Talk:Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda link allegations

The title of this article, "Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda", has been chosen after lots of discussion and numerous votes, with unclear consensus. Ongoing discussion is always welcome.

Recommendations

I think that Ron Cram and Commodaore Sloat should draw up an Rfc on the article...not on each other, but on the article content. I have been asked to help neutralize the article, but with 256kb's of discussion going on here just in the last three weeks, it's almost impossible to simply step in here and see what the main areas of contention are. I suggest this...take one small section at a time and figure out a way to get that section "fixed" to comply with our policies. I mean, thae article itself is 176kbs! That is 100kbs' more than any featured article I have seen pass through the FAC process. Work to streamline...follow WP:SS. The article and this discussion are simply too overwhelming at this point. I really appreciate the amount of work that has gone in here and I think, generally everyone is being fairly pleasant with each other, but this thing is a monster and needs to be trimmed...summarize and link in article space, rather than completely quote every available source.--MONGO 15:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MONGO, I appreciate your comments. The idea is to split the timeline away from the article and provide a link to the timeline. How does someone go about determining the length of an article? RonCram 16:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the moving of the timeline and it is part of the solution I suggested above. If the length of the article is the only remaining problem area, that should be a simple solution. Getting rid of the "Statements" section is another priority; we can move the necessary quotes to wikiquotes, but the timeline really has all the quotes that are necessary. I'd also shorten the "Sources" section to only include relevant official sources; there is no need to list every magazine article on this topic, especially when the relevant ones are already linked on the timeline.--csloat 17:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a strong stickler for maintaining a level below the 32kbs recommended...but if we could figure out what sections could be in a daughter article(s) then we may be able to get it down to 70Kb's, which is more reasonable. I won't do this myself, I'm just making suggestions...there are some articles that are simply long by their very nature. But again, looking over the article, rather than adding the entire quote or conversation of a link, just have a brief summary of the cited reference, and ensure it is footnoted so others can go there for more info...that is the main objective of wikipedia in many circumstances...to summarize the information. If you and Csloat feel that this won't work, that's fine, then maybe creating sub-articles (daughter articles) will suffice.--MONGO 17:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another point I wanted to make is this...try to strive for featured status...now this is a lofty goal, but what oftentimes happens is that when seeking notability of information in an collective effort to get an article to pass the FAC process, the effort becomes singular in purpose...rather than a tug of war. What are the basic questions to be answered?

A. Did Saddam Hussein ever have any relationship with al queda?
B. Did Saddam Hussein ever have an operational relationship with al queda?
C. If answer to "A" and "B" are both "no", then what evidence supports that there never was a relationship?

My bias is that I would find that Saddam and al queda were actually at odds with each other. Osama bin laden was not a fan of Saddam Hussein from my understanding, and Saddam surely viewed any threat to his continuation in power as a threat that would eliminate any effort on his part to work constructively with al queda. I'm going to read the article over, examine the links and see if my bias is incorrect.--MONGO 17:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First, this is just a pet peeve, it's al Qaeda, not al Queda... the latter spelling makes it sound like a Cuban or Puerto Rican terrorist organization (and we don't want confusion with the Puerto Rican terrorists who threatened to bomb the WTC in the 1970s) :)

I think your bias is correct MONGO, and the available evidence bears it out, but I would urge that your questions be refined a bit -- A&B are fine, and I think you will find the answer to "A" is sometimes yes (there were meetings between reps of Saddam and reps of Qaeda), "B" is decidedly no (every investigative body has concluded those meetings did not lead to an operational relationship). But "C" is worded in a way that presents an inaccurate burden of proof -- one should not have to search for evidence to prove something did NOT occur. Try another example -- What evidence is there that George Bush did not direct al Qaeda to attack the Pentagon? We all know he didn't, and we can cite circumstantial evidence (ideology, proximity, language, etc.), but we can never prove that it did not occur. How do we know George Bush did not convert to Islam in the early 70s when he was AWOL and begin secret discussions with a young Ayman al-Zawahiri? There is no proof. I'm presenting this absurdity to hilight the burden of proof issue -- the burden is on those who assert that Saddam did work with al-Qaeda to present evidence to show that there was such a relationship, not the other way around. While there is plenty of evidence that there was no relationship, none of it is definitive because it is impossible to definitively prove a negative. So the question should be, what evidence is there that supports a relationship? Which brings us back to your questions A & B. Saddam did have contacts with AQ, but it bears repeating that those contacts were normal in the world of spies and intelligence agencies, and were far less extensive than, say, the UAE's or Saudi Arabia's contacts with AQ. Question B then is did these contacts ever lead to an operational relationship. In the late 1990s there were some reports that they did, but as investigators learned more, they learned that those conclusions were incorrect, and nearly all intelligence analysts and terrorism experts today have reached the conclusion that no operational relationship was achieved.--csloat 17:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see that I misspelled the Qaeda...sorry about that. Okay, the article is about as comprehensive as we can get I think. What major points can be used to illustrate points A and B above...if we can narrow that down, then we can work towards streamlining. I am a strong advocate of inclusion, so I think the project loses if we simply eliminate information, and this is only going to perpetuate the disagreements here. If we move the entire timeline to a subarticle, then we solve some of the article size problems here, but the timeline looks like it is almost 75% of the entire article... so that may need to be split as well. Look atGeorge W Bush...the sections all have (most of them anyway) links to subarticles, where information is expanded and the main article isn't bogged down with excess information. Can we take the quotes here and simply summarize them and then link to an outside source before we try and split the article up...maybe that may trim 30 kbs or more.--MONGO 17:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think these are good suggestions. I tried to outline above the main points that should be included -- I'll make a shorter list here for discussion:

Hijazi meetings - these are a major point for the Saddam/AQ conspiracy theory, and they have been added in about 10 different places in the timeline (seem my timeline comment above). This can be synthesized into one paragraph.
Atta in Prague - I have already created a separate article dealing with this question, so we can shorten that section of the timeline.
Salman Pak - again, we have an article on this topic already, though there is additional info in the timeline that does not seem to be in the other article.
Zarqawi - I'm not sure we need a sub article about him, there is already a biography piece about him. I think there are several points in this section and it will be a little complicated, but we should be ably to simplify a bit.
The 9/11 conspiracy theory of Laurie Mylroie - it should be noted that this was an influence on Cheney et al., but also that her theories have been thoroughly discredited by terrorism experts on all sides of the political spectrum.
The OIF documents - again, we have an article devoted to this topic already; a brief statement that these documents exist and that they have led some news outlets to examine the question again should be enough along with a link to that page.

There are some other pieces of information in the timeline that should be kept but I think the above hits on the major points of "evidence" used to support the conspiracy theory. The other thing we should have is a section devoted to official statements and investigations. Included here should be:

Powell's speech and the various criticisms of it. I am surprised there is not yet an article on Powell's UN speech at all.
Various statements of Bush and Clinton Admin officials alleging Iraq's connections to Osama.
The separate investigations into the question by the NSA, DIA, CIA, FBI, State Department, British Intel, Israeli intel, Spanish intel, the SSCI, the PDB about Saddam and AQ, and the 9/11 Commission. Each investigation should have a subheading with a brief analysis and links to articles about the investigation. The SSCI and 911 Commission of course already have their own pages. I will work on this section.
The OSP and the Feith Report and the criticisms of it.
The charges of manipulation of intelligence by the Bush Administration. This claim was rejected by the SSCI, but many intel analysts claim that their investigation was incomplete, and claim that there was heavy handed manipulation. Recent statements from Paul Pillar and Gen. Hayden seem to bear this out.
The charges of manipulation by the Iraqi National Congress. It should be pointed out clearly that much of the early information about alleged links to al Qaeda came from sources that have been revealed as lying, most likely as part of an Iranian intelligence operation - Chalabi, "Curveball," Kohada, "Abu Zeinab" al-Ghurairy.

I think if we stick to the above we can come up with a page that is much shorter, is NPOV, and perhaps even worthy of featured status some day.--csloat 18:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is difficult to come in here and try to say something that hasn't been said before. I have not read the talk archives, or even the whole page. Much of it is well-written, though I did see some tendentious language. The problem is the length. The article is so long, and tries to address so many things at a level of detail, that it sometimes seems incoherent to someone not as deeply familiar with the material as you guys have become.

Present a notable argument and link to the source who makes it; don't present supporting or opposing evidence. For example: Colin Powell says XYZ. [Summary of what he says],[link to book]. Not Colin Powell claims XYZ, because [link][link][link]. Others note that he's wrong because [link][link][link]. It's not our job to make, or to debunk, anyone's arguments.
Resist the temptation to be comprehensive. There is no need to present every relevant fact in this one article, and some harm in trying to. Summarize the high points, and refer the reader to good sources, either daughter pages or one of the many print articles and books.
The time line looks like something that could be spun off.
An alternative to re-writing might be re-sectioning: "These five sections, this paragraph here, that one there, etc."
I agree that a content RfC could be useful, especially if it could be kept narrowly focused on a specific question.
Given the difficult nature of the material and the strong feelings on both sides, I think everyone is doing very well. People seem to be presenting rational arguments, disagreeing, and discussing with a pretty good level of civility.
The two-column layout at the bottom looks very professional.

I'll watch the page for a while and see if I can contribute anything useful.Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tom - the one thing I'd like to clarify is your first point; are you suggesting that we should present Powell's argument but censor or ignore the various responses to it? The fact is that Powell based his points on the claims of a witness who the DIA and CIA found to be not credible. The intel agencies specifically believe the witness was lying about these issues. I think it would be terribly POV and inaccurate to present Powell's claims as notable facts but to ignore the notable responses to it. I understand you are just using him as an example; I guess the question really is, how do we determine notability in this context? The rest of your suggestions I agree with, and they are consistent with my proposed rewrite above. I welcome comments on that proposition.--csloat 19:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we determine notability by the source's reliability, and by consensus. What we want to avoid is the kind of original research that results from presenting a collection of facts chosen to prove a point. If someone has a notable view contray to ~~Powell's~~ John Doe's, certainly we should present it. We should not collect facts and synthesize a view that we attribute to, for example, the intelligence community at large, and we should not argue anyone's case for him. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable to me; I think that's what the article mostly does at this point. However, I do think there are a lot of claims that are not really notable according to these standards. Again, I offer the above list of points as a possible direction for revision -- the timeline page can keep all the minor details, but just focusing on the above 12 points should clear out a lot of the "original research" that has not been a major part of the public discourse on this (e.g. quotes from an Italian newspaper from 1998 or from a local Nasiriyah paper from 2001). However, I do think that attributing a view to the intelligence community at large is reasonable, when all published sources indicate that is indeed the view of that community. Does that make sense?--csloat 22:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"..published sources indicate..." Well, there's the rub. If all published sources do indicate that, then there should be a journal article saying so. That is what should be cited, not the collection of sources that may to us indicate a conclusion. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving aside the idea that there is an intelligence community with opinions we can reliably guess. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because of the intelligence failures relating to 9/11 and the Iraq war, we have had two investigations into what the Intelligence Community knew and believed about Saddam and al-Qaeda - the 9/11 Commission Report and the Senate Report. The Intelligence Community view is drawn from those sources. The Bush Admin view is drawn from the Powell Speech just prior to the Iraq War. The minority view is supported from published news accounts and Mylroie's view is taken from her books and her published debate. RonCram 01:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ron is right - those sources, as well as published articles about the conclusions of various studies by intelligence organizations, give us a reliable and accurate way to measure what the intelligence community has concluded. And this is not an issue where there is much debate about what the intelligence community has concluded. I'm not sure I understand Tom's objection.--csloat 03:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I do not want to create disagreement where there was none. If most of the regulars here agree about this, I won't persue it for now. Tom Harrison ^Talk 03:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hehe.. I think you may have hit on one of the very few things Ron and I actually agree about :)--csloat 03:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Answering csloat's questions

Third, if Saddam orchestrated or conspired with al-Qaeda, why has so little evidence come to light? A few meetings here and there in the 1990s is it? Where's the money trail? Where are the weapons? Why have the "gases" not been used? Now that Saddam is deposed, why are people in custody still protecting the alleged secret? It's well known that OBL hates Saddam; why would he continue to protect him? - csloat (see under "Defining the Bush Administration position")

Let me address these one at a time. 1. "Why has so little evidence come to light? A few meetings here and there in the 90s is it?" Actually, I would point out that the amount of evidence we have is pretty significant. Over a hundred different known contacts between high-level officials of the two groups.(Correction: Strike that last sentence and blame my memory. George Tenet, Director of the CIA, testified in October 2002, that the Agency had "more than one hundred reliable reports of such links stretching right back through the preceding decade.") We have scores of published reports of cooperation in Arabic newspapers, Italian newspapers, Russian papers and US news media (both print and television). The evidence is not easy to ignore. [1]

2. "Where's the money trail?" Again, we have proof that Saddam funded Zawahiri. [2] We also have strong indications Saddam funded al-Qaeda through the Oil-for-Food program. [3]

3. "Where are the weapons? Why have the "gases" not been used?" First, let me point out that these questions relate more closely to the WMD discussion. Second, chemical weapons have shown up in the hands of Zarqawi's terrorists in Jordan by way of Syria. [4] It seems obvious to me these are Saddam's chemical weapons, even though I admit this is not the majority opinion. In addition, the Palestinian terrorists now claim to have chemical weapons. [5] Again, no one seems to interested to learn where these weapons came from.

4. "It's well known that OBL hates Saddam; why would he continue to protect him?" People over there work with people they hate all the time. They work out deals that politically expedient. The second part of your question is simple to answer. OBL does not want to publicly thank Saddam for his support over the years because to do so would be to put himself in a subservient position to Saddam. It is much better for Osama to allow people to think he is powerful without Saddam, but there is no question Osama is much less powerful today than he was.

These are interesting questions csloat raised. The answers are even more interesting. RonCram 23:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's have links from reputable sources. Hayes is a notorious liar. 1: Hundreds of contacts? BS. List them. I count less than 20 meetings at best, and that includes several which are disputed. The newspaper reports you cite are all talking about the same Hijazi meetings, about which it has generally been concluded they went nowhere. "The evidence is not easy to ignore"? What evidence? Shadowy meetings are not evidence of collaboration; they are just evidence of -- meetings. 2. We have no such proof. We have hearsay that Saddam funded an Egyptian organization that Zawahiri was kicked out of for joining al Qaeda! This is not indicative of Saddam funding al Qaeda. This is also not proof of anything -- where are the receipts? The ATM withdrawals? We have ATM cards from al Qaeda members that lead to bank accounts in Dubai and Riyadh. Why don't we have any bank accounts in Baghdad or Ramadi? 3: It seems obvious to you -- when did you become a CBW expert? What evidence do you have besides its "obviousness"? Palestinian terrorists? We are talking about al Qaeda, not al-Aqsa! And if "no one seems interested" in this, it doesn't belong on wikipedia - this is not a place for original research of items not studied in published sources. 4: I'm not asking about OBL publicly "thanking" saddam -- for heaven sake. I'm talking about him selling out the man he thinks is a "socialist motherfucker." Why would Osama continue to protect Saddam now that there are no consequences to losing him as an ally? That was my question, not why should Osama acknowledge the glorious power of the almighty Saddam. Have you ever actually listened to Saddam? You should really read the report on the OIF documents that was completed by the Pentagon. It does not portray an all-powerful Saddam able to manipulate transnationalist terrorists around the globe at the flick of a finger; it shows a paranoid closed-minded regime that was fearful of disintegration from within and attacks from Iran more than anything. It also shows Saddam as a very delusional man.

Your last comment - that Osama is less powerful today than he was (I assume you mean before OIF) - is the most wrong headed statement you've made in recent months. Every terrorism expert agrees that the Iraq war has made him far more powerful than he ever could have been. AQ has been gloating about how the Americans "fell into the trap" of Iraq! Read Fawaz Gerges' book _The Far Enemy_. Read this recent report of al Qaeda's strength. Read recent gloating by GIMF here. Read this recent report about how Iraq has become a training ground for jihadists. Read this document, found in Zarqawi's hideout, which argues that drawing America into further mideast conflicts, especially with Iran, will strengthen them further. OBL has for years been saying that he wanted to draw the Americans into fighting them on their own turf in the Middle East; Iraq was a golden opportunity. The CIA even concluded that OBL's October 2004 video was an attempt to help Bush get reelected so that al Qaeda would be ensured of no policy change towards the Iraq war. I could go on and on, but I doubt you will be convinced by any of this evidence, since it doesn't appear in the Weekly Standard. Don't get me wrong; America has made important strides in the fight against terrorism in spite of our blunder in Iraq, but if you look at al Qaeda pre-2003 and in 2006, according to any possible objective metric you can think of (e.g. number of suicide bombers, number of terrorist attacks, sources of funding, ability to communicate, ability to train, sheer numbers of recruits), the facts pretty clearly militate against your claim.--csloat 00:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. My memory failed me. What Tenet actually said was that they had "more than one hundred reliable reports" of these contacts. Each high-level contact could have been reported by more than one reliable witness. As I stated before, it is obvious to me that the chemicals planned for the attack against Jordan came from Iraq, but that is my speculation. I'm not arguing my POV should be reflected in the article. And hopefully, you are not arguing that your obviously wrong-headed POV appear in the article either. I agree that Saddam is delusional, but that does not mean he was not powerful. Your attack on Hayes is completely unwarranted. No one has disputed the Hayes article I linked to. Regarding bin Laden being less powerful now, it is clear I am right. Some of the points you make are also accurate. The credit bin Laden got has caused more recruits to come to him. And he has more sources of funding, but less money now than before. RonCram 01:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is "obviously wrong-headed" about my arguments? My "attack on Hayes" is quite simply the studied opinion of those who have read Hayes who actually have expertise in dealing with these questions. The phrase "notorious liar" comes from Dr. Juan Cole, not me. Hayes took a pretty big beating after we killed Zarqawi, since his body clearly had two intact legs, putting a huge hole in one of Hayes' fundamental contentions about Saddam-Zarqawi cooperation. See this article for a pretty solid analysis of some of the many things wrong with Hayes' arguments. As for the point about bin Laden, come on, Ron, give it up. I gave you several arguments with links to solid reporting on the issue, and all you can say is "it is clear that I am right." That's an assertion, and it's bogus. Your only concrete point there is "he has more sources of funding, but less money" -- but this is an assertion with no evidence. It is also meaningless, since he is probably spending more money on training new terrorists to attack the US and other countries. Let's face it - the disaster that Iraq has become has led to unprecedented terrorism. If we ever are able to pull out of there - "victory" or no - we will leave behind many many more trained and determined jihadists than we started with, many of whom will use their newfound terrorist skills to attack Western targets. Others will return to their home countries and sow terrorism there. I wish you were right about this, Ron, I really do, but unfortunately the evidence does not support the claims you make.--csloat 01:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase "notorious liar" says more about Juan Cole than it does Hayes. Hayes reports what his sources tell him. If they get it wrong, then the story is wrong. That doesn't make Hayes a liar. And if you think you see holes in Hayes' argument, then you should point out the holes - not call Hayes a liar. That just poisons the well. I repeat what I said above - No one has disputed the accuracy of the article I linked to. Other reporters had referred to Zarqawi as the man with the limp. The story about the prosthetic leg was pure speculation. Not getting a prosthetic does not prove Zarqawi did not get medical treatment on his leg. You jump to conclusions that fit your POV. I know all about your your desire that Iraq turn into a "disaster." You are just pushing anti-Bush POV. You have been spouting it for more than a year. But the fact is that bin Laden has lost two state sponsors, the Taliban in Afghanistan and Saddam in Iraq. Osama has less money now than before. Witness the letter from Zawahiri to Zarqawi a few months back where he asked for money. It is pretty bad when HQ has to ask a subsidiary for cash. The NY Times is so upset about the loss of funding for al-Qaeda, they had to tell the world how the US had cut off their funding so al-Qaeda could figure out other ways to get their money. Reporting on classified info like that was truly a treasonous act. Enough of this topic. I suggest we return to the subject at hand because none of this is really relevant to the article. RonCram 05:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please read about the burden of proof. Claims like "Not getting a prosthetic does not prove Zarqawi did not get medical treatment on his leg" are nonsensical. I never claimed to prove Zarqawi did not get treatment; I claimed that you (and Hayes) did not prove that he did. The fact that he still has a freakin leg suggests that the claim lacks evidence. Read the article on Hayes, and read Cole, if you want to learn about Hayes' other prevarications. Hayes does not report what his sources say - he doesn't have sources. His research is almost all third hand; he is just reporting what he read in other places. Your claim "I know all about your your desire that Iraq turn into a 'disaster'" is a vicious personal attack. Cut it the fuck out. Seriously. It gets me really angry because I truly wish you were right about Iraq. Unfortunately you aren't. I don't wish for it to be a disaster; for you to claim that is rude and vicious. What have I ever done to you? I have argued with you but I do not question your motives or claim that you wish ill on an entire nation. Don't ever say crap like that again if you wish to continue any kind of dialogue with me.

