Posted by Clint,
4:16 PM
-
Horrible News The Old Man of the Mountain is no more. For those of you who never had the chance to visit him, you seriously missed out. cnn.com
There's a short 15 second plug, but then it will get to the real video.
Posted by alex,
1:37 PM
-
Kids these days. Link to CNN to read and be disgusted.
Posted by Jonathan,
12:03 AM
-
Friday, May 02, 2003 Federal Court goes "soft" on soft money
This doesn't bode well for McCain-Feingold. Ironically, this could be a saviour for the Democratic presidential candidate, who wouldn't otherwise be able to compete with Dubya and his $200 million in campaign cash.
A federal court Friday struck down most of a ban on the use of large corporate and union political contributions by political parties, casting into doubt the future of the campaign finance law that was supposed to govern next year’s high-stakes presidential election.
The court also ruled unconstitutional new restrictions on election-time political ads by special interest groups and others. It barred the federal government from enforcing them and all other parts of the law it struck down.
The ruling clears the way for an immediate appeal by the losing parties to the U.S. Supreme Court. The high court’s decision will lay the ground rules for the 2004 presidential election and beyond.
Posted by Dan,
4:31 PM
-
What about us Hindus?"Civilized people -- Muslims, Christians and Jews -- all understand that the source of freedom and human dignity is the Creator," Ashcroft said in prepared remarks released by the Justice Department. (Read the whole article, here.)
Aren't we civilized? We may not believe in Abraham, but still.
Posted by Kumar,
3:06 PM
-
Conservative Hypocrite of the Day
Posted by sam,
2:52 PM
-
Graham vs. Clint: This article by a Naderite should make every Democrat's blood boil. Have fun reading it, here.
Posted by Kumar,
2:49 PM
-
Vieques: News media seems to have been very quiet about this, but activism and concern of a certain community's rights triumphed over arguments of national security. The US military is leaving Vieques. Here.
Posted by Kumar,
2:46 PM
-
Conservative Feminism? In celebration/mockery of the event last night about the conservative feminism, I found a "what kind of feminist are you?" test. Take it, and see where you land (I was a "libertarian feminist"). Here.
Posted by Kumar,
2:39 PM
-
Santorum embarrasses himself (again). via atrios.
Posted by Graham,
1:32 PM
-
DFP 3.10 That's three-point-ten, not three-point-one-oh, a distinction that our webpage can't quite make. Anyhow, the newest Free Press is online. It's got all of our student election endorsements--which may or may not be worth reading at this point--and the usual round of candidate statements.
If you'd rather not read about an already past SA election, we've got two pieces on Arianna Huffington. Kate Schuerman pens a review of Huffington's latest book Pigs at the Trough. Earlier this term Huffington came through Hanover, and I had a chance to get an interview in.
As always, that cover image looks eight times snazzier if you are holding a copy in your hands. Did someone say subscription?
This has got to be one of the best quotes to come out of an SA election in a long time:
Martin was not as pleased about the outcome his bid for the vice presidency. "Thank you to all of my friends who stepped up and helped me out. For those of you who were too lazy to spend two minutes voting, kill yourself," Martin said in a statement to The Dartmouth.
...and I guess the D's polling is done just as badly as their editing (emphasis added): "The Dartmouth's pre-election pole had predicted a significant victory for Wolkoff in the Asssembly vice presidential election"
Posted by Dan,
10:45 AM
-
Thursday, May 01, 2003 While "5-4" lands on a carrier (I guess he's been forgiven for his AWOL days), this is what Iraq is like. If that leaves you wanting more, do read this, this, and this.
And if you still don't think the money has anything to do with it, read this now.
as the banner on that aircraft carrier reads: "Mission Accomplished."
Posted by Graham,
11:40 PM
-
Ah, That Pesky Geneva Convention:
via the Pak Tribune: (Check out the link for the picture, Sorry, I don't know how to get it into the blog)
US soldiers stripped four suspected Iraqi thieves naked and burned their clothes before pushing them into the street... "It's not as bad as it seems," a laughing Canaday was quoted as saying, "we only do it to the people who are stealing weapons." "A little public shaming; no physical damage and everything will be fine tomorrow," he said. "Hopefully they will be embarrassed enough not to come back."
