HOLD ONTO YOUR HATS

Well, perhaps we were framing things incorrectly. We've been thinking about whether bin Laden would would work with Iraq, and arguing that this was possible because both were anti-American. But what about the possibility that Iraq would be interested in working with bin Laden since bin Laden was, like Saddam, anti-Saudi?

That's the possibility explored in a front page (below the fold) article in today's Times, based on a document found in Iraq. In the sixth paragraph we discover:

The new document, which appears to have circulated only since April, was provided to The New York Times several weeks ago, before the commission's report was released.

Ain't that a hoot? In other words, when the Times published its headline reading "Panel Finds No Iraq Queda Tie" they probably understood that, as they write it today:

The commission concluded that the contacts had not demonstrated "a collaborative relationship" between Iraq and Al Qaeda

but they also knew:

The document states that Iraq agreed to rebroadcast anti-Saudi propaganda, and that a request from Mr. bin Laden to begin joint operations against foreign forces in Saudi Arabia went unanswered. There is no further indication of collaboration.

This is a link we've never heard of before. Saddam was broadcasting OBL's greatest hits.

Since the INC is the source, I guess, the Gray Lady is being coy:

At the time of the contacts described in the Iraqi document, Mr. bin Laden was little known beyond the world of national security experts. It is now thought that his associates bombed a hotel in Yemen used by American troops bound for Somalia in 1992. Intelligence officials also believe he played a role in training Somali fighters who battled Army Rangers and Special Operations forces in Mogadishu during the "Black Hawk Down" battle of 1993.

Come on. I've never seen anyone who doubts al Queda's responsibility for the first, and their participation in the second.

But this new material details interaction that I've never seen even hinted at before:

The document, which asserts that Mr. bin Laden "was approached by our side," states that Mr. bin Laden previously "had some reservations about being labeled an Iraqi operative," but was now willing to meet in Sudan, and that "presidential approval" was granted to the Iraqi security service to proceed.

At the meeting, Mr. bin Laden requested that sermons of an anti-Saudi cleric be rebroadcast in Iraq. That request, the document states, was approved by Baghdad.

But the fact that there's no evidence of a response to the request for joint operations hardly proves that the relationship ends there. In point of fact, what it suggests is that there was a clear desire that the relationship continue:

The document is of interest to American officials as a detailed, if limited, snapshot of communications between Iraqi intelligence and Mr. bin Laden, but this view ends with Mr. bin Laden's departure from Sudan. At that point, Iraqi intelligence officers began "seeking other channels through which to handle the relationship, in light of his current location," the document states.

Members of the Pentagon task force that reviewed the document said it described no formal alliance being reached between Mr. bin Laden and Iraqi intelligence. The Iraqi document itself states that "cooperation between the two organizations should be allowed to develop freely through discussion and agreement."

But notice what care the Times is taking to be precise:

The heated public debate over links between Mr. bin Laden and the Hussein government fall basically into three categories: the extent of communications and contacts between the two, the level of actual cooperation, and any specific collaboration in the Sept. 11 attacks

Funny, isn't it, that the Bush administration takes such heat for just changing its positions, but never actually admitting it was wrong.

Update: D'oh! Yes, they had this document when the big headline claiming no ties appeared. But as Ed Morrissey makes clear they also had the document in hand when their editorial page was demanding an apology from the administration for suggesting a tie existed. Take a look at Ed's analysis; he takes a different tack than I and it's quite useful. (Via Instapundit.)

Update: Andrew McCarthy sure ain't happy, and he can't see any reason at all for the Times to have withheld this as long as it did. And given that, he leaves us with a very disturbing question: what else is the Times not telling us?

Comments

[Media Hound]

"Mr. bin Laden"?????

What's next for the Times, "Mr Hitler"?

[IceCold]

There is no "heated public debate" over the third category (AQ role in 9/11), there is just the ridiculous circular thrashing around of the NYT and its ilk as they pit a claim the admin. never made (AQ was involved) against the public record (which the NYT hilariously and pathetically wrote "tends to bear out" the admin. defense that it never made such a claim) -- everyone recall "imminent threat"?

As to the first two categories, has it ever occurred to any of the silly lightweights at the country's "elite' media organizations to, say, at least ponder how the 9/11 staff statements relate to the CIA's position as of Oct. 2002? Specifically:

"* 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 W.M.D. 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."

The staff statement, extremely narrowly and carefully drawn to put "collaboration" in the context of "attacks on the US," would seem to actually implicitly accept these CIA assessments.

So this latest document is interesting, but the stark contradiction between known public elements of the discussion and the NYT's ridiculous editorials and typically poor "reporting" predates it.

[Jim G.]

Ultimately it doesn't matter what the Times writes about Al Queda and Saddam's links, a recent poll still puts public opinion, 68% or so (too lazy to look it up again), fimly believing that Saddam either knew about, or was involved in 9/11. The shrills are just so loud in their own mind, they can't hear anything else.

[dauber]

Knew about, not was involved in. I think that's an important distinction in the polling.