Your other arguments are pure speculation that has been thoroughly refuted by the several sources I offered above. Your comment that the NYT wants to help al Qaeda is another vicious attack that has no basis in reality. Stick to the arguments Ron and quit trying to insult everyone. If you think I or the NYT or anyone else wants to help al Qaeda, call the fucking FBI on us and shut the fuck up. This is complete bullshit. Sorry for the language, but I am pissed off, and I will not stand for such assaults on my character.--csloat 09:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

by the way, read this before you continue making the ridiculous "treason" argument against the new york times.--csloat 10:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

csloat, first I want to apologize for my comment about your "desire" to see Iraq turned into a disaster. It was late and I wss tired. I should not have said it. Please forgive me. What the NY Times did was truly treasonous. They published news about a classified program that has been described as "hyper legal." There was never any real question about its legality. The Times was able to find an anti-Bush person in the Admin who exposed the program to the detriment of national security. That person should face capital punishment. The editors of the Times should face penalties as well. I am not the only one saying this about the Times and you know it. [6] Regarding Larry Johnson's article, he is a left wing hack and his piece is intentionally deceptive. Everyone knows the U.S. has been trying to cut off terror funding, but the Times exposed the mechanisms used to do it. Contrary to what Johnson wants you to believe, that information was never public before and truly harmed national security. There is a war against the War in Iraq. The NY Times and Larry Johnson are part of the war against the war. They care more about political gain than they do about the truth or the lives of U.S. citizens and soldiers. Regarding Zarqawi's leg, you seem to have difficulty in understanding different levels of medical treatment are possible. Several reporters have talked about him walking with a limp. I used to walk with a limp myself because I blew out my ACL on the basketball court. I had the torn ligament replaced and the knee is much more stable now and I have no noticeable limp. When you are dealing with stories like these, you can expect some details to be wrong. There were several stories about Zarqawi's leg and his medical treatment in Baghdad. You make the mistake of saying I'm trying to prove something. I am not trying to prove anything. I am only trying to keep the facts straight. The only thing that has been proven is that his leg was not amputated. You are the one making the claim Zarqawi did not get medical treatment on his leg, so the burden of proof is on you. RonCram 15:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First, Larry Johnson is a conservative Republican, not a "left wing hack." His anti-Bush stance developed over the past couple years due to the war in Iraq; it has not changed his essential conservatism (listen to him talk about Soviet communism, about Philip Agee, about morality, or about the Clinton White House if you don't believe him). Second, that is an ad hominem anyway -- read the article and deal with the actual arguments he makes and the sources he cites. Third, you are insulting the NYT and Johnson with the same crap you were pulling against me. If you have information that Johnson (a conservative Republican and a decorated veteran of public service) or the NYT (a century-and-a-half old, highly respected journalistic institution that is the national paper of record) are committing treasonous acts, call the FBI; don't talk shit about it on Wikipedia. Or here's a better idea -- say it to Larry Johnson's face. How many trips have you taken to Iraq to meet with soldiers on duty? Your claim that they care more about political gain than about the lives of our soldiers is insulting (not to mention mind-reading BS). Regarding Zarqawi's leg, I am not unaware that one can seek medical treatment without losing a leg; however, my point was that the original story has now lost all credibility, and nobody has offered any proof that Zarqawi sought medical treatment. If you are not trying to prove this, then drop it! It is not the other side's responsibility to prove it false -- again, please read about burden of proof. I am the one claiming there is no evidence that Saddam worked with al Qaeda; the fact that Zarqawi's leg is intact shows that at least one piece of so-called evidence of conspiracy was incorrect. This is the problem with conspiracy theory reasoning Ron -- you assume the conspiracy is true and then you challenge your opponents to disprove the conspiracy. But the burden of proof is on those who would advocate the conspiracy, not on those who challenge such claims. Read any book about argumentation to learn more about this.--csloat 19:08, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

csloat, I am not trying to prove anything here. I only want the article to be accurate. It is not accurate now. Regarding Johnson, I would gladly tell him to his face what I think. I only hope I have the opportunity to do that someday. He sent me an email and I repeated everything I said here and more. He is an anti-American jerk. His article is intentionally deceptive. Everyone knew the US was shutting of terror funding, but they did not know the mechanism. The program the NY Times exposed helped to catch several terrorists. Does Johnson talk about that? No, he pretends the classified program had not done anything. That is a lie. Johnson knows it. He says what he says for political gain. That is the definition of a political hack. Regarding Zarqawi's leg, you have lost all credibility. The story said that he sought medical treatment. Someone speculated he might have had it amputated, but there was never any certainty on that speculation. Geez. RonCram 20:17, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ron I have been pressing you for weeks now to explain precisely what is "inaccurate" about the article, and you have come up with nothing. I asked you to explain why we need a rewrite and you gave three cryptic responses, each of which I answered, and you have so far abandoned that conversation too. So I don't give any credence to your claim that the article is not accurate. As for Johnson, I would pay good money to be there when you call him an "anti-American jerk" to his face. Such insults are totally beyond the pale (and, just to be perfectly clear, I don't know whether or not Johnson is a "jerk"; it is the "anti-American" part that is truly offensive). And they have nothing to do with reality. What is "intentionally deceptive" about his article? Did you actually read it? Please quote the alleged "lie" in Johnson's article and show us the evidence that shows it is a lie. How can you say he says things for political gain when he is not a politician? He has never run for office, to my knowledge. What political points can he hope to score? He appears to be a conservative republican who found his deep-held beliefs shattered by this particular administration. As for Zarqawi, please stop the fucking insults!! I have not "lost all credibility"; what I have done is explain to you a basic tenet of argumentation theory, which is that the one who advances an argument has a burden to prove it. You (and Hayes) advanced the argument that Zarqawi got his leg amputated in Baghdad and that this proves a link between Saddam and al-Qaeda. One of the many reasons that the evidence fails to support this argument is that Zarqawi never got his leg amputated, so that part of the claim is clearly false. Sure, you can speculate that he was in the hospital for pneumonia or whatever, but then you're just making stuff up! Who is still claiming that Z was treated in Baghdad and what evidence supports the claim? Zarqawi's leg aside, let me enumerate some of the other reasons that argument fails in terms of evidentiary support:

Even if Zarqawi was treated for pneumonia, or for penis augmentation surgery, or whatever, there is no evidence that Saddam had anything to do with it. Saddam is not a doctor and it is unlikely he spent a whole lot of time in between torturing Islamists and whatnot going over lists of patients admitted to Baghdad hospitals. So even if you could prove Zarqawi was in the Baghdad hospital, it says nothing about a link between Saddam and al-Qaeda. A CIA report in 2004 concluded that there was no evidence that Saddam was aware of Zarqawi visiting a hospital in Baghdad.
Zarqawi hated Saddam and was ideologically opposed to collaborating with him. This is a man who murdered Shiites in cold blood just because they are Shiites. How anyone can imagine he would work closely with a secular leader whom he regards as an apostate is beyond me.
Saddam's government was trying to have Zarqawi arrested and could not find him; members of his government said that there was no evidence he was even in Iraq.
Zarqawi was not working with al-Qaeda at the time; he was working totally independently of bin Laden. He was a rival to bin Laden -- their meeting was described by an Israeli intelligence agent as "loathing at first sight." Zarqawi refused many times to take an oath of loyalty to bin Laden, and it was not until October 2004 -- over a year after the US invasion -- that he became a member of al Qaeda. To cite Zarqawi as an example of Saddam working with al-Qaeda is ludicrous from this perspective.
Zarqawi was working with Ansar al-Islam, a terrorist group that was a sworn enemy of Saddam. True, Saddam tried to spy on this organization, and tried to manipulate this organization for his own ends once it became clear that the US was going to invade Iraq, but this hardly can be used as a post-facto justification for the invasion.

That's just what comes to mind offhand. So even if you are right and Zarqawi was in the hospital for Lasix or whatever, it proves absolutely nothing. And, again, it is your burden (or Stephen Hayes' burden) to prove that Zarqawi constitutes the link between Saddam and al Qaeda, not my burden to prove that he didn't.--csloat 23:24, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sloat, you really need to read my responses. I'm tired of typing the same thing over and over again. The current article is POV and inaccurate because it does not present the different views clearly or explain the debate inside the Intelligence Community about the evidence of a link. Shoot, people reading the article will not even realize the CIA recognized Saddam trained al-Qaeda fighters or offered safe haven. Your misunderstanding about Zarqawi is too significant to deal with on this page. We really need a separate page to deal with "Saddam Zarqawi and Osama." How's that for an article name? RonCram 05:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I read your responses and responded to them; see above. What specifically is POV and inaccurate about the article? It actually does present the different views clearly as far as I can tell, and it is pretty clear from the article that there was a debate in the intel community. Your comment about the CIA is incorrect; the article clearly mentions that Tenet made these claims and that the SSCI noted that "The DCI's unclassified testimony did not include source descriptions, which could have led the recipients of that testimony to interpret that the CIA believed the training had definitely occurred." (p. 330) It turned out these statements relied on al-Libi's testimony, which the CIA and DIA have rejected. I don't see any misunderstanding about Zarqawi, all I see is you once again withdrawing from an argument when you find yourself unable to respond to the responses. I don't think we need a separate Saddam/Zarqawi article, but if there is movement in that direction, I will be happy to include the above points there too.--csloat 05:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, let's resume the areas of contention to try and see about streamlining. Can we list those areas, in as brief a form as possible, that are the major sticking points, or is vitually every detail in dispute? The best way I and others can help is by knowing what the primary specific points are that are in dispute...then we can all do our fact checking and get down to the nitty-gritty.--MONGO 19:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, here is my list of the twelve items that I believe should be the focus of the rewritten article. I don't think all twelve are in dispute.--csloat 19:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks...I am heading out but will be back online in about 8 hours or less and will look all this over. It's tough to be going 10 directions at once on wiki and keep track of all the different areas...hence, my seeming ignorance at times.--MONGO 21:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No worries - I appreciate any input you can give on these issues.--csloat 22:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is in dispute?

MONGO, are you asking what are the basic items the article should cover? Of something else? I will offer the main points as I see them:

The possibility and extent of a relationship between Saddam and Osama is a controversial issue that is still being debated. If this is not admitted upfront, there is no hope for the article.

Evidence of high level contacts has raised two questions. 1. Did Saddam and Osama cooperate? 2. Did Saddam support 9/11? These are two separate issues and different views have different answers on each question.

Why is the subject controversial? This helps to put the issue into some historical context for the reader and gives some information on intelligence gathering, analysis and the role of the risk matrix.

Who are the main people the article has to mention? Bush, Saddam, Osama, Zawahiri, Tenet, Powell, Feith, Mylroie, Zarqawi, Hijazi, Michael Scheuer and Yousef Bodansky.

What evidence has to be mentioned? 9/11 Commission Report, Senate Report, transcript of Powell speech before the UN and Operation Iraqi Freedom documents.

How should the article be structured? It is clear each of the main views need to have appropriate space to explain the view and the evidence to support that view. The majority Intelligence Community view should have the most space and the Mylroie's "false flag" view should have the least space. Also, the majority of the article will deal with the possibility of a relationship (discussing each major view and its evidence) but some space should be reserved for the second question (the possibility Saddam supported the attacks of 9/11). I say this not because I am convinced Saddam was behind 9/11, but because I am convinced this question is historically significant and must be addressed here.

We have to do this in a way to keep the article NPOV. As we write the article, we have to keep in mind the needs and interests of students and other wikipedia readers. This means we have to provide lots of links and sources so researchers can learn more about the issues. RonCram 06:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I need to reply to some incorrect information above; I'm going to sign each comment so Ron or others can respond without confusion:

Ron says "The possibility and extent of a relationship between Saddam and Osama is a controversial issue that is still being debated. If this is not admitted upfront, there is no hope for the article."

First, the article does clearly indicate that the issue is still controversial. However, I know of no extant investigations into the issue. The 9/11 Commission is not reconvening to study it again. The Pentagon has issued their official analysis of the Operation Iraqi Freedom documents. Certainly, there are still occasional articles in the Weekly Standard that claim Saddam controlled al-Qaeda, but there is no real debate among official sources. What little debate still exists on the topic is clearly indicated in the article, so I don't think Ron is correct in saying that there is "no hope for the article."--csloat 07:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ron says "Evidence of high level contacts has raised two questions. 1. Did Saddam and Osama cooperate? 2. Did Saddam support 9/11? These are two separate issues and different views have different answers on each question."

I think that is pretty clearly dealt with in the article too. There are only a couple of people on the fringe who believe Saddam had anything to do with 9/11, and their voices are more than represented here. We have an entire section devoted to Atta in Prague, even though no official source supports the view that he was there in 2001. We even have a section in the timeline about an obscure editorial in a local newspaper that Ron thinks is evidence of Saddam's involvement in 9/11 (even though there is no evidence Saddam ever even read the article). I'm not sure what more Ron wants on this point. I certainly don't see the need for a section in the intro on the point.--csloat 07:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ron says "Why is the subject controversial? This helps to put the issue into some historical context for the reader and gives some information on intelligence gathering, analysis and the role of the risk matrix."

This is pretty clearly covered in the background sections. I'm not sure what he's asking for here.--csloat 07:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ron says "Who are the main people the article has to mention? Bush, Saddam, Osama, Zawahiri, Tenet, Powell, Feith, Mylroie, Zarqawi, Hijazi, Michael Scheuer and Yousef Bodansky."

I see the legitimacy of mentioning everyone but the last two. But in fact every single one is mentioned in the timeline as is; I'm again flummoxed as to what Ron's complaint about the current article is. The article should of course be more than a list of names.csloat 07:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ron says "What evidence has to be mentioned? 9/11 Commission Report, Senate Report, transcript of Powell speech before the UN and Operation Iraqi Freedom documents."

No problems here -- and of course there are a few other things worth mentioning, i.e. the conclusions of the CIA, DIA, FBI, NSA, State Department, Israeli intel, British intel, Spanish intel, etc. See my list of 12 items above for details.csloat 07:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ron says "How should the article be structured? It is clear each of the main views need to have appropriate space to explain the view and the evidence to support that view. The majority Intelligence Community view should have the most space and the Mylroie's "false flag" view should have the least space. Also, the majority of the article will deal with the possibility of a relationship (discussing each major view and its evidence) but some space should be reserved for the second question (the possibility Saddam supported the attacks of 9/11). I say this not because I am convinced Saddam was behind 9/11, but because I am convinced this question is historically significant and must be addressed here."

