Talk:Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Notice The title of this article, "Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda", has been chosen after lots of discussion and numerous votes, with unclear consensus. Ongoing discussion is always welcome.

Contents

Archives

Archive1

April, 2005

Archive2

April, 2005

Archive3

April-May, 2005


Requested move on 26 July 2005

Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda → Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda conspiracy theory – {As noted in this discussion and vote, the use of "conspiracy theory" in titles should be consistent; in the case of this page the phrase is certainly accurate} — csloat 05:38, 26 July 2005 (UTC) The suggestion is to move it to Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda conspiracy theory:

Editors may wish to review the previous naming votes here and here, and also discussion on the article name here, here, here, and here.

This vote is now finished

Yes

  1. --kizzle 05:30, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  2. --csloat 05:41, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  3. -- RyanFreisling @ 14:05, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  4. -- JamesMLane 19:27, 23 July 2005 (UTC) Wikipedia policy should be not to use the term "conspiracy theory" in article titles. Nevertheless, our actual policy is to use the term, so we should use it objectively. It would be blatant POV to have 9/11 conspiracy theories for allegations that U.S. officials were conspirators, yet not use the same term when those same officials are the ones alleging a conspiracy.
  5. Yes per JamesMLane. 172 | Talk 05:42, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  6. Ditto, per JamesMLane. Shem(talk) 06:58, 26 July 2005 (UTC) (deleted by MONGO, restored by csloat)
  7. Ditto per ditto --ClemMcGann 11:32, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  8. Though I would prefer something like "Allegations of links between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaida" -- Rama 11:33, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  9. --Heraclius 21:21, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  10. --Irishpunktom\talk 11:36, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
  11. Very reluctantly. I would like to see a better name, but I'm not sure what would be better. My vote would be for merging this with the other Iraq/al-Qaeda page, but alas, most people don't want that. I can be swung the other way if I see just one good argument. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 16:10, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
    Actually I think there is a consensus to delete the other page and merge anything necessary in here. --csloat 18:46, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
    Well, if that means including all of the post-2003 invasion al-Qaeda/Iraq links, than the whole thing should be moved to Iraq and al-Qaeda, or something like that. Vote moved to no on the "conspiracy theory" title. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 19:20, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
  12. Kevin Baastalk: new 18:59, July 27, 2005 (UTC) If this were a matter of my opinion, I would be voting no. But this is not a matter of my opinion, it is a matter of policy that has already been determined, and therefore this vote, being unable to overturn that policy, is effectively meaningless.
    almost all of the users that left a comment when voting for the title "conspiracy theory" said "case by case basis". In fact, the majority of users said that the term should either: a) never be used or b) only used on a case by case basis (24 to 20, by my count). I suspect that even those that voted with unqualified support would not support the use of the term for the "theory" that 19 hijackers "conspired" to attack the U.S. on 9/11, so I think that your appeal to policy falls flat. Dave (talk) 20:12, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
    Yes, someone already brought this point up to me on my talk page, and I already addresses it: I took the liberty of counting all of the "case by case", and found, as you did, that even after subtracting these votes from their respective -yes- or -no- polls, c) always be used, still had the plurality of votes (much to my dismay). As you can see, I voted for a) never be used, voicing the same arguments that many of those opposed to the move are using here, but those arguments failed to convince those voting "c) always use" or simultaneously by vote "c) always use" and by word "b) case-by-case", and ultimately "c) always use" won out over both my first choice, "a) never use", and my second choice, "b) case-by-case". Kevin Baastalk: new 21:05, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
    And let me reiterate that I am defending a policy that I am very much against, and would therefore like very much to believe that my "appeal to policy falls flat". This is why I tried to establish a "case-by-case" vote. However, a more aggressive approach to establishing such a vote was not socially/politically tenable at the time, and in the final analysis we can only rely on what people have expressed, as it would be unjust to try to trump what has been said with personal speculations as to what they "might have", said, if this name change was brought up as a point of consistency, which it was. Kevin Baastalk: new 22:01, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
    Does that vote really have any weight as a "policy?" It doesn't have the policy template on it like WP:NPOV, or even a "guideline" template like WP:POINT. Dave (talk) 23:00, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
    It's being enforced, regardless of any superficial dressings or lack thereof, and regardless of the judgements of those like you and me who do not support the decision. That is what matters. Kevin Baastalk: new 23:56, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
  13. Ruy Lopez 18:12, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

No

  1. ObsidianOrder 15:39, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  2. Noel (talk) 16:42, 21 July 2005 (UTC) I would support a variety of new names, such as a number of the ones suggested by Zen-Master (a rare moment of agreement between us :-), but this one is just too combustible. Noel (talk) 16:15, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  3. Klonimus 05:22, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  4. --MONGO 06:46, July 26, 2005 (UTC) Perhaps another name altogether, as mentioned below would be even better?
  5. gidonb 10:29, 26 July 2005 (UTC) The article deals with the alleged and the real ties of Saddam Hussein's regime with Al-Qaeda. It needs to be cleaned up from POV and get back to the non-facts and facts. The proposed name change only strengthens the POV.
  6. Dave (talk) 13:13, July 26, 2005 (UTC) I'm unimpressed with the argument that this is merely a "theory about a conspiracy." It's too widely believed to be called a "conspiracy theory."
    Wide belief does not make it less of a conspiracy theory, i.e. a theory that these entities conspired together.--csloat 18:29, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
    I just said I didn't find that argument compelling. A conspiracy theory is not a theory about a conspiracy. Dave (talk) 18:38, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
    Well then what is it, a theory about baseball? I'm not sure I understand your definition of conspiracy theory if it is something other than a theory that a conspiracy exists (or existed). --csloat 18:49, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
    Calling something a conspiracy theory makes a statment about proponents of the theory, not the theory itself. As Phil Shearer noted below, the connotations are very different from "collaboration theory" or "theory about a conspiracy." Dave (talk) 19:06, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
    That's certainly not denoted by the phrase though it may be a connotation that some believe. There are accurate conspiracy theories. For example, the theory that 19 hijackers conspired to attack the US on sept 11. A "conspiracy" is a concept in law that deals with collaboration to commit a crime. The connotations are a separate issue, but are you saying you would prefer an otherwise unweildy title like "Theory that Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda Conspired to commit terrorist acts"?--csloat 00:13, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
    Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda seems to fit the bill, as does Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda collaboration theory. Dave (talk) 23:02, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
  7. Yeah, I vote no on this one. "Conspiracy Theory" has its own connotation, and its own community of general believers, and they're pretty distinct from the folks who believe in this item. They'd probably get all insulted and start screwing around with the page and make a lot more work for everybody. Gzuckier 13:21, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  8. Daniel11 14:35, 26 July 2005 (UTC) This isn't a political diary.
  9. WehrWolf 15:47, 26 July 2005 (UTC) The phrase "Conspiracy Theory" is by its nature essentially POV.
  10. nobs 16:33, 26 July 2005 (UTC) Historical evidence as of yet does not support partisan motivations
  11.  Grue  18:51, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  12. Briangotts (talk) 18:59, 26 July 2005 (UTC).
  13. TDC 20:34, July 26, 2005 (UTC) What ever conspiracy theories may or may not exist can be dealt with in an article with a less loaded title. Let this be a warning to what’s wrong with voting consensus on Wiki with regards to inflammatory issues like this. TDC 20:34, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
  14. A.D.H. (t&m) 23:17, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
  15. Voting is evil, but this is still a bad idea for a title. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 23:37, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  16. Too inflammatory and POV in this case. --TJive 04:16, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
  17. Perhaps another name but not "conspiracy theory" --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 04:37, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
  18. Reluctantly. See my previous vote in "Yes". --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 19:22, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
  19. --Silverback 07:53, July 28, 2005 (UTC) The facts would indicate more a collaboration on areas of overlapping interests than any conspiracy. Those alleging a conspiracy should document their views with facts.
  20. There are known connections between the two. Reporting those facts should be in an article named such as this. Reporting the theories of people who think saddam was involved in 9/11 and the like should be in an article named *-conspiracy theories. -bro 172.170.36.43 05:01, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
    The only difference between collaboration and a conspiracy is that a conspiracy is collobaration towards the ends of criminal activity. look it up in a dictionary. Are you suggesting that terrorism is not a criminial activity? Kevin Baastalk: new 11:50, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
    The proposed the title change includes the word theory and "collaboration theory" does not carry the same baggage of extra meaning that "conspiracy theory" does, in modern usage. Secondly the political and social implications of using collaboration and conspiracy are similar to using guerrilla and terrorist. Did Americans conspire or collaborate on the American Declaration of Independence? (no need to answer that one POV at a time is enough) Philip Baird Shearer 12:54, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
    I will, anyways: Arguably, they conspired. They were conspiring to revolt against what at the time was their government. In a sense, it depends on your philosophy of law, and thomas jefferson was basing the declaration of independance on a radical new philosophy of law known as "natural law". at the time, this was not an established philosophy and certainly would not have passed any social test in anywhere but the fledgling nation. In any case, as I have stated, the question comes down to a question of a criminality. in certain cases the question of criminality itself becomes subjective. for example, as you alluded to, republicans and democrats might have different views on what constitutes a "criminal act". The question of what constitutes a "criminal act", is, as you point out, a political and social question. And in the case in question, terrorism: i ask whether anyone is disputing that terrorism is a criminal act, whether from a political or social perspective. Kevin Baastalk: new 21:28, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
  21. Too inflammatory and just plain wrong. The Clinton Administration held a working relationship existed between the two prior to 9/11. A fact that should be noted and sourced in this article. RonCram 13:14, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
    That's not a fact, it's plain wrong. It contradicts known facts. Most likely that's misinformation you got from a right-wing propraganda source. Kevin Baastalk: new 15:43, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
    Even if true, all it would prove is that Clinton got that wrong too. As it is, it is inaccurate anyway. But I fail to understand why conspiracy theorists always claim "Clinton believed this too" as if that were meaningful. He didn't even know the definition of "is." --csloat 21:27, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
    Conclusions by the Clinton Administration are just as valid as conclusions by the 9/11 Commission, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence or US District Court Judge Harold Baer. To seek to deny the readers access to those conclusions just shows your partisan effort to control the flow of information. RonCram 20:52, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
    You're being ridiculous - please assume good faith. I do not seek to "deny readers access" to these conclusions; I just question their relevance. All major figures from the Clinton Admin who posited an al Qaeda-Saddam link have since changed their minds. You have to realize that our understanding of al Qaeda was in a pretty primitive state before 9/11, because so few took them seriously, and the ones who did, perceived them through older models of analysis (the "state sponsored terrorism" thesis) that are not as relevant to a diffuse network like al-Qaeda. People cite the fact that Richard Clarke used to think there was a link as if it proves that the link must be true. Oddly, these are the same people who dispute Clarke's credibility now. It seems they're incapable of understanding that people can change their minds about something when confronted with new evidence about it. I'm also unclear why you say I want to refuse people access to the conclusions of Judge Baer. But don't pretend these opinions have the same weight as a bipartisan commission assigned with the specific mission to investigate these sorts of things, especially when their conclusions have the benefit of years of hindsight (as opposed to the opinions of some Clinton admin members back in 1998). Some Clinton officials -- e.g. Daniel Benjamin -- investigated the al Q link with the belief that they would have found links to Saddam, and were surprised when their research proved the opposite. I think it's silly to think that we should give greater weight to what these people said in the mid- to late-1990s than their conclusions after years of further research specifically focused on the issue. --csloat 23:17, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
    Newspaper articles linking Saddam and Osama were published even before 9/11. The linkage was accepted as fact before it became a political football. Now you want to paint the numerous substantiated contacts between the two as a "conspiracy theory." The reason people dispute Clarke now is because he changed his view purely for political reasons. No new information came out to change his mind. No old information was impeached. I normally do assume good faith but your comments and those of Ryan have shown you want people to have some pertinent information but not all. I don't do that. You cannot pretend to have a NPOV when you are constantly trying to suppress information or denigrate it without cause. As for giving information weight, that is for the reader to do. An encyclopedia does not tell people how to think. RonCram 17:15, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
    What can I say - you are flat out wrong about this. There is no evidence Clarke changed his mind for political reasons. He changed his mind on this topic well before 911 - probably in 1999 after Benjamin's Red Team study. Also it's not just Clarke, it is Benjamin, it is Scheuer, and most of the Clinton administration that dealt with terrorism. And every nonpartisan journalist that has investigated the issue has also reached this conclusion -- NYT, WP, AP, BG, CT have all published notable articles on it. And the only times nonpartisan investigations specifically addressed the issue -- Benjamin's study and the 911 Commission -- the conclusions were clear that no connections were found. Shadowy meetings do not a conspiracy make -- meetings took place in the mid-1990s that led nowhere. How can you say no new information came out between 1998 and 2005? I am not trying to suppress any information, and the only information I "denigrate" is based on evidence, which I present. I cannot believe you still cling to this conspiracy theory in the face of all the evidence, but that is your choice. And remember, Benjamin's study went in trying to prove that their was a connection but their conclusion was that the evidence did not support the claim. You whine that Clarke is politically motivated yet you want us to believe notorious hacks like Feith and Hayes. Get a grip! Look, if you have specific information that you think I have left out of the timeline then please add it. I will not and have not deleted legitimate and pertinent information. But if you post things that are known to be untrue, I will either delete them or add explanations. And yes it is the encyclopedia's job to give information proper weight. Not all information is equal. Should an encyclopedia refuse to evaluate the flat earth theory or the Holocaust denial theory?--csloat 17:40, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
    There is no evidence Clarke changed his mind before 9/11. He didn't change his mind until after Bush rejected the Clarke supported doctrine of measured response. Remember Bush saying "I'm not going to fire a $2 million cruise missile at a $10 pup tent just to hit a camel in the ass!?" Clarke took that as a stinging rebuke to his advice. I do not cling to a "conspiracy theory" but a reasonable explanation of the facts. The same conclusions reached by a US District Judge, the Senate Select Committe on Intelligence and the Clinton Administration (prior to politics being involved). An encyclopedia does not need to "evaluate" the "flat earth theory" any more than it needs to "evaluate" Adolf Hitler. You certainly do not begin the article saying "Adolf Hitler was a bad man" or "Adolf Hitler believed in conspiracy theories." Refer to NPOV. An encyclopedia simples lists the facts good and bad and the readers gets to make up their own minds. RonCram 02:30, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
    Are you kidding? There is no time "prior to politics being involved." And Clarke being ignored as chief of counterterrorism has nothing to do with his views on whether Saddam worked with OBL. Are you suggesting Clarke was lying, selling out his entire country (after working in public service for decades), just because he was pissed that Bush blew him off? I can't believe I'm even responding to this. Look - you're not just claiming "politics" here. For your hypothesis to be true, not just Clarke but also a number of people who worked in the Clinton, Bush I, and Reagan administrations would have to not just be "playing politics" but to be outright traitors, willing to sacrifice this country's ability to fight and win a war in order to achieve some nebulous, undefined political advantage. How the hell lying about Saddam and al Qaeda would help anyone politically is never explained. And what political advantage was gained by Clarke (a man who left politics), or others (like Benjamin, O'Neill, Kwiatkowski, and Scheuer, who were never in the public eye to begin with). You bring up the district court decision again -- this is not the conclusion of a district judge; there is simply a ruling on the books due to the other party never showing up to court. Yes it is true it is possible to sue Saddam and win, because he won't show up to defend himself; that does not prove truth and you know it. We had that argument on another page and you lost it there too. You bring up the SSCI -- <a href="http://intelligence.senate.gov/iraqreport2.pdf">here's the report</a>. Feel free to add its conclusions to the timeline. It's a Republican-dominated committee and certainly can be more credibly charged with "playing politics" than Richard Clarke. Additionally the committee was not charged with finding out whether a Saddam/AQ relationship existed, but rather with a different mission, and this question was a subset. But even so, read their conclusions on this topic, pp. 340-349. The committee concluded that the CIA's assessments that there was no operational cooperation between Saddam and AQ were reasonable. In other words, the SSCI concluded the exact opposite of what you believe they concluded. This is most likely because folks like Stephen Hayes have incorrectly quoted passages from the document out of context to support this claim. The report is critical of CIA activities in many instances but it does not present any evidence to question the lack of a Saddam-AQ conspiracy, and it concludes that the CIA made reasonable assessments of the evidence here. It even (p. 363) refutes your comment that there was no reason other than politics anyone changed their views after 9/11 -- it specifically says that after 911 there was pressure to be more accurate when reviewing the evidence. Finally -- I agree the encyclopedia should present the facts. I did not use Hitler being "bad" as the example -- I said holocaust revision. Which is an incorrect interpretation of the facts, that should be refuted or simply not taking seriously in such a work. I also mentioned the flat earth theory. The point is, if the evidence suggests something is true, that is what the encyc should report, not just give credence to any old crackpot theory just because some nut believes it. --csloat 04:54, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
    Politics were not involved prior to 9/11. There was not two sides to the issue of the connection between Saddam and Osama. It was reported in the papers and accepted as fact by most everyone. Certain people had doubts mainly because of their religious differences but both are known to have worked with people who did not agree with them religiously. Heck, Osama did not even agree with the Taliban on religion. Your claim that SCCI did not find proof of "operational cooperation" is false. You know these conclusions because they were in my previous article you had deleted. Here they are again:

Conclusion 94. The Central Intelligence Agency reasonably and objectively assessed in Iraqi Support for Terrorism that the most problematic area of contact between Iraq and al-Qaida were the reports of training in the use of non-conventional weapons, specifically chemical and biological weapons. – Page 346

Conclusion 95. The Central Intelligence Agency’s assessment on safehaven – that al-Qaida or associated operatives were present in Baghdad and in northeastern Iraq in an area under Kurdish control – was reasonable. - Page 347

Conclusion 96. The Central Intelligence Agency’s assessment that to date there was no evidence proving Iraqi complicity or assistance in an al-Qaida attack was reasonable and objective. No additional information has emerged to suggest otherwise. - Page 347

Conclusion 97. The Central Intelligence Agency’s judgment that Saddam Hussein, if sufficiently desperate, might employ terrorists with a global reach – al-Qaida – to conduct terrorist attacks in the event of war, was reasonable. No information has emerged thus far to suggest that Saddam did try to employ al-Qaida in conducting terrorist attacks. - Page 348

Conclusion 94 says Iraq trained al-Qaeda in chemical and biological weapons. Conclusion 95 says Saddam extended safehaven to al-Qaeda. It is pretty hard to read that and say there was no "cooperation" between the two. This was a bipartison committee. The Democrats had every right to issue a minority report if they felt the facts were not being presented fairly but these conclusions were not in doubt. I don't have time to argue the case decided by Judge Baer. But your attack on him is an attack on the American judicial system that allows trials in absentia. RonCram 06:15, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

For Christ's sake, Ron, read conclusion 96: "The Central Intelligence Agency’s assessment that to date there was no evidence proving Iraqi complicity or assistance in an al-Qaida attack was reasonable and objective. No additional information has emerged to suggest otherwise." Many of the other conclusions are speculative (i.e. whether Saddam might use terrorism if attacked); the real question relevant to us is whether there was operational cooperation which the SSCI explicitly said the CIA was right about (i.e. there was none). And it's really exactly the kind of distortion that I am talking about that you exclude conclusion 93: "The CIA reasonably assessed that there were likely several instances of contacts b/t Iraq and AQ throughout the 1990s, but that these contacts did not add up to an established formal relationship." The stuff about chems and safe haven are specific points that have all been refuted (over and over again) and I am getting sick of repeating it. They are of course already in the timeline where they belong and dealt with in turn. What is really silly is people like you continuing to rely on the claim that al Qaeda operated in northern Iraq, meaning MEK and the Kurds, a place where Saddam could not operate, and on top of it MEK was (and still is!) supported by the US! In any case, if you have evidence of something not in the timeline, you are invited to put it there, as I have said over and over. But don't insist that the introduction dwell on your little conspiracy theories.

Now on to Judge Baer - you're whining that I'm attacking the judicial system. I am not. I am explaining how it works. There is nothing wrong with having trials in absentia. There is, however, something wrong with assuming that an assertion becomes true just because nobody shows up to court to refute it. It is one thing for Saddam to lose the court case; it is quite another to assume that since Saddam lost, he must have been connected to al Qaeda. We need real proof, not a big nelson "ha-ha, you didn't show up, therefore you lose" kind of argument.--csloat 06:35, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

  1. No. Conspiracy theory suggests that there's nothing to back up the claim, which is false. --Badlydrawnjeff 13:44, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Nope. Conspiracy theory suggests that it is not reasonable and objective, which is true (read Conclusion 96). Also, notice that Conclusion 96 says that there's "no evidence" to back up the claim. So it appears that you've also been misinformed on that point. A lot of people have been seriously misinformed about this topic, and it seems that they've all been misinformed by the same source. Let's not promulgate that misinformation. Let's keep this article "reasonable and objective". Kevin Baastalk: new 00:57, August 5, 2005 (UTC)


"How the hell lying about Saddam and al Qaeda would help anyone politically is never explained." I'd like to point out that there's evidence to suggest Bush had gained politically by lying about Saddam and al Qaeda. There's also evidence to support that that CIA fucked up and by extension Bush fucked up by not having the CIA present better evidence. Regardless of which side of the fence you sit on it is indisputable that the reason we went to Iraq was because of "a smoking gun, which could come in the form of a mushroom cloud" and it's also indisputable that we have found nothing. It's not, however, indisputable, that they aren't still hidden somewhere, or they got shipped to Syria or Iran. I don't personally believe this, but it's disputable. Anyway, the point was, it should be fairly clear how lying about Saddam and al Qaeda could help someone politically. It's unfortunate all this two-party nonsense has lead to anyone on either side lying (or even misleading, if not lying) to the public about such matters. This is why everyone should vote for the Socialist party, Nader, The Green Party, The Conservative Party or the Libretarians. BOYCOT the TWO MAJOR PARTIES! There's not a lot I would agree with the Conservative Party about, by my God, it's got to be better than all of this partisan bullshit. Vote for me, '08 Dawhitfield 01:37, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Other, titles should not use "and"

  1. -- We can come up with a better, more neutral title than the above two options. zen master T 14:29, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
    • It's most unfortunate that any attempt to rename it (again!) was not preceded by a discussion to find an alterntive name that might be a) suitable, and b) agreeable to most; I suspect a lot of your suggestions, while not as condemnatory as some might like, might have been acceptable to people who opposed the "conspiracy theory" name. Noel (talk) 21:36, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree with Noel. ObsidianOrder 21:58, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
      ObsidianOrder, you supported the use of "conspiracy theory" in article titles, and when told that this would mean that this article would have to be renamed, you continued to support that position, without disputing the assertion that this article would have to be renamed. Kevin Baastalk: new 21:10, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
      "this would mean that this article would have to be renamed" - I fail to see why. I have always held that "conspiracy theory" should be used very selectively. You are taking the "always or never" position, not me. If you're claiming that I said something else, cite it. ObsidianOrder 21:20, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
      You misconstrue me, I am claiming that you didn't say something. Kevin Baastalk: new 21:31, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Discussion moved from WP:RM

This proposed use would not be accurate or consistent with other uses. The current name is the result of extensive discussion and several votes, the last one of which was overwhelmingly in favor of the current title. ObsidianOrder 06:07, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

:This should probably be moved to the Talk:Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda page, not here; the name is accurate and consistent with Wikipedia policy established at the above link (from my post). The current name change proposal is different from the one voted on at the link above (in ObsidianOrder's post). --csloat 06:54, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

What counts as consensus on a new name

Please see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_majoritarian_democracy for the relevance of voting to consensus in Wikipedia policy. -- RyanFreisling @ 05:29, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

4 to 3 (as of 20:38, 24 July 2005 (UTC) - Zen-master's clearly not in favour of the proposed new name, although they aren't happy with the existing one either, something I can sympathize with) does not count as rough consensus on a new name, especially when the new name includes the inflammatory phrase "conspiracy theory". I have therefore moved it back. Noel (talk) 20:38, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

I think we need more input -- 7 votes is not enough to settle anything I don't think. It would be nice to have input from others in the wiki community who aren't as obsessed with this topic as the 7 of us. I also would like to see input from Kevin Bass who did the renaming originally as well as from the otehrs on the discussion about "conspiracy theory" pages in general. It appears Kevin was renaming the page in response to another vote on such names as a general category. Anyway I don't want to say this is settled after such a small sample voting; I'm not going to muck with the title again but I don;t think we can call the voting over. Isn't there a way to officially request that others take a look at the arguments here?--csloat 21:11, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
Yes, post it on Wikipedia:Requested moves. I agree that this is an insufficient number of votes. Thank you, it's very reasonable of you to say that. ObsidianOrder 05:06, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
OK I am in the process of posting it now. I just added the move tag at the top of this page.--csloat 05:28, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

JUST WANTED EVERYONE TO KNOW THAT I MUST HAVE ACCIDENTLY OVERRIDDEN OR DELETED A YES VOTE...I APOLOGIZE AS IT WAS ABSOLUTELY UNINTENTIONAL.--MONGO 07:41, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Further discussion on the requested move

I am personally ok with moving it, but i'm a bit tired of arguing on Wikipedia for a while so just going to drive-by vote. --kizzle 05:30, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Me too but the point of going to the requested page move route (someone provide the right link?) is to get other voices evaluating this question.--csloat 05:48, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
"Conspiracy theory" is errant language from that start plus there is more than one way of interpreting who is conspiring which is additionally ambiguous (the iraqis or the neo-cons conspiring to set them up). Something along the lines of Baathist Iraq and Al-Qaeda controversy or Pre-invasion Iraq and Al-Qaeda controversy or Alleged links between Baathist Iraq and Al-Qaeda would be more neutral than any suggestion or title I've seen to date. zen master T 09:48, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
I like Zen's suggestions here; I don't have a particular favourite, but all of them are fine, and an improvement on the current title. The suggested "conspiracy theory" title is just going to cause enormous controversy; it's easy to pick something non-imflammatory that still makes it plain that there was no significant tie. Noel (talk) 16:42, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
There is nothing ambiguous about who is considered to be conspiring when "Saddam Hussein" and "al Qaeda" are part of the title. "Controversy" is not accurate, whether or not it is neutral. This is a theory that the two entities conspired. I am fine leaving the title as is though I think the other is more accurate. But please not "controversy"; it's too unweildy and ambiguous. Would you have a Holocaust Controversy page to have neutrality on the question of whether the holocaust occurred? A Moon Landing Controversy page for neutrality about whether we landed on the moon? Established facts are reported as such and conspiracy theories have such labels attached. Your suggestion of Alleged Links is good but why "Baathist Iraq" rather than "Saddam Hussein" who of course ran Baathist Iraq? Seems to obscure the issue. --csloat 11:53, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
None of the alleged links have Saddam meeting with Al-Qaeda directly, instead it was members and agents of the former Iraq government which is why the title should be more general to reflect this fact. Also, these arguably dubious links to Al-Qaeda were used as a justification for the invasion of an entire country, not just the removal of one dictator/leader so the title should be more general to reflect this fact (signify Iraq not just its former leader). Baathist Iraq is another way of saying pre 2003 invasion Iraq. Note the title of Celebritites with links to the U.S. Democratic party. The POV problem with the title centers entirely around the word "and" as it hints at a relationship or a conclusion. How about World governments with links to Al-Qaeda? (the U.S. and Rumsfield's 1980s handshake would of course be included) zen master T 14:29, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
Zen's suggestions are not bad, I would support any of them except "alleged" which I feel also pre-judges the issue too much. "Controversy" is fine since the significane of the links is indeed controversial. "Alleged" is not, because the existence of (some) links is established beyond reasonable doubt. Unfortunately, this is not what we have to vote on right now. ObsidianOrder 06:58, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
How does "alleged" prejudge anything? The whole point of the word is the opposite. It states these are allegations. Stop pretending there is any evidence of links -- we've gone through the tedious task of researching and refuting (or at least contextualized) every last one of them. How can you say the existence of some links is established beyond reasonable doubt? That's hogwash. The only evidence of this is some shadowy meetings in the early 90s that everyone agrees led nowhere. When these points are brought up in discussion you selectively refute something and then ignore the rest, and you just keep pretending the matter has been settled in your favor. Why is it you are so attached to this conspiracy theory? I know we could argue forever and it won't change your mind, which is fine, but you can't lose the arguments here but then still insist that everyone pretend you're right anyway in order to maintain the illusion of "balance." Anyway I would support "alleged" in the title, or "conspiracy theory", or nothing -- though perhaps it is time for someone to seriously work on an article The CIA and al-Qaeda just for "balance." Sheesh. --csloat 07:25, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
Judging from the source of the allegations OO posted, and the nature of his web site, I'd guess he'd actually support an article entitled The CIA and al-Qaeda, since after all, the CIA oppose the PNAC (Bush, Perle, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld and all the neo-cons), and anything that does not support the premise must be eliminated. I'd suggest an article titled 'The PNAC and al-Qaeda' to explore just how many curious overlaps between al-Qaeda and the individuals who hold our country in the fire of war while changing the reason we fight. -- RyanFreisling @ 14:12, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm a little torn here. If we want the article to be about the theory that Iraq had some role in the al-Qaeda attacks of Sept. 11, then the page should be moved. Why not just have this page as it is and talk about the "conspiracy theory", the evidence Bush did, or did not, produce, the role al-Qaeda has played since the invasion of Iraq, and any other percieved connections between the two. Is it really necessary to have an article about a conspiracy theory? Give facts, show evidence, and show all sides. Perhaps I'm way off-base here. Please feel free to reprimand me here. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 15:50, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, perhaps neither choice is optimal, but the current situation is that there are a few people who want to make this article into a "debunking" instead of a balanced presentation of the evidence as we know it (and I think it is pretty good at the moment). Calling it a "conspiracy theory" (which is pejorative) definitely plays to that, and that's the only reason for the proposed move. That's why I would ask you to vote against this move. By all means, let's think of a better title - but also let's not pick a title that would make keeping this as a reasonably balanced article really difficult. ObsidianOrder 15:59, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
Actually, it's not pejorative. It's a theory (with some evidence to support it) that two groups (Saddam's Iraq and Al Qaeda) conspired to attack the U.S. on occasions like 9/11. And hearing you (the original poster) call this article 'balanced', and decry other users' 'debunking' is completely laughable... the article now consists of attempts to contextualize and inform the one-sided intelligence allegations you pasted here without undergoing the effort yourself to fact-check them, and stepped back as others sorted out your propaganda.
Frankly, it's like someone who caused a traffic accident commenting on how happy he is that no one was hurt. You're entitled to your opinion, as always, but there comes a time when idle words simply don't reflect truth, and when the title of the article doesn't reflect the nature of the facts within. Like now. If this were not based on leaked classified info, it would be far easier to find and 'debunk' every untruth, until whatever is left is irrefutable. So we're left with disinformation and countering fact. Hardly encyclopedic. -- RyanFreisling @ 16:16, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Ryan here. A "balanced presentation of the evidence as we know it" - which is what OO calls for - is in fact a "debunking", since the facts as we know them are that this conspiracy theory is bunk. We should not "balance" truths with lies or distortions, and it is simply false to say that this conspiracy theory has any evidence to support it. The contacts that these entities had over the years - like the contacts al Qaeda had with Germany or the CIA - have all been examined by intelligence analysts and journalists and everyone but a few ideologues have concluded that they could not have amounted to any kind of cooperation (and certainly not in the case of 911). The only people who still cling to this theory are like Stephen Hayes and Douglas Feith -- absolutely unwilling to give it up no matter how many times they turn out to be wrong. Anyway I am glad OO believes this is a balanced article because I agree - every single bogus claim of cooperation has been refuted, tedious chore that it is.... So we are left with no substantive links between pre-2003 Iraq and al-Qaeda.
Sadly, the US invasion, based partly on the kind of misinformation that some are trying to spread here, has now ensured that al-Qaeda affiliated terrorists now roam freely throughout Iraq, where they were once persona non grata. And of course they now have access to weapons that the US invasion "liberated" at facilities like al-Qaaqa and possibly nuclear material from facilities such as the Baghdad nuclear facilities previously administered by the IAEA before the war. But the ideologues were too busy distracting us with disinformation about an Iraq-al-Qaeda conspiracy to bother to try to guard those facilities. Meanwhile things in Iraq have gotten bad enough that it's not even fun to say "I told you so" anymore.... --csloat 01:31, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Before you accuse me of being a Bushie, a right-wing nutjob, or a Nazi, let me say that I wasn't in favor of going into this war. That being said, I feel that you are trying to mislead people. You say that "things in Iraq have gotten bad enough that it's not even fun to say "I told you so" anymore." You cannot be totally serious, right? Why do people forget the good that has come out of this? Schools, roads, etc. For Pete's sake, the ability for women to vote, drive, and be free to do what they want!!!! That's amazing stuff. I am not even going to mention the Kurds, who I am sure don't mind having Saddam out of power. 2,000 soldiers dead is not good, but how many people did Saddam kill? I agree there should have been some other way of going about ousting Saddam, but none seemed to be working. I lost my train of thought now. Well anyway, just my thoughts. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 15:14, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
Are you serious? Roads and schools? You think they didn't exist in Iraq before the war? We're helping to rebuild some of what we destroyed, which is good, but that's hardly a benefit to the war. And you must be joking about women's rights -- or you are confusing Iraq with Afghanistan. Baathist Iraq under Saddam was a secular country. As Juan Cole writes, "Contrary to the propaganda Bush's team is so good at producing, the secular, Arab nationalist Baath Party had passed some of the more progressive laws and regulations about women in the Middle East. Iraqi women in the 1970s had unprecedented opportunities for education and entry into the professions." What's happening now is the US liberation has liberated some of the more reactionary fundamentalist forces who were otherwise kept in check by Saddam -- oppression of women by fundamentalists today makes the situation in Iraq far worse for women than under Saddam. Don't get me wrong -- I opposed that murderous thug Saddam since the mid-1980s when I first learned about him (and when Reagan was supporting him) -- but oppressing women's rights was not one of the things to hate about him. And I am glad he no longer rules Iraq -- it was an authoritarian state under Saddam, and there were many murders by the state. But let's not make things up in order to praise Iraq's liberators. We set loose a hornet's nest, and we are now dealing with the fallout, and one piece of fallout is women's rights.
Anyway I was just ranting -- none of this has any bearing on the encyclopedia entry -- but it makes me nuts to continually read propaganda stated as fact by people who are presumably being honest about what they think -- whether it has to do with womens rights in Iraq or whether it has to do with terrorism. My little rant above was about Iraq and terrorism -- to everyone who believes the war was somehow an attack on al Qaeda, look at the real situation in Iraq now and realize that it has made al Qaeda (and other extreme Islamist terrorist groups) far stronger than ever before. Bush says we fight them in Iraq so we don't have to fight them in America (or London) -- well, he has ensured that we will be fighting them in both places for a long time to come. --csloat 16:47, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
Yes, it must be AAAALLLLLLLL Bush's fault. Quit it! It is not the western world that causes terrorism. al-Qaeda is to blame (for this example, not all terrorism). It would be nice to see people quit blaming people for other people's actions. There must be some personal responsibility. And when you say "the secular, Arab nationalist Baath Party had passed some of the more progressive laws and regulations about women in the Middle East..." Wow, does that mean they don't stone them to death for venial crimes? Being a lesser evil does not stop you from being evil at all. Okay this discussion has moved way off topic, and I think we all should get back to the matter at hand. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 18:06, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
Fact: There was no suicide terrorism in Iraq prior to the US invasion. NONE. There were no Iraqi suicide bombers. Not a single one. Now we have both Iraqis and non-Iraqi Muslims blowing themselves up. Secular baathists who used to get drunk and watch Western TV shows are becoming more fundamentalist and are blowing themselves up fighting for Allah. I didn't say al Qaeda was not to blame for terrorism; I said that the US invasion has dramatically increased terrorism and made al Qaeda stronger. I am not blaming someone else for what they do; I am blaming the Bush administration for a counterproductive strategy that has only made things worse. As for the position of women in Iraq: you are basically misinformed. Iraq was not some kind of 14th century throwback or Taliban type country. I was responding to your argument that the war had liberated women -- it is quite the opposite. I'm not saying things were great in Iraq before the war but I am saying conditions for women's rights have gotten worse -- they really are in danger of being stoned to death now; there have been several incidents of fundamentalists throwing acid on women's faces who don't wear the veil, for example - like they do in Afghanistan. This sort of thing did not happen under Saddam. I'm not playing the blame game here I am just insisting that we keep the facts straight. And in this case the facts seem to suggest that the invasion was entirely counterproductive, at least as far as fighting terrorism goes.
And you're right this is all offtopic but again I just can't watch people repeat propaganda without contesting it. --csloat 18:27, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
Right, and what you're saying isn't propaganda. Nice work there. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 18:35, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
Correct. Propaganda is systematically distorted communication. This is not. It is opinion based on facts. If you know of different facts please feel free to present them. Not all opinion is propaganda. --csloat 18:51, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
Before I type the rest of this, let me say I agree with csloat on most of this and I'll also confess to being a Socialist, so I think that puts me left of left. Anyway, the definition of propaganda is:
  1. The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.
  2. Material disseminated by the advocates or opponents of a doctrine or cause: wartime propaganda.
curtesy of dictionary.com
No where does it mention "systematically distorted communication." However, I would argue that it bears that connotation too often. "Propaganda is bad." Please. *rolls eyes* "Systematically distorted communication" is bad, but that's not the definition of propaganda. I can't think of a piece of "propaganda" that SOMEONE wouldn't disagree with though, which in his/her eyes, would make it bad (The Bible, AIDS health info, Rush Limbaugh, etc.). Dawhitfield 02:00, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Please do not change the name while voting is still going on. Thank you. ObsidianOrder 05:14, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

In comment on my vote of no change...just wanted to clarify that I would also be in favor of a complete title change. The arguments I am reading above in this discussion are both valid and represent the pro invasion/anti invasion of Iraq mindsets. I was always under the understanding that the invasion of Iraq was due to Saddam's obtuseness in complying with the weapons inspections and that the purpose to invade was due the the alleged WMD's he was accused of having. The Al-Queda links were just a small portion of their argument to substantiate the invasion. Nevertheless, I don't see that there the words "conspiracy theory" should be part of the title. Let the article be the place to discuss whether this is true or not.--MONGO 07:03, July 26, 2005 (UTC)


this has already been voted on to the affirmative here. (among those voting yes were ObsidianOrder) Kevin Baastalk: new 12:00, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

No, Kevin, this has not been voted on. That vote was about whether anything should be called a conspiracy theory, and I voted yes with some rather important qualifications which you neglect to mention. This vote is about whether this should be called a conspiracy theory. You may think it is, others may disagree. To assume that the general vote applies in this particular case is unwarranted, and to represent it as though it definitely applies with no further details is disingenuous at best. ObsidianOrder 15:29, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
You voted yes with some rather subjective qualifications - so subjective as to be completely meaningless - you pretty much said "yes, but only when it seems appropriate". and then you gave yourself a pat on the back for such precision! i read your qualifactions, and let me assure you that as long as you continue to speak that way, i, and everyone else in the world, will fully agree with every such qualification you make! however, such self-described "important" qualifications as you made with your vote do nothing in the way of determining what any given article's name should or should not be.
With regard to the discussion on "conspiracy theory", let me reproduce here a snippet:
Jayjg, others, including me, have a much simpler definition for "conspiracy", and therefore "theory of conspiracy", often written "conspiracy theory" for brevity: conspiracy: An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act. a "conspiracy theory" is thus: a theory of an agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act. Some people have supported the use of the phrase "conspiracy theory" in articles that do not fit either this definition of "conspiracy theory", or your more narrow definition thereof, elaborated above. That is why we are having this discussion. Kevin Baastalk: new 21:10, 2005 May 3 (UTC)
Wonderful. Using this argument we can agree that pages that have the phrase "conspiracy theory" in the title are appropriate when they discuss a theory of an agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act. Finally, a breakthrough!--Cberlet 21:21, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
There remains the problem that the phrase has acquired a social stigma that may inappropriately prejudice the article, and thereby make for a POV title, and that this stigma and prejudice should be avoided for the sake of accuracy and neutrality (and what one might call "political correctness"). That's a tricky issue. Certainly I agree that pages that do not discuss a theory of an agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act should not contain the phrase "conspiracy theory" in their title, but when it comes to logical bijection, we have to seriously consider whether we are genuinely willing to accept put the phrase "conspiracy theory" in the title for all article that discuss a theory of an agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act, such as the Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda article, which does exactly that. Kevin Baastalk: new 21:47, 2005 May 3 (UTC)
With respect, I don't think it has anything to do with "political correctness." There's no sensitive constituency anyone is trying to avoid offending. It's just a matter of not prejudging article content. Building titles around a phrase most readers will strongly associate with the obsessions of insane and/or seriously unbalanced people will in fact cause the prejudging of article content. BrandonYusufToropov 21:21, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
This is the kind of thing that those voting "yes" in the conspiracy theory vote, and who would, if it were a matter of their opinion, vote "no" in this vote in being consistent with their "yes" vote on the conspiracy theory vote, continuously set forth as their reason for voting as they did. However, noone on the other side took to this reasoning. many in fact, vehemently opposed the idea that "conspiracy theory" was a POV, prejudical, dimintive, or pejorative ("disparaging or belittling") term. Even after using the term in attempt to discredit. Here's an example:
No, I'm using real questions to try to understand what Zen-master is talking about. He keeps insinuating that anyone who disagrees with him is not using "facts" or "logic", but rather involved in various conspiracies or has unstated POVs and agendas, without actually directly stating what those are. Now you're doing the same; insisting that those who disagree with you are also not using facts or logic, but instead have "unspoken" or "hidden" agendas which they are advancing for "fear of retribution". Neither of you will state straight out what these agendas are. That's conspiracy theory talk, and it is becoming abundantly clear why both you and Zen-master are against the notion of conspiracy theories being described as conspiracy theories. Jayjg (talk) 21:32, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
You're being disingenuous, Jayjg. We all have a bias, as we are all human. However, we could work towards overcoming our bias by acknowledging it and keeping it in check. You are denying your bias, and thus not acknowledging it, and thus not keeping it in check. This further supports the hypothesis that you are influenced by it. I am not insisting that those who disagree with me are not using facts or logic. I have said that I didn't see any facts or logic in your questions. If I missed them, an effective response would be to point them out to me. But that is not relevant to your accusation, as you have not disagreed with any of the facts or logic that I have presented, and you therefore do not fit into the category of "people who disagree with [me]". I have already told you the logic, in the above post: that there is a standard that you use which attributes to the minority view theory of complicity between Al-Qaeda and informed members of the Executive sector of the Bush Administration, the characterization "conspiracy theory", while at the same time you do not attribute this characterization to the minority view (both within the CIA and the general public) theory of conspiracy between saddam hussein and al-qaeda. you have not stated what this standard is. I and zen-master are for the notion of conspiracy theories being described as conspiracy theories. It is "abunduntly clear" that you are not, but instead apply a different standard, which you are mysteriously reticent about. As I have stated, and you either misread or intentionally distorted, reticence is almost always a result of fear of retribution, and this further supports the hypothesis. Kevin Baastalk: new 22:18, 2005 May 4 (UTC)
Re: Your comment, "That's conspiracy theory talk," above. You do realize you're using the term as a pejorative, don't you? Doesn't that possible use of the term say something about its appropriateness in a (supposedly) NPOV article title? BrandonYusufToropov 21:47, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
I'm using the term as a factual description of an observable phenomenon. Do you disagree with my assessment? Jayjg (talk) 21:53, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
No. I'm saying the phenomenon you would be perfectly entitled to regard as factual would also be perceived by the people you're attacking, and by a fair-minded observer, as belittling or disparaging. I'm saying it is therefore a pejorative, and inappropriate for use in an article title. BrandonYusufToropov 22:00, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
pe·jor·a·tive Pronunciation Key (p-jôr-tv, -jr-, pj-rtv, pj-)
adj.
1. Tending to make or become worse.
2. Disparaging; belittling.
A disparaging or belittling word or expression.
I'm attacking someone? I rather see it as the other way around. Anyway, let's not dance around, since on other talk pages you claimed to dislike that; do you view yourself as a "fair-minded observer", and do you see what I've described as "conspiracy theory talk" as, indeed, "conspiracy theory talk"? Jayjg (talk) 22:07, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
Look, my point is that it's clearly an emotionally weighted term, as demonstrated by your own choice to use it as an insult. Unless of course you mean to suggest you were actually flattering them when you dismissed their positions by saying "That's conspiracy theory talk." I'm not going to get caught up in a discussion of whether or not what you said was factual. That's your issue. You were trying to put them down, and used these very words to do it. What does that say about the nature of the term? BrandonYusufToropov 01:28, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
As you can see, the people's views on the matter are pretty firm. I expect that noone on wikipedia is the type of person who would change such firm views when it suddenly becomes convenient, and cite the reasons that they earlier decried with vehemence.
And noone who voted for the usage of "conspiracy theory" was unaware of the logical consequences of their vote, as JamesMLane clearly stated:
Rename -- but, since it seems that this alternative is losing, the next-best thing for NPOV purposes is to be consistent, and to rename other articles by including the pejorative term. One obvious example, mentioned in this debate over the use of "conspiracy", is Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda. Otherwise, we appear to be headed for a situation in which, for example, we'll report on allegations that the Bush administration engaged in secret activities of this type, but we'll discredit those allegations by calling them "conspiracy theories". When the allegations are made by the Bush administration rather than against it, however, the term will suddenly disappear. I trust that the editors calling for case-by-case decisionmaking don't intend to endorse such bias. JamesMLane 07:09, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
All those involved in the discussion held their peace when it was pointed out to them that the policy they were proposing meant that "saddam hussien and al-qaeda" must be moved to "saddam hussien and al-qaeda conspiracy theory", and I trust that they will continue to, as well as I trust, as James does, that they won't endorse said bias. But might I say, this trust is wearing thin. Kevin Baastalk: new 19:29, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Obtuse votes

I'm perplexed by the people (who're ditto-ing JamesMLane) who are casting votes in favor while saying they are actually opposed to the use of "conspiracy theory". Explain this to me, please? Sounds like a pretty bad case of WP:POINT. Perhaps it's based on a misreading of the policy that they are protesting? As is amply obvious from the discussion leading up to that quasi-policy, the use of the term was meant to be very selective. ObsidianOrder 15:53, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

The selectivity is precisely the problem. The term is being used as a way of discrediting views advanced by some Bush opponents while bolstering views advanced by some Bush supporters. You want to use it selectively so that "conspiracy theory" becomes a shorthand way of saying, "The POV described in this article is wrong." That would violate the NPOV policy. To remain consistent with NPOV, we can fix this in one of two ways: We could omit "conspiracy theory" from all article titles, or we could use it in all article titles to which it applies by an objective, neutral definition. I believe that never using it would be better than using it neutrally, but using it neutrally is better than using it unfairly. I'm not disrupting Wikipedia by voting according to my preference for the second option over the third. JamesMLane 21:01, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
I understand why you may not like it, but selectivity was specifically stated as a condition by about half of the votes in favor here, and by almost all of the votes in favor that provided any reasoning. Insofar as there is a policy, it is to be selective. You're protesting that policy by voting against what you really think should be the title. I understand, but that is a WP:POINT. Also, to compare this to the 9/11 conspiracy theories article is preposterous, much of the material in here comes from or is confirmed in the 9/11 commission report which is about as authoritative as it gets. ObsidianOrder 22:10, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
OO your comments beg the question. Being selective is fine if there are NPOV and consistent standards for selectivity. Here the only standard seems to be that conspiracy theories that are rejected by the current US Administration can be called "conspiracy theories" whereas those that are accepted by the Bushevics cannot be. That is a terrible NPOV problem. If the phrase is going to be used it should be used consistently and not pejoratively. I have advocated its use in terms of the literal definition of the phrase rather than its pejorative connotations. A more NPOV title might be "Theory that Saddam and Al-Qaeda Conspired on Terrorism" perhaps -- it keeps the literal meaning there without the pejorative connotations that you and your fellow conspiracy theorists seem so afraid of. Personally I don't understand the fuss either way but it's like arguing with someone who believes Bush was behind 9-11 -- every piece of evidence that is used to respond to the theory is either ignored or minimized, or even paradoxically used to support the theory. In that sense I think even the pejorative notion applies. The problem with conspiracy theories is not that they are wrong but rather that they are circular and non-falsifiable. In that sense this is a classic case of one. (Your comment that such comparison is "preposterous" is a great example of this. The 911 Commission -- as you well know, since I know you have read it pretty closely -- concluded that none of these incidents amounted to a case for cooperation. One could easily make a case that Bush knocked out the towers by picking and choosing pieces of evidence from the same report -- the report notes a lot of the inconsistencies in the dominant story of what happened the day of 911 that many conspiracy theorists make a big deal out of. The conclusions of course were that these inconsistencies really were no big deal. Same as the Saddam-alQaeda stuff. The idea that citing the 911 report makes a statement "authoritative" is silly, when you allow distortion and cherry picking of the information from the report to make claims so obviously at odds with the conclusion of the report. It's an exact parallel to what the 911 conspiracy theorists do with the report.) --csloat 22:49, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Please note from my comment above my understanding of the current application of selectivity:
You want to use it selectively so that "conspiracy theory" becomes a shorthand way of saying, "The POV discussed in this article is wrong."
In the case at hand, the POV discussed in the article is wrong. That's my opinion, based on the weight of the evidence. Therefore, Bush's phony charges of secret collaboration and plotting, charges intended to further his political goals, were conspiracy theories. (I won't vote for titling an article something like "Colonial secession conspiracy theories" because Washington, Jefferson, et al. really did conspire to take some British colonies out from under the Crown. I'm persuaded by the evidence on that point but not on this one.) The only "disruption" here is that you want the selectivity to be applied solely to tout your POV, and I'm disrupting that plan by adhering to my POV. Anyway, judging from current state of the vote, it looks like you'll get your wish. JamesMLane 01:14, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

The reason the votes are, in the words used "obtuse", is because some people here put principle above convenience. This sometimes compels them to enforce an established policy even when it goes against their opinion. The reason they do this is because to allow immediate convenience to dictate far-reaching decisions and thereby create contradictions is to break down that voluntary system which enables a body of people to work together constructively, and is therefore more inconvenient in the long run than any and all minor and personal inconveniences otherwise suffered in maintenance of principle. Kevin Baastalk: new 03:47, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

ObsidianOrder, you haven't elaborated on your view of the selectivity that should be applied:

  • Do you believe that "conspircy theory" should mean only a theory that's false, and that Wikipedia should set aside NPOV long enough to pronounce that certain theories about 9/11 are false, while pronouncing that certain theories about Saddam and al-Qaeda are true?
  • Or do you believe that "conspiracy theory" should mean only a theory that's propounded by evil or psychotic people, and that Wikipedia should set aside NPOV long enough to pronounce that people making accusations against Bush are evil or psychotic, while pronouncing that Bush and his flunkies are good and wise and noble?

