Put this stuff out." The president would reiterate this point before the meeting adjourned. And as the briefing ended, he approached Pence, poked a finger in the congressman's chest, and thanked him for raising the issue. When Pence began to restate his view that the documents should be released, Bush put his hand up, as if to say, "I hear you. It will be taken care of."

The article notes that Negroponte has been stalling, saying that the documents are only important as historical artifacts. Obviously, since very few have been translated, the folks deserve to see them ASAP to make their own determination. Of course Negroponte could be covering for the Russians, as we discussed earlier, so we don't alienate them while we deal with Iran. The article goes on to cite a very extensive August 13, 2003 San Francisco Chronicle article based on documents the Chronicle discovered, showing Russian training of Iraqi Secret Police among other things.

The Chronicle article is another article that is a bit long, but necessary read. It reveals that while Russia was working against us in the UN in the lead up to the war, they were training Iraqis which is more than just a slap in the face and very unally-like, but against UN santions. Interestingly, this article is more than two and a half years old, and with newly released documents, we're hearing pretty much the same exact story this week.

The documents found Thursday and Friday in a Baghdad office of the Mukhabarat, the Iraqi secret police, indicate that at least five agents graduated Sept. 15 from a two-week course in surveillance and eavesdropping techniques, according to certificates issued to the Iraqi agents by the "Special Training Center" in Moscow.

read more of the Chronicle article

Back to the Weekly Standard article, we see Negroponte has done a 180 and is now singing a different tune, after continued pressing from Hoekstra:

Perhaps anticipating the weakness of his "mere history" argument, Negroponte abruptly shifted his position last week. He still opposes releasing the documents, only now he claims that the information in these documents is so valuable that it cannot be made public. Negroponte gave a statement to Fox News responding to Hoekstra's call to release the captured documents. "These documents have provided, and continue to provide, actionable intelligence to ongoing operations. . . . It would be ill-advised to release these materials without careful screening because the material includes sensitive and potentially harmful information."

The article offers more on potential Russian involvement being a factor in the stonewalling:

"They are State Department people who want to make no waves and don't want to do anything that would upset anyone," he says.

This is not idle speculation. In meetings with Hoekstra, Negroponte and his staff have repeatedly expressed concern that releasing this information might embarrass our allies. Who does Negroponte have in mind?

Then we have a compromise, and while it's a start, it's not good enough:

Hoekstra says Negroponte's intransigence is forcing him to get the documents out "the hard way." The House Intelligence chairman has introduced a bill (H.R. 4869) that would require the DNI to begin releasing the captured documents. Although Negroponte continues to argue against releasing the documents in internal discussions, on March 9, he approached Hoekstra with a counterproposal. Negroponte offered to release some documents labeled "No Intelligence Value," and indicated his willingness to review other documents for potential release, subject to a scrub for sensitive material.

Luckily Hoekstra feels the same way I, and I imagine many of you do, that this limited release is a good start but we need a full release. Hoekstra seems determined to make this happen, and I'm very thankful, because it would seem Hoekstra is almost a lone voice, but a semi-powerful one.

"I'm encouraged that John is taking another look at it," Hoekstra said last Thursday. "But I want a system that is biased in favor of declassification. I want some assurance that they aren't just picking the stuff that's garbage and releasing that. If we're only declassifying maps of Baghdad, I'm not going to be happy."

He continued: "There may be many documents that relate to Iraqi WMD programs. Those should be released. Same thing with documents that show links to terrorism. They have to release documents on topics of interest to the American people and they have to give me some kind of schedule. What's the time frame? I don't have any idea."

Hoekstra is not going away. "We're going to ride herd on this. This is a step in the right direction, but I am in no way claiming victory. I want these documents out."

So does President Bush. You'd think that would settle it.

Fast forward a couple days to the present, and we're beginning to get a slow trickle of documents, being released at this site, which for some reason is currently down but check back. I'd be interested to know why it's down, by the way. Hacked? Documents embarassing our allies forced government to shut it down? Who knows, let's just hope it's a server crash due to a bombardment of traffic. Anyway, many of the docs are coming out untranslated, and the blogosphere and others are doing the translating and reporting on their own.

Bluto at DreadPundit quickly dug out a Zarqawi photo from untranslated documents from 2002.

Omar at Iraq the Model personally translated a document which you can find here.

A few days ago, Michelle Malkin linked to ABC News's beginning coverage of some of the newly released documents. Many of us in the blogosphere shared outrage at their "editors note" or disclaimer that sought to give less credibility to the documents, yet we never see these disclaimers on their other stories when they (or when the rest of the media) cite unknown and uncorroborated sources. Malkin gives a few of the more notorious examples. Malkin also seems to have a translation of the same document we saw at Iraq the Model here.