Ron's proposals for restructuring the article have been responded to thoroughly above in my 9 arguments above. I reject his new version based on those arguments (as well as other points I have made throughout this discussion that remain unanswered). csloat 07:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Until Ron offers an actual justification for making radical changes in the current version, I do not see any need to discuss his new version further. I have responded to each of his arguments above, and he has yet to offer anything specific in terms of what is wrong with the current version. Simply saying that it is too POV or that it is antiBush is nonsense. The current version has been worked on for years by a number of different people from various political perspectives (including Ron himself!) It represents the closest thing we have to a consensus version. If it has specific problems that Ron is able to point out, let us address those problems specifically rather than making a wholesale change that represents a massive POV shift (and that in many cases is completely inaccurate; see the 9 points above again).-csloat 07:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I have spent about an hour and half reading over the article and the points both of you have mentioned. I cannot find how the article is not all inclusive and every point does seem to be well covered and decently referenced. It is going to be virtually impossible to not have a little pov in our wording, and our sentiments when dealing with this type of subject. That is the nature of the beast. I have to save this now to reformat all the points made by each of you, so bear with me for a few minutes.--MONGO 07:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Major points

By csloat:

Hijazi meetings - these are a major point for the Saddam/AQ conspiracy theory, and they have been added in about 10 different places in the timeline (seem my timeline comment above). This can be synthesized into one paragraph.
I agree, work to streamline this.MONGO 07:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Atta in Prague - I have already created a separate article dealing with this question, so we can shorten that section of the timeline.
Maybe a short paragraph or two and link to daughter article.MONGO 07:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Salman Pak - again, we have an article on this topic already, though there is additional info in the timeline that does not seem to be in the other article.
Move information that is overly detailed to Salman Pak article, keeping one or two paragrpahs as an overview here with a link to daughter articleMONGO 07:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Zarqawi - I'm not sure we need a sub article about him, there is already a biography piece about him. I think there are several points in this section and it will be a little complicated, but we should be ably to simplify a bit.
Just include what his connection to the Saddam regime is/was...I cannot see how he was connected to Saddam, but will read more about that in a bit.MONGO 07:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He wasn't, but some people insist that he was directed by Saddam. It's fine to include their claims as long as we include the information that counters those claims, as the article currently does.--csloat 07:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The 9/11 conspiracy theory of Laurie Mylroie - it should be noted that this was an influence on Cheney et al., but also that her theories have been thoroughly discredited by terrorism experts on all sides of the political spectrum.
Should be able to summarize in a couple of paragraphs...maybe three and if nned, create a subarticle with a linkMONGO 07:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The OIF documents - again, we have an article devoted to this topic already; a brief statement that these documents exist and that they have led some news outlets to examine the question again should be enough along with a link to that page.
I agree...keeping it short is good enough...link to subarticle.MONGO 07:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. The OIF documents deal with many subjects besides the link to al-Qaeda. It is essential the key documents that are changing people's minds about the link be included in the article. RonCram 15:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ron is incorrect. The documents are explained on the Operation Iraqi Freedom documents page. We don't need that information duplicated. We also don't have any evidence of which documents are changing which people's minds, if that is happening at all. We have one very vague quote from Mr. Kerrey suggesting that the documents convinced him that Saddam wanted to hurt the US. If he ever indicates which document has made him change his mind (presumably he thought Saddam was a nice guy prior to 2006?), perhaps we could include some information about that.--csloat 16:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am not "incorrect." Go the Operation Iraqi Freedom documents page. It has documents about the Russians telling Saddam about our war plans. It has documents about Saddam's WMD program and buried chemicals. It has all kinds of documents in there. We definitely need a link to that page, but we cannot exclude information that is pertinent. Besides, we also have to include testimony from detainees. Readers will plainly see how detainees testimony confirms reports in the documents. To seek to exclude this information is nothing but pure censorship. RonCram 16:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ron is now putting words in my mouth. Please stop calling me a censor Ron when you are the one who deletes without comment every post I make on your talk page, sometimes just to make it look like you "won" a debate. It is sheer hypocrisy. But let's get to the point - I never said we shouldn't link to the OIF documents page; we already do link to that page. What is the problem. I'm not going to debate you here about the alleged buried chemicals; I already explained why you were wrong on the talk page of the OIF documents article, as did another editor. I am against doing any original research in this article, which includes juxtaposing documents with claims from detainees to prove some kind of point. If these documents are not juxtaposed in published reliable sources, we should not be doing that in an encyclopedia. I don't think my standard is unreasonable here.--csloat 16:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear: arguing that original research should not be included in the article is not censorship. This is what I call censorship.--csloat 16:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, Ron shouldn't be simply removing your comments from his talk page, but that is not the point of the argument here....lets work to determine which of the OIF documents have any bearing on this article.--MONGO 19:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
MONGO, I have every right to delete csloat's comments from my Talk page. After Sloat's harassment and stalking of me, it is my absolute right to delete his harassment. BTW, he still comes by and harasses me but then he deletes his own crap. At least now I don't have to! RonCram 17:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ron, it is not your "right" to be a censor that is disputed here; I was just calling attention to your hypocrisy. Please stop the false claim of stalking. You know damn well you and another user - a well known troll - started a frivolous hit-and-run RfC against me based on that claim and the claim was thoroughly refuted. I have never ever "stalked" you. If you are still unclear about what "wikistalking" is, I suggest you re-read the comments I made on that RfC. As I recall, the whole incident was pretty embarrassing for you and your friend.--csloat 19:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are some other pieces of information in the timeline that should be kept but I think the above hits on the major points of "evidence" used to support the conspiracy theory. The other thing we should have is a section devoted to official statements and investigations. Included here should be:

Powell's speech and the various criticisms of it. I am surprised there is not yet an article on Powell's UN speech at all.
I concur, but is this a huge part of the issue...we are of course discussing Powell's speech to the UN and WMD's in Iraq, or something else? Was there another speech aside from that, as I only recollect the main WMD's in Iraq speech to the UN.MONGO 07:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Same speech; he also spoke of alleged ties to al Qaeda. That portion of the speech has been widely recognized as false since it relied primarily on two things - (1) the testimony of captured al-Qaeda leader Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, who the CIA and DIA believe was lying, and (2) the alleged connection to Zarqawi.--csloat 08:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I thought...it is interesting that that speech doesn't have it's own article...it was a big deal. I'll look over the article and see where we're at on this point.--MONGO 08:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
MONGO, if you read my rewrite, you would know what Powell said about al-Qaeda. Also, it should be pointed out that the Senate Report examined the question of whether Powell overstated intelligence in linking Saddam to Osama and it was decided that it did not. (See page 369 of the Senate Report) This is one of the areas I am most concerned about csloat's sources. He has refused to provide links to examine his claims and I am not convinced of several points he asserts. The points he asserts are in exact opposition to the conclusions of the Senate Report. Specifically, where does he get the idea Powell's speech was heavily dependent on al-Libi's testimony. Most of what al-Libi said was confirmed by other witnesses (and now the OIF documents). Also, there are some analysts who think al-Libi was telling the truth the first time and lying now. Powell did mention Zarqawi (and the Senate Report confirmed the intelligence Powell used) but I do not think this should take up a great deal of space. There should be a daughter article about the question of whether Zarqawi was a link between Saddam and Osama. RonCram 15:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ron is either mistaken here or he is being intentionally misleading. I have not "refused" to do anything; in fact, I several times referred Ron to the timeline itself, and then I provided this link to the information about al-Libi. Ron's claim that what al-Libi said has been confirmed is simply false -- Ron if you think you are correct, please provide a link to an article that states that al-Libi's confession is now being taken seriously by authorities. He is thought by the DIA and CIA to have lied about this under torture. I also urge Ron to read this article about some of the prevarications of his hero Stephen Hayes; the article specifically notes that "Al-Libi, however, was reportedly the principal source for the administration's claims of a connection, and his claims were specifically referenced in then-Secretary of State Colin Powell's February 2003 speech before the United Nations." This article is also helpful on this regard. If Ron has information that people now believe the things al-Libi said, Ron should post that information; I am not aware of it. Ron keeps going back to the Senate Report, but the information that al-Libi lied under torture was not publicized until almost a year after that report was concluded. And even the Senate report concluded that the CIA was correct to conclude that Iraq did not provide substantial support or cooperation with al Qaeda on terrorism. In any case, I agree with MONGO that the Powell speech should have its own article so that each of these claims can be discussed in an organized manner.--csloat 16:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let's stay away from this website Media Matters [7] since it appears all they do is try and debunk FOX news...a good idea since every major news media needs some debunking, but I would prefer we just use more mainstream sources than this to demonstrate evidence. The MSNBC link is much better for sourcing this information and I consider that to be a more useful source. Yes, lets summarize here and link to subarticle...it was a big speech...the biggest of his career and had long time side effects, good and bad, depending on one's perspective.--MONGO 18:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Media Matters has not been shown to be incorrect on anything, but I agree, mainstream sources are better. I only cited it here for the talk page discussion. This is from the newsweek article:
"The claim about poison-gas training resurfaced four months later in greatly expanded form during a particularly dramatic portion of then Secretary of State Colin Powell’s Feb. 5, 2003, speech to the UN Security Council that refers exclusively to al-Libi—although he is not actually identified by name. Towards the end of his speech, just after a passage that talked about Al Qaeda’s interest in acquiring weapons of mass destruction, Powell said he wanted to “trace the story of a senior terrorist operative telling how Iraq provided training in these weapons to Al Qaeda. Fortunately, this operative is now detained, and he has told his story,” said Powell. “I will relate to you now, as he himself, described it. “This senior Al Qaeda terrorist was responsible for one of Al Qaeda’s training camps in Afghanistan,” he continued. “His information comes first hand from his personal involvement at senior levels of Al Qaeda.” Powell then said that Osama bin Laden and one of his deputies—the since deceased Mohammed Atef—did not believe Al Qaeda had the capability to make chemical or biological weapons in Afghanistan on their own. “They needed to go somewhere else. They had to look outside of Afghanistan for help. Where did they go? Where did they look? They went to Iraq.” Powell then continued, citing the unidentified operative’s story (from al-Libi) that Iraq offered chemical or biological weapons training to two Al Qaeda associates starting in December 2000. A militant identified as Abu Adula al-Iraqi had also been sent to Iraq several times between 1997 and 2000 for help in acquiring poisons and gases and that the relationship forged with Iraq officials was characterized by al-Iraqi as “successful,” according to Powell’s remarks. (Although it is not entirely clear from Powell’s speech, two U.S. counter-terrorism officials told NEWSWEEK they believe the information about al-Iraqi came exclusively from al-Libi.)

Hopefully that puts the issue to rest, but I doubt it, since Ron has been making the same claims over and over for weeks in spite of the evidence.--csloat 19:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Geez, csloat, you are grasping at straws. You have no idea whether or not Powell was referring to al-Libi. Two anti-Bush intelligence officials who hold the majority view make this claim with no proof and you want to present it as fact. The fact is the Senate Committee looked into Powell's speech and found nothing wrong. The issue of al-Libi recanted was already known. These anti-Bush intelligence officials have an axe to grind to support their viewpoint. Wikipedia is not here to present viewpoints as facts. RonCram 17:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ron, read the Newsweek article! Where does it say "anti-Bush"? What does that have to do with it? The article is from Nov 2005, over a year after the SSCI made its incorrect assessment. Nobody has refuted the claim that Powell's speech relied on Libi's confession and there is no published source indicating where else he might have gotten this information. Your assertion that these people have an axe to grind is what is really "grasping at straws" - do you even know who they are? What axe do they have to grind? I cite a published mainstream source that has not been disputed and you assert without a shred of evidence an anti-Bush conspiracy among acting intelligence officials, and you tell me I am "grasping at straws"??? --csloat 19:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Various statements of Bush and Clinton Admin officials alleging Iraq's connections to Osama.
Fine, brief mention of major comments made, cross analysis to bring forth any later adjustments to this they may have stated, such as corrections they may have made to their original comments.MONGO 07:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do not mind statements if they relate or illumine the narrative. Other statements by public officials, intelligence analsysts or members of the 9/11 Commission or Senate Committee should appear in a "Statements" section. Statements should be limited to those groups of people. Statements by politicos or bloggers who do not have access to classified information are not really helpful to readers. RonCram 15:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we need a "Statements" section if we include the statements by public officials in the actual article.--csloat 16:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The separate investigations into the question by the NSA, DIA, CIA, FBI, State Department, British Intel, Israeli intel, Spanish intel, the SSCI, the PDB about Saddam and AQ, and the 9/11 Commission. Each investigation should have a subheading with a brief analysis and links to articles about the investigation. The SSCI and 911 Commission of course already have their own pages. I will work on this section.
That is a lot of work...can it be combined...it doesn't appear it can, but can we maybe brreak it down into U.S. and then International investigations instead of 8 or so stubs or short articles?MONGO 07:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The OSP and the Feith Report and the criticisms of it.
This again is critical I know, but we can reduce it by a lot if we stick to WP:SS and reference appropriately.MONGO 07:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The charges of manipulation of intelligence by the Bush Administration. This claim was rejected by the SSCI, but many intel analysts claim that their investigation was incomplete, and claim that there was heavy handed manipulation. Recent statements from Paul Pillar and Gen. Hayden seem to bear this out.
Can this go into the investigations section one point above as mentioned...sounds like the U.S. investigations and manipulation is a big article itself.MONGO 07:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The charges of manipulation by the Iraqi National Congress. It should be pointed out clearly that much of the early information about alleged links to al Qaeda came from sources that have been revealed as lying, most likely as part of an Iranian intelligence operation - Chalabi, "Curveball," Kohada, "Abu Zeinab" al-Ghurairy.
I think this can go into an International subarticle along with International investigations...or is there too much info to combine them all together?MONGO 07:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a section break

by Ron Cram

The possibility and extent of a relationship between Saddam and Osama is a controversial issue that is still being debated. If this is not admitted upfront, there is no hope for the article.
But who is debating it? If no formal investigations are still ongoing, my bet is the Bush administration would like to put it behind them...maybe we should too. Let's try to stick to the evidence of whether or not there was a connection and not whether it is still debated...unless we can demonstrate that there is any active effort by anyone that is going to bring forth new evidence...are there any formal investigations still underway that seek to find the connection, if there ever was one?MONGO 07:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1. Let me quote from a recent ABC News article: The controversial claim that Osama bin Laden was cooperating with Saddam Hussein is an ongoing matter of intense debate. While the assertions contained in this document clearly support the claim, the sourcing is questionable — i.e., an unnamed Afghan "informant" reporting on a conversation with another Afghan "consul." [8] Setting the standard at having an official investigation is ridiculously high standard. We should be able to agree with ABC News that the issue is still a matter of intense debate, especially when new documents from Operation Iraqi Freedom are being translated and making news. RonCram 13:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to including the AP quote, but, again, there have been official investigations -- about a dozen of them -- and they have all been concluded. Saying that it is a ridiculously high standard for the article to point this out is ridiculous. We've had a bunch of investigations already, if there are more, they can be reported. Yes there are still some people debating this, but there are no active official efforts to reopen the question.--csloat 16:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that the debate itself is essentially dead in the water. The conclusion is that aside from some non-specific and not well defined terms, that the relationship was never collaborative in any real manner. In correcting myself from earlier statements I made, further reading, however, indicates that Saddam did support all activities that would undermine U.S. and allied abilities to keep him in check...and this would include the use of terrorism. I'm not sure what Saddam thought about the events of 9/11...but I highly doubt he had anything to do with it. There is the chance that Saddam had mixed sentiments about 9/11...surely he must have realized that the U.S. was going to act and there might be those, such as himself that would now be considered prime targets...the guy isn't an idiot, just a madman. I just have trouble seeing Saddam and Osama cooperating on any level that could be construed as unified.--MONGO 19:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
MONGO, if your understanding is that the debate is dead in the water, then you have not read my rewrite nor the AP story I just linked to. The debate is more intensified now than ever. Former Democrat Senator Bob Kerrey just changed sides! He was a 9/11 Commissioner! More facts are coming out all the time. If you really cannot see the debate is raging when the AP says it is raging, then you are the wrong person to mediate this discussion. RonCram 17:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ron, as a mediator per se, it's unlikely that I am going to make you or csloat completely happy...what I read from your link [9] is the following.....

"Osama bin Laden Contact With Iraq"

A newly released prewar Iraqi document indicates that an official representative of Saddam Hussein's government met with Osama bin Laden in Sudan on February 19, 1995, after receiving approval from Saddam Hussein. Bin Laden asked that Iraq broadcast the lectures of Suleiman al Ouda, a radical Saudi preacher, and suggested "carrying out joint operations against foreign forces" in Saudi Arabia. According to the document, Saddam's presidency was informed of the details of the meeting on March 4, 1995, and Saddam agreed to dedicate a program for them on the radio. The document states that further "development of the relationship and cooperation between the two parties to be left according to what's open [in the future] based on dialogue and agreement on other ways of cooperation." The Sudanese were informed about the agreement to dedicate the program on the radio.

The report then states that "Saudi opposition figure" bin Laden had to leave Sudan in July 1996 after it was accused of harboring terrorists. It says information indicated he was in Afghanistan. "The relationship with him is still through the Sudanese. We're currently working on activating this relationship through a new channel in light of his current location," it states.

(Editor's Note: This document is handwritten and has no official seal. Although contacts between bin Laden and the Iraqis have been reported in the 9/11 Commission report and elsewhere (e.g., the 9/11 report states "Bin Ladn himself met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in Khartoum in late 1994 or early 1995) this document indicates the contacts were approved personally by Saddam Hussein.

It also indicates the discussions were substantive, in particular that bin Laden was proposing an operational relationship, and that the Iraqis were, at a minimum, interested in exploring a potential relationship and prepared to show good faith by broadcasting the speeches of al Ouda, the radical cleric who was also a bin Laden mentor.

The document does not establish that the two parties did in fact enter into an operational relationship. Given that the document claims bin Laden was proposing to the Iraqis that they conduct "joint operations against foreign forces" in Saudi Arabia, it is worth noting that eight months after the meeting — on November 13, 1995 — terrorists attacked Saudi National Guard Headquarters in Riyadh, killing 5 U.S. military advisers. The militants later confessed on Saudi TV to having been trained by Osama bin Laden.)