My point is that it's not enough to say that "the use of the term was meant to be very selective." We can't really get anywhere unless you elaborate on what kind of selectivity you have in mind. It might well be that quite a few of the people voting to keep the "9/11 conspiracy theories" title have something different in mind. JamesMLane 00:09, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

James - that is a reasonable question. I haven't thought about it enough to answer that in any kind of precise way but I can give you a rough answer. "Conspiracy theory" is, in common usage, strongly pejorative (yes, I know that isn't part of the dictionary definition). Using it essentially implies that the idea in question is crazy and unfounded and bears no relation to reality, and by extension that most proponents are clinical paranoids. Perhaps that is not a really encyclopedic way of describing anything. Nonetheless, there are ideas which are crazy and unfounded. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, Holocaust denial and Apollo moon landing hoax accusations are, I hope we can all agree, crazy and unfounded? I think that to refuse to describe these as they are in the interest of NPOV is ludicrous, and also not neutral in itself. Other cases are not so easy (to pick one at random, OPV AIDS hypothesis). What I was essentially proposing is that if the term is used, it should only be used in cases when it is the right term beyond a shadow of a doubt. Regarding your two proposed alternatives: yes, both, essentially ;) Some theories are provably false (at least insofar as anything is) and Wikipedia can say so. Some theories are held by people who certainly appear psychotic (oh, David Icke). On the other hand there are plenty of theories which are merely controversial, and/or not yet proven or disproven.
This particular article is not about a "theory" (in particular, I assume you mean a Saddam-9/11 collaboration theory?). It details the known and alleged links together with what I think is a decent assesment of the reliability of each. If it made the claim that Saddam is the primary mover behind 9/11, that would be a conspiracy theory, since there is simply not enough evidence to make such a claim with any level of confidence. It doesn't do that. Instead it describes well-known facts such as "Farouk Hijazi met OBL in Sudan in 1994", and also notable claims of other contacts (for example as made by Czech and Italian intelligence) which may or may not be accurate. Whether that adds up to anything is up to the reader. ObsidianOrder 11:16, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Just a nitpick here. "Conspiracy theory" has pejorative connotations, but not all conspiracies are false. And it does not signify insanity -- yes the theories you mention are unfounded, but one of the hallmarks of conspiracy theory is that the theorist is meticulous about logic and reason. Their logic is twisted perhaps but it is usually elaborate and delicately articulated. I do not find conspiracy theorists "crazy" in any literal sense or "irrational" even though they reach conclusions that are fundamentally false.
Second - Your distinction between "Saddam was behind 911" and "Saddam collaborated with Al-Qaeda" is not precise at all. At what level do the claimed meetings add up to a "conspiracy"? What if the theory is that Saddam and OBL are equal partners -- is it a conspiracy then? And what is the point of listing all these things at all if it isn't to try to substantiate that Saddam and AQ did in fact conspire on something? The idea that "there were contacts" may be true in a literal sense, but it is no more meaningful than contacts with any other entity, like Iran, Israel, Pakistan, or John Ashcroft for example. Obviously these are listed (and they were part of the Admin's lead up to war) because they are meant to suggest something more than "contacts"; in fact, they are meant to corroborate a theory that Saddam and AQ conspired together. At what point do the claims add up to a conspiracy theory?
To look at specifics for a minute - claims by Czech and Italian intel have been pretty well refuted; there really isn't even any evidence that anyone in Czechoslovakia still believes that Atta met Al-Ani, for example; this claim is trotted out over and over again by people I believe to be conspiracy theorists the same way the JFK theorists bring out their limited ballistics knowledge. The Prague claim is based on a single unreliable eyewitness and is not backed up by anything hard (travel records, for example), and it has been shown that Czech intel were already confused about another Atta in an earlier trip. On top of it, we have al-Ani in custody. At that level, the evidence has mounted so high that the claim is false that it becomes hard not to be pejorative about those who still cling to it. I'm not saying this to be insulting; I am just trying to probe the question, at what point does it become a conspiracy theory? When a certain percentage of people consider it false? Does widespread belief make a conspiracy theory become something else? Does a lack of evidence make a theory into a conspiracy theory? How do we measure lack of evidence?
All these questions point to the problem in having separate rules for conspiracy theories you don't like and conspiracy theories you happen to believe. --csloat 17:15, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
I agree with csloat about the inherent subjectivity. You can't draw a distinction on the basis that this article "describes well-known facts", such as particular meetings, and leaves the conclusion up to the reader. The same is true of 9/11 conspiracy theories. For example, it's a well-known fact that, after receiving word of the second WTC impact, which made it clear that a deliberate attack was under way, Bush remained in the Florida classroom for several minutes, and remained at the school for several minutes after that. That he would be at the school that morning had been widely publicized. An attack using hijacked airplanes might include another hijacked plane heading for the school to try to crash into it and kill Bush. If government officials had no foreknowledge of the attack, they could have dealt with this possibility by immediately getting Bush away from his scheduled location. They didn't do so. Whether this adds up to proof that they had foreknowledge of the attack can be left to the reader, but there's no dispute about the underlying facts upon which the "conspiracy theorists" rely.
Nor can you draw an objective distinction about theories that "are held by people who certainly appear psychotic". It's my understanding that large numbers of people, perhaps millions just in the Middle East, believe in "conspircy theories" about 9/11. Are they all psychotic? They may be wrong on this particular point but I don't see any basis for imputing psychosis to people who hold that opinion. (I don't think Bush is a psychotic, either, but I'd find that argument more plausible than a contention of mass psychosis about 9/11.)
So, I'm left with the conclusion that using the loaded term "conspiracy theories" for one of these articles about the cause of 9/11, but not the other, is simply an exercise in POV. Allegations against the Bush administration are dismissed with an article title that implies they're not merely wrong, but completely baseless (not grounded in any facts), and advanced by psychotics. Comparable allegations by the Bush administration aren't given that treatment. JamesMLane 18:08, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Jnc

Thanks for archiving and putting the contents links up - obviously this discussion is ongoing and it's useful to have links to the topics rather than having to rehash them over and over.... --csloat 22:53, 24 July 2005 (UTC)


conspiracy theory

for people who keep moving this page against the consensus, see Wikipedia_talk:Conspiracy_theory/archive2. User:Kevin baas 11:58, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Kevin, to simply assume that the vote you mention applies in this case is ridiculous, especially after a brief read of the comments there. It's you who are moving this page against the consensus - the earlier vote here was 6:2 in favor of the current title. But hey, let's have another vote, why not - I think this would be the third or fourth title vote - precipitated by you moving the page multiple times without any prior discussion. That's very disruptive behaviour. ObsidianOrder 15:35, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Now that I think about it, there's actually a very interesting paradox inherent in the use of the term "conspiracy theory" to refer to any claims that people in the Bush administration might have made or implied about connections between SH and AQ. One of the hallmarks of the classic conspiracy theory is that the proponents of it deeply believe in it. So, in calling any such claims by members of the BA a "conspiracy theory", those so naming it are inherently stating that those BA members really believed their claims. Which would seem to me to be directly in contradiction with another classic claim of those who oppose Bush, to wit, that BA people knew the whole thing was bogus, and deliberately lied/misled people about it, in order to drum up support for the invasion. I mean, you can't have it both ways: either they did believe there was an SH-AQ link, in which case they weren't lying, or they didn't believe it, in which case it's not at all a classic "conspiracy theory". Noel (talk) 17:13, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
To "conspire" is to work together (literally, to breathe together). A conspiracy occurs when different people or forces join together to do something. This page is about a theory that Saddam conspired with al-Qaeda. I don't know whether or not the Bushevics belived this junk but my sense is that some of them - the neocons - actually did. Whether or not they did though they certainly manipulated the public to the point where many believe it. Either way though to me it is a classic conspiracy theory (confirmed by the fact that such believers are impervious to logic or facts that dispute their claims - witness much of the discussion on the other page that someone made (I forget the title right now but it is discussed above) or even some of the comments on this page.--csloat 18:27, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
"either they did believe there was an SH-AQ link, in which case they weren't lying, or they didn't believe it, in which case it's not at all a classic "conspiracy theory". (User:Jnc|Noel) -- wah? tom delay loves calling democrats "conspiracy theorists" whenever they state verifiable facts that are not conveninent for republicans. Now certainly these so-called "conspiracy theorists" believed what they're saying. cerainly radicals who think "the democrats are conspiring against bush" and the like believe what they're saying, and that is exactly why their theories are "conspiracy theories". if they didn't believe what they were saying, it wouldn't be a conspiracy theory, it would simply be agitprop. (agitation and propaganda) Now if you think it should rather be called agitprop, well that's much stronger and than "conspiracy theory" - it's a very serious allegation, and I don't think anyone in this discussion is prepared to take the position that that would comply with the NPOV policy. Kevin Baastalk: new 01:53, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

If there is such an article, I think it should be combined with this one. gidonb 12:03, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Get Out the Vote

I am alleging no wrongdoing here. However, it is noteworthy that Obsidian Order put out about a dozen plus invitations to his colleagues here on Wikipedia to vote on the name change issue:

Nobs, Porphyria, Klonimus, Grue, Jnc, Daniel11, Klonimus, WehrWolf, Austin Hair, MONGO, Silverback, Jayjg, Harry491, RonCram

As far as I can tell, all those he contacted who have voted have voted 'No', the same vote he himself makes. Now, voting is only a method of reaching consensus - not a determinant in and of itself for all issues - but this vote is important, and a stacked vote by those brought in by the original poster is not exactly community consensus.

For this important vote to be a truly fair examination of the issue and not just a stacked majority, I suggest each of those voting 'Yes' put out the same volume of messages to those they think will be receptive and likely to vote (whichever way they vote) - and I suggest Obsidian Order send out invites to other users, some of whom might hold a differing opinion than his own. -- RyanFreisling @ 19:08, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I second these comments. Encyclopedic standards are not determined by ideological mobilizations. 172 | Talk 19:30, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Ever hear the phrase "two wrongs don't make a right"? Asking each of the 'Yes' voters to send out that many requests is nothing more than an attempt to overwhelm the other side using brought-in votes - the exact tactics you (rightly) decry. Fair would be to send out the same number of requests, and stop it all right there. (Also, let it also be noted that I had voted before he started sending out calls.) Noel (talk) 21:30, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
I decried the tactics, and am not interested in trying to reach 'parity' with OO's number of posts (since I see that as bad form). I was recommending this action since asking the 'NO' voters (who overwhelmingly are here in response to OO's elicitations) are likely engaged in the same activity. When one group starts out gently 'gaming' the system, only by pointing out that exploitation can parity be met - not in tit-for-tat. You don't ante up a cheater - you call. I'm glad I brought some focus to this issue, and am hopeful that any stacked votes will be viewed in the proper light. -- RyanFreisling @ 23:53, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Ryan - Yes, I invited people who in my opinion had given thoughtful comments in previous discussion. (I wonder, do you always follow me around? I didn't know I was so popular). You may note I did not invite everyone who had voted the same way as I before. The people I invited (unlike a number of the Yes voters) at least have had some prior involvement with this page. If I was just looking for people who agree with me, I know where to find lots more, believe me. Also, I specifically did not tell them how to vote, or attempt to influence them in any way. If you want to invite others, by all means do so. I supported csloat when he was looking to get more people involved by posting on WP:RM as well. Mobilization? I might ask the same about the JamesMLane ditto-votes, if I had enough time to go digging, which I really don't care to. The fact is that there is a number of agressive editors here including yourself who have turned many former contributors away from this page, all I have done is try to get them involved again. ObsidianOrder 21:53, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
I think rather than recruiting individual voters as OO has done, a more fair way to expand the voter pool is to recruit voters by posting notes on pages where this topic is relevant -- the Iraqi insurgency page, the 2003 invasion of Iraq page, etc. Electioneering or campaigning by recruiting individual voters may not be unethical per se, but it is certainly bad form. --csloat 22:52, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
I have this article bookmarked and was thinking about a vote but have departed the politically charged articles lately. But I wouldn't have bothered in all liklihood if I hadn't been invited. In reality, neither title is satisfactory to me...have to agree with Noel's comment that there should be several options for a title change. The current one appears to say that there was a connection and the only other option presented indicates that it was all just bunk...while I'm inclined to believe the latter is true, I still can't see how conspiracy theory fits the facts. I wish I had a suggestion for a better title, but at the moment I don't. Zenmaster had a few good options.--MONGO 01:35, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
Calling me an agressive editor is unfair, and is unbased in my actions. Claiming I or others turned away editors is likewise unfair, and unfounded. Furthermore, if you invited a single person who wound up voting 'no', I would be more likely to see your actions as neutral elicitation of votes - right now, it's not neutral, and as csloat observes, it's indeed bad form. -- RyanFreisling @ 23:49, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Ryan, you can't get much more agressive than this. Sorry, the fact is that dealing with you and a couple of other people who want to edit-war over this article is absolutely the last thing I want to spend my time on, and I suspect other people feel the same only more so. Many people have left because of that - there is a consistent pattern of people showing up, posting a comment or making an edit, getting slammed, and leaving. I happen to think they should have a chance to vote, and frankly I don't care what you or anyone else thinks about it.
Calling you an agressive editor is fair. You have consistently picked on me because I provided the original content in this article (with numerous cited sources, as it happens). Just a couple of comments earlier you called me the "original poster", as if that means anything in an article that has been >90% rewritten by now, and you never miss an opportunity to bring that up. You consistently call the article itself (oh, for a random selection) "an embarrassment to the Wikipedia", "a river of untruth punctuated by disclaimers", "their disinformation", "Hello, FOXipedia!", etc etc. Assume good faith, eh? ObsidianOrder 04:48, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
It's not fair. It's a personal attack, and I've never personally attacked you. All the above are about YOUR ARTICLE, not you. In response, you attack me personally. Furthermore, listing an article on RfC isn't aggressive, it's a common Wikipedia process to resolve disputes. My comments (all of which I stand by) are heartfelt and strident - but about the article and the paucity of truth within at the time it was written - not a personal attack. I stand by it and the premise.
Last, when you are the sole un-renamer, always reverting it back to your chosen topic despite a lack of outcry, that's a certain abuse of being the OP. I do indeed Assume good faith, even now, and will not return your personal attack. -- RyanFreisling @ 04:58, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
I agree. I decry vote-whipping. I like csloats' suggestion, though I'm not so ready to suggest that vote-whipping in an unlimited forum "may not be unethical per se". Kevin Baastalk: new 02:00, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
ObsidianOrder mentions a possible question about "the JamesMLane ditto-votes". If anyone cares, I didn't recruit people to come here and vote. If I had, I wouldn't have told them to use "ditto" in their vote. I don't mind if anyone wants to suspect that I'm running a conspiracy, but please don't accuse me of running a conspiracy ineptly.  :) JamesMLane 18:19, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

None of this even makes any sense. People here know i don't really agree with this page. But, if this page is going to be about the theory that Saddam had connections with al-Qaeda to attack the U.S., why wouldn't we move it to "conspiracy theory?" I thought a better move would just be to keep the page the same title and incorporate all of the iraq/al-Qaeda links (except I think there is already a page for that). But since this page is going to stay the same, the title needs to be accurate. Now going to vote for the move. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 15:59, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Final decision

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. violet/riga (t) 19:40, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

This vote and it's process, as well as the role of the vote in the decision, have been fatally flawed. The OP (Obsidian Order) made a decided effort to stack the vote by inviting assenting colleagues to vote, and thus consensus has not been established. Moreover, I do not understand why Violetriga makes this declaration without discussion, and worst of all, made the modification in the banner (which is decidedly unwiki-like). -- RyanFreisling @ 19:46, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
I've gone by the standard methods of WP:RM, with the final decision for this particular vote being that it should not be moved. violet/riga (t) 20:46, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
I'd like to raise an issue with both the way the vote was conducted, and the lack of decisionmaking surrounding the issue. Where can I lodge such a complaint? -- RyanFreisling @ 21:16, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
The best place would probably be Wikipedia:Requests for comment, with Wikipedia:Resolving disputes being a good place for advice too. violet/riga (t) 21:27, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, Violetriga. -- RyanFreisling @ 21:35, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
I dispute the characterization of this vote as established by consensus "that it should not be moved". I do not accept violetriga's assertion. Kevin Baastalk: new 00:58, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
Sorry but there are 21 no votes and 13 yes votes. The vote went beyond the usual 5 days (9 days). Yes, it has gone against what you wished for and yes the vote may not have been the best, but I made the decision based on the numbers and it is clear that it should not be moved given the result of the poll. violet/riga (t) 14:11, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
I am not asking anyone for an apology. Many of those 21 votes were whipped, resulting in a statistically biased sample. More siginficantly, most of the people voting are not aware of the issue that led to the vote in the first place. If this page doesn't change to "... conspiracy theory", than other pages titled "... conspiracy theory" need to be have "conspiracy theory" removed from their title, such as the 9/11 pages. This was established by a stronger consensus with more voters on Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory. Kevin Baastalk: new 00:10, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Abu Wael Claims?

Re: the claim about Abu Wael, supposedly a Mukhabarat agent who met with Al Qaeda in 2001 -- this claim comes from Jack Kelly, who claims to have read it in the LATimes, 12/9 (either 2001 or 2002, it's not clear). A lexis/nexis search reveals no references to "Abu Wael" in the LA Times at all, and nothing really anywhere else relevant. Specifically looking at 12/8-10 for both years, I found nothing in the LATimes mentioning Iraq and al Qaeda at all. Can someone else find the source? If not I think we should delete this item.csloat 02:00, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Removed the RFC

It seems like the dispute about the title of this article has died down at present, so I've removed the Wikipedia:Requests for comment on this issue. If someone still wants it, feel free to re-add it. Just doing janitor duty. JesseW 09:46, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Iraqi Mural

This is why I wish the page title had something with Pre-War in it...does it say at all that this mural was built before 9/11? Because that would be a helluva thing to find. However, more likely it was built afterwards, because if Bin Laden's own people didn't know the specific details of his plot, I doubt the Iraqi military knew. This is yet another example of doing the equivalent of doing a lexis-nexis or google search on "iraq + al-qaeda" and using any returned results to justify intentional links between the two. On a different note, later today I am planning to build the same mural myself, so get ready to write a Kizzle and Al-Qaeda article. (note to NSA/CIA, just kidding) --kizzle 18:19, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

It was obviously painted afterwards; did you see it? If the Iraqis were involved in 9-11 we sure would find more concrete evidence than a freaking mural. I'm deleting the reference entirely; it's just not relevant to the discussion. We might as well include the Dutch Islamic calendar that appeared with a plane crash off the coast of NY for September (remember that?) in a Netherlands and Al Qaeda article. This is a piece of art, not an intelligence meeting. csloat 18:30, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Someone (I suspect it is OO, back as an anonymous editor to disguise his POV, but it doesn't matter) anonymously re-added the mural story. I am deleting it again. It does not belong here. Who cares if there is a mural, it does not have anything to do with offering evidence that al Qaeda worked for Saddam. If you support putting the mural story here please defend it in talk before just reverting. It is irrelevant. Perhaps we should include the various art pieces addressing 9-11 that might be found at the Art Institute in Chicago as evidence on a page like Chicago and al Qaeda? --csloat 02:27, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Changes to Anonymous Edits

I made three major changes to the anonymous edits that have been added today:

  • Deleted nonsense about the mural in Nasiriya (see above; it has no bearing on this discussion)
  • Atta in Prague: the NYT article is a couple months after the report from Prague Post, which is just evidence of the period of "confused" statements coming from Czech officials that is discussed - and cleared up - in the NYT article.
  • Justice Dept indictment: This item is inserted in bad faith, I believe, or at least it is stretching the boundaries. The indictment is not evidence of anything; it simply is a recounting of items discussed elsewhere on this page. The stuff added about the pharmaceutical factory in Sudan has nothing to do with Iraq. The Abdulla al-Iraqi claim is BS; it comes from al-Libi, who recanted; intel agents who have interviewed Libi agree that the claim was BS (and that has been confirmed by interrogations of other al Qaeda members). I don't know who the hell Feif is but if you meant Feith, that memo is dealt with elsewhere on this page also, as is Salman Pak. In any case, none of that belongs in a throwaway item like this DOJ suit, which does not in itself constitute "evidence" of anything.

--csloat 03:23, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Attention Anonymous Editor

Please justify your changes here. Otherwise what you are doing is vandalism, pure and simple.csloat 03:39, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi. I just figured out the discussion board. No longer "anonymous editor"

I apologize for the lack of explanation to my changes. Allow me to do so now.

The title of the article is "Saddam Hussein and Al-Qeda" is approriate and accurate.

1)The Iraq 9-11 Mural was found in a Military headqaurters. It illustrates at the very least a support for the attacks on 9-11 and possibly much more. The point being just because we are not able to ascribe exactly how much support, it is not accurate to exlude this article by CNN from the timeline. Let people see it it its original context for whatever it is worth. It is easy to deny the existence of any relationship if we simply edit out those elements that raise questions.

This is simply not one of "those elements that raise questions" at all. It illustrates nothing significant, and raises no interesting question. There are likely similar murals in Iran, in Bangladesh, in Malaysia, etc. I bet there are similar murals in South America. This article is about ties between the government of Iraq and the organizational structure of al Qaeda. Not about some Iraqi artist who supported the attacks in a mural. There is a huge difference between an artist supporting an idea and a government sending weapons or money to a terrorist group.--csloat 07:10, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

2) Attah in Prague: Please notice Prague Post article specifically mentions that the Czech envoy to the U.Ns response is directed at (to rebutt) the New York Times article and similiar ones and that the post article is dated after the alleged recantations were supposed to have occured.: "Kmonicek, the Czech Republic's UN envoy since October, is the most senior government official to openly confirm the encounter since unnamed U.S. intelligence officials began challenging it in anonymous comments reported last month by Newsweek magazine, The Washington Post and The New York Times. " Therefore it belongs in the timeline as a direct rebutal to the NY time claims.

The Prague Post article is a few months earlier than the NYT piece. Are you saying that the editors of Prague Post had a crystal ball, and were refuting something that hadn't been written yet? The NYT article specifically says the reason Havel made his point discretely the first time was to avoid embarrassing gullible government employees like Kmonicek. The allegations of a meeting are based on a single unreliable informant who saw Atta on TV after 911 and then reported something that he thought he saw. Meanwhile, Atta was renting an apartment in Florida; we have phone records, a lease, and even FBI testimony in a Florida trial that place Atta in Florida throughout the beginning of April. There is just no way in hell he was in Prague at the time, and there is no intelligence agency on earth that believes he was there.--csloat 07:10, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

3) 1998 USDOJ indictment: The supporting material listed in my editing was to clarify another editors claim: "To date, no evidence of such an "understanding" has ever materialized.". If you will notice Wikipedias article on The Salman Pak facility states: "Prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, it was also claimed that Salman Pak was at one time the central facility or a major facility in a biological warfare program." while also having alleged ties to Al-Qaeda. The Iraq, Bin Ladin, Al-Shaifa connection is addressed in the weekly standard article I attached to that reference. As for Al-Libi, No one knows if he was telling the truth when he alleged the Saddam Al-Qaeda connection, or when he recanted, as stated in the wikipedia reference to him. Therefor when you said "intel agents who have interviewed Libi agree that the claim was BS " you were directly disputing the statement: "..U.S. officials caution that they do not know which of his stories is correct,". Finally there is the Douglas Feith memo. While all of these issues are in varying degrees of dispute, they do still exist as part of the controversy and negate the claim "no evidence of such understanding",. A more precise statement would have been "no UNDISPUTED "evidence" ever materialized." This indicment does however prove that back in 1998 the DOJ believed and was willing to state under oath that there was a cooperative relationship. It should be included as a primary official US record on this issue.

Gizm0id

I assume "Gizm0id" is you -- you should get a user id here and login properly, then sign your posts; it makes everything easier to understand who is saying what. The Salman Pak entry in wikipedia needs editing if it concludes that there was a biowar program there; no evidence whatever has turned up to support such an allegation. The idea that al Qaeda had anything going on at Salman Pak is also ridiculous, and it has been effectively refuted on this very timeline. The Weekly standard piece is garbage based on the Feith memo; this has been refuted again and again on this very page. Look in the quotations section for stuff about the Weekly Standard article.
This indictment does not constitute evidence of anything. It simply reiterates supposed "evidence" which turned out to be nothing. There is simply no evidence to support the claim that al Qaeda worked for Iraq (or, even more bizarrely, the reverse); it is a fanciful conspiracy theory, and the only reason it is given any credence at all is because certain elements in the Bush Administration - particularly the OSP in the Pentagon which was designed to do an end run around the real intelligence agencies - have been shoving this conspiracy theory down people's throats.--csloat 07:10, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Repair shop

Some sources assert that several meetings between top Iraqi operatives and bin Laden took place, but these claims have been disputed by many other sources, including most of the original intelligence agencies that investigated these sources. Many in the intelligence community are skeptical about whether such meetings, if they took place, ever resulted in any meaningful relationship. Many of the claims of actual collaboration seem to have originated with people associated with the Iraqi National Congress whose credibility has been questioned. In addition, many of the raw intelligence reports came to the awareness of the public through the leaking of a memo sent from Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence ("the Feith memo", dated October 27, 2003), the conclusions of which have been disputed by intelligence agencies including the CIA.
  • Some ... assert ... but
  • Many ... are skeptical
  • if they took place
  • claims ... associated with [INC] ... credibility questioned
  • In additon
  • leaked by US official (insinuating that all US officials lie when defending Bush)
  • conclusions ... disputed (even by CIA itself)

So it's 7 to 1 against, hardly a balanced approach. And not a single reason to believe the report.

This is the usual political propganda style -- used by both parties, I've noticed, and no I'm not a Republican.

  1. Restate your opponent's assertion
  2. Omit his evidence and reasoning
  3. Give copious reasons why he's wrong

That's fine for a Times editorial (NY Times, Washington Times) - but it really sucks for an encyclopedia. We can do better than that.

Anyone care to take crack at it? -- Uncle Ed (talk) 12:00, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

The problem with your argument, Ed, is that there is not a single reason to believe the report. We have been through this over and over on this page; please review the discussion pages. If you have reasons to doubt these conclusions, present them with evidence here, but please do not start the nitpicking about "balance" that you did on the Quran abuse at Guantanamo page. It wastes everyone's time. Wikipedia's goal is not just "balance" but also accuracy. In this case, the conclusions of nearly all experts and of every intelligence agency on earth that has investigated this is that the Feith report is wrong and that there was no Saddam-Al Qaeda connection. --csloat 20:43, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ed's Destructive Editing

I reverted Ed's changes, which were designed to bring the illusion of "balance" to an issue that has been settled by every reasonable analyst to look at the issue. If Ed would like to present additional information that bolsters the credibility of the Feith report, we can deal with that, but his edits deleted a paragraph of information and replaced it with a vague statement that the issue of Saddam and OBL links is "hotly debated." The only people who believe in such links anymore are ideologues who seem to get all their information from the Weekly Standard. These reports have been soundly refuted and rather than presenting evidence in response, the neocon Weekly Standard crowd simply repeats their claims over and over. If we want to include information that there is a vocal cadre of such ideologues still insisting on such a connection, that is fine, but it is the duty of Wikipedia to represent the case correctly and to point out that these voices, though ubiquitous, represent a tiny part of the political spectrum, that they have been refuted over and over by far more legitimate sources (from various parts of the political spectrum), and that many of them have been caught repeating claims they know to be out and out lies.

Again, Ed, I implore you, please do not start the kind of nonsense you did over at Qur'an desecration controversy of 2005. I understand you have a certain point of view that you want to see represented, and that is fine, but please do not make "balance" a priority over accuracy. As I said over on that page, we would not want to "balance" the Wikipedia article on the shape of the earth with the voices of a cadre of fanatics (or jokers) who believe it to be flat. We also don't want to "balance" the Holocaust article with the views of Holocaust deniers. In the case of the neocons, we can represent their views here, but we have to make clear that those views have been soundly refuted by a consensus of experts and that, once again, there is not a single intelligence agency on earth that believes those views. --csloat 21:01, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Implausibility of the Link

While I did revert to remove this section, I do think a section like this should be in the current article. However, notice that the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs contain "Critics of the Bush administration" lines but no alternate viewpoints except for this critical view. In addition, I know we can cite this information from another source rather than making an argument originating from the editors of this page, I will look sometime today if I have time to try and quote a notable opinion on why these links are implausible, but to remain neutral we must present the other side as well. In talking about the Flat Earth Society, we must at least give them a voice. --kizzle 18:00, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

And we definetely need to cite: After the Gulf War, bin Laden remained highly critical of Saddam's socialist Ba'ath regime. --kizzle 18:04, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

It is not just "critics of the Bush administration" who take this view. EVERYONE who has analyzed this "link" has come to the same conclusion EXCEPT a cadre of neocons. This includes the CIA as well as every major intelligence agency on earth. I think it's fine to give the neocons a "voice" (as if they didn't have one?) but I also think it's imperative to point out that the conclusion of a concensus of experts, journalists, and intelligence analysts is that they are wrong. Why do we need to keep rehashing this point?
As for the need to cite bin Laden's criticism of Baath, the February 11 2003 item in the timeline provides the evidence. I think all of the stuff in the intro and background sections is sourced and substantiated in the timeline -- when ObsidianOrder was here pouncing on every change I made, we all made damn sure that every single thing had a source cited. Please read over the timeline section before erasing stuff you don't think is sourced.

--csloat 18:48, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ok, but you could see how I wouldn't be aware of looking for sources later on in the article for passages in the beginning of the article. And as long as you think this article reads like an account rather than an argument, I'm fine with it. --kizzle 19:00, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
I'm okay with replacing "critics of the Bush administration" with "virtually everyone outside of the Bush administration". The point being that only Bush, his staff, and his whacked-out supporters give his fantastic notion any credence. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 19:34, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Farouk Hijazi's meeting

1994 -- Sudan -- Farouk Hijazi, then head of Iraqi Secret Service, meets with Osama bin Laden in Sudan ([1]). Hijazi told his aide that "he had no intention of accepting Saddam's offer because 'if we go there, it would be his agenda, not ours.'"[2]

This section is all sorts of messed up. I hope that the rest of this Wiki article isn't similarly compromised. Here's what that dfw.com link says:

• Administration officials reported that Farouk Hijazi, a top Iraqi intelligence officer, had met with bin Laden in Kandahar, Afghanistan, in 1998 and offered him haven in Iraq. They left out the rest of the story. Bin Laden said he'd consider the offer, U.S. intelligence officials said. But according to a report later made available to the CIA, the al Qaeda leader told an aide afterward that he had no intention of accepting Saddam's offer because "if we go there, it would be his agenda, not ours."

Did the meeting happen in 1994 or 1998? In Sudan or Afghanistan? Also, the use of the word "his" throughout the Wikipedia passage is very ambiguous and doesn't mesh with the linked article's passage. Who told an aide that "he" (bin Laden, I assume, but if Hijazi said this to an aide, "he" could also refer to Hijazi) had no intention of accepting the offer? Bin Laden or Hijazi?

The Weekly Standard article mentions the 1994 meeting on the second page:

Hijazi has acknowledged meeting with al Qaeda representatives, perhaps with [AD] bin Laden himself, even before the outreach in 1998. According to news reports and interviews with intelligence officials, Hijazi met with al Qaeda leaders in Sudan in 1994.

I think somebody's confused two different meetings.

The Standard article also calls Hijazi "one of Saddam's intelligence operatives," but not head of the Iraqi Secret Service, so we'll need a cite on that, too. --Mr. Billion 18:54, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Good catch. I doubt any 1994 meeting took place at all; that was not very long at all after the Gulf War, when bin Laden was hoping to raise an army of jihadis against Saddam. If it did take place, we need better information on it than an ambiguous statement from an unreliable news organ (Weekly Standard). I think the item should be deleted altogether, since the 1998 meeting is already dealt with later on the timeline. Hijazi apparently denies any such meeting occurred at all.--csloat 21:07, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This is actually one of the best-established meetings. See 9/11 commission report, pg 61 and footnote 55, ch. 2, pg 468. It definitely took place in 1994 (or possibly early 1995) in Khartoum. Farouk Hijazi has held at least two posts, as head of external operations (sometimes described as "head of operations", "deputy director" of just "director") for the Mukhabarat (during the 1994 Sudan meeting) and later as ambassador to Turkey (during the 1998 Afghanistan meeting). [3] [4]. It's a pretty safe bet he still was working for IIS in 1998. Anyways, we have the guy in custody and he agrees the 1994 meeting did happen (although with no results according to him). ObsidianOrder 30 June 2005 05:06 (UTC)
csloat says: "rv. see Talk. the info is inconsistent, and the 911 comm rept p61 does not mention hijazi and says "there is no evidence iraq responded" to obl.". to take these in order: (1) the info is not inconsistent in the least. hijazi was head of external ops for iis in 1994 and he travelled to the iis sudan ofice several times in 1994, one of those times he met with obl. the same guy was an ambassador to turkey in 1998 and travelled to afghanistan for another meeting which has a separate entry in the timeline. he has been captured and confirms the first meeting but denies the second (afaik). (2) the 911 comm rept does not mention hijazi *by name* but it confirms all other details. other 911 comm materials such as the judith yaphe testimony and staff statement #15 do mention hijazi by name and also confirm all other details. unless you think two top guys in the iis travelled to sudan and met with obl at the same time, the "senior Iraqi intelligence officer" in the 911 comm rept is hijazi. (3) there is no evidence iraq responded at the time: there is, it is just heavily discounted e.g. 911 comm rept bottom of p468. there is minimal evidence to the contrary as well, basically just hijazi says so. the fact that they continued meetings in the next couple of years is suggestive. whether or not iraq responded is immaterial to whether the meeting happened, though. ObsidianOrder 30 June 2005 06:07 (UTC)
Let's be clear - he says that he had a meeting in 1994 or 95 with al Qaeda officials but it doesn't say who (unless I missed it? Where is the OBL claim coming from?). Either way we have multiple sources concluding any contacts in 94-5 completely backfired and at best did not amount to anything (certianly not to prep for 911, largely planned by KSM who had no contacts with anyone in Iraq).--csloat 30 June 2005 05:56 (UTC)
"doesn't say who" - i'll look. "multiple sources concluding any contacts in 94-5 completely backfired" - umm, no, multiple analysts speculating which ain't the same thing at all. the meetings continued, at least. at most, it led to an "understanding" (you give us money and stuff, we won't attack you) and eventually to collaborating in ansar al islam and possibly more. all of which is other analysts speculating, of course. "certianly not to prep for 911" - that's a complete non-sequitir. ObsidianOrder 30 June 2005 06:12 (UTC)
Well, ok how about analysts concluding which is more accurate than both. "The meetings continued" - not clear at all. Hijazi denies any later meeting and the information we have about later contacts is that there was no "understanding" ever reached. Certainly not "you give us money and stuff" -- if there were ever anything so concrete as a money trail we would have certainly heard about it, because that has been documented very well by scholars, think tanks, and economists. We know where al Qaeda gets its money from and we can even trace a lot of transactions. Again, you will say that I can't prove money was not exchanged, but again, it would be your burden to prove that it was, and in this case we don't even have anybody claiming that it was. "we won't attack you" -- this is the most any of the supposed "connection" probably ever amounted to. That is hardly an operational connection; it's not even a relationship; it's "I agree not to destroy you." "Collaborating in ansar al islam" -- talk about non sequitors. This speculation is not discussed at all in the 911 report; it is mentioned without any explanation. What did they mean? Was there a money trail? Was there evidence of orders given by Saddam and followed by Ansar al Islam? Speculation is useful if it is based on something concrete but there is nothing explained here at all. But more importantly, nowhere does it say that whatever happened between saddam and the group in northern iraq had anything to do with any meetings in 1994 with al Qaeda leaders. And on top of all that, as explained over and over, the group operated in a part of Iraq that was controlled by the US and UK, not Saddam.--csloat 30 June 2005 08:14 (UTC)

Ed Poor's constructive editing

In case you're wondering why I wrote the "Implausibility of the link" section, it's called writing for the enemy.

"Although" addition by ObsidianOrder

"This alleged link is distinct from the Al-Qaeda presence that later migrated into Iraq to fight the United States's military presence following the invasion, although some of the current Al-Qaeda cells may have been set up in advance with the knowledge or help of the Saddam regime."

Do you have a cite for that? Is there any evidence of this happening? "May have" sounds like speculation. --Mr. Billion 29 June 2005 15:52 (UTC)

It's not just speculation; it's disinformation. Zarqawi was no fan of Saddam when he entered Iraq (and, at the time, he was not even much of a fan of OBL and al Qaeda!) The al Qaeda presence in Iraq does not share long term goals with the Baathist Sunni insurgents even though they are both fighting against the current Iraqi regime. While there is the possibility (I'd even say probability) that the Sunni Baathists organized before the US invasion, I have seen no evidence whatsoever (not even the kind of phony "evidence" that comes out of the Weekly Standard crowd) that Saddam helped organize al Qaeda cells in Iraq. Zarqawi's group was not even technically "al Qaeda" until he pledged allegiance to OBL in October 2004.
Honestly, I really don't understand the fascination people have with this conspiracy theory. I realize the Administration gave it legs by citing it in the lead-up to Iraq but even then only a fanatical cadre truly believed it when they looked at the evidence. Now the whole Bush Admin has backed away from it, or at least they no longer try to bring it up (they no longer need to; the Iraq war has brought al Qaeda into Iraq in a significant way, and as Bush stated in his speech last night, OBL now considers Iraq ground zero of his global jihad). I still don't think the al Q forces in Iraq have much of a chance in the long term, as their interests are diametrically opposed to that of most Iraqis, including the Sunni elders who give aid and comfort to the Baathist insurgents (not to mention the country's Shiites and Kurds). But that's neither here nor there -- the point is, I don't understand why some conservatives are still clinging to this conspiracy theory when it has been thoroughly debunked, and it no longer serves any purpose for them (since we are already in Iraq). --csloat 29 June 2005 17:49 (UTC)
The purpose of this disinformation by ObsidianOrder and his ilk is to obfuscate the truth by repeating the same old lies regarding 9/11 and Iraq that the Bush administration and its cronies used to propel us into this war. DSM (the Downing Street memos) and other active investigations ensure that those lies cannot be retroactively 'shored up' with disinfo - and so, these sorts of efforts (like other cover-ups of this administration) ultimately shine even more light on the illegal and manufactured justification used to take America into this war - without a formal declaration of war, nor U.N. approval. -- RyanFreisling @ 29 June 2005 22:53 (UTC)
cite? try "Zarqawi and some subordinates traveled in and out of Iraq starting in 2001" [5].
"He [Zarqawi] traveled to Baghdad in May 2002 for medical treatment, staying in the capital of Iraq for two months while he recuperated to fight another day. During this stay, nearly two dozen extremists converged on Baghdad and established a base of operations there. These al Qaeda affiliates, based in Baghdad, now coordinate the movement of people, money and supplies into and throughout Iraq for his network, and they've now been operating freely in the capital for more than eight months. " [6] "
"We began to converge on Iran one after the other. The fraternal brothers in the peninsula of the Arabs, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates who were outside Afghanistan, had already arrived. They possessed abundant funds. We set up a central leadership and working groups," al-Adl recounted. "We began to form some groups of fighters to return to Afghanistan to carry out well-prepared missions there. Meanwhile, we began to examine the situation of the group and the fraternal brothers to pick new places for them. Abu Mus'ab and his Jordanian and Palestinian comrades opted to go to Iraq...[an] examination of the situation indicated that the Americans would inevitably make a mistake and invade Iraq sooner or later. Such an invasion would aim at overthrowing the regime. Therefore, we should play an important role in the confrontation and resistance. It would be our historic chance to establish the state of Islam that would play a major role in alleviating injustice and establishing justice in this world," al-Adl said. " [7] ObsidianOrder 30 June 2005 02:12 (UTC)
Ah. So now 'Radio Free Europe', the admitted propaganda arm of the U.S. government, and Colin Powell's U.N. boondoggle (also established as an untruth by the Waxman report) are unimpeachable, neutral sources. Like the issues above to which weeks back you chose to avoid responding, your propaganda here is a lead balloon. -- RyanFreisling @ 30 June 2005 02:28 (UTC)
no, Ryan, you chose not to cite sources, because you wanted me to look them up myself "to demonstrate that [I was] in fact interested in objective research". Sorry, but I found that to be a riduculous requirement for maintaining a conversation. This isn't high school and you are certainly not my schoolteacher. Hence that conversation ended. Incidentally, the final word on the supposed Czech retraction is what? A denial of the retraction [8], which the NYT possibly fabricated? I don't know, but whatever it is, a definite retraction it certainly ain't.
As always, you misstate the facts to make a pointless case. I asked you yourself to attempt to find such evidence, as it exists in droves and has been heavily cited here in an attempt to disarm your original article's rampant 'pro-link' bias. You did not answer when I asked you why YOUR burden of proof (no corroboration required) should be so much higher than mine (multiple sources required). I'm not your schoolteacher - but I'm also not willing to let your lack of interest in evidence disproving your premise go without challenge. This is not your web site, this is Wikipedia. An unwillingness to examine the facts because they threaten your politics hurts Wikipedia to prove a point. -- RyanFreisling @ 30 June 2005 03:01 (UTC)
If you had cited sources you might have a point. I do my own research (pro and con) enough to satisfy me. I told you I had looked but had found no official retraction. That wasn't good enough for you, but you wouldn't provide any link to any retraction, official or not. Well, where is it? The Havel/NYT interview? If you want me to examine any facts, you have to provide them. ObsidianOrder 30 June 2005 03:12 (UTC)
"unimpeachable sources"? If I had those, I would state a claim stronger than "may have been". There are a number of things pointing to Al-Qaeda cells set up before the war specifically for post-war terrorist operations. But they are not very strong, as evidence goes, and I was careful not to overstate the case. ObsidianOrder 30 June 2005 02:51 (UTC)
Your 'laundry list' of allegations, copied verbatim from your website and largely unedited by you (except in cases to revert or 'shore up' original allegations, now roundly disproven, is the very definition of overstating the case (in this case, all the way to mis-stating). Absurd. -- RyanFreisling @ 30 June 2005 03:04 (UTC)
Actually it's been extensively edited, both by me and by others. I would say it is greatly improved from my first draft. As I've said before, most of these allegations are neither proven nor disproven (especially if using the kind of evidentiary standard that courts use). They are indeterminate. Whether you or I think any particular item happened is a judgement call. I don't understand why that is so hard to grasp. We can disagree without either of us acting in bad faith. I also happen to think that everyone should make their own judgement call on these, after they examine what evidence there is, and I have tried to present that evidence as accurately as I can. You may think they've been "roundly disproven" (and hence not even worth mentioning) but that's just your opinion, nothing more. ObsidianOrder 30 June 2005 03:32 (UTC)
How does one even make a judgment call completely based upon indeterminate information? --kizzle June 30, 2005 03:38 (UTC)
It's not indeterminate information, only indeterminate in the sense of there being no proof of X and no proof of not-X. You have to proceed the same way as with anything: try to correlate different pieces from independent reports, look into backgrounds, motivations and/or general credibility, etc etc and then take the results with a pinch of salt. ObsidianOrder 30 June 2005 03:48 (UTC)
"there being no proof of X and no proof of not-X"...umm, isn't that the very definition of indeterminate? That's fine if the conclusion is indeterminate, but not if the facts are. --kizzle June 30, 2005 03:56 (UTC)
I think you're confusing information and facts. There's plenty of information, just not all of it is credible. The facts are therefore indeterminate. Ryan would probably say that it has been established as a fact that a lot of the things discussed inthe article definitely did not happen - but that is incorrect, just as it would be incorrect to say they definitely did happen. Hence, judgement call and pinch of salt. ObsidianOrder 30 June 2005 04:11 (UTC)
and perhaps more directly, "Jordanian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi set up "sleeper cells" in Baghdad before the Iraq war to attack American forces occupying the country, according to a British intelligence report." [9] ObsidianOrder 30 June 2005 02:33 (UTC)
Oh, and then there's this genius. Quote him at once! CNN -- RyanFreisling @ 30 June 2005 02:35 (UTC)

The word 'allegations' or similar belongs in the title. The allegations were a notable phenomenona, but balance of probability suggests the allegations are false. Peter Grey 30 June 2005 03:50 (UTC)

