From the Washington Post:
Contacts between Iraqi intelligence agents and Osama bin Laden when he was in Sudan in the mid-1990's were part of a broad effort by Baghdad to work with organizations opposing the Saudi ruling family, according to a newly disclosed document obtained by the Americans in Iraq.
American officials described the document as an internal report by the Iraqi intelligence service detailing efforts to seek cooperation with several Saudi opposition groups, including Mr. bin Laden's organization, before Al Qaeda had become a full-fledged terrorist organization. He was based in Sudan from 1992 to 1996, when that country forced him to leave and he took refuge in Afghanistan.
Later in the piece though, you get to the interesting part:
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. Since obtaining the document, The Times has interviewed several military, intelligence and United States government officials in Washington and Baghdad to determine that the government considered it authentic.
So when the NYtimes ran a page one headline saying there was no link between Saddam and al Qaeda, it had evidence that there was and it was from an Iraqi source.
Newspaper of record my ass.
Interesting point about the attacks in Iraq
From IraqTheModel:
The attacks in the last few days illustrate the spots of the terrorists presence and activity whom foreigners represent a high percentage of their count because of the close proximity of Diyla governorate to Iran and the close proximity of Anbar and Mosul governorates to Syria, the two countries that have the greatest interest in the failure of the democratic process in Iraq. That’s why those spots must be dealt with in a special way but for a very limited time. Besides, there should be active communications between the authorities and the people who live there and there should be also a strong presence of the security forces.
Suggests to me that the folks on the ground -- in this case Mohammed -- know who the real culprits are in this whole bloody mess. I wonder of CNN would ever change from calling the perps in these attacks "insurgents" and start calling them "Syrian and Iranian backed murder squads intent on overthrowing the government".
Despite what you may have heard on NPR, Kerry’s in trouble
I was doing a bit of research on the Electoral College when I ran across this little tidbit: In every election since 1972, the following states have always voted with the winner – Louisiana, Arkansas, Tennessee, Missouri, Kentucky and Ohio.
For those paying attention, Bush has solid leads in Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Ohio and is slightly ahead in Missouri
What does this mean? Probably nothing, other than history generally repeats itself and has in every election since 1972 in these states.
My prediction stands: Bush takes 40 states minimum with a chance to max out.