So what we have here is a summary by ABC of documents that have been recently released, which indicate that Saddam did in fact seek out and endorse some level of collaborative effort with OBL. I have zero problem with this source being in the article.--MONGO 19:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nor do I. And, as it turns out, it's already there; see the first entry in the timeline under 1995. Thanks.--csloat 19:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your understanding is correct. As for Saddam's thoughts on 9/11, they are well known - he basically said the US brought it on itself. Saddam's ministers warned him that he should offer condolences to the US and distance himself from al Qaeda, but Saddam refused - it was one of Saddam's many strategic miscalculations. Saddam's ministers insisted that Saddam should tell the world "we are not with the terrorists." Saddam should have listened to them. You're right, he isnt an idiot, but he was pretty paranoid and closed minded; his miscalculation on this matter is an important reason that the US was able to portray him as having supported al Qaeda. But the evidence seems pretty clear that he didn't, and the issue is as you say "dead in the water" on that point, despite continuing debate about various "contacts" between Saddam and Ansar al-Islam.--csloat 19:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence of high level contacts has raised two questions. 1. Did Saddam and Osama cooperate? 2. Did Saddam support 9/11? These are two separate issues and different views have different answers on each question.
We cover that I believe...what areas still need more or less...is there an area in regards to this that is POV or incorrect, without a proper rebuttal in the text?MONGO 07:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1. Not at all. The two subjects are confused are intertwined throughout the article. People come away with the idea the Bush Administration claimed Saddam supported 9/11 when that was never the official position of the Administration. The two questions need to be addressed separately. RonCram 14:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really understand Ron's point here; as MONGO pointed out, this is already covered reasonably in the article. If Ron can show where the article gives the misleading impression that Bush stated that Saddam was behind 9/11 we can fix it, but what I read in the article seems accurate to me: "On 21 March 2006, Bush sought to distance himself from the allegation of any link. He said: "First, just if I might correct a misperception, I don’t think we ever said — at least I know I didn’t say that there was a direct connection between September the 11th and Saddam Hussein." [23] Opponents of his Iraq policy charged that his statement was inconsistent with his letter to Congress of 21 March 2003. [24]"--csloat 16:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I concur that the BUsh administration never made the connection an official viewpoint in so many words, but no doubt they did use it as part of the rationale to enter Iraq. Iraq was labeled as part of the Axis of Evil...Bush did this shortly after 9/11...This is the subject of the entire article and is bound to be covered throughout the article....--MONGO 19:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why is the subject controversial? This helps to put the issue into some historical context for the reader and gives some information on intelligence gathering, analysis and the role of the risk matrix.
I appreciate the risk matrix issue...prior to 9/11, that risk matrix was at a much lower pain threshold. I think things were imagined, suspected, maybe even had some level of truth, but that was due to this risk matrix being lowered. We cannot necessarily combine Saddam's adversarial situation with al qaeda's since they were essentially fighting under different banners. Saddam, I doubt ever dreamed of invading the U.S., or planting operatives here to do terrorism in the same manner as Osama did. We can naturally continue to keep this aspect of reasoning in focus when deciphering the rationale for those that saw some links between al qaeda and Saddam and then made that connection more than it really was. I hope I made my self clear here.MONGO 07:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1. You are incorrect regarding Saddam. We have documents showing Saddam asked for volunteers from the military to go on terrorist operations against the US. We also have detainees who were part of Saddam's military who volunteered to join al-Qaeda and were captured in Pakistan on a mission with Iraqi intelligence to attack the US embassy with chemical mortars. There are many other documents and witnesses that support this. RonCram 14:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ron's comment about volunteers has nothing to do with al-Qaeda -- this document was studied by the Pentagon, which concluded that these were Baathist terrorists, not jihadists. They also concluded that Saddam's plans to do anything with these terrorists went nowhere. His comment about "detainees" is actually a single detainee, about whom we know next to nothing. What we do know is what the Associated Press said about him: "There is no indication the Iraqi's purported terror-related activities were on behalf of Saddam Hussein's government, other than the brief mention of him traveling to Pakistan with a member of the Iraqi intelligence.... The assertion that the [detainee] was involved in a plot against embassies in Pakistan is not substantiated in the document."[10] Ron seems fond of cherry-picking parts of articles and documents that support his claims; it is very frustrating to have to keep correcting him on these points. (I have corrected Ron on this specific point at least 4 times now, twice in the past few weeks.) Finally he asserts "There are many other documents and witnesses that support this" -- this is simply untrue. Ron there is not a single other document or witness that mentions this detainee. He is mentioned in exactly two published sources - the AP article I just quoted and an article in the Weekly Standard. Personally, I think this was likely another person lying under torture, since there has not been another mention of the issue since March 2005. If he were telling the truth or if what he said could be confirmed, the Bush Admin would have been all over this. Why is this guy not the new poster boy for justifying the war? Especially now, with some 60% of Americans concluding that it was a mistake?--csloat 16:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All evidence I have seen indicates that Saddam had Baathist terrorist, not al qaeda...if Saddam used al qaeda, it was only for his own betterment...a scenario that seems most plausible is that his baathists may have independently had dealings with al qaeda, but it probably wasn't sanctioned by Saddam...I'll look over the info again.MONGO 19:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Who are the main people the article has to mention? Bush, Saddam, Osama, Zawahiri, Tenet, Powell, Feith, Mylroie, Zarqawi, Hijazi, Michael Scheuer and Yousef Bodansky.
I agree that they all need to be mentioned, and that mention should be proportianate with the level of connection/involvement...I think the article already does this fairly well.MONGO 07:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I left out a few people: Richard Clarke, Vincent Cannistraro and Mohamed Atta. These omissions were unintentional and there could be others. RonCram 16:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What evidence has to be mentioned? 9/11 Commission Report, Senate Report, transcript of Powell speech before the UN and Operation Iraqi Freedom documents.
I concur with this...I'll have to reexamine the OPeration Iraqi freedom docs again.MONGO 07:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We also need to include the letter from George Tenet to Congress regarding Saddam and al-Qaeda.[11] RonCram 16:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How should the article be structured? It is clear each of the main views need to have appropriate space to explain the view and the evidence to support that view. The majority Intelligence Community view should have the most space and the Mylroie's "false flag" view should have the least space. Also, the majority of the article will deal with the possibility of a relationship (discussing each major view and its evidence) but some space should be reserved for the second question (the possibility Saddam supported the attacks of 9/11). I say this not because I am convinced Saddam was behind 9/11, but because I am convinced this question is historically significant and must be addressed here.
Well put...that sounds fine.

cherry picking

I hadnt noticed the Tiger group comment there; certainly it should be included too; it is too cryptic to tell us anything interesting, but it is suggestive. Of course, nothing in that section has anything to do with what this article is about -- Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda -- whatever went on at Salman Pak clearly involved Baathists rather than Islamists -- but obviously it should be included here since people who are confused on the issue still cite it as "evidence" of a connection. But I'm not sure what relevance the rest of the stuff has -- anti-Iranian assassinations, etc., don't seem even tenuously related to this article. As for the Goldberg article, my suggestion is to put the non-redundant stuff in the section on Zarqawi rather than in a timeline based on the date of the article publication, for reasons we already discussed above. The same is true of several of your other recent edits. I'm not going to make the changes myself on this right now; hopefully you will.--csloat 19:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

well, i think it shows more was going on at salman pak than counterterrorism training. i don't think all links to al qaeda/salman pak have been discredited, or have they? i did move the zarqawi info to the relevant section. the other stuff i think is fine where it is. it's info that's not in the article, but if you feel it should be moved i don't object. i do think it should be in the article somewhere however. i suggest you condense all the al-Libi material if you are really concerned about the timeline. let's make a deal here. let's stop accusing each other of cherry picking. this isn't the first time we've accused each other of it, but it's getting old, do you agree? just add info you feel i've left out, and i'll do the same for you, ok. Anthonymendoza 20:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know of any evidence that al Qaeda was in Salman Pak. I am skeptical of the Saddam regime's claim that only counterterror training was going on there, but I believe Saddam was training Baathists there. The folks who said that there was al Qaeda there have been shown to be liars, as far as I can tell. There was Qurairy, the guy claiming to be a general, who wasn't one, and there was Khodada, and another guy whose name I forgot who is an admitted liar, rapist, and murderer (I'm not making this up; he's in the timeline) It's pretty clear there was an organized campaign of disinformation coming from Iraqi defectors on this issue; they were all coached by the INC as to what to say, and they've been making these claims since the late 90s. I agree with condensing the al-Libi information as well - my concern is that if we have an al-Libi claim mentioned elsewhere on the timeline, that readers be informed that al-Libi's information is not considered credible. As for cherry picking accusations - there's a tendency for anyone with a strong POV to only look at the information that supports that POV. I know it happens to me too, so I don't mean to offend with the accusation. But I also notice in your edits a clear pattern -- you do not seem to be concerned with truth-seeking from a neutral POV; you seem intent on only bringing in the information that supports one side of the issue, even when you are well aware of info on the other side, or when you are aware that the information you are bringing in is known to be disinformation. Your additions on Zarqawi fall in the first category, and I believe your additions of Abu Wail and Ansar al-Islam fall in the second category. I find it all suspicious because you suddenly became interested in this page after having disputes with me on another page and right around the time Ron suggested you guys email privately to discuss changes to this page without my "interjections." I just want to keep disinformation off this page or, if you and Ron insist that it must be added, I want to insist that the information that calls it out as disinformation be published here alongside it. (It's a little disturbing, by the way, since it is well known that a lot of this disinformation came from people who were working closely with Iranian intelligence; it makes me wonder why people who consider themselves American conservatives would want to help the clerical regime in Iran undermine American public discourse on war -- but that is neither here nor there). I will try to resist taking this stuff personally and will try to assume good faith in your future edits; as you suggest, instead of "aha! cherry picking!" I will just try to correct errors that I see and make changes to your edits that I feel are appropriate.--csloat 23:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

csloat, your comment that we want to add disinformation is insulting. All of Anthony's and my entries have links to accepted media sources like ABC News or Weekly Standard. Your claim that you want to keep disinformation off the page is ridiculous. You are constantly trying to censor information to limit what people know and think. You don't want them to know about certain OIF documents or about the fact these documents are increasing the intensity of the debate and changing people's minds. You don't want people to know that former 9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey has changed his mind. You want people to think that anyone who can see a possibility of Saddam and Osama working together is some kind of nut. Is Democrat Bob Kerrey some kind of nut? You don't want people to know the CIA admitted to lots of solid reporting about high-level contacts between Saddam and al-Qaeda. You do not want people to know the Powell speech before the UN was reviewed by the Senate Report and found to be well-vetted. You don't want people to know that lots of news organizations reported Saddam and Osama were working together back in 1998 and 1999. You have fought the inclusion of this material every step of the way. You claim information has been discredited when you have absolutely no proof whatever. Why is that csloat? What are your motives? I only want the article to be accurate and NPOV. The article does not meet that standard now. That is why I worked so hard on created an NPOV version. RonCram 15:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No insult intended Ron. However, there are many claims that are known to be disinformation spread by people associated with the INC who were working with Iranian intelligence. As for censorship, you cannot point to a single instance of actual censorship on my part, whereas you are notorious for censoring comments you don't like on your talk page. I have never suggested we delete references to the OIF documents or to Bob Kerrey's vague statement that he suddenly learned from them that Saddam was anti-American. Your claim about what the CIA "admitted" is, as you ought to know, highly misleading. What was said by George Tenet relied upon the statements of al-Libi and the SSCI even called him on it. I've pointed this out to you before; instead of responding, you bizarrely accuse me of trying to censor you. I'm not calling you a nut; I'm just saying that you are insistent on repeating claims that are known to be incorrect or at least unreliable. You keep coming back to the Powell speech even though I showed you above that the crux of his claims rested on two things that have since been thoroughly refuted -- al-Libi's confession and the Zarqawi "link." Again, instead of responding, you make the bizarre claim that I want to censor the former Secretary of State! I have never fought the inclusion of this information; I have simply argued that it needs to be set in an appropriate context. As for news reports from 1998 and 99 that have since turned out to be false, I never objected to including them; I simply objected to pretending they were more important than the 7 years of knowledge that has been accumulated since then. You once again assert without any specifics that the article is not NPOV or accurate. Ron I have been pressing for weeks for you to explain this comment and you refuse to.--csloat 18:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sloat, you don't listen. I have told you repeatedly why this article is POV. I even put the reasons in the POV tag. You have not proven that Powell's statements were based on al-Libi. You have two guys who are anti-Bush make a claim that disagrees with the Senate Report that looked into Powell's speech. These two anonymous guys are not notable. Your "appropriate context" means some bizarre statement that there is nothing to corroborate the facts... that is crap. Corroboration is all over. I will say this again. The rewrite I did is a better platform from which to build an NPOV article. My rewrite is not perfect, but it approaches each view in a fair manner. If you think the Intelligence Community view needs to be reinforced, you are welcome to do that. But the article should not argue with itself in order to present one view as fact and that is exactly what your "context" does most of the time. RonCram 20:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have made assertions without specifics Ron; the NPOV tag is for specific POV disputes; not vague claims that an article is an "embarrassment." As for Powell's speech, nobody, not even Powell, has stepped up to claim the two intelligence officers are incorrect about the Libi claims in his speech. Your assertion that they are "anti-Bush" is wishful thinking; there is no evidence to back that up. Your claim that they are "not notable" is something you can take up with the editors of NEWSWEEK. Your claim that "corroboration is all over" is nonsense -- where, besides Libi, did Powell get his information? What evidence besides Libi's confession is there? Do you have a published source indicating that Powell got information from elsewhere? I have a published source indicating two intelligence officials in the employ of the Bush Administration stated that Powell based his claims on Libi. Powell himself refers only to "a top al-Qaeda operative in custody" -- who else do you think this could be? More importantly, what evidence do you have that it is someone other than Libi? Again, if you have complaints about a specific sentence or paragraph in the article, that would be useful, but your general claims about what you think I think are really not relevant here.--csloat 20:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV tag

I am tired of this POV pushing here and having my credibility questioned by csloat. This article is clearly not NPOV. It does not present all of the viewpoints. It confuses key issues. There is a difference between Saddam and Osama having a cooperative relationship and them cooperating on the 9/11 attacks. The article currently presents the Intelligence Community viewpoint as a fact. It is a viewpoint, not a fact. Newly translated documents are changing the minds of informed people on this issue, including former Democratic Senator and 9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey. If a Democrat like Bob Kerrey can change his mind because of these new facts, then surely wikipedia can present an NPOV version of this article. I have written a version that I think is a much better foundation for NPOV than the current article. It is certainly possible that my own POV may have crept in. If someone can point it out, I would happy to see the article improved. But the current version of the article is an embarrassment to wikipedia. RonCram 15:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am tired of this POV pushing and having my credibility questioned by RonCram. This article is clearly NPOV, though it can always use improvement. I welcome comments about any specific POV issues it has so they can be addressed. I don't see the confusion Ron is talking about with regard to 9/11 - in fact I quoted the specific passage about that above and Ron has not responded. If Ron could be more specific about where the article "presents the Intelligence Community viewpoint as a fact" then perhaps it could be addressed; otherwise he is just shouting in the wind. It is a viewpoint, certainly, but let us be clear that it is a carefully studied viewpoint that has been arrived at after years of investigation by multiple independent sources. As for Bob Kerrey, his alleged change of position is mentioned in the second paragraph of the second section of the article -- and, frankly, I think the statement goes too far. What Kerrey said was that the documents show "Saddam was a significant enemy of the United States" and that he "would collaborate with people who would do our country harm." I find it odd that Kerrey did not figure that out until 2006, but better late than never. Importantly, he says nothing about al Qaeda. Ron claims his version is better, yet he has refused again to continue the dialogue I started on his version with these nine arguments, specifically detailing some of the major POV problems with his version. He makes the assertion that the "current version is an embarrassment" yet he offers no specific evidence. Ron, which sentence in the current version is too POV for your tastes? By all means, let's discuss any problems with the consensus version so we can improve it.--csloat 18:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, if you cannot articulate a clear reason to keep the POV tag, it will be deleted. Thanks.--csloat 19:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I stated clearly why the tag is here. "It does not present all of the viewpoints. It confuses key issues. There is a difference between Saddam and Osama having a cooperative relationship and them cooperating on the 9/11 attacks. The article currently presents the Intelligence Community viewpoint as a fact." The article is clearly POV about issues that are very much in debate. The fact Bob Kerrey changed his position only recently is evidence that new information is coming out. The fact csloat is impeding a proper rewrite of the article is cause for the tag. Go to Wikipedia:NPOV dispute. "Neutral Point Of View. An NPOV (neutral, unbiased) article is an article that has been written without showing a stand on the issue at hand. This is especially important for the encyclopedia's treatment of controversial issues, in which very often there is an abundance of differing views and criticisms on the subject. In a neutral representation, the differing points of view are presented as such, not as facts."

I tried to bring in bright people to mediate this discussion, csloat. You chased CSTAR off with your intransigence. And now MONGO makes the statement that he thinks "the debate is dead in the water." I'm sorry, but viewing a viewpoint as fact is the very definition of POV. MONGO made that statement immediately after I posted the news article saying the debate was ongoing. I'm certain MONGO is a nice guy, but he cannot mediate this discussion if he cannot realize a debate is raging and people (like Democrat Bob Kerrey) are changing to the minority view. The article has to be written in a way "without taking a stand on the issue." The current article takes a very definite stand on the side of the majority or Intelligence Community view. It does not clearly present the evidence for the minority view, the Bush Admin view and generally despises the fact Laurie Mylroie is alive. This is completely bogus. Mylroie has not convinced me that her view is right but her view is historically interesting and with more evidence coming out, her viewpoint is beginning to look better. We now know Iraqi Intelligence agents travelled with al-Qaeda operatives to carry out terrorist attacks. That is straight from the OIF documents. So now it does not seem like such a stretch for Mylroie to say KSM is an IIS agent. I'm not saying she has proved it yet, but now the idea is not so far fetched. As I said before, the article is an embarrassment. It does not conform to wikipedia policy on NPOV and desperately needs to be rewritten. RonCram 20:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which viewpoints are not stated? I responded to your claims about the Intel community viewopint being stated as fact - you are incorrect. But if you find an objectionable sentence, let us discuss it. As for Kerrey, he is mentioned quite prominently in the article. And as I pointed out, he does not say what you claim he says. You never respond to these points; you just keep repeating the same tired arguments. Please stop the personal attacks. "Intransigence"? Bogus. Chasing people off? Come on. Let's deal with the issues; there is no need to make up reasons to call me names. Your claim that "a debate is raging" is inconsistent with the evidence. A vague comment by Bob Kerrey hardly constitutes a "raging debate". Surely some official commission must be reconvening as we speak to investigate this matter if the debate is so "raging"? If not, let's leave it alone. If the 9/11 Commission reconvenes, or the Intel Community begins new investigations, great, let's have at it. But until then, you are making mountains out of molehills. The article does not take a stand; it reports accurately what the consensus of experts and analysts have concluded after years of investigation. I am not sure where you see a threat to Laurie Mylroie's life in the article but I agree with you, we should take out any such comments if they exist. Ron you are complaining about things that you cannot substantiate - the article mentions all of the items you claim need to be mentioned. What precisely is embarrassing about this article?