Peter - maybe, but not everything in here is disputed in any serious way. I'd say about 1/3 to 1/4 of the info is in the "commonly accepted as facts" category. The rest is allegations and/or evidence insufficient to determine the facts. That is of course true for both the pro and con claims. ObsidianOrder 30 June 2005 03:57 (UTC)


A few things here: (1) the ctv article OO quotes on Zarqawi specifically says that Saddam had no control over the Kurdish areas Z came through. It also suggests the british intel report came to the same conclusion - no link between saddam and al qaeda. (2) Nobody disputes zarq was there in 2002; what is disputed is that he was working for (or with) Saddam. I can't believe you're still clinging to this conspiracy theory after it has been refuted over and over. Your own sources often dispute the claim but you just cherry pick quotes - just like the OSP cherry picked intelligence and circumvented the analysts to support the conspiracy theory. And you're cherry picking the arguments you didn't respond to a few weeks ago too for that matter. In any case, it doesn't matter how many people Zarqawi was working with in Iraq in 2002; this article is about whether he was working with Saddam. Also, your estimation of his organization is totally at odds with that of many US military observers; e.g. H. John Poole: "Al-Zarqawi is not a military mastermind; he is a deranged killer. That he has recently been chaerged with every crime in northern Iraq removes attention from the real culprits." (2004 _Tactics of the Crescent Moon_) (3) You are smoking crack if you believe that 1/3 to 1/4 of this junk is "commonly accepted as fact." Reading through the timeline there are only a couple of claims of links that have not been laid to rest, and those only because I've been too busy to dig up the evidence. (4) The NYT indicts you keep quoting came out prior to the NYT article that disputes them. Are you seriously suggesting some Czech politician was refuting an article that hadn't been published yet? This was dealt with when an anonymous editor put this claim up a couple weeks ago; the discussion on it is above. The whole Atta in Prague story rests on one unreliable source who saw Atta on TV and thought he may have remembered seeing him -- not from an eyewitness who is an intel agent, which is what you seem to imply. It also contradicts everything known about Atta's movements at the time. I do think "allegations" belongs in the title, or even "conspiracy theory", but I am fine to leave it as is as long as the article makes clear that the "case" for such a conspiracy is nonsense.--csloat 30 June 2005 04:32 (UTC)

damn, csloat, you get pretty vehement. here are some of the things which are not disputed: hijazi meetings in sudan 1994 and afghanistan 1998; anonymous envoy in baghdad 1998; kuala lumpur meeting 2000 involving an iraqi from the embassy; zarqawi in baghdad 2002; and yassin in baghdad 1994. is anyone seriously disputing whether those really happened? (and based on what?) these are as close to facts as you can get when dealing with spy stuff. so that's at least 1/4 of "this junk" right there.
anyway, i have my own favorite "observers" to quote, that's pure speculation. i think zarqawi, whatever his mental health status, is quite spectacularly good at organizational skills. i also think there isn't a snowball's chance in hell that he did anything in baghdad (including merely visit) without saddam knowing about it and allowing it to happen. that's my pure speculation anyway, see how easy it is? not sure what you mean by (4), "indicts"? prior to which article? i just want to know if the atta/prague story was officially retracted by the czech, and if yes where. ObsidianOrder 30 June 2005 05:42 (UTC)
Nothing personal meant in my vehemence, OO, sorry if you took any offense -- I guess I just feel a bit frustrated since we've covered this ground before. The things you say are "not disputed" are: a hijazi meeting in 94 or 95 may have happened but he denies the 98 meeting and it's obvious the 94 meeting went nowhere. more on him below. The "anonymous envoy" story is weak -- by all accounts it "ended disastrously." The kuala lumpur 2000 thing is confusion about names, there was no mukhabarat present. "An Iraqi" hardly makes for a Saddam connection any more than the presence of "a Jordanian" in Iraq establishes a relationship with OBL and King Hussein. Zarqawi in 2002 has nothing to do with anything as he hated Saddam and certainly was not working for him. Yasin (as you are well aware) was in Iraq because he is, umm, Iraqi. Not because he was a link to Saddam. This was covered by 911 commission and by Richard Clark - eventually I will dig up the quote and put it there to back up the weak response from the SITE institute source. So all of these points are disputed, at least insofar as they establish any Saddam-al Q conspiracy. As stated clearly in the article, meetings alone do not establish any relationship or connection worth investigating here (and this is really a big reason why intelligence analysis is best done by intelligence analysts rather than ideologues).
As for your speculation about Zarqawi being supported by Saddam, there has never been a shred of evidence of this and you're well aware of it. So feel free to speculate about that but the preponderance of evidence is that Zarqawi hated Saddam and that he was never supported by him. As for the Atta/Prague thing, I think I clarified the issue in my last edits to that section - I'm sure you'll let me know if you disagree. But as far as all the information I've seen on that, there is basically zero chance that such a meeting occurred.--csloat 30 June 2005 06:19 (UTC)
heh, i guess i'm just not used to the heat after my restful wikivacation. i'm looking for a good source for what hijazi has been saying most recently. kuala lumpur - the guy was working for the iraqi embassy, whether or not he was fedayeen (only the latter error is attributable to confusion about names). "went nowhere", "ended disastrously" - well, you're raising the bar, but also the fact is if we're not 100% certain whether the meetings happened, i find it strange to be able to state with any certainty what the results were ;) in any case, there's a half-dozen undisputed contacts for ya (significant or not as the case may be) ObsidianOrder 30 June 2005 06:42 (UTC)
I guess I didn't realize the bar was so low. There's a HUGE difference between an embassy worker in another country and a Fedayeen. That's one possible "contact" but hardly a link between al Qaeda and Saddam. The claim you are trying to establish is that al Qaeda worked for Saddam (or vice versa, or "with") to plan terrorism against the US; that is the claim I believe there is not a shred of evidence to support. Cherry picking information about a meeting here or there is a way to make it look like there is such evidence without actually showing any. If your claim is that there are a couple of undisputed "contacts" that never went anywhere, ok, but that establishes nothing at all, since you can establish more contact between al Qaeda and Iran, between al Qaeda and Germany, between al Qaeda and Venice, Florida for that matter.--csloat 30 June 2005 07:30 (UTC)

hijazi claim redux

Below is the claim - I will leave it up for now but I think there are some necessary edits. Here's what it says now:

  • 1994 -- Sudan -- Farouk Hijazi, then head of Iraqi Secret Service, may have met with Osama bin Laden in Sudan ([10]). Hijazi told his aide that "he had no intention of accepting Saddam's offer because 'if we go there, it would be his agenda, not ours.'"[11] Hijazi, arrested in April 2003, acknowledged the meeting took place but said the two groups established no ties. [12]

What's wrong with the above is: (1) the dfw link is gone; the discussion above says this claim was made about the 98 meeting, not this one. I think this needs to be re-sourced. (2) the weekly standard should not be cited as a primary source for this claim. Cite the 911 Commission report; the report says "With the Sudanese regime acting as intermediary, Bin Ladin himself met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in Khartoum in late 1994 or early 1995. Bin Ladin is said to have asked for space to establish training camps,as well as assistance in procuring weapons,but there is no evidence that Iraq responded to this request." This is different from what is claimed by WS. (3) here is what the sfgate article says: "Another recent catch, Farouk Hijazi, is an alleged link between the Iraqi government and al-Qaida. But he has denied reports that he traveled to Afghanistan in late 1998 and met with Osama bin Laden, officials familiar with his interrogation said. Hijazi, Iraq's ambassador to Tunisia and a former senior official in Iraqi intelligence, acknowledged meeting with al-Qaida operatives in 1994 in Sudan, but said the Iraqi government established no ties with bin Laden's network." It should be stressed throughout that the conclusions of everyone involved in this evidence is that no links were established at this meeting.csloat 30 June 2005 06:30 (UTC)

i agree with most of that and will try to re-source, possibly using some of the 911 commission-related documents that name hijazi specifically. however, note this difference: 911 comm rept says "there is no evidence that Iraq responded to this request" you: "the conclusions of everyone involved ... is that no links were established". the statement that "x found no evidence that y established links" is pretty far from "x concluded that no links were established by y". but don't feel bad, everyone who reads the 911 rept makes the same error. anyway, with that caveat, ok, and i will try to find the hijazi-obl claim source. but probably not tonight ;) ObsidianOrder 30 June 2005 07:02 (UTC)
OO, I am fascinated by your perception of where the burden of proof lies. In your eyes, one can hypothesize anything they want, with any probability level, and if no evidence proving this event false is found, then the links are "indeterminate". Why isn't the burden of proof on the initial hypothesis rather than its critical analysis? The statement that "x found no evidence that y established links" is pretty far from "x concluded that no links were established by y", only if your burden of proof rests upon disproving an unsupported hypothesis. --kizzle June 30, 2005 16:27 (UTC)
LOL - everyone reads it that way because that's what the Commission concluded. You're twisting things to make it seem like the burden of proof is on me to prove a negative rather than being on you conspiracy theorists to prove a conspiracy. The problem with conspiracy theory is the arguments are so self-serving; "proof" doesn't have to exist, just shadowy details combined with innuendo; then you put the burden on everyone else to prove there is no conspiracy. Again - the conclusions of everyone involved is that there were no significant links established between Saddam and al Qaeda.--csloat 30 June 2005 07:38 (UTC)
By the way - this cuts to other points you make above, like that the status of the links between al Qaeda and Saddam are "indeterminate" -- you say that like it's some devastating revelation. It's bullshit - I can just as easily state that the status of the links between al Qaeda and Richard Nixon's dog Checkers are "indeterminate," since nobody has proven that they don't exist. Or, to make the example more realistic, between Germany and al Qaeda; between the US and al Qaeda; between Mossad and al Qaeda. We can certainly establish "undisputed contacts" given your standard for that -- money given by John Ashcroft to MEK terrorists; meetings and flight training with German and Dutch figures and Mohamed Atta in Florida; evidence of contacts with Israeli agents posing as "art students"; etc. These little pieces of "evidence" can easily be strung together to paint a compelling but utterly false picture - just look at the host of conspiracy theories out there on 911. The only reason this particular story has any legs at all is because a cabal of ideologues (who even refer to themselves as The Cabal, ferchrissakes) went on a campaign to set the intelligence agenda around the story from the beginning (again, it's the same Team B bullshit they pulled during the Reagan Administration). They insistently and adamantly keep harping on it and managed to convince some poor fools that there is something to the story in spite of the fact that everything we know for certain militates against such a conclusion. So the status of the claim that al Qaeda was working with or for Saddam is not "indeterminate"; it is "false," at least as much as we can say that the claim that al Qaeda was working with or for the government of the Netherlands is also "false", not "indeterminate." To take a more extreme example; would you say that the status of the claim that the Holocaust is a giant hoax is "indeterminate"? After all, nobody has proven that it isn't a giant hoax. csloat 30 June 2005 07:56 (UTC)

anonymous additions of quotes

There's some good stuff there but there's too much of it posted here -- do we really need all these quotes? And can they be formatted the same way as the rest? --csloat 2 July 2005 09:58 (UTC)

Conspiracy/Cooperation?

It's clear there are many instances of cooperation between al Qaeda and Saddam Hueesin. Many are referenced in the 9/11 Commission report, some are mentioned in declassified CIA letters and reports, and many others are still classified.

The use of the term "conspiracy," however, is perjorative and clearly violates the professed neutrality of Wikipedia. I have modified as many uses of this term as possible within textural flow.

Mr. Googolplex

Read the damn timeline please. There are no instances of "cooperation" between the two; there are a few attempts by one or the other to extend feelers out there but as all investigators concluded, these attempts did not lead to any cooperation. If you know of classified information that disputes this, you should let us know, or let the CIA know, because they have not been informed about it yet. As for "conspiracy", it is not used here pejoratively. It is the most accurate term for this theory, the theory being that Saddam and al Qaeda conspired to use terrorism against the United States. I'm not sure what is wrong with the term; even if the theory were true, it would still be a "conspiracy" (for example, the 19 hijackers were part of a "conspiracy" that included KSM and OBL -- that is certainly a "conspiracy" that exists; the term does not mean it didn't happen.)--csloat 2 July 2005 18:49 (UTC)

Let me correct that statement - "conspiracy" is not necessarily pejorative, but "conspiracy theory" definitely is. How can you claim neutrality when you are cant even make unbiased arguments on the discussion page? - jcp

hrm; not sure what you mean about my claims to neutrality. Let's go through this again. The theory discussed on this page is the theory that al Qaeda conspired with Saddam. It is the definition of a conspiracy theory. Even if it were true (it is not, according to all the evidence that we have seen), it would still be a conspiracy theory (the same as the theory that 19 hijackers conspired to demolish the WTC and hit the pentagon, for example). Again, I don't object to removing it from the title - I'm not the one who renamed it, and I am the one who proposed the previous title (Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda) which I have said here seems the most neutral to me. I'm just pointing out that "conspiracy theory" is perfectly accurate to describe the theory here. It has all the hallmarks of conspiracy theory in the pejorative sense as well -- the true believers who refuse to acknowledge evidence that contradicts their position, the shifting burden of proof, and the self-serving arguments (e.g. "of course that's what so-and-so would say; it's because he's part of the conspiracy"). So it is an accurate term whether you feel it is pejorative or not. But I am still waiting to hear from the person who actually changed the title; if you feel it is time to change it back please be my guest.--csloat 07:37, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
The phrase "conspiracy theory" has more than one definition, see Conspiracy theory, it can mean simply a theory of people literally conspiring but its secondary definition also connotes that the theory is "unworthy of being taken seriously" which is obviously pejorative. zen master T 13:51, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

This article is leftist propaganda. It should be deleted.

This claim in the very 1st paragraph is an outright leftist lie.

"Apart from the Bush administration and its supporters, no more support has been given to this allegation than to the charge that Saddam was in possession of weapons of mass destruction."


The 9/11 Commission Report downplaying cooperation appears at odds with CIA analysis presented in an unclassified letter from the Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet to the US Congress on October 7, 2002. [13] In part the letter reads:


"... Regarding Senator Bayh's question of Iraqi links to al- Qa'ida, Senators could draw from the following points for unclassified discussions:


Our understanding of the relationship between Iraq and al- Qa'ida is evolving and is based on sources of varying reliability. Some of the information we have received comes from detainees, including some of high rank.

We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and al-Qa'ida going back a decade.

Credible information indicates that Iraq and al-Qa'ida have discussed safe haven and reciprocal non-aggression.

Since Operation Enduring Freedom, we have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of al-Qa'ida members, including some that have been in Baghdad.

We have credible reporting that al-Qa'ida leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire WMD capabilities. The reporting also stated that Iraq has provided training to al-Qa'ida members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs.

Iraq's increasing support to extremist Palestinians, coupled with growing indications of a relationship with al- Qa'ida, suggest that Baghdad's links to terrorists will increase, even absent US military action.

Sincerely, [signed:] John McLaughlin (For)

George J. Tenet Director of Central Intelligence"


Tenet Letter

Mr Googolplex please stop vandalizing these pages with your charges of "leftist propaganda". Every claim on this page is clearly sourced. I don't mind if you want to include the Tenet letter here as long as you also include the report the CIA sent to the Senate in January 2003 and the Senate's report on the matter in 2004, both of which concluded that there was no cooperation and no conspiracy between Saddam and al Qaeda. As for your claim that the first paragraph of this article is a lie, that is false. Tenet is not a CIA analyst; as explained on the Saddam Hussein talk page, where you ignored it, he was DCI. The CIA analysts who actually did the grunt work of sorting through the "evidence" came to conclusions that were the opposite of what Tenet told congress. This is all part of the public record, so stop whining that it is leftist propaganda. If you are going to be this aggressive on wikipedia please get a user id and sign your posts properly and follow the rules. Thank you. --csloat 2 July 2005 19:07 (UTC)


OK. So what is your source for the leftist lie: "Apart from the Bush administration and its supporters, no more support has been given to this allegation than to the charge that Saddam was in possession of weapons of mass destruction?"

Clearly the letter from the Clinton DCI appointee George Tenet proves this claim false. Now that you leftists know it is false your repeating what may have once been just a "mistake" becomes a lie, a violation of the NPOV policy and a vandalism of Wikipedia. Try proving your claim CIA analysts, in total - not just a rogue member - came to the opposite view. To date you've offered absolutely no support for your claim beside the words "everybody knows."

Mr Googolplex

Can you name someone outside of the Bush Admin and a small cadre of ideologues who believe this? Tenet, of course, was in the Bush Admin at the time. Besides, the CIA concluded otherwise, as the Senate reported here; the direct quote from the CIA report is in the article here, why do you keep insisting that an assertion in a Tenet letter is definitive? For christ's sake, you can look this stuff up yourself; please do some research before you go about stomping through encyclopedia pages changing everything based on a single quote that nobody takes seriously. The assertion of Tenet does not "prove" anything. The CIA report is the conclusion of the analysts, not "a rogue member". If you have specific evidence about a specific link, it can go here; general quotations should go in the "Statements" section at the bottom.--csloat 2 July 2005 20:10 (UTC)

This entire page is cluttered, uninformative, and is not completely objective.

I say wipe the entire article clean and start over.

If we truly were to start over, without the stain of Obsidian Order's original website content, I would agree. If we go back to his boilerplate list of unsubstantiated claims, that would be most unfortunate and would hurt the 'progress' made since this disinfo was first posted here. -- RyanFreisling @ 7 July 2005 16:02 (UTC)

Why it should be scrubbed.. None of this is even listed.

"In the end, what the president AND Congress used to send the country to war was information sent from the intelligence community, and this information was flawed," Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts, R-Kan. And you wonder why there was a CIA shakedown. There is alot of innuendo on this page and not much factual evidence.

As far as I know, the U.S. government sent Saddam Hussein 3 strains of Anthrax in '87 - '88. Iraq produced 2,200 gallons of these strains (disclosed) in the years before the '91 Gulf War. It was disclosed that this was destroyed in mid-1991. The U.N. experts, who scoured Iraq for banned arms from 1991-98 and 2002-03, confirmed anthrax had been dumped at Hakam. The Iraqi microbiologist, Rihab Rashid Taha, was scared to disclose the wherabouts of 1,800 gallons of the 'destroyed' anthrax. After the entirety of the Anthrax supply was dropped at Hakam, she carted off the 1,800 gallons to a temporary storage 'bungalow' near one of Saddam's palaces, 20 miles west of Baghdad. This deactivated anthrax was dumped on the ground near the palace and barracks. She was afraid of retribution if Saddam knew that she dumped anthrax on his palace.

And you left out that the Senate overwhelmingly approved the Iraq war resolution in 10/02. 296-133 in the House and 77-23 in the Senate. The measure passed the Senate and House by wider margins than the 1991 resolution that allowed George H. W. Bush to go to war to oust Iraq from Kuwait. That measure passed 250-183 in the House and 52-47 in the Senate.

Why can't you be more objective and ask the most important question. Does intelligence gathering should use a centralized system so all agencies can share information. Hindsight is 20/20.

Also, if you are going to keep this same format, add a section for reasons why the United States would want to invade Iraq.

You provided some very useful info, and you had me agreeing with you for the first three paragraphs. Since I can't understand the exact question you're posing in the fourth, I will only say that 'Intelligence sharing and the justification for war in Iraq' is not this article's title. It's (currently) 'Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda'. The Iraq war vote in congress (to fund an attack on Iraq if they refused nuclear inspectors) is a contextual point that may indeed be helpful in this article, but exploring the U.S. justification for war in general and the role of intelligence sharing is decidedly not the focus of this article. -- RyanFreisling @ 7 July 2005 16:57 (UTC)

title change?

Did I miss the discussion about changing the title to include "conspiracy theory"? I don't think it's unreasonable at all to call it that but I'm not sure about it being the title -- did anyone justify this move?csloat 9 July 2005 03:05 (UTC)

The title has changed twice since I last looked and nobody has chosen to comment. Perhaps we could have a discussion before (or during) the next change? --csloat 02:28, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
I think wikipedia should avoid presumption inducing language even in an arguably justified attempt at signifying the basis for this article is very dubious. Separately, there are multiple problems with the title and much potential for confusion, for instance was Al-Qaeda meeting with just Saddam directly? Seems like an attempt at smearing just one person to justify an invasion. I still vote this content should be merged back elsewhere, but if it stays here the title should be something like Baathist Iraq and Al-Qaeda or Pre 2003 invasion Baathist Iraq and Al-Qaeda or something better, since the scope of the article is not about alleged links between Iraq and Al-Qaeda after 2003, right? zen master T 03:03, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
I think that's why it's Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda rather than Iraq and al Qaeda or something like that. I don't mind the conspiracy theory name - it is accurate, whether or not there were "links" between the two - but I imagine there are others who do mind the name, and there should at least be a dialogue about it.--csloat 09:46, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
"conspiracy theory" is improper language, the phrase can mean both: a literally true theory that some people conspired and also mean that the conspiring or theory of conspiring is of a dubious nature -- this is at best needlessly ambiguous, or at worst POV. The Flat Earth article does not have "dubious" or "discredited" in the title and is not ambiguous. What about the idea of having "Baathist Iraq" in this title? Using "conspiracy theory" taints any conclusions in an article (wherever it is used). It would be more accurate to delete this article and merge the content elsewhere to where it would be properly caveatted as being dubious and generally discredited, like back to 2003 invasion of Iraq. zen master T 10:08, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
Conspiracy theory is inappropriate. The page should be moved back. Dave (talk) 16:24, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure it is inappropriate at all. "Conspiracy" does not mean "false conspiracy." The word "conspire" literally means to breathe together. Nobody doubts, for example, that 19 hijackers conspired to crash planes into buildings, and even though the theory is correct, it would still be reasonable to call it a conspiracy theory. But I do agree that its use is often pejorative, so moving back to "Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda" would be ok with me. I think adding in "Baathist Iraq" is unnecessary -- Saddam was an authoritarian leader, and for our purposes, "baathist Iraq" = "saddam".--csloat 21:29, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
The implication is that Bush "conspired" to convince people of the connection. We have a page of 9/11 conspiracy theories that doesn't include the conspiracy you mentioned. The term conspiracy theory has a specific meaning. If it really is just a conspiracy theory, the article should be able to prove it without putting it in the title. Dave (talk) 21:39, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
No; the implication is that Saddam "conspired" with al Qaeda. Otherwise it would be the "Bush-Neocon conspiracy theories." The Saddam al-Q conspiracy is listed under Rumors about the September 11, 2001 attacks, a page that was recently voted to be merged with the page you mentioned. It is obviously a conspiracy theory by definition -- the theory is that Saddam conspired with OBL.--csloat 00:01, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

See Conspiracy theory, the phrase has more than one definition, the secondary one is negative. Only the theories some people wish to discredit are labeled as conspiracy theories, which works pretty well since the phrase can also be literally true if the theory is about people conspiring. Just Saddam conspiring with Al-Qaeda wouldn't be enough justification to invade a country, it might be enough to remove him from power, but the key question is whether the "links" between Baathist Iraq and Al-Qaeda were sufficient enough to justify the invasion of a sovereign country (if any exist at all). The implication that the Bush whitehouse conspired to make the dubious connection is not clear enough if that is the title you are going for, something along the lines of the rough Pre-war intelligence conspiracy theory would be more appropriate. Though I repeat, the phrase "conspiracy theory" is, best case, too ambiguous and potentially non neutral for use in a title when describing another subject. zen master T 22:47, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

As I said, this page is not about the Bush conspiracy but about a possible conspiracy between Iraq and al Qaeda prior to 2003.--csloat 00:01, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
Everyone here agrees that removing the words "conspiracy theory" from the title wouln't be bad, right? Dave (talk) 13:49, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
csloat, all - I move it back when I see it's been moved without discussion or a vote on Wikipedia:Requested moves. I'd do it sooner if moves showed up on my watchlist but for some reason (bug in wiki software?) they do not. ObsidianOrder 09:09, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
Moves don't require a vote - and as the original poster, you don't exactly make your case well - this is a Wikipedia article, not your 'pet project'. The move was valid and had no objection until yours. I say it should be moved back, and you should step back from your 'ownership' mindset. -- RyanFreisling @ 13:48, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
Ryan, calm down and stop the personal attacks. The current title is not my first choice, but it is what everyone involved in the earlier move dispute seemed to agree on, so I am willing to stick with that. If someone wants to change it, they should go about it the right way. Controversial moves do require discussion and a vote as described in Wikipedia:Requested_moves.
"ownership mindset"? Hell no. I've made exactly 3 out of the last 50 edits, and of those 2 were to revert move vandalism such as this. I am for the most part happy with the evolution of this article as directed by other editors. Actually, you've got more edits than I. Okay, so I wrote the original version, and so what? ObsidianOrder 14:21, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
Calling Kevin's move vandalism is completely erroneous. Calling my post a personal attack is also erroneous. You posted your web site's unsubstantiated conspiracy talking points WITHOUT CORROBORATION, and contributed little in the way of real effort to corroborate and verify the information. I have maintained from my first post on this article that I see it as grade-A garbage, and the effort to clean up the allegations foisted here a necessary, if distasteful, chore.
I'm aware the title wasn't your first choice. And, since this article does indeed describe a conspiracy theory, the name that the article has had for the past few days was the most accurate. Therefore, what you call 'vandalism' is in fact proper. I call for it's move back to where it has been - Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda conspiracy theory. -- RyanFreisling @ 15:02, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Deleted text; NPOV tag

I've deleted large chunks of text from the "Statements" section because it was improperly formatted and totally unorganized -- some of it may be salvageable; if someone wants to pull out a gem or two for the page please go for it.

Also, when can we delete the NPOV/factual accuracy tag from the heading of the article? Does anyone have concerns about this that have not yet been answered?--csloat 9 July 2005 03:11 (UTC)

I'm OK with removing the NPOV/factual/etc tag. ObsidianOrder 08:46, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Weekly Standard Article

This article is on the connection in light of Iraqi documents that have become available after the war. I don't want to edit this page myself--I don't want to get involved in the edit wars going on here-- but the second page of the article has a lot of new information you might want to add. Dave (talk) 16:29, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

I would hold off on any claims from the thoroughly discredited Stephen Hayes until they are discussed by more credible sources. I just finished reading the article and as far as I can tell the only information here that is actually *new* is the confession from Gitmo of an al Qaeda member who claims to have travelled to Pakistan in 1998 to commit terrorist acts for Saddam. The AP report about this confession concluded "There is no indication the Iraqi's alleged terror-related activities were on behalf of Saddam Hussein's government, other than the brief mention of him traveling to Pakistan with a member of Iraqi intelligence." Of course, Hayes makes fun of this claim, but offers no evidence to believe anything different. The other claims in the piece seem to be rehashing of many of the claims already refuted on this page -- Hijazi for example, whose meetings in the 90s went nowhere, or the claims by the discredited al Qaeda captive al-Libi, who has recanted. Hayes tries to muddle these issues -- for example making it seem as if there is no more reason to believe libi's recanting than his original story (which is not only bogus, since the recanting is backed up by other interrogations, but also it totally ignores the fact that his credibility on either story is questionable). Hayes also makes much of the increasingly pan-Islamic and pan-Arabic rhetoric of Saddam in the 1990s, as if Hayes were unable to see through Saddam's rhetorical ploys. He plays up minor meetings and incidents of contact between Saddam and various terrorists, while ignoring evidence of Saddam's hostility to jihadists throughout the 90s, which included imprisonment and even execution. Nor does he mention the jihadists' hostility to Saddam, whom most of them considered an infidel. Anyway I would not put any more Weekly Standard stuff in this article except a brief mention of the only new piece of info here, the Gitmo confession, with a link to the AP report. Hayes and the Weekly Standard have a track record of cherry picking information that supports their case in a disingenuous manner and ignoring the information that disputes it. --csloat 00:15, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
I'm not too familiar with the Standard (I only read it when I see links from other sources), but what you're saying doesn't sound too far from the truth about its credibility. On the other hand, other people disagree. Like I said, I don't want to get involved in this POV mass. I just thought it would be good to provide a source. 16:57, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
Weekly Standard and specifically Stephen Hayes has been indicted over and over again when it comes to this particular story. I don't know about their credibility on other issues (though they are widely known as neoconservative hacks), but on Iraq/alQaeda they are well known for cherry picking information to support their point as well as spreading disinformation. See here and here for example. In any case, like I said, the only new claim here is the Gitmo confession, which should be added with the AP commentary on it; as far as I can tell (and I read this long article pretty closely) everything else is rehashed and already dealt with in the timeline. Don't get me wrong - I am not saying Weekly Standard is bad automatically because it's a neoconservative magazine, but that on this issue specifically their credibility has been indicted. --csloat 19:22, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

NPOV/TotallyDisputed

In addition to the many particulars surrounding specific allegations (e.g. Atta/Prague, Salman Pak, etc.), the title itself, recently changed by the original poster, is heavily under dispute. In addition, various issues remain unaddressed regarding the structure and premise of the article, and the inclusion of 'factoids' now proven to be spurious. For these and other reasons, the TotallyDisputed tag is completely appropriate, up-to-date, and should not be removed without a large group giving consensus. -- RyanFreisling @ 14:33, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Intro sentence

What was in the article:

Outside the administration and its supporters, this is considered dubious.

Should we have this in here? People within the administration, and some of their supporters consider the link dubious. Also, some outside the administration, and the administration's detractors think there may be some validity to the claim. I'm not sure what to do, but this came off sounding very POV, and I'm not sure what to do with this. Any ideas? --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 15:01, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Voldemort, I like most of your changes to the intro, but it is more accurate to say that the 9/11 commission concluded no working relationship from evidence up to the point of publication, which was much later and around the time that the Iraq war proposal was being brought up. What do you think? --kizzle 16:57, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
I can't think of anyone who isn't a staunch neocon who still believes there was a link. I think the original claim is correct; the "link" is considered dubious outside a small circle of ideologues who seem to read nothing but the Weekly Standard. Certainly among all terrorism experts and researchers, there is a pretty solid consensus on this. --csloat 17:36, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
I would agree, but I do believe that given a choice between summarizing a conclusion ourselves or quoting an official respected report, publication, etc. (like 9/11 commission) would be drastically better than our own personal summaries of public opinion. When you say this conclusion is common among "all terrorism experts and researchers", why don't we either provide 2 or 3 of these links to their reports after the summary line, or quote from one of these reports? --kizzle 17:41, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
Well, most of them don't put "reports" on the web that are easily linked to; they write books that can be cited... Rohan Gunaratna, Jason Burke, Daniel Benjamin, etc. I can look up some claims if we need more but it seems to me we are already quoting quite a bit of this kind of stuff. --csloat 18:08, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
Kizzle-I wasn't sure what to write exactly. The opening line is talking about planning attacks, so I figured that a mention of which attacks the 9/11 Commission was reporting on would work. It seems to me that there was a link between Iraq and al-Qaeda long before the attacks of 9-11, but broke up well in advance of the attacks. I didn't know how to say "they used to be friends, but were not at the time of the attacks that the 9/11 Commission was investigating, and therefore had no connection to said attacks." But I agree that citing the report gives it weight, rather than just saying "some people don't believe it." --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 18:12, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
Why do you say "it seems there was a link between Iraq and al Qaeda long before 911"? -- that is totally incorrect. It seems there were some meetings and attempts at contacts, but they never went anywhere. Bin Laden expressed opposition to Saddam since at least as early as 1988. In 1990 he was going to declare jihad against Saddam. There were some meetings in the early to mid-90s but they did not lead to "links." They were never "friends." --csloat 18:25, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
Sure there was a link; the Reagan administration supported Saddam in the 80s, and armed bin Laden and helped him train troops in Afghanistan. We must find these Reaganistas and put an end to their support of global terrorism. Gzuckier 18:29, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
Well in my book, meetings, phone calls, etc. is a link. Perhaps not a strong one. Perhaps not one that led attacks to come to fruition, but a "link" nonetheless. And my thing about the being "friends" was semi-sarcastic. I didn't mean they were going to backyard cookouts or a ballgame together. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 18:39, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
If the kind of link is important (and in this case it is), this doesn't really pass the 'smell test' (thanks Ambassador Wilson). In this case, the President's January 28 State of the Union address has the best consolidated allegation:
"Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.
"Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein." - President George W. Bush
The point of the article is that the relationship alleged is untruthful. The fact that these organizations made contact, and to whatever varying amount, doesn't add up to anything near the relationship alleged as the justification for war. There is simply no evidence to support Saddam aided or supported Al Qaeda, and a plethora of evidence to support the other view - that there was no 'functioning relationship' between the two. However, in the run up to the war (as the Downing Street Memos point out) 'Intelligence {supporting the connection} was fixed around the policy'.-- RyanFreisling @ 18:49, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree with most all of you in what you're saying. All I'm saying is this. While it might seem subtle, this one line is going to characterize the entire content of this page in relation to the status of its veracity. Yes, we can make broad interpretations that most people think this link is completely bullshit. But I would much rather quote something notable, whether its the 9/11 commission report, one of the books you have csloat, anything. This leaves little room for future editors to come in and muck around or re-interpret our interpretations. That's all I ask. Do any of you have a suggestion as to what should be quoted? I initially started out with the 9/11 commission concluding that there was no "working relationship" between the two...but if another publication with closer proximity to the central aspects of the controversy can be found, then by all means lets use it. --kizzle 19:01, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

From the 9/11 Commision's staff statement #15:
Bin Ladin also explored possible cooperation with Iraq during his time in Sudan, despite his opposition to Hussein’s secular regime. Bin Ladin had in fact at one time sponsored anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan. The Sudanese, to protect their own ties with Iraq, reportedly persuaded Bin Ladin to cease this support and arranged for contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda. A senior Iraqi intelligence officer reportedly made three visits to Sudan, finally meeting Bin Ladin in 1994. Bin Ladin is said to have requested space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but Iraq apparently never responded. There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda also occurred after Bin Ladin had returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship. Two senior Bin Ladin associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq. We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States.
and:
With al Qaeda as its foundation, Bin Ladin sought to build a broader Islamic army that also included terrorist groups from Egypt, Libya, Algeria, Saudi Arabia and Oman, Tunisia, Jordan, Iraq, Lebanon, Morocco, Somalia, and Eritrea. Not all groups from these states agreed to join, but at least one from each did. With a multinational council intended to promote common goals, coordinate targeting, and authorize asset sharing for terrorist operations, this Islamic force represented a new level of collaboration among diverse terrorist groups.
This shows us that there were some ties between the two, just none the 9/11 Commission found would have caused an attack. And I know this has been debated like crazy, but perhaps the title of this article is wrong? --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 19:18, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
IMHO the closest thing to the right title I've seen was the prior title, before the original poster moved it, 'Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda conspiracy theory'. -- RyanFreisling @ 19:21, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
Lord V - this stuff has all been refuted both in the article and on this talk page. What you quote does not establish "ties"; what it establishes is that there were meetings. You forget that these people had meetings with everyone -- Pakistan, Iran, Saudis, etc etc. None of the meetings with Iraqis established any kind of collaboration. Insisting on "ties" is misleading -- it makes it seem like the claim has some credibility, which it does not. And the passage you quote does not equivocate about this -- "do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship" ... "adamantly denied" ... "no credible evidence". The second paragraph you quote says OBL wanted a pan-Islamic force that included terrorist groups from many countries, including Iraq. It says nothing about cooperating with Saddam's government -- these terrorist groups he's talking about were sworn enemies of Saddam's secular Baathist "infidel" government. --csloat 19:30, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
"all been refuted"? This is from the 9/11 Comission itself... but if that's not a good enough source... And I am not trying to claim that Iraq had anything to do with any attacks. I am just saying that whatever you would like to think, there were ties between Iraq and al-Qaeda. These ties are probably just meetings and contacts, but they are still ties. I think you are arguing semantics. I do not insist that Bush's 2003 claim has any credibility, I just think you should write from an NPOV. State that there are ties, none seemed to lead to attacks, no "collaborative relationship", and move on. If you want the page to be about something else, rename it, because as it stands, this is not the place for it. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 19:48, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
That's not how the news media characterizes it. "The commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks reported Wednesday that Osama bin Laden met with a top Iraqi official in 1994 but found “no credible evidence” of a link between Iraq and al-Qaida in attacks against the United States." - MSNBC. --kizzle 19:55, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
It is refuted in the report itself, LV, I am not disputing the source. It is also refuted by others quoted on the article here. If "ties" are just meetings and contacts, then it is equally valid to say that al Qaeda had ties to every country in the Middle East, including Israel. Not to mention its ties to Germany, the Netherlands, and France, since al Qaeda members met with shadowy figures from these countries as well. And even the CIA, who had met with Abdel Rahman before the WTC bombing, as revealed by the Village Voice in 1993. It sounds like you think we should change the name back to Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda Conspiracy Theory, which I would support. Again, you ignore the specifics in my comment above -- the 911 commission refuted all the ties. And you ignore the reality that these forces -- al Qaeda and Saddam's government -- hated each other. --csloat 20:03, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
So now we get to pick and choose what parts of what they say to use? This is ridiculous... once again you are arguing semantics. I never said Iraq had anything to do with any attacks. All I was saying is that there is some small connection between Iraq (perhaps not Saddam himself) and al-Qaeda. I guess you could say the same thing about those other countries, but this is an article about Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda, not those other countries. And I don't really care if they hated each other. People have been allies (a much stronger link than I'm suggesting here) and have disliked each other. The fact they didn't like each other does not mean they didn't meet and have contacts with each other. Sorry it took me so long to respond, either my computer or Wikipedia was acting funny. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 20:35, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
It is not picking and choosing to report their conclusions rather than the leadup to those conclusions, especially when they specifically refute the claims in the leadup. In this case the passage you quote yourself says this - if you want to quote the whole passage fine but it's a little redundant. You can also see these items specifically disputed in the timeline -- that's why I don't understand your complaint; the meetings you are talking about are mentioned one by one in the timeline and the relevant conclusions of experts reported, in most cases refuting either the evidence that a meeting even took place or the evidence that the meeting amounted to anything.
Your point about the name of the article is disingenuous -- we don't have a CIA and al-Qaeda or Mossad and al-Qaeda or even an Iran and al Qaeda even though we can find equivalent -- even stronger in the case of Iran -- evidence of such "ties" between the entities. You're right if we had such articles and this was just one of many, that would make sense, but the point is this was given a separate article because a fantasized conspiracy was instrumental to the Bush Administration's case for war. That did not make it any less a fantasy, and I don't think it is Wikipedia's job to give credence to such fantasies, even though they may have been successful in convincing many people. It is reasonable, however, for Wikipedia to document the fact that this distortion of the public debate occurred and that a consensus of al-Qaeda experts agree that this is all a fantasy. In fact I cannot think of a single expert at all on counterterrorism issues who believes this (and I am talking about credentialed experts, not folks like Stephen Hayes and Laurie Mylroie).
I think your objections may be a good reason to go back to having the phrase "conspiracy theory" in the title as someone else added a while ago. Then we could include a section on the phenomenon that a small cadre of ideologues was successful in convincing so many people -- for a while, a majority of the American public -- that such a conspiracy existed. Don't get me wrong - I think this cadre of neocons are true believers in what they say; the problem is that they are just out and out wrong. That's why I call it a fantasy but I doubt a title Saddam and al-Qaeda fantasies will fly :) --csloat 22:48, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion, the opening statement that the alleged link was the reason to launch the invasion is erroneous. The alleged link was hardly the main reason given by anyone to support the invasion. The purpose for the invasion was 90% due to Saddam's noncompliance with UN sanctions and weapons inspections. I also don't believe that the "neocons" believe all they say...no politician does...they try to say what will keep them in office. Here's the facts though....the global strategic attitude held by the vast majority of military planners, officers and even liberal politicians is that when you have an enemy you can't find, best to send our boys and girls THERE as a magnet...at least, as they think, this carries the action to THEM. Alas, we are all just pawns of the system.--MONGO 07:19, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

LOL, I agree with you the neocons don't believe all they say, but that includes the garbage^W bizarre conclusion that you're claiming is "the global straegic attitude held by the vast majority of military planners, officers and even liberal politicians." What a joke - I can't think of anyone serious who belongs in those categories who believes that. It comes out of Bush's mouth, sure, as "we're fighting them in Iraq so we don't have to fight them here," but I doubt anyone in their right mind really believes this (certainly not anyone serious about military strategy).
Please don't refer to my comment as "garbage". I think you misunderstood me. I am saying that they do indeed plan this way. It is different than what you claim Bush says. I stated that we are just pawns...we definitely are putting our youngsters there to take the battle to them...that is the absolute ugly truth.--MONGO 07:46, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
The difference from what Bush says does not seem that great. Can you name anyone who makes this claim seriously? Or are you claiming they believe it but say something different? --csloat 08:04, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
It isn't in words...it is policy though. This country has a history of going "there" to fight...it is what we do. I am claiming that they believe it and say something else...yes ...they lie.--MONGO 08:09, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
Fair enough. I agree they probably lie about their primary reasons, but I won't presume to know their "real" motivations if they are lying. You're certainly correct that the US fights "elsewhere."--csloat 08:28, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Interesting summary by MONGO: there were very similar ways of thinking during the First Indochina War, with the last battle, the Battle of Dien Bien Phu, begin deliberately such a "magnet". One can notice that this way of thinking is usually displayed by hawkish politicians; real military strategists tend to recognise battles which cannot be won; in the same example, general Philippe Leclerc de Hautecloque, hero of the Second World War, pressed the authorities to negotiate a settlement rather than risk everything by fighting on. I don't know whether this is an illustration of what MONGO means ? Rama 08:33, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Before we lose my tangent, I originally was simply saying that the opening sentence seems to state that the alleged links between Saddam and Al-Queda were the reasons for invading Iraq...I disagree and feel that the reasons postulated were that Bush et al argued that it was due to WMD's and non compliance with UN sanctions...the terrorist link was just extra seasonings they sprinkled on top.
I don't care whether we are talking liberal or conservative politicians (although the conservatives are more likly to be hawkish, excluding FDR of course) they all operate with a different set of reasonings and purposes than you or I do. The U.S. wants to remain the preeminent power...some in the U.S. feel that the U.N. does not back up it's words with action...some of these people (an overabundance) work in the U.S. military establishment...these military planners advise politicians...and in most cases, as far as post WWII U.S. military precedent goes...it means to project that power...I am not talking about imperialism (although it may seem that way), I am talking about projection. I believe that the U.S. military establishment feels that the war on terror cannot be won...that it is an ongoing struggle and that there is no end in sight.--MONGO 08:58, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
You may be right Mongo - and if so the people behind this strategy should be tried for treason. But I forgot to respond to your main original point -- I think you underestimate the significance in the Bush Admin line about the war in Iraq this argument was. It was a constant refrain in Bush Admin speeches, and the WMD stuff was tied to it -- the fear was not so much of Saddam attacking us with a nuke (missile launched from Baghdad? please) but rather of him offering WMD tech to terrorists. Of course there were other WMD related fears - e.g. that he might threaten Israel with a nuke - but terrorism was the big one, and Bush made sure (and continues to make sure) that 9-11 was mentioned in nearly every speech about Iraq.
One other thing on the other point - such a strategy is sheer lunacy and ignorance if it is undertaken with the goal of actually decreasing terrorism or preventing attacks on the homeland. It has the demonstrable opposite effect, and the theory seems to presume there is a fixed number of terrorists in the world and that US actions will have no impact on that number, both just ridiculous assumptions (which was why I referred to it as "garbage" earlier). It's also completely ignorant of the actual things written and discussed by members of al Qaeda. If as you suggest our leaders did this knowingly for some other nefarious purpose, then what they have done is one helluva a high crime/misdemeanor. --csloat 09:16, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
I realize that the political agendas of Al-Queda and Saddam were antagonistic to each other...I never questioned this. Perhaps I am wrong that the alleged links between Saddam and Al-Queda were so much at the forefront..I do know that Bush and others repeatedly stated that there were connections...I also think that they had only the smallest amount of proof to substantiate such a claim. My perception is that the biggest arguments pro-invasion were based on allegations of WMD's and noncompliance...but that is probably just my perception. In closing, I am not suggesting that the U.S. military or it's planners are nefarious...just completely without vision.--MONGO 09:33, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

how about this?

How about including this link in the intro? It's not precisely what was there before but I think it helps establish how far in left field this conspiracy theory is. This was how some of Bush's own Admin reacted after he started making these wild claims. At the very least I will put this in the timeline; I will think about how to incorporate it in the intro (and see if I can dig up some choice quotes on the issue summarizing the consensus of experts). --csloat 20:09, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Full text of comments

Does anyone know where I can find the full text of the comments this BBC article is talking about? Bush Rejects Saddam 9/11 Link --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 20:44, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Funny, a quick search of whitehouse.gov reveals word for word the same comment in two speeches from Condee. I guess it makes sense though they do circulate the "talking points" for the admin and often lazily quote them word for word.--csloat 18:17, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Title, again

I notice the title changed over and back again. Has Kevin defended this move at all on this page before? The actions are mysterious although I have said above I would support such a move if it makes this issue more clear (and the above exchange with Lord Voldemort indicates that it may). But I don't think at this point the title should be changed without a vote. --csloat 02:25, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I also support a title change like the one Kevin has attempted (each time reverted by the original poster). I am concerned that the article is being unfairly 'controlled' by ObsidianOrder (the original poster) in an unacceptable way. I also don't view Kevin's behavior as mysterious, but the absence of 'talk' should be remedied. Kevin - your thoughts, so we can make this title change stick? -- RyanFreisling @ 02:41, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
I think a discussion may be in order. There may be other suggestions for names as well. I also notice that OO has a note on Kevin's user page asking him to say what is going on here. If there is support for this besides us we could go to WP:requested page moves or whatever and request the move.--csloat 05:24, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Source request

Can someone who's up on this stuff provide a source (actually, several would be better) that we can link to at the end of the opening sentence where it says the Bush administration alleged that Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda conspired to launch terrorist attacks on America. I do seem to recall Cheney going on about this, but my memory is fuzzy on what Bush himself said, and it would be good to see a contemporary news report which gave a direct quote of Bush's comments on this point. It would seem to me to be a good move to have a source for this statement, to quiet any potential controversy on this point before it starts. Noel (talk) 17:00, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

A number of the quotes and sources are, logically, within the article already... check the long quote section. Here's my two personal favorites, Waxman's report:
"In 125 separate appearances, they (Bush, Cheney, Powell, Rumsfeld and Rice) made {...} 61 misleading statements about Iraq's relationship with Al-Qaeda" -- Report by the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Government Reform - Minority Staff [14]
and the 2003 State of the Union address wherein President Bush stated, "Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own."
"Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes. " (applause) [15]
The first discusses many people ((Bush, Cheney, Powell, Rumsfeld and Rice)), not what I was asking for (and in any case, given the source, it could be dismissed as partisan and biased). The second and third talk in part about potential links, not actual links, so to that extent they aren't really on-point either.
It's true that the second does say Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda, but the first part of that is manifestly true (SH was providing pensions to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, for example). I suppose the aids and protects .. members of al Qaeda might count as a claim of a link, but it's a long way from "SH helped with the 9/11 attacks", which is the completely incorrect impression that many people apparently have.
(Also, given how diffuse Al-Q is, and given what now seems to have been Saddam's pre-war plans and preparations to resist a US invasiona with an insurgency, it may indeed be true that some al-Q related people, such as Zarqawi, were somewhere on the fringes of his preparations.) If Bush ever did say, in essense, "SH helped with the 9/11 attacks", does anyone have a source for it? I think that would be much stronger, if it could be sourced. Noel (talk) 20:24, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
I don't believe Bush ever said anything like that. What he did many times was mention Saddam in the same breath as 911 as if they were one and the same. It's a far more effective strategy, intentional or not. You can refute a direct claim but it's a lot harder to refute a vague innuendo. --csloat 20:28, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Other page on this topic

There is another page on this topic that repeats a lot of the conspiracy theory as truth. It also falsely claims that an Iraq-Al-Qaeda connection was commonly accepted in the Clinton Administration (certainly the Clinton Admin had access to a lot less info than the current one but they were not at all blindly accepting of the conspiracy theory or the theory of state sponsorship of al Qaeda. The Laurie Mylroie theory of the 93 WTC attack had been roundly discredited before Bush). The article comes to the opposite conclusion of this one (and, I might add, of every terrorism expert and intelligence agency on earth). It should probably be deleted and replaced with a redirect.--csloat 23:57, 22 July 2005 (UTC)


Do not merge this page with "Iraq-al Qaeda Connection"

This page is obviously biased as is the comment above. The "Iraq-al Qaeda Connection" is factual and unbiased, quoting sources reliably. Merging the two pages would make an impossible read. It is possible to put a link on "Iraq-al Qaeda Connection" to this page. Editors of this page could then impeach the witnesses or refute the link of "Iraq-al Qaeda Connection" in a logical and systematic way. But the evidence for the connection should also be presented in a systematic and logical way. Merging the pages makes it impossible for anyone to give full attention and weight to the evidence for a connection. Changing the name of "Iraq-al Qaeda Connection" to "Saddam Hussein-al Qaeda Connection" would be appropriate.RonCram 23:50, 22 July 2005

It used to be called Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda. Either way, please read the responses to all this junk - it is dealt with in the timeline, point by point. You are wrong about Atta in Prague -- the Czechs admitted that everything was based on one reliable eyewitness. The NYT article is not fantasy (as you say in another section on this page) and the response to the NYT article is also dealt with on the timeline. The real fantasy is the Saddam-al Qaeda connection, which every intelligence agency in the world and every terrorism expert with actual credentials agrees there is no evidence to support. --csloat 08:46, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
Whatever it's called, it's a bunch of allegations used to justify a war that were roundly debunked and called what they are - 'lies'. But without them, where is the justification for this war...? The more these crazy pro-administration theories pop up here on Wikipedia, the more obvious that the veil of lies has fallen.
Nixon is dead - long live Nixon 2! Thanks for the debunking practice. -- RyanFreisling @ 13:20, 23 July 2005 (UTC)


Suggested New Opening - Comments Welcome

A political controversy rages over the possible existence and extent of a relationship between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda.

