Talk:Operation Iraqi Freedom documents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

On 2 November, 2006, Operation Iraqi Freedom documents was linked from Drudge Report, a high-traffic website. All prior and subsequent edits are noted in the revision history.

On 3 November, 2006, Operation Iraqi Freedom documents was linked from Slashdot, a high-traffic website. All prior and subsequent edits are noted in the revision history.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Operation Iraqi Freedom documents article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

Contents 1 Is this legit? 2 Please research carefully before changing article 3 hey look, 2006 elections 4 Conflation, selective quotation, distortion 5 Iraqi Perspective Project 6 A bold innovation 7 Burden of Proof 8 Untranslated Documents 9 TDC's edit war 10 Let's reach consensus before making major changes 11 More on the Iraqi Perspectives Project 12 In case the note above gets lost 13 Double standards, overt bias 14 Steve Birmingham is using Wikipedia as a personal attack tool 15 House Subcommittee hearing 16 Please don't use this page to showcase original research 17 Suicide Mission volunteers 18 Iraqi Links To Al-Qa'ida 19 Disclosure of nuclear weapons design; Article cleanup needed 20 "May or may not"? 21 Help requested sorting out references 22 Purpose & Appropriate

[edit] Is this legit?

Pleaase forgive me if this is accepted practice here, but citation #27 refers to a newspaper article which reports these statements third hand without actually citing its sources. It seems that sources cited here should be direct or well cited themselves.

[edit] Please research carefully before changing article

These Iraqi documents have already generated several national news stories because they tie Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda together and show Iraq's and al-Qaeda's interest in delivering nuclear weapon attacks against the U.S. New documents are being released regularly, so updates on the article will probably be very active. Let's try to keep the article as NPOV as possible and as readable as possible.RonCram 15:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, let's. I'm worried about your ability to carry out your own advice, though. I mean no offense, but I get the impression that you have an agenda on this matter. --Mr. Billion 20:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Ron has now violated 3RR, in addition to his advice above. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 17:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] hey look, 2006 elections

say what>?--205.188.116.10 00:52, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conflation, selective quotation, distortion

When will the deliberate conflation, selective quotation, and distortion of these documents stop? (That question goes to you, RonCram)

Much of this material simply appears to report - not support - the activity of external regional elements. Very few are of any serious interest at all.

US-British intelligence officers have interviewed captured Iraqi hierarchy (many times) and the unanimous response is that Iraq's "relationship" with "Bin Laden and his people" was the same as most others regimes – a passive interest in discovering their operational movement and intent.

The same is true of captured militants. The ones closest to Osama bin Laden state categorically that there was no relationship between the two. Bin Laden’s stated hostility towards Saddam is consistent and a matter of public record (no dubious handwritten notes, only to be "discovered" later, here).

Countless intelligence experts have concluded that while Saddam Hussein was occasionally willing to exploit various groups and placate moderate regime opponents by building/refurbishing a limited number of mosques, he would never be so foolish as to relinquish WMD to them, or affiliate himself with a group so unpredictable and dangerous it would bring about his own downfall.

I see nothing in these documents that would radically alter that assesment.

-- Stephen Birmingham 18:07, 27 March 2006

Agreed. Unfortunately, RonCram and those who influence him cannot let go of the view that Saddam was behind all the evils of the modern world. That is, of course, exactly why the documents were released to begin with -- not to "prove" a relationship that could not be evidenced prior to the war, but rather to give the conspiracy theorists a pile of junk to pick through looking for a gem. The point isn't to "prove" anything -- if there were anything in the documents that proved Saddam was working with al Qaeda, we would have heard about it long ago. The point is to put enough ambiguous information out there that people can cherry pick through it to say whatever they want. Those who want to see the war justified retroactively will have their fun with this. I don't live anywhere near DC, and in general I wouldn't want to, but I'd love to have been a fly on the wall at restaurants in Adams-Morgan when these documents were first released; it's probably a big joke to most congressional aides. I mean seriously -- hey, forget about trying to hire skilled translators; let's start tapping the vast linguistic resources of the, umm, right-wing blogosphere. It's like the Feith memo all over again, but instead of the intel being cherry picked by a tiny cabal of corrupt politicians in a smoky backroom, it can be cherry picked off the internet by mobs of self-righteous bloggers. I don't think it's a bad idea for these documents to be released, mind you, but I also think part of the fallout is we have to deal with crap like this, at least until the 2006 election (as an anon ip noted above).-csloat 07:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

...just wanted to add the following to the above; a passage from a blog I was just reading; it expressed perfectly what I was awkwardly trying to say above:

"Sorry, guys, but we've been there and done that. ... Sure, the documents should still be studied, translated, and reported on in the press. But a little perspective is in order. The war in Iraq has been a saga of dishonesty and incompetence. To look to paperwork from Saddam's regime, of all places, for vindication suggests the hawks, driven by ideological defensiveness and politics, lack a sense of absurdity, which sadly has been a major and deepening lesson for many of us watching the situation with less of an ideologically vested interest."[1]

-csloat 07:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Iraqi Perspective Project

Someone did some excellent work writing on the Iraqi Perspective Project. However, since those documents have been fully translated and studied, the conclusions of that study do not fit in this article which is about documents that still need to be translated and studied. Since the information was helpful and well-written, I have moved it to its own page. I will send a note to the editor responsible to thank him or her for his work and let him know the new location.RonCram 16:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

They are the same documents Ron. Some of them have been fully translated; the majority of them have been looked over and deemed unworthy of priority translation. That is why Negroponte's office was able to conclude that there wouldn't be any big surprises in these documents. It's a little bizarre that you would jump to the conclusion that they are separate document sets and create a new page without offering a shred of evidence to support that claim.--csloat 19:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

The Operation Iraqi Freedom Documents are part of a translation project. None of the hundreds of translated documents that formed the basis of IPP are discussed on the Operation Iraqi Freedom Documents website because they have been translated. Certainly the IPP is an interesting study and the research deserves a full airing. Readers of this page will no doubt want to know about the IPP study. That was why I left a link to the IPP page you wrote in a prominent place on this page. But to confuse documents that have been translated, studied and the conclusions published with documents that are in need of publishing is to great a leap. According to sources I have read, the researchers were most concerned with documents relating to WMD. Documents relating to Saddam's support for Islamic terrorism and al-Qaeda were not deemed high priority. The documents detailing the relationship to al-Qaeda are in the Operation Iraqi Freedom Documents and the ones dealing with Saddam's WMD are likely to be in the IPP. If you like, I can find the source for that and put it in the article. Readers might find that helpful information. RonCram 21:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Uhh, the untranslated documents have been looked at and declared a lower priority which was why they were not translated yet. Your distinction based on what the documents show is interesting but completely 100% made up by you.--csloat 21:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

The article I referred to above can no longer be found by non-subscribers to Weekly Standard. However I was able to find a reposting of it on a blog. You can read it here. [2] In the article, you will find read that the priority when translating documents was on information about WMD. This is rational as they were concerned WMD might fall into the wrong hands. RonCram 21:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

In what way does this prove that the documents are separate sets? This is the quote from the loony Stephen Hayes that you seem to refer to: "Most of the 50,000 translated documents relate directly to weapons of mass destruction programs and scientists, since David Kay and his Iraq Survey Group--who were among the first to analyze the finds--considered those items top priority. "At first, if it wasn't WMD, it wasn't translated. It wasn't exploited," says a former military intelligence officer who worked on the documents in Iraq." This doesn't tell us anything about the documents being treated in a vacuum as separate groups of documents with distinct names and encyclopedia entries. All it tells us is that a former milint officer believes that "at first" non-WMD-related documents weren't translated. It does not at all tell us which documents the IPP report was based on (which can easily be checked since the docs are listed at the end of the report!)--csloat 22:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

csloat, there are two sets of documents. One has been translated, studied and a report has been published. The second set of documents are part of a translation effort. The two sets of documents, while related, are not the same. Let me try some simple logic on you. A cow has four legs. A dog has four legs. They both live on a farm. Now we can look at these two animals and say they belong to the same set, four-legged animals that live on a farm. But should wikipedia have an article on four-legged animals that live on a farm? Or should wikipedia have two articles, one on cows and one on dogs? These are different sets of documents. Both are important. I am not trying to censor any conclusions by the published study. I do not want the conclusions of that study to swamp the new facts that are coming out on an almost daily basis from the Operation Iraqi Freedom Documents. Is that so hard to understand? You did a good job for the first entry on IPP. If you are really interested in that, spend more time developing that article. By the way, your attack on Stephen Hayes is unbecoming. He is a fine investigative journalist. The Hayes article is quoting a military intelligence officer who actually worked on the documents saying they focused on WMD. Is that so surprising? Of course not. The fact the documents tieing Saddam to Osama had to leak out through CNS News or The Intelligence Summit is surprising. RonCram 00:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Ron you are incorrigible. Within 24 hours of coming back to wikipedia you have started two massive edit wars on these issues with a blatant inaccuracy. Please do some research before you come back here edit warring. If you can find any information actually suggesting these are separate document collections that exist in a vacuum please present it. Not silly mental puzzles about cows and dogs. Your claim that you "do not want the conclusions of that study to swamp the new facts that are coming out" is disingenuous; you can easily put a separate heading on the page if you cared about that. What you seem to want is a page just for your cherry picking and speculation (guided as always by the likes of Stephen Hayes) that hides information about the conclusions drawn by military officials actually familiar with the documents.

