Talk:Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda/Archive 9

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.

Contents

Defining the Bush Administration position

I just finished writing the section on Powell's speech. Earlier I described the Bush Administration as holding to the minority view that Saddam and al-Qaeda had a working relationship. But after working through the Powell speech before the UN, I have to wonder if I am correct. Powell points out several contacts and limited agreement. According to the Senate Report, everything Powell said was vetted and approved by the CIA who hold the majority position. The big difference seemed to be that Powell went out of his way to distance himself from the majority view that Saddam and al-Qaeda would not work together for ideological reasons. Powell stressed that Saddam had supported Islamic Jihad and therefore there was no reason to assume he would not support al-Qaeda. Powell highlighted some raw intelligence that would lead most people to the conclusion Saddam and al-Qaeda had a working relationship, but I am not certain he ever made the claim. It is possible the Bush Administration view is something between the majority view and the minority view. I'm wondering if we should not identify the Powell speech as the best definition of the Bush Administration position on the topic. This would leave the minority view to be held by certain members of the Intelligence Community and to journalists. It seems to me that this understanding would explain why the Bush Administration has not aggressively trumpeted the new translations of the OIF documents. Does this make sense? What are your thoughts?RonCram 16:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

OK don't call them (yet) minority or majority. For now, say what the "pure positions" are. Later on we can worry about mixtures of the pure positions.--CSTAR 16:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good. RonCram 16:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
The key elements of the Powell speech have been rejected by all major investigations and backtracked on by the Bush Admin; I think it's inaccurate to call that the Bush Administration view, unless we make it clear it is the pre-war view.--csloat 22:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Could you provide an alternative (maybe list more views?). I just want to produce a list we can all agree on saying, at the outset that the possible positions these: A) B) C) etc. --CSTAR 22:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I think it would be reasonable to list two major positions: the "consensus" position (that there is no evidence of substantial collaboration between Saddam and AQ) and the "minority" position that such evidence exists. Within each major position there are certainly different views on the specifics, and you even have people who have changed their views (e.g. the Bush Admin before and after the war; Michael Scheuer before and after his study; and allegedly Bob Kerrey after the OIF document dump, though the information on Kerry is still far too ambiguous). I think it is reasonable to include Mylroie and Feith as members of the minority view with some info about how their view is perhaps more on the fringe than say Powell's. But I don't think it needs a separate category. I also don't think it's a good idea to have a "bush admin view" category, since there are different people in the admin saying different things, and the official position seems to change dramatically after 2004.--csloat 22:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
OK I will try to rewrite it with this input. But I think I'm through for the day on this. Mi penitencia por hoy está hecha.--CSTAR 22:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. I believe the Bush Admin view needs its own category. Powell's UN speech delivered information fully vetted by the Intelligence Community. His only departure from the Intelligence Community view was his rejection of the concept that Saddam would not cooperate because of ideological reasons. If someone from the minority view had given Powell's speech, he would have pointed to a number of other reports of collaboration (that the CIA discounted). Powell's speech certainly does not fit in with the minority view either. csloat, why do you say the Bush Admin position change dramatically after 2004? Can you provide links for this assertion? RonCram 00:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
The bush admin position has changed; even Cheney now says there was no cooperation. I believe the 911 commission report had an impact on them but that is a guess. There are links to such claims in the timeline, I don't need to search them out again for you. Certainly you have done enough research on this to know it, Ron. As for Powell's speech, why don't you provide links to substantiate your assertion that it was "fully vetted" by the intel community? As you should be aware, that is false - in fact, some in the intel community have been very upset with the Curveball and al-Libi information that got stuck into that speech. Again, I'm not going to do your research for you on this right now because I am out of the country and have limited time for this stuff. The links, again, are on the timeline. After I get back to the states and have an afternoon or evening to devote to this, I'll be willing to provide more links, but again I just don't understand why you refuse to read the timeline.--csloat 07:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