President George W Bush claimed a relationship existed between Saddam Hussein and terror organizations, including Al-Qaeda, as part of his justification for the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The official Bush Administration position claims Saddam and Al-Qaeda had a working relationship, but claims insufficient evidence exists to prove Saddam’s regime was involved in the attacks of 9/11. However, certain Bush Administration officials, notably Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and former Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz have argued that credible evidence shows Saddam was involved in the 9/11 attacks.

The 9/11 Commission concluded that there was no evidence of a "collaborative relationship" between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda at the time of the September 11, 2001 attacks. [16] [17]

Prior to 9/11, the Clinton Administration claimed a working relationship existed between Saddam and Al-Qaeda, specifically in the area of chemical weapons development and training (Pages 9 and 14 ) [18] and in an offer to Osama of asylum in Iraq (Page 134). [19] However, after 9/11, several Clinton Administration officials, including Richard A Clarke have claimed that no working relationship ever existed.

After hearing testimony from expert witnesses, U.S. District Court Judge Harold Baer ruled that Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden were jointly responsible for the 9/11 attacks on America and were responsible to pay $104 million in damages to the families of the victims. [20]

The pre-war relationship is distinct from the major Al-Qaeda presence that later migrated into Iraq to fight the military presence of the United States following the invasion. RonCram 06:00, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I object to bringing in minute and now irrelevant claims in the intro. Put them in the timeline where they belong. The fact that someone in the Clinton admin got it wrong is used here to make it seem like there is evidence for it, and then you claim this is more NPOV? I am more comfortable keeping the intro to what is known now, rather than confusing the issue. You can put the Judge Baer stuff in the timeline but it does not belong in the intro at all -- it is not an investigation; it is simply proof that Saddam didn't show up to New York court to defend himself. How many times must I repeat that? Why do you insist upon distorting the issue with facts that have little relevance? The bottom line is, everyone who has seriously investigated this "link" now believes there is no link. That is the main conclusion of every investigation into this specific question. The only people who don't agree with that conclusion are Feith, Hayes, and the neocons that they have conned. This is not political bias on my part - these are the facts, and they are supported by conservatives as well as liberals who have addressed the question directly.--csloat 06:18, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Additionally, the 911 Commission conclusions should be cited clearly rather than muddling their conclusion by citing various points of conjecture throughout the report out of context, as if to distort their conclusions. Again, there is a page on the 911 report specifically where all the relevant quotes are, and if you want to quote specifics do so in the timeline where they belong. Putting specific facts in the intro raises their importance, whereas they are specifically addressed in context more completely in the timeline. --csloat 06:21, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
These are not minute and irrelevant claims. These are findings by bodies charged with reaching a conclusion based on ALL the facts. The SCCI was charged with reviewing the prewar intelligence on Iraq, including intelligence on Iraq's relationship to terror organizations. The fact of these conclusions is known, not conjecture or unsubstantiated speculation. Your goal is to make people who see a connection out to be "conspiracy theorists" or whackos who believe in a "flat earth" but they are not. They are the US Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and a US District Court Judge. You keep repeating the line "everyone who has seriously investigated this "link" now believes there is no link. That is the main conclusion of every investigation into this specific question." That is simply untrue and you do yourself a disservice and you insult your readers by repeating it. No matter how much you want that statement to be true, it does not become true by repetition. You have to stop saying it if you want to regain any credibility. Thank you for your comment. Now let's hear from someone different. RonCram 14:20, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Read my responses to this garbage above. The SSCI was not charged with investigating the connection; they were charged with investigating the CIA's investigation of the connection -- there is a difference. Either way, you misrepresent their conclusions, as noted above. The district court judge is also disputed above; you keep ignoring the reality of the argument. Again, every investigation that specifically investigated the question of whether Saddam and al Q cooperated has concluded that there was no evidence to support such cooperation. Even the SSCI came to that conclusion. Anyway, the question here is whether it belongs in the intro, which it doesn't. It belongs in the timeline, not the intro. You are a conspiracy theorist -- you theorize that there was a conspiracy between Saddam and AQ. Some conspiracies are true; this one is false. Demonstrably so. Please stop repeating misinformation. And if I am repeating myself it is only because you refuse to acknowledge my responses to the claims that you keep repeating. Anyway one last time: if you have information that you think is not fairly represented here, put it into the timeline where it belongs. But stop insisting on distorting the Senate conclusions or on waving around a one-sided court decision as if it were an investigation. I agree - let's hear from someone different. --csloat 16:52, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
You wrote: "The SSCI was not charged with investigating the connection; they were charged with investigating the CIA's investigation of the connection -- there is a difference." The SCCI had to investigate the connection in order to assess the conclusions by the CIA. You are drawing a distinction that does not exist in the real world. I have not misrepresented the conclusions of the Senate committee. I cannot find in your earlier post where you ever claimed I did misrepresent. For you to throw the charge out there without any support is disingenuous. Also, trials in absentia have rules that protect the defendant. Not all trials in absentia end in a conviction or finding for the plaintiff. For you to pretend they do is pure hogwash. This is not a conspiracy theory any more than the Axis powers in World War II was a conspiracy theory. For you to use that terminology shows a biased POV. I do not refuse to acknowledge your responses, I have refuted them time and again. Now you have stated your case. Let it lie. Let someone else have their say. RonCram 17:29, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
The distinction certainly does "exist in the real world" -- the SSCI did not look at any new evidence; their only goal was to assess whether the CIA reasonably made use of the evidence available to the CIA. The conclusion was that the CIA did reasonably assess the evidence available. And the CIA's assessment was of course that there was no Saddam/AQ cooperation. You say that you can't find my earlier post -- look under the voting section, where we were arguing earlier. I specifically pointed you to conclusions 93 and 96 in the Senate report. You leave 93 out completely and you ignore 96 even though you print it right there -- the other conclusions speak to specifics that have been addressed elsewhere, but these two point out that the overall assessment is there was no cooperation between the two on terrorism. For you to cherry pick the parts of the report that support your conclusions and then ignore the substantive conclusions that they come to is disingenuous. As for trials in absentia -- I don't pretend that they all end in conviction; I am simply insisting that we do not mistake them for investigations into intelligence matters. You have not refuted any of my responses; you simply keep repeating your claims. I am repeating myself because you ignore the specifics and keep making nonsense claims. Can you not tell the difference between a judicial decision in absentia and an intelligence investigation? --csloat 17:37, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
You make a number of assumptions and misstatements that must be corrected.
  • There is no "new" evidence that impeaches the old evidence. That was just weird.
  • The CIA assessed that Iraq trained al Qaeda in chemical and biological weapons. The SCCI found that assessment reasonable. Despite your statements, training al Qaeda is cooperation.
  • Conclusion 96 has never been ignored. It is the only conclusion that got any press. I have no desire to keep Conclusion 93 out of the article. And I will not allow the other conclusions to be left out. Conclusion 96 speaks only to cooperation in attacks against the US and not to the broader question of a relationship.
  • Judge Baer would certainly be offended at the way you discount the investigation that went on in his court room. You may disagree with the ruling, but you cannot claim it was not an important ruling that readers would want to know about.
  • The claim I refuted was your claim that "everyone who has seriously investigated this "link" now believes there is no link. That is the main conclusion of every investigation into this specific question." The SCCI found Iraq trained al Qaeda in chemical and biological weapons. Judge Baer found that Saddam was involved in 9/11. Your statement is untrue.RonCram 18:10, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
The chem bio stuff is addressed elsewhere. You say that is "cooperation," but the SSCI and the CIA disagree. You are trying to obscure that fact. You leave out Conclusion 93 in your summary because it disagrees with your bogus claims. Conc. 96 is definitive -- if we can agree Saddam did not cooperate with AQ on plans to attack the US, that is progress. Again, this whole "relationship" is only relevant insofar as there is operational cooperation. Otherwise it is no more meaningful than AQ's "relationship" with Saudi Arabia, with Pakistan, or with Germany. I don't care if Judge Baer would be offended but I doubt he would be. He is intelligent enough to understand the difference between a court decision (which by law can only be based on the evidence before the court) and an intelligence investigation, where the investigating body has access to anything (even including classified info). His ruling has no bearing here, save perhaps a mention in the timeline. You insist on the SSCI conclusion about CBW -- the CIA no longer believes this, and everything we know now suggests that Saddam had no CBW anyway. On that point all we have is evidence that Iraqis may have been in Sudan in the early 90s. But that all said, neither the SSCI nor Judge Baer specifically investigated the Iraq/AQ link -- the SSCI investigated another investigation, and Judge Baer weighed the evidence that was brought to his attention, but did no separate investigation. Finally -- I have said over and over you are encouraged to include this info in the timeline, and yet you choose instead to debate here or to demand that it be in the intro. Stop pretending I am trying to distort or censor this stuff; I am simply insisting that we not spread disinformation. --csloat 18:57, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
The fact the SCCI found the Iraqis trained al Qaeda in chemical and biological weapons is not disinformation. Contrary to your statement, nothing has come out to disprove this finding. Even if it had, it does not change the "facts" as they were known prior to the invasion of Iraq. Conclusions 94 and 95 have to be in the intro as does the decision by Judge Baer, otherwise readers will think your bizarre statement that "everyone" sees no link is true. It is not. Enough of this foolishness. Give it a rest. RonCram 01:05, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
This is surreal. You won't respond to the arguments, you just keep stomping your foot and repeating the same stuff over and over, and then you tell me to give it a rest?? I'm not the one talking nonsense. The information you keep insisting on in the intro is hardly a part of the mainstream public discourse on this issue, and your insistence on it is at odds with reality. My statement is not that everyone sees no link -- just that everyone who actually investigated this issue in any formal way reaches that conclusion. It is also the conclusion of all mainstream press accounts on the issue. So bits of information that have been refuted or discounted by most observers, and every intelligence agency, simply do not belong in the intro, unless we are going to put everything in the intro (including the more important conclusions of the SSCI described several times above). I am curious what motivates you conspiracy theorists to cling to this theory so vehemently, especially when even the Bush Administration long ago dropped the claim from its talking points. That is what is truly "bizarre". --csloat 01:30, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
I, likewise, never cease to be amazed by the obstinancy of certain undemonstrable assertions and untenable positions. Kevin Baastalk: new 02:35, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
Let's look at Conclusion 94: "...that the most problematic area of contact..." - That's all it states, it states that something is "the most problematic area of contact". Certainly some area of contact must be the most problematic; must be more problematic than all other areas. That is, regardless of what we're talking about, whether it be turning on a faucet, skipping a stone, driving a car, brushing one's teeth, or what have you, there is, neccessary, a "most problematic area". The existence of such a "most problematic area" in all things certainly does not imply any given degree of "problematicness" overall, and a statement as to what area is the "most problematic", certainly says nothing of exactly how "problematic" that area is, or even in what sense it is "problematic". In summary, Conclusion 94 says absolutely nothing in regard to the credibility of the assertion that there are links between saddam hussien and al-qaeda, or in regard to the substantiveness of such links, might they exist (and conclusion 94 says nothing in regard to whether or not such links exist).
Let's look at Conclusion 95: "...that al-Qaida or associated operatives were present in Baghdad and in northeastern Iraq in an area under Kurdish control – was reasonable." Note: "under Kurdish control", as distinguished from "Iraqi control", or "Saddam Hussien's control", and specifically beyond, and outside of such control insofar as it is controlled by the Kurdish. This statement is a statement about links between al-Qaida and the Kurdish, insofar as the Kurdish, by allowing al-Qaida to operate in an area under their control, are thereby complicit in such operation. Again, not to be confused with Saddam Hussien, who is not Kurdish.
Let's look at Conclusion 96: "...that to date there was no evidence proving Iraqi complicity or assistance in an al-Qaida attack was reasonable and objective. No additional information has emerged to suggest otherwise." Insofar as Conlusion 95 asserts a given proposition to be "reasonable", and states that "there was no evidence proving Iraqi complicity or assistance in an al-Qaida attack" is "reasonable and objective", it logically follows that the proposition that "...that al-Qaida or associated operatives were present in Baghdad and in northeastern Iraq in an area under Kurdish control" is "evidence proving Iraqi complicity or assistance in an al-Qaida attack" is not "reasonable and objective".
Conclusion 97 goes on to state that "No information has emerged thus far to suggest that Saddam did try to employ al-Qaida in conducting terrorist attacks.", and it logically follows that the proposition in Conclusion 95, insofar as it is "information" that "has emerged thus far", is not "information" "to suggest that Saddam did try to employ al-Qaida in conducting terrorist attacks.", nor is the proposition in Conclusion 94, nor any other proposition concluded to be "reasonable". Kevin Baastalk: new 03:04, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
Yes, this is surreal. csloat continues to make statements that have been refuted. The SSCI did investigate and found that Iraq trained al Qaeda. An offer of asylum was made and while Osama did not accept many others did, including Zarqawi. These are not facts he can change no matter how much he wants to disagree with the Democrats on the Senate panel. Regarding Kevin comments, amazing amount of mental gymnastics in an attempt to deny the obvious. I've never before seen anyone attempt to say that a government that trains a terrorist organization in handling biological and chemical weapons was not problematic. And yes, the information was considered credible or it would not have been found reasonable in the conclusion. And Baghdad is certainly not in Kurdish control. Zarqawi was in Baghdad before the 2003 invasion. Saddam was notified but he said he "couldn't find him." Conclusion 96 has to do with attacks against the US. Suffice to say I'm quite happy to have the conclusions quoted in their entirety in the body of the article. The conclusions only need to be summarized in the intro. Readers need to be given the facts, not told how to think. 69.230.204.10 13:27, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

These issues do not bnelong in the intro. Why don't you put them on the timeline first where they can be properly in context? Speaking of amazing mental gymnastics, Ron you're the one making absurd logical leaps to deny real evidence in favor of an in absentia court decision. I never said it was "not problematic" but what I said was that the issues have been refuted with other evidence. The mere presence of Iraqis somewhere does not mean Iraq's government was training in CBW - esp. when the govt didn't even have them as we now know. Zarqawi was not training terrorists in Baghdad; he went to the hospital. Guess what - I went to the hospital in Pittsburgh once. Do you now want to start the Commodore Sloat and Mayor Murphy? In any case, at that time Zarqawi's association with al Qaeda was also not what it was after october 2004. And on top of it, as I said, the US chose to leave alone the terrorist group that he worked with at the time; they operated in an area controlled by us, not by Saddam. So it's disingenuous to jump on Iraq for giving him "shelter" when the real terrorist activity going on was something we knew about and did not intervene in. In any case none of this belongs in the intro. A sentence about SSCI would be ok but the Judge Baer thing is definitely out of line; unless we want to put the whole damn timeline in the intro. The conclusions of SSCI belong in the body of the timeline and perhaps the court decision does too. But you haven't even tried doing that which indicates to me that your whole approach to this may be disingenuous. In any case, you need to deal with the specific discussion of each of the SSCI conclusions dealt with above. You can't just repeat them and pretend that makes you right. --csloat 17:10, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

csloat, a court decision is not a slam dunk for the prosecution, even a trial in absentia. For you to deny this is a significant case just goes beyond the pale. It was Kevin who tried to argue that Iraq training al Qaeda in nonconventional weapons was no big deal, not you. You are wrong about Iraq not having WMDs. We did not find the stockpiles in the quantities we were expecting, but that is not the same thing at all. Zarqawi used to run al Qaeda in Europe before he went to Iraq prior to the invasion. We do not want the entire dateline in the intro, only conclusions reached by nonpartisan committees or judges. My goal is to get the disputed tag removed from the article. There is no way it will be removed with the current intro. It is just too biased as is. Again, the SSCI conclusions do not have to be debated in the article. The Senate reached those conclusions and they may or may not be right but the fact the Senate reached them is not debatable. An encyclopedia is supposed to give the facts, not debate them. RonCram 11:04, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
I never said it was a "slam dunk"; I said it did not establish the facts, especially when nobody presented any counter-evidence for the Judge to judge. Look I said put it on the timeline if you want, but stop pretending this is like a CIA report or the 911 Commission report. It's a judge's decision based on only one side of the story. And it's totally irrelevant to the issues here, since the judge is not an intelligence analyst and he did not have access to any intel besides what the prosecution reported. I'm not going to have the WMD debate with you; everyone knows you're wrong about this, and if Saddam had WMD he would have used them when we attacked. Zarqawi did not run AQ in Europe -- he did not swear allegience to AQ until Oct 2004 and he operated independently prior to that. And it is irrelevant since he was no friend of Saddam, even though he may have taken advantage of their medical care. I don't see anything biased about the intro. The issue is not debating facts but clarifying what is known. --csloat 21:48, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Questioning opening paragraph

Did the Bush administration allege "that Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda conspired to launch terrorist attacks on America". I don't recall anything quite so explicit, and the documentation doesn't seem to support it. Certainly, friendly Iraqi contacts with terrorists left the issue in doubt, gave anyone with good intentions the basis to invade and overthrow the regime, but what evidence is there that the Bush administration took the position outlined in the opening paragraph?--Silverback 03:19, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm... maybe you should have brought this up to the 9/11 Commission before they spent so much time and money investigating these allegations that you suggest were not made. Kevin Baastalk: new 03:24, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
The claim may need rewording; there are relevant quotes from Bush in the statements section at the end of the article. And there are many more quotes out there - this document provides plenty of ammunition for more carefully documenting Bush's statements on Iraq (it's linked in the sources list). By the way thanks Kevin for stepping into the argument above and laying out the analysis of the other SSCI conclusions. I will add to what you've said that the CIA has said quite clearly that they do not believe Saddam exercised control over the "Kurdish areas" of Iraq. All this stuff is addressed in the timeline -- Saddam may have had spies watching terrorist groups but that hardly equals cooperation with them. Anyway as far as the intro goes it would be reasonable to have direct quotes to substantiate what Bush actually said about Saddam and Al Qaeda.csloat 03:55, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Thanx that is a good collection of the quotes, however, I don't agree with their characterization of the quotes, although I only looked at the al Qaeda ones. I don't see how the statement that the administration alleged that Saddam and al-Qaeda conspired is supported. I agree that a more careful characterization is in order. Most of the administration statements about al Qaeda, used in justification of the war appear to be forward looking rather than looking back at 9/11 and so the commision's analysis is not relevant to that part of the al Qaeda based war justification. The CIA analysis suggesting "low confidence", is not "no confidence". The hope that Saddam would remain fearful that assistance to al Qaeda would be traced back to him discounts his character, and his history of misjudgement, self deception, and over-confidence.--Silverback 07:44, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
I think you're right that a lot of the statements are forward looking but they are based on assessments of past cooperation that have all turned out to be incorrect. That's the problem. Your change to "might" in the intro makes sense (though perhaps "would" is even more accurate), but the elephant in the room here is the 1993 WTC attack, which Laurie Mylroie incorrectly suggested was linked to Saddam, and many believed her, including those still spewing this theory. Bush never (to my knowledge) said explicitly Saddam was involved in 911 but he consistently sounded the 911 refrain and then claimed Saddam was linked to al Qaeda -- it is disingenuous for his apologists now to claim that he never made the link while ignoring that he implied it over and over. Rumsfeld and Cheney went further, bringing up the discredited Atta in Prague story. The important claim for this page however is not the one you highlight -- in fact, the claim that Saddam might help terrorists if sufficiently desparate (which is where your "low confidence" thing comes from) is really not relevant; if anything, it should have been an argument against invading Iraq. That certainly was not the main claim the Admin went for in public speeches. When Bush said Saddam is "a threat because he is dealing with Al Qaida" it is not about saddam being backed into a corner. Or this: “Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda." The committee counted "61 misleading statements about Iraq's relationship with Al-Qaeda" -- not just statements about future possibilities but also about past cooperation. Your speculation that the NIC was wrong about Saddam possibly giving nukes to AQ -- suddenly everyone's an intelligence analyst. Your conclusions are also at odds with everything we know about dictators, and everything we know specifically about Saddam. It's not an issue of miscalculation or over-confidence; it's about power, pure and simple. But in any case it is all dependent upon a prior relationship between Saddam and al Qaeda, which has been disputed. In the final analysis, Saddam did not trust the Islamists, and the Islamists hated Saddam. They might have met here and there, and Saddam might have spied on some of them, but they never cooperated, collaborated, or conspired on anything, and it is sheer fantasy to imagine him arming them with WMD.--csloat 08:19, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
I agree with most of your summary above. However, you stated that the "committee counted", when more significantly it categorized before it counted, a far more subjective and value laden exercise. Given the same evidence, administration officials were entitled to come to different conclusions or to set different thresholds for considering cooperation with al Qaeda serious. For instance, the fact is that Zarqawi operated a terrorist training camp on Iraqi/Kurdish soil is not disputed. Whatever, Saddam's capabilities were to control that territory, he agreed with some of its anti-Iran, anti-shiite goals, so he tolerated it with no interference or harassement of it at all, and gave medical treatment to Zarqawi when he returned from Afghanistan. Is that cooperation? It is certainly a precedent for action for which the US tolerance threshold after 9/11 is low. I think the administration is not being misleading, but simply using its own judgement to call this cooperation. The CIA has no monopoly on judgement, and there is not a good objective science of character assessment. "fantasy to imagine him arming them with WMD": would you have also considered his attempted assassination of the 1st Bush "fantasy"? It similarly risks his hold on power. Saddam was an arab, and probably celebrated the 9/11 attacks just like the arab street did. Even it the risk is low, the Bush administration it entitled to its own assessment of Saddam's character. Frankly, his character and past behavior does not inspire confidence. Although it is irrelevant to the pre-war justification, much of the administrations fears have been born out subsequently. While Saddam appears to not have had an active WMD program, it is clear that after his immediate and poorly executed goal of getting the sanctions lifted was achieved, he had every intention of reviving it. He would have transferred WMD to al Qaeda, if he felt secure that the transfer could not be traced to him.--Silverback 15:29, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
Yes going through intel is a subjective exercise, but it is one that is more accurate when done by people who have access to all the intel, who have experience in such matters, and, most importantly, whose goal is to reach the truth rather than force the facts to fit their preconceptions, as it is generally agreed the Bush Admin and the OSP did. Let's not debate the Zarqawi stuff again, ok? What is known is that Saddam did not control the areas in which they operated and that they were his sworn enemies. Whether or not Saddam spied on them or whether or not Zarqawi managed to get treated in a hospital in a socialist country, there is no evidence at all that Saddam cooperated with him or with Ansar al Islam. What is more, there is evidence that the US let AI operate both beofre and after the war, making it questionable that we invaded Iraq to go after AI. As for fantasy, there is a big difference between Saddam trying something stupid and Saddam giving his enemies the power and authority to try something stupid themselves. Again it's not about risk - it's about power and control. I never said Saddam's behavior inspires confidence; only that in this particular matter it was pretty well known and predictable. Your assertion that Saddam "would have transferred WMD to al Qaeda" is complete speculation based on no evidence whatever and, again, totally at odds with everything known about Saddam. --csloat 00:07, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

New info to put in article?

[21] Kevin Baastalk: new 00:03, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Levin's conclusion goes way beyond this evidence: "The documents provide new, previously classified details demonstrating that Administration statements about the Iraq-al Qaeda relationship were not supported by the underlying intelligence. ". 'not supported", I'm glad this guy is not in the CIA. Even these documents which he selectively had declassified show that there was evidence of cooperation, just that it was considered of questionable reliability and not conclusive. If included in the article at all, it should be noted that it is based on the biased selective declassification requested by Levin.--Silverback 00:14, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
Well then it's not evidence, is it? Kevin Baastalk: new 14:53, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
No, it is still evidence, it merely goes to the weight of the evidence. It is rather like a witness at a trial, who has some seemy character flaws. His testimony is still on the record, and may be true, but the weight to give it is a bit subjective, especially if the evidence is not explicitly contradicted by more objective evidence. Even if one thinks it is weak, the plausibility that someone who has used chemical weapons in the past, isn't open about what he is currently doing, has sent thugs to assassanate a president and others he opposes in the past, means that even if the witness is lying, his statements may still be true. Keep in mind that the threshold for removing someone of Saddam's character, who has no more right to oppress Iraqi's than we do, is low.--Silverback 19:29, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if it was a biased selection because the existence of these documents at all, even if all the other documents that could be declassified speak contrary to them, are significant for the reasons elaborated by Levin. Kevin Baastalk: new 14:53, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
And if republicans choose not to declassify documents, for whatever reason, well that's no fault of levin's or anyone else - that's their choice, and we certainly should not keep sound information out of this article simply because those who don't like what the information said are either unable or unwilling to counter it. Kevin Baastalk: new 14:57, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Very interesting document that I had never seen before. I would very much like to see a short summary of this and the articles it links to added to the article. I think this might even warrant a new section. Perhaps: "Declassified Documents" or something like that. Silverback would be more than welcome to add "unbiased" declassified documents to that section if he so wishes. 68.199.46.6 06:39, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I am going to go ahead and add the necessary information about this to the timeline.--csloat 21:53, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Question

If I forget to log in prior to making an edit, it there any way I can go change it so it does not look like I'm trying to make an anonymous edit? On the Talk page, I can log in and go back and resign. But is there anyway to do that on the article?

I have just added conclusions published in the SSCI Report. I do not know how anyone can credibly deny that these conclusions by a bipartisan committee are not relevant to this article. I hope the conclusions are not deleted again. It should be remembered that if any Democrat disagreed with these conclusions, they had the opportunity to file a minority report. In fact, several Senators did file separate reports with "additional views" but no one disagreed with the conclusions quoted. RonCram 10:36, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't think anyone would deny that these conclusions are relevant; they were only deleted because you put them in the intro. In good faith I have also added them to the timeline. I think we may want a separate section after the timeline for "official reports" or something, since we have a bunch mixed in the timeline but then we have the 911 Commission and the SSCI report separately positioned. And if you want to make edits while legged in anonymously, just add your name to the edit summary and people will know it's you.
By the way I think the CBW training that is in the Senate report needs to be in the timeline -- what year did this happen, who was implicated, etc. I believe this claim has been disputed but I am not sure of the details.--csloat 22:00, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Goal: Remove Disputed Label

I would very much like to see the "neutrality and factual accuracy disputed" label removed from this article. In an effort to do so, I rewrote the intro. The intro included conclusions by bipartisan Senate committee and a US District Court judge. Gzuckier made an edit for more precise statement, which was acceptable. Then the entire intro was reverted back to its biased wording. Is there any way we can reach agreement to leave my intro up long enough to see if we can get the dispute label removed? RonCram 10:49, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

One remaining problem is the title, since "Sugar and Tooth Decay" hints at a conclusion the title of this article is not neutral and should be changed since it is illegitimate to imply a conclusion here. Previously suggested titles have included Allegations of links between Iraq and Al-Qaeda or Allegations of links between Baathist Iraq and Al-Qaeda, new possibilities could include Iraqi National Congress controversy or something more generic like Iraq invasion controversy (to cover allegations of evidence fabrication and the possibly of errant justification for war etc) and/or maybe we need to redirect this article to 9/11 commission or a sub article like List of 9/11 commission findings or some such. I like Iraq invasion controversy the best. zen master T 14:18, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
Zen-master - the suggestion that this article is only of interest because of the way the informaiton about links may have been used for political decision-making is frankly preposterous. That's the tail wagging the dog. The world does not revolve around the internal partisan disputes in the US, and Al-Qaeda will continue to exist and try to establish contacts and alliances quite independently of how anyone might use information about that to justify any policy. If you want to talk about how the decision to go to war was made, that a different article, not this one. ObsidianOrder 06:57, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
This is an appeal to ridicule and borders on incivility. It is very reasonable to say that this article is only of interest because of the way the informaiton about links may have been used for political decision-making. This article would not exist had the information not been used the way it was by president Bush and the neo-cons he appointed to senior positions in his Administration. And cetainly people take a lot of interest in it for the sake of assessing the credibility of the claims and speculations made in the march to war. That tends to be what the discussion on this very talk page centers around, regardless of your opinion. So at risk of appealing to ridicule, your suggestion that zen's observation is the tail wagging the dog is "frankly preposterous", and "the tail wagging the dog". And let me fix your characterizations: only one side of the dispute is a partisan dispute. The other side is standing firm with sound facts and principles, while the other side lodges character attacks at them. Kevin Baastalk: new 14:35, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
Your argument contains a leap in logic. Just because "Sugar and Tooth Decay" makes people think of a connection does not mean it is required by the word "and." "Pigs and Flying" does not make me think pigs can fly under their power. "Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda" is an article that discusses their many contacts over the last 15 years and the conclusions reached by different bipartisan panels and judges. In case you did not notice, the name was recently voted on for the fourth time. I do like the idea of an article called Iraq Invasion Controversy. Such a topic is far more broad than the current article but should certainly contain a link back to this one. RonCram 19:42, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
How is the Iraq invasion controversy suggestion more broad? The alleged evidence is noteworthy precisely because it was/is used to justify an invasion. It is also currently inaccurate for the title to refer to just Saddam, was only he meeting with Al-Qaeda or was the government of Iraq (prior to 2003) allegedly involved with Al-Qaeda? zen master T 19:59, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
The Iraq Invasion Controversy is more broad because it involves al Qaeda, other terror organizations, WMDs (found and unfound), the Downing Street Memos, Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame, why France and Germany refused to be a part of the coalition and possibly other topics. The name Saddam Hussein is easily understood to refer to the Baghdad government under Saddam as opposed to the newly elected Iraqi government. A reading of the article will clear up any confusion as it often refers to meetings of Saddam's officials (and not Saddam himself) with members of al Qaeda. RonCram 20:40, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
I don't see any references to any meetings between saddam hussien or anyone acting under his authority and al-qaeda anywhere in this article or outside of it. Kevin Baastalk: new 23:45, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
Excellent point Kevin. RonCram, why would an "Iraq invasion controversy" article be unnecessarily broad, it seems to me to be specific and highly relevant to anything having to do with the 2003 invasion of Iraq. zen master T

00:08, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Kevin, I suggest you reread the timeline starting around 1995 with Salman Pak. When you read words like "Hussein's Mukhabarat" - that means they are under his control... as does the "general in Iraqi intelligence." Zen-master, I did not say the article would be unnecessarily broad. I like the idea of the article. But the subject is far broader than the current subject. There is no reason we cannot have an article on Iraq Invasion Controversy as well as the present article. The invasion controversy article would need to link back to this article which would be able to suppy more detail on this specific subject. My only question is how would the Iraq Invasion Controversy article differ from the 2003 invasion of Iraq article? As long as we could divide up the subject matter in a logical fashion, I would support it. Perhaps the 2003 invasion of Iraq article would only deal with the dates, military tactics and subsequent capture of Saddam (all clear cut facts without dispute) and leave all the controversial subjects to the controversy article? RonCram 03:05, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
RonCram: yes, excellent idea, I think the 2003 invasion of Iraq should deal entirely with hard info, the vast amount of junk about justifications, counter-justifications, accusations, etc etc should be in a separate article. Post it on that article's talk page, I will support such a split. Basically the "Rationale" and "Opinion and Legality" sections should be split off. Also the most of the "Media Coverage" section needs to be moved to the article which is already dedicated to that. ObsidianOrder 07:05, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
ObsidianOrder: don't you think the article is a bit too small to justify a split? Kevin Baastalk: new 14:24, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
The article is actually pretty long: 95k. At the same time the article is certainly "small" in terms of real info about military operations. As it is, 3/4 is dedicated to what various people have to say about the event, and only 1/4 to the event itself. This is bad on several levels: first, it's not strictly what the article is about; second, this is not what other war articles are like (e.g. World War I and World War II); third, the opinion, speculation, etc in those sections are less definitive and more controversial; and finally, those topics already have articles dedicated to them which duplicate much of the same material. ObsidianOrder 13:07, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
RonCram: I have read and understand the timeline, including the "Hussein's Mukhabarat" and "general in Iraqi intelligence" parts. I understand that the references to these two people are references to people whose actions can be generally thought to be under the authority of Saddam. However, my point was that I do not see any references to meetings between them and al-qaeda. I see allegations or suggestions of opportunities for meetings, speculations, etc., but no references at to any meetings that are known to have occured (such as "such and such was said by by so-and-so at such-and-such meeting" or "the meeting between so-and-so and so-and-so that took place on such-and-such date...."). Kevin Baastalk: new 03:10, August 7, 2005 (UTC)


For example: Farouk Hijazi, the director of the operations dept of Iraqi Intelligence, met with OBL in Sudan in 1994. That is a fairly well-established fact (in the 9/11 report, for example). "I do not see any references to meetings between them and al-qaeda. I see allegations or suggestions of opportunities for meetings, speculations, etc., but no references at to any meetings that are known to have occured" - like this one? Perhaps you just don't want to see them. ObsidianOrder 06:41, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
Ah yes, I did miss this:

"1994 -- Sudan -- Farouk Hijazi, then head of Iraqi Secret Service, meets with Osama bin Laden in Sudan ([5]). Hijazi told his aide that "he had no intention of accepting Saddam's offer because 'if we go there, it would be his agenda, not ours.'"[6] Hijazi, arrested in April 2003, acknowledged the meeting took place but said the two groups established no ties. [7]"

There were two other mentions of Farouk, but they both were allegations of meetings, rather than reference to meetings. But this one is a genuine reference. Nice find! I stand corrected. Let's look at the context in which this was brought up: "The name Saddam Hussein is easily understood to refer to the Baghdad government under Saddam as opposed to the newly elected Iraqi government. A reading of the article will clear up any confusion as it often refers to meetings of Saddam's officials (and not Saddam himself) with members of al Qaeda." Well the part "often" certainly isn't substantiated hereby, there being only one reference found, but that reference is between one of Saddam's officials and a member (not members) of Al-Qaeda. It's interesting to note that the referencing of the meeting, the only reference to a meeting found as of yet, serves to discredit the conspiracy theory, rather than support it. Kevin Baastalk: new 14:24, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
Kevin, this is certainly not the only verified contact. And it's not a "find", it's really well known to anyone who knows anything about this, since it is probably the earliest high-level contact. "a member of Al-Qaeda" - well, actually it was the (titular) head of Al-Qaeda. It may be reasonable to assume there were other members in the vicinity? If this serves to discredit the "conspiracy theory", I wonder what would serve to bolster it? Just curious. ObsidianOrder 13:07, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
It serves to discredit the conspiracy because it shows that no ties were established because of the hostility between the two entities. What would serve to bolster the conspiracy theory would be evidence of actual conspiring -- evidence that they actually worked together, not just met.--csloat 15:36, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Kevin, the only reason this meeting is not disputed is because it supports your conclusion. This is called circular reasoning. When someone has an end they wish to justify, it is common to accept any info that agrees with you while disputing any that disagrees with you. A far better approach is to decide beforehand what information would look like to consider it credible and hold to that standard. Intelligence analysts also have to be on the lookout for intentional disinformation. For example, believing Saddam Hussein's statements when he has an obvious motive for lying is very naive. But when particular events are independently corroborated by people from different backgrounds and motivations, that is much stronger. I think this is fruitful area for further discussion. RonCram 15:26, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
Right, what you did in the above paragraph is called circular reasoning. A far better approach is to decide beforehand what information would look like to consider it credible and hold to that standard. For instance, decide what constitues a "reference to a meeting", and what consitutes an "allegation of a meeting", in literal text, before determining what parts of such a text are "references to a meeting", and what parts are "allegations of a meeting". This i did so, and my standard is pretty simple and straghtforward: if the text says "alleged", or some derivation of that word, then it is "alleged", if the tet referes directly to some detail of a meeting, well, that is a "refering to a detail of a meeting", is a reference to said meeting. That is certainly not assuming the conclusion. Intelligence analysts also have to be on the lookout for intentional disinformation. For example, believing George Bush's statements when he has an obvious motive for lying is very naive. But when particular events are independently corroborated by people from different backgrounds and motivations, that is much stronger. I think this is fruitful area for further discussion. Kevin Baastalk: new 17:59, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

No (zero)/(0) Al Qaeda attacks against U.S. forces in Iraq

Since the article explicitly excludes post-invasion Al Qaeda activities in Iraq from its scope, I think it's very important to understand what's being excluded.

The following USAToday article lists the verified Al Qaeda attacks on U.S. forces around the world since 9/11... and according to the article, there have been no attacks by Al Qaeda against U.S. forces in Iraq since the invasion.

If Al Qaeda had been allied with Saddam's administration, one would think they would now be even more powerfully allied with the pro-Saddam resistance (Fedayeen). So far, according to this source there is no evidence of such an alliance manifesting in attacks on the U.S. [22] -- RyanFreisling @ 00:26, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

It's possible that USA Today simply intentionally excluded attacks in Iraq or Afghanistan. That would be at least partly because attacks against the US in Iraq and Afghanistan are usually against military targets, and thus make it hard to distinguish guerilla warfare and terrorism.
There is at least one group that claims to be "al-Qaeda in Iraq." Abu Musab al-Zarqawi swore allegiance to bin Laden late last year.
Maybe you're right and there have been simply no al-Qaeda attacks in either Iraq or Afghanistan--maybe all these attacks are from other groups, some of which only claim to be al-Qaeda affiliates--but I've been under the impression that the invasion attracted new members for al-Qaeda by providing them with a source of inflammation and plenty of nearby targets. Mr. Billion 06:52, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
Zarqawi's group can be considered "al Qaeda" now. It all depends what you mean by al Qaeda. But he has sworn to OBL and OBL has called him the "prince of al Qaeda in Iraq" so I think it's reasonable to call him that. But he's operating independently, there is no question about that; OBL is not giving him orders. Al Qaeda in Iraq is a whole new operation. Anyway this USAToday thing is from Pape's book, which did in fact exclude attacks in Iraq.--csloat 11:08, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
Interesting - thanks for the replies! Al Qaeda has a very distinctive method - they choose attacks with significant 'fear' factor, and often act on the anniversaries of prior attacks or other symbolic occasions. The resistance in Iraq is more more similar to a guerilla war than a series of terrorist 'reprisals'. Are there any attacks in Iraq, against U.S. forces, that follow a similar pattern to traditional Qaeda attacks? If not, it will be hard to justify the attacks as having been the work of Qaeda operatives, as compared to general resistance fighters. -- RyanFreisling @ 13:39, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
I think you can mark the beginning of Al Qaeda "officially" in Iraq -- at least in terms of specific tactics -- in March 2004 with the bombing of Shiite holy places at Karbala and Khazimiya. Near-simultaneous bombings, high death toll, heavily symbolic targets. Of course these are just tactics; after 911 everyone knows about this so anyone could plan something if they wanted to. And the evidence that this was not ordered by OBL or al-Zawahiri is the attack on holy Shiite shrines -- these guys don't particularly like Shiites but they constantly warn of the dangers of splitting the Muslim world so such an attack is uncharacteristic. But Zarqawi had basically spelled out his goal which was to cause sectarian violence and thus forestall the establishment of an "apostate" regime in Iraq. It is unclear if that is still his goal. The beheadings and so forth are also evidence that Zarqawi is operating independently. But this kind of stuff is not the work of "general resistance fighters" -- this is the work of a fanatical group that represents a tiny percentage of insurgency attacks. The majority of insurgent attacks are on occupation forces, not civilians, and are not by Zarqawi's group regardless of the "foreign fighters" rhetoric thrown about. The attacks on civilians are very unpopular in Iraq, and are likely to remain so. Zarqawi is a cold blooded mass murderer and a psychopath and most people likely know it. Nevertheless, it doesn't take many followers for him to cause a lot of trouble. The sheer sensationalism of the attacks makes his group the deadliest in Iraq, even though that is not strictly true in terms of numbers (U.S. forces, for example, have killed far more civilians than Zarqawi could even hope to[23]). He calls himself al Qaeda; OBL calls him al Qaeda; he should be considered al Qaeda in Iraq. But again, that doesn't mean OBL gives the orders.--csloat 19:35, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
Al-Qaeda is more of a movement than a hierarchical organization. This is consistent with the historical decentralized way in which Arabs/Muslims have traditionally waged war (see e,g, bashibozuk, amir). Regarding the "Al Qaeda pattern": Nick Berg? The killing of election workers, also on video? The synchronized mass-casualty attacks against Shia pilgrims during Arabeen? The synchronized school-bus bombs in Basra? The goddamn sign that says so? [24] What does it take? Ryan, did you seriously believe that there were "no (zero)/(0)" Al-Qaeda attacks against US forces in Iraq just because there were none listed in a table in USAToday? Really, I don't think so. ObsidianOrder 14:53, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
OO - Why must you craft your response doubting my honesty? I was honestly asking an honest question... given the article's disclaimer not including Iraq / Al Qaeda incidents, and in light of the source I provided, is there an official Al Qaeda attack, on the record, against U.S. forces in Iraq? - although the incidents you mention of course indeed happened, and some had an 'Al Qaeda' pattern, did Al Qaeda take formal responsibility for them, as they did the bombings of the embassies, the U.S.S. Cole, and the WTC? Did Zarqawi? Is there a functional difference, then, between 'generic' Islamic insurgent attacks and 'specific' Al Qaeda attacks?
Doubting my sincerity on this point is inappropriate and uncivil... I posted a mainstream news report, and asked an honest question. I've given you no cause to doubt whether I am asking the question or being rhetorical. -- RyanFreisling @ 22:51, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
Ryan - I apologize for doubting your honesty. It seemed like an implausible thing to believe. I will answer your questions as best I can: "did Al Qaeda take formal responsibility for them" - yes, although not on in relation to a specific incident; bin Laden described Zarqawi as his "deputy" in a videotape in October 2004, and of course Zarqawi's group now calls itself "Al-Qaeda in Iraq". "Did Zarqawi?" - yes, he has explicitly taken responsibility for many of these in released videotapes. "Is there a functional difference, then, between 'generic' Islamic insurgent attacks and 'specific' Al Qaeda attacks?" - maybe, although they are not necessarily easy to tell apart. I would look at the source of funding and consider two groups to be the same if either one group funds another or both are funded from a common source. But of course we don't know that or we would have shut them down already. I think essentially there is a number of supporters who would help anyone who is trying to launch Islamist attacks, but they are very loosely organized, and happy to work with anyone with similar goals; and then there are people who organize a small group for the purpose of a specific attack or attacks, relying on the broader network of supporters. If you could ask any of these people they may well say they are not part of Al-Qaeda, but that is sort of like catholics saying they are not part of the Vatican (no offense to catholics intended ;) ObsidianOrder 01:56, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
I hear what you're saying, and I agree in large part... except with the 'Al Qaeda is to Islamic Militants as Vatican is to Catholics' part - I think that's inaccurate. Even comparing 'Al Qaeda is to Islamic militants as the Vatican is to Catholic militants' would be inaccurate, as there were and are many different Islamic militant groups all over the world - it's Al Qaeda's notoreity in the wake of their attacks on 9/11 that would have raised their status to a 'deified' group among Islamic militants, something very different than actual authority and leadership that the Catholic Church possesses amongst Catholics.
Most of all, an issue strikes me as important - I think it's crucial for us to be specific as to 'official' Al Qaeda attacks vs. attacks by Islamic militants who might emulate or admire Qaeda's tactics. Zarqawi's status as the 'deputy-in-residence' of Al Qaeda in Iraq has been confirmed by OBL, as you correctly point out... but even in that case, given the decentralized nature of Al Qaeda, more and more Iraqi resistance activities will be attributable (even if indirectly) to Al Qaeda, independently of the actual individuals involved - I think that's a dangerous place to be, as in fact it gives Qaeda operatives a greater 'operational mystique', and makes it harder to distinguish high-level Qaeda plots, except by the virtue of the death count, or location - save those attacks 'officially acknowledged' by Qaeda public statements. -- RyanFreisling @ 23:52, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Clarifying Description of Tenet's Testimony

It is not accurate to say the Senate Committee found Tenet's testimony "highly misleading." Nowhere in the report is that term used. Regarding the quote in question, the committee does not accuse Tenet of misleading, lying, perjury or falsifying evidence. Possibly some committee members were not as convinced by the underlying evidence as Tenet, but that does not mean Tenet's testimony was misleading.

