i still have this feeling that this will change absolutely no one's minds about anything.

things i'd like to know:

what exactly were the terror plans? how extensive were they? in what stage of planning? were biological or chemical weapons involved? who was slated to carry out the terror plans? are any in russian or us custody? where's habbush? who told russia or how else did russia find out these plans? what else did russia know about terror and/or wmd's? when did russia warn the usa about these plans? why could this information not be released in the run-up to war? why not after the war or when saddam was captured? ok i guess i know the answer to the last few. oh well, there are so many more questions left to be answered.

Facts are stubborn things but then again so are editors of the NY Times.

Will they be willing to print such a important on its front page?

Can they stifle their instinctual habit of blasting Bush for a for a minute and engage in some real journalism?

I am not holding my breath on this one either.

PS: The stooges of the network news media wouldn't dare run with such a story unless the NYT did first.

Russia probably found out because Iraq under Saddam was a major Soviet client for 30+ years. The KGB was competent, and I'm sure their successor the FSB still has quite a few people on the ground there.

Dan Darling also notes that Russia used Iraq as a "listening post" re: al-Qaeda, whose actions in Chechnya and Central Asia were a concern.

As for why this information was not released sooner, you'd have to ask Putin. Buit we can think it through:

Putin surely wanted to keep his folks above suspicion in Iraq to facilitate their work. Russia valued Saddam's Iraq as a listening post and a source of MAJOR profits, and wasn't about to threaten that by giving the USA ammo at the time. He has warned the USA, and as he saw it his duty ended there. Welcome to the real world of international relations.

As for the details, Russian intelligence tends not to talk about that to outsiders.

Most intel agencies don't, actually - the Americans are somewhat loos elipped in that regard, and this has made many foreign intel agencies a bit reluctant to cooperate with them in the past. "If we wanted our tips on the front page of the NY Times," they say, "we could just submit them there ourselves."

Glenn, I doubt you will get answers to your questions, for two reasons:

First, the Russians would not have revealed details that would expose or compromise their own sources and methods of collection.

And second, we would not reveal details that would allow the enemy to figure out what we knew, precisely, and how we acted on it, for similar reaasons.

I've just checked the New York Times web site. Guess what? The story on Putin's statement doesn't show up anywhere. Go figure.

It's not like they haven't updated either. They already posted the story on the Johnson beheading. If this isn't proof of their agenda, I don't know what is. Personally, I won't ever spend another cent on an issue of the NY Times.

So much for intellectual honesty and objective reporting.

In answer to some of your questions, Glenn, might I point you in the direction of the 2002 State Department report on global terrorism, in particular the "Iraq" section of the report.

There is more going on here than you know.

i know, i know, none of the answers will ever come out.

you should read some of the skepticism on some of the anti-war sites - pandagon, daily kos, corrente. its no surprise. i think pandagon says something like "well, all the intelligence agencies got the wmd story wrong" or something to that effect. but of course, bush lied about wmd's. that's the mantra, and they're sticking with it.

Thanks for the lead Dan.i feel like i've read most of it before though.

Here is the section on Iraq from the 2002 Report on Patterns of Global Terrorism (issued by the US State Dept):

Iraq planned and sponsored international terrorism in 2002. Throughout the year, the Iraqi Intelligence Services (IIS) laid the groundwork for possible attacks against civilian and military targets in the United States and other Western countries. The IIS reportedly instructed its agents in early 2001 that their main mission was to obtain information about US and Israeli targets. The IIS also threatened dissidents in the Near East and Europe and stole records and computer files detailing antiregime activity. In December 2002, the press claimed Iraqi intelligence killed Walid al-Mayahi, a Shi’a Iraqi refugee in Lebanon and member of the Iraqi National Congress.

Iraq was a safehaven, transit point, and operational base for groups and individuals who direct violence against the United States, Israel, and other countries. Baghdad overtly assisted two categories of Iraqi-based terrorist organizations—Iranian dissidents devoted to toppling the Iranian Government and a variety of Palestinian groups opposed to peace with Israel. The groups include the Iranian Mujahedin-e Khalq, the Abu Nidal organization (although Iraq reportedly killed its leader), the Palestine Liberation Front (PLF), and the Arab Liberation Front (ALF). In the past year, the PLF increased its operational activity against Israel and sent its members to Iraq for training for future terrorist attacks.