I am again leaving town for a few days and probably won't continue to debate this issue with you until I'm back; when I return if I do not see a specific justification for the NPOV tag I will remove it. Thanks.--csloat 20:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the debate raging...what congressional inquires are ongoing? Our job is to report the evidence, not decode it...all we can do as researchers is present the evidence that can be reliably referenced and that is what you two are doing. Naturally as more information comes out, more can be added. But I emphasize that until about 100kbs of this article are spun off onto daughter articles, it is almost impossible for anyone who doesn't edit this solely and nowhere else to step in here and be very constructive. If you want, I'll start splitting this monster up as it should be and that will make it a heck of a lot more manageable. You came to me, asking for help as you consider me to be a conservative, which in many cases I am, but I'm not POV simply because I don't agree with everything you have to show. The introduction summaries the facts of the case...Saddam and al qaeda have not been reliable demonstrated to have acted on an operational level...yeah, there were contacts, yeah there were overtures, but demonstrate at what point this can be construed as being anything more than "feelers". I mean, if anything, the "diplomatic relations" between Saddam and OBL seem to be pretty meager...and in many cases adversarial. Just becuase the two had a unified hope of U.S. destruction or at least a departure from the Moslem world and the Persian Gulf, doesn't mean they were out hitting the bars together. The information you have that shows the connections is in the article. So what do you want the article to do to give it more balance. If the evidence of the connection exists then add appropriate sitation to demonstrate that. Yes, I have added nothing except to the talk page, but again, you want me to edit this thing, I'll be glad to...but I guarantee you that I'll end up making no one happy.--MONGO 20:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Where is the debate raging?" you ask?! It is raging in news reports, on television talk shows and on the Internet. I even quoted a news article saying the debate is raging with a link! It is raging all around you. If there is one fact that everyone has to agree on, it is that a debate is raging. That is absolutely fundamental. How is it that Bob Kerrey has changed his mind if no debate was raging? Would a 9/11 Commissioner have changed his mind without new evidence coming out? Of course not. We know more now than we knew during the 9/11 Commission hearings. MONGO, when you say no debate is raging, you have to realize that you have accepted one viewpoint as fact. Read the NPOV dispute policy I linked for you earlier. Accepting one viewpoint as fact is the very definition of POV. Wikipedia policy precludes an article from doing that. This article, in its current version, it an outrage. There is no attempt to differentiate the different views, something that is required for an NPOV article. Have you even bothered to read my rewrite? You write as if you have not read the rewrite or the links to the rewrite. There is "lots of evidence" the collaboration went beyond feelers. There are repeated feelers because it was an on-again, off-again relationship. They would work together for a while and grow apart. The Sudan government would be the middle man and then the Taliban would be the middle man. One big problem is that the current article does not even provide readers with the evidence the Intelligence Community had about the contacts! Did you read that in my rewrite? That is important stuff. It shows the difference between the Intelligence Community view and the Bush Admin view is not as great as people think. The only thing the Bush Admin did differently was reject the notion Saddam would not cooperate with an Islamist... and Powell explained they did that because they knew Saddam was supporting Hamas ans Islamic Jihad, both radical Islamist groups like al-Qaeda. Where does it say that in the current article? Where does it talk about Tenet's letter to Congress? Where does the current article discuss Powell's speech? MONGO, don't try to pretend to be a mediator anymore. The debate is raging and if you cannot see that, then you are blinded by whatever issues are blinding you. At some point, the Intelligence Community view will change and embrace the minority view. The amount of evidence is piling up each day. We have had intelligence failures on 9/11, on the Iraq War and on the issue of Saddam and al-Qaeda. Congressman Hoekstra is saying it appears our Intelligence Community has been compromised by countries sympathetic to al-Qaeda. He is concerned because the leaks damaging to our national security have come from the Intelligence Community: Mary McCarthy, the leak on financial investigations and the leak on wiretaps have all damaged our ability to defend ourselves. [12] RonCram 13:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RonCram, please read the policy on NPOV tags. Kevin Baas^talk 15:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ron: It's not fair for you to say Csloat chased me away from this article. I stopped participating because I saw that my proposals for the article weren't well received, and as I myself mentioned, may not have been workable. Moreover, I don't want to get involved in what seems to be a political argument between you and csloat. In my humble opinion, both you and csloat view the article as a kind of political document. The article in its current version and your revision of it are both too long and hard to read. This unfortunately is what usually happens to WP articles caught in the middle of a political dogfight. --CSTAR 15:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CSTAR, I understand that you may not like the fact that I view csloat as chasing you away. But I think anyone's fair reading of the Talk page will come to the same conclusion. I found your comments helpful and made changes to my rewrite. csloat, on the other hand made the final comments that caused you to say you would not continue to help. csloat's intransigence in this matter is a problem. Unfortunately, the next person I asked to mediate cannot even admit that a debate exists! That is an amazing fact given the fact I can point to news article that readily the fact. And I can point to a Democrat 9/11 Commissioner who has changed his view based on recently translated OIF documents. The bare minimum requirement for a mediator is that he has to admit that a debate is ongoing. CSTAR, if you wish to return to mediate, I would welcome you back. I only want the article to be accurate and NPOV. The current version is not. It does not meet wikipedia standards for the reasons mentioned above. RonCram 15:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin, I have read the policy on NPOV disputes. It contains this:

Sometimes people have edit wars over the NPOV dispute tag, or have an extended debate about whether there is a NPOV dispute or not. In general, if you find yourself having an ongoing dispute about whether a dispute exists, there's a good chance one does, and you should therefore leave the NPOV tag up until there is a consensus that it should be removed.

I am restoring the POV tag. RonCram 15:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its clear this article needs work. It needs to be more concise, yet also represent all viewpoints. There is an obvious NPOV dispute here, and the tag should stay up for a while atleast. ~Rangeley (talk) 19:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK - if there is an "obvious" dispute, let's clarify what it actually is, so we can set about resolving it. So far I have not seen anything specific in terms of what the POV dispute is.--csloat 19:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligence Community admits knowledge is "evolving"

The senate report on prewar intelligence says the following: Notwithstanding four decades of intelligence reporting, IC officials and analysts expressed frustration over the lack of useful intelligence collected on Iraq’s involvement in terrorism, particularly on links to al-Qaida. A January 2003 IC assessment of Iraqi support for terrorism explained, “Our knowledge of Iraq’s ties to terrorism is evolving and (REDACTED). and: Conclusion 99. Despite four decades of intelligence reporting on Iraq, there was little useful intelligence collected that helped analysts determine the Iraqi regime's possible links to al-Qaida. (Page 355) yes, the intelligence community assessment has concluded that a collaborative relationship between iraq and al qaeda was nonexistent, but the judgment was based on poor intelligence. even the ic assessment said knowledge is "evolving". any rewrite of this page must include this and thus leave the debate open rather than closed.Anthonymendoza 01:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony, I agree. The current page treats the subject like the final decision is in when really the debate is more intense than ever. RonCram 16:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys - why not just include this quote under the SSCI section? In fact, it seems it already is there! I don't see what the problem is. I don't see anywhere that it says the debate is "closed." However, it is accurate to say that every investigation has concluded that there was no evidence of a collaborative relationship. My concern with what Ron has been asserting is that he seems to want to use this window as an opportunity to insert original research about a conspiracy in the intelligence community to help al Qaeda or some such; I don't see how the evidence bears that out, and even the extremists who make such claims in the public discourse - e.g. Hoekstra - do not seem to relate those claims to the many investigations of Iraq-alQaeda ties. Those investigations were quite thorough, regardless of the comments of the SSCI -- the fact that "little useful intelligence" has been collected may in fact be evidence that there was little evidence to collect on the matter.--csloat 18:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those investigations were quite thorough, regardless of the comments of the SSCI -- the fact that "little useful intelligence" has been collected may in fact be evidence that there was little evidence to collect on the matter. this is completely your interpretation. so now it doesn't matter that the SSCI report stated that "there was little useful intelligence collected that helped analysts determine the Iraqi regime's possible links to al-Qaida." this has been discredited too? you said above, i believe, that the focus of the article should be on what the intelligence agencies have determined. well, they determined, along with "no collaborative relationship", that intelligence gathering on the issue was of poor quality. so this then needs to be focused on as well in any rewrite. right?Anthonymendoza 20:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say it was discredited; I said it was already in the article. I just don't understand what argument there is in favor of a rewrite. This quote is already there. If you think it should be more prominent, add it somewhere in the background section, but what need is there to rewrite an entire article that is the product of years of collaborative research? Just to include a quotation that is already in the article?--csloat 21:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

csloat, the point is that the Intelligence Community is admitting that its view is "evolving." The amount of information is not enough to preclude changing their position. More importantly, the analysis during this time period is depressingly poor. It is a systemic problem as you can read from the quotes below from the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. RonCram 22:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see where the intel community is admitting this; what I see is the SSCI indicating that there is not a lot of evidence to go on. Clearly, there is no evidence of a collaborative relationship, or at least, that is what everyone who has looked at this - including the SSCI - has concluded. That the SSCI also concluded we need better intel is not surprising. I don't see the quote "depressingly poor" in the SSCI report, but if you find it, please feel free to include it in the article.--csloat 21:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

csloat, you do not see where the IC is admitting their view is "evolving?" How about reading the quote again: "A January 2003 IC assessment of Iraqi support for terrorism explained, “Our knowledge of Iraq’s ties to terrorism is evolving and (REDACTED)." The quality of the intelligence and analysis is depressingly poor as the quotes below indicate. RonCram 21:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That quote is already in the article. I do not see any quote that indicates the analysis is "depressingly poor."-csloat 03:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, the quote is in the timeline - not the narrative. As you know, the plan is to split the narrative and the timeline. RonCram 05:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. Actually I think with SSCI we should follow the procedure we have for 9/11 Commission - the timeline should simply link to the SSCI section of the narrative. The SSCI and 9/11 Commission have their own sections now; the quote can be there. As it is, the SSCI stuff is split up between the timeline and the SSCI section, which makes no sense. I have not objected to including this quote; it should be in the SSCI section.--csloat 20:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

d

We should follow the wikipedia standard, not a standard you wish to impose. A quote is used in the narrative when it illuminates and authoritatively supports the facts being presented. The fact is that the assessment of the Intelligence Community is open to modification by new information. RonCram 04:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligence Failures

The Senate Committee that looked at Pre-war Intelligence failures also looked at 9/11 intelligence failures. They published a 10 page report with several interesting findings. These findings do not cause readers to have much confidence in the Intelligence Community conclusions regarding Saddam and al-Qaeda. This is one reason why the debate is continuing today inside and outside the Intelligence Community. Read these two "Systemic Findings" for yourself:

5. Finding: Prior to September 11, the Intelligence Community’s understanding of al-Qa’ida was hampered by insufficient analytic focus and quality, particularly in terms of strategic analysis. Analysis and analysts were not always used effectively because of the perception in some quarters of the Intelligence Community that they were less important to agency counterterrorism missions than were operations personnel. The quality of counterterrorism analysis was inconsistent, and many analysts were inexperienced, unqualified, under-trained, and without access to critical information. As a result, there was a dearth of creative, aggressive analysis targeting Bin Ladin and a persistent inability to comprehend the collective significance of individual pieces of intelligence. These analytic deficiencies seriously undercut the ability of U.S. policymakers to understand the full nature of the threat, and to make fully informed decisions. (Page 7)[13]

15. Finding: The Intelligence Community depended heavily on foreign intelligence and law enforcement services for the collection of counterterrorism intelligence and the conduct of other counterterrorism activities. The results were mixed in terms of productive intelligence, reflecting vast differences in the ability and willingness of the various foreign services to target the Bin Ladin and al-Qa’ida network. Intelligence Community agencies sometimes failed to coordinate their relationships with foreign services adequately, either within the Intelligence Community or with broader U.S. Government liaison and foreign policy efforts. This reliance on foreign liaison services also resulted in a lack of focus on the development of unilateral human sources. (Page 9) [14]

We need a section that talks about the many Intelligence Failures that happened from 1992-2003. How else can readers understand the historical context of this debate? RonCram 22:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's already a section for the SSCI report. I read the quotes above and don't see where they indicate anything about Saddam Hussein being connected to al-Qaeda, however; you may want to start a separate article on 9/11 intel failures, or see if there already is one.--csloat 21:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What the quotes indicate is that the majority viewpoint is based on the assessment of "inexperienced, unqualified, under-trained" analysts who "depended heavily on foreign intelligence and law enforcement services for the collection of counterterrorism intelligence." It does not prove a link between Saddam and al-Qaeda, but it certainly indicates that majority opinion is not as strong as outside observers might think. Even the Intelligence Community indicated the view was "evolving" (as new information comes to light) as Anthony pointed out above. As I mentioned earlier, this is important information as it puts the majority viewpoint within the proper historical context. RonCram 21:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The quotes do not speak to the relationship between Saddam and al-Qaeda; there must be an article about pre-9/11 intelligence failures where this stuff is relevant. I don't see how it is relevant here. The connection you seem to be drawing looks like original research to me.--csloat 03:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This report was published regarding poor intelligence reporting and analysis regarding al-Qaeda - and that would have to include any possible relationship al-Qaeda may have had with Saddam's regime. How can a quote be original research? RonCram 05:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A quote is original research when you use it to "logically" infer an argument that is not made in the quote.--csloat 20:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The quote is referring to intelligence and analysis regarding al-Qaeda. No leap of "logic" is required to see it fits this article. RonCram 04:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The quote has no direct bearing on the link between Saddam and al-Qaeda without your leap of logic.--csloat 05:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the quote has a direct bearing on the link. These are the analysts who decided it is not likely a link exists. It is ridiculous to say there is no direct link. RonCram 18:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it is ridiculous to say there is no direct link, surely the SSCI said there was a direct link? Oh but they did not? So it is just your leap of logic that establishes a direct link? It doesn't matter how logical you believe your leap to be, Ron; if the quote does not say what you say it says, your claim is original research. This is pretty clear, and I know you understand this, since we had this same conversation about a year ago over the Able Danger stuff that you kept trying to add to this page. Either find a published source making the link you want, or leave it off the page. Thanks.--csloat 18:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have I missed something or has no investigation specifically aimed at the intelligence discrepancies been conducted? More to the point, is there a report about whether or not information was flawed or manipulated to "sell the war?" Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 08:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, Nescio, but I think you are in error. It is my understanding both the 9/11 Commission and the Senate Select Committee looked into failures by the Intelligence Community. The Senate Report looked at the claims made by Powell in his speech before the UN. While portions of Powell's speech dealing with WMD were criticized by the Senate Report, his claims regarding the possible links between Saddam and al-Qaeda were not. See page 369 of the Senate Report. Does that answer your questions? RonCram 18:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you point out which inquiry was conducted and what exactly were the results regarding the causes of these discrepancies? As I understand it that is part of the so-called Phase II investigation which has not been started, or at least has not concluded. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 19:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ron, I have asked you before and I will ask you again to please stop reporting false information on wikipedia. I have established above quite clearly that Powell's speech has been thoroughly refuted on this point since after the SSCI was published. The "link" came from a single defector whose credibility has been rejected. The Newsweek quote above establishes this quite clearly. You claimed I was "grasping at straws" and then you bowed out of the argument, but Newsweek established that Powell told the entire story of the one defector and that story is now considered a complete fabrication. This is true regardless of what you find on p. 369 of this report. Do you know of another source for Powell's information?--csloat 18:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sloat, now you are spreading disinformation. Powell clearly refers to several sources in his speech. You have an article in which some anti-Bush types in the Intelligence Community claim Powell's speech was based solely on al-Libi, but they are clearly spreading disinformation themselves. RonCram 18:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What other source does he refer to? Where in the Newsweek piece does it say there are "anti-Bush types" involved in this? You are simply making unverifiable assertions. What is well known is that the Powell speech relied on al-Libi's stories. Read the speech yourself, Ron, and tell us what other sources he has.--csloat 19:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken Powell's comments from his speech and outlined Powell's sources below. RonCram 02:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Powell's sources

These excepts are taken from a transcript of Powell's speech. [15]

"And it's no secret that Saddam's own intelligence service was involved in dozens of attacks or attempted assassinations in the 1990s." - This means there are lots of sources, probably both classified and unclassified.

“We asked a friendly security service to approach Baghdad” - This means a foreign intelligence service.

“According to detainee Abuwatia (ph)” - This is not al-Libi.

“the detainee who provided the information about the targets also provided the names of members of the network” - This could be Abuwatia or someone else.

“an Al Qaida source” - not clear, but almost certainly not al-Libi.

“We know members of both organizations met repeatedly and have met at least eight times at very senior levels since the early 1990s.” This refers to multiple, credible witnesses about multiple meetings. Probably no one knew about all eight meetings, but several people knew about each of them.

“a foreign security service tells us” - Again, not al-Libi.

“A detained Al Qaida member tells us” - Not clear, but again this is probably not al-Libi because he described al-Libi differently.

“And the record of Saddam Hussein's cooperation with other Islamist terrorist organizations is clear.” Again, Powell is talking about multiple reports by credible witnesses. This information is not in doubt.

“I can trace the story of a senior terrorist operative telling how Iraq provided training in these weapons to Al Qaida. Fortunately, this operative is now detained” This person is also described as “responsible for one of Al Qaida's training camps in Afghanistan.” - This may indeed be al-Libi, but notice that Powell reports that al-Libi said "a militant known as Abu Abdula Al-Iraqi (ph) had been sent to Iraq several times between 1997 and 2000 for help in acquiring poisons and gases." This is important because...