Also, Tenet's testimony was not refuted by the CIA report Iraqi Support for Terrorism. That statement is not demonstrated and will be removed. RonCram 16:48, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I will revert it but will remove the word "highly" given your objection; but the statement pretty clearly says the statement is misleading. The point about it contradicting the CIA report is substantiated in the timeline (as it says, See Jan 03). --csloat 18:50, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
The statement in the SSCI report does not use the term "misleading." I left the quote in because the assessment by the committee differed from Tenet's judgment. I think it is fair to point that out. But that is not the same as saying Tenet's testimony was misleading. Can you find some other way to describe it? Also, I read the January 03 entry and did not see the entry as contradicting Tenet's testimony in any way. Can you explain to me where the contradiction lies? RonCram 23:11, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
The statement says "The DCI's unclassified testimony did not include source descriptions, which could have led the recipients of that testimony to interpret that the CIA believed the training had definitely occurred." In other words, the DCIs testimony could have misled its auditors. If you want to say "could be misleading" instead that would be acceptable but the statement clearly says the DCI statements were misleading. As for the other part, read the Jan 2003 entry which indicates the CIA conclusion that there was hostility between the groups, that they tried to exploit each other rather than work together, and that there is "no credible information" of either foreknowledge or cooperation in any attacks.
A more important issue is the al-Shifa entry. I see you added something to "statements" but that quote is entirely inappropriate as it does not discuss context and it does not discuss any Saddam connection (except to assert "indirect links" to the "Iraqi CW program" -- these "indirect links" are not explained and we now are well aware there was no significant Iraqi CW program, at least not since the mid-1990s). I'm leaving it up to you to find a better quote - I won't remove it if you want to leave it in. But I would prefer to see something in the timeline -- when did this alleged activity occur? Who was involved? We do know now that there were actually no chemical weapons facilities at al-Shifa, or at least that is what the administration admitted after bombing it in 1998. The Wikipedia entry confirms this - "the factory is today widely thought to have had no connections with weapons-related production or with bin Laden." Below is a much more detailed examination of what happened with misinterpretation of what went on at al-Shifa. Figure out where this goes in the timeline and I will add the correct information.
"The Administration's initial characterization of the Al Shifa pharmaceutical plant, based on intelligence assembled primarily by CIA, which concluded that the Al Shifa plant was involved in the manufacture of chemical-warfare materials, was based on a soil sample which disclosed the presence of a chemical precursor of VX nerve gas.
Subsequently, however, independent experts questioned whether this chemical would be present in the soil of a chemical weapons facility, and noted that the chemical was also a pesticide residue. As to the initial claim that the facility did not produce commercial pharmaceuticals, it was subsequently revealed that the facility was in fact one of the primary pharmaceutical production facilities in Sudan, and was in fact a showplace routinely toured by schoolchildren who watched the plant's employees package and bottle medicines. Westerners who had either toured the plant or participated in its construction reported no evident restrictions on their movement, and no evidence of chemical weapons production activities. Many CIA analysts believe that, while there is evidence tying Al Shifa to chemical weapons at some point in the past, the evidence cited by the Administration did not represent the most compelling information on the facility.
Source: globalsecurity.org
--csloat 00:27, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
Al Shifa was a "dual use" facility. In part this was to hide their activities and in part it was practical. They did not have the raw materials or the need for the CW line to run all the time. The Iraqis commonly used "dual use" as a way to hide their activities. The plant was constructed under the care of the Iraqis while being protected with surface-to-air missiles. Richard Clarke identified this facility as evidence of Saddam and Osama working together. It was a showplace for children to tour but that proves nothing. Elsewhere in Cohen's testimony he says he was told that he the quality of information about the facility does not get any better. They had HUMINT from multiple sources, they proof of surface to air missiles, they had soil samples, they had travel between the plant managers and Iraqi CW people back and forth. The plant was destroyed in 1998. Cohen's testimony was March 2004. Nothing has come out about the facility has convinced Cohen it was not a dual use plant making CW. Others in the Clinton Administratin were just as persuaded as Cohen. Regarding Tenet's testimony, "could be misleading" is an improvement. Regarding the Jan 03 report, the CIA clearly indicate a relationship exists although it is an uneasy relationship with distrust on both sides. Such a situation is not uncommon in the Middle East. It only says "The Intelligence Community has no credible information that Baghdad had foreknowledge of the 11 September attacks or any other al-Qaida strike." In no way does that rule out Saddam training al Qaeda in CBRN. In no way does it refute Tenet's testimony. Your comment to that effect needs to be removed. RonCram 11:37, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
And you know Al-Shifa was dual use because you were there I presume? Cohen was obviously wrong, as the concensus view is that al-Shifa was not a CW plant, based on independent experts and based on the analysis of the chemicals (see the quote above, which you did not respond to). HUMINT from multiple sources -- who? Again the big problem here is the INC was on a concerted campaign to lie about this, so don't tell me INC-affiliated defectors are the source of the information. The CIA conclusion is that there were "contacts" but no working relationship because the two sides don't trust each other. It is obviously a distortion to point to this or to Tenet and say "look there were contacts!" like that proves something. It really is surreal arguing with a conspiracy theorist -- they insist on believing and promulgating things that have been refuted, and they point to evidence of "contacts" even when there is other evidence substantiating that such contacts never led to a working relationship or conspiracy. Then when real evidence has challenged their precious conspiracy theory they simply ignore it, or they cling to the statements of people who agree with them rather than addressing the actual evidence. It's bizarre. --csloat 18:00, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
Oh and with the al Shifa thing can we please have a mention of it in the timeline so we can address it specifically rather than just having the misleading quote under "Statements"?--csloat 18:02, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
A few clarifications on your Al Shifa quote. The chemical in question, EMPTA, is not, and I repeat, is not a pesticide residue. EMPTA’s proper name is O-ethyl methylphosphonothioic acid. The insecticide residue being referred to here is known as fonofos, or O-ethyl-S-phenyl ethylphosphonothiolate. Although similar in structure to a layman, there is no way in hell one could be confused with the other after a gas and mass spectroscopy analysis. The discovery of EMPTA at Al-Shifa does not necessarily mean it was produced there, but it definitely does confirm that it was being stored there or shipped from there. TDC 18:38, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
So you are a chemical weapons expert? At the moment I am more persuaded by globalsecurity.org's claim that independent experts have concluded that the chemical is a pesticide residue. It is also interesting that none of this precursor could be found in the rubble after the facility was destroyed. The most objective summary of available evidence on this topic I could find is here and it concludes that there was no evidence publicly available to support this claim, and doubts that there is classified info that would change that conclusion. Read it. It also supports the statements of the plant manager -- sure the source is biased but no evidence contradicts what he's saying. It's also interesting that after all this debate about al-Shifa nobody can come up with a date to put in the time line of when it was supposedly cranking out chemical weapons that never materialized, were never used, and were never found in the rubble after the attack. It's also interesting that nobody can tell us who was working for Saddam and who was working for OBL and what they possibly could have had to do with each other at this supposed CW plant. If there was a CW plant it wasn't at al-Shifa (which people admit after their claim that it was a "plant" is refuted, as TDC does above), and we still have a long way to go to leap from there to some kind of Saddam-AQ conspiracy. The possibility that someone might have stored VX materials there sometime in the past (well before 1998) hardly constitutes evidence of much of anything, certainly not a Saddam-AQ connection.--csloat 19:29, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
CW expert no, chemical engineer with advanced degree, yes. And your background is what exactly? As far as the GS claim that “independent experts” have concluded that it was a pesticide residue, lets go back to your article:
Subsequently, however, independent experts questioned whether this chemical would be present in the soil of a chemical weapons facility, and noted that the chemical was also a pesticide residue.
After a bit of digging, I have found that this quote was in fact taken out of context.
Today several American experts in chemical weapons and analysis offered another possible explanation of what the plant made. They said the chemical’s structure resembled that of an agricultural insecticide, known as fonofos, which is commercially available in Africa. While the two are not identical, they have molecular similarities and could be confused in a laboratory test performed under less-than-ideal conditions, such as a delay between the taking of a soil sample in Khartoum and a scientific test of the sample.
So, you see the “experts” did not say that the chemical found was a pesticide residue (fonofos), only that EMPTA could possibly be misidentified as fonofos, which on its face is a bit ridiculous. Also this information was released before it was verified that al-Shifa was indeed a pharmaceutical plant in which no pesticides were being produced.
As far as your claim that al-Shifa was not producing EMPTA, of that I have little doubt of, but it was being produced somewhere nearby in Sudan and al-Shifa was involved in its handling. That’s the only explanation of its being found there. Also, your information hardly refuted my claim that Al-Shifa was a weapons plant, because I never made such a claim. The CW precursor must have been through the plant within a year of the sample, as EMPTA would most likely have decomposed after that. As far as the possibility that fonofos could breakdown into EMPTA, this to is ridiculous, as no mechanism of this sort has been put forth to back this claim. TDC 20:12, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
In short, then, we are agreed that there is nothing linking this pharmaceutical plant to any Saddam-Al Qaeda conspiracy, which is as I argued, despite my admitted lack of training in chemical warfare. It's disingenuous for you to claim I took a quote out of context when in fact the quote was not -- you added more information and detail, but that did not refute the substance of the quote which (1) questioned whether this empta would be present at a CW plant and (2) suggested that the chemical (I guess fonofos from your expert claim) had something to do with pesticides. Either way, we are nitpicking details -- the reality is that (1) there were no chems found after the destruction of the plant, and everything confirms that it was a pharmaceutical factory, not a weapons lab, and (2) the most you are claiming now is that some chemicals may have been stored there or transported through there. This hardly justified the destruction of the plant back in 1998 and it certainly does not justify a war against Iraq 5 years after the plant was destroyed, and it certainly is not evidence of any Saddam-AQ conspiracy. (3) Nobody seems to want to produce names or dates that might make this item more substantive. Obviously somebody believes this is proof of some nefarious plot by Saddam to control Al-Qaeda but nobody has even offered any reasoning (much less evidence). This, at least, is what this debate has produced so far. There are also other less obvious but nonetheless significant questions I have about all this: (1) apparently there is no soil anywhere around the al-Shifa plant, which raises the question of where the soil sample came from that was tested for chemicals; (2) how much chemicals were found? Enough to actually worry about a significant chemical weapons threat, or enough to even make claims justifying an attack? or simply just enough to scare some reporters? (3) is there any evidence connecting the chemicals found in the soil to any actual chemical weapons program? and finally (though not really relevant to this discussion) (4) what is the point of terrorists getting chemical weapons anyway? Again this is not my expertise at all but I have studied the history of warfare, and I am well aware of the fact that chemical weapons have been a standard part of conventional warfare since WWI, despite treaties. As a battlefield weapon they may make sense but as far as terrorism goes, I'm just not convinced. They aren't easily spread over populated areas and they don't create the sort of dramatic explosions terrorists like. You can't just spray them out of the back of a plane and expect them to be very effective -- a lot will depend on weather conditions, population dispersion, etc. I am not just trying to be flip here but it seems to me terrorists would be far more interested in nukes than chems... perhaps bioweapons (the terror factor may be more significant with those), but nerve gas? How much more damage can they do with VX than they can with dynamite? They'd have to have a lot of it to do significant damage, and you'd have to be as close as you would to blow stuff up directly. The cult in Japan that used sarin gas only killed 12 people, and that was after almost 20 failed attempts. And that's in an enclosed subway where they would have killed a lot more with a few bombs. I'm not saying the threat isn't there, just that it is being blown out of proportion. But again, I readily admit the logistics of such weaponry is well beyond my expertise and I am not claiming any expertise in the al-Shifa matter -- what I have indicated here is what I have been able to figure out using google -- but it seems to me that as far as any Saddam-alQ conspiracy in al-Shifa goes, "there is no there there." If we could have more detailed information on the supposed conspiracy we could actually begin researching those details and perhaps come to a better accounting of it. But the insistence that because EMPTA is different from fonofos then therefore Saddam and al-Qaeda were like Bonnie and Clyde just doesn't cut it, no matter how much you know about chemical engineering. --csloat 02:20, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

A few things, I don’t believe you personally took the quote out of context, only that the quote itself was out of context. As to a few of your specifics (1) EMPTA would only be found at a CW plant making VX, it has no other uses. Sure it has “theoretical” uses, but because it is classified as a Class2 precursor, no one uses it in any industrial processes, paperwork and permitting would be a bitch to say the least. Your claim that “apparently there is no soil anywhere around the al-Shifa plant”, is a bit puzzling; the plant was not on a converted offshore rig or something. The connection between the discovery of EMPTA at the plant, and a CW program is the discovery of the precursor itself. That would be like asking what connection a building has to cocaine production if 400 pounds of coca leaf were found there. I agree that the terrorists pursuit of CW capability does not make sense, but then again that does not mean they did not, and all evidence points to the conclusion that they spent a great deal of resources attempting to acquire them and understand their most effective use.

How all this relates to this article is beyond me. I only jumped in because you seemed ill informed on Al Shifa. Clarke and Bergere were the individuals primarily responsible for drawing the links between Iraq/Al Shifa/Al Queda. From the Washington Post, Oct 21 1999:

Clarke said that the U.S. government is 'sure' that Iraqi nerve gas experts actually produced a powdered VX-like substance at the plant that, when mixed with bleach and water, would have become fully active VX nerve gas. Clarke said U.S. intelligence does not know how much of the substance was produced at al Shifa or what happened to it. But he said that intelligence exists linking bin Laden to al Shifa's current and past operators, the Iraqi nerve gas experts and the National Islamic Front in Sudan.
"Given the evidence presented to the White House before the airstrike, Clarke said, the president 'would have been derelict in his duties if he didn't blow up the facility.'

Also, from a speech he gave:

I would like to speak about a specific case that has been the object of some controversy in the last month -- the U.S. bombing of the chemical plant in Khartoum, Sudan. National Security Adviser Sandy Berger wrote an article for the op-ed page of today's Washington Times about that bombing, providing the clearest rationale to date for what the United States did. He asks the following questions: What if you were the president of the United States and you were told four facts based on reliable intelligence. The facts were: Usama bin Ladin had attacked the United States and blown up two of its embassies; he was seeking chemical weapons; he had invested in Sudan's military-industrial complex; and Sudan's military-industrial complex was making VX nerve gas at a chemical plant called al-Shifa? Sandy Berger asks: What would you have done? What would Congress and the American people have said to the president if the United States had not blown up the factory, knowing those four facts? [25]

This is the alleged “connection”. Once again, this is not the point I am arguing, I could care less, I was just clarifying the circumstance around the technical aspects of Al Shifa. TDC 18:38, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for all the info. The one thing I wanted to respond to was the point about there being no soil anywhere to test -- that was mentioned in several articles and it was a claim from someone familiar with the plant - I don't know. I'm glad I'm not the only one who doesn't understand what this has to do with this article. Until there is further information specifying what these alleged links are I don't think any of it belongs on this page. --csloat 21:47, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Evidence Seen of Saddam's Cooperation with al-Qaeda

In the timeline, I removed the comment that no evidence of an agreement or cooperation existed. That is not true. Evidence for the cooperation was seen by Richark Clarke, William Cohen and the vast majority of the Clinton Administration. The erroneous statement was replaced with: "Richard Clarke wrote a memo to Sandy Berger that the Al Shifa pharmaceutical factory was "probably a direct result of the Iraq-Al Qida agreement." (Page 128) [26] For unexplained reasons, Clarke came to change his view. However, former Secretary of Defense William Cohen has not. (Page 9) [27]" csloat removed by well sourced correction commenting that it "didn't enhance the narrative" and replaced it with the former erroneous statement that no evidence existed. How is it that an erroneous statement helps the narrative? RonCram 22:19, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

RonCram, that is exactly what is so sad about this page. Anti-war people have a point that parts of the evidence on the Hussein-AlQaida connection is bogus. However, they are eager to prove all information is untrue in order to push a political agenda and will delete factual information to this end. This is where the NPOV stops and where Wikipedia is badly served. In the interest of neutrality we kept the current title, lets also keep the discussion as remote from the war as possible. After all, it is the neutral point of view we ought to advance, not our conviction on whether the war was needed. Regards, gidonb 22:29, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
You guys both need to get a grip. I removed the statement because it had nothing to do with the issue mentioned in that part of the timeline. I am not trying to censor the info; I just want it to make sense. Put it in the statements like I said if you think it belongs here. I am not trying to make any claims here about whether the war was needed or what my POV is. I am trying to clarify issues of fact -- who said what, who reported what, what facts have been established, and what intelligence analysts and investigators have concluded. The simple fact is that this whole debate on this issue has been badly manipulated by the Office of Special Projects and Doug Feith who illegally leaked an intelligence report to the Weekly Standard. The report was "a listing of a mass of unconfirmed reports" (words of Col. Pat Lang, CIA officer) that had not been vetted. People in CIA, DIA, and even OSP have come forward to point out that there was heavy-handed manipulation on the part of Feith's office and certain people within the Bush Administration to manipulate intelligence by insisting that cooperation occurred. Karen Kwiatkowski came forward from the OSP specifically to call attention to these abuses. Several intelligence agents and even Richard Clarke have pointed to severe pressure from parts of the Administration to manipulate intelligence on this issue. As a result of this manipulation, there is a lot of information out there that is misinformation. I have no intention of erasing claims that are true, but when I know there is misinformation involved I will be aggressive about clarifying what is actually known about the information. This whole thing is getting tedious frankly. I wish the conspiracy theorists would truly adopt the NPOV they claim to have instead of pulling out every statement or uncorroborated rumor that appears to support their POV and then inserting that rumor on pages like this, forcing me to go back, look up the context, and provide the information that was intentionally left out in the first place. As I said, it's tedious.--csloat 23:05, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
We need to get a grip? The article said there was no evidence so I removed that and gave evidence with proper support from the 9/11 Commission Report, your favorite report. We are not talking about pressure to manipulate the intelligence. The memo Clarke wrote happened before 9/11, before Bush was even in office. This is no uncorroborated rumor. The fact Clarke believed al Shifa was evidence of the agreement needs to be in the article and it needs to be there in that spot in the timeline. That is the only way we can prevent people from putting in erroneous stuff about there being no evidence. csloat, if appealing to the good reputation of wikipedia does nothing for you, then consider what your actions do to your own reputation. RonCram 00:58, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
The fact that there is no evidence is not erroneous. You are resorting to personal attacks because you cannot respond to the arguments I made. The manipulation of intelligence is exactly the problem here. The Clarke stuff needs to be either in the statements section or in a timeline section about al0Shifa, which you have still refused to create. Why do you insist on putting it in another section? It seems to confuse the issues. I am concerned about wikipedia's reputation which is why I object to your insistence on this conspiracy theory. Please lay off the personal attacks an=d actually look at the evidence -- if you look at things objectively you would see that there has so far been no response to the facts about manipulation of intelligence information. Instead you resort to character assassination of Clarke.--csloat 04:22, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

The fact remains that you removed this important data. If you felt that this data has a place in the article but should be listed in a different chapter, you should not have deleted it but moved it. This is not what copy-editing is about. The fact that you threw it out implies that my more general point on POV editing in this article possibly indeed applies to you. It is never too late, however, to correct some of the less favorable impressions you leave with your collegues. gidonb 04:37, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

csloat, did you bother to read page 128 of the 9/11 Report? It clearly says Clarke considered the large Iraqi presence at the chemical facility in Khartoum was "probably a direct result of the Iraq-Al-Qida agreement." You cannot get any clearer than that. It speaks directly to the issue of the agreement. It is evidence, whether Clarke changed his mind about it later or not. Cohen still believes it was a CW facility, as his testimony showed. Your politics are blinding you. Is this issue something we need to have a vote on as well? RonCram 04:47, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
evidence of what? his unattributed opinion at the time? that's not the issue here. Kevin Baastalk: new 16:56, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
If you have evidence of an "agreement" I have not seen it yet. If you think this quote should go somewhere put it in. I only removed things that seemed completely out of place - please stop pretending I am trying to censor things.--csloat 19:14, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Erasing bogus claims

1. The mural of Saddam smoking a cigar - where is this from? Is there evidence this was commissioned in Iraq by Saddam? It is referred to as a "now-famous" mural. It is not famous - this is the first I've heard of it. Also I am not sure I am comfortable with the claim that Saddam "celebrated" the 9/11 attacks. He made a speech blaming them on US actions in the world - that is not a celebration; Noam Chomsky and other American leftists made similar speeches. At least quote him directly rather than this. Finally I will be erasing the bogus claim about the 1993 WTC attack. No sources are cited or evidence presented that the FBI thought this was Saddam's work, and no evidence has come out that it is. The claim that it is retaliation for something that happened a few weeks earlier - when it likely took months of planning - is bogus on its face. RonCram what is your problem? Can we please just stick to known facts here? --csloat 19:21, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

I've made the changes. I've left the Clarke stuff in the Justice Dept entry but I still don't understand why RonCram and his buddy believe it belongs there but I didn't move it. I also took out the Cohen statement only because it was a non sequitor in that paragraph - it is the first time Cohen is mentioned. The al-Shifa mention here is confusing and it needs a separate entry - again I implore you Ron or giddon if you really believe this has anything to do with Saddam and al-Q, please create a separate entry for it in the timeline that actually gives information rather than a one-line blip like this. I understand that it is disputed whether or not there were chemical weapons at al-Shifa - but I don't understand yet why people think that chemicals in Sudan will somehow prove that al Qaeda was working for Saddam. --csloat 03:20, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

csloat, I did not write that the 1993 bombing was a response for something weeks earlier. In fact, I noted the comment mentally and planned to change it when I had the proper support. You know me well enough now to know I stick to the facts. There is support for the FBI thinking it was Saddam and there is support for the FBI thinking it was Osama's group before it was named al Qaeda. I have not yet found support that the same person thought it was both, but I would not be surprised if I do. The dual use chemical and pharmaceutical plant at al Shifa was tied in closely to both Osama and Saddam. I will find more on al Shifa but it takes time and I am leaving for vacation soon. No one thinks al Qaeda is working for Saddam, least of all Osama. Both groups were trying to exploit each other. The Cohen stuff has to stay in precisely because Clarke changed his view without explaining why. RonCram 14:16, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
It still makes no sense why you would put the Cohen quote in that part of the timeline (Justice Dept investigation). Why does it have anything to do about Clarke changing his view? Also as pointed out over and over again, Clarke's change in view is not unexplained. He had a theory. He investigated the theory and found it wanting for evidence. It's pretty simple actually. Cohen, on the other hand, never investigated the theory in any formal way. As for al Shifa we've already established (1) that al Shifa was a pharmaceutical plant. There might have been chemical weapon precursors stored there or moved through there, but even that seems unlikely given the evidence. But there is no evidence that I have seen -- even after TDC schooled me on this issue (see above) -- that suggests that it was a "dual use" plant that actually manufactured chemical weapons. Nothing was found in the rubble to support that theory. (2) we have seen no evidence that Saddam's agents met and cooperated with OBL's at the pharmaceutical plant. There may be some -- you certainly seem to think so -- but I can't even get a name or a date out of you on this matter. Come back when you've done the research. Finally, as for the FBI's position, they made it clear, at least officially, that they found no evidence of Saddam's involvement. Neil Herman, who headed the FBI task force investigating the 93 attack, concluded "We looked at that rather extensively. There were no ties to the Iraqi government."[28] CIA and NSA looked into this too and found no such evidence. If you have evidence suggesting otherwise it would be interesting to see it. The entire theory is based on Laurie Mylroie's speculation, which have been roundly discredited. Peter Bergen calls her a crackpot. Her entire theory is based on the assumption that Ramzi Yousef, the Pakistani al Qaeda operative behind WTC I, was an Iraqi agent. The Iraqi Mukhabarat is generally not in the business of hiring Pakistanis. She gets to this bizarre conclusion based on her own confusion about one of Yousef's fake passports. The whole theory is nuts, and the entire intelligence community knows it, and every serious journalist who investigated this topic (no, I don't include Stephen Hayes or Richard Minirit) has come to the same conclusion -- Laurie Mylroie is wrong. Here's what Vince Cannistraro had to say: "My view is that Laurie has an obsession with Iraq and trying to link Saddam to global terrorism. Years of strenuous effort to prove the case have been unavailing." --csloat 19:26, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
The Cohen quote is important because Clarke changed his view without ever explaining why. The reasons Clarke believed Osama and Baghdad were linked are clear. What are his reasons for turning away from that viewpoint? I don't know because Clarke is still pretending he never saw a link. Don't you see the problem Clarke has? If Clarke admits he once saw a link... and the fact is well established... then he has to explain what part of the evidence that convinced him before is no longer convincing. And why is he no longer convinced when other people like Cohen are still convinced? Also, the "entire theory," as you call it, is not dependent on Laurie Mylroie. Even though I think Dr. Mylroie is a brilliant person, that statement is just not true. Don't worry, I am putting more information together. The article still only has about 50% of the available information I have read so far. RonCram 01:09, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
Why do you keep repeating this BS? It is clear why Clarke changed his mind; this has been explained over and over here and on the Clarke page. He had a theory once that turned out to be wrong when he actually investigated it. He doesn't have to explain anything more to you; why do you keep insisting on this? As for Cohen, he left the Administration and did not participate in the investigations Clarke did after 911. And he is a different person than Clarke; therefore it is entirely possible for him to have different opinions. As should be obvious. Also, if you think Mylroie is "brilliant," you are delusional. Perhaps brilliant at manipulating a number of people who should know better into believing her crackpot conspiracy theory about the 93 WTC. --csloat 01:19, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

When did al-Libi Lie?

As a detainee, al-Libi has told two stories. In the first account, Baghdad and al-Qaeda were working together. Later, when it became obvious that Iraq might be invaded and Saddam removed, al-Libi recanted his story and said there was no link. Not that this is conclusive but it seems a reasonable question to ask: When did he have a greater motivation to lie? It seems obvious to me the greater motivation was to keep Iraq from being invaded. Osama had spoken out in favor of Iraq and against the US repeatedly. Perhaps he did not know Iraq and al-Qaeda were trying to keep their relationship quiet. csloat, your comment that everyone knows al-Libi was lying in the first place is just wrong. The investigators who interviewed him could not tell. I have already given support for that. Your false and misleading conclusion will be removed. RonCram 01:09, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

You're right about the two stories but your speculation about his change in tune having something to do with the invasion if Iraq is ridiculous and totally unsubstantiated. He changed his tune when interrogators confronted him with the statements of other detainees that contradicted his story. Your theory is ludicrous because it assumes that the impending invasion of Iraq was somehow kept secret and that it never occurred to Libi that the US might invade Iraq before we did. It's rather obvious to the interrogators and others who have looked at this that Libi actually hoped his story would encourage us to invade Iraq. Apart from that, both the interrogators and every analyst or journalist I have read on this topic believes that Libi's earlier statements were lies. Osama never spoke in favor of Saddam Hussein's government; your claim there is just a lie, or it is a distortion based on the fact that Osama had declared solidarity with the Iraqi people. Osama wanted us to invade Iraq; the invasion was basically a gift to al Qaeda in many ways. But that is beside the point. You have given no evidence that anyone credible believes Libi's earlier story. It is just idiotic to think that Libi would change his tune in order to prevent Iraq from being invaded -- he probably was not being kept up to date on the news to begin with. But in any case your ludicrous theory presumes a contradiction -- if Libi was high enough up in al Qaeda to know about cooperation with Saddam, then your theory that perhaps he did not know that the relationship was supposed to be kept quiet falls apart. You're the one with false and misleading conclusions. You are doing logical contortions to try to make claims that are just downright false. This is all misinformation whose purpose was to help both al Qaeda (in Libi's case) and Iran (in the case of Curveball and the INC disinfo) -- it is sad to see so many Americans who consider themselves conservatives falling for this nonsense.
This is getting tedious Roncram. You have ignored about 80% of the arguments I've made and you keep coming up with bizarre theories and then you claim I have to disprove them. I am just trying to stick to the facts. I realize that there may be the need for other editors to keep my POV in check once in a while, and I do not begrudge you that, but stop telling me that I am making false and misleading claims when you know very well that I am not and when you refuse to answer the arguments that devastate your conspiracy theories. --csloat 01:31, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
csloat, I wish you would read the source before you make changes. Page 324 of the Senate Report clearly says that Abu Zubaydah "acknowledged it was possible there were al-Qaida-Iraq communications or emissaries to which he was not privy." Page 325 says "Prior to September 2001, he (KSM) was an important operational planner but had a limited role in the administration of al-Qaida. He therefore may not have been privy to many activities pursued by other parts of the group, which could include contacts with Iraq." csloat, if you wish to be treated with respect, you have to read the sources more carefully. Stick to the facts. Do not make changes unless you know your changes are right. You said my source did not make the comment about operational/administrative roles. Now you have no excuse for changing it back. RonCram 02:54, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm really getting pissed off at the personal attacks Ron. You let me worry about my "respect"; you're even bringing it up is insulting. Stick to the facts, as you say, and stop insulting me. I did read the report and I left in the claim that the SSCI thought there may have been information to which these guys were not privy. The bizarre thing is you seem to want to make that the basis of some kind of evidence. We suspect these guys were not privy to some information that may exist so therefore we can assume that the information existed? The operation/administration division is only claimed with respect to KSM but not AZ. I don't think it adds anything to the article to include it as the basic information is there (that they may not have been privy to something) as well as the clear disclaimer - which you deleted without explanation in your revision - that the Senate report does not offer this information in any way to substantiate Libi's claims. It's disingenuous for you to pretend this argument is about whether Abu Zubaydah was an "administrator" rather than about which time Libi was lying. This is typical of your argument style -- you insult me, you ignore 80% of what I said because you can't refute it, and you nitpick some small aspect of the claim, and then you use your nitpick as the basis for a wholesale revision that distorts the meaning completely. I'm not going to stop you from adding the admin/operational distinction in KSMs case if you want (though it's silly since KSM masterminded 9-11) even though I don't think it adds anything to the discussion. But if you use that as the basis for a wholesale reversion to your previous version I will revert it back. --csloat 03:05, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
By the way, according to NYT July 31 2004, the SSCI in the blanked out portions of the report discuss al-Libi: "American officials now say still-secret parts of the separate report by the Senate Intelligence Committee, which was released in early July, discuss the information provided by Mr. Libi in much greater detail. The Senate report questions whether some versions of intelligence reports prepared by the C.I.A. in late 2002 and early 2003 raised sufficient questions about the reliability of Mr. Libi's claims." So it appears that even your favorite source, the SSCI report you are so fond of misinterpreting, concludes that Libi's earlier claims were likely not credible. --csloat 03:28, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
csloat, if we are going to stick to the facts, you have to quick putting in comments that are diametrically opposed to the facts. You wrote: "It is generally agreed that al-Libi's original statements were fabrications." That is completely untrue. The investigators who interviewed him, the people you supposedly put the most trust in, could not tell which story was the lie. It is just ridiculous. Regarding Zubaydah, he admitted he would not be privy to information about Iraq. KSM had an operational, not an administrative role. These people probably do not even belong in the narrative. They do not add any knowledge, except for knowing that their testimony in this matter is worthless. And to that you wish to note that unnamed detainees (who also could not claim to have knowledge about Iraq) backed up their story. What a bunch of hooie! This is completely worthless. Why not just quote yourself? There are many others who back up Mr. Libi's claims, including Wali Khan and a detainee whose name is still classified. You do not see me adding gratuitous info into the narrative. Let's just stick to the facts. You have to understand that al Qaeda only had value to Saddam if the relationship remained secret. Osama wanted and needed to keep the connection secret as well. People inside the Iraqi government and inside al Qaeda are not generally going to know about the connection. If you want Zubaydah and KSM mentioned, fine. But the fact the Senate inquiry reports they would not have knowledge of the link should end the discussion. BTW, your comment that "The report also offers no reason to doubt the intelligence they have provided, and the report does not address al-Libi's credibility on the issue at all, nor does it suggest that al-Libi had any reason to have access to information that the other operatives would not have been privy to" is completely bogus. There is reason to doubt they know anything about the topic. KSM presented himself as a free agent, not someone who is involved in the inner workings of al Qaeda. Doubt is also raised by all of the evidence putting to an opposite conclusion. That bunch of claptrap has to go. Let's stick to the facts.RonCram 14:53, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
The investigators found al-Libi untrustworthy. They had contradictory evidence from people who had given them valid intel. Libi changed his story after hearing about the contradictory evidence. I can't believe you are still beating this dead horse. Your claim that KSM and Zubaydah do not belong in the narrative is totally disingenuous. They have given us valid intel and the investigators know it. I can't believe you would prefer to believe a guy who already admitted his story was a lie, than two people who have been forthcoming. What unnamed detainees are you talking about? There are no others who back up al-Libi's BS -- cite them if you find them and I will research them. I am the one sticking to the facts. This is just so stupid -- al Qaeda has immensely benefited from the invasion of Iraq; they have even said that is exactly what they wanted, and they have always opposed Saddam. Meanwhile Saddam, obsessed with absolute control, would never have let the Islamists have any power, and certainly would not work with them. He cut off all contact with them in 1999. The Senate crap does not "end the discussion"; it just adds to it, and I am not deleting that stuff. If you think KSM was a "free agent" rather than a hardcore al Qaeda member you are just delusional. Besides your claim is self contradictory anyway -- if KSM did not have any knowledge of the Saddam-AQ connection, why is it that Libi suddently changed his tune after hearing about what KSM said? Your argument implies that he was taking a cue from KSM and Zubaydah, that he only figured out at that point that as you said the relationship was supposed to be a secret. If Libi was so high up in AQ that he had knowledge of this supposedly secret plot then certainly he was high up enough to know that it was supposed to be a damn secret. I'm sorry but this argument has gotten tedious. I refuse to keep explaining how wrong you are. Once again you only responded to about 20% of my arguments and then you say things categorically like this shoudl "end the discussion" or that KSM and Zubaydah do not belong there at all. It's bullshit. The one thing we can agree on is let's stick to the facts, and that is what I plan to do.
RonCram how did you come to be "studying" this supposed connection between Saddam and al-Qaeda anyway? Do you actually have any expertise or research experience with counterterrorism, or is this just something you became obsessed with as a means of defending the Bush Administration? I am just curious because you cling so desperately to the conspiracy theory that you ignore every piece of counter-evidence -- and you even create BS arguments to justify ignoring the counter-evidence, like trying to argue that because KSM's role was "operational" that he was some kind of "free agent." (BTW are you actually claiming that KSM acted independently? That 9/11 was planned not by al Qaeda but by some "free agent"?) This is almost as bad as arguing with someone who thinks Bush planned 9/11. --csloat 20:45, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Feith memo

I have found more misstatements regarding the Feith memo. The article currently accuses Feith of leaking classified information in his memo. According to the DOD, Feith was granted the right to send the classified annex to Congress. Evidently some Congressman or staffer leaked it to Stephen Hayes. The documents referred to in the memo were not even selected by Feith but by the intelligence community. "The provision of the classified annex to the Intelligence Committee was cleared by other agencies and done with the permission of the intelligence community. The selection of the documents was made by DoD to respond to the committee’s question." [29] The comment at the end appears to be address to congressmen and their staffers. If there is something I am missing here, let me know. In the meantime, I am rewording the article to remove the accusations against Feith. Let's stick to the facts, okay? RonCram 02:24, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

The press release is already cited in the article and it clearly states that the document was not meant to draw conclusions and that statements that it confirmed any relationship to Saddam were inaccurate. It also states that the leaking of the memo may be illegal. Richard Clarke calls the memo illegally leaked. Feith has been implicated in the leak and this does not seem to clear him, unless I am misreading it. It just says that it was ok for the documents to be provided to the intelligence committee. It also says that the selection of documents was made by DoD -- not the "intelligence community." Feith's office was in DoD. I do not think this substantiates your claim, but if it does, all it shows is that the illegal leak was by a member of congress rather than Feith.... In any case, until I get more information on this I will not object to changing it so it says the pentagon criticized "the person who leaked the memo" rather than Feith. But even though no charges were filed against Feith, many claim his actions were illegal - see [30] for example. But I think you're right that the charge is not that Feith illegally leaked the documents to congress along with his memo but rather that someone -- I think most people assume or imply that it was Feith -- illegally leaked them to the Weekly Standard. In either case do not just delete the information; instead clarify that Feith may not have been the source of the illegal leak.--csloat 02:44, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

CNSNews Documents

RonCram posted a link to the CNSNews story -- I had forgotten about that story but I remember thinking it was just too convenient at the time. I think it is all phony. They only put one page of the original 42 pages online and they say it's because they want to avoid people forging them... that explanation makes no sense (since their presence online would confirm whether copies were forged or not). No other news source - blogs excluded - will even confirm the existence of the documents. The person who found the documents is an unnamed Bush official who is claimed to be "not a political appointment", whatever that means. (Is Karl Rove a political appointment?) The story was published in Oct 04 and has not been picked up since, not even by the bush administration. This is all fishy. The story claims the docs have been "examined" by experts -- the ones who are named are both known cranks, Mylroie and Tefft. And they don't vouch for its authenticity they just say they are consistent with the way documents from Iraq look and that they are consistent with "other known evidence" -- which I assume includes all of Mylroie's theories. In other words, they are saying the documents confirm what they already believe. There is also an unnamed UN person who claims that the people who signed the docs are actual Iraqi officials. I emailed the author of the article to clarify these points and the message was returned to me because there is "no such user." A quick google search reveals that this was his last article for CNSNews.com. The question is, does anyone know anything more about these documents, about Mr. Wheeler, or about whether anyone else has noticed this story? The actual translated documents that are available on cnsnews are not nearly as explosive as the story claims, but nonetheless they are significant, and if the other claims in the story can be authenticated, it is amazing these have not been examined yet by anyone credible. But perhaps Mr. Wheeler may have been the victim of an October Surprise. I'd like to have more to go on here than the speculation of bloggers. --csloat 03:08, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

csloat, you have added some strange comments here. 1. Thank you for the link to Tefft's comments on Islam. What makes you think his views are "extreme?" You have to admit he has been studying extremists for a long time. Until there is some further information about Tefft to discredit him, I will remove your comment on his "extreme" views. 2. You have several unsourced comments about a. "too good to be true" b. "odd timing" and c. "convinced many the documents were forged." I do not know of anyone who has stated their view that the documents are forged. You are invited to find a source and link to it. In the meantime, I will attempt to moderate your view. RonCram 04:45, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
Read his comments. They are extreme. You may believe them yourself, that would not surprise me, but they are nonetheless extreme -- they equate Islam with terrorism. I will revert if you remove relevant material. The unsourced comments are all about what is said in the blogosphere - the only place these documents are even discussed, since nobody else takes them seriously. I can cite blog entries if you insist but they are just blog entries -- my whole point is that this story is completely unconfirmed and that the timing is way too convenient. And yes plenty of bloggers speculated that. As I said I wrote to the author and he does not seem to work there anymore; I also wrote to the CNS editors and they have not yet responded. I realize my emails are "original research" but I don't plan on including the results of such research in wikipedia; only here in the discussion forum and to satisfy my own curiosity about it. My comments may need moderation in tone -- I find the whole CNS affair strains credulity, so it is difficult to take it seriously, but please note that I did include the fact that if these documents do pan out, they would be significant -- but if you delete information that I have included I will revert it. --csloat 05:05, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm not going to change your last edits, at least not at the moment -- The NYSun article is fine, as well as crackpot Mylroie's claim that she thinks the docs are real. But I think this was planted by Iranian intel through Chalabi. I would not be surprised if the unnamed pentagon official who sent the documents to CNS was Doug Feith. It is really sad to see people who think they are promoting America's best interest actually working as puppets of Iranian intelligence. If the documents turn out to be real I will eat my crow in a civilized manner, but in the meantime my speculation is that these originated with Chalabi. This was a carefully coordinated and sustained misinformation campaign according to many sources; it wouldn't be the first documents they forged to convince the US that Saddam was working with AQ. But in any case I find it highly unseemly that CNS claims to have the documents but won't make them available, and simply invites people to come physically to their offices to look at them. I'd like to hear from an actual reporter or counterterrorism researcher who has examined them who doesn't come to the table with a crackpot agenda -- which leaves out Mylroie and Hefft, as well as the others Mylroie mentions -- and I'd like to hear why this has not been mentioned in any legitimate media outlet (not just tabloids like NYSun). I would think the Bush Admin would be chomping at the bit to mention this at every opportunity, and that many legitimate sources of news would be falling all over themselves to be the first to confirm or deny this.
My suspicions are further raised by the fact that the author seems to have disappeared. It remains to be seen whether CNS will acknowledge my email and respond to my request to examine copies of the documents myself.--csloat 06:50, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

"Prague Connection" is highly disputed

Immediately after the report Atta met with an Iraqi spymaster in Prague, the New York Times printed an article by James Risen saying that Czech President Vaclav Havel and phoned Bush to say the report was false. Actually, the story of Havel phoning Washington was a fabrication. Havel denied making the phone call and the Czechs actually confirmed the story and the Iraqi official was kicked out of the country. The interesting thing is that stories have continued to come out saying the Czechs have backed away from the story, but according to Edward Jay Epstein the Czechs were still standing behind the story in 2003. That is more than two years after the fabrication by the New York Times, the Czechs still stand by it. Now I understand that travel records do not show Atta in Prague at the time, but that is not to say he could not have travelled under an alias. The fact the Czechs still stand by the story shows the level of certainty they have. I will add the info and the source. (above unsigned note by RonCram)

Actually there is no evidence the Czechs still stand by the story. Call them yourself if you disagree. The Czechs were a little embarrassed by it all but Havel's office has confirmed that he has backed away from the claim. According to later articles -- 2003 and 2004 -- the Czechs did months of investigation and did not find evidence to support the link. Neither Atta nor al-Ani was anywhere near Prague at the time (al Ani was 70 miles away; Atta was in Florida). The original Czech report was based on one unreliable informant in Prague's Arab community. This is all covered in the timeline; you are just repeating info that has been disputed long ago. I've also hashed it out here with another user so please read all the info both in the timeline and in the discussion page before you go editing the article to include your misinformation. --csloat 04:09, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
I see that you choose to simply make edits without reading the rest of the article or responding to comments here. Please participate in the discussion if you are going to add things, Ron. And please read the rest of the article before making additions that have already been refuted. Havel's office, after the NYT report was dismissed as a "fabrication," nevertheless "said Mr. Havel was still certain there was no factual basis behind the report that Mr. Atta met an Iraqi diplomat." And the WaPo in 2003 wrote "After months of further investigation, Czech officials determined last year that they could no longer confirm that a meeting took place, telling the Bush administration that al-Ani might have met with someone other than Atta." You messed up this quote by quoting out of context a different WaPo article in the middle of it. I will now have to fix your careless editing, in addition to dealing with your misinformation. By 2004 in Czechoslovakia this was being called a public failure of Czech intelligence. There may still be a Czech official who believes it but that alone does not suddenly provide evidence that a meeting actually occurred. Again, as you ignored my point, neither Atta nor Al-Ani were anywhere near the coffeeshop they supposedly met in. Do you really believe Atta travelled thousands of miles just a few months before 9-11 just to have coffee with an Iraqi agent? --csloat 05:19, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
Even if you could find a source that said the Czechs had backed away from the story after 2003, I would be interested to read it but doubt if I would believe it. The New York Times started this whole fiasco with their first fabrication. Then Havel tried to quash the fabrication and a new one popped up immediately. Your comment that Mr. Havel's office "said Mr. Havel was still certain there was no factual basis behind the report that Mr. Atta met an Iraqi diplomat" was also a fabrication. If I did any original research, as you invite me to do, I cannot post it here anyway. I read about Atta traveling to Prague just for a few minutes inside the airport. Did you read the story? RonCram 06:09, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
Are you high? The guy who called it a "fabrication" in the first place is the same guy who "said Mr. Havel was still certain there was no factual basis behind the report that Mr. Atta met an Iraqi diplomat." The NYT did not start any "fiasco" and there has never been any suggestion that they got it wrong by anyone other than the guy from Havel's office who admitted that there was "no factual basis" for the report. The Czech chief of police says there is no evidence for a meeting. There are reports from 2003 and 2004 giving additional reasons this could not have happened. Also in Dec 2003 Al-Ani, in custody, admitted he never met Atta. There is a mountain of evidence against this possibility and you rest all your faith in the report of a single informant his own handlers called "unreliable". It just shows the kind of mental gymnastics required to believe such a theory. In any case there is still no evidence the Czech officials believe the meeting occurred after 2003 -- by 2004 CTK is reporting that the story was false and was manipulated by Ahmed Chalabi. Czech opposition leaders are calling it a horrific failure of Czech intelligence. I did not ask you to post original research; I asked you to do it because you insist on ignoring the other evidence that is public record. Even the 2003 story you post never explicitly says the Czech official still believes the story, and it is clear that Epstein (the reporter) is promoting his agenda. He never asks him point blank about it, which he could have easily done, and printed a straight answer. My own suspicion is that's because Epstien thought he might not like the answer. Again, the mental gymnastics of the conspiracy theorist.... --csloat 06:35, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Note to Conclusion 95 is False

The note reads: "Conclusion 95 refers to the terrorist group Ansar al-Islam, which was the sworn enemy of Saddam, and which operated in an area outside of Saddam's control. It has been suggested that Saddam may have spied upon the organization, but no evidence has turned up to confirm the notion that Saddam had any influence over this group. (See timeline, Summer 2001)." This note is false. Conclusion 95 refers to al-Qaeda located in both Baghdad and the Kurdish controlled area of the north. The timeline clearly points out that Zarqawi and about 20 of his men were in Baghdad and were known to be in Baghdad by Saddam's regime in the summer of 2002. Zarqawi is not Ansar al-Islam. In addition, I do not see that a note to any of these conclusions is required. I could well add a note showing evidence that the CIA did not give the 9/11 Commission all the pertinent information about the connection or that the Commission ignored it. But I do not see that such a note would do anything but cause people to slap the article with a "Disputed" label even though the comment would be well-sourced. I think it is better to stick to the facts and let the facts speak for themselves.RonCram 21:10, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

What "al Qaeda located in Baghdad"? there was no such thing. Zarqawi is dealt with elsewhere but he has been a part of ansar al Islam, at least that is what our intel agencies believed. I agree with sticking to the facts which is why I wish you would quit pummelling this page with misinformation and forcing me to go correct it all. Why don't you actually open up your mind a little bit to the possibility that you might be wrong about some of these things? And would you please justify major edits in talk -- I will be deleting some because they are not justified by the short notes you put in the comments. I read the discussion above to see if you had answered a single one of my points that I made extensively on this page and you have not. Now you return out of the blue to spread more disinformation; please deal with the responses to your disinformation more concretely here in the discussion page. --csloat 06:38, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
I've examined RonCram's edits and made some reasonable changes. On the issue of Conclusion 95 I would like more input from others before reverting. Obviously he is wrong that the note is "false" -- in fact, it is wholly accurate; the only thing we might add is that Zarqawi likely operated independently of AI and that the Zarqawi connection the conclusion refers to is also inaccurate since Zarqawi was at the time working for neither Saddam nor al Qaeda. So the conclusion is based on information that is disputed elsewhere on this page -- can someone else suggest a better way to refer to this fact than the way I had it; I don't disagree with RonCram that there is a potential slippery slope with disputing conclusions in this section. --csloat 07:03, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
csloat, if you have read the Senate Report, you know full well the report talked about al Qaeda in Baghdad and the comment referred to Zarqawi and his men. Even if Zarqawi had not yet pledged his allegiance to bin Laden, he was still an al Qaeda affiliate and his men were tied to al Qaeda as well. New information is coming out all the time about the connection. The Congressional inquiry into Able Danger will probably show that the Senate Select Committee and the 9/11 Commission were not given all the information they should have received. To be honest, the Able Danger situation does not look good for Bush since the coverup happened on his watch. But the truth is more important that politics. You asked me to open my mind that I might be wrong about some of these things. Fine. All I ask for is evidence. What I get from you are unsupported assertions, except when it comes to the Prague Connection and separating fact from fiction there is tough since the NY Times has had to withdraw one story and needs to withdraw more. According to the Weekly Standard, the Czechs still stand behind the story. BTW, the newspapers around the globe do not report "contacts." They report an "alliance" or a "pact." Please read the source documents before you edit the article.RonCram 13:38, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
I have read the report and I know about Zarqawi; he is dealt with in the article. At the time he was working for neither AQ nor Saddam. Able Danger has nothing to do with this, at least not with anything that has come out yet, but I guess your crystal ball tells you otherwise. The Weekly Standard is a useless source here, it has been shown to be spreading false information. But in any case I don't need to respond to your baseless charges; I evidence all my claims and have not just engaged in pure assertion like you accuse me of.
Again I invite others to offer suggestions how to deal with conclusion 95 or if we should just take RonCram's suggestion and leave the false information in and assume the reader will find the refutation in the timeline. As for the other recent edits reverting my changes, I will leave them for today in case someone else wants to step in; tomorrow I will revert them with minor changes based on the arguments I make below.--csloat 17:00, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