Baghdad provided material assistance to other Palestinian terrorist groups that are in the forefront of the intifadah. The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command, HAMAS, and the Palestine Islamic Jihad are the three most important groups to whom Baghdad has extended outreach and support efforts.

Saddam paid the families of Palestinian suicide bombers to encourage Palestinian terrorism, channeling $25,000 since March through the ALF alone to families of suicide bombers in Gaza and the West Bank. Public testimonials by Palestinian civilians and officials and cancelled checks captured by Israel in the West Bank verify the transfer of a considerable amount of Iraqi money.

The presence of several hundred al-Qaida operatives fighting with the small Kurdish Islamist group Ansar al-Islam in the northeastern corner of Iraqi Kurdistan—where the IIS operates—is well documented. Iraq has an agent in the most senior levels of Ansar al-Islam as well. In addition, small numbers of highly placed al-Qaida militants were present in Baghdad and areas of Iraq that Saddam controls. It is inconceivable these groups were in Iraq without the knowledge and acquiescence of Saddam’s regime. In the past year, al-Qaida operatives in northern Iraq concocted suspect chemicals under the direction of senior al-Qaida associate Abu Mus’ab al-Zarqawi and tried to smuggle them into Russia, Western Europe, and the United States for terrorist operations.

Iraq is a party to five of the 12 international conventions and protocols relating to terrorism.

(Note: See Appendix G for a fuller description of Iraq's ties to terrorism—particularly al-Qaida— excerpted from Secretary Powell’s 5 February 2003 presentation before the United Nations Security Council.)

And here is Appendix G:

Appendix G: Iraq and Terrorism

Secretary of State Colin L. Powell
Excerpt from Remarks to the United Nations Security Council
5 February 2003

My friends, the information I have presented to you about these terrible weapons and about Iraq’s continued flaunting of its obligations under Security Council Resolution 1441 links to a subject I now want to spend a little bit of time on, and that has to do with terrorism.

Our concern is not just about these illicit weapons; it’s the way that these illicit weapons can be connected to terrorists and terrorist organizations that have no compunction about using such devices against innocent people around the world.

Iraq and terrorism go back decades. Baghdad trains Palestine Liberation Front members in small arms and explosives. Saddam uses the Arab Liberation Front to funnel money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers in order to prolong the Intifadah. And it’s no secret that Saddam’s own intelligence service was involved in dozens of attacks or attempted assassinations in the 1990s.

But what I want to bring to your attention today is the potentially much more sinister nexus between Iraq and the al-Qaida terrorist network, a nexus that combines classic terrorist organizations and modern methods of murder. Iraq today harbors a deadly terrorist network headed by Abu Mud’ab al-Zarqawi an associate and collaborator of Usama Bin Ladin and his Al-Qaida lieutenants.

Zarqawi, Palestinian born in Jordan, fought in the Afghan war more than a decade ago. Returning to Afghanistan in 2000, he oversaw a terrorist training camp. One of his specialties, and one of the specialties of this camp, is poisons.

When our coalition ousted the Taliban, the Zarqawi network helped establish another poison and explosive training center camp, and this camp is located in northeastern Iraq. You see a picture of this camp.

The network is teaching its operatives how to produce ricin and other poisons. Let me remind you how ricin works. Less than a pinch—imagine a pinch of salt—less than a pinch of ricin, eating just this amount in your food, would cause shock, followed bycirculatory failure. Death comes within 72 hours and there is no antidote. There is no cure. It is fatal.

Those helping to run this camp are Zarqawi lieutenants operating in northern Kurdish areas outside Saddam Hussein’s controlled Iraq. But Baghdad has an agent in the most senior levels of the radical organization Ansar al-Islam that controls this corner of Iraq. In 2000, this agent offered al-Qaida safehaven in the region.

After we swept al-Qaida from Afghanistan, some of those members accepted this safehaven. They remain there today.

Zarqawi’s activities are not confined to this small corner of northeast Iraq. He traveled to Baghdad in May of 2002 for medical treatment, staying in the capital of Iraq for two months while he recuperated to fight another day.

During his stay, nearly two-dozen extremists converged on Baghdad and established a base of operations there. These al-Qaida affiliates based in Baghdad now coordinate the movement of people, money and supplies into and throughout Iraq for his network, and they have now been operating freely in the capital for more than eight months.

