Looks like the worker bees at the CNN branch of the Ministry of Truth forgot to send this one down the memory hole......

More likely....you got confused and got this from The National Enquirer. But then again, if CNN (One of those MSMs) said so in 1999 then by God it must be true.

The Taliban did promise that bin Laden would not use Afghanistan as a staging arena for terrorist activities.

Now I wonder who believed them....hmmmmm.....

if CNN (One of those MSMs) said so in 1999 then by God it must be true.

Ding, ding, ding. Hugh finally got one right! Of course it was true, in 1999. It's only after Bush took office that everything that was true before 2000 became false.

Gateway Pundit found a CNN article documenting the fact that Saddam Hussein offered Bin Laden asylum in Iraq.

Fact?

Actually, if you READ IT, you can easily see that it is an unsupported allegation by an unidentified source. I guess that you believe this particular source, even though it's from CNN—whom you'd otherwise consider unreliable—because it alleges something you want to believe.

Here's a fact: President Bush essentially gave asylum to bin Laden by letting him go in Tora Bora and reneging on his promise not to sleep until he got bin Laden. His failure to get bin Laden is now on day 1834...and counting.

Publicus:

The number of times you've mentioned Bush's failure to get bin Ladin is now up to 1834. Once again, judging success/failure on whether we got one man or not on the WOT is laughable.

Please, enough with the broken record.

Publicus:

Why bother? If the writer of this silly post (Priest) had an editor she'd be fired for trying to publish this.

The rabid dogs of the right who read this however, will begin to salivate and yell SEE, we told you so. That Clinton was a traiorous America-hating blah blah blah.

Hugh:

I haven't believed a word of CNN reporting since Peter Arnett and his Operation Tailwind fiasco.

Now, since you don't like their reports from 1999, maybe you should recommend other "factual" years for CNN's faithful viewers.

Tom:

Good grief.....I take it from your response that you actually believe that story.

If so, the despearation of the right grows mightier by the day.

So how come we are not invading Pakistan? Aren't they currently harboring Osama?

Or is it possible that sometimes diplomacy and containment are actually better then bombings?

Actually Publicus that isn't what it says at all.

There is a section heading, "Saddam Hussein offered asylum", between the section discussing bin Laden's departure from Afghanistan and the section stating Saddam Hussien offered asylum.

Since there is no reference back to the previous section and no new reference to a source that indicates a direct reference to Saddam Hussien.

Hugh:

What part of

"I haven't believed a word of CNN reporting since Peter Arnett and his Operation Tailwind fiasco."

did you not understand? I'd like to see this story, which originated from Gateway Pundit, by the way, validated by another source before putting any stock in it.

Now then. Let me clarify: if YOU trust CNN reporting, EXCEPT for 1999, which year do you recommend that faithful CNN viewers trust? Hmmm?

Even if the allegation that Saddam offered Osama been Forgotten asylum is true it certainly doesn't mean that he didn't regard been Forgotten as an enemy.

According (I believe) to wikipedia, Saddam's favorite movie is The Godfather. One of the more important themes of The Godfather is the advice: "Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer."

So it is not surprising that when Saddam's sons-in-law became his enemies, Saddam lured them to Iraq with benevolent promises of forgiveness and friendship, then had them murdered.

Not wanting to end up that way, Osama never took Saddam up on his "asylum" offer, right? If Saddam offered you asylum, would you go to Iraq?

No one wants to end up like Fredo.

Tom;

I don't watch CNN so how can I answer your rather agitated question? You sound like Hannity.

I have a question for you. Do you believe the story priestap has posted?

Herman:

Or like Sonny.

Carter was outsted from office after 444 days of failing to rescue hostage in Iran. Why is Bush immune from 5+ years of failure to get bin Laden? Just because you're tired of hearing it?!

Tom -

Once again, judging success/failure on whether we got one man or not on the WOT is laughable.

You keep putting words in my mouth. My comment isn't about the WOT—its about Bush's broken promise to get bin Laden and essentially pardoning the guy most responsibile for starting the WOT.

I know you don't like to hear it...because it's an inconvenient truth.

Actually, it's an AP report. Normally those only survive a few weeks online for free, but CNN archived this one for some reason.

My comment isn't about the WOT—its about Bush's broken promise to get bin Laden and essentially pardoning the guy most responsibile for starting the WOT.