“Abu Abdula Al-Iraqi (ph) characterized the relationship he forged with Iraqi officials as successful.” Do you see? Abu Abdula Al-Iraqi confirmed the report al-Libi. Now stop spreading the disinformation that Powell's speech has been discredited. RonCram 02:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see the misunderstanding now. Let me clear this up -- the specific claim at issue is the one associated with "al-Iraqi." We are not concerned with the totality of claim Saddam-AQ connections; we are talking about the "poisons and gases" connection specifically. Certainly Powell also refers to the Zarqawi information, which is clearly not from al-Libi. It has also been thoroughly refuted, as I showed in an earlier post. There is also a reference in your list above to meetings with Hijazi - I never claimed that that information came from al-Libi. I am talking specifically about the poisons and gases comments, the one associated with al-Iraqi -- the Newsweek article I quoted says: "two U.S. counter-terrorism officials told NEWSWEEK they believe the information about al-Iraqi came exclusively from al-Libi." I did not mean to give the impression that I was sourcing the Zarqawi material or the Hijazi material to Libi. Those items are dealt with elsewhere, and they have their exclusive sections of the timeline where the relevant arguments are made.--csloat 04:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sloat, if there is a misunderstanding, it is on your part. "The information about al-Iraqi" did not come exclusively from al-Libi because Powell clearly says that al-Iraqi confirmed the report saying "the relationship he forged with Iraqi officials as successful." It is absolutely wrong to say al-Libi was the only source for the information. RonCram 14:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No; if there is a misunderstanding, it is on the part of the two intelligence officials consulted by Newsweek, who stated quite clearly that "the information about al-Iraqi came exclusively from al-Libi." Whatever Powell has to say about al-Iraqi does not appear to come from al-Iraqi but from al-Libi. I have yet to see you cite a single comment from anyone -- not even from Powell -- objecting to this categorical statement reported by Newsweek.--csloat 19:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sloat, you are talking about two anonymous intelligence officials making a statement that is clearly wrong. Your statement "Whatever Powell has to say about al-Iraqi does not appear to come from al-Iraqi but from al-Libi" is baffling. Powell said "Abu Abdula Al-Iraqi (ph) characterized the relationship he forged with Iraqi officials as successful.” If there is anything we know for certain it is that al-Iraqi said it himself. The Senate report looked into all of this and concluded that the terrorism portion of Powell's speech before the UN was well-vetted. Your comment "I have yet to see you cite a single comment from anyone -- not even from Powell -- objecting to this categorical statement reported by Newsweek" is equally bizarre. Powell's statement is clearly intended to reflect that Abu Abdula al-Iraqi had confirmed al-Libi's statement. Since the invasion of Iraq, we have additional evidence that Iraq support al-Qaeda with chemical weapons and training. RonCram 22:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cram, I am talking about a published account of what intelligence officials have said that has never been refuted in a published source. Nobody has stepped forward to deny this information, not Powell, not Newsweek, not the Weekly freakin standard. Your assertion that it "is clearly wrong" is totally irrelevant here; until you find a published source to back it up, I see no need to even address the comment. Your claim that al-Iraqi had some conversation with Powell is what is baffling. Whatever he did to "characterize the relationship" is something he did with al-Libi, or at least that is what we can assume based on the only information that is known. Your second-guessing about Powell's intent is irrelevant here - if Powell himself didn't feel the need to clarify what you think Newsweek got wrong, I think we are safe going with the assumption that Newsweek did not just make this crap up, as you seem to be implying. As for your last comment that since the invasion we have found stockpiles of chemical weapons giftboxed "to al-Qaeda, from Saddam," I must have missed that report. If it exists, it has no bearing on the Powell speech. Ron, either put up or shut up. If you have inside information that the intelligence officials who talked to Newsweek lied, let's see the information, otherwise drop it.--csloat 00:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sloat, Powell is not providing third-hand evidence. Powell did not say that al-Libi said that Abu Abdula said the relationship were successful. Powell said Abdula said the relationship were successful. Abdula is also a detainee. He was captured in Pakistan about the same time as Zubaydah. The link here translates a Spanish language newspaper reporting his capture. [16] RonCram 01:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, where does the spanish paper indicate this is the source of Powell's claims? Powell himself says the Abu-Abdulla information came from al-Libi -- "He [al-Libi] says that a militant known as Abu Abdula Al-Iraqi (ph) had been sent to Iraq several times between 1997and 2000 for help in acquiring poisons and gases. Abdula Al-Iraqi (ph) characterized the relationship he forged with Iraqi officials as successful." Clearly Powell is reporting what al-Libi said about al-Iraqi. There is nothing in the spanish google link that indicates these are the same person, and it does not say "al-Iraqi," and it certainly does not indicate anything about Powell's speech. Again, put up or shut up. If you have evidence that Powell (or anyone else) responded to the intelligence officers cited in the Newsweek article, let's hear it. Otherwise you are just insisting on original research.--csloat 01:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Geez Sloat. Powell does not say "Al-Libi told us that Abu Abdula said he was successful." Powell tells us what al-Libi said. Then Powell tells us what Abdula said. The link to the Spanish paper just shows that Abdula was in custody. As you should know, al-Iraqi just means he is an Iraqi. It is not a part of his real name. This is the same guy. He was associated with al-Libi in Afghanistan. He ran one of the camps. They knew each other and they were both captured. You cannot hide from the facts, Sloat. And you cannot rewrite them to fit your worldview. RonCram 16:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where does Powell say that Abu Abdula told him this and not al-Libi? I have shown you where he said al-Libi told him this, and I have pointed out that two intelligence officials confirmed that al-Libi was the sole source of the information. Can you point to where Powell disputed what these two officials said? Your claim about al-Iraqi is fine but does not help us with anything, since Abu-Abdula is a common Arabic name; it has been used by at least two other al-Qaeda members - Abu Abdullah al Baghdadi and Jose Padilla! It is even the name often used to describe bin Laden himself. The fact that you found an undated Spanish article that appears to say someone with a similar name was captured does not help much; does Powell mention this article? Does this article indicate which Abdulla we are talking about? Powell acknowledges that the information about Abu-Abdula al-Iraqi is second hand, and two intelligence officials confirm it. How can you keep insisting that something else is true in the face of such evidence? Please tell me you have more than an undated ambiguous report in another language.--csloat 20:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You might find this Boston Globe piece informative on the issue Ron.--csloat 20:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, and, by the way, there is an Abu Abdullah al Iraqi producing videos in Iraq as of 2005. Clearly not the same person (if the person al-Libi referred to existed at all), but more evidence of how common the name is.--csloat 20:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing my googling has turned up -- according to Iyad Allawi, an OBL associate named Abu Abdullah al-Iraqi was sent by OBL to Fallujah sometime in 2004, which means if he is the same person, he could not have been in custody in February 2003. Of course, former Mukhabarat agent and car bomber Allawi is a known prevaricator, and it is possible that he made this story up too and based the Abdullah character on Powell's speech, so I'm not sure how reliable this information is, but even if he is lying it does suggest that the man Powell was talking about was not in custody at the time.--csloat 21:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cite Source

Could someone cite a source for this part: "This was also the conclusion of various U.S. government agencies that investigated the issue, including the CIA, DIA, FBI, and NSA."?--Emcee2k 07:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Each of those investigations are cited and sourced in the timeline - do a search for each agency.--csloat 08:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sloat, that is a bogus answer. The truth is that it is believed all of these agencies agree with the majority intelligence view but they have not all published reports of any investigations. I suggest the wording be changed to something that can be supported. RonCram 14:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we can say, "This was the conclusion of the CIA, etc." unless we can cite a document that says it was the conclusion. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

as far as i know, the senate report on prewar intelligence cited CIA conclusions. i did a search of the timeline and there is no link to any NSA conclusion on the issue. FBI conclusions are related to specific terrorist attacks, ie the african embassy bombings, and is mainly sourced in a frontpagemag.com article. there is no link in the timeline to a broad based fbi report on ties. and the DIA did report the following: "Saddam’s regime is intensely secular and is wary of Islamic revolutionary movements. Moreover, Baghdad is unlikely to provide assistance to a group it cannot control." but this is referred to as a "comment" in a feb. 2002 declassification at the request of senator levin.[17] there is no indication this was a conclusion of some broad based report. so there is no reference in the timeline to "investigations" conducted by the fbi, dia, and nsa relating to a saddam/al qaeda relationship. this sentence, "This was also the conclusion of various U.S. government agencies that investigated the issue, including the CIA, DIA, FBI, and NSA", should either be removed or rewritten to reflect what is actually in the timeline.Anthonymendoza 18:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NSA should be NSC; that was the red-team effort of 1998. CIA conclusions are cited in the SSCI and the document is quoted though it is not a public document; it was called Iraqi Support for Terrorism and was released to Congress in January 2003. The FBI reached that conclusion in at least two incidents; the 1993 WTC attack and on the Atta in Prague nonsense. The DIA report was concluded in 2002 and focused on the "poisons and gases" claim. As for the 1993 WTC, there are several investigations cited -- "In sum, by the mid-'90s, the Joint Terrorism Task Force in New York, the F.B.I., the U.S. Attorney's office in the Southern District of New York, the C.I.A., the N.S.C., and the State Department had all found no evidence implicating the Iraqi government in the first Trade Center attack." There is also the 1999 State Department study of the factory in Sudan. We also, of course, have the British Intel report of October 2002 and the Israeli intelligence report in February 2003. Each of these reports are cited separately in the timeline. If you would like to add weasel words to the sentence to make it appear more accurate, that would be reasonable, but the sentence is not "bogus."--csloat 19:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

there's no reference to the NSC in the timeline either, except for a reference to the 93 wtc attack. the FBI investigation of atta in prague didn't make any broad conclusions about iraq and al qaeda, only drew conclusions about atta in prague, or not being in prague. the dia reference was not a broad report. and everything else you cite was focused on individual events, not the broad question a saddam/al qaeda relationship. the sentence as it is written makes it appear that all the mentioned agencies issued reports on the history of saddam/al qaeda relations, when they didn't. Anthonymendoza 20:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The NSC study is mentioned in the timeline; check 1998. The FBI concluded that Atta was not in Prague, that is correct. Another FBI investigation addressed the WTC. The DIA report was about the linkage between Saddam and al Qaeda regarding WMDs. If you would like to rewrite the sentence so it is more accurate, I would not object; I am not sure what your argument is here. Is this the issue holding up the POV tag? Let's get on it then; there is no sense nitpicking in talk about each investigation as if you have found evidence that they concluded the opposite of what it says they did.--csloat 00:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that we need evidence that the opposite is true. The evidence that's required is that supporting:

In the summer of 2004, the 9/11 Commission concluded that there was no evidence of a "collaborative relationship" between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda at the time of the September 11, 2001 attacks.[13] [14] Specifically, the Commission found that "to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States." (p. 66) This was also the conclusion of various U.S. government agencies that investigated the issue, including the CIA, DIA, FBI, and NSA. The Senate Report of Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq also reviewed the intelligence community's conclusions[15] and found that they were justifiable, although the Committee found gaps in the intelligence-gathering methods used (see July 2004 below).

Incidently, the lead sentence there may be read as a bit tendentious, if it's correct that the commission found that "to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States." I don't see that we should do more than quote what they say, rather than try to frame it with a summary almost as long as the quote. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been able to find a source for 'This was also the conclusion of...', so I've put a citation request on it. I'm sure someone knows right where to go for it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the discussion above; the citations are all in the timeline. Do you really want a list of links in the introduction on that sentence too? I have been advocating a better solution all along - a separate section indicating the various investigations with links to each one. I'm not sure why a "fact" tag is useful here since the citations are all provided in the timeline already.--csloat 00:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, of course I'm less familiar with the article than you are, but then so would be many of our readers. I don't find a citation in the timeline that supports 'This was also the conclusion of...'. Which one is it specifically? Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the discussion above for clarification; each investigation was different. Again, my solution would be to have a separate section listing each investigation independently. I don't understand your complaint.--csloat 01:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've suggested that twice now, which I understand from your point of view. To save you the labor of further repeating what is certainly good advice for any man, you may from now on assume I have read any thread on which I comment. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then you are aware of where in the timeline each investigation is supported. Deleting that sentence seems wrong.--csloat 02:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I knew, I would say so, as you would. We seem to be talking past each other. Maybe someone else will give an opinion. Thanks, csloat, for your good faith in leaving the citation request in place. Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to recap where this is explained above -- "NSA should be NSC; that was the red-team effort of 1998. CIA conclusions are cited in the SSCI and the document is quoted though it is not a public document; it was called Iraqi Support for Terrorism and was released to Congress in January 2003. The FBI reached that conclusion in at least two incidents; the 1993 WTC attack and on the Atta in Prague nonsense. The DIA report was concluded in 2002 and focused on the "poisons and gases" claim. As for the 1993 WTC, there are several investigations cited -- "In sum, by the mid-'90s, the Joint Terrorism Task Force in New York, the F.B.I., the U.S. Attorney's office in the Southern District of New York, the C.I.A., the N.S.C., and the State Department had all found no evidence implicating the Iraqi government in the first Trade Center attack." There is also the 1999 State Department study of the factory in Sudan. We also, of course, have the British Intel report of October 2002 and the Israeli intelligence report in February 2003. Each of these reports are cited separately in the timeline." Does this not satisfy what you are looking for? Thanks.--csloat 06:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

a red team effort is not an official investigation. and some contacts are noted after 1998, so this obviously is not a current piece of information. and as far as i can tell, the "DIA report" was a four page summary on al qaeda detainees, also not an official investigation into iraq/al qaeda ties ("february 2002"). when all of these are lumped together with the sentence "This was also the conclusion of various U.S. government agencies", it gives the reader a false impression. the two investigations that should be cited prominently are the 9/11 Commission's and the CIA's/SSCI's findings. the rest should be featured in detail in the timeline only. Anthonymendoza 02:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed (except on the red team argument); that is why I have been advocating instead a section indicating information about each investigation, though nobody else seems to think that is a good idea. How about something to the effect of "This conclusion is consistent with the findings of various investigations into specific aspects of the Saddam/AQ relationship, such as the DIA, NSC, etc.?"--csloat 05:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

that sentence is better. i think it could be the first sentence in a section about various other investigations. Anthonymendoza 16:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These reports are very carefully worded; "This was also the conclusion..." subsumes a lot of qualifications under a too-general statement, to the point that it is unsupported as it stands. Something like "This conclusion is not inconsistent with the findings of other investigations into specific aspects of the Saddam/AQ relationship" is an improvement. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question about "collaborative relationship"

Dana Milbank's article of 20 Jun 04 says, After the commission staff released its findings Wednesday that there was no "collaborative relationship" between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda -- challenging an assertion Bush and Vice President Cheney have made for the past two years -- Bush declared again that there was, in fact, a relationship.

The MSNBC report of 16 Jun 04 says, It said that reports of subsequent contacts between Iraq and al-Qaida after bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan “do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship,” and added that two unidentified senior bin Laden associates "have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al-Qaida and Iraq."

According to "9/11 commission staff statement No. 15" linked by MSNBC, There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda also occurred after Bin Ladin had returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship.

I searched "Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence assesments on Iraq" for "collaborative relationship" and didn't find any occurences.

Is "9/11 commission staff statement No. 15" the source of the quoted "collaborative relationship"? Or is there some other source? Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

here's the full paragraph from P. 66: "Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Ladin or his aides may have occurred in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Taliban. According to the reporting,Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq. Bin Ladin declined,apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative. The reports describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides’hatred of the United States.But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States."-csloat 01:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; So the correct quote would be "collaborative operational relationship" rather than "collaborative relationship"? Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It appears from the quote you gave that the Commission used both. I don't see a big difference between the two.--csloat 02:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tom, can you explain your changes please? I understand getting the 9/11 commission quote right (though, as you noted, both quotes are correct, with or without the "operational"). But I don't see the need to slip in "operational" in every sentence mentioning "collaboration," especially when we are not even talking about the 9/11 Commission conclusions. I also don't understand why you would have us say that the 9/11 Commission "said" something when they actually wrote that in as a conclusion (it used to say "concluded," which was more accurate). I don't see much of a difference either way with the "operational" thing but I wonder about your insistence on including it in every paragraph; it makes the article less readable.--csloat 19:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We should say no more than the source says. If the source says 'collaborative operational relationship', we should not broaden that to 'collaborative relationship'. According to a source, a particular set of contacts 'do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship;' We should not broaden that to suggest the source said that no set of contacts resulted in a collaborative relationship.

I often like 'said' better than some alternatives because it seems to me more neutral, but I have no big preference in this particluar case.Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. The 9/11 Commission said both "collaborative relationship" and "collaborative operational relationship," as you yourself established. So I don't see why you would favor one over the other. Second, you inserted that in other peoples' mouths including various scholars who have nothing to do with the 9/11 Commission. I am all for getting the quote right as you say, but I don't see the value in using the same language to describe other people's views on the matter. Finally, if the statement is a conclusion of an official investigation, I think that "Concluded" is superior to "said" -- far more accurate.--csloat 00:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is it that you would like to change? Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the justification for most of the changes you made; you can start with "concluded" and then remove the excess "operational" where it doesn't belong.--csloat 01:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I didn't put 'operational' where I didn't think it belonged, so suggesting that I correct those changes I made that are unjustified doesn't really help me. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't belong anywhere where it is not quoted. You added it to places that have nothing to do with the 9/11 Commission. There is also little doubt about where you changed "concluded" to "said." I am trying to assume good faith here Tom but you appear to be acting intentionally obtuse. Are my claims really that unclear?--csloat 02:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As for 'said' vs. 'concluded', I said above that I have no big preference in this particluar case. Maybe we can agree that neither "collaborative relationship" nor "collaborative operational relationship" should be used anywhere except when quoted. I appreciate your continued presumption of good faith in the face of what must to you seem very frustrating. I look forward to continuing our discussion tomorrow or the next day. Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline

Does anyone object to my splitting out the timeline to its own page? Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have an objection at this time. There is already a page reserved for it but since there have been changes to this timeline since then you should copy over that page with the current version of the timeline on this page. Thanks,-csloat 02:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree...but give it another day to make sure we don't trample on anyones toes.--MONGO 14:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. RonCram 14:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Kevin Baas^talk 17:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

agree. Anthonymendoza 16:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV tag?

Is there any specific reason to continue with the NPOV tag on this piece? I believe we have dealt with the main objections recently raised -- the sentence about intelligence community assessments has been more accurately worded, and the timeline has been moved out. I still think we need a more detailed list of the intel community assessments but that is hardly a POV issue. Anything else specific left? I don't think the POV tag should be the default state of any article.--csloat 07:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is a good reason for the POV tag. The article treats a viewpoint (the majority Intelligence Community view) as a fact. The tag cannot be removed until the article makes clear that this is a controversial issue with several viewpoints. Each of the viewpoints has to be clearly explained with the evidence that supports the viewpoint. NPOV is non-negotiable. We need to return to the discussion of the rewrite I put together as a starting point for the article. RonCram 16:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In what way does it do so? Can you point to the objectionable paragraph so we can rephrase it? Your claim that the article must make clear that this is a controversial issue is not a valid complaint; the article already says "The question of a working relationship between Saddam and al-Qaeda is still being debated" at the very outset. Thanks.--csloat 20:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sloat, yes it makes that one statement but the article does not treat the subject as controversial. The article treats it like the answers are settled. Also, the article does not describe what the other positions are or the evidence that supports them. It does not separate the two main issues whether a link may exist and whether Saddam supported the attacks on 9/11. These are the two questions the different views answer differently. RonCram 21:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What statement, then, do you object to? Where does it "treat it like the answers are settled"? It only describes the places they are settled (e.g. the CIA, DIA, SSCI, 9/11 Commission, and among all experts), but it does not state that these people are correct or incorrect, to my knowledge. What positions do you think need to be described to remove the NPOV tag? I believe all the official positions are at least mentioned here. What is missing? And how is that an NPOV issue anyway? If there is information missing, just add it; there is no need for a NPOV tag. As for separating the main link vs. 9/11, I have two issues with that statement: (1) that is not an NPOV issue and has nothing to do with the tag, and (2) you are completely wrong; the article clearly states "On 21 March 2006, Bush sought to distance himself from the allegation of any link. He said: "First, just if I might correct a misperception, I don’t think we ever said — at least I know I didn’t say that there was a direct connection between September the 11th and Saddam Hussein."" and "While Saddam was not involved in the September 11 attacks, members of his government did have contacts with al-Qaeda over the years" -- the distinction is clearly made in at least those two places.--csloat 22:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So far on this question, the only person who seems committed to keeping the NPOV tag on the article seems to be Ron, and he is unwilling or unable to articulate a specific POV problem with the article. I will give it a couple more days but if there is no further discussion I assume it should be removed as per Wikipedia policy.--csloat 19:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sloat, you are making untrue statements. I have specifically stated the problem with the article on numerous occasions. It treats a viewpoint like it is fact. That is the very definition of POV. The viewpoint of the majority of intelligence community is not fact. Many statements in the article will lead readers to the false conclusion it is fact. There are multiple viewpoints on this subject. None of the other viewpoints are treated with any respect. The article does not meet wikipedia standards at all. RonCram 22:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ron, I said specifically. Where does it specifically treat a viewpoint like a fact? Which sentence? Which paragraph? Where specifically is another viewpoint treated without "respect"? Again, which sentence do you object to? Vague statements like the one you made are non-falsifiable and cannot constitute a reason for putting the POV tag on an article. Either qualify your statement with specifics or we shall remove the tag. Thanks.--csloat 07:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sloat, I have already said that the article does it throughout. That is why it is not salvagable and a rewrite is necessary. As I noted above, it does not mention the other viewpoints. It does not name the viewpoints or talk about who holds to the different views or why. It is sloppily written and argues with itself in a very glaring way all for the purpose of trying to convince readers that anyone who disagrees with the majority viewpoint is a complete idiot. The article is completely POV. RonCram 12:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ron, you are repeating yourself without citing evidence. Where is "throughout"? Can you point to a single sentence that is POV? The article's words have been agonized over by multiple editors from different political perspectives, including yourself, for something like 2 years. To say it is "sloppily written" is an insult to all of us. If you see something sloppy, either point it out or try to fix it. To say it is "not salvagable" is a way of avoiding the discussion -- you have yet to point to a single example of anything wrong, yet you're suggesting throwing 2 years of work out the window to replace it with a version that has been worked on by one editor alone (you) for about a month. You claim it "does not mention other viewpoints" - which viewpoint is not mentioned? If there is a notable viewpoint missing, we can easily correct that. You say it does not "talk about who holds the different views and why" -- I see views of various administration officials alongside those of the intelligence community. Even Doug Feith is discussed here. What other notable views need to be discussed? I am open to suggestions, but I think we should stick to notable views here. Again, if there are some missing, this is easily corrected without throwing out the article. You say it is "sloppily written" - that is a cheap shot and it is false. If you notice a grammatical error, please correct it, but do not make such claims without examples. You say it "argues with itself" - what you mean is it presents both sides of the issue, which is true. This contradicts your claim that it is POV or does not present other views. You say its purpose is "trying to convince readers that anyone who disagrees with the majority viewpoint is a complete idiot" -- can you give me an example of this? I didn't think so. It's an absurd claim. As I said, this version has been edited for about 2 years by editors from various points of view, including yourself. Are you saying all of those people believe that anyone who disagrees is a "complete idiot"? And that they put such claims in the article? Where? Ron, the reason another editor put a trolling tag here is that you are making claims without supporting them. If you cannot back up your claim that the article is POV or not salvageable, you are just being insulting and causing trouble.--csloat 19:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statements section?