Iraqi officials deny accusations of ties with al-Qaida. These denials are simply not credible. Last year, an al-Qaida associate bragged that the situation in Iraq was “good,” that Baghdad could be transited quickly.

We know these affiliates are connected to Zarqawi because they remain, even today, in regular contact with his direct subordinates, include the poison-cell plotters. And they are involved in moving more than money and materiel. Last year, two suspected al-Qaida operatives were arrested crossing from Iraq into Saudi Arabia. They were linked to associates of the Baghdad cell and one of them received training in Afghanistan on how to use cyanide.

From his terrorist network in Iraq, Zarqawi can direct his network in the Middle East and beyond. We in the United States, all of us, the State Department and the Agency for International Development, we all lost a dear friend with the cold-blooded murder of Mr. Laurence Foley in Amman, Jordan, last October. A despicable act was committed that day, the assassination of an individual whose sole mission was to assist the people of Jordan. The captured assassin says his cell received money and weapons from Zarqawi for that murder. After the attack, an associate of the assassin left Jordan to go to Iraq to obtain weapons and explosives for further operations. Iraqi officials protest that they are not aware of the whereabouts of Zarqawi or of any of his associates. Again, these protests are not credible. We know of Zarqawi’s activities in Baghdad. I described them earlier.

Now let me add one other fact. We asked a friendly security service to approach Baghdad about extraditing Zarqawi and providing information about him and his close associates. This service contacted Iraqi officials twice and we passed details that should have made it easy to find Zarqawi. The network remains in Baghdad. Zakawi still remains at large, to come and go.

As my colleagues around this table and as the citizens they represent in Europe know, Zarqawi’s terrorism is not confined to the Middle East. Zarqawi and his network have plotted terrorist actions against countries including France, Britain, Spain, Italy, Germany and Russia. According to detainees Abu Atiya, who graduated from Zarqawi’s terrorist camp in Afghanistan, tasked at least nine North African extremists in 2001 to travel to Europe to conduct poison and explosive attacks.

Since last year, members of this network have been apprehended in France, Britain, Spain and Italy. By our last count, 116 operatives connected to this global web have been arrested.

We know about this European network and we know about its links to Zarqawi because the detainees who provided the information about the targets also provided the names of members of the network. Three of those he identified by name were arrested in France last December. In the apartments of the terrorists, authorities found circuits for explosive devices and a list of ingredients to make toxins.

The detainee who helped piece this together says the plot also targeted Britain. Later evidence again proved him right. When the British unearthed the cell there just last month, one British police officer was murdered during the destruction of the cell.

We also know that Zarqawi’s colleagues have been active in the Pankisi Gorge, Georgia, and in Chechnya, Russia. The plotting to which they are linked is not mere chatter. Members of Zarqawi’s network say their goal was to kill Russians with toxins.

We are not surprised that Iraq is harboring Zarqawi and his subordinates. This understanding builds on decades-long experience with respect to ties between Iraq and al-Qaida. Going back to the early and mid-1990s when Bin Ladin was based in Sudan, an al-Qaida source tells us that Saddam and Bin Ladin reached an understanding that al-Qaida would no longer support activities against Baghdad. Early al-Qaida ties were forged by secret high-level intelligence service contacts with al-Qaida, secret Iraqi intelligence high-level contacts with al-Qaida.

We know members of both organizations met repeatedly and have met at least eight times at very senior levels since the early 1990s. In 1996, a foreign security service tells us that Bin Ladin met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official in Khartoum and later met the director of the Iraqi Intelligence Service.

Saddam became more interested as he saw al-Qaida’s appalling attacks. A detained al-Qaida members tells us that Saddam was more willing to assist al-Qaida after the 1998 bombings of our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Saddam was also impressed by al-Qaida’s attacks on the USS Cole in Yemen in October 2000.

Iraqis continue to visit Bin Ladin in his new home in Afghanistan. A senior defector, one of Saddam’s former intelligence chiefs in Europe, says Saddam sent his agents to Afghanistan sometime in the mid-1990s to provide training to al-Qaida members on document forgery.

From the late 1990s until 2001, the Iraqi Embassy in Pakistan played the role of liaison to the al-Qaida organization.

Some believe, some claim, these contacts do not amount to much. They say Saddam Hussein’s secular tyranny and al-Qaida’s religious tyranny do not mix. I am not comforted by this thought. Ambition and hatred are enough to bring Iraq and al-Qaida together, enough so al-Qaida could learn how to build more sophisticated bombs and learn how to forge documents, and enough so that al-Qaida could turn to Iraq for help in acquiring expertise on weapons of mass destruction.