It is laughable that Hayes is an "investigative journalist." I'd be surprised if he even calls himself that. And it is not surprising that Hayes quotes a source in his article but it is mendacious to elevate vague generalizations by an anonymous source to the status of definitional truth, creating a documentary taxonomy that you insist on imposing on an encyclopedia. That is the problem, sir, not the fact that Hayes quotes someone who says something that isn't even all that interesting. Now, please do not revert again until you have actually established with evidence a real reason to create a separate category for the documents in this collection that have been cited in the IPP study.--csloat 02:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

csloat, you have not explained why this information, which already exists on its own page, needs to be reproduced on this page. I do not want a separate page just for my "cherry-picking" as you call it. If you find Operation Iraqi Freedom Documents that should be discussed on this page, you are welcome to include them. But information freely available on another page, with a link to that page in a prominent position, it is ridiculous for you to demand that information be included here as well. RonCram 02:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Nice try Ron but there is something called burden of proof here. The only reason this info exists on another page is because you moved it there without cause. It is your burden to justify the move, especially when the evidence is clear that journalists and analysts do not make the documentary taxonomy you have suggested. The other page should be scaled back or deleted completely.--csloat 02:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Repeating csloat's observation. Ron - you are not the arbiter of what content 'belongs' where. You made the move without any discussion, and are revert warring attempts at reversing your action. Bad form. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 17:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Ryan, the article is about the documents that are being translated by private citizens. This is a bold innovation that could change the way intelligence is gathered and analyzed. While the Iraqi Perspective Project is interesting, the conclusions of that study are based on documents that have all been translated so they cannot be considered a part of Operation Iraqi Freedom Documents. This is really a very simple issue: documents released to the public for translation belong, documents that were translated by government translators do not. If you wish to contribute to the article, find something interesting to say about the documents that were released prior to complete translation. If I cannot get you to see that point, perhaps we need to take this to mediation. RonCram 17:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The fact that these documents' origin, source and truthfulness is not backed by the Pentagon and that as raw intelligence they are being dumped into the public domain without any certification or validity is indeed an extremely interesting topic. I'd have a lot to contribute to that topic, myself.

However, that's not what your revert warring is supporting. In your continued reverting, you are arguing that these documents are so unrelated to the Iraqi Perspectives Project (you created the page, so I'm pointing out your persistent misspelling of it) that content about the latter should be excluded from this article, and that simply isn't correct. The circumstances and motives of this event are indeed noteworthy - but your exclusion of the content at issue is not defensible on the basis of your last observation. Leave the prior content here, so the information can be seen in it's proper context.

Again I will remind you that documents whose contents and origins cannot be verified cannot be cited as fact.

And I would support mediation. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 17:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A bold innovation

This article is as much about the bold innovation of releasing documents over the net and allowing private citizens to help in the translation and analysis of documents relating to national security as it is to the contents of the documents themselves. The implications of this approach on how intelligence is gathered and analyzed could be huge historically. One of the tensions in a democracy has to do with how much secrecy is allowed. This move to release untranslated documents over the net is historic. Whether it happens only once or whether it changes the way things are done in the future, this experiment will not be forgotten. The Iraqi Perspectives Project is an interesting set of documents, but simply play no role at all in this historic step. RonCram 14:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Balderdash. Ron with all you have said on this talk page, you have not once cited a published source making the distinction you claim between the "Iraqi Perspectives Project" documents and the "OIF Documents." The fact is these are the same document set; some of them were translated and most were simply looked at. I don't mind adding information about this move being characterized as a kind of open source intelligence as you suggest, but I do mind the persistent deletions of the opinions of experts about these documents. If you want a divider between translated and untranslated documents that is fine, but it is disingenuous to make it a separate page when nobody in the media or intelligence analysis is making that artificial separation.--csloat 18:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Burden of Proof

If this is a 'bold innovation', it can't discard fact and the burden of proof. In relation to the 'February Sudan' meeting, ABCNews article clearly 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.)

And again, the Pentagon has said:

"The US Government has made no determination regarding the authenticity of the documents, validity or factual accuracy of the information contained therein, or the quality of any translations, when available."

So, we can't prove it's a real memo from the real meeting, written by the real individuals involved, describing the real details. There is no proof of authenticity. I frankly cannot see how this article justifies the continued assumption and inference that documents are authentic. It's frankly appalling. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 18:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Untranslated Documents

The following two sentences are nonsensical and refer to documents that have not been translated by anyone. Can we at least wait until a published source takes notice of them (or even a blogger!) rather than using wikipedia to showcase original research speculation about what they might turn out to say?

Document ISGZ-2004-028179 is reported to say the Director of Iraqi Intelligence is reporting news from a letter he received from a German man who indicated that the Chinese Prime Minister told the German Chancellor Shroeder that Saddam had moved his weapons of mass destruction to Syria but Syria denied the story to the United States.

Document IISP-2003-00038100 carries this title: "Intelligence coded memo by two IIS Officers: O'mer Ghanim Muhammad and Manzar Ibrahim Al Mashhadani containing intelligence information on various topics: Weapon Boat (Ship); Palestinian Muneer Fathi Basiis, Palestinians trained in Iraq, sources, codeetc."

What does the first one even mean? It's a letter from a German guy discussing hearsay about what a Chinese guy told another German guy? About Syria? Ugh. And the second one -- what is codeetc? What kind of "intelligence information" does this contain? Why are these claims notable in this article?--csloat 18:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Update - I'm going to remove the items from the page, seeing as nobody is rushing to defend them. Put them back if you think I'm jumping the gun here but please articulate in talk a reason why they should be cited here when not a single news report on these documents has yet cited them.--csloat 03:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

They should be cited for two reasons. First, they appear to be of interest regarding the role Saddam played in training Islamic terrorists. Second, I am Wikipedians can help in the translation project. I know there is a mechanism that we can employ to bring the Iraqi documents to the attention of Arabic speakers who edit Wikipedia. csloat, by the way, it appears Negroponte is including the previously translated documents from the Iraqi Perspectives Project on the website along with the release of the untranslated documents. I find this somewhat surprising but will drop my effort to exclude discussion of the Iraqi Perspectives Project from the article. However, I do think the IPP should be discussed in its own section from the untranslated documents. RonCram 15:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

That's original research, Ron. Post them to your blog if you want help translating them; that is not a proper role for wikipedia. As for the IPP, that's what I've been telling you. The list of documents used is at the end of the study if you wanted to look at it. By the way, the documents include lots of video of Saddam; some of it is quite entertaining (and I'm sure would be more so if you speak Arabic). But I don't think we should be picking the documents we like and posting them here unless they have some notoriety, and nobody has defended the two I deleted.--csloat 18:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is involved in translating. This is an article that deserves to be translated into Arabic. If some editors wish to translate the documents into English, you should not be a roadblock. And what do you mean "nobody has defended the two" you deleted? I defended them! The document's title or synopsis gives some idea of the subject matter. This is an article about a translation project after all. We have to talk about some of the untranslated documents to give a flavor of the project. I am not asking to delete any of the documents you want included. Why do you want to keep readers from knowing about these documents? RonCram 20:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is not in the business of showcasing original research. Please review Wikipedia policy regarding original research. The two documents I removed were discussed above -- one is nonsensical (hearsay from a German officer about a Chinese guy talking about Syria?) and neither of them has been referenced yet in any published account of this issue. Neither has been translated; the cryptic summaries you quoted are not notable. Stop acting like I am trying to hide a smoking gun, Ron; this has nothing to do with what the documents say but with their notability.