Article 27 of the Fourth Geneva Convention clearly states that "Protected persons are entitled in all circumstances, to respect for their persons, their honour...and their manner and customs. They shall at all times be humanely treated, and shall be protected especially against...insults and public curiosity"
Posted by Anthony,
9:48 PM
-
British Columbia Court of Appeals Backs Same-Sex Marriages
B.C. Now joins Quebec and Ontario in this regard. The court writes:
Civil marriage should adapt to contemporary notions of marriage as an institution in a society which recognizes the rights of homosexual persons to non-discriminatory treatment.
Posted by Anthony,
6:45 PM
-
SA Elections Results Underline indicates DFP endorsement.
SA President Janos Marton - 1158 Brett Theisen - 256 Chad Butt - 43 Neil Desai - 41 Steven Zyck - 6
SA Vice-President Noah Riner - 492 Brett Martin - 407 David Wolkoff - 354 Todd Rabkin Golden - 327
'04 Class President Alexa Hansen - 161 David Mahler - 137 Diana Hwang - 44
'06 Class President Benjamin Schwartz - 173 Samuel Jackson - 160 Cameron Hahn - 74 William Canestaro - 63 Shaunak Mewada - 50
Posted by Clint,
5:53 PM
-
The Iowa Poll Kumar already posted this link, but I think there is enough info in the newest Zogby to merit a lot more commentary.
First the unfavorables. Unsurprisingly Sharpton takes the cake with a massive 45% unfavorable rating. Unfortunately, Gary Hart ain't far behind with 43%. Hart should take good note of this number--his "Monkey Business" taint is far from gone--and keep himself out of the race. His dance to date has done enough to bring him back from the political graveyard. He should be able to finagle a prime cabinet post or Ambassadorship should a Dem take back the White House. With 22% Lieberman has the highest unfavorability rate among the leading pack of five (Joe, John E., John K, Howard, and Dick), probably because a lot of Dems just don't believe he's a dem.
The next part worth noting, as Kumar already has, is the shockingly poor showing of Dean, with only a 22% favorable rating. The answer clearly lies in the fact that people just don't know him--69% said they didn't know enough to have an opinion. From our New Hampshire point of view it seems quite odd--he isn't a stranger to this state, because he's been Governor for a decade next door. Dean, despite spending a great deal of time on the ground in Iowa has yet to reach a lot of people. It goes to show how different the IA and NH races will be for Dean.
The only person with a lower recognition level than Dean is Kucinich who has 77%. Of those who have heard of him, half like him, and half don't. Perhaps this indicates that only die hard Kucinich supporters know who he is, and the negatives are knee jerk reactions from people who like their favorite so much that they won't give quarter to anyone else. The only people with similar love : hate ratios are Graham and Hart. This is probably not a good sign for Denny.
The message to take home is the Gephardt is very strong in Iowa. I've been wanting to count him out, but if he takes Iowa, enough money comes in, and labor sticks with him, he could be a very, very feasible contender for the nod.
According to the Washington Post, the Democrats are now promising to filibuster Priscilla Owen, the president's latest nomination for the DC Court of Appeals. So far the Republicans show no sign of backing down, and are even willing to make things nasty:
Democratic senators facing reelection next year will be targeted with ads describing votes they took to block female and minority nominees, according to GOP congressional aides.
The Post also reports on the proposals for judicial nomination reform that are currently being discussed in the Senate. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) wants to create a bipartisan committee that would propose candidates for presidential nomination. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) and Mark Pryor (D-Ark.) want to outlaw filibusters on nominees. Bush has already proposed that the Senate be required to vote on all nominations within six months, though this suggestion has been swept aside for now.
Oh, and while we're on this topic... Law professor Jack Balkin (of Balkinization fame) and the mysterious Juan Non-Volokh (from The Volokh Conspiracy) are having a great discussion on the history of Senate opposition to judicial nominees.