And the record of Saddam Hussein’s cooperation with other Islamist terrorist organizations is clear. HAMAS, for example, opened an office in Baghdad in 1999, and Iraq has hosted conferences attended by Palestine Islamic Jihad. These groups are at the forefront of sponsoring suicide attacks against Israel.

Al-Qaida continues to have a deep interest in acquiring weapons of mass destruction. As with the story of Zarqawi and his network, I can trace the story of a senior terrorist operative telling how Iraq provided training in these weapons to al-Qaida. Fortunately, this operative is now detained and he has told his story. I will relate it to you now as he, himself, described it.

This senior al-Qaida terrorist was responsible for one of al-Qaida’s training camps in Afghanistan. His information comes firsthand from his personal involvement at senior levels of al-Qaida. He says Bin Ladin and his top deputy in Afghanistan, deceased al-Qaida leader Mohammed Atef, did not believe that al-Qaida labs in Afghanistan were capable enough to manufacture these chemical or biological agents. They needed to go somewhere else. They had to look outside of Afghanistan for help.

Where did they go? Where did they look? They went to Iraq. The support that the operative describes included Iraq offering chemical or biological weapons training for two al-Qaida associates beginning in December 2000. He says that a militant known as Abdullah al-Araqi had been sent to Iraq several times between 1997 and 2000 for help in acquiring poisons and gasses. Abdullah al-Araqi characterized the relationship he forged with Iraqi officials as successful.

As I said at the outset, none of this should come as a surprise to any of us. Terrorism has been a tool used by Saddam for decades. Saddam was a supporter of terrorism long before these terrorist networks had a name, and this support continues. The nexus of poisons and terror is new. The nexus of Iraq and terror is old. The combination is lethal.

With this track record, Iraqi denials of supporting terrorism take their place alongside the other Iraqi denials of weapons of mass destruction. It is all a web of lies.
When we confront a regime that harbors ambitions for regional domination, hides weapons of mass destruction, and provides haven and active support for terrorists, we are not confronting the past; we are confronting the present. And unless we act, we are confronting an even more frightening future.

Hmm. Maybe it's not on the NYT front page because it's not news. From the AP article:

"In Washington, a U.S. official said Putin's information did not add to what the United States already knew about Saddam's intentions."

The only "bombshell" here is that a former KGB officer wants to help Bush get re-elected.

Dan:

How likely do you think it is that Atta was trained by Abu Nidal, as the IGC claimed?

"In Washington, a U.S. official said Putin's information did not add to what the United States already knew about Saddam's intentions."

$1000 says he's from the CIA.

Joel,
Why would Putin prefer Bush over Kerry? Because Bush can see into is soul?

Or maybe Joel, the NY Times is just a rag sheet fit for lining the bottom of my grandmother's bird cage.

You don't think that Putin coming out and saying this AT THIS POINT IN TIME is an important story? If it's so unimportant and so tired and old news, why was it plastered all over the from page of CNN.com this morning (before news of the Johnson beheading broke)?

Not news-worthy? When a democratic presidential candidate and other in and not in his party are saying that Iraq had nothing to do with the war on terror, and a foreign leader of stature says something that contradicts that party line (in an election year, too) it's not important?

C'mon.

Glenn:

Allow me to help you out a bit by excerpting certain passages that may be of interest to the discussion at hand:

"Iraq planned and sponsored international terrorism in 2002. Throughout the year, the Iraqi Intelligence Services (IIS) laid the groundwork for possible attacks against civilian and military targets in the United States and other Western countries. The IIS reportedly instructed its agents in early 2001 that their main mission was to obtain information about US and Israeli targets.

"In the past year, al-Qaida operatives in northern Iraq concocted suspect chemicals under the direction of senior al-Qaida associate Abu Mus’ab al-Zarqawi and tried to smuggle them into Russia, Western Europe, and the United States for terrorist operations."

And let me preface this with another handy excerpt from that notorious neocon source ABC News:
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/World/zarqawi_hunt_040525.html

"During the 1990s, Zarqawi trained under bin Laden in Afghanistan. After the fall of the Taliban, he fled to northwestern Iraq and worked with poisons for use in potential attacks, officials say.