Now, this was all immediately upon the release of the documents. The MSM caught on after a few days, but with their might and resources should really be digging through this stuff and helping Hoekstra press for more documents to be released, by getting the public fired up about it. Hopefully they'll at least help us little guys get the word out. ABC News for some reason seems to be outfront on this again for some reason. Obviously Fox News would like to be, so I'm not sure what is going on that ABC keeps getting these exclusives (like with the Summit/Tierney tapes). Anyway, what's odd is that the ABC News article that Michelle Malkin, Confederate Yankee, and countless others were linking to has the date changed to on March 17, now has a date of March 23, and is the same article that much of the rest of the MSM has been referencing for the past couple days. Just kind of weird, not sure what's going on over there. Hopefully it's just that they've added more to the initial report, and it's just sort of an updated compilation.

Now, to the meat and bones of what has been revealed in ABC's coverage of some of these documents. Despite claims of the left, and this news really stands to hurt them, Saddam did have contacts with Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. They weren't the religious versus secular mortal enemies we've been told they were. Of course we've had a lot of information about connections for some time, but again this is all information coming out of these newly released documents captured throughout the course of the current war.

Below is just a sampling of what we learn from the ABC News coverage of some of the documents. Read the entire article to learn about their discussions of Russian tip offs about US war strategy, Iraq's contacts with Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, discussions of operational cooperation, techniques used for UN deception, and Iraq's awareness of Al Qaeda presence in the country.

A newly released prewar Iraqi document indicates that an official representative of Saddam Hussein's government met with Osama bin Laden in Sudan on February 19, 1995, after receiving approval from Saddam Hussein. Bin Laden asked that Iraq broadcast the lectures of Suleiman al Ouda, a radical Saudi preacher, and suggested "carrying out joint operations against foreign forces" in Saudi Arabia. According to the document, Saddam's presidency was informed of the details of the meeting on March 4, 1995, and Saddam agreed to dedicate a program for them on the radio. The document states that further "development of the relationship and cooperation between the two parties to be left according to what's open [in the future] based on dialogue and agreement on other ways of cooperation." The Sudanese were informed about the agreement to dedicate the program on the radio.

The report then states that "Saudi opposition figure" bin Laden had to leave Sudan in July 1996 after it was accused of harboring terrorists. It says information indicated he was in Afghanistan. "The relationship with him is still through the Sudanese. We're currently working on activating this relationship through a new channel in light of his current location," it states.

and this...

Document dated Sept. 15, 2001

An Iraqi intelligence service document saying that their Afghan informant, who's only identified by a number, told them that the Afghan 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.
- That in case the Taliban and bin Laden's group turn out to be involved in "these destructive operations," the U.S. may strike Iraq and Afghanistan.
- That the Afghan consul heard about the issue of Iraq's relationship with "bin Laden's group" while he was in Iran.

At the end, the writer recommends informing "the committee of intentions" about the above-mentioned items. The signature on the document is unclear.

and this...

Document dated March 23, 1997

A letter from the Iraqi intelligence service to directors and managers advising them to follow certain procedures in case of a search by the U.N. team, including:

- Removing correspondence with the atomic energy and military industry departments concerning the prohibited weapons (proposals, research, studies, catalogs, etc.)
- Removing prohibited materials and equipment, including documents and catalogs and making sure to clear labs and storages of any traces of chemical or biological materials that were previously used or stored
- Doing so through a committee which will decide whether to destroy the documents
- Removing files from computers.

The letter also advises them on how they should answer questions by U.N. team members. It says the intelligence service should be informed within one week about the progress made in discarding the documents.

Read the entire thing for more.

The one update we see is the part about Russian involvement:

Two Iraqi documents from March 2003 — on the eve of the U.S.-led invasion — and addressed to the secretary of Saddam Hussein, describe details of a U.S. plan for war. According to the documents, the plan was disclosed to the Iraqis by the Russian ambassador.

Document written sometime before March 5, 2003

The first document (CMPC-2003-001950) is a handwritten account of a meeting with the Russian ambassador that details his description of the composition, size, location and type of U.S. military forces arrayed in the Gulf and Jordan. The document includes the exact numbers of tanks, armored vehicles, different types of aircraft, missiles, helicopters, aircraft carriers, and other forces, and also includes their exact locations. The ambassador also described the positions of two Special Forces units.

Document dated March 25, 2003

The second document (CMPC-2004-001117) is a typed account, signed by Deputy Foreign Minister Hammam Abdel Khaleq, that states that the Russian ambassador has told the Iraqis that the United States was planning to deploy its force into Iraq from Basra in the South and up the Euphrates, and would avoid entering major cities on the way to Baghdad, which is, in fact what happened. The documents also state "Americans are also planning on taking control of the oil fields in Kirkuk." The information was obtained by the Russians from "sources at U.S. Central Command in Doha, Qatar," according to the document.

This document also includes an account of an amusing incident in which several Iraqi Army officers (presumably seeking further elaboration of the U.S. war plans) contacted the Russian Embassy in Baghdad and stated that the ambassador was their source. Needless to say, this caused great embarrassment to the ambassador, and the officers were instructed "not to mention the ambassador again in that context."

(Editor's Note: The Russian ambassador in March 2003 was Vladimir Teterenko. Teterenko appears in documents released by the Volker Commission, which investigated the Oil for Food scandal, as receiving allocations of 3 million barrels of oil — worth roughly $1.5 million. )

This is the bit of shocking information got the attention of much of the rest of the media. I'm not sure about network news coverage, but I know Fox News has made a lot of mention of it. But we see a lot of articles (at least on the internet) covering the story, so I think the information is getting out to some extent.