Which brings me to the other issue; this is also not a place for showcasing your favorite bloggers. I think a list of documents that have been translated by bloggers is fine here, but evaluations such as "this is being called the mother of all smoking guns" or whatever are BS. One blogger called it that. Is his judgement really encyclopedic? We should also not be preferring the words of unknown bloggers to reports in published sources such as the New York Times, which has commented (unflatteringly, I might add) on Robison's bizarre theory that a fantasy of dropping anthrax-coated leaflets on Iraq and blaming the US somehow proves Iraq's ties to terrorism AND WMD. (All it really proves is how far gone into their own fantasy world Iraqi leaders were when they came up with such schemes). Ron I realize you are in a rush to post any shred of a hint that Bush was right about Saddam all along, but can you please exercise some quality control?--csloat 20:57, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

RE: Anthrax document. James Ray Robison is in serious error. Contrary to Ray's wild speculation, there was no anthrax plot. The anthrax contamination story was simply a rumour, started by the Iraqi military in order to deter its citizens from picking up and reading U.S.-dropped propaganda leaflets. Page 95-96 of the Iraqi Perspectives Project report sheds more light on the true nature of the document:

"One of the almost Orwellian aspects of Iraq’s attempts to get ahead of and counter Coalition psyops was government monitoring and initiation of rumors. In a society that tightly controlled information, rumors and conspiracy theories often fill the void. Many rumors had operational significance and the regime did its best to monitor and control them. Found among the files of the intelligence services were official 'Rumor Forms' used to track the source, analysis, and effect of new rumors. Some of the more colorful rumors tracked by the regime in late 2002 included an Iraqi scheme to mix anthrax-laced leaflets with the ones the Americans were distributing; Iraqis dressed as Americans killing Iraqi civilians for propaganda effect; Russia evacuating its citizens on the eve of war; and the families of high-ranking Ba'athists leaving the country."

Further, the document that Robison worked from was erroneously transcribed thusly:

"The Quds liberation army supplied us with information (open source) (impaired broadcast) as follow..."

In fact, the original document actually reads:

"The Missan division in the Al Quds army provided us with information (Public Sources) (Radio SAWA) that says the following..."

In other words, the document simply records mixed reporting that was at some time broadcast by radio Sawa.

Robison has been informed about this but he still prefers his convoluted conspiracy theory to the facts. He has also deleted two pages that contained criticism of his work from his web site. The man simply cannot be trusted and it is an insult to Wikipedia that his work should turn up here. -- Stephen Birmingham, 00:15, 06 April, 2006

I agree. I've fixed the entry on the anthrax document, but I think this is a more significant problem with all of his notes. I am not sure he should be quoted here at all except where he is cited by published news sources (or if he publishes any of this material in an edited outlet rather than just his own website), especially if he does things like delete valid criticism of his work from that site. I would probably support removing that section entirely, since it deals with untrusted translations of documents that have not been considered notable by media or official sources. I'd like to hear what the supporters of these entries have to say in their defense before removing them.--csloat 02:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TDC's edit war

TDC has started an edit war by deleting quotations without explanation of his edits. Inadvertently I deleted other paragraphs when reverting him but they are all back in place now. TDC if you would like to continue this edit war I am going to have to ask you to explain yourself; don't hide behind the erroneous deletion of other material to avoid explaining your own edits. Thanks.-csloat 23:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Let's reach consensus before making major changes

csloat recently made some major changes to this article that appear to reflect a biased POV. Of course I reverted them. [[User:Commodore Sloat|csloat], please discuss your changes here and let's reach a consensus before you make further changes of any significance.--Mr j galt 03:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Each of those changes was explained and there are several discussions about them above. You have not even edited this page before you started revert warring. And you ignored my explanations in the edit summaries as well as on this page. Then you disingenuously claim that I am not justifying my edits -- do you even know what this page is about? This is uncivil behavior and it is clear that you are disrupting wikipedia to prove a point. Please stop.--csloat 05:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

You should assume good faith (see WP:FAITH) on my part. I merely want an neutral and balanced article on wikipedia. By asking "do you even know what this page is about?" you are clearly trying to belittle my contribution here in violation of the wiki policy on civility (see WP:CIVIL). It is true that, unlike you, I do not write a political blog on Iraq War subjects (See csloat's blog at http://www.shockandblog.com/blog/index.php). But I think it is better if wiki editors write on topics on which they do not have strong political feelings. Your recent edits suggest that you have tried to make this article an extension of your political blog, and that violates wiki's policy on Neutral Point of View (See WP:NPOV). I have merely asked that you comply with the wiki policy on consensus (See WP:CON). Please note the policies I have mentioned and consider this a warning. If you want to make changes to the article, please discuss them here first and let's try to reach a consensus on whether they should take place.--Mr j galt 06:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

galt, WTF? I mean, really, this article has nothing to do with my blog. Why do you keep mentioning it? You might look into wikipedia policy yourself, specifically WP:NPA, which suggests that you shouldn't use a person's affiliations to belittle their contributions. These edits are explained one by one and you never once made an argument against them. In fact, you have never edited this page before starting a massive revert war, which you appear to have started without even having bothered to read my changes! You have, in fact, offered not a scintilla of evidence that you are even aware of what this page is about. It is you, not me, who is making massive changes without justifying them in talk. Many of your changes result in a poorer article just in terms of basic readability. (what is codeetc? what kind of English is "Document ISGP-2003-00014127 is translated to be the diary..."? Why delete bullet points?) You are also deleting sourced quotations and other information that is clearly cited and relevant. And the only justification you have for making all these changes is that it has something to do with my blog? Seriously, this is ludicrous! I update that blog maybe once every two months and you're one of the few people who actually read it! If you don't like my blog, please, visit another site, or go take a walk or something. But stop disrupting wikipedia just because you don't like my blog. Hell, the blog has a discussion board -- why not go to the blog and post your arguments and complaints there, instead of disrupting Wikipedia?--csloat 07:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More on the Iraqi Perspectives Project

I took a shot at rewriting the Iraqi Perspectives Project reference. In particular, the Foriegn Affairs article isn't the authoritative study, it's a summary of the study's key points, and the project didn't just review the documents, it also based its conclusions on interviews. I don't object if people want to summarize a few conclusions of the study if they relate to some of the specific documents in the pile, but I'd appreciate it if we could keep the introduction I've got now, and stick to study conclusions that clearly relate to the documents rather than to Saddam's regime as a whole. The Chemical Ali interview, for example, is interesting, but it's not one of the Iraqi Freedom documents. Thanks, TheronJ 20:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Good points. I do think the information about the Powell misinterpretation is based on analysis of the documents, however; is that not correct?--csloat 22:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Theron, for your willingness to open a discussion on disputed content. The Foreign Affairs article of course does not publish the entire study, but it does accurately reflect the study, correct? Let's discuss!--Mr j galt 12:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. In my (non-expert) opinion, you're both right. (1) The IPP did conclude that the Powell presentation was mistaken, but I think that was based on an overall combination of interviews and documents. Pages 93-95 of the report and footnotes 15, 19, and 22-24 of that section all discuss specific documents, and discussing those specific documents would probably be relevant to this page. (2) Yes, the Foriegn Affairs article is written by the primary authors of the study and summarizes the study's "key points," so it's certainly a reliable source for what it says, IMHO. Overall, I don't mean to foreclose discussion - if there are points you want to make about the IPP that I didn't summarize accurately, I won't take edits personally. TheronJ 14:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I've re-added the stuff on Powell; feel free to tinker with it as it is too long compared to the rest of the conclusions now.-csloat 18:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] In case the note above gets lost

I included a note above about removing the Ray Robison material; please look under "Untranslated Documents" above for the discussion. Please indicate here if you can think of any reason to keep this material in the article as it is. Thanks.--csloat 19:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Double standards, overt bias

I think almost all of us can agree that some of these documents are somewhat abstract. I take issue, however, with the author's dual-standards in his/her analysis. When confronted with the possibility that some documents may justify certain tenets of the Iraq war casus bellum, the author quotes statements that the documents may not be genuine. On the other hand, the author does not question the reliability of the documents when he/she quotes Saddam Hussein as saying, "Don't think for a minute that we still have WMD. We have nothing." We should not stoop to "cherry-picking" documents (emphasis added). In fact, we should avoid analysis altogether, especially with a subject as charged as this one. At the very least we should work to inform, rather than persuade; relegating political potshots to subsections devoted to that end. -Futobingoro 21:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that the questions about authenticity apply to all documents, not specific ones. There are other questions raised about specific translations and about the interpretations of specific documents; such questions should not be generalized to other documents. If there are specific questions about the reliability of a particular document that have been left out, please add them to the article. I agree we should not cherry pick documents -- I made the argument above that we should really just discuss documents here that have been noted by the media (rather than every random blogger; especially one whose integrity has been credibly impugned). If you do see "political potshots" in the article, please remove them, no matter whose side they support.--csloat 08:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Futobingoro makes some good points. However, there is no serious question as to the authenticity of the majority of these documents. It is my understanding the documents that were questioned are not being posted. The article should address the issues that are most important to readers, such as the reasons for going to war. The article should not "cherry-pick" only documents that support the decision to go to war nor documents that would not support the war. ALL the documents relating to the war decision should be discussed. I fully agree that we should work to inform and not persuade. The fact citizen translators can be involved in this project is incredibly innovative and exciting. Hopefully, it ushers in a new ear of openness in intelligence and foreign policy. Gentlemen, this project is historic. It is very important that wikipedia do a good, honest job at representing the event and the content of the documents. RonCram 15:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Your statement that 'there is no serious question as to the authenticity of the majority of these documents' is directly at odds with the Pentagon's admonition that they have 'made no determination regarding the authenticity of the documents, validity or factual accuracy of the information contained therein, or the quality of any translations, when available'. (an admonition posted on the same web site to which the documents you refer have been posted). Do you have any proof to back up your blanket statement? -- User:RyanFreisling @ 17:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