"During the summer of 2002, he underwent nasal surgery at a Baghdad hospital, officials say. They mistakenly originally thought, however, that Zarqawi had his leg amputated due to an injury.

In late 2002, officials say, Zarqawi began establishing sleeper cells in Baghdad and acquiring weapons from Iraqi intelligence officials."

And I'll end this with a little excerpt from the Feith memo:

31. An Oct. 2002 . . . report said al Qaeda and Iraq reached a secret agreement whereby Iraq would provide safe haven to al Qaeda members and provide them with money and weapons. The agreement reportedly prompted a large number of al Qaeda members to head to Iraq. The report also said that al Qaeda members involved in a fraudulent passport network for al Qaeda had been directed to procure 90 Iraqi and Syrian passports for al Qaeda personnel.

37. Sensitive reporting indicates senior terrorist planner and close al Qaeda associate al Zarqawi has had an operational alliance with Iraqi officials. As of Oct. 2002, al Zarqawi maintained contacts with the IIS to procure weapons and explosives, including surface-to-air missiles from an IIS officer in Baghdad. According to sensitive reporting, al Zarqawi was setting up sleeper cells in Baghdad to be activated in case of a U.S. occupation of the city, suggesting his operational cooperation with the Iraqis may have deepened in recent months. Such cooperation could include IIS provision of a secure operating bases [sic] and steady access to arms and explosives in preparation for a possible U.S. invasion. Al Zarqawi's procurements from the Iraqis also could support al Qaeda operations against the U.S. or its allies elsewhere.

38. According to sensitive reporting, a contact with good access who does not have an established reporting record: An Iraqi intelligence service officer said that as of mid-March the IIS was providing weapons to al Qaeda members located in northern Iraq, including rocket propelled grenade (RPG)-18 launchers. According to IIS information, northern Iraq-based al Qaeda members believed that the U.S. intended to strike al Qaeda targets during an anticipated assault against Ansar al-Islam positions.

Now I didn't say anything, I'm just excerpting.

Colt:

The Atta/Nidal collaboration is not true.

As far as what the official said, that much is quite accurate. Review George Tenet's testimony on the subject and you'll find a number of interesting points of interests.

NYT may not think it's news, but many others disagree.

Well now. Isn't that something. Thanks for sharing the google search lewy14.

Oops! Look it just went up. Right under the story of Venezuelan president Chavez bracing for a recall vote.

Well, I guess now they can't say they weren't "objective" about it. After all, they did post it (3/4 way down the page, 3rd headline and final in international section).

Dan:

Review George Tenet's testimony on the subject and you'll find a number of interesting points of interests.

Let's assume I don't know where to start...

Perhaps his 2003 worldwide threat assessment or his more recent Senate testimony on the subject of Iraq.

Maybe, just maybe, you might find something of interest there.

Sorry for the OT:

Al Arabiya: Abdulaziz al-Muqrin killed?

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=5460981

Ok, thanks Dan (sorry to pester :-)

Fox reports al-Muqrin was killed trying to dispose of Paul Johnson's body.

It's a Saudi security report (meaning to came from Nayef's Interior Ministry) and with all of the usual caveats about terrorists having extra lives, yes, they say that al-Muqrin has gone to the great beyond. I'd like to see a body before I count him among the dead, however.

Fox: US intel confirms al-Muqrin is dead :-)

Good enough for me, then.

Hope he enjoys his corner in hell.

Here's Putin back in March 2003 saying "we have never had and we do not have information to support..." "the accusations that Iraq supports international terrorism".

If there was no Atta/Nidal connection, why did future Iraqi PM Iyad Allawi have such confidence in it? Was he misquoted? I am very suspicious of that memo and the timing of its release, but it's time we had some answers about its origins and the circumstances of Allawi's alleged endorsement of it. (I still think it's possibly a CIA "poison pill" for people too keen to embrace any Iraq/AQ evidence that comes along, destined to be debunked at some future date.)

Regardless of PM Allawi's merits or lack thereof as far as running Iraq goes, he is very close to the CIA, which is something I would look very carefully at concerning everything he says.

While not mourning his loss overmuch, the killing of al Muqrin by Saudi security forces sounds incredibly convenient for the Saudis to me. The Religious Policeman frequently suggests that al Qaeda in Saudi and Saudi security forces are one and the same.

On the general subject of Iraq threatening the USA, here's a blast from the past.

