I'm intrigued, but even if this is a legit list, "the Osama bin Laden group at the Iraqi embassy in Pakistan" could, I suppose, just be a group of intelligence agents assigned to keeping tabs on al Qaeda -- even if Saddam worked closely with bin Laden, I doubt very much that he would trust him enough not to have spies watching him, and the embassy in Pakistan is where you would expect those spies to be.

Either way, you can bet we'll be looking for this guy (if he's not in custody already) and perhaps more importantly, rounding up everyone who worked at Saddam's embassy in Pakistan.

Can any one get this list published? The actual wording is very importaint here
"the Osama bin Laden group" would be quite damming,
the bin Laden group is however I believe a
construction contractor. Who did the translating
was it done with the intent to curry favor in their
American employeers? A grain of salt may be called for.
That said I hope we have the B*&&^$@ nauled!

How stupid, even diplomatically, do you have to be to ask this question:

"... Would it be of interest to the Americans to know that Saddam had an ongoing relationship with Osama bin Laden?"

Well, no, we haven't really thought much about that, but thanks...

Really, the only conceivable reason that Hussein and bin Laden would be any less than mortal (if preoccupied) enemies would be that, in fact, these people are really motivated because they (hate freedom*). Such a kindergarten view of the world, while reassuring to the intellectually feeble, fails (often tragically) to appreciate the actual motivations of our enemies.

The only plausible incentive for Hussein to part with chemical or biological weapons would have been significant amounts of cash, amounts so significant that they would offset the high risk of said WMD being used by Islamic terrorists against his own secular regime, thereby picking a destabilized Iraq rather than Saudi Arabia or Iran as the first domino in the plan for the reestablisment of the Islamic empire.

Intellectually feeble, eh? Unfortunately, Clue, authoritarians of all stripes follow one credo above all other ancillary beliefs like, say, National Socialism, Communism, Pan-Arabism or Islamist fascism: the rule of force. Strongmen will ally with strongmen whenever their otherwise self-exclusory goals of selfish conquest coincide in a temporary, mutual challenge.

History is replete with such instances - indeed, most nations being monarchical dictatorships - which does tend to describe the nature of your factual basis. Under the self-described non-"kindergarten" worldview for modern times, for instance, the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was never made.

Excellent research has been done to show that Communist Moscow was a resource and training center for numerous terrorist groups - a model that would certainly appeal to Hussein, whether he knew of it or not.

Most pertinent, al Qaeda is notably and reliably ecumenical.

Clue, there's also such a thing as cultural patterns. Asking the judge the question this way could easily be a form of politeness, even though the answer is known. Consider all the possibilities before going off like that.

What has no evidence to back it is the kindergaten notion that al-Qaeda could never cooperate with a secular regime, without anything in Islamic thought, its own pronouncements, or more important its own correspopnding behaviour to back it up. Pakistan's regime is a lot less than Islamic, but working with the ISI has never seemed to present much difficulty.

Here's what I don't understand:

1. Why Glen Reynolds, the self-appointed scourge of the NY Times, would credit a list published in a newspaper run by Uday Hussein?

2. Why would Reynolds report the article by Merritt and not the other article in the same newspaper which renders the whole meaning of the list gibberish?

Well, Eissenberg, the point, if verified, was that the publication was an inciminating mistake. Villains, out of their gob or not, can benefit those fighting them by being downright stupid. Hell, if it weren't for Hitler and his sleeping late, Normandy might have turned out quite differently.

The second article is a grain of salt, not a refutation.

Oh, I got the point of the article. I just don't see why a list published by Uday Hussein's newspaper has any credibility in the first place. The assumption here appears to be that the government's effort to recover/destroy the newspaper was specifically in order to cover up an alleged connection to Osama bin Laden.

I guess the null hypothesis on this thread (and for Instapundit) is that we believe any theory that supports the Hussein/Osama connection,
regardless of its provenance, credibility or plausibility, until it is disproven?