csloat, I have not seen Cheney say there was no cooperation. I have seen Rumsfeld back off some of his positions. The official Admin position has not reputed the Powell speech. I did provide a link to show Powell's claim was fully vetted. If you would have bothered to read my rewrite you would have seen it. It is in the Senate Report on page 369. RonCram 13:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with drawing potential distinctions which in practice may not be there; so long as the article makes clear that placing an individual or group in one or another category may be a problem. --CSTAR 16:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry; Cheney has stated that the Atta in Prague theory has been "knocked down". I think that was March 2006. I'm not sure what his position is on other conspiracy theories but he has clearly backed off of that one. I did read your rewrite, Ron; that's why I had so many problems with it (there are still 16 specific arguments that I made against it that you have refused to respond to, by the way). The SSCI report from 2004 has not superceded the new information about al-Libi, Curveball, etc. that have by now fully discredited the Powell speech. Your claim that it has been "fully vetted" is misleading (as misleading as the speech itself! remember "mobile bio labs"?) The whole thing was a farce, and it would be funny if it hadn't led to the deaths of thousands of Americans and Iraqis, with no end yet in sight.--csloat 18:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
I did respond to your arguments. Look at the discussion above. If I missed one or two, please let me know what I missed and I will respond again. The Powell speech has not been discredited at all. David Kay is still a big believer that the "mobile labs" were there to manufacture a banned substance, but I believe he called them "mobile chemical labs." I know Rumsfeld has backed off the Atta claim and it would not surprise me if Cheney did also, but that does not change anything. The Atta connection was never part of the official Bush Admin position. Bush never claimed Saddam was responsible for 9/11. My rewrite makes all of this very clear. RonCram 20:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
You did address these nine arguments briefly, and I responded to each of your comments, and then you stopped responding. Perhaps it was an oversight. Since that point all you have done is repeat your press for links without addressing any of the arguments. As for the Powell speech, it is a joke, and everyone knows it. Perhaps you just missed this and this? But this article is not about fantasies of biological weapons shot from cartoon RVs. This is about the Saddam/AQ connection, and as far as Powell's speech goes, his comments about such a connection have been THOROUGHLY discredited. You might take a look at the recent Atlantic Monthly expose on Zarqawi for a focus on one of the main alleged "connections" listed by Powell. Before the OIF invasion, Zarqawi was working with neither Saddam nor bin Laden. As for Rumsfeld, he has backed off more than Atta, and you are well aware of that (or you should be). You should also be well aware that Cheney backed off Atta publicly in March. To say it was never part of the official Bush position is a little strange, given that it was mentioned by Cheney several times in the lead up to war. Anyway, we are nitpicking over details now - the big issue is that you have not yet offered a single credible reason that a massive rewrite is needed or even desirable at this point.--csloat 02:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
The Atlantic Monthly article also reaffirms that jordanian intelligence knew precisely where zarqawi was in iraq, prior to the war. while the article does say that zarqawi had no relationship with saddam, it doesn't address at all Abdullah's statement that jordan told saddam where zarqawi was, asked for him to be turned over, and received no response. while a good article (and i suggest everyone read it) it had holes in it and didn't answer some pressing questions. Anthonymendoza 13:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Why should it address such a claim? I'm not sure what that claim has to do with anything relevant to the article. The article does clearly indicate that Zarqawi had no relationship to Saddam, as well as the fact that he was not working with Osama. It also has many other interesting details about Zarqawi and the myth that the US government helped create surrounding him.--csloat 21:37, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
according to the abc news translations, Iraqi intelligence viewed zarqawi as al qaeda. that's why it's relevant. osama didn't trust zarqawi, but they did communicate and used each other, according to the article.Anthonymendoza 02:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't see the connection to these points, sorry. It wasn't the point of the article to address such things. And as far as this wikipedia article is concerned, I don't see how either assertion (that Iraqi intel thought Zarqawi was AQ, or that Zarqawi communicated with OBL) supports the claim that Saddam conspired with al Qaeda. "Contacts" or perceived contacts do not equal cooperation.--csloat 03:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