If "ALL the documents relating to the war discussion" are discussed, this page would be longer than the Bible. I think we should stick to just those documents that have been deemed notable by the media or other notable sources (scholars, government officials, historians, etc.) I don't see the value in publishing everything that pops up on someone's blog, especially when they have been credibly indicted (e.g. Robison). I do agree with Ron that this project is "historic" in that it offers historians a unique opportunity to analyze these materials in a public fashion, but I disagree that it is Wikipedia's job to participate in that analysis. It is particularly inappropriate for Wikipedia to focus specifically on "the documents relating to the war decision," especially when those documents have not been prominent in media discussions of the documents elsewhere.--csloat 17:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I cannot believe I got confused and reverted the talk page when I meant to revert the POV edit on the main page. I broke into a fit of laughter after reading Ms. Freisling's comment. Very funny. I apologize for the mistake, and Ms. Freisling's note had me smiling for half the day. Thank you.--Mr j galt 20:32, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

P.S. This article still needs a lot of work. The attempt to minimize the significance of the documents or limit which ones are mentioned needs to be fixed so that wiki readers can decide the significance of the documents on their own from NPOV content. It's on my list of things to do. --Mr j galt 20:32, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

There is no "attempt to minimize the significance of the documents or limit which ones are mentioned." There is simply an attempt to keep this article encyclopedic rather than making it into a place to showcase original research by wannabe intelligence analysts and translators. Please do not start another revert war over this article too. And while I'm glad you found Ryan's comment amusing, I do hope you'll pay heed to her point -- you should think before you start revert warring. And, preferably, you should discuss and explain your changes on the discussion page first. Especially when they are controversial changes, and especially when other editors have already hashed out the points very clearly on the discussion page. Finally, it is far preferable to do additional research and add material when you see a POV problem than it is to simply delete or revert other people's edits.--csloat 21:46, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Please don't be condescending and lecture to me. If you find a problem such as "codeetc" or "Document ISGP-2003-00014127 is translated to be the diary..." then simply fix them and no one will object. But don't do it at the same time you load up the article with anti-Iraq and anti-Bush POV. You have treated this and other articles as an extension of your political blog which has an extreme POV. (See csloat's blog at http://www.shockandblog.com/blog/index.php). BTW - I object to any deletion of the Robison material. Please do not make unilateral changes without reaching consensus.--Mr j galt 02:56, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

At the risk of lecturing you, I will once again remind you that if you object to my blog, it has a discussion board where you can post your objections. This page has nothing at all to do with my blog. Once again, please review WP:NPA and understand that your constant whining about my blog as if it had anything to do with my wikipedia work is understood as a personal attack. So please stop it. As far as codeetc, etc., you are the one insisting on a version of the page that is inferior in every way. The fact that you preserve such ridiculous errors in your reverts exposes your actions for what they are -- pure POV-pushing based not on an understanding of the article you are reverting but based only on your dislike of my blog. For pete's sake, just stop reading my blog, and you will find it a lot less annoying! As for the Robison material, I posted several times noting that I was planning to remove it, and expressing my reasons why, and asking if there were objections. So far, nobody has spoken up. Even Robison himself has visited this talk page, not to argue for the inclusion of that material, but to argue against another editor's claims. My point is this material is not notable and has not been recognized by the mainstream press, except a couple sentences in NYT, which are already quoted here. Neither you nor anyone else posted a counter-argument; I removed the material based on what amounts to a consensus by default. If you have a good reason that material should be included here, by all means tell us what it is. So far you have not once indicated in any way that you even have the foggiest idea what this page is about. All you have indicated is that you don't like my blog.--csloat 11:45, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Steve Birmingham is using Wikipedia as a personal attack tool

I have shown him the post where I changed my analysis of the al-Quds document as soon as the bad translation PROVIDED by the government was confirmed. This was not our translation as he keeps saying. It was the governments. And I am not clinging to a bizarre theory as I have told him, data changes, conclusions and analysis changes. I posted an update to change my analysis as soon as Sammi confirmed the document was translated badly. Yet he is now using wikipedia to bash me when I have clearly proven his allegations wrong. If there is an administrator who reads this, please prevent him from posting further as he is going to ruin wikipedia's credibility. Ray Robison

Greetings Ray. Can you provide any evidence to back up your claims about Stephen Birmingham? Or about the al-Quds document? His point seems consistent with the conclusions of the Iraqi Perspectives Project about that document.-csloat 11:47, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello csloat. To clarify, I am not writing to "back up" my intial conclusion about the al-quds documents. I wrote to say that although I changed my initial conclusion as soon as the government provided translation error was confirmed to me, Steven Birmingham is still smearing me by saying I am still making the same conclusion. evidence from april 7th [3] "Despite the obvious, Robison maintains that the anthrax plot was real." Here is what I said on March 28 when it was confirmed that the government translation was in error "UPDATE: In the comments section, a reader told me that the translation provided by the FMSO was incorrect. I considered at the time that this might be true, but I decided to wait until I could talk to Sammi about it. Sammi agrees that the translation was bad and that it does change the analysis and the conclusions completely. Which is why I am really glad I said in the original article: "Unless we see a translation that is different". With the new wording of "Radio Sawa" to replace "impaired broadcast" it becomes clear that the memo is about broadcasts from a radio station.

A bad translation is always possible but I reasoned that a translation that was used for a study (as I believe most of the early release documents were) would be vetted. It was not. So moving forward, I hope and expect my readers will take the time to inform me of incorrect translations, or facts that I have wrong. If I had totally dismissed the readers objections, I would not have deferred the matter to Sammi. I do listen to what you all have to say and I appreciate informed comment much more than you may think." [4] Over a week after I changed my analysis of the document based on the change in interpretation, SB is still claiming I refuse to change the analysis. Now I ask you, I demonstrated that I am reasonable (I am a military analyst for a living) and can change conclusions with new information where as steve is still making these claims despite the fact I have shown him my new conclusions. Who is the reasonable one and who is using wikipedia to discredit a legitimate source of this valuable information? And now I see all reference to Sammi's valuable translations have been removed. This is pretty unfair as the incorrct translation that caused the flap was a government translation. Sammi's have been bullet proof and very valuable. I will not go in and write up these docs on wikipedia since I think it should be objective and not involve the principles. For the same reason Steve Birmingham must not be allowed to edit as his site is as opposed to the documents as mine is a proponent. I respect the wikipedia process and this should be monitored. Looking again I am not sure if Steve is doing the editing or if he is being referenced for the editing by others, I am not familiar with this process not having edited here before. If he is not editing, then just consider this a statement that the incorrect information Steve Birmingham is providing through his website is a biased attempt to discredit a valid souce, a former member of ISG and a linguist who has provide valuable translations that have never been disputed even once. Sammi has translated the IIS diary, the russian scientists hiding in surprise inspection document, the arab men anonymous in afghanistan document, the Russian ambassador troop strength document, and others that have never been disputed. Looking again I see that csloat has a website with an extreme anti Iraq war and anti Bush view point. I have asked a moderator to review his website and work here and determine whether his editing of this article is reasonable. I have stated and will say it again, my website is a proponent of the war and in the interest of maintaining wikipedia objectivity, I will not edit here. For the same reason, csloat should not edit this article. And again, the original translations that are provided on my blog www.rayrobison.com provided by Sammi have never been disputed. BTW, I don't know why my comments are posting in this eratic format, but would somebody who is familiar with the editing please fix it, thanks.(above by Ray Robison)