The Saudi "security" forces are Nayef or Sultan's boys, so this is certainly a definite possibility. Al-Qaeda has completely compromised nearly every branch of the Saudi military-security apparatus (with the notable exception of the air force), so I have no doubt that they're often meeting up with old friends in these frequent "clashes" that occur. Add to that a healthy dose of propaganda from the state-run news reports (lest we forget, our only real source of information as far as what goes on in the Kingdom) and the al-Jubeir/Bandar spin machine stateside, and I'd say we have a pot ready to stir with al-Qaeda added in for spice.

Don't ya just love how they managed to find al-Muqrin only after he and his thugs had murdered Johnson after nearly a week of "intensive searching" in one of the most totalitarian societies on the planet?

Why didn't the administration release this "info" (which is really nothing more than hearsay) a long time ago?

Real interesting timing.

Guess they decided to try the "John Ashcroft" approach to countering what they perceive as politically damaging news.

These guys really put the "P" in "Politics".

Could it also be that no major terrorist attck since 9/11 has happened on US soil at least partly because AQ's Iraq base was decimated?
Besides, my biggest issue with this administration is its mollycoddling of Pakistan which has all along been playing Washington - hnting with the US hound and running with the jehadi hare. The AQ khan scare wasn't enough? Mark my words, pak will be terrorism's next flashpoint after Iraq and Saudi.

"Vesicle Trafficker": These are statements by Putin himself, made yesterday. They were not made by anyone in the Bush administration.

Vesicle Trafficker:

As I noted with the various excerpts, this is hardly new information so much as it is corroboration of things that have already been posted. Bitter much?

Sud voly:

Could be, but judging from the most recent arrests in Ohio and other cases, but my theory is that their North American cell network has been disrupted by the arrest of Ali Saleh al-Marri.

You're also leaving out Iran in your equation.

Dan: Could it be that al Qaeda gave al Muqrin up as a sacrificial goat to take the heat off elsewhere? Or that he had outlived his usefulness with all the video exposure? From what you've told me before, he was emminently expendable.

jinni twisterella:

My guess is that al-Muqrin overstepped his boundaries in Saudi Arabia as far as what Nayef was willing to tolerate. Besides, after the latest string of defeats by the Saudi keystone cops, the Interior Ministry badly needed a victory otherwise the expats would start fleeing in droves.

And then who would work the oil?

Dan: I'd say that's spot on! Thanx. :-)

Dan: "The Atta/Nidal collaboration is not true."

You were slightly skeptical but overall non-committal a few months ago. (Link)

Why do you categorically rule it out now?

Mitch points out the poison pill scenario, and I concur that is a real possibility - Allawi was quick to go on record to endorse the authenticity of the memo. But the INC wouldn't endorse it.

But a poison pill against what? Here's the Hosenball/Isikoff article. <a href="http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3741646/"(Link) They debunk it almost immediately. Mneimneh, as far as I can get from Googling, seems straight up. And he's right that they almost certainly wouldn't use the term "al Qaeda" in a memo.

In addition, it is weird that the Niger item would be included in the memo at all. Whether the smuggled substance is yellowcake or whatever, it's unrelated to the rest of the memo. In addition, the entire yellowcake affair has had disinformation screaming from it from the word go - the Rome documents, the Wilson trip, and the Plame leak.

But I still can't shake the feeling that the Abu Nidal info fits. I can't explain it properly -- it just FITS so perfectly into place when you look at it from my particular viewpoint.

Here's my idea: Someone finds a memo explaining the Atta trip to meet Abu Nidal. The guy who finds the memo decides - for whatever reason - that this information must be surpressed. But instead of just destroying the document and keeping quiet, the decision is made to discredit the document instead. So the genuine document is given a bogus addendum.

Now the Atta/Nidal connection has achieved Piltdown Man status. That also solves any awkward problems of a genuine duplicate copy turing up -"Oh, well, we know that's not true, see, because this other stuff back in December..." I also don't remember ever seeing the entire document in print, the full, translated text or a mimeograph of the original. In the original Telegraph story, in the Hosenball/Isikoff story (Mneimneh didn't see it either). Nowhere.

So that's my thinking. Maybe my scenario is too byzantine for you? Maybe you disagree? Good. Don't just tell me I'm a fool, though. Tell me WHY I'm a fool.

One more thing - the timing of Putin's statement is more important than the substance. Just when Cheney is sounding off about the New York Times piece.