Because, of course, it's just so easy to search caves at 10,000 feet in hostile territory. Any idiot could find a guy under those conditions, right? Thousands of square miles of mostly unmapped terrain? No problem! Let's send Publicus! He'll succeed because he's so much smarter than the ones doing the hunt now!

Looks like those on the left, Hugh, Publicus and ? didn't think to challenge this information when it was first aired because the adminsitration in power at that time had called for the removal of Saddam from power, so the left had nothing invested in making the truth a lie. Now, you idiots have so much invested in your lies about Bush and the war in Iraq, that you will deny anything that does not fit with your spin on eventss past and present. It is a shame people like you get to be American citizens by birth, because none of you are capable of earning citizenship. You are truly disgusting.

More great reporting from Kim. Add it to the list!

Bar none, the best Wizbang writer. Ever.

JohnAnnArbo -

Understand. Bush PROMISED to get bin Laden, and had the whole country behind him. But, when someone told him it might be DIFFICULT, he gave up.

ah..c'mon, really..you folks can not have it both ways...either bennie L is important or he isn't...
Bush has president since Jan 2001...if we don't have bennie L...then can we agree that both Bush and Clinton have failed in the past five years?
(although the difference is Clinton has probably gotten a BJ from someone other than Hillery since 01/2001 while Bush's BJ from binnie L has elected Republicans in 2002..2004..

binnie L not dead is the most visible reminder of Bush's failure to respond to 9/11..,.maybe you folks don't care...but my 19 year old neice died in the towers...Saddam did not take credit for her death,...binnie L did...
Maybe you don't mind him spitting in our face...I do...

Since Bush isn't up to getting bin Laden or, as he himself says, not really into it...maybe he should get our ally Pakistan, in who's mountains bin Laden may be hiding, to do something.

Oh, wait. Our "ally" has signed a TRUCE with the TALIBAN and freed hoards of terrorists. Yeah, Bush is really on top of this thing.

Its all TOO HARD for Bush. Pathetic excuse.

But, when someone told him it might be DIFFICULT, he gave up.

Feel free to say that to the face of a SEAL team member who's been over there, or any other special forces guy who's served in the area.

I'm sure they'd be delighted with your assessment and will be only too glad to let you know that in the most direct possible way.

Publicus:

But, when someone told him it might be DIFFICULT, he gave up.

So I suppose my friend's brother, and my buddy, is over Afghnaistan eating dates and smoking opium and getting his thing on with one of the locals?

What a brainless, gutless and fucking stupid (happy I'm not using "insipid", Hugh?) remark.

Hoard != horde, o learned one.

There is also the very real possibility he's already dead, too. How would we know if a particular bombing raid took him out if we're unable to inspect, on the ground, what's left? And do you think al Qaeda would help us out here and ADMIT we'd offed him?

Something to think about, since he's been strangely silent for a long time now, even though he knows that any tape he issues will be on Al Jazeera within a day.

Drew --

So sorry to hear that your niece was lost in the towers. I knew someone, but wasn't nearly that close. I was in NYC on 9/10 visiting someone who just had an operation. I nearly spent the night.

I think that for many people, 9/11 was an abstraction, kind of a TV drama. It felt unreal.

But for those of us who had been in the WTC many times, and had spent time in NYC...well, we know all too well that it was real...

Seeing the images again on the 5th anniversary, I got angry at myself for being distracted by all the other political stuff. We should never have let Bush take his eye of the ball. We shouldn't have let bin Laden slip away.

If OBL dies a natural death...that will only compound the injustice and failure.

Publicus:

I don't mind hearing it a *few* times. It's just that you sound like my toddler. You repeat yourself over and over and over and over and over and over and over.........It's not an inconvenient truth to me. We haven't had a successful attack in 5 years.

Hugh:

Pfft. I'm not a Hannity fan. One more time:

"I haven't believed a word of CNN reporting since Peter Arnett and his Operation Tailwind fiasco."

...and...

"I'd like to see this story, which originated from Gateway Pundit, by the way, validated by another source before putting any stock in it."

Really. That should have been plain enough the first time.

1.“Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

Ooop's- Palaces for his cronies. Maybe one for Osama to?

2.“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

Damn, a bunch of cowards actually proposed an attack in 1998????

3. “Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

Poor old inocient Saddam developing WMD, no way.

What did the democrats know and when did they know it? As usual the democrats have their nuts in a vice and someone is turning up the pressure. Release of the documents (how about next month) captured during the invasion should about complete the mission to have a million democrats comitt suicide in one day.