List of Newspapers in the Intro

The list of newspapers is important because it shows that reporters with different political, cultural and religious points of view (with much better understanding of the Middle East than the average US reporter) had knowledge of the alliance between Saddam and al Qaeda. These reports do not give evidence of "contacts" but of an "alliance" or a "pact." In some cases, the report details the alliance and what it means. If people read the timeline, they will read all these names in due course. However, listing the names here is necessary as an introduction to the remainder of the article. It is clear that the alliance between the Saddam and al Qaeda was never politically controversial prior to 9/11 and the War on Terror.RonCram 13:56, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

These are mostly newspapers - and some of them (e.g. Newsweek) also published evidence that there was no connection. These reports sometimes imply an "alliance" but present no evidence for it other than evidence of contacts. Again you are trying to distort the evidence with absurdities. Nobody (except your favorite Weekly Standard) reports that there is a "pact" between al Q and Saddam anymore and if you want to include this in the intro then we need to include the fact that no evidence for such a pact ever emerged and that the pre-911 assumptions about Saddam and AQ working together are now thought by all experts to be wrong. Should I list all the papers and magazines and experts who now believe there is no "alliance" or "pact" between the entities as well? This is absurd. --csloat 16:49, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
I have seen no evidence any publication has disproven a link. Newsweek has published stories that are skeptical of a link, but it is difficult to prove a negative. Certain people like KSM might not know about an alliance but that does not mean one does not exist. On the other hand, when stories are published that are confident of a link and quote Iraqi officials... that is hard evidence to ignore. At least it is hard for any objective observer. When these stories are supported by evidence of a joint effort at CW development in Sudan and backed up by documents found in Baghdad, the story begins to look pretty strong. Your comments about there being no evidence to back up the testimony of these people just will not hold water any more. The list of papers publishing stories on the pact or alliance needs to remain. RonCram 01:37, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Yes you're right it's difficult to disprove a negative, which is part of the problem with your conspiracy theory in the first place. Newsweek has been very clear recently with every article I've read there in the past few years that the reporters there have seen no evidence of any such link. Whatever might have been published in the 1990s is not that relevant, except to historians interested in how disinformation was spread by Iraqi exiles (some of whom worked for Iran). I'm not sure what quote from Iraqi officials you find "hard to ignore." The thing about Sudan has been refuted extensively, and the documents in Baghdad supposedly leaked by a government official who didn't bother telling his own government about them are not really proof of anything until we learn more about them. The list of papers was rightfully removed. If you want to put it in we also need to publish the much longer list of papers that now believe there was no Saddam/AQ link, and we need to make clear which papers on your list no longer believe in the conspiracy. The article is going to look a little silly if it begins with a scorecard of papers like that. You seem to be totally ignoring throughout this discussion the fact that the consensus among experts, intel analysts, and journalists, based on better intelligence and more information since 9/11, is that there was no such conspiracy. Your edits to the intro are trying to obscure that fact by burying it under a list of newspaper articles published before reporters really knew much about this at all.--csloat 08:26, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Arrests of Iraqi Agents in Germany

The question of why these arrests were not discussed in either the 9/11 Commission Report or the Senate Report is going to be in the news when the Congressional investigation into Able Danger begins hearings. Both published reports discuss information that is less pertinent (arrests of known Iraqi agents cooperating with al Qaeda) and less timely (the arrests happened in March 2001) than other events that were discussed in detail. Questioning who is responsible for the omission of this information from the public reports is an important question. RonCram 14:15, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Your speculation that this has something to do with a coverup is silly; there is no evidence at all of that. Your speculation that this will come out in Able Danger is also silly; when it comes out if it comes out we can include it. The fact is that if these arrests were important to a Saddam-AQ conspiracy theory we would have heard of it by now. Your theory is that this connection is being covered up by the 911 Commission, by Congress, by the CIA, and by several entities in Germany (and who knows who else). That seems silly on its face. A much more likely explanation is that the arrests led to nothing, that the CIA and/or the 911 Commission looked at the information and decided there was nothing there to pursue. The issue is not "who is responsible for the omission" but what actually happened -- which, at least given the sources you have quoted, we don't yet know. --csloat 16:53, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
PS these were not "agents"; they were accused of working for Iraqi intel. That is a very different claim. I will change that one now but the rest as I said above I will wait a day to make changes.--csloat 17:02, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Ron I see you are reverting without responding to the arguments here. Your wikipedia etiquette has been terrible surrounding this article. You've engaged in personal attacks and you keep making changes without responding to arguments against them. In this case the only news outlet calling these guys "agents" is the weekly standard's translation of an Arabic-language paper. We need something more substantial than that. How about some names? Again, if this report had any significance whatsoever, these things would have been covered. You think there is a conspiracy that includes the CIA, FBI, the 9/11 Commission and German intelligence and court system to commit treason in both countries in order to protect the identities of Iraqi spies working for al Qaeda? Your conspiracy theory is loony and there is not a shred of evidence to support it.--csloat 19:46, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry if you think my etiquette is poor. I have responded to the arguments containing any logic or evidence. Please do not take that as a personal attack. You know, as well as I do, that if there were anything wrong or sketch about the translation offered by Weekly Standard, someone in the media would be all over them for it. When a story has weight, it gets ignored. The point is the Arabic language paper called them agents. It does not appear that this designation is in doubt in any way. Being an agent is not a crime. Valerie Plame can vacation in Canada without fear of being arrested as long as she does not spy. I do not think there is a conspiracy including the CIA, FBI, 9/11 Commission and German intelligence. Your assertion that I do is a disservice to both of us. The point is the arrests of these intelligence agents is a big deal. Why it was not communicated to the 9/11 Commission or why they ignored it after it was communicated is a big deal. But I suspect incompetence over any "conspiracy." The attacks of 9/11 were a terrible intelligence breakdown. To have excessive confidence in the people who let America down is a mistake in my opinion. The comments I wrote are well supported by the sources. RonCram 01:52, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Ron you did not respond to the arguments containing logic or evidence; you stopped responding to the arguments I was making when you couldn't think of reasonable responses to them. In other words, you conceded these points, leading me (and anyone else reading this) to believe you were coming to your senses until your most recent burst of changes. As far as I can tell, you make changes every time a new issue of Weekly Standard comes out that has an article about this. It's annoying for me to have to research each little piece of information that magazine distorts, but I suppose it keeps me on my toes. But if you're not responding to legitimate points in this discussion, don't make changes that ignore those points.
The point is that the Reuters story never uses the term "agents" and that the only thing either paper gives any concrete evidence on at all is that these guys were picked up on suspicion of spying. If they were known agents that would have been in the Reuters paper and in German papers. That an Arab-language paper in France may have gotten something wrong that happened in Germany is not all that significant; that translation issues such as using the word "agent" instead of "suspected spy" is not something big enough for the major media to jump all over. Your next statement makes even less sense; "when a story has weight, it gets ignored." Actually, when a story has weight, reporters are under a lot of pressure to get there before other reporters do. I realize that isn't always the case and that occasionally big stories get ignored, but this certainly isn't one of them. The Saddam/AQ contacts and theories of an alliance or conspiracy have gotten major play in the media for quite some time now, and there are many pundits ready to jump all over every real piece of information they can find on this issue.
As for these arrests being a big deal, it is odd that the arresting officers don't seem to think so, that no German paper seems to think so, that no American paper seems to think so, that nobody in the FBI, CIA, BND, or any other intelligence agency thinks so, or that no politician in Germany or the US seems to think this is important. Not to mention the 9/11 Commission, who certainly would have had access to this information whether or not the CIA gave it to them. So you're saying all these people are not necessarily traitors; just incompetent. I'm sure they'll be relieved to hear that. Seriously, I agree with you that 9/11 was an intelligence breakdown, and that the agencies have significant problems. But I do not consider them incompetent when it comes to analyzing the intelligence they have. The breakdown on 9/11 had much more to do with a lack of competence in terms of sharing intelligence than analyzing their own. There was also a problem of a translation backlog and poor prioritization. But since 9/11 I do not believe that there has been an attempt to cover up something as important as the possibility of Saddam being behind 9/11. Especially when the Bush Admin and the Pentagon went out of their way to practically order the intel agencies to produce evidence of such a connection. I don't see how incompetence can explain all of this.
I think in the end your biggest problem is you ignore the fact that there was both a sustained disinformation campaign on the part of the Iraqi National Congress and an attempt to promote an interpretation of facts that was totally at odds with what was coming out of FBI, CIA, and DIA in Doug Feith's office in the Pentagon. Read the revelations of Karen Kwiatkowski. There was intense pressure put on the intel agencies to come to certain conclusions, and when they didn't, Feith's OSP did an end-run around them by offering an ideologically-driven interpretation of the available evidence. With all of that pressure to come to certain conclusions, and with lots of "evidence" coming from a group of Iraqi exiles who turned out to have been working for Iran, when the established intel agencies still can't find evidence of a connection, that is pretty strong confirmation in my mind that such evidence does not exist. Again, we can't prove a negative, as you admit in another post, but we have to remember that it the burden of proof of those who suggest that a link exists to offer concrete evidence of such a link. --csloat 08:55, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
csloat, you take issue with my comment "when a story has weight, it gets ignored." Let me give you a couple of illustrations. First is the Juanita Broaddrick interview by Lisa Myers on NBC just as the Senate was about to vote on the impeachment of Bill Clinton. Juanita claimed in the interview that Bill Clinton raped her years before when he was running for governor. The interview was completed, vetted and ready to air but NBC refused to air it until the Senate vote on impeachment was past. Juanita spoke to Lisa and asked "Why the delay?" Lisa said "The good news is you are credible. The bad news is you are very credible." NBC finally aired the interview but it was not promoted in any way and received no news coverage by other networks. Second illustration is the CNS News docs from Baghdad. CBS News chose to do a story on Bush docs after they were told the docs could not be authenticated, but they would not even make an effort to authenticate the docs held by CNS News. You assume if the media does not cover it, it is not a big deal. I strongly disagree. The context of the article on the arrests (not just the translation) shows there is no doubt these men have ties to the Iraqi government. That fact makes it a big deal. Also, the Bush Admin and Pentagon did not order the IC to produce evidence for a link. The Senate Report has already laid that to rest. Your statement there shows how far out in left field you are. I recognize the INC has lost credibility. But so has Karen Kwiatkowski. BTW, Feith's conclusions are not off-base. The internal debate inside the CIA shows that. I have more evidence to post here and I suspect more evidence will be made public in the days ahead. Also, if I do not post for a while, that does not mean I completely agree with your last posts. I have a company to run and a family to spend time with.RonCram 16:03, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Your theory that the media covers up great stories is interesting though at odds with everything one learns in journalism school. But it doesn't matter; true or false, wikipedia is not the place to make a big story out of something that the mainstream media gatekeepers decided was not a big story. If you have such great original information about Clinton and the CNS documents, publish it yourself in an article, and if it gets picked up, perhaps it will be relevant enough to include here someday. As for the Senate report "laying to rest" the pressure from Pentagon and white house - you're wrong. They quoted some folks saying there was no pressure, but the fact is many reported such pressure both before and after the report (which is one reason some consider the report a "coverup". I wouldn't use that term myself but I don't think the report settled this issue). Karen Kwiatkowski's integrity has never been challenged by anyone that has credibility that I am aware of; whereas Feith's has been attacked over and over by credible sources. Feith's office was repeating the lies of the INC and was reviewing unvetted intelligence data with an ideological bent. This is public knowledge now and it is very easy to verify. What "internal debate inside the CIA" are you referring to? Do you work for the CIA? If not, when did you get access to their internal debates? And finally the issue is not that you don't post for a long time but that when you do post, you ignore all of the arguments in previous posts and then make changes that side-step those debates. It shows you are not interested in reaching the truth but only interested in promoting your point of view. --csloat 17:24, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
At least you admit you are not well informed in these areas. I wholeheartedly disagree that the mainstream media is the only gatekeeper for a wikipedia article. The internet has had too big an impact for that view to hold any water. Your view on the Senate Report is amusing. Perhaps you did not know that Kwiatkowski was not in the meetings where the pressure was supposed to have taken place? You continue to attack me without basis. My posts are always clearly stated, well researched and well sourced and do not go against any clearly established facts on the discussion page. You attack my posts because of your point of view, not because you want a good article that clearly states the facts. I am more interested in seeing the disputed label removed from this article than I am of promoting a particular point of view. RonCram 14:57, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Let's see -- you go from impugning Kwiatkowski's credibility to maintaining that she was not at certain meetings. Read her stories and tell me what specifically you dispute. What meeting did she miss that renders her story false? You're just throwing up red herrings. The only goal you have, as you have demonstrated over and over and over again, is to promote a conspiracy theory. You cling tooth and nail to every little detail the Weekly Standard digs up for you, and you don't back off even after being buried in a torrent of arguments. Turning to your most recent edits, you claim the suspicious CNS documents are supported by the Duelfer report, pulling a quote about "M14" without any explanation of what that is. This you connect to Salman Pak - training that supposedly took place years after the CNS documents -- why is this not in the Salman pak section? Seems to me it would make more sense there, so readers could weigh the arguments directly (rather than in another section where it seems to stand on its own). Why don't you show us that your goal is to improve the article rather than promote your point of view - change the edits yourself. I will only change the grammatical errors you introduced and I will wait to see if you will change the content in a way that is consistent with improving the page (rather than just promoting your little conspiracy theory).--csloat 17:50, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Able Danger

Upcoming Congressional hearings into Able Danger will shed new light on the travels of Mohammed Atta. The Able Danger timeline for Atta's travels is in conflict with the timeline presented by the 9/11 Commission. The information about Able Danger belongs in the timeline. Any attempt to remove it is pure vandalism. RonCram 14:31, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Able Danger tells us nothing about Atta having anything to do with Saddam. You are just trying to make a phony argument here -- casting doubt on the 911 commission and implying that therefore they must be wrong about another issue. Nothing in the Able Danger information suggests that Atta worked for Saddam. If you want to cast doubt on the 9/11 commission take it to that page; otherwise put informaiton on the Able Danger page. But why is it relevant here? It is not. And cut the bullshit Ron, it is not vandalism; my changes were all clearly explained. --csloat 16:55, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Able Danger clearly relates to the link between Saddam and al Qaeda in two ways. #1. If Atta was in the US in early 2000 as Able Danger said, then he traveled here under an alias - something his terrorist friends said he never did. The 9/11 Commission Report claimed it was possible for Atta to have made the trip to Prague but he would have had to travel under an alias and that was not his practice. If correct, Able Danger indicates Atta did use an alias when traveling and the biggest logical hurdle for the trip is removed. There is now no reason not to believe Atta was in Prague. This clearly relates to the link. #2. The doubt being raised about the work of the 9/11 Commission is not a "phony argument." csloat, you are not so slow minded as to not understand the issues here. In this particular case, the Commission has admitted receiving information on Able Danger and choosing not pursue it. That clearly relates to the link. The fact a Congressional hearing is coming up to look into Able Danger and the 9/11 Commission is not a fact this article can ignore. Excluding vital information is not the way to inspire confidence in wikipedia. Removing the entry on Able Danger is completely indefensible. RonCram 21:43, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
Ron please read the other responses to your Able Danger entry below. Both me and Mr. Billion responded to this and you have not responded to those arguments; you are just repeating yourself here. It's bullshit. Nobody credible even speculates that Able Danger has anything to do with Prague; all you have is the Weakly Standard and it is pure speculation. The alias is not even one of the issues discussed on the prague entry on the timeline. There are numerous reasons Atta could not have been in Prague in April and the only one you go to is this red herring about an alias. Your speculation about the committee covering up Able Danger should be brought up on the proper page, not here. The only thing connecting this to Prague is the unwarranted speculation by the Weekly Standard, which we have responded to clearly below. Please answer those arguments before you post this kind of junk.--csloat 22:10, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Able Danger and other bad edits

I'm reverting Ron's POV edits. The line about "the connection" between Saddam and al-Qaeda not being controversial is especially POV because it assumes that there was such a connection.

Forgive me for saying so, but the Weekly Standard seems to be somewhat biased.

The Morrissey article clumsily attempts to link Mohamed Atta and Iraq by first noting that Shaffer claims that Able Danger placed Atta in the USA in 2000 while the 9/11 Commission says he was still in Hamburg. It then falsely asserts that most of the information indicating Atta was in Germany was from interrogation of prisoners, and it attempts to insinuate that the interrogations produced nothing but misinformation.

When the article moves on to speculation on other matters, attempting again to tie Atta to Iraq, it misrepresents the evidence given in the Report against Atta's supposed trip to Prague. It neglected to mention about half the story. To begin with, shortly after the report from the lone Czech intelligence officer was initially reviewed, "the Czech intelligence service publicly stated that there was a 70 percent probability" that the claim of an Atta-Ani meeting at 11 AM April 9, 2001 was true. This initial reservedness is pretty far from the persistent, adamant surety suggested by the article.

Two things not mentioned:

  • "Czech officials have reviewed their flight and border records as well for any indication that Atta was in the Czech Republic in April 2001, including records of anyone crossing the border who even looked Arab."
  • "According to the Czech government, Ani, the Iraqi officer alleged to have met with Atta, was about 70 miles away from Prague" at the time the meeting supposedly took place.

The author of the article also apparently doesn't understand the basic concept of interrogation. Morrissey doesn't seem to get that if interrogations extracted no useful information, there would be no point in doing them. The members of the Commission didn't trust KSM and others under interrogation. They trusted the agents doing the interrogating.

Aside from that, the article grossly exaggerates the importance of interrogation in the Report's conclusions about Atta. What's really bizarre is that Morrissey asserts that Ramzi Binalshibh was the Commission's source for information in the last half of the Atta item. But interrogation of Binalshibh is only given in note 69 as the source for the first paragraph. The later paragraphs that the article says are sourced from Binalshibh are actually sourced in Note 70 as "CIA analytic report, 'The Plot and the Plotters," June 1, 2003, p. 23; German BKA report, investigative summary re Shehhi, July 9, 2002." Oddly, no mention of Binalshibh there.

Also in the 9/11 Report: "There was no reason for such a meeting, especially considering the risk it would pose to the operation. By April 2001, all four pilots had completed most of their training, and the muscle hijackers were about to begin entering the United States.
"The available evidence does not support the original Czech report of an Atta-Ani meeting."

The source for this is not Ramzi Binalshibh, but American and German intelligence reports.

The Commission put out a statement explaining the points raised by Shaffer. Pentagon spokesmen have said that they can't confirm Shaffer's story.

Shaffer explains the conflict between the Able Danger and 9/11 Commission timelines by saying, "Able Danger wasn’t about dates and locations. It was about associations and linkages. That’s what the focus was." He does not explain it by asserting that the 9/11 Commission was wrong.

His main claim is that the U.S. intelligence services didn't listen when he claims he identified Atta as a threat. But he didn't start squawking about it until fairly recently. And he keeps changing his story.

--Mr. Billion 21:27, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Mr Billion, you reverted several of my edits: 1. The list of newspapers in the Intro and the comment that the link between Saddam and al Qaeda was not controversial prior to 9/11. 2. The fact it is not known whether the CIA provided the information about the arrests in Germany or whether the 9/11 Commission ignored it. 3. The comment that the writer admitted CNS News has a good reputation. 4. The entire entry about Able Danger. You said the Talk page would explain the edits but your entry above only addresses part of point 1 and point 4.
Regarding Point 1, I invite you to read the timeline. A thorough (or even cursory) reading of the timeline will clearly show that a link between Saddam and al Qaeda existed. The real questions have to do with the nature and extent of the relationship and whether or not it included cooperation in the attacks of 9/11. On these questions, different points of view are possible. If you truly believe the link was controversial prior to 9/11, give me a source and I will agree to remove the comment from the article.
Regarding Point 4, you are in error. Most of the information in the 9/11 Commission Report regarding Atta’s travels was learned from prisoners. You wrongly point to endnotes 69 and 70 of chapter 5 which are found on pages 161-162. The information about Atta’s travels is found on pages 166-168 (Endnotes 90-105, found on pages 496-497). If you reread that section you will find both in the narrative and the endnotes that the main sources for Atta’s travels are his fellow terrorists. Finally, Col Shaffer is not alone. His claims regarding Able Danger have been corroborated by Captain Scott Phillpott, the officer who briefed the 9/11 Commission about Able Danger in 2004, and former contractor James D Smith. The new information about Able Danger brings new light to the timeline of Atta’s travels, including the possibility he travelled using an alias. According to the 9/11 Commission Report, a history of Atta using an alias would make it more likely that he did travel to Prague in April 2001. RonCram 15:08, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I pointed to the wrong endnotes. But I am referring to the claim on page 2 of the Weekly Standard article that "Their report details the factors that went into this rejection on pages 228-9." It then lists a few pieces of evidence against an Atta meeting (somehow neglecting other pieces), quotes a section from page 229 and says, "The Commission's source for this? Ramzi Binalshibh." The source for the listed evidence and the quoted section is not primarily the interrogation of Ramzi Binalshibh, yet the article seeks to give the impression that it is. I am taking issue with that. The listed evidence is sourced to Czech intelligence, the FBI, and the CIA (endnote 70 pp522-523). The only thing in the quoted section that could have come from Binalshibh is that Atta had a practice of traveling under his true name, and even that is not only supported by Binalshibh also but by records of Atta's traveling under his true name. The article also attempts without evidence to discredit the FBI's interrogations. There is no support for these attempts other than the author's speculation about the effectiveness of interrogation.

The Standard article's main tactic for linking Saddam and al-Qaeda is insinuation. The author has an obvious bias and agenda. --Mr. Billion 20:32, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Mr. Billion, so what you are telling me is that you deleted my entry because you did not like the article by Morrissey in the Weekly Standard? I hate to break this to you, sir, but I am not Mr. Morrissey. If you want to delete my entries, you have to show that the entry is in error. My entry referenced the 9/11 Commission Report itself and only referenced the Morrissey article regarding Able Danger and the three people who are now on record about it. If there is something that is unclear about what I wrote, I am happy to clarify the wording of the entry to facilitate understanding. But you cannot claim the entry is not relevant to this article.RonCram 05:29, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Mr. Billion and will add a few points. Atta's whereabouts are not just determined from other terrorists but from police records, from interviews, from flight school records, etc. Atta was not only visible to other terrorists; he sometimes had to speak to or at least be seen by apartment owners, flight school operators, policemen, bartenders, pizza store owners, etc. There is nothing I see except the insinuation of a Weakly standard writer that claims that Able Danger proves or even makes likely the Atta trip to Prague. Nothing. All you have is the idea that because the Able Danger timeline conflicts with the 9/11 Commission timeline, the latter must be presumed wrong. The wording you use is ridiculous - you say the timelines "appear to be in conflict" (so we're not sure they are, and we're certainly not sure what dates they appear to be in conflict about, and the only dates mentioned by the Weakly Standard as actual points of conflict --except in a deceptive headline -- are from a year earlier), and that the conflict makes it "more likely" that he was in Prague (how much more likely is never spelled out -- you are talking an infinitesimal fraction of a percentage at best). You also ignore all of the information that responds directly to an Atta April 01 prague trip (which does not just disappear because a conflict between two timelines may exist). Do you have any information besides Ed Morissey's speculation that suggests that the Able Danger documents claim atta was in Prague in April? Until you do I am removing this entry. Ron if you want to talk about Able Danger please do it on the appropriate page.--csloat 09:19, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
Ed Morrissey is not speculating that the Able Danger documents do not claim Atta was in Prague in April. You are trying to build a straw man argument. There is no speculation at all in the entry you continue to delete. It is a shame to see you deleting an entry you have not bothered to read. I will explain it to you again starting with a quote from the 9/11 Commission Report on Page 229: "These findings cannot absolutely rule out the possibility that Atta was i Prague on April 9, 2001. He could have used an alias to travel and a passport under that alias, but this would be an exception to his practice of using his true name while traveling (as he did in January and would in July when he took his next overseas trip)." The biggest and most important reason the 9/11 Commission can produce for why Atta was not in Prague is that it was not his practice to use an alias and false passport when traveling. The Commission admits there is nothing else in his timeline to preclude such a trip. They decide against it almost completely because it was not his practice to use an alias. Now Able Danger comes along and claims Atta is in the US in January 2000, something that is not possible unless Atta had used an alias. The big, special reason that Atta did not make the trip is nonexistent. This is not a minor issue, it is a major issue that opens up the door to the possibility Atta was in Prague. In addition, we now know that the 9/11 Commission chose to not to investigate certain information that did not fit their viewpoint of what happened. That is big news in and of itself. Of course, we interrogate terrorists to see if we can learn anything. But we are also aware they may lie to us in a disinformation effort. Who would you rather believe - terrorists or military intelligence who say Atta was in the US in January 2000? To most people, the more reliable of the witnesses would be the US military. Yet, the 9/11 Commission chose to believe the terrorists. That is big news and belongs in the timeline. I am restoring the entry. If you delete it again, I will consider it vandalism.RonCram 15:19, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
You have not responded to the critique, your argument is evasive, and removal of this section until it's hammered out here is not vandalism. You do not have the unilateral right to control this page, and I recommend you choose your words before trying to bar others from good faith efforts by labeling them vandals. It's bad faith. -- RyanFreisling @ 15:33, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
You are error. I have responded to the critique on several occasions and on different locations on this page. My argument is clear and not at all evasive. I have pointed out the error Mr. Billion made. I have pointed out the straw man argument csloat made. There is no speculation in this entry at all. Your own entry to the Talk page has made no contribution to the discussion. No one has discussed my reasons for including the entry, least of all you, Mr. Freisling. Deleting an entry without good reason is bad faith. You have provided no reason for your actions, except claiming my argument is evasive which you made no effort to show. The least you can do is read the Talk page before deleting important entries. If you do it again, it will be considered vandalism.RonCram 15:50, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
I am not 'error'. You think I'm 'in' error, fine - it's happened many times before - but in this case I'm not. And I read this page intimately, but up until now, csloat has engaged with you in good faith to undo your blatant mistruths. In this case, you HAVE NOT responded to his criticisms, you have merely repeated your own reasons for it's inclusion over and over. The section should be discussed in good faith, and you should be careful to avoid the 3RR. And it's Ms. Freisling. -- RyanFreisling @ 15:55, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Ms. Freisling, to which of their points have I not responded? And what is your reason for deleting my entry? Contrary to your claims, I have responded both here and in the article itself. I have expanded the entry to make the relevance to the article more clear because of csloat's claim it was not relevant. csloat's claim that the entry is not relevant is pure nonsense. If it was poorly written in the beginning, I apologize for that. I should not have expected people to read the source I linked to (which would have cleared up any possible misunderstanding). As it reads now, I think the entry is both clear and relevant. If it is unclear at any point, please let me know. In the meantime, I expect you not to delete an entry without giving your own reasons for doing so.RonCram 05:44, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
As Burgess Meredith once said, "You can expect in one hand and crap in the other and see which gets filled first". Deletion of controversial content (especially content around which an edit war is brewing) is valid, especially when the content's obvious errors are unaddressed in Talk (as you did, and as I need not recount) and when the same individual is responsible for adding, and multiply reverting, the content without any other substantive feedback from other users. Your claim I did not read the source is spurious, as are your conclusions. I will treat your edits with a great deal less incredulity when you start editing in a way that inspires such respect. Until then, I will continue to be on the lookout for disinformation and lies on your part in your quest to 'shore up' this conspiracy theory (yes, conspiracy theory) of yours. -- RyanFreisling @ 05:49, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
So you are telling me you are going to continue to delete my entries without giving a reason here? You have not identified any "disinformation" or "lies" in the Able Danger entry you deleted. When I asked for a reason you deleted it, you tell me my expectations are worth nothing. You can expect your reputation in wikipedia to fall, if it has room to fall. RonCram 13:23, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
When you respond in talk, and reach consensus with csloat (who has been the 'point person' for this ongoing discussion) and attempt to resolve the untruths in your post BEFORE revert warring, I won't need to do anything. As far as a reputation - this is an encyclopedia, and I stand by my edits - that's all that matters. As far as your work is concerned, it's pretty clear you're here for one reason (to spread disinformation and filibuster good faith efforts to replace falsehood with truth), as evidenced by your contribs... so to even mention the issue of reputation is laughable - you have none. Focus on the article and stop behaving in such a childish way. -- RyanFreisling @ 13:31, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Hey Ron, you're the one creating straw people. The alias thing is a minor point - it proves nothing with regard to Prague. As I said below (or above?) it only has an infinitesimal effect at best on the possibility of the Prague meeting. Much more important refutations of the prague meeting come from the fact that Atta was nowhere near Prague, that evidence placed him in the US, that al-Ani was 70 miles away, that the one witness who claimed to have seen the meeting was totally unreliable, that another witness has reported someone who looks like Atta, that there was another Atta who travelled to Prague in 2000, etc. None of these points are addressed by the Weakly standard. You pretend that Atta not using an alias is the only reason Prague couldn't have happened - that is the real straw person argument here. It's an absurd argument anyway; just because someone didn't use an alias one time doesn't mean they won't use it another time. Just because you find a reference to it in the 911 Commission does not mean it's the only relevant argument. The Able Danger thing has its own page; go bother them with your nonsense. It is simply not relevant here; there are only two people in the world who think it is -- you and Ed Morrissey.--csloat 18:41, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
By the way the claim that the timelines are inconsistent is your claim; that was not a straw argument. It is also the claim in the Weakly Standard article -- the subtitle of the article specifically makes it, and you made it in your entry. It seems that such an argument is essential for your speculation to have any basis whatsoever. If the timeline is not a problem, then Atta was not in Prague, as he was in the US. But so far nobody has shown that the Able Danger timeline refutes this in any way.--csloat 18:44, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
csloat, I have explained this repeatedly but will happily explain it again. (sigh) The Able Danger timeline conflicts with the 9/11 Commission in that the 9/11 Commission places Atta in Germany in early 2000 and Able Danger places Atta in the US at that time. This much is clear and indisputable. Now, if Able Danger is right, then Atta traveled to the US using a passport with a different name, an alias. Contrary to your arguments above, the 9/11 Commission did not have any evidence that could rule out that Atta traveled to Prague in April 2001. Remember the quote from the 9/11 Commission on page 229? "These findings cannot absolutely rule out the possibility that Atta was in Prague on April 9, 2001. He could have used an alias to travel and a passport under that alias, but this would be an exception to his practice of using his true name while traveling (as he did in January and would in July when he took his next overseas trip)." So then, THE SINGLE BIG REASON the 9/11 Commission presented in its report to explain why it rejected the idea Atta did not travel to Prague in April 2001 is that Atta was not known to use an alias. The 9/11 Commission reached the conclusion that Atta did not use an alias because Binalshibh said so (and the fact they had not yet learned of a time when Atta had used an alias). The 9/11 staff obviously knew that all the other terrorists would occasionally use an alias to travel. In 2003, investigators from Able Danger present information to the 9/11 Commission showing say Atta was in the US in January 2000. Apparently the 9/11 commission staff logic went like this: "If Atta was in the US in January 2000, he must have used an alias, because we don't have any record of him coming here under his own name. But we know from interrogating the terrorist Binalshibh that Atta NEVER used an alias. Therefore, the Able Danger investigators must be unreliable. We will not investigate this further." Seriously csloat, are you going to tell me you do not understand this now? Are you going to tell me this has no relationship to the article? It relates to the possibility of Atta traveling to Prague and it relates to the credibility of the 9/11 Commission Report which is about to undergo Congressional inquiry. RonCram 05:22, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
I didn't say I didn't understand your argument, Ron; I said it was ludicrous. It is a strawman and I think you know it. The alias thing is not even mentioned on the prague entry on the timeline because it is the least significant of the reasons Atta could not have met al-Ani in Prague. It may have been cited by the 911C, so what? That is not the "SINGLE BIG REASON"; read the list of reasons I provided above again. It is also not the 911C's single big reason; they looked at other intel in the report. Your alleged 9/11 staff logic doesn't return any google hits because it is nonsense. The most significant point here however is that the ONLY other person in the world besides you who seems to think that Able Danger is relevant to the Prague conspiracy theory is a second-rate journalist at a hack publication that openly spreads disinformation. The subtitle of his article announces falsely that there is a conflict in April 2001 in the timeline - not the more accurate Jan 2000 conflict that you point out. That kind of misleading headline is symptomatic of the magazine's logic throughout its treatment of this issue. That is why you can't find a refereed scholarly publication on this issue that concludes that there was any collaboration between Saddam and al-Qaeda; only stuff from this rag. You also can't find a professional intelligence analyst who believes it. Not a former DCI -- an actual analyst whose job it is to sift through thousands of reports every day, most of them false. But I'm getting off on a tangent -- the issue at hand, the connection between Able Danger and Prague, is nonsense. The press has been all over Able Danger and they would definitely be talking about this if such a connection made any sense, but it just doesn't. It is sheer fantasy to make the question of whether Atta used an alias the central point in this discussion when we have numerous much more significant responses to the Prague meeting that have never been addressed. The Prague meeting just did not happen -- and I think you know it, which is why you are grasping at this rather than addressing the reasons that have been put forth again and again.--csloat 11:22, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
I understand why you are upset. I am quoting the 9/11 Commission Report and you do not like what they say. I took your advice and added the quote to the April 2001 entry. It should have been added long ago. You provided a number of reasons why you do not think the meeting happened. Unfortunately, none of these reasons rule out the possibility of the meeting, at least according to the 9/11 Commisssion. If the one big reason is no longer a hurdle, then it dramatically increases the chance Atta traveled to Prague. ALL of the other terrorists (that I can think of) were known to use an alias on occasion. Why should Atta be the exception? It was a flimsy excuse for the 9/11 Commission to use in the first place. Nice try on taking a paragraph I wrote colored for humor and running a google search on it. As if that would prove something! Take any original paragraph and google it and you will not get anything. Your continued rant that you cannot find a professional intelligence analyst who believes in the link is preposterous. To be honest, I do not know if the Prague meeting happened or not. But I do know that the press has lied about the meeting from the beginning. The New York Times had to recant one story and should have recanted others. One story James Risen wrote claimed Atta could not be in Prague because he was in Florida. Then it was learned Atta was in Florida on April 4, which does not preclude his trip in the least. Does the term "the reasons that have been put forth" refer to your reasons Atta you don't think Atta made the trip? Or does it refer to the reasons my entry should not be a part of this article? If it refers to the former, just realize that I am accepting the position of the 9/11 Commission that there is no proof Atta did not make the trip if he used an alias. If it refers to the latter, I have demonstrated how Able Danger relates to the trip, to the credibility of the 9/11 Commission and its relevance to this article. There are no "reasons" put forward I have not discussed. RonCram 13:46, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Once again, actually resolving the issue requires fact, a lot more than just filibustering. The section as written is woefully inadequate. You are trying to shore up your post with opinion, not fact... Just flapping your gums (or in this case, your keys) does not equal fact-finding. Your assertions as written were POV and inaccurate, and on the face of it, your 'responses' to csloat do NOTHING to achieve consensus. You should really work on your fact-checking, and stay off the Orwellian claims that the press lied. You are not an investigative journalist, and this is not a platform for you to convince others. Stick to fact, or the content does not belong. I realize that may be hard for you, as this entire article is a gossamer thread connecting pile after pile of heaping cow dung, with little if any fact to be found. Prepare for more and more culling of this tripe. -- RyanFreisling @ 13:57, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Ryan, you have yet to point out one fact that is inaccurate. Fact-checking is my strong suit. My entry is full of facts, all of them well sourced. You act as if there are factual inaccuracies in my entry. Which fact is wrong? Which statement is not well supported? You cannot just "cull" facts because you don't like them. That is vandalism. RonCram 14:14, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but your behavior here makes your comment laughable. You talk past the issues raised by others, and use your beliefs to guide your inclusion of fact. That's bad form. Your attribution of vandalism to be is untrue, and your justification for your revert war is false. You have violated 4RR, and have not given any other users the opportunity to make themselves heard here. Your behavior here is far from factual - it's detrimental and it's disruptive to Wikipedia. Plenty of 'fact' can be culled for plenty of reasons (readability, editorial clarity, 'balance', etc... but that's not what I'm saying. The article will continue to see your false assertions changed or deleted, when they are found unfactual (as is this section under discussion). You cannot just blithely respond by talking past the points at issue, and claim others are vandalous. That's bad faith. -- RyanFreisling @ 14:26, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
First, I think Ryan is right on about your conduct, Ron, but I am going to try to assume good faith and explain this one more time. (1) The issue of the alias is not the one big reason, not even for the 9/11 C. You are right it's a silly argument, but that's why you're using it as a straw person. The Comission looked at other evidence, including the stuff mentioned in the timeline. Their statement that the other findings do not "rule out" the possibility of a meeting is like me saying I cannot rule out the possibility that the sun won't rise tomorrow. They are simply being careful; acknowledging that it is impossible to prove that something did not happen. Which is why it the burden of argumentative proof is typically on the one who asserts that something did happen. The problem with conspiracy theorists is that they switch this burden of proof -- so that a realistic disclaimer like this one can be waved around as if it were proof of its opposite. (2) the alias issue is thrown in here as an additional argument; Ron claims it "dramatically increases the chance Atta traveled to Prague." That is beyond ludicrous. Any increase in said chance is infinitesimal. The alias is not even listed as a significant argument for this on this page. And it is a minor argument for the commission. And it is a silly argument - everyone concedes that. (3) The press has not "lied about" the meeting "from the beginning" -- unless you mean the Weakly Standard. One Czech official had a problem with one NYT story but even after expressing the problem he had with it he went on to admit the substance of it was true -- that, in other words, the Czech government had backed off the claim. Do a little research in Czech sources after 2003 and you will see I am correct about this -- there are enough of them in translation on the internet. Czech politicians have even used this as an example of a well-known intel failure on the part of the Czech government. (4) You have not dealt with any of the other reasons that Atta could not have been in Prague -- all you do is say you don't trust the NYT. (And yet you do trust the Weekly Standard - go figure). Let's review them: (a) the only evidence for the meeting is the claim of a single informant known to be unreliable (b) The Czechs had slowly backed off the claim since 2002 - first by claiming Atta was there to help al-Ani attack RFE (as an aside, he was cleared of that charge) rather than to plan 9/11, then by claiming there was only a 70% chance of such a meeting, and then admitting the meeting theory had "no factual basis." And as I said now it is regarded as a joke in the Czech Republic. (c) Al-Ani was reportedly 70 miles away from the meeting (d) Al-Ani was known to have an Iraqi colleague that he met with often who was a dead ringer for Atta (e) some of the speculation about Atta's flights in 2000 comes not from an alias but from another man, a Pakistani, named Mohammed Atta (two "m"s rather than one), whose travel confused intelligence agents; (f) the FBI investigated Atta's whereabouts thoroughly and found that he did not leave the country in April; the Director is quoted: "We ran down literally hundreds of thousands of leads and checked every record we could get our hands on, from flight reservations to car rentals to bank accounts." (g) the Czech police chief could find no evidence that Atta visited Prague in 2001; (h) al-Ani is now in custody and has been cooperating and giving up reasonable intelligence under interrogation. He claims he has never met Atta, and his interrogators seem to believe him. (i) Atta hated Saddam and considered him an "American stooge". You need to deal with all of these arguments, not just the straw person argument of the alias. (5) NOBODY is talking about this except you and Ed Morrissey. This conspiracy theory connecting Able Danger to the Prague speculation is completely non-notable. (6) It's funny, you whine that it is "preposterous" that you can't find a professional intel analyst to support your claim of a Prague meeting, yet you still cannot seem to come up with a single one. Overall, this Able Danger stuff does not belong here Ron, and you know it. I suspect that's why you don't bother to bring it up on the page where such speculation would be relevant, because you know it would get shot down there even harder than it is here. And stop hiding behind the 9/11 Commission. You know what their conclusions are. What you're doing is taking one sentence out of context, twisting its meaning and then claiming it is some kind of logical a priori. "It says they can't rule out the possibility of him using an alias; therefore the alias is the lynchpin!" That's a crap argument, and I suspect you know it. --csloat 20:01, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

csloat, you are talking about everything but the issue at hand. The point is that this information is relevant whether or not you consider it convincing that it proves Atta was in Prague. I am not even convinced he was in Prague. But I am convinced that people created lots of smoke screens about the issue. A few comments related to your treatise. 1. The issue of the alias is the big issue because all of the other checking that was done was looking for "Mohamed Atta" not for whatever alias he used. 2. The alias issue is now listed as a big issue. I (and Mr. Billion) corrected your disinformation that Atta was known to be in the US from April 4-11. 3. Yes, the press has gotten the story wrong. The NY Times was rebuked by the Czech government for fabricating the story that Havel called Bush. And the quote you mentioned has also been rejected by the Czech government. The Czechs continue to support the intel that Atta was in Prague (although Havel is only 70% convinced). Your misunderstanding that Atta was known to be in the US from April 4-11 is probably due to a poorly written article by James Risen in the NY Times that has yet to be recanted or clarified. 4. You cite a number of reasons that Atta could not be in Prague. a. is not proof that Atta was not there. b. The Czechs continue to believe Atta was in Prague through 2003 and indications are they still believe it. c. Al-Ani was reportedly 70 miles away by a good friend of al-Ani who was trying to protect him, hardly a credible witness. d. Again, this info comes from the same good friend of al-Ani. e. is not proof of anything. f. Again, the FBI was searching for "Mohamed Atta" not an alias which is why the use of an alias is a big issue. g. The police chief would have to ignore the eyewitness to make this claim. h. If you were al-Ani, would you lie about it? i. This is obviously untrue. Saddam may not be liked by people in the Middle East but no one considered him a stooge or puppet of the Americans. 5. Does that prove anything? Not at all. None of the facts I stated in my entry are in doubt and the logic and relevance to the article are clear. 6. There are a number of professional intel analysts who support the link between Saddam and al-Qaeda. You can expect to see a list of them soon.

Ron you're like a broken record. Let's go one by one. (1) A lot of the checking on Atta's whereabouts - from cell phones, from him being stopped on the highway, etc. - had nothing to do with an alleged alias. (2) The alias is not a big issue. I had no disinformation there; all you guys did is replace my summary with the actual quote. Atta is thought by everyone who has studied this to have been in the US at the time. I gather from your comments that even you believe that's where he was. (3) The NYT was criticized because the Czechs were trying to avoid embarrassment. The same guy who criticized the NYT also admitted they were right about the substance -- that Havel no longer believed there was evidence of such a meeting. I'm sick of repeating myself on this particular point but you never seem to respond to it; you just keep asserting that the NYT is full of liars and traitors. And that is the implication of your argument Ron -- to knowingly lie about the whereabouts of a known terrorist who had attacked the US is not just a Jayson Blair move; it would be out-and-out treason. So please tell us who at the NYT is guilty of treason and provide some evidence of why they would lie like this. Havel backed off to 70% before the NYT article, and after the article his representative said he was no longer convinced at all. Don't tell me this is "probably due to a poorly written article" -- there is a direct quote there from Havel's office and it's listed in the timeline. (4) (a) is not proof but again you're the one with the burden of proof here. Stop trying to switch it. The fact that the informant was totally unreliable throws it radically into question. It means you need more evidence before anyone in their right mind can accept a Prague meeting. (b) You're wrong. I don't see any indication they still believe it; I see every indication they don't. There may be one or two who refuse to back off the claim just to avoid having to admit they were wrong but even those have not said anything that I am aware of since 2002. When the Weekly standard interviewed someone in 2003 (sorry I don't recall the name but you know the article) the interviewer never asked point blank if the person thought Atta was in Prague. I have already brought this up before. Finally this is being openly ridiculed in the Czech press and by Czech politicians. So even if one guy still thinks it's true, the consensus in the Czech Republic is that it is not. (c) I'm not sure where you got your information on this point - the 911 Commission says it came from the government: "According to the Czech government, Ani, the Iraqi officer alleged to have met with Atta, was about 70 miles away from Prague on April 8-9 and did not return until the afternoon of the ninth, while the source was firm that the sighting occurred at 11:00 A.M." Did you just make that up? (d) There is no evidence this person is trying to cover for Ani - he is just saying that Ani had a friend who looked like Atta. Reporters checked it out - it is an easy enough thing to check out - and this article was carried in Chicago Tribune and Boston Globe. You can't just wave these things away by impugning the source, unless you have a better source that disagrees. (e) the fact that there were two Attas is proof that Czech intelligence was already confused about his travelling and throws doubt on the 2000 trip to Prague. (f) The FBI was not just searching under his name; they "ran down literally hundreds of thousands of leads." Do you really think the FBI has never heard of anyone using an alias before? Your whole theory here presumes that the entire staffs of intelligence agencies are completely incompetent. (g) The eyewitness was unreliable and the police chief knew that. In fact, eyewitness testimony is inherently unreliable and that's why it alone does not constitute evidence. Intel gets reports from eyewitnesses all the time that turn out not to be true. That's why they try to confirm it with actual evidence. The top cop in Prague was unable to confirm this one guy's report with any actual evidence. Face it Ron, ALL of this comes down to the report of one guy who saw Atta on TV after 911 and thinks he may have seen him months earlier; and even the intel agency that he reported to does not consider him a reliable informant. Nobody has been able to confirm this at all so all we have is this guy's report from 4 years ago. Hell, we don't even know if the informant still believes his own story given all the doubt that has been thrown on it in the last 4 years!! But we do know that nobody else credible believes it anymore. (h) I don't know if I would lie under interrogation but his interrogators seem to think he is providing reliable information. I frankly don't want to think too much about how interrogators extract information from uncooperative suspects but I am pretty sure they have ways of knowing whether someone is lying or not. Also, it's not clear why Al-Ani would bother to lie about this, especially after Saddam has been deposed and the US is in control of Iraq. This guy has no intelligence agency left to protect. (i) How can you say it's "obviously untrue"? First, the source for this info was the 911 Commission which you seem to agree is credible. Second, your comment that no one considered Saddam a stooge of the US is woefully ignorant. Read papers from Iran from during either US war against Iraq and you'll see that's exactly what most Iranians thought. That view was a common element of conspiracy theories throughout the Middle East and many still believe it! Don't forget how long the US supported Saddam for. That may be ancient history to most Americans but believe me it often comes up in Middle Eastern circles. (5) This is the most important point -- this whole thing is only considered significant by you and by Ed Morrissey. So it does not belong in Wikipedia. The purpose of an encyclopedia is not to break news. If you think this is important, write some articles about it, and maybe one day they will gain notoriety enough to put in wikipedia; but for now this has no more place here than a vanity entry about your friend's band. csloat 18:36, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
csloat, you are amazing. Atta was never stopped on the highway during April 4-11. Your comment inferring he was is pure disinformation. Atta may have been in the US during this time but it is wrong to say he was because that simply is not known. It is wrong to hide evidence from readers or to slant the presentation of evidence so it fits your conclusion. These are the reasons this article has a "Disputed" label on it. Let's present the facts and let the facts speak for themselves. Do not put words in my mouth. I have never accused anyone at the NY Times of treason. I have pointed out they printed an article that was a fabrication and they had to recant. I have pointed out they have printed articles that were poorly written and misleading and they have not yet pulled the story or clarified it. But those acts are not treason. I forget who said Atta thought Saddam was a stooge of the Americans, but the 9/11 Commission did not come up with that term. I doubt any serious minded Middle Easterner would describe Saddam was a puppet of the U.S. This description (which the 9/11 Commission apparently gave some credence to) seems ridiculous on the face of it. But at any rate, it has little to do with the meeting. If Atta was working for Osama and Osama told him to go, he would go. You already know about the published reports in newspapers around the world talking about the alliance between Saddam and Osama. I agree that wikipedia is not a place to break news but Able Danger is already in the news. Wikipedia is a place to come for information you did not know. Very few people know about how Able Danger relates to the link between Saddam and al-Qaeda. RonCram 23:08, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Atta was stopped in April. I forget the date but you're right it was after the 11th. That is not "pure disinformation" because I didn't mention a date. All of the available evidence puts Atta in the US at the time, which is all I am claiming. I am not hiding any evidence -- if you have evidence of anything please post it; as you have seen over and over I will not remove legitimate claims. You did not accuse the NYT of treason but if you are claiming that they lied about Atta's whereabouts, that is the implication. When you say they are fabricating lies about a known terrorist's whereabouts, misleading the US government and protecting someone you claim they know to be working with a terrorist -- well, it amounts to treason! I am not putting the words in your mouth, I'm just following your logic, and I find it interesting that you will not own the results of your logic, yet you want us to believe it anyway! And, just to be clear, the NYT never had to "recant" any article; the article you are talking about was not a "fabrication"; it was dismissed by a spokesman who then went on to admit that the substance of it was true. You never give any evidence to support the claim that the later story was fabricated or that it was even "poorly written"; there's a direct quote from the Havel spokesperson in it. As far as the view of Saddam as a stooge of the US -- again, you are just plain ignorant if you think people in the middle east don't believe that. The description is not ridiculous at all; it is totally consistent with what OBL himself was saying about Saddam since the 1980s, and with what a great many in the Arab world believed throughout the 1990s and even today. I just can't help you if you insist on living in a fantasy world where people only believe things that you think are reasonable. Finally, you've once again only responded to the arguments you feel like responding to, then you stomp your foot and pretend you're right. What about the rest of it? There are several points you've just ignored totally on this issue. Face it, Mr. Cram - Atta did not go in Prague in 2001, and you can't even come up with a legitimate reason that he would do so. As far as Able Danger goes, the reason that "very few people know about how it relates to the link between Saddam and al-Qaeda" is because it just plain doesn't. The only people who believe it does are you and Ed Morrissey, and Wikipedia is not the place to glorify a ridiculous conspiracy theory that is only embraced by two people, one of whom works for a total hack magazine and another who is plainly and openly ignorant about the Middle East, at least as far as this issue goes. --csloat 06:19, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Richard Miniter?