Dan;

I was questioning the timing of the revelation by Putin and why the administration, which had it also, did not release it (or allow Putin too) sooner. I was not challenging (nor supporting) its veracity. You seem to have missed this in your rush to marginalize my post with an ad hominem comment. I was under the impression this was generally frowned upon on this site. Or does this prinicple only apply under certain specific circumstances?

In light of your comment, then why is this news, or noteworthy? So we get to find out now that Putin had the same bad intel we did. Earth shattering.

"Allow Putin to..."

VT, why do you assume that Putin has to be allowed by the United States to say anything. Last I checked, he was an independent head of state who could choose to talk about his state's activities (or not) at any time.

But nooo, it all has to be about Bush, and he has to be pulling the strings. All the time.

Belmont Club's point about the Left's view of government as an all-powerful parent that it simultaeously hero-worships and rebels against is looking more prescient every day.

Pete Stanley:

My basic reason for saying that the Atta/Nidal memo is false is having talked to people who told me that Mneimneh is a straight shooter as far as document verification is concerned. The INC/INA differences are more due to the politics of their respective relationships with the US government.

E-mail me for more on this.

Vesicle Trafficker:

My mistake, I thought you were taking issue with the information itself, hence my "bitter" comment. Consider it retracted.

This is newsworthy because were it demonstrated that Iraq was planning to do just this it would almost certainly legitimize the decision to go to war in the minds of many Americans. Even, I think, for many Democrats. I would very much ask that you re-read the relevant excerpts and place that information within the context of what Putin said.

Over at Drezner, everybody is wondering about the timing as well. Not speculating that Bush can control Putin, but that it could possibly be a tit-for-tat. Bush may have offered Putin something political in exchange for this, or Putin is just trying to help his friend out. The appearance of McCain with Bush also smacks of this, as McCain has never been one to toe the party line and has been less than supportive of Bush.

Because the real oddity is, if what Putin says is true, why didn't the Bush Administration say anything earlier? They could have used it as ammunition while trying to convince the UN, and completely discredited Russia's argument against the war (Russia and France being the two veto threats). This would just leave France, who could be more easily marginalized to the point that the world wouldn't really care if they vetoed.

Well, according to the Times story, which ran on page A8 today, Pootie-Poot didn't think the information was enough to warrant an invasion.

BTW, Dan, I just finished reading The Connection, and I have to admit that there's a lot of smoke there. Hayes does a pretty good job both of laying out the facts that have been universally agreed upon and of explaining the context behind controversial items. I wish there were footnotes, though. I had previously associated the Iraq/AQ connection with Laura Mylroie, whose book I read but found utterly speculative, unconvincing, and downright amateurish.

I haven't had time to sort out what I believe and don't believe--although Hayes gets a few things wrong (Zarkawi's leg) and cites a few journalists I distrust (Edward Jay Epstein)--but generally speaking I'm more convinced than I was before. Most effective, I think, are the parts where Hayes shows Saddam's rhetoric suggesting he was more amenable to working with Islamic radicals than is generally assumed. It does shatter a key assumption of Benjamin and Simon, certainly, and isn't something can be be refuted by saying "oh, well that's not a credible source."

Anyway, tell Steve he did a good job. One is left to wonder why the administration was so inept in making this argument.

Indeed, as time goes on, strangely, I find myself more and more leaning toward the prowar camp in the sense that I can understand that there was a strong case for it, and more in the antiwar camp in he sense that I think it has been counterproductive in its execution. Which puts me in a unique place, I think.

asdf:

(Have you posted at LGF?)

One is left to wonder why the administration was so inept in making this argument.

My layman's understanding of the Beltway situation is that there has been a lot of inter-agency/department fighting. Had Bush picked a side, all hell could have broken loose - publically, in the run-up to an invasion. Not good PR.

...more in the antiwar camp in he sense that I think it has been counterproductive in its execution.

The question is: if it were a choice between it having been done like this, or not at all - which would you choose? I'd go with what we have now (as you might have guessed).

Colt, I'm not a fan of LGF. I think they fan the flames of misunderstanding and ignorance. And I'm actually not particularly pro-Israel.

As for "not at all" vs. "like this," I'm going to cheat and say "with overwhelming numbers of troop, more realistic assumptions, more international support if possible, a more coherent grand strategy, and a longer lead time to get Afghanistan nailed down."