The left keeps saying Bush let Bin Laden escape without letting the facts get in the way.

General Franks made the decision on how to attack Tora Bora. The strategy of allowing tribal fighters, backed up by US special forces and air power, worked brilliantly in dislodging the Taliban from power so it made sense to continue the strategy. A large influx of US troops may have alienated the locals and turned them against the US. Remember the Soviets attacked Tora Bora repeatedly with little success over a decade.

The downside to the strategy, of course, was the locals didn't have the incentive to capture or kill al Qaeda fighters, just to drive them out. However, the Pakistanis were suppose to block the exits and set up a net to capture OBL.

One way to ensure Bin Laden's death was to carpet bomb the entire tribal region but the resulting civilian casualties would have had the left screaming, "War Crimes". Given all the circumstances, Frank's strategy was probably the wisest, although no strategy was certain to guarantee OBL's capture or death.

Lets see how many of you righties have the courage to say wheher on not you believe The National Enquire, oh I mean Priestap's post that Sadam offered assylum to Osama.

Place your votes...and no worry Diebold will be doing the counting.

Tora Bora is not the crux of the problem (raised by Publicus).

It's the flip-flopping suggested in Bush's very own words.

1) Dead or alive/ I will not rest...

2) I don't know where he is, I don't think about it that much.

3) OBL does't fit with our priorities (recently to Fred Barnes).

To me, that is a flip-flop which suggests a lack of integrity and a cut-and-run inconsistency in the war on terror.

Hugh:

We'd need someone who can actually read to count the votes. ;-)

(The wink means I'm joking...really!)

"Honest differences are often a healthy sign of progress."
Mahatma Gandhi

Maybe I'm too optimistic, but I feel like we're getting somewhere. I'd like to wish a good night to my sincere opponents, like Tom Blogical, and even JohnAnnArbo. I believe we're trying to understand each other.

; -)

For those interested in the Saddam Regime's support of AQ, Sunni and Shiia Islamofascists, and other see this post.

HT Scott Malensek

EXCLUSIVE to RBT.

Scott Malensek sent this advance copy of his five part series, Those NO TIES Lies, that will appear in The New Media Journal , to RBT, Ray Robison a FoxNews contributor on the Saddam Regime documents, and Mark Echenlaub of Regime of Terror.

RBT will post the other four parts shortly.

RBT

*****

Those NO TIES Lies
Part 1: BUSH LIED
By Scott Malensek

How many times have we heard members of the media say, "We know now that there were no ties between Saddam and Al Queda"? Typically people make this claim based on any combination of four sources: President Bush's 9/17/03 statement, Sec Powell's 1/8/04 statement, the 911 Commission's Final Report of 7/22/04, or the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence's (SSCI) report on Pre-war Iraq intelligence reports: 7/7/04. Yet, in each of these cases, the very quotations that opponents of the war in Iraq point towards as definitive claims of "no ties" are only half quotes. When they refer to President Bush's comments about Iraq not being part of 911, Colin Powell's statement that he saw no evidence of collaboration, or the 911 Commission saying no evidence of collaborative ties, or the SSCI report of "no evidence of ties"…all of those comments are only half quoted.

"We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11th. There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al Qaeda ties." - Pres Bush 9/17/03

[...]

Read More

Publicus:

Don't let the bed bugs bite.

I have a list of about 400 msm stories linking the two that should be up at www.regimeofterror.com somewhat soon.

Looks like the resident butt kissers are out in force tonight (hugie, pubic hair, mattie etc.). Kos's kiddies site must be down.

Guys,
The 9-11 commission confirmed that Saddam offered bin Laden asylum. It was based on Richard Clarke and the upper echelons of the Cliton administration worrying about Osama "boogeying to Baghdad".

Don't believe me and the 9-11 report? Listen to this interview with Buzz Patterson who held the nuclear codes for Clinton.

http://regimeofterror.com/archives/2006/08/abdul_hadi_aliraqi/

Publicus,
Why not go stronger after UBL?
1. because this war is about protecting the U.S. from threats, not getting revenge. The military has decided that Osama in his cave is less of a threat than Iran, the jihadists in Iraq and threats against the homeland

2. because going in and destabilizing Pakistan so that al Qaeda friendly forces take control of their nuclear arsenal is utterly asinine.

http://regimeofterror.com/archives/2006/08/interview_with_lt_col_buzz_pat/
Patterson interview is there, not the other link.

