>This OBL - SH relationship argument is frequently used by people (like Levin) as a means to justify why we're in Iraq, and thats what he's doing w/ the article. And the argument contradicts the 9-11 report. It doesnt reference "growing" contacts. It references sporadic contacts via underlings, involving an area of Iraq that SH had little control over.

I understand that Ansar-al-Islam(sp) was actually within the "no fly zone" protected by the U.S. and Brits.



>
>Levin's comments try to paint a much broader picture, but his comments didnt make the 911 report. I doubt they would as the guy is a frequent guest host on the rush limbaugh show and as such him opinions may be skewed.
>
>
>>>I you read just the comments in the article pulled from the 9-11 report (not Mark Levins comments), it provides at best a cursory relationship between intermediaries of OBL and SH. It states that SH didnt have an islamist agenda and OBL sponsered anti-SH islamists in Kurdistan. Then a blurb about the "Iraqi regime tolerated and may even have helped Ansar al Islam against the common Kurdish enemy". Key word being "common". Wasnt SH warring w/ the Kurds for years?
>>
>>Yes. Kurds within his own country.
>>
>>>
>>>Then Levin states that "The report goes on to say that no evidence was unearthed of a "collaborative operational relationship" or Iraqi cooperation in the 9/11 attacks.", which is kind of an important point.... he then throws out an editorial gem of his own... "However, the existence of bin Ladin/al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein/Iraq connections, over a number of years, is indisputable." The whole piece disputes his conclusion.
>>
>>No one is claiming Iraq helped in arranging the 9/11 attacks. The commission report merely points out that there were growing contacts between SH and al Quaida. Dragan claims there were none, and I believe he is wrong. We can debate the scale of them all day, but the evidence is there.