Look Ray, don't jump on the bandwagon whining about my blog. If you don't like my blog, you, like everyone else, are invited to post your questions there. But having a blog does not invalidate my ability to contribute to this encyclopedia. Since you consider yourself an expert on my blog, you must have noticed that it has nothing to do with this page. As for the quotes from your blog that have been removed, not a single person - not even you - has stepped forward with an argument about why these items meet Wikipedia standards for notability. I don't have a problem with them being included once they are mentioned by published sources. But I don't think this is an appropriate place to showcase your blog. It is strange that you complain about my blog, yet I have not asked to have extensive quotations from my blog included on this site anywhere.--csloat 17:50, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Csloat obviously has zero objectivity and wants to turn wikipedia into his blogg. Notice I said I wouldn't edit and he should not and he replies with vindictiveness. By the way, the original translations I have published have been referenced in the NYT, the Guardian, Lemonde, and at the Pajamas Media website where they are still featured. They have also been featured in two radio interviews. That notable enough for you? No, then maybe the fact that this work is being read at the House of Representatives will do it for you. No? I am sure you will now proceed to describe some abstract standard by which you and only you determine what is suitable to wikipedia. But the truth is, I don't care if our work is here or not, but you should not be making the decision for the entire free world as an obvious political operative. - Ray Robison

What vindictiveness? I know you were cited in such sources, and I even included the citation for the NYT in the article! All I am saying is that I don't see a reason for things to be included here which are not cited in the NYT or other similar sources. That's really it; I apologize if you find something vindictive about that. There is no "abstract standard" necessary; when your work is cited by the Guardian or whatever, we can cite and even quote such things. And please stop bringing up my blog; as I said, it has nothing to do with this page, and I have never asked that quotations from my blog be included here.--csloat 03:04, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Ray, I have answered your charges in the comments section of my blog. Point 1) I did not accuse you of mistranslating the original document. I said you misinterpreted it. These are two different things. (WordWeb: "Translate" Restate words from one language into another language. "Interpret" Make sense of; assign a meaning to.) The original translation error wasn't big enough to occlude anyone from determining the true nature of the document. The truth is that you ascribed the meaning to the document that you wanted without giving proper consideration to any rational alternative. Visitors to your site pointed out your many mistakes but you preferred your conspiracy theory over the truth. Point 2) I was not aware of the update until you informed me of it. I accepted and acknowledged that you amended your web page in my first reply to you on my blog. Even so, you only changed your tune when it was abundantly clear that you were flogging a dead horse. Point 3) No, I am not currently editing here so you can relax. Point 4) You are not a professional intelligence analyst, nor a linguist; you have been rebuked by your seniors once before; you are verbally abusive (as anyone who visits Rays blog will see); you have zero credibility. -- Stephen Birmingham 17:20, 11 April, 2006

Ray, I note that you have only updated one post on your web site to reflect your new analysis, whereas the page that is attracting the most attention and the one that started all of the controversy remains unchanged[5] Are you not concerned that your faulty analysis is still propagating across the internet? – Stephen Birmingham, 18:08, 11 April, 2006

Steve, 1)once I had the correct translation I knew what the document was, not a misinterpretation, a mistranslation. Therefore your accusation that I misinterpreted the document is incorrect. If you had said the document was mistranslated and I had an incorrect conclusion, no problem. But you have not mastered the discipline of intellectual honesty or specificity and rely on twisting the truth in a negative way to destroy what would have been a valid point otherwise. Lots of people did in fact come to the same conclusion I did, including two long time analysts, one of whom has a supporting statement in the most recent article. Of course his conclusion changed as well with the new translation because the term "impaired broadcast" seemed to indicate a tactical transmission not a media source. Thanks for showing us your psychic ability by determining what alternatives I considered. In fact my conclusion was one of several possibilities I considered and best fit the translation available at the time. When that data changed, the conclusion changed. That is how a real analysts operates, not one like you who refuses to admit that your conclusions were invalid. You specifically said over a week after I changed my conclusion that I refused to alter my conclusion. You are factually challenged. 2)I wonder, did you update that post to reflect the fact that I changed my conclusion the same day I was informed of the translation error? RRRIIIIGGGGHHHTTTTTT. Or does it still say I refuse to change the conclusion? Of course it does. Because you are not an honest person. Look inside yourself and recognize that problem before you tell anybody else how to behave. Again you are dishonest when you pronounce publicly that many visitors to my site tried to correct me. In fact one person who speaks arabic informed me of the mistranslation which is what caused me to ask Sammi to review the original and I changed the conclusion that night. Hardly unreasonable, take notes and learn if you have the capacity to at least be honest with yourself. 3) you might not be editing but the lies you spew are being used as arguments against valid data relevant to this article and that is unfair. 4) You say I am not a professional intelligence analyst. Wrong. My duties with ISG involved analysis of captured media for intelligence value. That makes me a paid intelligence analyst (with the exact same material in question here) and shows that you once again are either completely dishonest or painfully uninformed as I have stated repeatedly that I analysed captured media for the Iraq Survey Group. Currently I work as a senior military ANALYST. Again easily attainable info.

As to being rebuked by my seniors, I said I was rebuked by an intel analyst, not my senior and that many of us with ISG who found valuable intelligence faced the same clueless intel analyst. Again you are twisting the truth to try to discredit me. In fact I have been repeatdly awarded by my seniors. But you twist one confrontation with a clueless cubicle riding analyst into a disastrous career. You sir are a liar and I am verbally abusive to you because you deserve it.

BTW, when a paper prints a correction, do you expect them to go around to find all the copies and update it there or just print a correction on the next edition? You are getting awfully desperate to discredit me because you know one thing, I AM THE BLOGGER WHO IS THE BIGGEST THREAT TO LIBERALS LIKE YOU BECAUSE I KNOW THE VALUE OF THESE DOCUMENTS AND HAVE THE EXPERIENCE AS AN ARMY OFFICER AND ISG ANALYST TO PROVIDE EXCELLENT ANALYSIS. YOU CAN'T DISCREDIT THE DOCUMENTS SO YOU COME AFTER ME. Guess what, it ain't working. I get thousands of readers a day from all over the world and even congress. They see the documents for themselves everyday and there is nothing you can do to stop it. So you can send you little agents to spread your lies on wikipedia. Who cares? The wiki contributors will fix csloats domination of the process eventually. He has to sleep sometime and they will make the changes. TA TA

(above by Ray Robison)

Your comments speak for themselves, Ray. If your blog is such a big deal, you should have no problem waiting for your analysis of these documents to be cited in recognized journalistic or other official outlets before insisting that they be detailed in an encyclopedia. With all the calls rolling in from congressmen and such, it shouldn't take long.--csloat 04:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Csloat said "you should have no problem waiting for your analysis of these documents to be cited in recognized journalistic or other official outlets before insisting that they be detailed in an encyclopedia". I said ON THIS PAGE "But the truth is, I don't care if our work is here or not". Truth is but a dream to you sir. - Ray Robison

The line, sir, is "you can't handle the truth!" And as long as we're agreed that your interpretations of these documents do not (yet) belong on this article, we should have no problem with our competing "truths."--csloat 18:23, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Ray, you are going around in circles, wasting time, not addressing the substance of my points at all. We were all working from the same document remember. It wasn’t just poor old you. The single translation error applied to all of us. Instead of taking your time and giving careful consideration, you just had to race off shouting "Saddam's WMD and terrorist connections all proven in one document!!!". No objective analyst would have acted the way you did. You can’t now hide your embarrassment behind the single translation error because that error wasn’t big enough to stop people from determining the true nature of the document. Think about that. Don't just come back here waving your arms around, pretending that you have been unfairly treated.

You also committed the Fallacy of Exclusion when you cropped important evidence that undermined your argument. Look at list number 2 in the original translation [6] and then look how you reproduced it on your blog [7]. When people put in an ellipsis like this (…) they are not supposed to omit anything that, if quoted in full, would alter the original meaning. You broke that important rule to make it appear as though the Iraqis were importing American-style uniforms and killing Iraqi citizens for propaganda effect, when in fact the original document suggests that this was the excuse the Americans were giving for the high casualty rate. List number 5 also indicates that this isn’t a planning document but you brushed all of this information under the carpet.

I queried your selective quotation at the time. I argued that it wasn’t a planning document as you wanted others to believe but that it is most likely a mixture of reporting, some of it possibly broadcast by Radio Free Iraq. I submitted this view in one of the two other posts you made on this topic (al-quds document line 2 [8] al-Quds document line 3 [9]) but you subsequently deleted both entries and the attached criticism.

To recap: You hastily (mis)interpreted the document; You excluded important information that undermined your argument; You rejected earlier criticism not on the basis of its strength or veracity but on the basis of the perceived political persuasion of the person critiquing your work; You deleted information from your site that did not lend weight to your flimsy analysis; You only changed your tune when your friend Sammi said you were flogging a dead horse; You have failed to update the page that attracts the most attention with a retraction.

So please, don't come here talking about intellectual dishonesty.