This paragraph needs to be reworded or deleted:

Some argue that the above argument constitutes an ultra-realist point-of-view which ignores human nature, including the alliance of Franklin Roosevelt, Winston Churchill, and Joseph Stalin (who were of three vastly different ideological backgrounds and positions) during World War II. Journalist Richard Miniter, in his book Losing Bin Laden, points out that Iraqi army troops were ordered to move away from military positions during the aftermath of the attacks (p. 239). American troops found a mural of the World Trade Center attacks, featuring Saddam smoking a cigar and an Iraqi Air logo in the background [4].

I think it's reasonable to indicate here that some people (truthfully, a small right-wing clique) have a different opinion of this issue, but I am not sure how the movement of army troops or the mural have anything to do with this. I think the mural finding could go on the timeline, but what does army troop movements after 9/11 have to do with this? thanks for any explanation.--csloat 06:37, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

More manipulative edits from RonCram

This is getting ludicrous. An op-ed piece makes vague reference to the Pentagon and you interpret it as evidence that Saddam directed, funded, or trained al Qaeda? This is the epitome of one-dimensional thought. I corrected the language on the entry you made so it isn't so overtly manipulative, and used an actual quote from the paper. But this nonsense really doesn't belong here at all - it's like the mural; but even worse because you're mind-reading what someone wrote pre-911. Guess what Ron? You should start reading Arab apocalyptic fiction from the late 90s-2001. Such books (studied by David Cook if you want to look for references) are filled with tales of armageddon that involves the destruction of America's cities, esp. New York and Washington. I'm sure if you search you can find one written by an Iraqi author. Then you can come back to this page and add it, claiming that it proves Saddam knew about and therefore funded al Qaeda! Does anyone else agree that such things don't belong here?

On another note, I invited RonCram to demonstrate with his edits that he is interested in improving the page, not just in pushing his conspiracy theory, and I specifically pointed to an edit that would show such good faith, holding off on editing it myself. Instead, he adds an edit about a story by someone with a crystal ball and blows it out of proportion so it sounds like it supports this conspiracy theory. Well, it shows clearly what he's interested in, which is POV-pushing, pure and simple.--csloat 02:47, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I have shown that the op-ed piece belongs in the timeline below under "Evidence of Foreknowledge." Regarding your challenge in your second paragraph, you have failed to persuade me that any of my edits were in error or needed revising. The note regarding the Duelfer Report and the CNS documents belong together because the Duelfer Report adds credibility to the CNS documents. It seems rather straightforward when you consider the fact the credibility of the documents were in question. I have noted you sometimes make changes to my "grammar" when my grammar was fine. Your change actually changes the meaning and not the grammar. For example, the NRO writer who questioned the timing and manner of release of the documents to CNS News did so in a way to create "some" doubt in the veracity of the documents. The writer did not issue any particular challenge to the content or the form of the documents. If the writer had pointed to particular problems in the form or content of the documents, that would be a "serious" question of validity. If it could be shown the typewriter used was not from the period claimed, like the Dan Rather docs, that would be disprove them... it would be serious. The fact the docs came out in Oct 2004 does not disprove them. The fact they were given to a small media outlet instead of a large one does not disprove them. csloat, you are overstating your case. Far better for you to find defensible ground and stick to that.RonCram 11:35, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
Look at the grammatical change I made; the sentence you had did not make sense. Sorry. The NRO writer's questioning is another issue; I was more accurately representing what the article said. The issues raised by the NRO are more serious than the ones you claim -- the question of why the govt official who thought these were important enough to give to an unknown news outlet didn't think to give them to the CIA, for example, is a much bigger question. Also the question of where did they come from. I think the docs are real, but I think they are part of an INC disinfo campaign. But the bottom line is that nobody credible has been taking these documents seriously and that is what the article should represent.--csloat 19:21, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Evidence of Foreknowledge

csloat, you cannot say there is no evidence of foreknowledge in an entry that gives evidence of foreknowledge. It isn't done. The fact Sen Hollings considered it important evidence of foreknowledge shows that my inclusion of the data is not partisan POV. BTW, James Woolsey and Judge Baer do not need to be mentioned here. The fact they agree adds weight to my argument but only gums up the narrative. It is Sen Hollings who sees the World Trade Center in the words "arm already hurting" as my source makes clear. There is a difference between evidence and proof. If you would like to say that this evidence, by itself, is not proof of foreknowledge - that is fine by me. I can even make that change myself. But that fact it is evidence cannot reasonably be disputed. The reason this article carries the "Disputed" label is because so much information is still missing. For example, Sen Hollings had this opinion piece read into the Congressional Record. This fact is fairly well known. I can imagine a reader studying this article and saying "This thing is totally biased. It does not even include the Iraqi opinion piece that named the targets two months before 9/11!" Remember, my goal is to remove the "Disputed" label. I'm not trying to push that Iraq knew or ordered 9/11. I simply do not know that Iraq was that involved. But the fact a relationship existed is impossible to dispute. When evidence points to possible involvement in 9/11 itself, that evidence has to be included whether it is conclusive or not.RonCram 10:51, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Read the freaking article. You have to be paranoid to believe this guy has a crystal ball. Everyone knew OBL was going to attack the US it was only a matter of time; the pentagon and the white house are obvious targets. Like I said, there were probably dozens of articlees like this all over the arab world. This also proves nothing - an opinion piece by an Iraqi does not constitute Iraqi foreknowledge even if the paper is "state-owned." There is no NY reference so I am deleting your BS - it is a bad interpretation by Woolsey that is picked up by Hollings, and just because Hollings believes it does not make it true - read it yourself, it is fantasy. Anyway even if you could prove that this guy had foreknowledge, so what? It doesn't prove Saddam had foreknowledge, which is the real issue here. The title of this article is not Random Iraqis and al-Qaeda--csloat 19:16, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
I have read the article. The man does not need a crystal ball. He is relaying what Osama said. Read it again. It says "Bin Ladin is insisting very convincingly that he will strike America on the arm that is already hurting." The man has foreknowledge. Now if this guy knows bin Laden's plans, it is not a huge stretch to figure his boss knows bin Laden's plans also. BTW, I believe it was Hollings who first attributed those words to the WTC. Woolsey and Baer spoke about it in 2003. But that really does not matter. Show the opinion piece to anyone old enough to remember the first WTC bombing and they will readily identify those words as referring to WTC.RonCram 14:58, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Are you paranoid? "The arm that is hurting" says nothing about WTC except in the Senator's brain. And yours, apparently. What the hell do you mean "his boss" -- do you have any information about who this writer actually is? What his connection to the Iraqi government is, and when he spoke with Saddam about his predictions? As I said above this proves nothing, even if it did suggest foreknowledge. But I suppose for a conspiracy theorist a logical leap from vague predictions that turn out to be sort of correct to some sort of proof that Saddam attacked the towers counts as sound reasoning. Why not have a page Lynne Palmer and al-Qaeda, since Lynne Palmer, the astrologist, wrote in a book published in 2000, "Avoid terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001". Clearly, foreknowledge! Perhaps you can even find evidence that Ms. Palmer gave money to a new age charity that once bought Korans for their bookstore from a mosque where Mohamed Atta might have prayed when he was in Prague. --csloat 08:59, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
Evidence of foreknowledge is not the same as evidence of complicity, but it does suggest the possibility of a link. Why can't you understand the words "his boss?" The writer is an employee of a state-run Iraqi paper. That means Saddam was his boss. Perhaps you are assuming op-ed pieces in Iraq are written by independent commentators like in America? You have to realize that independent commentators were not allowed in Saddam's Iraq. He controlled the media completely. Saddam certainly had foreknowledge of the attack on 9/11. If nothing else, Saddam and officials in his government must have read this paper. So your comment really makes no sense at all and will be taken out.RonCram 14:29, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
Because Voice of America is the United State's state-run news service, Challiss McDonough's boss is George Bush. And naturally George Bush knows the content of everything published by VOA. In the same vein, Saddam Hussein was the head of government of Iraq, so everything that happened in Iraq from 1979 to 2003 = Saddam Hussein. Am I right?
It's ridiculous to call Saddam the writer's boss just because Saddam was the writer's country's leader. Cram, you're using a flawed tactic that I've seen before. You're trying to give the impression that Saddam Hussein's control was so complete that everything that came out of Iraq was because of him. But his own government employees kept secrets from him, and he wasn't even in control of all of his country. He was a power-hungry dictator, but he only wished he had the capability and level of control with which you're crediting him. --Mr. Billion 17:57, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
Just to push the point further -- I have not even seen any evidence the writer of the op-ed piece actually worked for the paper anyway, so even your minimal connection is not clear. But apart from that, none of this is relevant as you admit. Foreknowledge does not mean complicity. If 911 was an open secret in the Arab world, if OBL had told others it was going to happen, does that mean Saddam is somehow complicit? This is all a silly red herring that you are making everyone follow even though you admit there is no significance to it whatsoever.--csloat 19:28, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Evidence of Iraqi Financial Support

Evidence of Saddam's financial support can be seen in the decision to grant Oil for Food contracts to companies with ties to financing al Qaeda. Please read the November 21, 2001 entry in the timeline for more information and the source.RonCram 13:58, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Uh yeah. There's no evidence whatsoever Saddam even knew where that money was going. Once again you're manipulating facts to push a POV, no regard for the truth.--csloat 19:12, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
The truth is that Iraqi oil revenue went to al Qaeda. I admit this entry alone does not prove Saddam's intent to fund al Qaeda, but when coupled with published reports of their "alliance" or "pact" and evidence of training al Qaeda at Salmon Pak and in Afghanistan, it becomes strong circumstantial evidence of Iraqi financial support.RonCram 14:47, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Oil revenue went to a lot of places. There was no evidence of training by Iraqis in Afghanistan and the evidence surrounding Salman Pak is sheer speculation from sources known to be totally unreliable; and even if the latter is true there is not a shred of evidence connecting it to oil for food money.--csloat 08:43, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Perelman Quote

csloat, you simply cannot state there is no evidence for a statement in the entry that provides the evidence. Perhaps you might try to say there is no corroborating evidence that Saddam intended Iraqi oil revenue to go to al Qaeda. But that would not work either. The published statements of Iraq's alliance or pact with al Qaeda is enough corroboration. The mere fact al Qaeda got the money "raises the possibility" Saddam intended it. There is nothing "silly" about what Perelman said. Your statement will taken out. Besides, how would you like it if people took out all the quotes you included like the one from the Toronto Sun saying it was not likely the document found in Baghdad were the "smoking gun" the Bush Administration wanted? That statement was never fully explained and becomes much less important with the documents published by CNS News. Let's try to make the article readable and not sound so schizophrenic. Can we make a deal on that?

A quote is just an opinion, not evidence of anything. The quote is sheer speculation and doesn't belong there at all. If we are going to put it there it needs the disclaimer. So let's either take it out or let's not pretend it's "evidence."--csloat 19:30, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

RonCram 3RR vio

This user has been blocked for an hour [31] due to a violation of the 3RR. -- RyanFreisling @ 15:12, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

This is true. I considered your deletions simple vandalism and not subject to 3RR. An administrator disagreed. I am certain you are proud of yourself. But you still have not given a reason for your deletions. RonCram 14:09, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Yes she did, as did I, Ron. And you know this. --csloat 18:00, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
She claimed my answers on the Talk page were evasive but would never say how my answers were evasive or which answers were evasive. She never pointed to any factual error in my entry. When I asked her to she wrote this: "As Burgess Meredith once said, "'You can expect in one hand and crap in the other and see which gets filled first.'" Not exactly the words you would expect would build any understanding or consensus. 69.230.203.93 21:03, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
When you take responsibility for your own actions, you will begin to build consensus. Currently, there is ZERO accountability coming from you for your actions. Like that quote? Glad it sunk in. -- RyanFreisling @ 23:15, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Atta not known to be in US from April 4-11

csloat, your edit is in direct contradiction to the facts. The reason the 9/11 Commission said it was possible for Atta to be at the meeting in Prague on April 9 is because his whereabouts are unknown from April 4-11. Someone used Atta's cell phone inside the US three times during that time, but there is no indication it was Atta. RonCram 14:35, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Ron my edit had "While admitting that the Commission could not 'absolutely rule out the possibility' that Atta was in Prague on April 9th travelling under an alias, the report notes that the available evidence puts him in the United States April 4-11," That is clearly supported by the facts -- the report finds that the available evidence supports the conclusion that that is where he was. Your edit, before it was fixed by Mr. Billion, had the outright distortion "The report notes that whereabouts of Atta are unknown from April 4-11 and admits that the Commission could not 'absolutely rule out the possibility' that Atta was in Prague on April 9th travelling under an alias" -- the report does not say his whereabouts are unknown at all; in fact, it has a pretty good idea of his whereabouts based on the available evidence. Mr. Billion fixed your distortion by adding the full 911C quote, which indicates that available evidence puts him in the US on various days during that week. You keep trying to rephrase things so it looks like it was likely that the Commission was wrong about their conclusion (like the "But" you added to the beginning of the next sentence). It's symptomatic of what seems to be bad faith on editing this article. Your claim "there is no indication it was Atta" that used his own phone is another example of this -- the fact is that there is no indication that it was anybody BUT Atta who used his phone.
In my list of responses to you above I forgot another very important one which you conspiracy theorists have yet to answer. Why the hell would Atta throw the whole mission that had been years in planning into jeopardy to travel 5,000 miles to have coffee in Prague with some guy that there is no indication he ever had contact with before? As the Commission notes, the planning for 9-11 was likely finished by April, and obviously there are a lot better ways to transfer money or information than a trip halfway around the world (a trip during which Atta would have spent more time on the plane than he did in Prague). Wait let me guess your answer to this - it's because someone else was using Atta's cell phone, so he couldn't just call al-Ani; he had to catch the next plane to eastern Europe.csloat 19:00, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
The existence of cell phone calls during that time period is not "available evidence" because it is not evidence. Cell phone calls could have been either incoming or outgoing and made by any one of a number of Atta's terrorist buddies. If the 9/11 Commission felt it was Atta, they would not have said Atta could have been in Prague. If Atta could have been in Prague, then his whereabouts are unknown. The question of why Atta might have found it necessary to meet with al-Ani can only authoritatively be answered by al-Ani himself and that is not likely to happen. But I do not think it uncommon for someone to have a last chat with the boss before a big project, if that is what it was. Remember the op-ed piece we talked about in the state-run Iraqi paper? Perhaps Atta was reassuring the Iraqis that everything was in place and now the Iraqis needed to come through with their side of the deal (whatever that might have been). If that was the case, al-Ani could have relayed that back to Baghdad and it ends up being published. This is all guess work, of course. But it is easy to imagine several reasons why such a meeting might have been required. It is kind of funny that the 9/11 Commission says they cannot imagine why the meeting would take place. Lack of imagination is exactly the one problem people have pointed to in the breakdown of the U.S. intelligence community. RonCram 22:37, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
First, cell phone calls are only one form of evidence. There is his photo on ATM records. There is other evidence. And frankly you have shown no reason to believe anyone else has used Atta's cell phone. You're once again trying to shift the burden of proof -- sure, there's a possibility that he let someone else use his cell, and that he took off in the middle of a big operation and risked everything so he could fly 5000 miles to sit in a coffeeshop with some guy he'd never met before for no reason that anyone can articulate or even speculate on. There's also a possibility that sheep will grow wings and mutate into angels. But the available evidence renders the scenario highly unlikely. Atta's whereabouts were "unknown" in this absolutist sense, but the available evidence places him in the U.S. As for a "last chat with the boss" - are you saying now that Al-Ani was Atta's boss?? That's a claim I haven't even seen in your favorite conspiracy paper the weekly standard. You bring up the op-ed piece as if it had anything to do with this -- ummm, what? Atta flew 5,000 miles to tell al-Ani to tell some random Iraqi author that it's OK to make some vague references to terrorist acts in a local Nasiriyah paper that nobody outside of the city likely even reads? You wrote this with a straight face?? And what evidence is there that there was an Iraqi "side of the deal" to come through with? It's ludicrous. Money trails can be followed and we had the CIA and FBI on the Atta money trail pretty damn closely. If he had gotten a penny from Saddam we would know it. Besides, there is no reason any of this had to happen in person even if your scenarios had any credibility. Atta could have easily given the OK for the op-ed piece over the phone. Oh, right, I forgot - terrorists were using his cell phone, no doubt to call the Dixie Chicks and let them know it was OK to say something bad about George Bush. You're right that the 911 Commission pointed to the "lack of imagination" that led to intel failures on 9/11, but "imagination" is not the same thing as "delusion".
Anyway, wikipedia is not the place to entertain your bizarre delusions. If we have evidence for something let's put the evidence in here. Right now there is one piece of evidence pointing to Atta in prague -- a lone eyewitness report from an unreliable informant about 6 months after the fact. Possibly one other, insofar as argument from authority constitutes evidence, since there may be one Czech official who still believes the story (but even that is uncertain since we have no direct evidence of his views today). There are many pieces of evidence running against that -- photos, travel records, other eyewitnesses, as well as the authoritative conclusions of: the 9/11 Commission, the CIA, the FBI, the DIA, the NSC, the Czech government (except perhaps one BIS official) and the Czech chief of police. I think I left a few out too - I am pretty sure there are foreign intel agencies who looked at this and concluded such a meeting was unlikely. We also have other pieces of evidence that explain the discrepancies in conflicting evidence -- specifically, testimony that Ani had another colleague who looked just like Atta. We have the interrogation of al-Ani which is believed by the interrogators, for what it's worth. And the only thing you have explaining your one piece of evidence is some bizarre narrative to suggest that Atta flew around the world just to give the go-ahead on an opinion piece in a local newspaper. I'm sorry Mr. Cram but none of this adds up. And even if it did, it's all speculation that doesn't belong here.csloat 06:45, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

9/11 commisions thoroughness questioned.

I have reviewed the discussion on RonCram's proposed Able-Danger text. It appears to be a possibly valid argumentative refutation of the 9/11 commision's dismissal of the Prague contact. I think some text about Able-Danger and the coming congressional investigation is relevant, as it calls the 9/11 commissions thoroughness into question, and their report is relied upon to considerable extent in this article. However, I think, it is premature to present the whole argumentative refutation at this point.--Silverback 20:05, September 9, 2005 (UTC)


I have made and installed an attempt at a compromise text:

  • 2005, August 7 -- Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer disclosed that a highly classified U.S. Army data-mining project known as Able Danger had identified Mohamed Atta and three other 9/11 hijackers as potential al Qaeda operatives inside the U.S. with a conflicting time line for Mohammed Atta. [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] Questions about the thoroughness of the 9/11 commissions work in light of the public Able Danger revelations will be investigated by a new Congressional inquiry.

The links probably need to be pared down to those relevant to the summary points that have been made. --Silverback 20:24, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Come on - read the discussion above; before this Able Danger thing can be relevant all of the above arguments need to be responded to, which have not been. The idea that Able Danger may question the 911 timeline belongs on the Able Danger page or on the 9/11 Commission page but not here. This so far has nothing to do with this page.csloat 20:29, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
What needs to be responded to for the point I am making, the Able Danger revelation of info about Atta not included in the 9/11 commision report and the subsequent questions about the commission's thoroughness that will be the subject of Congressional inquirey?--Silverback 21:11, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
That point is fine - but make it on a page where it is relevant. If you can show a problem with the commission's specific claim that Atta did not likely meet with al-Ani, then it becomes relevant, and then you have to respond to all of the above 9 or 10 arguments. Otherwise, you have to bring it up on a page where it is relevant, like the 9/11 Commission and Able Danger page. --csloat 21:19, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
csloat, how can it not be relevant when the 9/11 Commission is quoted as an authority on the Saddam and terrorists and the meeting in Prague? If the 9/11 Commission is impeached as an authority, that is relevant. You are asking that we provide proof of the meeting before any evidence of the meeting will be allowed in the article. That is not reasonable. RonCram 22:25, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Stop distorting what I am saying. There is no "evidence" of the meeting left out of the article - the only "evidence" that exists is the report of a single unreliable source back in 2001, and that is certainly given more than its deserving share of space on this page. As for the Commission -- don't be ridiculous. The Able Danger stuff does not "impeach" the Commission as an authority; it simply conflicts with elements of the Commission's timeline. We don't know for sure which is right but what we do know is that the parts of the Commission's analysis that have been questioned have NOTHING to do with Saddam's links to al-Qaeda. As I said, if you really thought there was something to this, you would raise it on the appropriate pages dealing with Able Danger or the Commission. You don't do that at all and I suspect it is because you know this is just a ludicrous argument. It is simply not relevant here, any more than it would be relevant if where George Bush was quoted, I added information that Bush's story about his national guard experience has been contradicted by other credible sources. It's just absurd, the lengths you guys want to go to in order to justify a conspiracy theory that has been thoroughly debunked.csloat 22:35, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
The evidence that the 9/11 Commission refused to investigate Able Danger goes to the issue of their credibility and that is relevant to the article. I do not see how one can argue otherwise. The fact the 9/11 Commission admits Atta could have been in Prague if he had a history of using an alias is also relevant. I am not distorting what you are saying at all. The evidence that Atta may have used an alias is something you desperately want to keep out of the article. Why? The fact the 9/11 Commission refused to investigate Able Danger is something you want to keep out of the article. Why? Everyone who reads this knows it is relevant. BTW, the Able Danger info will find its way into other articles. It is only a matter of time. RonCram 22:46, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Ron this has nothing to do with this article and you know it. If it's only a matter of time we can add it after your crystal ball proves true. For now it stays out. Nobody in the media is connecting this to the issues discussed on this page so it is wrong for you (or silverback) to include it here. I could care less whether Atta's possible use of an alias is in the article or not - it has no bearing either way on the many reasons why Atta was not in Prague in April 2001. But I do not want to see Able Danger in this article because it has nothing whatsoever to do with this article. We've been through this. The credibility of the 9/11 Commission is a valid issue on this article but not here. Able Danger is a valid issue on this article but not here. I notice you don't bother the people who edit those pages with your garbage because you probably realize it's garbage and you only assert it to advance your political POV. Everyone who reads this (except apparently Silverback) knows you are wrong here, so please stop insisting on adding nonsense to this page.--csloat 02:15, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
csloat, when reverting the Able Danger entry you wrote: "I'm not unwilling to allow their credibility to be discussed; I am just insisting that such discussion take place on the proper page. This page is not about the Commission nor does it rely on them." How can readers of this article know that an important discussion on the credibility and thoroughness of the 9/11 Commission is available on another article? This is the article that quotes the Commission as the authority on this subject. We've already already shown that Able Danger relates to information about Atta, so there is the relevance to the specific topic. Your comment "This page is not about the Commission nor does it rely on them" is not completely accurate. On this Talk page you have several times lectured me that the 9/11 Commission was the ONLY bipartisan commission to look at the link between Saddam and al Qaeda. You and I both know you prefer the findings of the 9/11 Commission over the findings of the Senate Report. RonCram 12:25, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
How can they know about it? By clicking on the link. Are you serious? How can they know that Saddam was the former leader of Iraq? How will they learn from this page that there is an important discussion about the credibility of one of your main sources on its appropriate page? Come on. This article is not about the Commission and it only quotes them along with many others. And Able Danger *might* have some negative impact on the Commission's credibility on another issue, there has been no information about this issue specifically. So, no, you have not "already shown" any relevance to Atta in prague. Not just Atta - he also has a page, if you want to go there and talk about what Able Danger says go for it. I have mentioned the Commission it's true but it has always been only one of many sources. And again, they are just summarizing other sources anyway -- the real sources of this info are various intelligence agencies and police. I don't recall saying it was the only bipartisan commission to look at this, but if I did, that is not inaccurate at all. But what you can't seem to get through your skull here is that this does not impugn their credibility on this issue at all. You're just trying to poison the well - believing that if you indict them on another topic it will hurt their credibility on every topic. All this says is that there may be a conflict on another part of the timeline they had for Atta. It does not say they can't be trusted or they are a bunch of liars. It certainly doesn't mean that Atta was in Prague, nor does it make it in any way more likely. Finally, if any of this had any implications here, we would hear about it from somewhere other than the Talk pages of Wikipedia. Nobody in the mainstream press, and only one person in the loony right wing press, is talking about this as having anything to do with this page.csloat 13:13, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Also, read my comments on the bottom of this page. The issue here is the Atta/Prague story and the 911Commission's credibility with regard to it. Take a look at the page history -- it is you who introduced the 911C stuff to the Atta entry in the timeline. The way it was before you brought that up was that the Commission was not even cited at all on that entry. So please stop hiding behind that document as if it were the only piece of evidence on this side of the fence. Remember, your entire case rests on a single unreliable eyewitness. And you have the burden of proof here.-csloat 13:17, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
I want to support Silverback's version of the Able Danger entry. I think the question regarding the thoroughness of the 9/11 Commission is an important enough topic to require it in this article. However, the other part of my original entry is no longer valid. I just read that Able Danger included Mohamed Atta in the Brooklyn cell because of his connection to the Blind Sheikh, not because he was physically in New York. [38] I care about facts and this new information certainly changes things. RonCram 23:25, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
I see - so now that you admit that Able Danger is not related to Atta in Prague you want to support another version of the entry that does not even mention a Saddam link at all. And you refuse to even articulate a reason this time; you just announce that you want to support that version. And you conveniently ignore the arguments agaist that version above. --csloat 23:41, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Hold that thought. It just occurred to me there may be some kind of misunderstanding by Shaffer's attorney. If Atta was not physically in NYC, why would the military lawyers say they cannot turn it over to the FBI? Something does not make sense here. Regarding your question without a question mark, the answer is "Yes!" I think the thoroughness of the 9/11 Commission is important to this conversation. After all, the conclusion reached by the Commission is in the intro. If that wasn't there, then maybe we don't need the Able Danger entry. But you shouldn't be surprised that I think Able Danger should be here even if there is no direct relationship to the link. I have said that all along. RonCram 02:47, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
Mr. Cram, for heaven's sake, at the very least finish figuring out what your reckless speculation is going to be before you insist on including it in an encyclopedia. As for the other bit, that's real nice that you think something you admit has no relevance still belongs here for some reason. Odd, it doesn't look like you've been insisting that on the page where it would actually be relevant. Anyway, there are a host of arguments for you to respond to above before anyone can take your demands seriously. Besides all of that, nobody has yet even produced a specific quote or citation indicating that the Able Danger documents actually cast significant doubt on the Commission's overall conclusions, and certainly nothing has materialized questioning this particular conclusion. So, no, this does not belong here. Perhaps when the inquiry you are waiting for finishes, perhaps at that time there might be something relevant to the 9/11 Commission page. But at this stage it doesn't look like there will ever be anything coming out of that inquiry that actually has any relevance to this page.--csloat 04:30, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

csloat, you are amazing. As you know, I have spent some time on the Able Danger page. Contrary to your remark above, the page does call into question the thoroughness and objectivity of the 9/11 Commission. In fact, one of the links quotes Congressmen Weldon as saying the 9/11 Commission could be involved in a coverup. The credibility of the Commission has been called into question, which means it conclusions have been called into question. The biggest thing to me is that some link to the Able Danger page has to appear in this article. If that link does not appear, this article will forever keep its "Disputed" label. I you want to take the first attempt at writing an entry, go for it. RonCram 13:28, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

I didn't say you didn't edit the Able Danger page, I said you put nothing on the 9/11 Commission page. This is typical of your argument style here - always avoiding the real issues, but stomping your foot and insisting you're right anyway. There are a host of arguments above about why this doesn't belong here. Most prominently, nobody in the press or anywhere but here seems to think this has any relevance to this issue. If you find evidence that the Commission covered up ties between Saddam and AQ, then it would be relevant. As it is, you're just fantasizing. That's fine, but it doesn't belong in Wikipedia.csloat 20:29, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
C'mon csloat, you mentioned both the Able Danger page and the 9/11 Commission page. I got to the Able Danger page first. Now it is on the 9/11 Commission page as well. Are there any other pages it belongs? Just let me know and eventually I will see it gets posted. Now I want to discuss your claim that mentioning Able Danger here does not relate to the specifics of the article and is just poisoning the well. You are talking about poisoning the well as if the 9/11 Commission is an eyewitness who is likely to be wrong or to lie about one aspect of a story and be right and truthful about others. It is wrong to assume that an eyewitness who was wrong or lied once will be wrong or untruthful everywhere else. But the 9/11 Commission is not an eyewitness. The commission had a job to do that required research and thoroughness. If the commission is not thorough or credible in one area of research, that automatically raises suspicion about the thoroughness of the commission elsewhere. When we know they were given credible leads and choose not to follow them up, what makes you think they did not do that in other situations with other credible information? We don't know why the 9/11 Commission did not talk about the arrest of the Iraqis in Germany. It could have been that the CIA never told them. Or it could be that the commission chose not to investigate further. It is essential that Able Danger be mentioned in this article and that readers be informed of their decision not to investigate important information. Are you going to write it or am I? RonCram 02:44, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

foreign jihadists in Iraq

Here is what the paragraph currently says:

This is distinct from the al-Qaeda presence involved in the Iraqi insurgency. After the U.S. invasion, a number of foreign jihadists migrated to Iraq to fight. Hoover Institution Senior Fellow Timothy Garton Ash wrote in July 2005 of this new al Qaeda presence, "Saddam's regime had no connection with the 2001 attacks. Iraq was not then a recruiting sergeant or training ground for jihadist terrorists. Now it is. The US-led invasion and occupation has made it so. Retired General Wesley Clark put it plainly: 'We are creating enemies.'"[3] The Bush administration has described this as a positive development, emphasizing the talking point, "America Must Fight The Enemy Abroad, So We Do Not Have To Face Them Here At Home."[4] Critics have pointed out that this view presumes a stable number of terrorists, while studies have confirmed that the foreign fighters in Iraq turned to terrorism as a means of fighting the U.S. invasion.[5]

Silverback wants to change the first sentence to include something about migrating to join Zarqawi. This is speculation that the study of hundreds of foreign fighters suggests is inaccurate - some were coming to join al-Zarqawi but most were not; most were coming to fight the US, and had no previous terrorist background. The above is more accurate. The Ash quote directly compares the new al Qaeda presence with the (lack of evidence for) the old. I left the Bush talking point stuff in, with a more accurate quote and contextualization of the point, because I know if I take it out you will scream POV. But I don't think it needs to be there at all - Bush's after-the-fact rationalization of why Americans are getting killed in a country we supposedly liberated over two years ago is really totally beside the point. So I won't object to taking it out completely, but I do object to the one-sided rephrasing you want to do to it.csloat 20:39, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

The lack of evidence for the old was related only to a 9/11 connection. And this article isn't about all "foreign fighters", but rather about those that came in to be part of al Qaeda. Perhaps there are other al Qaeda organizations that are not directly under Zarqawi, but he is the figurehead in Iraq, just as Osama is for the whole organization. Note, that despite the quality of the commisions work having been called into question, the current version still allows the report to be cited.--Silverback 21:15, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
This article is not about foreign fighters whether they are AQ or not -- this article is about pre-2003 Saddam and AQ. The only point of this paragraph is to distinguish the topics and it shouldn't be used as a soapbox for views on the war on either side. If you want to keep the Bush stuff in it should be contextualized as above - otherwise we can take it out entirely. I think the Ash quote makes a valid comparison but if it makes it in too POV a manner we can simply say this page is about something distinct from the AQ presence fighting alongside the insurgency. But claiming Zarqawi is a figurehead is silly - he became a figurehead well after the US invasion. He certainly wasn't one in early 2003, at least not outside of small circles. He wasn't even considered al Qaeda until 2004. All this is dealt with in the timeline anyway -- I think it's a distraction to bring Zarqawi up here.csloat 21:25, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
I have followed your suggestion here, avoiding Zarquawi, but getting rid of the too POV quote. The Bush stuff was only needed to balance that, on issues unrelated to this specifics of this article. The Alpha Danger revelations have spawn criticisms of the 9/11 commission, and several of the issues that the report was relied upon for here, are likely to be revisited in the Congressional inquiry, including the Atta timeline. It is too soon to have an argumentative refutation of the report in this article yet, that is why I have produced and defended a compromise text.--Silverback 23:38, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
I'm ok with the compromise on leaving out the bush stuff, though it's obvious that the Ash quote is both relevant and on-point, POV or not. I just think this isn't the place for that argument to be hashed out. As for the able danger thing, I understand you think it's a "compromise" text that you wrote, but it's not. What you wrote doesn't even mention the Saddam connection, which makes it even less relevant than before if that's possible. Perhaps more accurate, but definitely less relevant. The suggestion that it impugns the Commission's work is ludicrous. It may shed light on things they missed or ignored, but it does not throw into doubt anything else that they did. It certainly doesn't seem to indicate that the Commission (knowingly or inadvertently) covered up a trip to Prague by the world's most notorious terrorist, and it seems quite asinine to insist that we have to put something on the timeline here to hold open the possibility that that is what we might learn from this after a congressional inquiry. csloat 06:59, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Whether they inadvertently or knowingly covered up a trip to Prague (I doubt it was knowingly), the thoroughness and credibility of the conclusions they are relied upon for here in this article are called into question. Keep in mind that the Able Danger inquirey doesn't have to reverse any of the conclusions of the commision, just put them in proper perspective. The commission for instance relied upon other organizations assessments of whether witnesses or informants were credible, and many appear to have been dismissed by other organizations without the commission having been informed of why they were not viewed as credible so they could make their own independent assessment. Saddam could have chosen to live a more open and blameless life, and there would have been no reason to suspect he was engaged in intrigue, deceit, bribery, treachery, etc. But given Saddam's character and the resources at his disposal, intelligence assessments should have erred on the side of assuming the worst. --Silverback 08:03, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
You can't be that dense. The point is if there is any questioning of the 911 Commission it belongs on a page that is actually talking about that. Unless there is specific evidence questioning their credibility on this issue, this just does not belong here. This page is not about Saddam's "character" nor is it about your assumption about how intel agencies (with decades of experience doing this sort of thing) should do their jobs. This page is about evidence of a connection between Saddam and Al-Qaeda and so far there has not been any that is credible. The 911 Commission is cited here but it is not sole source by any means, not on the Prague thing or anywhere else. And in fact the Commission is only citing evidence from other sources (mostly intelligence agency analysts). Your assertion that those analysts should have done something different than you assume they did does not merit a Wikipedia mention at all. And there is no reason to mention this stuff here if you're not even willing to bring it up on the proper pages. We already have pages on both Able Danger and the Commission. Why do you insist on placing this stuff here? I suspect it is because you're more interested in asserting a particular political POV than you are in actually having an accurate encyclopedia entry. csloat 08:41, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
PS - it is silly to think that the CIA and other intelligence agencies were unaware that Saddam was a duplicitous character, to say the least. Hell, he was a vicious, murderous, thug. The intel agencies knew that first hand for decades; hell, they knew that when they worked closely with him during the war with Iran. We had every reason to suspect him of every kind of treachery imaginable, and we did. Which is why many thought during the 90s that he was involved with al Qaeda - we had every reason to consider the possibility. And enough contacts existed that suspicion of collaboration was not beyond the pale. But by 2001 it had become clear to anyone paying close attention that a new threat had emerged that was independent of Saddam, indeed was perceived as a threat to Saddam and other venal, corrupt, vicious Arab leaders in the region. This new threat was not tied to any specific state and in fact its whole raison d'etre was against these states -- esp. Saudi Arabia but certainly Iraq and Iran as well as Egypt, Syria, Jordan, UAE, Kuwait.... Al Qaeda had ties to all these places because its members were exiles from all of them. Some cut their teeth in Egyptian and Jordanian prisons before joinging the jihad against the Soviets. Some even came from Iraq (though hardly a significant number). But this new threat operated independently of all these states. It exploited friends in many of these states, notably Saudi Arabia and Pakistan but also significantly Qatar, Kuwait, and UAE, and received a lot of its funding from wealthy people in the governments in these states. Saddam's government, however, did not fund al Qaeda, and there has been notably not a single Iraqi al Qaeda suicide bomber -- not a single one -- prior to the 2003 invasion. I don't think there ever was an Iraqi suicide bomber period before 2003. Now Saddam was an absolutely despicable dictator, a criminal and a mass murderer, on par with Milosovic and perhaps even Stalin, whom he modeled himself after. He had ties to Palestinian terrorists, and vocally praised suicide bombers there and even sent money to their families as rewards for their "martyrdom." So we had every good reason to think he would try working with al Qaeda. But the overwhelming preponderence of evidence about Saddam's contacts with al Qaeda suggests that they never amounted to a hill of beans. The leaders of al Qaeda hated Saddam -- they hated his secular regime, they hated the way he used religion as a political tool but refused to embrace it as a way of life, they hated his corruption, they hated Baathism and they hated Saddam's glorification of socialism (which of course recalled for them the Soviets, whom the jihadists had fought for a decade), and they hated that he shot people like them dead in the streets or sent them to rot in places like Abu Ghraib. Saddam was no friend to Islamist extremists; his country had it's own decade-long war against an Islamist theocracy, a country that al Qaeda would probably have loved if it were Sunni instead of Shiite. And in Saddam's Iraq, Islamist extremists were not embraced; they were not allowed to meet publicly, they were arrested, subjected to the usual brutality of Saddam's regime against his political enemies. Al-Qaeda functions in a different mode completely than modern states; it is an organization designed to operate outside the state system. That it gets help from states is indisputable, though that help generally comes through non-official channels. But in the case of Iraq -- well, very little cooperation was forthcoming on either side. Many people who originally thought Saddam must have been involved in al Qaeda eventually changed their minds after studying the issue.
This whole thing is becoming tedious. I realize I say that a lot but look - if you guys think this is really important let's bring others into the discussion. My main point here is that Able Danger does not belong here because it has no impact on the issues raised on this page. There is the potential that able danger will lead to some questioning of the credibility of the 9/11 Commission on some issues. You say you don't think there was any intentional malfeasance on the Commission's part so I assume you are ruling out the possibility of Able Danger uncovering blanket mendacity throughout the 911 Commission report. Which means the Able Danger docs only call into question those parts of the Commission's report that they directly address. And they don't directly address any connection between Saddam and al Qaeda. Also, the 911 Commission conclusions are not the only evidence cited here -- and in fact they are actually just summaries of evidence from other sources as you point out. Read through the history of edits to the article here -- I don;t think the 911 commission was cited AT ALL in the prague entry on the timeline until Mr. Cram insisted on the alias thing being put in. The main evidence came from other sources. And the Commission was not even the main appeal to authority there -- the CIA, FBI, NSC, and Czech police are all cited as sources. If you want to impugn the integrity of the 9/11 Commission, do it on the correct page -- the page called, coincidentally enough, 9/11 Commission. It is just not relevant here, in my opinion. I invite input from others.--csloat 09:17, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm agreeing with csloat. I see no reason to hash out the integrity of the 9/11 Commission on this page. And I think the 9/11 Commission has more than enough credibility to be considered a reliable source. I'd also like to point out that the Weekly Standard does not appear to be an impartial, objective source. Looking over previous issues, it becomes apparent just how wrong they got things[39]. 69.121.133.154 00:29, 11 September 2005 (UTC)


questioning the 9/11 commission's credibility

It is legitimate to question the 9/11 commissions credibility anyplace it is cited as a source.--Silverback 04:01, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Uh, suuure. Except the actual page that we have on the 9/11 Commission, apparently? It's odd that you claim to believe this is relevant only here, when there is a page where it is actually relevant - and IMHO it shows that you are grasping at straws. Look, there are quotes on this page from the Weekly Standard; should I include a paragraph about unrelated stories the Weekly Standard has gotten wrong? There are comments from the Bush Administration - should I include a paragraph about how the Bush Admin got WMD intel wrong? Or about Valerie Plame? This kind of stuff just doesn't belong here without a direct link, not some vague attempt to poison the well. If you have reason to question the Commission's credibility on this issue, let's hear it - we have heard nothing of the sort yet. Also, stop being deceptive about the arguments here -- there are several arguments above on this issue that have simply been ignored by you and Mr. Cram. Instead of responding, you create a new heading and repeat the assertion you made before. This assertion has been responded to over and over. csloat 04:28, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
Whether it is relevant or not, depends on the area of credibility that is impacted. I'm not quite sure why the timeline of the commission is emphasized in this article, it appears to be an attempt to refute the idea that there is any link between Saddam and al Qaeda and for some reason it repetitively goes over 9/11 related evidence. Since that is how the commission report is used, an inquirey inspired by evidence contrary to their timeline that they should have followed up on, is relevant. This article should not be concluding that there was no link to 9/11, even though absent a confession from Saddam, there will never be much evidence of a link. We just will never know, but some editors of this article seem to want to go further and attempt to refute the possibility of such a link.--Silverback 05:52, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
The timeline in this article grew out of contributions from a number of editors starting with the one who created it. The Commission's timeline is not "emphasized" here, nor is this article an "attempt to refute" anything - it was started by someone who believes in the conspiracy theory, over the objection of a number of us, and since then I have been especially attuned to contextualizing the information here and exposing in many cases blatant disinformation. There are quotes from the Commission as well as from numerous other sources. The Commission did not do original research on this; their conclusions are quoted here but the information they used to reach those conclusions is all laid out here in painful detail -- it comes from the CIA, FBI, NSC, BIS, etc, etc. The article "concludes" almost exactly as you say - there is no evidence of such a link. Perhaps we will "never know" as you say; we will also never know with certainty if the sun will come up tomorrow, at least not until tomorrow. But what we do know is that no evidence of such a connection has materialized and that things that have come out that appeared to be evidence for such a connection have turned out not to be. But in any case I am just responding to your vague accusation here; if there is a particular part of the article you think is incorrect you should bring that up specifically. I'm assuming you have come to your senses with regard to the Able Danger thing since you are no longer trying to defend its inclusion here.--csloat 06:39, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
I do wonder about all the emphasis on 9/11. The article should be more focused on Saddam's willingness to associate with al Qaeda, which is clearly established despite their alleged hostility towards each other. He willingly harbored many members of al Qaeda, and a man of his character would have had no qualms about using them or paying their survivors, as long the consequences wouldn't hit back at him.--Silverback 04:03, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the above comment has to do with the rest of this discussion. But in any case, their hostility was not "alleged"; it was openly expressed. I'm not sure there is any indication he harbored *any* members of al Qaeda; certainly not "many." He clearly did not "harbor" Zarqawi, as was reported, and it's unclear that he had any relationship at all with Yasin, who was an Iraqi and fled there to live with a relative and took a job with the government. Yasin was no more "harbored" by Saddam than I am being "harbored" by Arnold Schwarzenegger (I live in California and work for the state). There is some indication that Saddam offered bin Laden "harbor" at one point, but it was rejected. I'm really not sure of any other instances of alleged "harboring" on Saddam's part; please enlighten us. I certainly have nothing positive to say about Saddam's "character," which I have personally been a critic of since the 1980s, but I don't see how it constitutes evidence of any "harboring."-csloat 05:20, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
And there is this quote in the article from Clarke, about Yasin: "The Iraqi government because, obviously, of the hostility between us and them, didn't cooperate in turning him over and gave him sanctuary, as it did give sanctuary to other terrorists"--Silverback 08:18, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
First, the "other terrorists" referred to there are not al Qaeda, and even if you were right about Yasin, that would be one, not "many." Second, we know Yasin moved in with a relative. On what basis does Clarke consider that giving him "sanctuary"? It is probable that Saddam lied about whether his government could find Yasin when told by the U.S. to turn him over. If that is what you mean then, fine, Saddam gave Yasin "sanctuary." It hardly constitutes evidence of collaboration between the two, as Clarke goes on to recognize in that quote (as well as Rita Katz and others). The FBI and other agencies investigated this thoroughly. Peter Bergen writes:
Neil Herman, the F.B.I. official who headed the Trade Center probe, explained that following the attacks, one of the lower-level conspirators, Abdul Rahman Yasin, did flee New York to live with a family member in Baghdad: "The one glaring connection that can't be overlooked is Yasin. We pursued that on every level, traced him to a relative and a location, and we made overtures to get him back." However, Herman says that Yasin's presence in Baghdad does not mean Iraq sponsored the attack: "We looked at that rather extensively. There were no ties to the Iraqi government." In sum, by the mid-'90s, the Joint Terrorism Task Force in New York, the F.B.I., the U.S. Attorney's office in the Southern District of New York, the C.I.A., the N.S.C., and the State Department had all found no evidence implicating the Iraqi government in the first Trade Center attack.[40]
In sum, any "harboring" certainly did not amount to sponsorship or collaboration on terrorism. All it means it that Saddam wasn't interested in helping the U.S. solve its problems. I'm not too surprised about that, and neither was any intelligence agency that looked into it.csloat 10:01, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
This isn't about sponsorship or collaboration, but whether the US should take the risk of leaving tremendous wealth in the hands of someone of Saddam's character. His association with terrorism is part of that assessment. His willingness to harbor an al Qaeda terrorist like Yasin, gives lie to the argument that the hostility between al Qaeda and Saddam make a potential future risk implausible. --Silverback 02:03, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
What are you talking about? This page has nothiing to do with the "risk" of Saddam's "wealth." The question here is whether Saddam collaborated with al Qaeda - not whether he was evasive when the US asked him to find Yasin. Every expert who looked at the Yasin issue has concluded that there was no cooperation between Saddam and al Qaeda. Saddam's willingness to thumb his nose at the US has nothing to do with his hostility to Islamists, which has been amply demonstrated time and again. More important is the Islamists' hostility to Saddam, of course, whom they wanted to overthrow. In any case, the place where you put that claim in the article it made no sense at all.--csloat 05:11, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

csloat, this entry is a response to an earlier conversation but I wanted to post it to you here as well so you would not miss it. Questions about the 9/11 Commissions thoroughness are now on both the Able Danger page and the 9/11 Commission page. Are there any other pages it belongs? Just let me know and eventually I will see it gets posted. Now I want to discuss your claim that mentioning Able Danger here does not relate to the specifics of the article and is just poisoning the well. You are talking about poisoning the well as if the 9/11 Commission is an eyewitness who is likely to be wrong or to lie about one aspect of a story and be right and truthful about others. It is wrong to assume that an eyewitness who was wrong or lied once will be wrong or untruthful everywhere else. But the 9/11 Commission is not an eyewitness. The commission had a job to do that required research and thoroughness. If the commission is not thorough or credible in one area of research, that automatically raises suspicion about the thoroughness of the commission elsewhere. When we know they were given credible leads and choose not to follow them up, what makes you think they did not do that in other situations with other credible information? We don't know why the 9/11 Commission did not talk about the arrest of the Iraqis in Germany. It could have been that the CIA never told them. Or it could be that the commission chose not to investigate further. It is essential that Able Danger be mentioned in this article and that readers be informed of their decision not to investigate important information. Are you going to write it or am I? RonCram 02:55, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

It is essential that the Able Danger debate be carried out in the places where it is relevant. It is simply not relevant here. If you can find legitimate news sources or counterterrorism analysts who provide a justification for its relevance here then it will be worth considering but right now it has no relevance whatsoever. Your speculation about the credibility of the 9/11 Commission on issues not addressed by Able Danger is just pure speculation. From someone, I might add, whose own credibility is very much in question. I will continue to delete references to Able Danger until someone establishes their relevance in a meaningful way, not through a string of random speculations barely tied together by a thread like the above. And again, let us please remember that the 9/11 Commission is not the issue here anyway. The commission is cited but the pieces of evidence they look at are all pieces of intelligence brought out by other agencies. As for the arrest of Iraqis in Germany, again, if you find evidence or even authoritative speculation tying those arrests to Able Danger we can consider it - otherwise it is just a string of increasingly bankrupt attempts at pseudo-logic.--csloat 05:11, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Suggested Rewrite of Certain Segments

The article currently has an Intro, then Questions about the Plausibility of the Link, then Background, then the Timeline. I am not suggesting a change to the Intro or the Timeline. But I think the intervening segments should be rewritten. I believe the major points should be covered in this order:

Background

  • The official Bush Administration position is that a relationship existed because there were many contacts but no proof currently exists that ties Saddam to 9/11.
  • Some senior Bush officials have tried to make the claim Saddam was involved in 9/11 and have pointed to a few bits of interesting but inconclusive evidence.
  • Intelligence is difficult to gather and difficult to analyze. Evidence is often contradictory. Eyewitnesses are often terrorists who have been arrested and whose motivation to lie is strong. Many change their stories over time. Others, such as the INC, were motivated to lie in effort to get Saddam removed from power. Deciding which witnesses to believe and which not to believe is difficult.
  • Deciding when intelligence is credible enough to be “actionable” is also difficult.