By the way, if you have read the Atlantic piece, and you claim above that you are not sold on the conspiracy theory, why is it that in all the extensive changes you have made to the timeline in the past week or so, you have only included information that suggests that Zarqawi might actually constitute a link between Saddam and al Qaeda? Why have you not bothered to include the (often quite categorical) claims from the author of the Atlantic piece indicated what she was told by Israeli and Jordanian and US intel officials on this matter, yet you have made it a point to include far less conclusive information?--csloat 04:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
well, for starters, whose to say that contacts don't equal cooperation. maybe they do, maybe they don't, the story is still unraveling. and i'm not going to defend myself again from conspiracy charges from someone whose views defined "conspiracy theory" on the plame affair page. there is alot of information from unbiased sources that zarqawi constituted a link between saddam and al qaeda, so i included them. the atlantic article is one piece, not the definitive piece. i tried to incorporate it into the article but the entire article is not available on the web yet. as soon as it is, i {or you} can put it in. just because the atlantic monthly says one thing, doesn't automatically discredit all other sources, as you seem to suggest. i think i've been quite fair in what i've brought to the timeline. Anthonymendoza 12:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
You ask, who's to say contacts don't equal cooperation. Let's start with former counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke: "[t]he simple fact is that lots of people, particularly in the Middle East, pass along many rumors and they end up being recorded and filed by U.S. intelligence agencies in raw reports. That does not make them 'intelligence'. Intelligence involves analysis of raw reports, not merely their enumeration or weighing them by the pound. Analysis, in turn, involves finding independent means of corroborating the reports. Did al-Qaeda agents ever talk to Iraqi agents? I would be startled if they had not. I would also be startled if American, Israeli, Iranian, British, or Jordanian agents had somehow failed to talk to al-Qaeda or Iraqi agents. Talking to each other is what intelligence agents do, often under assumed identities or 'false flags,' looking for information or possible defectors." Larry Wilkerson, former Chief of Staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell, told Voice of America that "Saddam Hussein had his agenda and al-Qaida had its agenda, and those two agendas were incompatible. And so if there was any contact between them, it was a contact that was rebuffed rather than a contact that led to meaningful relationships between them." And terrorism analyst Evan Kohlman points out, "While there have been a number of promising intelligence leads hinting at possible meetings between al-Qaeda members and elements of the former Baghdad regime, nothing has been yet shown demonstrating that these potential contacts were historically any more significant than the same level of communication maintained between Osama bin Laden and ruling elements in a number of Iraq's Persian Gulf neighbors, including Saudi Arabia, Iran, Yemen, Qatar, and Kuwait." These quotes are all from the article. You say "the story is still unraveling" -- that may be true for certain news outlets (and perhaps - though ambiguously - for Bob Kerrey, as Ron is fond of reminding us), but it does not appear true for the intelligence community or for the Pentagon or the State Department. The Pentagon review of the OIF documents has not brought up anything that requires reconsidering this story, and the major intelligence agencies who have investigated this question have not reopened the issue. When they do, we can certainly note that on the page. As for conspiracy, I am not trying to charge you with anything - the fact is this is a conspiracy theory, it may or may not be true, but the consensus of experts is that there is no evidence to substantiate it. I asked about your zarqawi edits because I believe there are POV issues with them -- you are clearly aware of the information in the atlantic article, yet you choose only to present information from other sources that is far less compelling than that information. It appears as if the only reason you chose to present that information and not the atlantic info is that it supports one side of the question. I'm not sure about your complaint about my plame edits -- it appears to me that on that page we have two conspiracy theories, the "liberal" one that men in Cheney's office conspired to attack Wilson (about which more evidence has recently come out to support it), and the "conservative" one that Plame sent her husband to Niger in order to undermine the Bush administration (about which one is required to believe that Plame and Wilson knew over a year ahead of time how Bush would react to events that had not yet transpired). To me, one conspiracy theory is far more credible than the other. But in any case, as far as the Zarqawi thing goes, I was questioning the one-sidedness of your edits, not attacking conspiracies per se. Conspiracies do occur -- and my view of 9/11 is as much a conspiracy theory as the Laurie Mylroie view. I believe that nineteen hijackers conspired with representatives of Osama bin Laden to attack America. I do not believe they conspired with Saddam. So let's stop treating every use of the term conspiracy as pejorative. Finally, I will get around to adding the atlantic monthly stuff when I have time; an article does not need to be on the web to be quoted in an encyclopedia. And the Atlantic does not make all their articles available to non-subscribers, so I don't think we will see it on the web anytime soon.--csloat 14:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