Balkin starts the debate in this post, arguing that fierce Democratic opposition to conservative appointments is a relatively recent phenomenon. He goes on to explain why: The Republicans have always taken strong interest in federal courts as the most effective way to change the Constitution, while the Democrats have traditionally remained wary of the courts. Case in point: Clinton would nearly always back down or compromise when his nominations were opposed. That all changed after the legal wrangling in the 2000 election, when Democrats finally realized the importance of an activist, ideologically friendly Supreme Court. And thus the present state of affairs.
Juan Non-Volokh replies by claiming that the Democrats have always waged fierce battles over judicial appointments, and that the recent clashes are nothing out of the ordinary.
This goes on, with a lot of good points being tossed about. Balkin's second reply is here and Non-Volokh's counter-reply is here. All worth reading.
Posted by Brad Plumer,
3:57 PM
-
Howard Dean speaks out in this recent article published on thruthout.org against the Republican gay-bashing that's gone on lately. He branches out to other civil rights issues as well.
Posted by Graham,
3:21 PM
-
Gephardt is Leading in Iowa: Very surprising, given all the NYT articles I was reading about how anti-war sentiment was going to land Iowa to Dean. Read the Zogby poll here.
Posted by Kumar,
3:10 PM
-
Selling Another War to the Public: A surprising 38% percent of Americans would be fine with another with Syria given current accusations of the Bush Administration towards that state (chemical weapons, giving sanctuary). Read about the poll here. This raises an interesting question: is there ANY potential war (Syria, Iran, North Korea) that can't be sold politically?
Posted by Kumar,
3:02 PM
-
The Joys of Mocking Gingrich: After Newt Gingrich, foreign policy extraordinarie, made a public speech mocking the State Department, and the utility of diplomacy, appropriate name-calling began. (including high-level State Department officials calling him an "idiot." Here.)
Posted by Kumar,
2:55 PM
-
Disturbing Numbers A New York Times/CBS poll reports these worrying numbers:
16. In its dealings with other countries, do you think the Bush Administration tries hard enough to reach diplomatic solutions, or is it too quick to get American military forces involved? Tries hard enough to Too quick to get Reach diplomatic solution forces involved DK/NA 4/11-13/03 58 36 6 ***** 71. Regardless of how you usually vote, do you think the Republican party or the Democratic party is more likely to make sure U.S. military defenses are strong? Republican Democratic 4/11-13/03 63 21 ******* 1. Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as President? Approve Disapprove DK/NA 4/11-13/03 73 21 6
A recent letter to my local newspaper asks why Scott Peterson is being charged with the murder of Laci Peterson's unborn child while abortions are not considered, by the State of California, a commensurate act. Should it matter that this appears inconsistent? Other thoughts?
I realize this may evoke some deep-seated convictions, but I'm more interested in finding out a) if this is inconsistent and b) if that matters.
Posted by Jon,
12:53 PM
-
Tommy Franks the War Criminal? ABC News Online is reporting that Franks may be charged with war crimes in a Belgian court. Anyone else heard about this? Read it here.
Posted by Kumar,
11:48 AM
-
Another Political Test: This one made by two opposing political consultants. Take the test here, and post your score. (I am proud to say I'm a Hillary Clinton type Democrat, with a score of 9.)
Posted by Kumar,
11:41 AM
-
War with North Korea: I was talking to a friend yesterday and they wondered if we could beat North Korea in a war with as low casualities as Afghanistan and Iraq. I will try to see if there are any open-source Petagon estimates, but here is what CNN says:
In 1994, advisers to then President Bill Clinton predicted 52,000 U.S. casualties in the first 90 days of combat alone, Don Oberdorfer, a former Washington Post reporter, wrote in his book The Two Koreas. To put that figure in perspective, 55,000 U.S. military personnel were killed in the 1950-53 Korean War, and about 58,000 in the 1957-75 Vietnam War. Some estimates went as far as forecasting a million casualties, not to mention economic damages and war-related costs that ran into trillions of dollars.