The only valid point you make is that I erroneously asserted that you continue to stand by your flimsy analysis when in fact you had since abandoned it. I acknowledged this the moment you brought it to my attention, and I apologise unreservedly for it. For the record, I will be updating my page fairly soon with a small note of explanation. But you probably won't like it. -- Stephen Birmingham, 20:10, 12 April, 2006

[edit] House Subcommittee hearing

If you've got a couple hours to kill, check out the video attached to the House hearing I added to the bib. Included at the hearing are Daniel Butler of ODNI as well as the USJFC folks behind the IPP study. There is some stuff for conspiracy theorists to distort in there, too, so Ron and Mr. galt should have a field day listening to stories of terrorist training at Saddam's camps, especially as filtered through the lens of Dana Rohrabacher's leading questions. Back on earth, however, the USJFC guys are not having it, and they make clear that the Fedayeen Sadaam terrorists were secular and were part of Saddam's latter-day-Saladin fantasies rather than any kind of collusion with al Qaeda. More interesting than any of that is the description of the four-tiered vetting process that these documents went through before being released, giving lie to the view that there are going to be any smoking guns here. The docs are often characterized in the media (esp the Weekly Standard) as having not been looked at, or only glanced at, but Brig. Gen. Cuculo, Lt. Col. Woods, and Butler point out that all of these docs have gone through an elaborate process of vetting and being looked over by linguists with security clearance before being put on the internet. It's pretty clear that any truly exploitable intel in this material has already been exploited. Other hilights include the discussion of the forgeries (pretty blatant forgeries are simply not being posted). Also very interesting are the speeches of Committee members Delahunt and Schiff, who both point out that this hearing seems like a distraction for a committee that should be investigating the things they actually have oversight on, like the $9 billion that went missing during Iraqi "reconstruction," rather than in the history of Saddam, as interesting as it is. As Schiff notes, "my constituents are not writing letters demanding to know whether Saddam Hussein was a bad guy"... Interesting stuff. Unfortunately, there is no transcript.--csloat 09:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Have you got a link to the video? I can't seem to find it. Thanks. --Stephen M. Birmingham 15:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

It's okay. Got it here. [10] --Stephen M. Birmingham 16:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Csloat: "The docs are often characterized in the media (esp the Weekly Standard) as having not been looked at, or only glanced at, but Brig. Gen. Cuculo, Lt. Col. Woods, and Butler point out that all of these docs have gone through an elaborate process of vetting and being looked over by linguists with security clearance before being put on the internet." I believe the documents are reported as having not been translated prior to their release in the declassification process. The emphasis is that these documents may never have been translated had Peter Hoekstra and company not secured their release. -Futobingoro 16:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Correct, they have not been translated, but the emphasis among some is to make it sound as if they have not even been looked at by Arab translators. They have, and they have been vetted for exploitable intelligence. That is why experts seem to agree that there will be no surprises in these documents.-csloat 23:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I think csloat is correct here. Given the pace at which the docs are being posted, they seem to be looking them over a bit prior to posting. However, that does not mean that all 2 million+ documents have received scrutiny, only the docs that are getting posted. The bad news (for those of us who are pleased by a role for citizen translators) is that citizen translators are not be the first to lay eyes on the documents. The good news is that there is increased interest in the documents and they will actually be released and translated. The "experts" in the intelligence community that are trying to preserve the status quo can be expected to say there is no "smoking gun" or anything of interest. But truthfully several documents have already "put the lie" to that claim. Now no one can eriously sclaim that Saddam would never cooperate with Islamic terrorists. We have the documents that show he would and did. The 2002 version of Michael Scheuer certainly believed that even if the 2003 version of Scheuer did not. (See the Talk page of the Scheuer article if you do not understand that reference). RonCram 00:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Ron, did you watch the video? You might want to. They claim the documents have all been looked at, and we have similar statements from ODNI as well. I'm not sure why you think it is "bad news" that inexperienced "citizen translators" without security clearances won't be the first to look at these; I am not a supporter of more secrecy, but I do think it makes sense to have sensitive documents vetted before put on the web. The experts are not "trying to preserve the status quo"; they are offering their expert opinion to those who ask. If you believe there are smoking guns here, that's nice, but we certainly haven't seen any. Only a few suggestive documents that have been creatively interpreted by the likes of Ray Robison and other bloggers. Of course, your misinterpretation of Scheuer's opinions simply aren't relevant to this page.--csloat 00:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

csloat, I haven't had time to watch the video but I am willing to accept the fact the intelligence community is saying the posted documents have all been looked at (as I stated above). However, I am also pointing out that was not what Congressman Hoekstra requested - nor what President Bush requested - when the idea of posting the documents on the internet was put forward. The idea to put them out there so the government could get help translating them was a positive idea as the "History of the documents" section shows. Regarding Scheuer, I am not misinterpreting him - simply attempting to quote him. Your attempt to silence me regarding Scheuer's flip-flop is another example of your basic attempt to control what others know and think. You are constantly telling me what I can say and what I cannot say and where I can and cannot say it. The fact is the issue of an operational link between Saddam and Osama is, was and has been hotly debated within and without the intelligence community for a long time. For some reason, you do not want wikipedia readers or editors to know this. In fact, you pushed for calling the Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda page the "Conspiracy Theory of Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda Link" or similarly ridiculous and prejudicial. In fact, I believe you still "own" a page with the title "Conspiracy Theory" in it. A great deal of evidence points to an operational link and a certain logic argues against a link. These "suggestive" documents, as you call them, significantly support the idea of a link as point forward by Michael Scheuer, Bill Clinton, George Bush and published reports around the world - including ABC News. By the way, I noticed someone removed the link to the ABC News broadcast from the Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda page. Was that you? Or was it one of your friends who also likes to control what people know and think? That article is hugely biased and does not contain half of the facts we know to be true about the link. csloat, I am saying this as nicely and civilly as is possible. You need to take a long look at the way you edit wikipedia. Your efforts to censor valid content is damaging your credibility. At one time you agreed to stop censoring and I agreed to quit calling you a censor. But giving your recent edits, I have to point out that you are back to your unacceptable habits. RonCram 10:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not sure what to do with all that. You should probably take your comments about Michael Scheuer to that page, and your comments about Saddam and al-Qaeda to that page. No need to make any of this personal, Ron, let's stick to the issues relevant here. And please stop pretending I am a "censor." I made very clear above which documents I thought were not notable according to Wikipedia standards and why. I explained my reason and asked for responses defending the inclusion of these documents. Nobody stepped forward to defend the inclusion of documents that have not been commented on by the mainstream press. It's a simple standard to use, no real "grey areas," and it is consistent with Wikipedia policy.--csloat 18:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please don't use this page to showcase original research

Wikipedia is not a place to showcase your favorite blogger's attempt to translate these documents. The section on individual documents begins with a mention of news stories; let's stick to reputable news sources here. If the document I deleted really does show that Saddam buried chemical weapons underground, it will be picked up soon enough by FOX or the New York Sun or some other news source more reputable than freerepuyblic or worldnetdaily. Thanks!--csloat 03:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

csloat, WorldNetDaily is a reputable, albeit conservative, news source with a very large readership. WND is not a blog. I do not delete edits I do not like because the source is a liberal news outlet Slate or NY Times. RonCram 12:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you provide more information about WorldNetDaily? My apologies if this is considered a reputable source. The brief article cited here looks like a blog entry to me.--csloat 20:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

WorldNetDaily has broken a number of news stories.[11] It is conservative news outlet with a huge readership. Its White House correspondent was a rather annoying guy named Les Kinsolving, but I think they finally got rid of him. RonCram 05:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Joseph Shahda's selective/partial translation makes no mention of secretly concealed unconventional weapons - despite his best efforts to herd people to that very conclusion. It only mentions "chemical material", which could mean almost anything, including production equipment, contaminated hazards, or pure waste product. The Iraqi's didn't even bother hiding this particular disposal from local residents, which points to some kind of by-product.

The WorldNetDaily piece [12] with it's sensational headline, "Memo reportedly shows location of WMD" cannot be justified, so far as I can see, as should be deleted.