FoxNews.com has this AP coverage of the story, as their top story as we speak, and I've heard it mentioned on TV many times over the last 24 hours. Here's more AP coverage, and here's Reuters. Both of those articles offer in discussions on the Russians tipping off Saddam as to our military strategy. If there was ever a time for the cliche saying "with friends like these..."

So to be clear, it's pretty well established that while Russia was battling us at the UN, they were training Iraqi forces, then before the war they were tipping of Iraq on our military plans, then there are reports and many people claiming that Russia helped transport Saddam's WMDs to Syria, much of which he may have bought from them in the first place. By the way, that would be a good reason for the Russian military to want to hide it, no?

Stephen Hayes has a new piece at the Weekly Standard, that cites some of the newly released documents, and reveals further Saddam terror and specifically Al Qaeda connections. To wet your taste buds the article begins:

SADDAM HUSSEIN'S REGIME PROVIDED FINANCIAL support to Abu Sayyaf, the al Qaeda-linked jihadist group founded by Osama bin Laden's brother-in-law in the Philippines in the late 1990s, according to documents captured in postwar Iraq. An eight-page fax dated June 6, 2001, and sent from the Iraqi ambassador in Manila to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Baghdad, provides an update on Abu Sayyaf kidnappings and indicates that the Iraqi regime was providing the group with money to purchase weapons. The Iraqi regime suspended its support--temporarily, it seems--after high-profile kidnappings, including of Americans, focused international attention on the terrorist group.

Be sure to read the whole thing, or at least check out the segment from Wednesday night's Hannity & Colmes on which Hayes appeared to discuss the information, and gave a pretty good summary of what's contained in the article. Expose the Left has the video, as always. Be sure to catch Colmes trying to spin and say that it doesn't reveal Saddam had anything to do with 9/11, dispite the fact that no one is claiming it does. Hayes clears it up, but Colmes tosses it out there again at the end of the segment making sure there wasn't time for Hayes to correct him a second time.

The New York Sun is also covering Iraq's ties to Al Qaeda in a new article, with a bit of a different angle. The Sun interviewed former Senate DEMOCRAT and 9/11 Commissioner, Bob Kerry, who acknowledges the great importance of these documents, and the truths they reveal, even though he had to throw in the Colmes "no 9/11 connection" spin, which again is pointless because such a claim isn't being made:

Nonetheless, the former senator from Nebraska said that the new document shows that "Saddam was a significant enemy of the United States." Mr. Kerrey said he believed America's understanding of the deposed tyrant's relationship with Al Qaeda would become much deeper as more captured Iraqi documents and audiotapes are disclosed.

"This is a very significant set of facts," former 9/11 commissioner, Mr. Kerry said yesterday. "I personally and strongly believe you don't have to prove that Iraq was collaborating against Osama bin Laden on the September 11 attacks to prove he was an enemy and that he would collaborate with people who would do our country harm. This presents facts should not be used to tie Saddam to attacks on September 11. It does tie him into a circle that meant to damage the United States."

Mr. Kerry also answered affirmatively when asked whether or not the release of more of the documents captured in Iraq could possibly shed further light on Iraq's relationship with al Qaeda. The former senator was one of the staunchest supporters of the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act, which made the policy of regime change U.S. law.

"Clearly from this document bin Laden was willing to work with Saddam to achieve his ends, and clearly from this document Saddam did not immediately reject the idea of working with bin Laden," Mr. Hayes said. "It is possible that documents will emerge later that suggest skepticism on the part of Iraqis to working with bin Laden, but this makes clear that there was a relationship."

I'm glad to see Bob Kerry being a stand up guy about this, and responding in an honest way to the findings. I wonder what we'll here from the other Kerry, and the rest of the Senate Democrats who have repeatedly called the President a liar and said he mislead the nation about Iraq's WMDs and Al Qaeda ties, despite making the same and even stronger claims themselves for over a decade leading up to the war.

I'm hoping that the MSM realizes that this is the most important story of the year, and part of what is likely the most important story of our lives (9/11, War on Terror, Iraq, etc.) I regularly rip on Yahoo! for pumping lying and misleading headlines on their home page with regularity, but they seem to be leading with the Russian involvement story right now, with an AP story under the headline: "Russian Spies Operated in Iraq Through '03"

In closing, I'd again like to say that this long post is meant to serve as a background reference for future posts as these documents continue to be released and reported on. In the future I'd like to be able to post on new developments, without having to give a bunch of background in each post to avoid drive-by liberal commenters whining "this is just one document, so what". This is sort of a clearinghouse of information that we have at this point, that we can all point back to as we move forward.

Open Trackbacks:
Samantha Burns, Point Five, 7 Deadly Sins, Don Surber, NIF, Right Wing Nation, Colbert Report, Imagine Kitty, Uncooperative Blogger, Stuck On Stupid, The Bullwinkle Blog, Adam's Blog, Stop the ACLU, TMH's Bacon Bits, Wizbang