Posted by Kumar,
11:23 AM
-
Wednesday, April 30, 2003 Putin v. Blair In what the Times of London is characterizing as a "surprise attack," Putin taunted Blair at a joint press conference in Moscow:
Two weeks later they still have not been found,” he told a press conference. “The question is, where is Saddam Hussein? Where are those weapons of mass destruction, if they were ever in existence? Is Saddam Hussein in a bunker sitting on cases containing weapons of mass destruction, preparing to blow the whole place up?
Posted by Clint,
4:22 PM
-
The Iraq War Reader and Blog Christopher Cerf and Micah Sifry, the authors of The Gulf War Reader (which I've had out from the Library since we left for break), and the authors of the forthcoming The Iraq War Reader, have just officially rolled out their new blog. Worth keeping an eye on.
It calls for an immediate ceasefire, a crackdown on Palestinian militias, an Israeli withdrawal from Palestinian towns and the dismantling of Jewish settlements erected since 2001. A Palestinian state with provisional borders could be established by year’s end, with full statehood possible within three years, according to the timetable.
Posted by Nikhil,
11:37 AM
-
Cloak and Dagger The Globe and Mail is reporting on the provenance of the faked documents purporting to be proof of Iraq's quest for nuclear material:
"The forgeries were sold to an Italian intelligence agent by a con man and passed on to French authorities,"
The French then passed them on. But why would have the French passed on documents that only would have built the case of their diplomatic opponents? Why not just sit on them? The Age, and Australian paper, speculates that the French detected that the documents were false--just as easily as the UN personnel who finally debunked them--and gave them to the Brits, hoping that they'd fall for it, present them at the UN, and humiliate the warmongers. That's pretty sneaky.
Posted by Clint,
8:59 AM
-
More Religious Right Bigotry
I couldn't believe this when I saw it.
From Andrew Sullivan:
In 1999, the state of Oklahoma raised the prison term for consensual sex by gay couples from 10 years to 20 years. A felony, consensual sex between two adult men or between two adult women in Oklahoma carries the same penalty as same-sex rape."
If Santorum and the other bigots want to hold these positions based on their own personal moral beliefs, so be it. But these moral beliefs are based on religon. So enacting legistation on it runs counter to the separation of church and state.
Now more than ever, we need to practice what we preach. If we aim to build a secular government in Iraq, we need to keep church and state separate at home. If we want to bring democracy and the rule of law to the Iraqi people, we must uphold it in the US.
Posted by sam,
12:49 AM
-
Tuesday, April 29, 2003 Where are Those WMD?
The same Iraqi scientist says he consistently lied to the UN inspectors. And that he can't say whether everything was destroyed.
Posted by sam,
4:22 PM
-
Where Are Those WMD? An Iraqi scientist says they don't exist. And that sanctions killed the program.
Posted by Laura,
3:02 PM
-
Anyone heard about a link between Newt Gingrich getting rid of the Fairness Doctrine and the rise of Hate Radio and Clear Channel Radio?
Posted by Ben,
2:12 PM
-
Joke Candidate Snead Hearn the hedgehog runs for SA President Valerie Silverman reports in The Dartmouth:Another poster also notes that Hearn is the only candidate who supports all students' rights to "have their own pot." Beneath this slogan appears a photograph of a hedgehog peering out of a pot with the caption, "In fact, Mr. Hearn lives in a pot." In past years, some of Hearn's posters have generated considerable controversy. In 1994, Hearn ran under the slogan, "Write In Snead Hearn for President. He has TWO HEALTHY testicles," seemingly referring to the fact that Dartmouth's then president, James Freedman, was being treated for testicular cancer. An April 1994 editorial in The Dartmouth criticized Hearn for this "mean-spirited, juvenile behavior." The writer concluded, "Snead Hearn may have two healthy testicles, but whoever printed this poster has no balls." In the rest of the article Valerie Silverman actually interviews Hearn over email. The article is actually funny and lively and does not take The Dartmouth style seriously. Is this because of the subject, Silverman, or the editors? I'm torn between wishing we'd see more articles like Silverman's in The Dartmouth, and wondering how it is decided to allow divergence from the paper's humorless style guide.
