You think articles published in Iraq pre 9/11 that tell what was going to happen in New York and DC are considered dancing around the facts? LOL. Okey-doke.
Actually, YEAH! Read the piece. It even quotes US Nat Sec people (CLINTON'S PEOPLE) as saying, we hit his capital, now he'll hit ours. There's other 1998 pieces specifically saying NYC and DC were the next likely targets.
OR
You could believe the ABC News report at the time the 911 plot was set in motion-which claims Saddam and UBL were teaming up.
http://www.mediaresearch.org/rm/cyber/2004/binladen061704/segment1.ram
1) The Iraqi article is old news.
2) Q: If the state run newspaper of Iraq was on the CIA's reading list, and the article was so clear that it communicated "what was going to happen in New York and DC," then why didn't the CIA stop the planes? A: Because it wasn't clear what was going to happen.
There are plenty of bits of circumstantial evidence about Saddam and AQ coordination. But there is nothing new that draws a direct line. Lots of stuff hunting around the edges, like your citation, but nothing spot on.
My point is that re-hashing almost-proofs isn't getting anywhere. If you want to publish an article, it ought to contain news.