Sorry

The issue: Saddam's link to al Qaeda
The leftist response: "oh yeah, well bin Laden is still free."

Nice work Kim. BDS is in full effect here.

Saddam offered Bin laden asylum

Bill clinton offered Him asylum several times by refusing to deal with Him..

I'm sorry but it's obvious Hugh and Publicus are really suffering some serious cognitive dissonance here ...

CNN filed a story in 1999 saying that Saddam Hussein offered Bin Laden asylum. We have this story from The Guardian (the Left-Wing British Broadsheet) providing some support and written also in 1999. Heck, it's one of the worst kept secrets in the world that newspapers from around the world featured a heck of a lot of articles from before Bush's first inauguration that said a lot of alarming things about Saddam Hussein, WMDs and terrorism.

The problem for these folks (Publicus, Hugh, muirgeo, jp2, etc.) is that there is no way they can acknowledge this story (and others like it) existed before January 2001 and sustain the BushLied™ fairy tale that has come to define their lives.

So Publicus harps on Tora Bora (as if he knows anything about conducting a manhunt in a mountain range or has anything other than third-hand media reports to assure him that Osama really was at Tora Bora) as if he would not be "questioning the timing" and calling for war crimes tribunals if Osama's head was to turn up on a pike tomorrow on national television.

Hugh shrieks and insists that it must be from the National Enquirer (he's even pretending that the article was written by Kim herself) - he must have avoided visiting the webpage from where this story is excerpted or else he'd know that the article is hosted on CNN.com.

jp2 also pretends that Kim wrote the article herself and managed to get it and backdate on CNN's own website and Herman constructs a theory to explain that even though Saddam Hussein did offer sanctuary to Osama Bin Laden, he watched the Godfather and therefore really did not offer sanctuary to Bin Laden, ergo BushLied™!

You guys are hilarious. It's fun seeing you all run away from Scrapiron's pre-2001 quotes like vampires from garlic. You avoid them like the plague. Wonder why?

PS: Publicus: Are you honestly suggesting that right now, today, there are no US Special Forces, SEALS and Marine Force Recon in Afghanistan/Pakistan hunting Bin Laden? You think Iraq is a distraction to them? The US Armed Forces can walk and chew gum at the same time, y'know. That's the thing with Armed Forces capable of fighting wars on two fronts.

Just so you know.

Martin:

Thanks for your post. It was pretty well thought out except for two things.

1) Further evidence that I have never in my life met one single right winger who has a sense of humor or who understands humor. Look up satire Martin. Maybe you should watch The Daily Show, you might actually learn something. The reference to the Enquirer was satire or maybe even sacasm on my part. It was an effort to highlight the absurdity that Priestap would headline an article from a refernece to a piece written in 1999 that no one would claim as true. Get it now?

2) When you paint with the big braod brush lots of you righties like to use at least get the facts right. I have never said Bush lied about WMDs. What I have always said is that only history will show if he did. I have no opinion one way or the other.

As I said try watching the Daily Show where you'll learn what political humor is.

One last thing. Do you believe tthe 1999 story to be true or not. Haven't seen one of you righties answer that question yet.

Hugh,
Sorry I missed the humor.
I'll try to catch the Daily Show. Don't really consider myself a "right winger" and the one topic I really follow closely is one that shouldn't be political at all. Saddam's links or non-links to terrorism. It should be about the same as calling someone an FDR cronie for looking at Japan or Germany's links to nefarious groups.

Also, not saying that Saddam definitely did have a written or unwritten relationship with al-Qaeda, just that the media has been unbelievably cynical in their reporting on the subject. I only say that because I've researched the topic for three solid years and talked to hundreds of journalists.

Martin:

Thanks for the reponse. I agree with your point that it shouldn't be political. Too bad both sides make it that way.

H

Hugh:

I got the joke. So, you *have* met one conservative who has a sense of humor, albeit it on the internet.

Hugh:

Funny you should mention the sense of humor thing, when you couldn't tolerate my ribbing you on the CNN/1999 thing. ;-)

Tom:

Tom:

Well see there you go. People who live in glass houses shouldnt.... (At least I can take responsibility for my gaffes)

My bad.

Perhaps the lesson is that we each have a sense of humor, but like so much else, just don't understand where the other side is coming from. A lesson to be learned?