Posted by Timothy,
12:45 PM
-
Monday, April 28, 2003 How is Santorum a hypocrite? Let me count the ways.... This Modern World writes: "Santorum's wife received $100K more in a recent malpractice suit -- to which he provided testimony and full support -- than he now says anybody else should be allowed to receive, thanks to a pending GOP bill."
Posted by Timothy,
10:20 PM
-
Depraved Observers? John Stevenson writes on the ever-entertaining Dartmouth Observer:
I would make the case that evilness is the starting point from which we should derive a general theory of morality...people are by nature depraved and have a propensity towards evil action.
Wow. Speak for yourself, John. Maybe you "independent thinkers" are evil at heart, but I have a far more positive view of human nature, based on lived experience, among other things. "Basic Biblical theology" and The Lord of the Flies (a good high school reading list book for young boys, perhaps) are not in my mind convincing arguments to the contrary. But I suppose I really shouldn't be shocked to read yet another sweeping generalization backed up with flimsy evidence over in Observerland.
Posted by Laura,
10:18 PM
-
Dance Mix on Howard Dean If you don't read ABC's The Note, you should. Now they've got Presidential campaigns doing funny takes on the days' events. The Dean Campaign writes: "And the artistic explosion for Howard Dean has entered the realm of mashups. Netroots supporters with good ears and some software have created the 'What I Want to Know' dance mix, which is in heavy rotation here at Burlington HQ." Get to the dance mix here. (Though it wasn't as good as I hoped.)
Posted by Timothy,
10:00 PM
-
Korea Looks like Mr. Kim was just up to his old tricks, sadly that doesn't mean he doesn't have nuclear weapons:
WASHINGTON/BEIJING (Reuters) - North Korea has offered to scrap its nuclear weapons and its missile exports, U.S. officials and Western diplomats in Beijing said on Monday, but Washington said Pyongyang demanded concessions in return.
Sorry, this is off a subscriber wire so no link
Posted by Nikhil,
9:58 PM
-
Fun with Moral Equivilancy Yep. Bush regime playing cards. (via Tapped) Update: This is another and better version of Bush regime playing cards with Bush taking his appropriate place in the hierarchy as the 4 of clubs.
Posted by Timothy,
9:37 PM
-
Go Grandma! You know the National Review paleo-twits wouldn't say scorn this story if it were about a man.
THAT'S WHY GRANDMA IS A TRAMP [Rod Dreher] Here is a jaw-dropping story that perfectly captures the New York Times view of the world. It's an appreciation of an educated and accomplished 70-year-old woman who, three years ago, decided she was missing out on life, and decided to sleep with as many men as she could in the time she had left. After living unhappily for years, Jane Juska, the Septuagenarian Sexpot, decided to remake herself. "It took years of psychoanalysis, dieting and exercise to take control of herself again, shaking off the lingering effects of a Puritanical small-town Ohio childhood in the process." Having come back to the Times version of reality, Jane became -- what's the word? -- a slut. She's decided that so many women focus on their grandchildren to take their minds off the fact that they haven't done anything (in her view) with their lives. And a tramp's life has been a pleasant surprise to Jane: "I had no hope of it turning out to be anything like this," she said. "I expected to be murdered, or made sad at the very least." Murdered? How nice for Jane that she's decided to live like a whore, but hasn't (yet) died like one. Go get 'em, girlfriend! The Times loves ya! (By the way, readers, you can write me now at rdreher@dallasnews.com).
Whatever that story says about The New York Times, what's jaw dropping is Rod Dreher's post showing how messed up the worldview of some National Review authors are.
Posted by Timothy,
7:21 PM
-
Rhetoric Emmett is at it again, over in The Inner Orifice, with his "Free Dartmouth (from what?)" nonsense. It's not funny anymore, Emmett. In fact, it's bordering on inane. Start criticizing the inane commentary here when it ceases over there.