We also need to discuss Joseph G. Shahda's selectivity when translating these documents; his overt bias; his predisposition to believe that Saddam Hussein was still producing/hiding weapons of mass destruction shortly before the 2003 invasion, despite compelling evidence to the contrary; and his capacity for making ludicrously false statements. [13] Ste B 23:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Please sign your entries to the Talk page with four tildes (~). You make a number of comments I do not understand. Why do you say Shahda's translation is "selective/partial?" Are you saying if he had translated the entire document, the reader would come to a different conclusion? How did you come to that view? Can you translate Arabic? While no "original research" can go into the article, original research can keep bad information out. Regarding the term "chemical material," it is highly likely to be a euphemism for "weapons-grade chemicals." If these chemicals were not banned, the Iraqis would not have buried it and worried about its being found. It is true that Shahda believes Saddam controlled and hid WMD, but he cannot change the original Arabic wording. Shahda is only a translator. His translations have been checked by translators working for media outlets and been found very reliable. No doubt Shahda has translated many documents that do not speak to the issue of WMD or Saddam's link to terrorism. When that happens, Shahda does not publish his translations. I'm thankful for that because I don't care to read about Iraqi aircraft maintenance procedures. I do want to read about Saddam's WMD and links to al-Qaeda. Why do you say Shahda makes ludicrously false claims? What claim is false? How do you know?RonCram 06:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

On what basis is the term "chemical material" "highly likely to be a euphemism for weapons grade chemicals"? As Stephen notes, they could easily be chemical waste. Who has "found" Shahda's translations "very reliable"? Your making bizarre assertions here, and they seem to be based only on a predilection to believe that WMDs are involved.--csloat 06:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The context makes it clear this is a banned substance. The Iraqis are hiding it from international inspectors by building an underground concrete chamber to store it. Since concrete is porous, the chemicals were clearly stored in large drums that were protected by the concrete. This is not the way chemical waste is treated. In addition, the Military Industrialization Commission was responsible for Saddam's WMD program in the 1980s and beyond.[14] Shahda's work has been vetted by media outlets. Weekly Standard checked his translation before publishing. I'm certain the Boston Globe did too. [15] Ray Robison, a blogger who also writes for FOX News, also hired two translators to check his translation. [16] As one newspaper columnist notes: "The translations include the document number and page number, so anyone fluent in Arabic is free to check to see if the translations are accurate." [17] No one has come up with any problems with Shahda's translations. You are showing a predilection to disbelieve any evidence that shakes your worldview. RonCram 11:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Ron the Boston Globe article only mentions chemicals to quote the ONDI saying the documents don't show that there are stockpiles of chemical weapons in Iraq. I understand you included it to lend legitimacy to your claims - the rest of your cites are from blogs here - but it doesn't even seem to address this document. You also haven't shown any evidence that they or the Weekly standard "checked his translation." It's not a predilection to disbelieve, Ron, it's a healthy skepticism about claims that are very ambiguous; that skepticism is especially healthy given that the person forwarding the claims is a known prevaricator. In this case, it is pretty clear that no stockpiles of chemical weapons have yet been found in Iraq. If this document will help lead us to some, that's terrific; by all means, let us know where they are.--csloat 22:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that Joseph Shahda may only be translating extracts that would lend support to his conjecture by deliberately excluding any information that would help the reader come to a different conclusion. My concern stems from Joseph's handling of historical facts and other information, which I have caught him abusing on his web log [18] (see comments section). With respect to his latest translation, the Iraqis made no effort to conceal this "chemical material" from local residents, commissioning several overt lorry loads of cement, which suggests that the material was some kind of by-product. Hazardous material is often covered over with several layers of hard compound whereas material you may one day wish to recover is covered in a manner that can be easily extracted. Again, the translation makes no mention of weapons of mass destruction and so the WorldNetDaily piece is in serious error. Ste B 14:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Stephen, please sign your Talk Page entries with four tildes ~ ~ ~ ~ without the spaces. It makes it easier to see where one comment leaves off and another begins. You left a link but the linked page must have ten different comments sections. Please link to the comments section you were referring to. You are incorrect when you say the Iraqis made no effort to conceal the chemical material from local residents. The Iraqis certainly did not announce the nature of the chemicals being stored in their community and local residents knew better than to ask. Your comment also suggests you think you know how this concrete chamber is constructed, but the translated document just does not say. It could be done in a manner to make it easy to recover the chemicals. By the way, chemical by-products are usually made safe by using biological degradation or some other treatment program. They are not just buried in the ground like this. It seems apparent the Iraqis wanted access to these chemicals in the future. RonCram 20:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Ron your post indicates that there is a lot of ambiguity about what this document says; it appears to be you who is jumping to conclusions about it. Where does the document mention weapons of mass destruction?--csloat 22:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Sloat, did you read my earlier comments? "Chemical material" is almost certainly a phrase for "weapons-grade chemicals." The Iraqis buried them in a manner consistent with weapons, not by-products. The memo is to the commander of the WMD program and they were hiding it from WMD inspectors. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck... RonCram 22:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Ron, in fact I did, and I found them unconvincing. "Chemical material" is almost certainly a phrase for "chemical material." Your assertion that it means "weapons" is simply an assertion; the evidence is ambiguous. If this document really points to the existence of buried stockpiles of WMD, by all means, let's find them Ron!--csloat 23:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Ron, I did sign my last message with four tildes. In my browser each individual message is clearly indented. Am I doing something else wrong? Regarding Joseph's distortions: I refer you to his June 2 entry, "Chemical Material Hidden Underground", where he says Hussein Kamel fled Iraq and told that Saddam was still hiding weapons of mass destruction. In fact Kamel said precisely the opposite, as I have shown. Again you talk about the construction of a concrete chamber. This is somewhat misleading. Where, in the the original document, is the building of a concrete chamber mentioned? (i.e. a structure that has walls). Ste B 01:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's go through each of the points of this document

1. 'A team ... did bury a large container said that it contains a Chemical Material' As has been noted, this is suspicious but is not 'slam dunk' evidence of WMD.

2. 'The container was buried using a fleet of concrete mixers.' Again, a little excessive for 'chemical by-products' or 'hazmat waste.'

3. 'Before the departure of the international inspectors in 1998 a United Nations helicopter flew over the region for two hours.' Can't really deduce anything from this.

4. 'A large number of the region residents know about this container from the large number of machines used to hide it then.' Hard to tell why this is noted. Could be anything from paranoia to a simple detail.

5. 'It was noticed a non ordinary smell in the region.' Suspicious, but not conclusive.

6. 'No official visited the burial site through out the years which give the impression that it is not currently known by the Military Industrialization Commission.' Again, could be paranoia or simply an acknowledgement of a detail.

7. 'Positions for the air defense were digged in the region that surrounds the quarry place without them knowing anything about the container. Also next to it are important headquarters like (Saddam factories-The warehouses of the Commerce ministry- Headquarters of Mujaheeden Khlaq).' This is the most suspicious, and when taken together with the other notes, makes this document a truly interesting piece of information. The document implies that the nearby headquarters and warehouses were present before the burial of the container - these air defenses were dug for the 'chemical materials.' Also, whether "them" refers to the air defense construction workers or the soldiers who manned the installations, why weren't "they" told about the container? -Futobingoro 18:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Certainly going to the place described in the document and taking a look would be far more conclusive than speculation by random Wikipedia editors based on a translated document. Hopefully someone has thought of that?--csloat 18:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suicide Mission volunteers

Interestingly, Ray Robison disputes the meaning of document BIAP 2003-000654, as interpreted by Joseph Shahda. Quote: "The document is from an air force base commander of an air force base seeking volunteers for suicide missions. Joseph said "also they were recruiting Suicide Terrorist Bombers to hit US interests" in his analysis. This would have been an easy mistake to make. A lot of us assumed that these volunteers were from the air force and were most likely pilots. After thorough research, it turns out Talib (Taleb) is another name for Tallil Air Base. They are both identified as being near Al-Nasiryah. ... [Global Security] says that this air base stopped flights when it was taken out during the gulf war. Its primary function at the time of this document was as an ADA site. This facility housed the ADA sites that were firing on coalition forces patrolling the southern no-fly zone. In March of 2001, Saddam began an intensive program to fire at coalition planes to test the newly elected President Bush. These ADA sites were taken out by coalition aircraft many times in March of 2001. Indeed, serving at one of these sites and firing at coalition forces would be a suicide mission. It is clear with this new context that these suicide missions were not for terrorist attacks, but for military combat missions." [19] -- Ste B 04:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Ray is being overly generous here. First, I should point out that Ray has no problem with the translation, only with Joseph's interpretation. Second, an air defense artillery site could be considered a "suicide mission" in one sense, but no military force on earth would call a defensive position a "suicide mission." More importantly, an air defense artillery site could not possibly be able to "liberate Palestine." A suicide mission is obviously an offensive mission. Joseph Shahda's interpretation is clearly the correct one. RonCram 04:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

It could rightly be termed a suicide mission if they were expected to target overhead U.S. fighter-bombers. Conversely, why would Saddam ask for volunteer suicide bombers from an air base when there were no shortage of volunteers in Palestine? It makes no sense. And just how many suicide bombers emerged from Iraq? None, to my knowledge. We need certification as to the documents meaning, ideally from Iraqis themselves. -- Ste B 16:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Stephen, no military force in the world (that I know of) would describe a defensive position as a "suicide mission," even if there was very little chance of survival. More important, a defensive position will in no way achieve the stated objective to "liberate Palestine." I do not know the number of suicide bombers from Iraq, but I do know of one Iraqi infantryman who joined al-Qaeda and went on missions with Iraqi Intelligence Service agents. It appears to me that this request for volunteers were given to other military installations and branches. RonCram 19:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Iraqi Links To Al-Qa'ida

This from the recently released Senate Intelligence report, pages 62-63: "The Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), which is leading the exploitation effort of documents (DocEx) uncovered in Iraq, told Committee staff that 120 million plus pages of documents that were recovered in Iraq have received an initial review for intelligence information. [...] DIA officials explicitly stated that they did not believe that the initial review process missed any documents of major significance regarding Iraq's links to terrorism. During an interview with Committee staff, the lead DIA analyst who follows the issue of possible connections between the Iraqi government and al-Qa'ida noted that the DIA 'continues to maintain that there was no partnership between the two organizations.' " Ste B 23:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disclosure of nuclear weapons design; Article cleanup needed

NYT says the website was pulled because they posted some serious nuclear stuff, we need some hands to help work this article esp. since it had some exposure on the drudge report. Emax0 03:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the BBC also said (c 3 Nov 06) that all the documents had been pulled because nuclear weapon design information was there (in Arabic). The 'expert' on the BBC World item refused to discuss in detail what was released, as it was too sensitive. But it seems hard to turn up any news about this. Is it a cover up? - Earthlyreason

[edit] "May or may not"?