Does anyone object to removing this section completely? If so, can we have some suggestions on organizing it? I think all the necessary statements should be incorporated into the timeline and this whole section erased, but if anyone can articulate a good reason to keep it, let's organize it and eliminate some of the cruft. As it is the list does not seem useful.--csloat 07:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Arkon, can you tell us which information in this section should be put in the timeline (or, better yet, put it there)? This section has been up here, and a mess, for over a year now; how much more time do you think it needs to stay here? I think most of what is relevant has been added already, but if you want to add entries for statements that have not yet made it there, we should do it.--csloat 20:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello csloat. I was actually going by your comments. Specifically I think all the necessary statements should be incorporated into the timeline and this whole section erased. I think 2 days is a rather short period of time to expect action on this. Arkon 21:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it has been over a year, not two days, though I will certainly wait longer.--csloat 21:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks csloat. If no one does any work on this in the next few days, I will remove the section myself. Arkon 22:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. Arkon 05:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation

Have the major contributors here considered asking for mediation. I am not a mediator, but will be willing to work with you more if we have a formal request submitted. However, my understanding is that mediation requests take some time to get a mediator assigned to the case. Just a thought.--MONGO 16:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to invite others to mediate this article; in fact, both Ron and I have informally asked you to do so. Does the process need to be formal for any reason? Ron is making pretty blanket claims about the article being "unsalvageable" and so far refuses to provide specific examples or evidence. I'm confident that once the evidence is provided we can address whatever problems exist; outside input would definitely be helpful.--csloat 19:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see that it could be, like forever, before a mediator is assigned due to a lack of mediators. I am always happy to help and am currently reviewing RonCrams rewrite to see what the major differences are.--MONGO 19:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - it might help (if you want more to read, lol) to look at the nine arguments I made against an earlier version of Ron's rewrite, which I find extremely POV and inaccurate in many places.--csloat 19:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay...I'll check the references and see what I think should and shouldn't be in the article...maybe there can be some way to make everyone happy.--MONGO 19:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gentlemen, it really makes no sense to say I have "refused to provide specific examples or evidence." I have said repeatedly that the article treats one viewpoint as fact. That is the very definition of POV. The article does not discuss the other viewpoints on this controversial subject, nor does it say who holds these viewpoints or why. My rewrite [18] clarifies these essential points, yet Sloat has reverted the rewrite and been intransigent in any effort to make the article meet wikipedia standards. RonCram 20:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have repeated that, it is true, but you have not provided specific examples or evidence of where you believe that to be the case. That is why it makes sense to say that. I have not been intransigent - I have gotten frustrated, it is true, but as others here can attest, when a specific issue was named (e.g. the sentence about the various intel investigations into the issue), I worked with others to improve the sentence. The problem, Ron, is that you have so far refused to even name a particular sentence that you think has POV problems. Simply saying the whole thing - that has been developed over years by multiple editors from various political perspectives - should be replaced with a version that a single editor (with a single, highly charged POV) has worked on for about a month is what makes no sense.--csloat 20:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sloat, I am mostly talking about what the article does not say. How can I give specific examples of that? You are making a ridiculous request. The article does not discuss the other viewpoints, say who holds them or why. I cannot give you an example because the example does not exist. I repeat what I said before - the article is POV. I have made changes to the rewrite based on CSTAR's comments, but you will not. Your intransigence is this regard is ridiculous. It is my goal that we make this article into a featured article. I am not insisting that I be the only editor of the article. That is another ridiculous comment. I am pointing out that my rewrite provides the best format necessary for an NPOV article. In the Intro, it introduces the various views and the two key questions that each view needs to answer. The body of the article discusses the evidence supporting each view. And finally, there is a short discussion of the evidence that has been published about Saddam's possible involvement in the attacks of 9/11. An outline of this kind is the only way to produce an NPOV article. RonCram 21:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please cut out the BS about my "intransigence." It is an unwarranted personal attack. You say my request is "ridiculous" because you are talking about "what the article does not say." So I suppose we're agreed that what it does say currently has no POV problems; that is excellent and I am glad we can remove the tag now. As for what it does not say, can you give specific examples of what is missing here? That would be a good start. Otherwise, you are just repeating yourself without specifics once again. You are asking me to make changes to the rewrite, but there is no point in that, since we don't have any problems with the current article. Believe me, if I get started on changing the rewrite, we have a long uphill battle ahead, as I have specific objections to nearly every sentence of it. I have listed nine problems above with it, which you refuse to engage. But, again, the rewrite is not necessary as we have no POV problems in the current version. If there is something missing, let's add it! But your mere assertion that your version is "the only way to produce a NPOV article" is not helpful.--csloat 00:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, now maybe this page will load a little quicker since I have archived 300 kb's of talk...sorry but this had to be done...I mean this talk page is still over 100kb's too big--MONGO 05:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to look over some things tomorrow and then try to help get this article more agreeable to all involved.--MONGO 05:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sloat, I have given specific examples. My rewrite is full of specific examples of what the current article does not say. But most important is the structure of the article itself, the outline. The article has to introduce all of the different views and how they differ on the key points. Then the body of the article has to give the evidence to support each view. How many times have I repeated this and yet you continue to ask me the same question again and again?!!! The current article is completely POV. Making articles NPOV is non-negotiable. Despite your comments to the above, I did respond to your "nine problems." My version is not the final article, but it is the only way to begin an NPOV article. An article cannot present a viewpoint as fact, as the current does. As I said before, that is the very definition of POV. You have never made any effort to defend the POV nature of the article. RonCram 15:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about putting specific examples here of what the article does not say so that we can distinguish them from the things that are also in your rewrite that are already in the article? You keep asserting the article is completely POV but you have not yet offered a single example of a POV statement or sentence in the article. Where does it "present a viewpoint as fact"? It does not. It states what the consensus of experts concludes. You say you responded to the nine problems but you quickly dropped the debate when I replied to your responses, so the fact is, my arguments against your rewrite have ultimately not been refuted. But again, there is no need for the rewrite since the consensus version of this article is fine as it is.--csloat 17:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An NPOV Intro

I have changed the Intro to make it more NPOV. It is essential the article introduce all of the views and explain how they are different. RonCram 15:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First, you have not identified a single NPOV problem in the intro. Second, we have already discussed these changes and I have explained that we only need two main points of view in the intro - that Saddam did collaborate with AQ and that he did not. Your rewrite breaks up the first point of view - which is already decidedly in the minority - into three separate POVs,so that it appears stronger or more supported. That is an inaccurate way to do it and it is WP:NOR since such a list of POVs does not appear in any published source in this manner. I will remove the list, though I will keep some of your changes. The Hayes cite in the beginning will go, as the Feith memo that it is based on is already discussed on this page.--csloat 17:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it makes sense to address separately the two questions: "Did Saddam and Osama have a relationship?" and "Did Saddam have anything to do with 9/11?" Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Check my rewrite; I did add that distinction there (and it is also already there under the history of claims section). That is not the part of Ron's change that I had a problem with.--csloat 18:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I wouldn't demand that all the original research be removed unless you really want that. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sloat, I identified several POV problems with the old Intro. The old Intro did not discuss the different views, who holds them and why. The new Intro solved those problems. Each of these points is easily verifiable and contains no original research. As you know, it is considered the best form to keep citations out of the Intro as much as is possible. If you really thought any one of those points was not verifiable, I could have provided a link or several links. Sloat, you are losing credibility with your intransigence. RonCram 18:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that references in the intro should be minimized, but two or three for the "hotbutton" issues should have a reference...preferably the best ones we can find. As this progresses and becomes stabilized, we need to either use all embedded links for sources or citation templates and footnotes. So long as the arguments presented in the intro are well articulated and referenced in the body of the article, we should be fine I suppose.--MONGO 18:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. Tell me what you want referenced in the Intro I wrote and I will provide a link. RonCram 19:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did a minor cleanup of the intro to address the issues better...is the fourth view well supported by NPOV sources? Indeed, did Bush feel that the evidence presented by view #4 as more important than #2 or more liklely at least?--MONGO 19:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to hold off reverting this for a bit but here are my problems with this: (1) WP:NOR: Ron has added this list of 4 views which is not a list that appears in any published source. (2) NPOV: The list of four views has one view that Saddam did not collaborate with al Qaeda -- the overwhelming consensus view -- and three views that he did -- all three taken together are a tiny minority. The problem is this makes it appear as if there is far more support for the view that he did collaborate with al Qaeda than there actually is. (3) this is arbitrary -- why split the view that he did collaborate with AQ into smaller categories but not the view that he did not? The views of Richard Clarke on this matter, for example, are very different from the views of Michael Scheuer, or of Rohan Gunaratna. Splitting each set of views into different camps is a slippery slope that we should not be going down, and it is not supported by the literature on this issue. It is not just a matter of finding references to support each view -- it is a matter of finding an authoritative reference that cites this list of four views as definitive. I submit that no such reference exists. (4) Ron has simply reverted my changes without taking note of the compromises I made. The one issue that he brought up that may have some merit is distinguishing 9/11 from general collaboration, which my changes did. This was enough to solve the NPOV problem. It is very disconcerting that a user with an extreme POV on this issue can hijack this page with his original research simply by being very demanding, even when he refuses to discuss specifics on the talk page.--csloat 20:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can certainly see how it's going to be tough or even impossible to find a source which states there are four "views" so on this we agree. In my eyes, it does appear that there really are just two "views" with some grey areas in between that are difficult to determine based on the citable reference material. I see need to expand or make some changes to the last edit you made for the intro and will work on that later tonight.--MONGO 21:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great; I'll try to hold off any changes until your edits appear. I agree, there are two main views of this issue, and the article should reflect that.--csloat 23:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated before, each of these views are well-documented. The views are split into four because each camp answers the key questions differently. Sloat is setting up a false requirement that all four views be published in the same article. That is not a wikipedia standard. The standard is that all the statements be verifiable. Just tell me which statements you want links for and I will provide them. Second, Sloat's claim that the other views are a "tiny minority" is clearly false from both a numbers perspective and from the perspective of historical significance. The official Bush Administration view may be a tiny minority (held by President Bush and Secretary Powell) but is clearly significant historically and worthy of being presented here. I do not see how the article can be critical of the president without also presenting the evidence that supported his view. Such a result would be POV to the extreme. The minority view, held by far more people (perhaps 40%), sees a definite cooperative relationship. The "false flag" view is worthy of mention here because this is an ancillary article that focuses specifically on this relationship. While it might not be worthy of mention in an article on the Iraq War, for instance, the "false flag" view is actually central to this discussion because it is the only view that suggests Saddam was behind 9/11. Readers of wikipedia deserve to have this access to this information so they research the issue more fully. RonCram 03:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is not that the views are not well documented as being in existence. The problem is that the splitting up of the "Saddam conspired with AQ" view into three separate positions as you did is original research. That is not a false requirement; it is consistent with WP standards. There are any number of possible ways to separate different views, Ron; why not split up the "Saddam did not conspire with AQ" view into three separate positions too? It is equally well documented that Clarke's view is different from Gunaratna's and from Scheuer, just to name three notable experts at random. Your claim that the view of a conspiracy do not represent a tiny minority is interesting but irrelevant. I am not saying that we should leave this view out. I am just saying that it does not deserve 75% of the attention of the this page, which is what your false taxonomy creates. Your argument that Powell and Bush's view is worthy of being presented here is something I have never contested, so stop acting as if that was my argument. Your claim that 40% of "people" (which people?) support the minority view is equally irrelevant. We are not talking about polling Americans; we are talking about the view of experts and official sources (and it's quite obvious that the"40%" figure is one that was pulled out of a hat or somewhere else, in any case). The "false flag" view is already mentioned here; again, quit pretending I don't want it mentioned. Stop pretending that I am trying to deny Wikipedia readers "access to this information." All I am objecting to is your original research taxonomy.--csloat 03:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is ludicrous to say there are only two views. You are saying that Laurie Mylroie's view is the same as George Bush's view when the Bush Admin has rejected Mylroie's view. There are two questions here. Did they cooperate? and Did Saddam support 9/11? These questions are not the same. Each of the four views answers the questions differently and that is completely verifiable. How does narrowing the article's discussion from four views down to two views help the reader? Wikipedia articles should always be written with the readers in mind. If a high school or college student is researching this subject, how is it helpful to that student to make him or her think Laurie Mylroie's view is the same as George Bush's view? That is completely misleading and wrong. It is also wrong to mislead people into thinking the Bush Admin is convinced that cooperation extended to particular terrorist attacks. Neither Bush nor Powell ever made that claim, but people in the minority view believe there is evidence Iraq supported the al-Qaeda attack on the USS Cole (as one example). The minority view is about 40% of intelligence officials and growing. Your claim that Clarke, Gunaratna and Scheuer all have different views is hardly helpful. Clarke and Scheuer have both held strongly different views than themselves at different points in time. Both Clarke and Scheuer were convinced of a link between Saddam and al-Qaeda before 9/11. (Scheuer's book supporting the link was published in 2002, but it was most likely written prior to 9/11.) They changed their view for purely political reasons - to try to damage the Bush Admin. This article is a very ancillary article to the general subject of the Iraq War. As an ancillary article, readers deserve the greatest amount of information and precision in the presentation. Imprecision is not a goal of wikipedia. RonCram 11:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While it is certain that Ramzi Yousef is Abdul Basit Karim, contra Dr. Laurie Mylroie, I agree with Ron that the view of a collaborative Al Qaeda-Iraq relationship should be better represented and the taxonomy made more specific, especially after reading Ryan Mauro's "Saddam Hussein and bin Laden, a Match Made Up In Propaganda?" which has 126 endnotes referring entirely to credible mainstream sources. It can be found at http://www.worldthreats.com/middle_east/Iraq%20Terror.htm. -- Huysman^talk^| ^contribs

Can you note specifically what is wrong with the current version of the article? Does the Mauro source endorse Ron's taxonomy? If not, I am afraid it is WP:NOR.--csloat 17:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I just looked at the Mauro page. It is not a published article from a reliable source, and it does not endorse Ron's taxonomy. It includes a lot of information that has turned out to be false -- stuff from the Feith report, and a lot of stuff from Yossef Bodansky's book that has not been corroborated by anyone. Alleged meetings in 1992? Come on. It also excludes a lot of obvious information, like the fact that Osama bin Laden tried to raise an army against Saddam in 1990. Look through the footnotes, it's filled with right-wing opinion pieces from the New American, Worldnet Daily, Michael Ledeen!, Laurie Mylroie, Newsmax, Insight, etc. If Mr. Mauro publishes this article in a reliable source perhaps we can quote some of it in the timeline, but it is hardly useful here, and, more importantly, it does not endorse Ron's made-up taxonomy.--csloat 18:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say Mylroie's view is the same as Bush's Ron and you know it. I said Mylroie's is only notable insofar as her view influenced the Bush Administration. Do not twist my words in this way. Again, you are just repeating yourself and not responding to the arguments here. If we break down the view that they conspired into three points, let's also break down the view that they didn't conspire. Unless you are prepared to show us a published source that says that these are the main four viewpoints. Otherwise this taxonomy is your original research. As for misleading people that Bush felt that cooperation extended to particular terrorist attacks, I did not make that claim and my version of the page has not made that claim. If it does please show me where. Your claim about 40% of intelligence officials is pulled out of your ass. Please name them. Any of them. There is not a single intelligence official that I am aware of with this view. Your claim about Clarke's and Scheuer's motivations is not supported by any information in the public record and is pure speculation, and it is not relevant to the argument here anyway. But it is totally bogus anyway; both officials worked for Bush's father and for Reagan too, and Scheuer is a lifelong conservative Republican. I agree that the article should be precise, but that is not the source of our disagreement. The source of our disagreement is your original research.--csloat 17:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see how I can be accused of twisting your words. You said there are only two views. So now you admit that Bush's and Mylroie's views differ, but you still do not want to mention Mylroie's view or why she holds it. So now you admit there are at least three positions but you want to suppress a position that you admit is historically relevant and was discussed in news media for a long time. That is a bogus position to take. Regarding Bodansky's book, it was corroborated by the documents released to CNS News. If you review the content of those documents you will see the working relationship between between Saddam, bin Laden and Somalia back in 1993. This fits well with what we know about Saddam's outreach to Islamic terrorists about the time of the Gulf War in 1991. For your information many of the sources you criticized above: WorldNet Daily, Insight and Laurie Mylroie are considered mainstream sources. Laurie Mylroie used to work for Bill Clinton. She is not some right-wing person. WorldNetDaily has their own White House correspondent for years. Yes, it is a conservative publication but it is well-respected book publisher as well as news outlet. Insight Magazine is edited by Paul Rodriguez who started in journalism working with Helen Thomas. Rodriguez has broken some important stories that were embarrassing to both Democrat and Republican Administrations. I will not attempt to defend New American since I do not know anything about it. I will also not defend Newsmax.com, although I read it on occasion it has not always proven as reliable as the other more mainstream media. You accuse me of not responding to the arguments here. I have not seen an "argument" worthy of a "response." I see a lot of blather and misstatements. I see smokescreens about original research, but I did respond to that. You standard that I come up with a published article on the four views is ridiculous. Each of the views can be separately verified and that is all wikipedia requires. RonCram 15:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I never said I didn't want to mention Mylroie's view Ron!!! You are again misrepresenting my views and it seems intentional on your part. I am not suppressing anything. I am simply saying Mylroie's view does not merit a separate category; she is only notable insofar as she influenced official positions. Bodansky never made claims about Somalia that I am aware of, so I'm not sure where the CNS documents fit in, but those particular documents have not, to my knowledge, been taken seriously by any WP:RS, not even National Review. Not that it matters; your claim that Saddam reached out to terrorists in 1991 is a mischaracterization here since you mean he reached out to Palestinians, not to al-Qaeda. Very different, as you know. In 91 OBL was hoping to raise an army to fight Saddam! Worldnet daily, Mylroie, and Insight are not "mainstream"; they are all on the right -- farther to the right of, say, National Review, even, whether or not Mr. Rodriguez had a conversation with Helen Thomas. You say you're not responding to my arguments because they are "blather" - that's your right, but then you cannot expect to change the page based on points that I have refuted when you refuse to respond to them. All I am claiming here is that we don't need your original research taxonomy in the article; it would be the same as me making a list of the various positions against the conspiracy theory and saying there are 12 main viewpoints instead of 4. Let's not go down that slippery slope. And quit twisting my words. Go back and respond to my points in a rational manner. I presented the arguments for my changes below and you haven't even tried to address them.--csloat 20:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