H

Hugh,

For the record, I don't find a single uncollaborated article to be proof of the case.

However, according to mark, there is much more that points to it. I'll look at what he has to say...but a single CNN article? Not adequate.

However, I don't believe that Saddam offering Osama asylum (Saddam offering Osama asylum...say that three time fast) is beyond reason...do you?

Two 'howevers' in that last post. Brilliant. Where's my coffee?

Heralder,
Much of my stuff
is
at
regimeofterror.com if
you
are
interested.

Heralder:

Like lots of theories or alleged statements of fact about Iraq and the war on terror I don't know what the truth is. I'm a believer that history will ultimately tell us most of the "facts." So I reserve judgment on most statements of "fact." I am sceptical about much of the information that comes from this administration just as I was sceptical about much that came from Clinton. I've said before we shouldn't be all that trusting of those who govern us. I think the founders actually intended that. Maybe I'm wrong but that's what i believe.

That being said, I have seen nothing that would make me believe that Hussein offered asylum to OSB. It's not even something the administration posits. The closest they come is Cheyney's statements which I understand have pretty much been discredited.

The headline posted by Priestap looks like something from the National Enquirer, hence my reference earlier. It wouldn't get past a responsible editor because there is nothing but a 1999 story to support it.

Thanks Mark,

I'll
definitely
take
a
look!

;)

Hugh:

I've said before we shouldn't be all that trusting of those who govern us. I think the founders actually intended that. Maybe I'm wrong but that's what i believe.

I think we should be vigilant, which is what I feel the founding fathers intended. Distrust, just out of basic principle makes little sense. We can give them the benefit of the doubt I think, unless or until they prove otherwise.

I too believe history will sort out the facts, unless revisionists get a hold of it...then our grandkids will be in school learning how Bush orhestrated the 9-11 attacks to make an excuse to go to war, lied about WMDs to make an excuse to go to war...etc.

I'm going to take a look at what Mark has up, perhaps you should stroll by as well.

Heralder,
Thanks for offering to look through my site.

There's not that much there, it could probably be read through in a few hours if you are interested as I tried to focus on reports of wanted terrorists found in Iraq that didn't get much pub and the postwar cooperation of Baathists from Saddam's regime and al-Qaeda. It's been going on since the first days of the invasion and the question of "When it began?" is one that really deserves and answer. The Senate report doesn't even ask that question, let alone answer.

Further evidence that I have never in my life met one single right winger who has a sense of humor or who understands humor.

If you're laughing by yourself maybe it's just that you're not that good at it. But don't worry, I find you hilarious!

One last thing. Do you believe tthe 1999 story to be true or not. Haven't seen one of you righties answer that question yet.

Maybe it's because the posting has nothing to do with whether or not the story CNN told in 1999 is true or not. Neither does this story from The Guardian or this story from ABC. Both from 1999.

I read Kim's post as trying to disprove the very popular belief (on the Left) that Bush made up out of whole cloth the fact that the nation's intelligence agencies (note that all these stories cite intelligence and Administration officials at the time) had long believed that Saddam's irrefutable connections to terrorist groups included Al Qaeda.

Do you understand?

Hugh,

For the record: I reserve judgement on whether or not Saddam Hussein offered Bin Laden asylum in Iraq. I cannot credit too much, but I cannot completely discount it.

All I know is that the idea that Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein could come to some agreement and co-operate, despite their difference in philosophy, was not considered so outlandish back when there was a Democrat in the White House.

Did you know?

Ramsey Youssef came to the US using an Iraqi passport! The day he bombed the WTC the first time in 1993 was the 2 YEAR ANNIVERSARY OF THE LIBERATION OF KUWAIT!!! coincedence?

of course Yousef's cousin, Khalid sheik mohammed, took his goal of toppling the towers and completed it on 9/11/01

Deroy Murdock, who is an expert on this and has shown how a US court found Saddam responsible for 9/11, the judge was appointed by Clinton at

http://www.husseinandterror.com

He wrote this article in NRO about this and talks about the subject of this post
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NTY4YzY3MjFmYzRiMTNjMDQ5NTJkMjliOGUwMDNhYjI=

imagine if "The Path to 9/11" had included those little tidbits about Yousef?

Inconvient Truth

I'm with Joanne on this one.