Regarding why the Bush admin may not have said anything about the Russian intelligence, traditionally you don't announce or pass on intelligence from another country without that country's approval. They may not have had that approval.

fling93:

There is more going on here than is generally known and that's in all honesty everything that I can say about the subject. The information that Putin is speaking of, however, is accurate, which is why I thought those excerpts might prove illuminating. As for why he chose to come out with this now ...

Russia was never going to veto the Iraq resolution, BTW, but were rather intending to abstain. There's an article from Time on the subject from back just prior to the war. Hence the reason why France was the main veto threat to the second resolution didn't particularly help matters.

asdf:

He's also saying that from the perspective of someone who used Iraq's intelligence services to keep track on al-Qaeda heading up to fight in Chechnya, which would no doubt be a higher priority for him. That, combined with the $8,000,000,000+ debt that Iraq owed Russia from the Soviet days and the corruption that Russia was benefiting from in the oil-for-food program, put Putin in a rather unique situation.

I'll be sure to relay your comments to Hayes, who works in our building, by the way. I would be the first to readily concede that administration did a horrible PR job as far as making its case for the Iraq war, due I think in large part out of consensus that occurred with regard to the decision to use WMDs as the primary rationale for going to war because that was seen as being the one thing that everybody, both domestically and internationally, could agree on. I think that the al-Qaeda connection makes a lot more sense, myself, but you can probably understand me making that judgement ;)

The inter-agency feuding and use of anonymous sources to score points in the press long predates the Bush administration, it's simply gotten much worse during this administration.

Russia also warned the Clinton administration shortly before Billary left office, and as normal POTUS 2 wannabe Bill did nothing that didn't involve harming or working AGAINST American NATIONAL & GEOPOLITICAL interests whilst also proclaiming to defend it! AMERICA IS THE REAL BATTLEFIELD NO MATTER HOW WARS IT FIGHTS - I BELIEVE WE ARE ALL CAUGHT UP IN A CLASH OF EMPIRE, or more accurately a CLASH FOR WHAT KIND/TYPE OF [AMERICAN] EMPIRE! I truly believe the Clintons and the Left truly want Republican-led America to wage war around the globe while working to discredit America and Americanism and justify or empower Communism and SOcialism in America - the issue is whether Communist America is to be KING OR SLAVE RELATIVE TO COMMUNIST RUSSIA AND CHINA. Russian Socialism or Soviet Communism has grotesquely failed, with China at real threat of similar failure - as failed SOcialist states trying to modernize, BUT DOING SO WITHOUT GIVING UP SOCIALISM, they cannot carry out the globalist-style agenda of either International Socialism or International Communism, thus they need allegedly "FASCIST" AMERICA TO DO IT FOR THEM! I like Bush, many I know both Democrat or Republican like him also, and I believe the US Left and Libmedias are being wilfully and deliberately MISLEADING, IF NOT WHOLLY DECEPTIVE OR CONSPIRATORIAL, about Bush NOT being popular or meritorious, or about America being a polarized or divided nation! I BELIEVE WE SHOULD NOT PERCEIVE ANY NEW REGIONAL WAR, SUCH AS AGAINST IRAN, SYRIA, OR NORTH KOREA-TAIWAN CRISIS, AS SEPARATE, BUT AS COLLUSORY AND LINKED TOGETHER IN ORDER TO HELP RUSSIA+CHINA CONQUER OR DEFEAT AMERICA, AND EVENTUALLY THE WEST, WITHOUT NEED TO WAGE GLOBAL NUCLEAR WAR. I believe the Left knows new wars will break out if Bush wins a second term. AND NOT BECAUSE OF BUSH'S POLICIES EITHER - the history of Communism is to lose hundreds of thousands if not MILLIONS OR SCORES OF MILLIONS by fighting American and Western firepower! If America is a SUPERPOWER, then whole nations are now needed just to match WEstern military power, thus it is very possible that some or many ROGUE STATES are likely WILFUL SACRIFICIAL LAMBS, DELIBERATELY RISKING THE DESTRUCTION OF THEIR NATIONS AND POPULATIONS IN ORDER TO FORCE AMERICA UNDER SOCIALISM! In his anti-USA "BIG BOY" speech, Bill Clinton doesn't state how America is to be suborned - 9-11 and a discredited and failed America, where Americans de facto despise and hate their own country, is [Americans] answer!