i seem to remember you pushing the idea that rove was turning state's evidence in the discussion pages. but anyway, i think this sums up my position on the Saddam/al-Qaeda issue. it's taken from the new yorker article from 2003: Gates, who was C.I.A. director under George H. W. Bush, said that the evidence linking Saddam to Al Qaeda is not irrefutable, but he noted that ambiguous evidence is an occupational hazard in intelligence work. Gates suggested that the current debate over Iraq's ties to terrorism is reminiscent of a debate about the Soviet Union twenty years ago. Then, he said, "you had analysts in the C.I.A. who said, 'Absolutely not, it would be contrary to their interests to support unpredictable, uncontrollable groups.' There were other analysts who said, 'Baloney.' They had a lot of good history, and circumstantial reporting on their side, but they didn't have good evidence. Once the Soviet Union collapsed, and we got hold of the East German Stasi records, we learned, of course, that both the East Germans and the Soviets were supporting Baader-Meinhof and other terrorist groups." and a good friend of mine who worked in the FBI on terrorism related issues in the clinton administration also has told me to be careful of reading too much into the conclusions of intelligence agencies. he has said repeatedly that unless hard evidence can be found, the intelligence community will always side on "inconclusive". he has also told me that the biggest problem facing US intelligence is the lack of arab agents. the reason the OIF documents are taking so long to translate is because the intelligence community has no one to translate them[1]. lack of arab agents is also why we missed stopping 9/11 and why the intelligence on iraq WMD was off. the senate report on prewar intelligence states that we relied heavily on foreign intelligence to come to our conclusions on iraq/al-Qaeda, which supports this analysis of US shortcomings in the arab world. you cite three people above, two of which are avid bush critics. and you dismiss bob kerrey's change of thinking, which is significant despite how much you try and discredit it (although on what grounds i'm not sure). and then you accuse me of pushing a pov. do you seriously believe history has already been written on this topic and that as time passes more relevant information will not come out that may change everyone's thinking? this page should be an open-ended article, not a door shut argument. if the evidence in the coming years continues to support a "no relationship whatsoever" conclusion, than that will be the conclusion. but right now it's a gray area and should be treated as such. Anthonymendoza 18:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
First, Rove turning state's is hardly a conspiracy theory, and we still don't know whether it is true or false. It doesn't seem unreasonable at all. Second, you're right about a lack of Arab translators, but that hardly proves anything. We didn't need translators to see 9/11 coming; there was a PDB on Bush's desk about it, and it was open knowledge that OBL was planning to attack targets in the US. Third, if Saddam orchestrated or conspired with al-Qaeda, why has so little evidence come to light? A few meetings here and there in the 1990s is it? Where's the money trail? Where are the weapons? Why have the "gases" not been used? Now that Saddam is deposed, why are people in custody still protecting the alleged secret? It's well known that OBL hates Saddam; why would he continue to protect him? We have excellent evidence of money and weapons and training and intelligence circulating between Pakistan and al Qaeda, between UAE and Qaeda, between Saudis and Qaeda, etc., and we got that with the same translation problems that you cite in terms of Iraq. And we don't have the benefit of having invaded those countries and occupied them and gone through every document with a fine tooth comb. The Pentagon has been through the OIF documents pretty carefully; you don't have to translate an entire document to be able to discard it as relevant to the alleged Saddam/AQ connection. Why is Kerrey significant? I don't understand. He has not told us what made him change his mind, or if he has even really changed his mind! All he says is that certain documents (which ones?) "tie [Saddam] into a circle that meant to damage the United States." That's just not very helpful. If the Commission begins having new meetings to re-address this question, then we will have something interesting; otherwise, I'm just not convinced. I don't see this as a grey area. I'm not saying it's an open and shut case, but I am saying that every investigation has concluded there is no evidence of collaboration. Those are the facts, whether or not they comport with what we might like to be true.--csloat 21:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Sloat, you need to stick with making statements you can support. Your unsupported assertions are just wrong and everyone can see it.