Still, though, if one takes Emmett's question seriously, one would think Emmett could easily answer it himself. After all, he's the one that thinks Dartmouth (and perhaps most of higher education) is suffering in the death-hold of a Stalinist administration. Perhaps he should start a blog called Free Dartmouth.
Posted by Jonathan,
1:22 PM
-
Intelligent Conservative Discussion of Clinton's Military From Salon:
Take the exchange we heard about between comedian/smart-ass Al Franken and Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz:
Franken: “Clinton’s military did pretty well in Iraq, huh?”
Wolfowitz: “Fuck you.”
Posted by Timothy,
1:22 PM
-
Everson v. Board of Education Does anyone know if this opinion has since been invalidated?
The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another...No tax, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions...Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause...was intended to erecet 'a wall of separation between church and State.
Now, this seems pretty clearly to deem unconstitutional the faith-based initiative. I know Stevensonites (I feel like I heard him say something this before) consider the church v. state wall "arbitrary bench legislation" and contrary to the First Amendment's intention. That is sort of spurious, though, if there has been no discounting of this opinion. So what's the word? Anyone know? I'd love to research it myself, but there are more pressing matters at hand...
Posted by Jonathan,
10:53 AM
-
Sunday, April 27, 2003 Where do we go from here?
Interesting piece in the Guardian (link) on re-defining the post war liberal agenda.
Distaste for the war has prevented many liberals from thinking straight and seeing neo-con policies for what they are. Liberals may have been intimidated by their simplicity of purpose and understanding of power, but sooner or later they willrealise that neo-conservatism is not an all-conquering ideology but a risky strategic enterprise.
Liberals need to brush off the dust of the Iraq war, look at the new circumstances of the Middle East and meet the neo-cons on their own terms. This requires realism and a recognition that the idiom and reflexes of the Vietnam era are no longer applicable to a world created by the neo-conservatives.
Posted by sam,
10:44 PM
-
Man on Dog: Legal in Texas
Texas is one of 13 states with criminal sodomy laws still on the books and one of only four states that criminalizes sexual acts between homosexuals that are lawful within the confines of marriage between a man and woman. Not too long ago, gay-bashing was an accepted vote-getter for conservative Republicans. SantorumÕs office says the calls are running three to one in his favor. ItÕs worth noting, since Santorum brought up Òman on dog,Ó that Texas doesnÕt have a law against bestiality. (link)
Update: It's worse than that. Texas used to have a law against bestiality. From The San Francisco Chronicle, March 26, 2002:
Years ago, Texas had outlawed other forms of consensual sex, including bestiality, adultery, fornication and oral sex. The state repealed that law, but it passed a substitute in 1973 that singled out sodomy among same-sex couples as illegal.
So Texas, by an act of deliberation, decided that homosexual sex was worse than bestiality.
Powell was instrumental in selling this war. As the most powerful moderate, possibly the only moderate, in this administration Powell gave in. He held up the vial of "anthrax" to sell this war to the American people.
Had it not been for him this war might not have happened.
Posted by alex,
1:35 PM
-
More bad news: the hateful Religious Right Warmongers will seize on this for justification for their illegal incursion into Iraq:
The proof that Saddam worked with bin Laden By Inigo Gilmore (Filed: 27/04/2003)
Iraqi intelligence documents discovered in Baghdad by The Telegraph have provided the first evidence of a direct link between Osama bin Laden's al-Qa'eda terrorist network and Saddam Hussein's regime. Papers found yesterday in the bombed headquarters of the Mukhabarat, Iraq's intelligence service, reveal that an al-Qa'eda envoy was invited clandestinely to Baghdad in March 1998.
The documents show that the purpose of the meeting was to establish a relationship between Baghdad and al-Qa'eda based on their mutual hatred of America and Saudi Arabia. The meeting apparently went so well that it was extended by a week and ended with arrangements being discussed for bin Laden to visit Baghdad.