Implausibility of the Link

  • Osama did not trust Saddam
  • Documents found.
  • Experts listed who support no link
  • Summarize the strong points of the timeline

Evidence for the Link

  • Summarize the strong points from the timeline.
  • Experts listed who see a link

I think csloat would do a good job on the Implausibility segment. I know that I could write it better and stronger than it is right now and I think the link is very plausible. I would like to write the first draft of the other two segments. Are there any other points anyone feels is important to include in the Background segment? Remember, the goal here is to get the "Disputed" label removed from the article. Can we put aside our differences and try to do that? RonCram 03:43, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

It is misleading to have an "implausibility" section and to list experts that that support "no link", because it is off topic. Since there is no serious doubt about Saddam harboring Yasin, so there is a link and it misrepresents these experts to have them supporting "no link", when their real position is no link to 9/11 or collaborating on terrorist attacks. No one claims there is no link between Saddam and al Qaeda, just no credible evidence of a more substantive direct link to terrorist attacks. Of course, Saddams willingness to harbor al Qaeda, combined with his resources and character, gives all the credence the coalition needs to reduce risk by taking him out.--Silverback 04:33, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
I realize you guys want to rewrite the entire article so it appears to establish a link that did not exist and so that it appears to provide evidence that has been thoroughly discredited, but I will not support such a rewrite, nor will I legitimize it. I am happy to rewrite parts of the article to strengthen them, but what you are advocating is an article to prove the existence of angels. There is an easy way to remove the disputed label -- just remove it. As far as I am concerned there is nothing disputed here. The points you two raise have been responded to over and over again, but instead of answering the arguments you just repeat your main talking points. Sorry but that does not cut it. And the points you raise are ultimately minor - you certainly have said nothing that rises to the level of making this article "disputed". The label was actually originally put on this article by someone who thought the article was too full of disinformation about the "link" -- most of my edits over the past few months or so have been addressing these problems. So I think the disputed label could and probably should be simply removed.
I am willing to compromise by having a section on "contacts" that are not disputed between Iraq and AQ - you guys keep calling them "links" but that is really a catechresis. The evidence does not support a "link" between the two but it does support that there were "contacts" (at least until 1999) that one or both sides hoped might develop into a "link." Such links were never established as we now know. I love how you say things like "there is no serious doubt" after you refuse to respond to the doubts raised. I am also happy to have the question of collaboration explained more clearly - the fact is that there is no evidence whatsoever that Saddam ever "collaborated" with AQ on anything at all. Silverback your motivation here is particularly in question since you keep coming back to the coalition's justification for "taking him out". That is not what this article is about -- there is already an article on the justifications for the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and you can try to post your bogus reasons there. In this article it is reasonable to say that the alleged links were cited as a justification for the invasion, but it really is not the place of this article to address whether or not they are a legitimate justification.
What I am not willing to do is support the spreading of disinformation through this article. Most of the alleged "links" have been shown to be disinformation -- not just misinformation but disinformation, which is false information deliberately spread usually by an intelligence agency (in this case most of it by the INC). And most of the junk from the Weekly Standard you guys keep citing is just that -- disinformation repackaged by people who probably know that half of their arguments are lies and the other half are distortions of the evidence that does exist. I want to see whatever is included in this article supported with real evidence and I don't want to see "original research" here -- speculation about the relationship of Able Danger or whatever else, that has not been discussed in the mainstream media or in books on this topic, falls into this original research category.--csloat 05:25, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
Silverback, I appreciate your contributions to the article and your reasoning is sound. Perhaps we change the headings to "Implausibility of Collaboration" and "Evidence of Collaboration" because that is really the issue the article addresses. I believe the Background segment needs to be rewritten to clarify the Bush Administration policy and senior officials within it and to provide a short primer on intelligence analysis. Do you agree? Is there anything else it should include? RonCram 13:21, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
csloat, the "Disputed" label needs to stay on the article until reaches NPOV. While the article is much better than before, it is not there yet. Contrary to your statements above, there is evidence of collaboration between the two. First, we have the chemical weapons development in Khartoum. Next, credible witnesses of Iraq training AQ in handling CBRN. We also have published reports in newspapers around the world talking about the "pact" or "alliance" between the two. Next, the fact Saddam never acted against Ansar al Islam. If there is evidence any of this information came from INC, then it should not be included in this summary. I also do not want anything in the article that is poorly sourced or "original research." Regarding Able Danger, I have answered your "poison the well" argument. Now you want to pretend that the commission's choice not to investigate Able Danger has not been talked about in the media? C'mon. It has hurt the commission's credibility and the impression they were thorough. That has to be talked about in this article. RonCram 13:21, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
As an analogy to the Able Danger junk you want to put in - if you want to put the Bush Administration stuff in should we also include statements about the Administration's total failure to respond to Hurricane Katrina as evidence that his judgement about this issue is impaired? Didn't think so. On to your points - there is no "evidence of collaboration" that stands up under scrutiny and you know it. You are just repeating the same stuff you've been repeating for months, ignoring the arguments against it. There's been no evidence presented that Saddam had anything to do with chemicals in Khartoum, and that has been thoroughly answered. There are no "credible witness" accounts of any training; you have BS from unreliable INC sources that we now know were spreading disinformation to help Iran. The idea that Saddam never acted against Ansar al Islam is bull too - that does not prove "collaboration". Saddam never acted against Iran either, not since the end of the war they fought; do you think that means he collaborated with Iran too? Your conspiracy theory is completely paranoid. Why do you say evidence about the INC should not be included? You're just asserting bogus points now. You are the one bringing in original research with your able danger garbage and you have not responded to the arguments above; you have just repeated yourself and pretended that you have responded. Why are you wasting my time with this? You say I want to pretend Able Danger isn't in the media but you know damn well that is not what I said; I said that there was nothing in the media connecting Able Danger to this issue. Why should that be talked about in this article when nobody else in the world is asserting its relevance to this issue? That is original research, Ron. Finally as for the disputed tag - as I said, it was placed there because this article implied that there were links between Saddam and AQ that did not exist. I think I have done a decent job of fixing that impression, and I believe the disputed tag can be removed at this point. Nothing you say above has actually disputed anything on the page; you have repeated several assertions that you have already repeated over and over again but you have not responded to the actual arguments here. The worst thing about all this is that by your actions you have acknowledged that you are not interested in the truth here; you are just interested in promoting your little conspiracy theory. Personally I would rather see a page that is accurate than a page that just promotes your bizarre jumps to untenable conclusions based on bizarre strings of disputed so-called "evidence." csloat 19:39, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
csloat, you are accusing me of bad faith. I do not think that is fair at all. I want a "Background" section that actually deals with the historical background and a short primer on intelligence gathering and analysis. That information would be helpful in understanding the timeline. Right now the background section is arguing the merits of collaboration back and forth and provides little in helpful info. Some of it may belong in the "Implausibility" section which could be greatly improved by summarizing more effectively information in the Timeline. You seem to be very upset by a summary of "Evidence for Collaboration." Honestly, I do not know why that is so upsetting to you since it is already in the Timeline. As for credible evidence, I think you are confusing it with conclusive evidence. Credible evidence just means it comes from credible sources or has been deemed to be credible by the Intelligence Community. For example, the articles published in newspapers around the world about the "pact" between Saddam and Osama are thought to be crebible. The witnesses of the CBRN training described by George Tenet as of varying credibility means that some of them are credible. The fact Cohen still believes Khartoum was chemical weapons development between Saddama and Osama makes that credible. Now you can look at those pieces of evidence and say you are not convinced of a collaboration but readers will be interested to see what the evidence of the collaboration is. Putting a summary of the evidence in one place for the readers is the right thing to do. Without it, the article appears lacking NPOV. Regarding Able Danger, the fact this hurt the 9/11 Commission's credibility is all over the newspapers. It is in both the 9/11 Commission and the Able Danger articles you named earlier. This is the only article it is not in. There is no excuse for not including it. RonCram 13:53, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry Ron - I am trying to assume good faith but you have shown again and again that your agenda is to make the article into a platform for your conspiracy theory even when the evidence does not support that. The Background section currently does deal with the historical background, and it does currently mention facts about intelligence gathering that are relevant. But this is not the place for a "primer" on it, of course. I am not "upset" by your proposed section; I am simply refuting the supposed "evidence" you keep repeating yourself about. You are now citing articles about a "pact" as "evidence" but you know that is BS - there was never any evidence whatsoever of a "pact"; all there was was speculation. I am not saying the speculation was unreasonable - as I said above, we had every reason not to trust Saddam - but I am saying there was no evidence backing it up, as we now know. The other stuff has already been dealt with in the timeline - you are just repeating it again. What you are proposing is to put claims in the intro section that are refuted in the timeline, but you don't want the refutation in the intro -- this distorts the conclusion one would draw from reading the article. If you want to summarize the entire timeline in the intro it will be too long - why duplicate it? We already have a summary of many of the main points -- the supposed meetings with hijackers, the supposed training at Salman Pak, etc. are already there. The article is not lacking NPOV; the only ones disputing its content are you and Silverback - I have the feeling if we were to vote on the "Disputed" tag right now the vote would be to remove it. As for Able Danger, please stop repeating yourself; I am sick of repeating myself in response. There are no newspaper articles or anything else suggesting a connection between Able Danger and this topic. Except the bogus Weekly standard article, whose claims even you have now backed off of. So, no, you are just flat out wrong that it belongs here, and I beg you to stop repeating that it does like a little kid who wants candy at the grocery store.--csloat 17:54, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Silverback are you just checking to see if I'm awake? If you want to make edits please explain them here. The Able Danger thing has been dealt with over and over. Linking it here is original research pure and simple. The other edits have been hashed out as well and instead of responding to those arguments you are just reverting. And please actually respond rather than simply repeating yourself.--csloat 08:29, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

You overestimate how well you have "dealt" with the able danger thing. It hits 9/11 credibility precisely in the subject areas it is being relied upon as authoritative in this article. As for the other changes, the edit summaries are pretty explicit that "paucity" is POV, there were contacts with al Qaeda (even sanctuary), it is just that the evidence to link Iraq to 9/11 has been classified as not credible. That shouldn't matter though, or be emphasized, since this article's subject matter is not 9/11 focused, although the current text seems to be obsessed with 9/11.--Silverback 10:00, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
I am not overestimating anything -- you haven't answered my arguments against the Able Danger thing, ever. It is original research to put it in an entry when the connection between this topic and Able Danger has not been noticed by the media or by any scholar or anyone except you and Mr. Cram. Why should I keep repeating this? As for the other stuff, the edit summaries have been responded to, and again you ignore these responses. "Paucity" is more accurate than "limited" because it refers to actual links, not "contacts." It is not just 9/11 that is not credible; it is any serious link to al Qaeda. Every single actual link has turned up dry -- the product of disinformation, mistaken identity, etc. The contacts that were established did not lead anywhere. All you can come up with is that Yasin lived with a relative there and got a job with the government; you keep calling this "sanctuary" like he was on some tropical island sipping rum and getting spa and massage treatments or something. This article is not "obsessed with 9/11" - what evidence do you have of that? You're the one trying to focus on 9/11 Commission issues here when they are not relevant. 9/11 is obviously a key moment here, as it would be in any history of any aspect of modern terrorism, and obviously it is after 9/11 that the U.S. government agencies got much more serious about investigating the alleged connection here, so there's no doubt it marks a turning point. If a 9/11 connection is emphasized here it's because the people who keep asserting a Saddam-AQ connection are asserting a 9/11 connection -- the prominence of the bogus Prague story, for example. Anyway I'm reverting your nonsense. Again, don't revert back without actually answering the arguments here - simply reasserting your original points is bogus. csloat 10:42, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
Let me lay it out for you reeeeeally sloooooow. Bush admin lying about WMD is not as relevant to the credibility of Bush admin cites in this article about links to al Qaeda, as 9/11 commission's incomplete investigation of alpha-dangers knowledge of links to al Qaeda is to the commisions credibility about links to al Qaeda. Your analogy was NOT VERY ANALOGOUS. Got it? How many ways do I have to say it?--Silverback 12:19, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
And let me lay it out for you: (1) this is the first time you've responded to that particular argument, so stop your silly posturing "how many ways do I have to say it." You're confused. I'm the one who is getting exasperated by being forced to respond to the same points again and again. (2) There are several other arguments you have not responded to; most importantly, the fact that this is original research that does not belong here. You simply chose the weakest of my arguments to respond to and are now pretending you have made a convincing case. (3) you are wrong even about this argument. Bush's lying about WMD is as tenuously connected to this page as is the 911 Commission's incompleteness surrounding AD. There is no evidence that AD revealed anything about Saddam's relationship to AQ, and it is sheer speculation and original research to insist that it might. (4) you have made other changes that you have not justified and that have also been challenged here already. Do not make changes if you feel it is too hard to respond to the arguments against them. That may be because those arguments are correct.csloat 19:52, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
Excuse me, I responded to that argument immediately when you raised it, and then repeatedly referred to the credibility issue, because your argument was so weak and had not been reinforced. Search on "Whether it is relevant or not, depends on the area of credibility that is impacted", I just laid it out a little more sloooowly here. The 9/11 commission's lack of credibility about AD would be as tenuously connected as the Bush admin's lying, if it weren't for the fact that AD is itself connected to the al Qaeda links. And there is another element that makes any questioning of the 9/11 work more relevant to its credibility. The 9/11 commission's size and focus is much smaller, so any credibility issues are more relevant. Questioning the Bush administration as a source because of alleged lies in one part, neglects the fact that 99+% of the administration does not even change with new presidents. The adminstrative branch is much larger and more diverse than the 9/11 commision.--Silverback 22:59, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
LOL. Yes I looked at that exchange, and I responded to your comments in that place too, and again you left me hanging, in terms of actually engaging the arguments. But you did not raise any response to that particular analogy there which was my point in #1 above. AD is not connected to "the al Qaeda links" if you mean the links with Saddam -- again, nobody in the real world has seen fit to comment on such a connection, and they certainly would if there was anything there. Bush analogy aside - let's say I concede that - Able Danger still has no relevance to this article, and any connection you establish through arguments here is original research. Also, remember that the 911 Commission is just one of the many sources on this page, and they are simply collecting evidence gathered from other sources -- so the listing of that evidence here would not be impacted at all even if the credibility of the Commission were in serious question. Face it, you are grasping at straws here -- trying to pull in a barely tangential piece of information that barely refutes one of the many sources of information on this page ... what is surprising is that you appear to really believe that this piece of information is both relevant and decisive here. Bizarre. --csloat 00:09, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
The article is using the 9/11 commission not only to cite other evidence, but is using the commission's assessment and characterization of the evidence as well. It's credibility is fair game. The AD evidence not only calls into question the 9/11 commissions credibility, but they timeline they use to reject al Qaeda/Iraq link evidence, while AD doesn't directly give evidence of the link, impacting this timeline would be enough to give it relevance, even if the credibility of the 9/11 commisson was so central to this article. We should at least leave this in while the questions are being investigated by Congress.--Silverback 04:30, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
Identify which part of the timeline is in conflict and how specifically it impacts the link to Saddam. Then provide some reasonable explanation why you are the only person in the world to notice (well, you and Ron) that this has anything to do with the link to Saddam. Then, finally, write an article about it for a mainstream publication and wait for that article to gain notoriety. Then and only then will it not be "original research" to enter that information here.--csloat 00:38, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
"Felzenberg said the information about Atta was considered suspect because it didn't jibe with many other findings. For example, the intelligence officer said Atta was in the United States in late 1999, but travel records confirmed that he did not enter the country until late 2000."[41] It may be hypocritical, given that the commission's credibility is being questioned, but the commission spokesperson himself, says that able danger contradicts the time line. But your criterion is too strong even though it is being met. We all can use facts to question the credibility of an authority that is used in the article. We don't have to wait for some other authority to use those facts to question the authority.--Silverback 07:50, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
Absurd. Where is it even alleged that Atta had anything to do with Saddam at those times? The only speculation that comes close is the April 2001 meeting that never actually took place -- and nobody contests that part of the timeline. The criterion you are objecting to is not mine -- it is wikipedia's: No Original Research. We most emphatically do have to "wait for some other authority to use those facts" before we can create encyclopedia entries that refer to that particular use of facts. Besides, read the entry that you keep reverting. Also there are two other changes on it that you have not justified (and you have conceded my arguments against), and the Able Danger entry itself is nonsensical - it makes no reference to the Saddam al Q@aeda connection whatsoever!csloat 08:57, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
This is about the commission credibility which is relied upon so heavily in this article. You ignore the actual AD text that is being added, it is completely factual and documented, so there is no original research. The text makes reference to the 9/11 commission and Atta, both of which are mentioned in the article. You state that the April 2001 meeting never took place. You go beyond the evidence, the fact that you mention it at all is evidence that there is evidence that it did take place. The fact that a couple of organizations have not found the source of information about that meeting credible does not mean that it didn't happen. Part of the reason that the organizations dismissed the report of the meeting was that it conflicted with an alternate timeline for Atta. That timeline has now been called into question as has the thoroughness of the 9/11 commission's work. I still think it is strange that so much effort has been extended in the article to refute a link to 9/11, when this is about links to al Qaeda, presumably as evidence of the possible danger of future collaboration as part of the case for removing Saddam. Noone is stating that the war was revenge for 9/11. Against this possible future danger, is the allegation that it is made implausible by bin Laden's hostile statements, which presumably Saddam would hold against al Qaeda, if they should approach him for assistance in attacking America. The documented contacts and assistance to al Qaeda refute that wishful thinking. Now, admittedly, the 9/11 commissions statements are mainly being used to refute the strawman proposition about cooperation on 9/11. The commissions own conclusions use language that overstates their certainty and are used here in this article to give it an overly dismissive tone regarding ANY contacts, and so it is totally appropriate and relevant to include facts which call into question the certainty of their conclusions.--Silverback 10:27, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

It feels like you're intentionally being dense. I did read the text being added and the "original research" is in the connection between that text and this article. The fact that you leave it out completely just means the entry is poorly written; it looks like a total non sequitor if you're reading it in the timeline. We don't just include everything in the timeline dealing with 9/11 or Atta as you suggest. I state the 4/01 meeting did not take place based on the preponderance of evidence which is listed in the timeline (some of which is also listed in the 911 report). My conclusion is not based on the 911 report; it is based on evidence that happens to be mentioned in that report which happened to come to the same conclusion. And who cares - this is my opinion and I certainly did not put in the article my conclusion about this non-meeting. Most of the arguments against the meeting have little to do with conflicting timelines, and you have shown no evidence that the timelines conflict on the date in question. And again this is all speculation - original research on your part. You again make the baseless charge that this article has too much about 9/11 - point to specifics here. Also this is an irrelevant point to the issue at hand - you have not justified reverting this article! There are also other changes you are reverting without justifying those reversions at all. This is practically vandalism and you are just wasting my time.--csloat 11:58, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Only you can waste your time. I don't put my conclusion about the meeting into the article either. I am not trying to do original research here. As cited, the 9/11 commission spokesman, is the one who stated that the timeline is in conflict. Why don't you just leave this factual stuff in, until after the congressional hearings which begin shortly. We should know then more about the evidence. This way you avoid wasting your time. Articles are dynamic, you shouldn't panic over something that rather inoccuously conflicts with your POV. It ain't the end of the world, and since I am a reasonable good faith editor, it may be only temporary, if the credibility of the 9/11 commission and the timeline you prefer, survives the hearings.--Silverback 12:14, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
The proper thing to do is leave this entry out until the congressional hearings actually turn up any conflict in the timeline that would be relevant. As I said over and over again, if you think this is relevant, write an article about it, get it published, and let it gain notoriety; then, at that point, it may be relevant to include here. You want to include an entry on the basis that future congressional hearings might lead to someone claiming a connection? That is ludicrous! Why not include an entry on Hurricane Katrina, just in case someone comes out in the next few weeks and articulates a connection? I am trying to believe that you are a "reasonable good faith editor" but the evidence seems to suggest otherwise. You posture in talk and then make sweeping changes in the article, many of which you don't even try to justify. You continually revert things that have been debated to death here, and you don't even try to respond to the arguments against your position. Now you are declaring that we should include irrelevant material on the off chance that a future investigation determines that this entry is relevant.--csloat 18:49, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
I admit that I haven't evaluated the issues other than the AD stuff, but based on the quality of your arguments on the AD stuff and your sweeping reverts of it despite your failure to make your case on the AD stuff, why should I consider you as having any credibility on that other stuff? Are your arguments any better there? And if they aren't any better there are you any more likely to be intellectually honest enough yield? Frankly, I don't want to get into the minutia of the other issues, but you haven't demonstrated any credibility with your mischaracterization of my arguments and evidence and with your sweeping reverts. Remember that you are the one being deletionist here.--Silverback 06:41, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Great. You won't respond to things in talk but you will revert them. Now you won't even justify the AD additions any more; you just want to keep adding them. I have more than bent over backwards again and again trying to explain this stuff, and trying to assume good faith, and you simply keep repeating yourself, ignoring the responses (except to vaguely ridicule them like you do above). Now you admit you have been reverting stuff without even reading it. Please stop playing games. What you're doing is at this point almost indistinguishable from vandalism. --csloat 08:01, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Once again you mischaracterize my position, I am more than happy to justify the AD addition, as I have many times. I propose a compromise, we keep the AD stuff in, and abandon the other changes. This was implicit in my statement above. You, who claim to be editing in good faith, have you proposed any compromises? If the credibility of the 9/11 commission is not an issue here, are you willing to remove all references to it? Do you even know what the terms you throw around mean, such as "original research"? There is a cite from someone associated with the 9/11 commision to support the timeline conflict, etc. Do you have a cite for the position that AD is not relevant to the timeline or "original research"? As you see, I am more than willing to defend the AD insert. Let's try to make this decision based on the evidence.--Silverback 08:19, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
We don't compromise by letting people put stuff into wikipedia that does not belong there. This is original research. The credibility of the 9/11 Commission has not been questioned with regard to connections between Saddam and al Qaeda. You may speculate that the AD stuff may impact their credibility in other areas all you like but it is original research to put it here. Stop playing around - the burden of proof is on you to provide evidence connecting AD to this article, not on me to provide evidence that they are not connected. If you don't understand what I mean by "original research" in this context, you should not be editing wikipedia this aggressively.--csloat 08:25, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
I have inserted compromise text, that makes the NOR documentation clear. However, I'm not sure I'm happy with it. BTW, I just saw some news that the military has issued a gag order against the Able Danger officers testifying in the open. Evidently they have security concerns that will force the hearings to be closed. We need a more open seeking of the truth. If the Atta material is not relevant, why is there so much of it in the article? If the 9/11 commission rejection of information is not relevant, why is there so much of reliance on the 9/11 commision in the article?--Silverback 08:40, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
I have erased the supposed "compromise" which says absolutely nothing that makes it relevant to this page - a reader of this page would be stumped as to what it was doing there. The "original research" is the logical leap between that entry and this page; you do not solve the problem by deleting it and leaving it as an unspoken warrant for the claim. The Atta timeline information is not relevant as the only parts of the timeline in question are a year earlier than the only claim about Atta on this page. Atta is not relevant to this page other than that once supposed incident (which, as we know, is most likely false anyway).--csloat 08:48, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Why is there all the information about Atta on the page at all? Atta is not needed to establish that Saddam had contacts with al Qaeda and that it is reasonable to fear that he might expand that to collaboration in the future. Saddams contacts with al Qaeda are numerous and substantial enough to overcome any suggestion of implausibility of future assistance. Past sanctuary and assistance, makes future sanctuary and assistance plausible. Are you disputing the purpose of this article? It does not exist just to lay out a conspiracy theory about 9/11 does it? In fact it appears to try to refute such a conspiracy theory. We may never know whether Saddam was contacted about 9/11 in advance, it doesn't appear his assistance was needed, even if it was solicitied and he may have had knowledge of it. So it doesn't seem that important. However, there is no more reason to have confidence that the Atta meeting did not occur, than that it did. If Saddam, had prior knowledge of the 9/11 attack, I don't think there was any expectation that he would warn the US, and if he didn't warn the US that could not be justification for the war. Rather the demonstrated hostility he had shown to the US, the resources he had available to exercise that, and the willingness he had shown to harbor and support terrorism are justification enough.--Silverback 09:05, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Atta is mentioned on the page because there were allegations - most likely false - that he met an Iraqi in April 2001. There is nothing else connecting Saddam to Atta that I am aware of. This page is not about what it is "reasonable to fear." If you read things I wrote to you a few days ago you would see that I share your distrust of Saddam, and my interest in this page has nothing to do with defending him. This article was created over the objections of myself and several other editors because one editor seemed to believe the conspiracy theory presented here and detailed all of these points. This area is a significant one in my research, so I noticed that the page was full of disinformation and began painstakingly gathering the evidence about the items he put on the time line and contextualizing (and in many cases refuting) them. You are right that Saddam was not needed for 9/11 and that it is unlikely that he had anything to do with it. Your opinion about whether there were other justifications for war with Iraq is not unreasonable, but it has nothing to do with this page. The same goes for your speculation about past sanctuary and future sanctuary. (By the way it's not clear what you mean by "sanctuary" at all; as I asked you before - do you think Arnold Schwarzennegger is giving me sanctuary?) --csloat 09:35, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


the nationality excuse for harboring members of al Qaeda

csloat has put forward the nationality excuse, to argue that the harboring of an al Qaeda member was not the giving of sanctuary. What if bin Laden had been Iraqi and had gone home to Iraq? Would that fail to meet your standard for contact with and assistance to al Qaeda. Your reasoning doesn't hold water.--Silverback 09:26, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

See above. I live in California; am I being "harbored" by the governator? I even draw a salary from the state! Checks signed by the state treasurer! Horrors! Seriously, if you could produce any information that Saddam even knew this guy was in Iraq and supported his terrorist activities in some way, then you could call it "harboring" him but as it is, you have nothing. If you do put it back in you cannot make it plural as there is only one - Zarqawi was never "harbored" by Saddam even under your loose definition of it. As for OBL -- he's in Afghanistan or Pakistan right now -- would you say that Karzai or Musharraff is "harboring" him?--csloat 09:35, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Unless the governor is aware that you are a suspect in serious criminal acts, I think you once again have proposed an analogy that isn't analogous. Both Karzai and Musharraff are hunting bin Laden, and there is no reason to believe they know his location. Zarqawi was given medical treatment at a hospital that served the Iraqi elite, before he went off to be a thorn in the Kurdish and Iranian sides.--Silverback 09:58, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

First, there is no reason to believe Saddam knew Yasin's location. As I said though he is the only one so even if this is true you cannot put it in there as if Saddam was harboring AQ terrorists -- this is just one (and he isn't really being "harbored"). The stories of Zarqawi being treated by Saddam's personal physicians turned out to be false according to terrorism expert Jason Burke. The people Zarqawi associated with were a bigger thorn in Saddam's side than in Iran's. And there is no evidence Saddam supported Zarqawi in any way. When I have more time I will probably reorganize the zarqawi section as the stuff you added is repetitive.

I didn't put the Saddam's physicians stuff in the article, and the Bush administration still believes he received medical care there, although they no longer believe it extended to leg amputation, per the cite I gave. Anyone can write a terrorism book, that doesn't mean they have access to all the intelligence that the administration has access to.--Silverback 12:37, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

More importantly - please stop adding stuff that we have decided does not belong here -- the AD stuff, you sneak it in in the intro now, assuming I would not see it buried in all your edits? very deceptive. And the line about no "credible reports" of OBL attacking Saddam - this is totally misleading as there are no such reports at all. You cite it as if there were some reports that proved to be wrong in order to discredit the fact that OBL was frequently critical of the regime. The other point you add about Saddam pretending to be a fundamentalist is already made elsewhere in the article and is not relevant there. Again, don't try to sneak edits in like that; it is poor wikipedia form.--csloat 12:20, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

We have not made a decision. You were complaining that the AD stuff did not fit where I originally had it. Putting it in the Timeline intro where general credibility issues are discussed is an attempt to address that. I'd have to check, but I thought I put an appropriate edit summary there. There were a couple of edits that didn't take however.--Silverback 12:30, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Hah! I did put in a descriptive edit summary. "This fits more logically here, where claims and credibility are discussed"--Silverback 12:39, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Stop distorting things. I was not complaining about where the AD stuff fits; I was saying it did not belong on this page AT ALL. And you did not respond to the arguments presented. Including it is original research. You already know this as we have been through it over and over. Putting it in also is a non sequitor the way you worded it. And the rest of your edits - you even reverted your spelling error that I corrected! Your edits seem more and more to be in bad faith, SB.--csloat 12:53, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
I quote you "it looks like a total non sequitor if you're reading it in the timeline". Case closed. I have given too much ground without anything in return. You are a moving target. This credibility and relevance issue is a matter of degree, but you refuse to exercise any judgement.--Silverback 13:22, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Now you're just not making sense at all. My point stands - the AD stuff does not belong here as it is not relevant. Any attempt to make it relevant is original research and does not belong in wikipedia.csloat 17:29, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
If your point stands, it stands on mere assertion. Your analogies were not analogous enough, what else did you have?--Silverback 19:19, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
You're the one making mere assertions. I have made several arguments about this, the big one being the no original research claim, which you keep ignoring. The analogies that you did not like were made with regard to another argument, as you are well aware.--csloat 20:37, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
No, the analogies were with regard to the commission credibility issue. What is original research about including evidence that the repeatedly cited commission rejected information that didn't fit their view of the timeline. What is your NOR argument for that?--Silverback 16:53, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
No, the analogy was about Arnold giving me "sanctuary." I am again removing the AD claim because it again has nothing to do with the Saddam connection which is what this page is about. It is a non sequitor as written; the assumption that it has something to do with saddam is the original research issue. I'm really getting sick of this SB - please just stop.--csloat 21:53, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
While the main reason for the entry is the commision credibility issue, it also has relevance to Saddam, to the extent that the Atta timeline is relevant. One of your weak analogies was on the credibility issue, do you have anything better?--Silverback 22:37, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
If it has relevance to Saddam, someone in the real world would have noticed it besides you. Sorry this doesn't go here, and I've been through the arguments over and over and over again about this. Any connection to Saddam is original research.--csloat 23:01, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
Even if Atta were not mentioned in this article (what's his link with Saddam anyway?), the Able Danger text still goes to the 9/11 commission credibility issue, which you haven't addressed beyond a mere assertion and the "Bush lies" analogy.--Silverback 01:19, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Are you on drugs? It's crazy you keep pressing me to explain this to you over and over. The only connection to Atta worth mentioning on this page is the April thing in the timeline. Able Danger has nothing to do with that. Able Danger does not say anything about the Commission's credibility with regard to this issue, and any attempt to claim that it does is original research, pure and simple. The "Bush lies" analogy was not my main argument against this position as you are well aware; it was an attempt to make you understand because you were being so obtuse about it. Just stop toying with this page, please. It's getting tedious and ridiculous. You're making a fool of yourself and you are trying to make this page incoherent by adding irrelevant information. Also is there anyone else following this discussion besides myself and silverback? I ask because I am completely blown away by how ridiculous his position is here - do other people agree or is there something I am missing here? --csloat 06:21, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

maybe trimming to zarqawi and yasin goes too far?

As I had mentioned in early discussions, the link between Saddam and zarqawi and yasin is sufficient to make the point in this article that the US was justified in fearing possible cooperation with al-Qaeda on future terrorist attacks. So I've started trimming with that in mind. There certainly is no need for the fruitless 9/11 conspiracy theory stuff, that is a distraction. However, I now have gotten down to the CIA summary, and I see that they concluded that the relationship was even more substantial than just Yasin and Zarqawi. Was any of the timeline, I deleted, supporting details for these CIA conconclusions? Please feel free to restore those portions that were, hopefully, we all can avoid the obsfuscation of getting into the 9/11 conspiracy theory stuff, which isn't needed to support jusfication of the war on the basis of Saddam and al-Qaeda. -- thanx, --Silverback 13:16, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

As usual I will be correcting your bogus edits. This page is not about whether the US was "justified in fearing possible cooperation" but rather whether such cooperation existed. The CIA conclusions have been clear throughout; you are distorting them. The "9/11 conspiracy stuff" is a major part of this article. You are dead wrong about justifications for the war, but it doesn't matter, as that is not what this article is about.--csloat 19:39, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
You are quite wrong, this article is about "might conspire to launch terrorist attacks ", not about "whether such cooperation existed", although such cooperation would be good evidence for the "might conspire". Perhaps your misperception has been the source of the misunderstanding and why you have been focused on conspiracy theories? All the past contacts do is get rid of the "implausibility" strawman. If Saddam was willing to give sanctuary, medical treatment, etc. to al Qaeda, he obviously wouldn't let bin Laden's past criticisms get in the way of striking a blow at the U.S. Evidently the CIA agrees, see conclusion 97.--Silverback 19:52, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Your edits are basically vandalism and do not conform to your point at all. This page is about whether Saddam and AQ cooperated. I am not focused on conspiracy theories, except to dispute phony evidence for this particular one. Also your claims have been proven false; Saddam did give medical treatment to Zarqawi (Saddam is not even a doctor!) nor did he even know Zarqawi was treated in Iraq. He did not give "sanctuary" to anyone. And whatever you feel is "obvious" is not relevant here; the only thing relevant is actual evidence.--csloat 19:59, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Why don't you read the introduction if you want to know what the page is about?--Silverback 20:02, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
If you want this article to be about "might conspire", how about changing its name to Speculations that Saddam might have conspired with al-Qaeda even though the evidence shows he did not?--csloat 20:42, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Silverback's vandalism and csloats mischaracterizations

I implore others interested in this page to please join this discussion. I will be asking for outside help with this too if it does not stop. We have gone from a dispute about including original research and nonsequitors here (the "Able Danger" stuff) to MASSIVE unexplained deletions by Silverback trying to turn this page into ... I don't know what, exactly. He appears to be making a WP:POINT but it isn't a point that makes any sense at all. I think this kind of behavior is vandalism and I will report it if it does not stop. Silverback there is a reasonable way to have a reasonable discussion about making changes here, but you are not doing that. You are making massive sweeping changes without discussion at all. When you do discuss your changes you simply ignore arguments that are inconvenient for you and then you stomp your foot like a baby and demand that your changes are right. This is a severe conduct problem that is independent of the content of your edits.--csloat 19:53, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

"ignore arguments"? Evidently you feel comfortable saying "unexplained deletions" while ignoring the not only the explicit explanations, but the thread of nearly all my postings here. The way to have a "reasonable discussion" is to "reason", and not to mischaracterize the positions of others. --Silverback 20:01, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
There was no reasonable explanation given for any of those deletions. Why trim to Yasin and Zarqawi? No reason. Just because you think those are the strongest links? Get real. Why delete evidence of hostility between Saddam and al Qaeda? Why delete everything for entire years? Your "explanations" in the edit summaries were cryptic, claiming reference to "911 Conspiracy theories" without any information about what that had to do with anything. I did not ignore those edit summaries; I responded in my own edit summaries. You are not explaining these deletions nor are you even defending them; you are trying to use them to make some kind of point that doesn't follow anyway.--csloat 20:09, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
I repeatedly questioned the emphasis on 9/11, and mentioned that your focus was not on the subject of the article. My edits were totally consistent with that, except that there probably was some more good evidence of Saddam's support that I deleted. I mistakenly though that Yasin and Zarqawi was all that there was good evidence for. Yes it was all that was needed for the purpose of the article, however, there is no point in throwing away what the CIA also considered supporting evidence. When I got to the CIA section, I realized that they made an even stronger case than I thought there was, so I stopped fearing I may have deleted some good evidence.--Silverback 20:30, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
You certainly repeatedly made irrelevant points about 9/11, and repeated them over and over, but they were wrong, and you ignored counter arguments. This article is not focused on 911 it is focused on Saddam's (non)relationship with al Qaeda. I'm not sure what your comment about the CIA means; if you think the speculation that Saddam "might" commit terrorist attacks with AQ, when we know for a fact he did not, is hardly a "strong case" for anything, but whatever. In either case there is no excuse for your massive deletions especially when you admit here you didn't even read the stuff you deleted. Please please please stop the nonsense silverback this is ridiculous.--csloat 20:40, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Silverback has done this kind of thing before: [42] [43]. Just cut it out Silverback. And csloat, please allow others the time to revert his strange edits. 69.121.133.154 01:05, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes anon one, those are similar incidents in some ways. It would be an error to take the analogy too far however. I hope you are not suggesting that others should revert without familiarizing themselves with the material?--Silverback 06:45, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
I agree... some of them were bizarre but I took time to rouse... -- RyanFreisling @ 01:10, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, and you're right anon user, I should take a wikibreak more often :) --csloat 20:26, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Throwing around the word "vandalism"

I was reading the history of this page today, and noticed use of the word "vandalism" in many of the edit summaries. This piqued my curiosity, so I looked at the edits the past couple of days.

The term "vandalism" is often thrown around. It is an inflammatory word, and is often misused.

What it is not

Vandalism is not removing disputed chunks of text from an article. Editors can make bold edits, and they can remove text. They should be allowed to do so without being accused of vandalism. Removing text in an article, to clear it of disputed content while the dispute is being settled, is not vandalism.

Often the word "vandalism" is used as a tactical move, to put the "offender" on the defensive, and justify reverts of the text removed, so they do not count against one's 3RR limit. This is wrong.

Text you cannot blank or edit

There is some text you must always keep your hands off. Removing another editor's text from talk pages, or editing another person's words on a talk page to change their meaning, is not allowed. The rules prohibiting such edits happen to be included among the rules regarding vandalism. Such edits may not always have "vandalistic" intent, but they do break the rules addressing vandalism.

Not defending anyone's edits

I am not defending the edits of whoever it is getting accused of vandalsim. The edits may be good or bad, bold or brash, well justified to some but not to others. They may even be foolish, I don't know. What you are talking about, however, is disputed content. I am also not defending the editor for other alleged misbehavior or inability to collaborate. I am merely targeting the use of a word.

Obviously, the larger the amount of text removed, the brasher the action of removing it. Blanking an entire article is, of course, vandalism.

If you are unclear about whether something is vandalism, ask yourself, "If I reported this to an admin, and asked to have the person blocked for it, would the admin look at the changes and tell me to work out a content dispute instead?" If yes, it is clearly not vandalism, even if repeated and repeated.

Be very careful about throwing this term around. Doing it in an edit war to justify reverts is unwise; it is better to engage the editor to discuss the text and work together to make it better. You may have to compromise. paul klenk talk 08:26, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I just want to say I did not mean to use the term in this way to describe Silverback's destructive edits. I generally said what he was doing was "borderline" vandalism or "basically" vandalism. But I did use it in the heading above, and should not have; thank you for the correction. My point was that this sort of aggressive editing and obnoxious refusal to engage with the discussion page is nearly indistinguishable from vandalism because it wastes everyone's time with edits that are wrong on their face. But it's not true - it actually wastes more time than regular vandalism because regular vandalism can be reverted without excessive commentary, whereas what Silverback is doing requires extensive commentary (which he ignores, repeating himself in talk: until his interlocuters get tired). Anyway I apologize for calling it vandalism but it is destructive to the purpose of wikipedia and I will continue to challenge his destructive editing.--csloat 20:32, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Not to worry. You do make a lot of good points; there may be enough wrong with the edits to go after them on a variety of reasons. The use of the word "attack" is also thrown around the same way, to mischaracterize many statements, devaluing the word over time. Right now I'm trying to find a code among political editors that will help us with many of these problems. It will help keep these talk pages clear of certain debates, and keep them a bit more calm. Thanks so much for checking in. paul klenk talk 22:22, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

The "Questions about the plausibility of the link" section should be redistributed

Too much emphasis is given to bin Laden statements that never amounted to any action against Saddam. This section should be removed, and those statements and all evidence of any overtly hostile acts toward Saddam should just be put into the timeline like other evidence. The 9/11 conpiracy theory stuff should be demphasized, since it adds little to the key question of the article, which is whether Saddam should have been trusted not to collaborate with al Qaeda in the future in an attack on the US or UK. Of course, Saddams character and history would lead one to conclude he shouldn't be trusted at all, too bad for Saddam, that character actually matters. If bin Laden's statements did not result in acts, then a whole section on them definitely overemphasizes them.--Silverback 06:19, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

The statements by OBL and other AQ members are quite relevant since they speak to the plausibility of conspiring. You keep saying nonsense like "the 9/11 conspiracy should be deemphasized" but you never spell out what you mean specifically. Obviously the possibility of a connection between Saddam and 911 was a big issue in the debate about this "connection", and it was cited by many in the leadup to war. One of the biggest claims made by the conspiracy theorists is that Atta met al-Ani in Prague in April 2001. The "key question" of the article is not "whether Saddam should have been trusted not to collaborate with AQ" which is a silly question anyway. The key question is whether Saddam did collaborate with AQ, and that question is addressed adequately by this article. Whether Saddam can be trusted is a different question entirely, and I don't think anyone involved in editing this page believes that he could be. Finally, Silverback, please stop tinkering with this page - you are constantly trying to restate the case in ways that fabricate the appearance of cooperation. If you have legitimate claims to add, great, but stop fine-tuning the language to favor your POV. For example, when the CIA says Saddam "might" work with terrorists in the future, they are speculating, not "concluding." I am trying to assume good faith here but it is very difficult when every change you make is driven by this agenda, and truth seems to be a secondary concern for you at best.--csloat 20:36, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Archive

could someone familiar with the discussions archive this thing with a move & copy whatever parts are still live back to talk? this thing is 'long. Derex 16:59, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

It looks to me like everything before ""Prague Connection" is highly disputed" could be safely archived. The later stuff is still current.--Silverback 17:59, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
hmmm, well that's a lot of 'live' stuff to copy. on the other hand, this is by far the longest talk page i've ever seen. it's just unwieldy & intimidating. does anyone mind if i 'archive' this with the understanding that current discussions should continue there; the archive page would still be 'live' until those discussions wind down. that way, we can have a fresh page for new topics? this seems to be a common talk-page problem for highly active articles. Derex 18:29, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Archive away! I would say only keep the most recent 4 or 5 sections. We have links to the archive to refer to other sections when we need to; the only reason I can see for keeping this stuff is so it can be referred to in future discussions when certain editors start repeating themselves and their arguments have already been answered. Certainly you could at least archive everything more than a couple weeks old.--csloat 20:39, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Silverback's destructive editing

Again, SB, I implore you to knock it off. I have asked on your user page as well, and encourage others who see Silverback's conduct as destructive to do so as well; if talking to him does not work perhaps there are grounds here for an RfC to get outside voices to at least look at what is going on here. Just to be clear on the issues I am laying them out below (though they have been discussed ad nauseum in the archived page):

  1. Able Danger. this is not relevant to this page. There are no newspaper articles or other available sources of information that tie Able Danger together with the purported Saddam/AQ connection. SB says that the Able Danger stuff impacts the credibility of the 911 Commission, but (1) that commission is only one of many sources on this page; (2) nobody has tied these things together in the mainstream media, and for SB to tie them together constitutes original research. The sentence SB writes - "Any 9/11 Commission conclusions may not be reliable because it rejected information that did not agree with its preconceived conclusions." - is sheer speculation and there is no evidence to support it that specifically relates to this issue.
  2. CIA conclusions: SB cites a line from the Senate report on the CIA's investigation as if it were the "conclusion" of the CIA. The CIA conclusion is clear that there was no Saddam/AQ cooperation. The passage cited speculates that Saddam "might" employ terrorists like AQ "if sufficiently desperate". This is hardly a "conclusion." The conclusion was that they did not do so, and the Senate concluded that the CIA's conclusions were justified.
  3. Minor wording changes to the following paragraph:
"Much of the evidence of alleged links between Iraq and al-Qaeda is based on speculation about meetings that may have taken place between Iraqi officials and al-Qaeda members. What took place at those meetings is unclear, but often the mere act of meeting has been taken as evidence of substantial collaboration. As terrorism analyst Evan Kohlman points out,"
SB wants to change the above to: "Some of the evidence of alleged links between Iraq and al-Qaeda is based on inferences about meetings that may have taken place between Iraqi officials and al-Qaeda members. What took place at those meetings is unclear, but the act of meeting has been taken as evidence of substantial collaboration. Terrorism analyst Evan Kohlman states that"
But it is clear that "Much" is more accurate; "Most" would be even more accurate; that "speculation" is far more accurate than "inferences" (hell, many of the supposed meetings most likely did not occur at all!). Most problematically, SB changes "often the mere act of meeting has been taken as evidence of substantial collaboration" to "the act of meeting has been taken as evidence of substantial collaboration", completely reversing the meaning of the sentence. The point that is backed up by the Kohlman quote that follows is that having meetings alone does not mean cooperation. SB is trying to distort things here.

Again, all these issues have been clearly indicated in the discussion (check the archive) and SB has refused to engage the arguments yet insists on repeating his position over and over and reverting the page without ever actually responding to the arguments.--csloat 09:42, 26 September 2005 (UTC)