It's amazing what kinds of information goes completely under the radar.

From Byron York:

In case you don’t remember, “Boogie to Baghdad” is the phrase that Richard Clarke, when he was the top White House counterterrorism official during the Clinton administration, used to express his fear that if American forces pushed Osama bin Laden too hard at his hideout in Afghanistan, bin Laden might move to Iraq, where he could stay in the protection of Saddam Hussein.

Clarke’s opinion was based on intelligence indicating a number of contacts between al Qaeda and Iraq, including word that Saddam had offered bin Laden safe haven.

It’s all laid out in the Sept. 11 commission report. “Boogie to Baghdad” is on Page 134.

Amazing, ain't it?  I wonder why this wasn't mentioned by the Washington Post?  Did Bob Woodward tell Walter Pincus not to report this too?

Oh, and about that "safe haven" thing that York brings up (via CNN from 1999):

Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has offered asylum to bin Laden, who openly supports Iraq against the Western powers.

Do you know how many YEARS now I've been hearing leftists on television, radio, and the internet claim until they're blue in the face (no pun INITIALLY intended, but since it's there, I'll take it) that there has never been a connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda, even going to the extreme of saying the two were sworn enemies? 

Why has CNN never recalled reporting these things when the Saddam and terrorism issue pops up?  And they aren't the only ones to report this, as the London Observer, The Herald UK, National Public Radio, and Newsweek.  If it wasn't for conservative voices like National Review, the Weekly Standard, and the logical side of the blogosphere, information like this would stay hidden from political discourse.