Whoops! New York Times Has To Publish Evidence of Iraq-Osama Ties; and-- Is Sen. Kerry Willing to Address The Moral Imperatives in the War?
Of course the writers put the "no collaboration" spin on the story, but here it is. Apparently a captured document (which the Times has had for several weeks) describes detailed and serious communication between Saddam Hussein's government (with Saddam's approval) and Osama bin Laden. Here's one tidbit:
"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."
So far, no comment from Al Gore, who said in his rant earlier this week:
"But now the extensive independent investigation by the bipartisan commission formed to study the 9/11 attacks has just reported that there was no meaningful relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda of any kind."
Well, that's not what the Commission said anyway, but Al is starting to become more and more like Michael Moore, the guy with "a flexible relationship with the truth." All Gore needs to do is gain about 50 more pounds, go unshaven for a few days, and wear a goofy baseball cap. Then he and Moore would be indistinguishable.
Read the rest of the Times article, then decide for yourself whether or not there was any "meaningful relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda of any kind."
AND on another closely-related matter, I recommend this piece by Daniel Henninger in today's Opinion Journal. I think, as Hugh Hewitt has said, the Democrats have not shown that they are serious about the threat posed by islamofascism. Henninger's piece asks all the right questions. Here's an excerpt:
"[A]fter absorbing these beheadings, voters may start to ask themselves which man's ideology has, if one may use this term, sufficient moral fiber to stand up to what they are seeing with their own eyes. They have seen armed, masked men grandiosely displaying utterly helpless individuals before the world. And they know that the men then grab the victim's head and saw through his neck, while a colleague calmly videotapes the beheading. This is an act of moral depravity. John Kerry should find a church that would allow him to deliver a sermon denouncing it. Bill Clinton would.
"But as with abortion, it is in Mr. Kerry's interest to suppress explicit moral references in politics. Polls show the Democrats and Republicans have divided along secular and religious lines. His base is greatly discomfited by Mr. Bush's traditional brand of moral fervor. Mr. Kerry knows that his base repudiated the party's most religiously grounded candidate, Senator Joe Lieberman. But now the broader electorate lives not only with the memory of September 11, but with fresher images of these recent, undeniably evil beheadings of Americans. These images may be overwhelming the theological debate over whether Iraq was or wasn't party to global terror.
"After sitting in their homes the past month and watching videos of Nicholas Berg, Paul Johnson and Kim Sun Il alive in the moments before their slow and gruesome deaths, voters may now be asking: Does John Kerry have the fortitude to fight an opponent whose actions now appear largely apolitical and amoral, whose goal increasingly appears to be not much more than massacring a world they abhor?"