The papers will be seized on by Washington as the first proof of what the United States has long alleged - that, despite denials by both sides, Saddam's regime had a close relationship with al-Qa'eda.
The Telegraph found the file on bin Laden inside a folder lying in the rubble of one of the rooms of the destroyed intelligence HQ. There are three pages, stapled together; two are on paper headed with the insignia and lettering of the Mukhabarat.
They show correspondence between Mukhabarat agencies over preparations for the visit of al-Qa'eda's envoy, who travelled to Iraq from Sudan, where bin Laden had been based until 1996. They disclose what Baghdad hopes to achieve from the meeting, which took place less than five months before bin Laden was placed at the top of America's most wanted list following the bombing of two US embassies in east Africa.
Perhaps aware of the sensitivities of the subject matter, Iraqi agents at some point clumsily attempted to mask out all references to bin Laden, using white correcting fluid. The dried fluid was removed to reveal the clearly legible name three times in the documents.
One paper is marked "Top Secret and Urgent". It is signed "MDA", a codename believed to be the director of one of the intelligence sections within the Mukhabarat, and dated February 19, 1998. It refers to the planned trip from Sudan by bin Laden's unnamed envoy and refers to the arrangements for his visit.
A letter with this document says the envoy is a trusted confidant of bin Laden. It adds: "According to the above, we suggest permission to call the Khartoum station [Iraq's intelligence office in Sudan] to facilitate the travel arrangements for the above-mentioned person to Iraq. And that our body carry all the travel and hotel costs inside Iraq to gain the knowledge of the message from bin Laden and to convey to his envoy an oral message from us to bin Laden."
The letter refers to al-Qa'eda's leader as an opponent of the Saudi Arabian regime and says that the message to convey to him through the envoy "would relate to the future of our relationship with him, bin Laden, and to achieve a direct meeting with him." According to handwritten notes at the bottom of the page, the letter was passed on through another director in the Mukhabarat and on to the deputy director general of the intelligence service.
It recommends that "the deputy director general bring the envoy to Iraq because we may find in this envoy a way to maintain contacts with bin Laden". The deputy director general has signed the document. All of the signatories use codenames.
The other documents then confirm that the envoy travelled from Khartoum to Baghdad in March 1998, staying at al-Mansour Melia, a first-class hotel. It mentions that his visit was extended by a week. In the notes in a margin, a name "Mohammed F. Mohammed Ahmed" is mentioned, but it is not clear whether this is the the envoy or an agent.
Intriguingly, the Iraqis talk about sending back an oral message to bin Laden, perhaps aware of the risk of a written message being intercepted. However, the documents do not mention if any meeting took place between bin Laden and Iraqi officials.
The file contradicts the claims of Baghdad, bin Laden and many critics of the coalition that there was no link between the Iraqi regime and al-Qa'eda. One Western intelligence official contacted last night described the file as "sensational", adding: "Baghdad clearly sought out the meeting. The regime would have wanted it to happen in the capital as it's only there they would feel safe from surveillance by Western intelligence."
Over the past three weeks, The Telegraph has discovered various other intelligence files in the wrecked Mukhabarat building, including documents revealing how Russia passed on to Iraq details of private conversations between Tony Blair and Silvio Berlusconi, the Italian prime minister, and how Germany held clandestine meetings with the regime. A Downing Street spokesman said last night: "Since Saddam's fall a series of documents have come to light which will have to be fully assessed by the proper authorities over a period of time. We will certainly want to study these documents as part of that process to see if they shed new light on the relationship between Saddam's regime and al-Qa'eda.
17 April 2003: Saddam link to terror group 13 April 2003: Revealed: Russia spied on Blair for Saddam 13 February 2003: Bin Laden and Saddam link 'is a bad joke' 6 February 2003: Blair claims 'definite links' between al-Qa'eda and Baghdad 4 February 2003: Spies force retreat on 'al-Qa'eda link' 30 January 2003: White House promises proof of Saddam link to al-Qa'eda 8 August 1998: 80 killed in US embassy bombings