Papers "may or may not" have been produced by Saddam Hussein's government? This is meaningless. Clearly someone thinks they were: quote them, and give attribution. E.g. "Operation Iraqi Freedom Documents refers to ... that the U.S. Government claims were produced by the government of Saddam Hussein". Or something. Anything's better than a meaningless tautology. JulesH 19:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Some were, some weren't. The docs included letters to Saddam Hussein, translations of documents from other sources, etc. They were presumably mostly found in intel offices, but even that is not sure. One of the docs that was cited early as an example of "proof" of Saddam's ties to terrorism was described as a secret Mukhabarat document; it turned out it was an Arabic translation of a web page that had been published by the Federation of American Scientists in the mid-1990s. There are a lot of different documents here - some 48000 boxes, apparently - so it would be inaccurate to claim they actually were produced by the Saddam govt or even that they are suspected to have been produced by it. I agree that "may or may not" is atrocious, however; it was the best whoever wrote that passage could come up with at the time -- I'm sure we can do better (e.g. "documents found during OIF"?)--csloat 20:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help requested sorting out references

I've tried to put the references for this page in standard format, but there are a number of broken links. We also need some attention to the external links; there may be duplications... Alba 05:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Obviously some of the broken links are because the documents were taken offline. I also think all the Shahda documents should be removed. Few took him seriously before, but it is now very clear that he is off the deep end; his "Coded letter find" last month should have been the nail in the coffin of his credibility (even the freepers laughed at him). The fact that he and the Republicans who were instrumental in getting this material prematurely published have possibly compromised US national security is a sad irony of their cluelessness. --csloat 08:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Purpose & Appropriate

Is the purpose of this article to reference Iraqi Freedom documents, or is it to serve as a repository of essays regarding Iraqi Freedom documents. I removed one such instance from external links that was particularly POV, however it should be noted that they're rife on both sides of the issue and should probably be removed. Thoughts? /Blaxthos 08:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

My feeling is that such links should only be included if they are referred to in the article or if they are important documents about the issue.-csloat 08:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The purpose of the article is to provide information on this important innovation in intelligence analysis. It is especially important for articles about DOCEX to be included since DOCEX itself has been taken down. Your complaint about linked articles being POV is no reason not to include them. Wikipedia's policy on NPOV is not about silencing POVs but on giving voice to all legitimate POVs. I have restored the link you deleted. The issue discussed in the link certainly warrants discussion in the article itself, but discussion in the article is not required. One of the purposes of an encyclopedia is to provide researchers with additional sources for their research. RonCram 13:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

First, you've deleted a lot of valid information detailing recent events. I'll be reverting. Second, the purpose of this article, like all others on wikipedia, is to provide encyclopedic coverage of notable information in a NPOV manner. Third, this "important innovation in intelligence analysis" led to a huge breach in national security (which is the information you deleted, replacing it with outdated information). Fourth, as for the links, if they aren't cited in the article, they should go - there is no reason for a lengthy list of articles from the Weekly Standard. If I started putting in a list of articles from the World Socialist, they would rightly be deleted (unless they were valid references from the article). Fifth, you added a bunch of unnecessary junk to the New York Times website link that applies to session information - such information should not be stored on Wikipedia. The link ending in html is fine. If you are going to change anything back, please justify changes individually (and make them individually) rather than wholesale reverting; I am guessing at least one or two of the issues I am reverting here were honest mistakes. Welcome back, Ron!--csloat 20:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

First, I did not delete any valid information. The claim the documents revealed nuclear information not available elsewhere is still on the page after my edits. You can check the history. I only restored information that should not have been deleted. Second, the purpose is to provide information in an NPOV manner and deleting information like you and your friend have done is not NPOV. Third, "the important innovation in intelligence analysis" has been wrongly castigated by the intelligence community. Readers deserve access to published information on both sides of this debate. Your edits are limiting readers to only one side of the story. This is not NPOV. Fourth, the articles linked will eventually be noted in the article itself. You have to give some time for the information to be read by the wikipedia community so the info can be digested and written into the article. Fifth, I do not understand your comment regarding "session information." RonCram 05:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I found the info regarding "session information" you mentioned. That was not a change I made intentionally but was the way it was on the page I reverted to. The way it was, it linked to the printable version of the article - which I think is fine but I have taken out the session info since you requested it. However, you have not demonstrated that the information you deleted was outdated or POV and so I have restored it.RonCram 05:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Ron, you deleted an entire section entitled "Nuclear secrets" that dealt with recent developments in favor of adding in outdated information. The material that was deleted is out of date and no longer relevant -- nobody found any Saddam/alQaeda links in the documents, the SSCI confirmed this, and the question of whether these materials were properly exploited before being released on the net is no longer a relevant one. It's odd to me that a couple days after you come back you immediately start a revert war by making edits that make it seem as if nothing changed in the world after you stopped editing wikipedia. I'm not sure who my "friend" is in your post. You say I am limiting info to one side of the story; I see no evidence you've even read what you deleted. What is it you think I am hiding? If an article "will eventually be noted" then it should "eventually" be cited -- we cite sources when we make the claims that need the cites, not before we've even used them for anything.-csloat 06:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Sloat, I am sorry. I did not scroll down far enough to notice that change. I did not intend to delete that material. Although, after reading it, I am not certain it is encyclopedic. It seems rather polemic to me, but I would not have just deleted the info without discussing it and the reasons for deleting. Your claim that no one found any Saddam/al Qaeda links is not accurate. The SSCI did publish a report making that claim but the report itself was roundly criticized in the ongoing debate. Your attempt to limit wikipedia readers knowledge of this onging debate is not NPOV. Your "friend" is Blaxthos. He has a very similar POV as you do. I strongly disagree with your view that the article has to note a citation before the link is allowed to stay. Wikipedia is a collaborative community effort. Ideally, one person can add a link and someone else can read it and add an entry to the narrative. Your idea is not wikipedia policy. One of the main purposes of an encyclopedia is provide additional sources for researchers so they can do further research. RonCram 06:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I don't know Blaxthos. The SSCI report was "roundly criticized in the ongoing debate"??? If by "roundly criticized" you mean "treated as the final word on the topic by all serious commentators" then perhaps you have a point. There is no "ongoing debate" about this - the matter is settled; except for a few voices out on the extreme fringe of right-wing conspiracy theory, and those voices are not encyclopedic. The Republican-led Senate Committee was pretty resounding in its conclusions on the matter. As for citing every article you find in the Weekly Standard, it doesn't fly. If we aren't using the article or referring to it in the text of the article it shouldn't be there. I'm not going to start filling up the list of references with cites from leftwing sources for "balance." None of that stuff belongs there. NPOV sources or government documents or other official sources are relevant, but editorial comments from extremist hacks on either side do not belong unless they are explicitly cited.-csloat 06:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox for anyone to stand on -- it is an attempt to catalogue knowledge. WP:NPOV is not a blunt instrument you can use to wedge POV sources or information into articles, via references or external links. As far as RonCram -- I only just ran into him on another article a few days ago, and here. His behavior -- including false claims of personal attacks, and repeated POV pushing in multiple articles -- has caused me to no longer assume good faith regarding his edits or his agenda. I found this article quite by accident and noted (above) my question regarding its purpose and its POV (note on both sides). I do not have the time to argue back and forth with editors with an agenda -- I will gladly participate in any RfC's or straw polls on this topic, but I won't give validation to those who game the system or wikilawyer. /Blaxthos 08:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)