America (and it's military) aren't smart enough or good enough to capture Bin Laden.
The most powerful (militarily and economic) nation in the history of mankind shouldn't be expected to find one man that hides on them.
Not when that nation is the United States.

Right on Joanne.

Martin:

Her post is taken verbatim from the AP story, including her headline. Where does she posit anything in order to disprove something the left allegedly believes? Is there some radio wave you folks on the right have where you interpret things others from the right are posting? Do you communicate with one another by microwaves?

Good lord man all she did was put up an attention grabbing headline and then follow it with the verbatim story.

Here's what she says:

"Gateway Pundit found a CNN article documenting the fact that Saddam Hussein offered Bin Laden asylum in Iraq..."

Pretty clear to me what her intent was. I understand. Do you?

Robert,

You're funny.

Hugh:

Agreed. The problem with the written word is there is no voice inflection and facial expressions. Emoticons only do so much.

Okay ... why don't you ask her?

ABC News also did a similar report. Link contains video: ABC News claims Saddam-al Qaida link which I just checked...the video link is still available.

Direct link to video if you want to skip the blog post.

Porkopolis,
Here are a number of MSM videos on the Saddam-al Qaeda links.

BBC, CBS, ABC and others. Please take a look.
http://regimeofterror.com/archives/2006/06/video_section/

Also,
I encourage others to ask these members of the Senate intel committee why so many questions about the report remain unanswered...

Pat Roberts
Washington D.C. Office:
109 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510-1605
Phone: 202-224-4774
Fax: 202-224-3514

Orrin Hatch
Washington DC Office
104 Hart Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Tel: (202) 224-5251
Fax: (202) 224-6331

Mike Dewine
Washington, D.C. Office
140 Russell Senate Building
Washington, DC 20510
Phone: (202) 224-2315
Fax: (202) 224-6519
TDD: (202) 224-9921

Kit Bond
Washington, DC Office:
274 Russell Senate Office Bldg.
Washington, DC 20510
(202)224-5721

Trent Lott
Phone: (202) 224-6253
Fax: (202) 224-2262

Olympia Snowe
Toll free in Maine: (800) 432-1599
TDD - Maine Relay Service: 1-955-3323

Chuck Hagel
Washington, D.C. Office
248 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Tel: (202) 224-4224
Fax: (202) 224-5213

Senator Saxby Chambliss
Republican - Georgia United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510
202-224-3521
Evan Bayh
463 Russell Office Building
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510
(202) 224-5623
(202) 228-1377 fax

Hmmm...multiple sources. Looks bad for the folks running around with their hair on fire.

OK, if the doubters want confirmation, go to:

http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/index.htm

and look for FMSO Document CMPC-2003-001488.pdf
It is an Iraqi Intelligence Service document dated September 15, 2001, which reads:

In the Name of God the Most Merciful the Most Compassionate
Office of the Presidency
Intelligence Service
M5/3/9/2

The Honorable Mr. General Director Manager M5

Subject: Information

Our Afghani source numbered 11002 had provided us with the information on the denotation paper number -1- )

The Afghani Consul Ahmad Dahstani (the information on the denotation paper number (2)) had mentioned in front of him with the followings:

1. Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban Group in Afghanistan were in touch with the Iraqis and that group of the Talibans and Osama Bin Laden had visited Iraq.
2. The United States of America has evidence that the Iraqi government and Osama Bin Laden’s group expressed cooperation among themselves in bombing targets in American.
3. In case Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban were proven to have been involved in carrying out these terrorist operations, it could be possible that the United Stated will attack both Iraq and Afghanistan.
4. The Afghani consul heard about the connection between the Iraqis and the Osama Bin Laden group during his stay in Iran.
5. Upon what has been presented we suggest writing to the Intention Committee with the above information.

Please revise…Your recommendation…With appreciation,

Director, M5/3
15/9/2001 Khalid
15/9
Immediately to be
presented to the
Intention Committee President

We declared jihad against the US government, because the US government is unjust, criminal and tyrannical. It has committed acts that are extremely unjust, hideous and criminal whether directly or through its support of the Israeli occupation of the Prophet's Night Travel Land (Palestine). And we believe the US is directly responsible for those who were killed in Palestine, Lebanon and Iraq.
-Osama Bin Laden Interview with Peter Arnett Late March 1997

One thing is for certain, if Bush Sr had removed Saddam or if Clinton had removed Saddam before 1996, Bin Laden and Al Queda never would have started killing Americans.