csloat, okay, so you want to mention Mylroie's view but not tell readers why she holds it. Does that seem NPOV to you? The CNS News documents have not been studied by many news organizations, but the accuracy of the documents is now beyond dispute. It was the CNS documents that began the avalanche that forced Negroponte to begin the release of OIF documents. Saddam reached out to Islamists all over the world. The terrorists who attended Saddam's World Islamic Conference or whatever it was called were from Sudan and Indonesia and all corners of the globe. It is true that OBL expressed hatred for Saddam (driven mostly by jealousy) but they did work together. I did respond to the only cogent (though misguided) argument you made - that my entry was somehow original research. That is hogwash. You want two views represented even though you admit Mylroie's view is different. The reason you do not want Bush's viewpoint explained is because you do not want readers to see how close the Bush Admin position is to the majority position. Bush's position (as explained by Powell) is exactly the majority intel position in every respect save one - Bush/Powell reject the notion that Saddam and Osama would not work together because of ideological reasons. Saddam had already shown he would support radical Islamist when he funded and supported Islamic Jihad and others. I respond to your arguments every time you repeat them. Name one argument I have not responded to.RonCram 00:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, Sloat, your characterization of the sources used by Ryan Mauro was completely disingenuous. I just reviewed his sources and links and the ones you named were a minority. The links to Newsmax.com and New American a very, very small minority.

Mauro links to Washington Post, Times of London, Wall Street Journal, Far Eastern Economic Review, Boston Globe, Radio Free Europe, Philadelphia Daily News, US News, Frontline PBS, New York Times, Jerusalem Post, UPI, Sunday Telegraph, Daily Telegraph, Ma'ariv, Independent of London, Iraq News, Agence France Presse, ABC News, Christian Science Monitor, Al Watan al-Arabai, Die Welt, Middle East Newsline, CBS News, Los Angeles Times, Arutz 7 (not sure what that is), ABC News, BBC, National Review citing Ummat (a Pakistani paper), Vanity Fair, Reuters, Ha'aretz, New York Post, CNN, MSNBC, World Tribune and Associated Press.

Sloat, this kind of misrepresentation on your part is exactly why you do not have any credibility. Out of 126 sources cited, Mauro linked to New American twice and Newsmax.com four times. Even these two sources are probably accurate 95% of the time. Why would you rather believe Saddam or KSM than a report on ABC News? You choose who is reliable strictly on whether they report what you want to hear or not.

This brings up another point regarding which detainees we should believe. You are happy to quote Saddam Hussein saying he had no contacts with al-Qaeda... but of course Saddam is going to lie. Saddam and the terrorists have a reason to hide the relationship. Why would terrorists say there is a relationship if there was none? Yet you insist al-Libi is lying when his story was corroborated by Abu Abdula.

Let me make this very clear. There are four views on this relationship. The key questions are: Did Saddam and al-Qaeda work together? Did Saddam support 9/11? Each of these four views answers these questions somewhat differently. Each of their answers is verifiable. The four views I name are the four major players in the debate. The intelligence community is divided into two parts. The Bush Admin has a view somewhat in the middle. And then the Mylroie view believes Saddam was involved in 9/11 because of her research on the 1993 bombing of the WTC. Those are the four views readers will care about. RonCram 15:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop accusing me of disingenuous discussion Ron when you are blatantly telling me I said things I didn't say. Yes Mauro has other sources too but the right wing sources are hardly a minority (your selective accounting does not refute this) and the important point is not counting the number of sources up but the way he has framed everything -- he has excluded all information on the other side, and included many things that have been demonstrated conclusively to be false! It doesn't matter because this is not a published piece at all; when he gets it published in a reliable source we can talk about including it. As for quoting Saddam, we also quote Bush and Rumsfeld! As for him and terrorists lying, the question is, why would they go to such extreme lengths to continue protecting this secret when Saddam is in jail, his country is in our hands, and the promised cooperation with terrorists to attack the US never happened? But it doesnt matter because I am not saying they are telling the truth; I am simply saying their views are notable. The fact that the CIA and DIA have reached certain conclusions based on these statements is what we need to report, not whether RonCram believes them. As for al-Libi, you are lying or clueless. For the last time, we have no confirmation from Abu Abdula!!! I decisively refuted your claims to that effect earlier, and you simply stopped responding. I showed extensively that the only source for that information was al-Libi, and yet you return to the mythical corroboration from Abu Abdulah based on your misreading of Powell's speech!! Ron, this is ridiculous; either discuss these things in good faith or not at all. As for the four views, I have argued extensively what is wrong with your characterization. If you find a published source outlining these as the four main views I will concede this argument but otherwise this is pure WP:NOR on your part. Stop evading this point with irrelevant arguments about the credibility of Mauro's blog or of Saddam's delusions.--csloat 20:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sloat, you are doing it again. Even after you are caught you proclaim your innocence. Now you say the "right wing sources are hardly a minority." By my count- of the 126 citations, 88 are from mainstream media or anti-Bush authors like Scott Ritter. A total of 31 are from credible conservative media outlets like FOX News, Washington Times, WorldNetDaily or authors like Bodansky. A total of 6 links are from New American or Newsmax.com. I challenge you to do your own count. I may be off one or two, but there is no way the majority of these links can be discredited. Your POV is showing csloat. Yes, we quote Bush and Rumsfeld as well. But you seem to think Saddam is more credible than Bush or Rumsfeld. You ask why they would go to such links to protect the secret of Saddam's support? Are you serious? Don't you know Saddam still is hoping to be released and be president again? Didn't you know that is why the Sunnis and al-Qaeda have joined together was to get Saddam back in power? Now you are lying about Abu Abdula. You did not refute my claim in the least. What you did was claim Powell was quoting al-Libi, but that is clearly hogwash. Powell did not say "al-Libi told us that Abu Abdala claimed he was successful." Powell said Abu Abdala said he was successful. You are putting words in Powell's mouth. Abu Abdala is also a detainee. I made this very clear to you. As I said before your standard that I find a published source that says there are four views is a ridiculous standard that wikipedia does not require. An encyclopedia gathers and reports information. I can verify the fact that each of these four main players in this debate answer the key questions differently. That is all wikipedia requires. RonCram 01:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ron stop making this about me. Your count is beside the point; my point is the author's bias. But again, I will concede your point if it makes you feel better, because it it totally irrelevant to anything on this page. It is not a reliable source that we would quote here, and in fact, nobody has even suggested we should quote it here! So what is the point of arguing about an unknown author's credibility in an unpublished work? Your claim that I think Saddam is more credible than Bush is your own silly attempt to attack me personally through mind reading. Let's stick to the article; I have no interest in trying to convince you that you're wrong. Believe whatever you want about Saddam becoming president again; just don't put your original research in the article.

The al-Libi claim is something that you should really take a closer look at, Ron; specifically, re-read my responses to you above. Powell says the info is from al-Libi and two intel officials state that is the sole source of the info. Your sole piece of evidence that Mr. Abu-abdula is in custody is a spanish newspaper that does not indicate he is the al-Iraqi; and we know for a fact that there is an Abu-Abdula al-Iraqi producing al-Qaeda videos in Iraq in 2005. You have no evidence whatsoever that this guy is a detainee. You are the one putting words in Powell's mouth; he said "He [al-Libi] says that a militant known as Abu Abdula Al-Iraqi (ph) had been sent to Iraq several times". And two intelligence officials, once again, point out that al-Libi is the sole source of the information. And Powell has never responded to this information, which was published in Newsweek! You take an out of context article in a language you don't understand with one of the most common names in Arabic and use it to claim Abu Abdulah is in custody? In the face of clear opposing evidence from intelligence officials and journalists who actually know what they're talking about? And then you accuse me of lying about this?

Finally, as for Wikipedia's standards, you claim that it is a "ridiculous standard" to set that claims made by Wikipedia be reflected in a published source -- please, Ron, take that up with Jimbo, or become an administrator and try to suggest changes to WP:NOR and WP:RS, but don't use that argument to cover up your own original research. Nobody is arguing with your claim that each of these four people (?) answer a question differently. The argument is with your claim that those four views are the four main views on this topic.--csloat 05:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These viewpoints are the viewpoints of the four main players in the debate. Are you really going to argue that Richard Clarke's or Michael Scheuer's viewpoint is more important historically than the Bush Administration's viewpoint? Or even Laurie Mylroie's viewpoint? Of course not. You have already admitted that Mylroie's viewpoint is historically signficant. You just do not want readers to know why she reached those conclusions. I think that is bogus. NPOV precludes us from suppressing information important to readers. If you would just put readers first, you would be a much better editor. RonCram 12:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Clark's viewpoint is definitely more historically significant than Mylroie's. Hers is only significant insofar as it influenced Bush folks, and the current version of the page gets that across. Your claim that I don't want readers to know something needs to go, Ron; it is insulting and it is obviously false. I haven't suppressed anything; as it is Mylroie's view gets plenty of air time on the top of the page (more than Clarke!)--csloat 19:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We really need a viewpoints section with all the viewpoints and the reasons behind them; otherwise the very historically significant minority view is not given a fair representation. Several, but not nearly all, of the arguments of the minority view have been debunked, but these arguments have been updated and amended in light of new information and carry a lot of weight. See User:Huysman/Iraq and Al Qaeda. -- Huysman^talk^| ^contribs 18:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to get into a debate with you about how much "weight" these arguments carry; I disagree but we shall leave it at that. I am going to insist, though, that original research be kept off the page, and the statement that there are four views that are central to this debate is clearly original research.--csloat 19:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And again, is there a reliable source who says "there are 2 [or 3, 4, 5] viewpoints, and those viewpoints are..."? Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not aware of one. If Ron cites one then perhaps there is a reason to make this claim, but as it stands, I don't see how we can do it.--csloat 20:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abu Abdula

Contrary to Sloat's comment above, Powell said al-Libi's statement was corroborated by Abu Abdula. Sloat did not provide a full quote. Speaking before the UN, Powell said: "He (al-Libi) says that a militant known as Abu Abdula Al-Iraqi (ph) had been sent to Iraq several times between 1997 and 2000 for help in acquiring poisons and gases. Abdula Al-Iraqi (ph) characterized the relationship he forged with Iraqi officials as successful." As can be seen by the full quote, Powell is not quoting al-Libi saying that Abu Abdula told him that he was successful. Powell is saying the Abu Abdula told his US interrogators the relationship was successful. Now does this mean that Iraq actually supported one of the terrorist attacks against the U.S.? Powell does not make that claim, but he does show that Saddam and al-Qaeda were working together toward that goal. RonCram 19:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ron you are completely ignoring all my arguments based on your very tenuous reading of Powell's statement. The statement you quote is at best ambiguous. I have cited evidence that Abu Abdula al-Iraqi is not in custody but is making al Qaeda videos in Iraq. I have cited evidence that 2 US intelligence officials have indicated clearly that al Libi was the sole source of Powell's claim. Powell has never refuted these officials or the Newsweek article that makes this argument. Can you please drop this nonsense?--csloat 19:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ron's new intro

First off, I think the old version of this page, before Ron put in this new intro, was better, and Ron has yet to establish a reason for this new taxonomy. But if people think we must move in this direction, I have made some basic changes that I think are essential for this to be NPOV, to reduce WP:NOR, and to be readable (including some basic grammatical corrections; this is inevitable when several people edit a document).

I've created a section called "Viewpoints" to cover the issues in Ron's new intro; I think the basic intro should be simple and straightforward, and the different viewpoints should have their own section. I moved some of the issues to the footnotes -- (1) the in extremis scenario is actually referring to WMDs and not al Qaeda, so it should probably be removed entirely (though I do vaguely recall something similar being said regarding AQ cooperation, but I could not find it - if anyone finds it we should put it there instead of this in extremis thing). (2) I have added a note about the alleged "training" and "safe haven" -- this has been disputed by the Pentagon report on the OIF documents. The training that did occur was not of al Qaeda. This is also sometimes collapsed with the alleged "training" in chemical weapons that al-Libi "confessed" to under torture -- as is well known, those statements are considered completely unreliable, and the CIA and DIA have backed off of them completely (the section of Powell's speech at the UN that talked about this depended completely on al-Libi's confession, as has been established conclusively on this talk page about a month ago). Besides those changes, I added "fact" tags in places where I think WP:NOR is a problem: (1) The claim that there are two main questions that have come up seems to me to be a claim that Ron made up. Those are two questions that have come up, it is true, but so have other questions; e.g., Did Mohamed Atta meet an Iraqi in Prague? Did Saddam train al Qaeda members at Salman Pak or other camps in Iraq? Would Saddam find common cause with his enemies in al Qaeda if the US attacked him? etc. It is hard for wikipedia to say the two questions Ron focuses on are the central questions without doing original research, so perhaps he should look for an authoritative source that says these are the main issues. (2) the claim that a "minority view held by some intelligence analysts is that Saddam Hussein and al-Queda did have a cooperative relationship" does not seem to be supported. Which intelligence analysts hold this view? Doug Feith is not an intelligence analyst. There was apparently someone at DIA who told the Senate Committee he believed there was cooperation, but the DIA rejected his/her analysis completely; I am not sure I can think of another intelligence analyst who fits this statement. So if it is a minority of one, we should state that clearly rather than cleverly portraying it as a significant view. (3) "According to this view Saddam and al-Qaeda had an on-again, off-again cooperative relationship and were willing to use the other for their own purposes." -- who says this? Is this the same DIA person? And what does it mean in terms of the question of a collaborative relationship? A relationship of mutual hostility and manipulation is not a "cooperative relationship" and we shouldn't call it that. Finally, I incorporated the Mylroie stuff in the second view rather than a separate part of the taxonomy, since it is part of that view; as Ron acknowledges, she was an influence on Cheney and Feith and others in the Bush Admin who supported this view. Her view is not important as a separate view here; it is only notable insofar as it influenced the Bush Admin view. I have also included the information that Mylroie's thesis has been specifically vetted and refuted by the FBI.

In the end I still think the old version is simpler; all the points made in this section are already made elsewhere on the page. But if people think having the viewpoints hilighted like this is a good thing, this version of the page is much better in terms of NPOV, of readability, and of accuracy.--csloat 09:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just so everyone knows, I am not in favor of any version and am still looking all this over at this time. I still think that the viewpoints should be combined better and I made minor adjustments to this effect.--MONGO 20:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MONGO, there are four main players in this debate. Each of them answer the two key questions differently. There is no way the article can state there are only two views. Even csloat admits the Mylroie view is different, but he does not want readers to know the evidence behind her view. As for the Bush view, csloat does not want readers to know how close it is to the majority intel view. This is purely anti-Bush POV pushing on Sloat's behalf. RonCram 01:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ron has not been able to show any published source that agrees with his statement that "there are four main players in this debate." He claims I don't want readers to know about Mylroie but I have never deleted that information; all I have done is state that her view is only notable because it influenced Bush and people in his administration. It has nothing to do with being "anti-Bush" -- I am accepting both Bush's and Mylroie's views being represented in the article. Ron please stop misrepresenting me. Thanks.--csloat 05:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, what we need now are some references to replace the fact tags in the section on viewpoints...we can worry about citation templates later so a quick embedded external link is sufficient. Does everyone agree with the new section on viewpoints, or does that need to be changed or reworded some?--MONGO 05:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am ok with the new section in its current form, though I don't really think it's necessary.--csloat 09:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. I am not okay with it. I am okay with having a viewpoints section separate from the Intro as I had it, but it must address all the viewpoints. This is Sloat's approach to keep the Bush Admin's view and the Mylroie view from being represented in the article. This is clearly a result chosen by Sloat's anti-Bush POV. MONGO, what you are doing is not mediating. You have not addressed any of the arguments I put forward. You are just "voting" with Sloat without providing any reasoning.RonCram 10:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I do not agree that the intro has to be as long winded as the one you had...what difference does it make where these points are placed? I haven't voted in any way...but I guess that unless someone agrees completely with you, then they are not being neutral? Frankly, I am trying to to mediate, but since you don't think I am, I certainly have better things to do. Good luck. I suggest since this is a hopeless tug of war, that an article Rfc be filed to bring in many editors who will be "neutral".--MONGO 12:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MONGO, I agreed that the "Viewpoints" section was okay not being in the Intro. That is better actually. I disagree with your decision to only go with two of the four viewpoints. I had rejected your mediation long ago and told you so because you were treating a viewpoint as a fact. That is not something a mediator does. RonCram 12:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reliable source who says "there are 2 [or 3, 4, 5] viewpoints, and they are..."? Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tom, I do not know of any source that says that, but my understanding of wikipedia policy does not require it before an article can list four viewpoints. Rather each statement has to be verifiable. I can do that. The four viewpoints listed are the four main players in the debate. Each of these players answer the two main questions differently. The questions are: Did Saddam and al-Qaeda cooperate? Did Saddam support 9/11? Each of the four parties that hold these viewpoints are historically significant. Mylroie's view, while held by a small number of people today, was a big influence on the Bush Admin in the days right after 9/11. It explains why Bush and Co. were looking at Iraq immediately. No one can argue against the historical significance of the Bush/Powell view. RonCram 12:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]