I gave you a link that showed the Senate committee had looked at the portion of Powell’s speech that discussed Saddam’s support for terrorism and found that it was well vetted.(Page 369 of the Senate Report) You respond by giving me two links about a portion of Powell’s speech that dealt with WMD. I had already admitted the Senate Report discussed problems with that portion of Powell’s speech. Instead of dealing with the facts you continue to make assertions you cannot back up with links.

Regarding Zarqawi, I will admit that some of more recent evidence has been contradictory. Some recently translated documents shows a link between Saddam and Zarqawi. Other documents say Saddam wanted Zarqawi arrested. This can be confusing, however both documents may be accurate. They could portray a changing relationship. As I pointed out above, Saddam supported Abu Nidal for years before having him killed. But I also have to point out that other documents show IIS picked Zarqawi up and let him go.

You claimed above that Cheney changed his view and now says there was no cooperation between Saddam and al-Qaeda, but you could not support that claim with a link. I ask you once again to deal with facts. Do not make an assertion unless you can support it with a link. Cheney's view on this important point has not changed, only Cheney's view on the Atta connection changed.

Regarding Cheney and the Bush Admin position, you have to realize that Bush is the spokesman for the Admin. Cheney is not the president. Cheney raised the possibility Saddam was involved in 9/11, but never claimed Saddam’s involvement was the reason we were going to war. You have never provided a link for this claim because you cannot. I ask you once again to deal with facts. RonCram 06:37, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I responded again to your nine arguments you put forward. However, I do not see this discussion advancing if you are unwilling to provide links to your claims. Either provide a link in the future or drop the claim. RonCram 06:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Cram, you need to stop insulting me. The links are in the timeline on the page Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. I suggest you read it.--csloat 21:37, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Sloat, I never insulted you. I have read the timeline and there is no support among the links for the majority of assertions you make. That is why I asked for links. RonCram 00:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
That's incorrect. Every assertion I made was supported by the information in the timeline. Which assertion do you claim is not supported?--csloat 03:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it's possible to define the Bush Administration position as something static. A history or timeline of the Bush Administration position would be more self-consistent, as well as more informative.
Regarding the CIA's position, that's much more difficult to assess. Especially given the complication of distinguishing the OSP's position from the CIA's position, the unconventional top-down approach to intelligence gathering that the adminstration pressed, and other complicating matters. Kevin Baastalk 16:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
What I had originally hoped would be possible, is a list of what the positions are, not necessarilly a list who holds them. How to build such a list?
  1. There is a set of relevant assertions about the Saddam Al-qaeda connection; one of these assertions might be "Atta met with Iraqi agents in Prague."
  2. A position is an assignment of truth values to each one of these relevant assertions.
Now as Kevin has noted there isn't any reason to assume the "positions" are static. But at the very least it be helpful if there is conceptual basis on which everybody here could agree on,
Moreover at this stage, arguments about whether a position is valid or not, are not going to move this forward.
BTW I remain agnostic whether or not Ron's version is better or worse than the existing version or whether the existing version is NPOV. To use a popular phrase "I won't go there".--CSTAR 16:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

CSTAR, it may be possible to put together such a list but it would be too large to fit in the Intro. It could possibly have its own section "Definition of positions" or something similar. I am unclear on the meaning of "an assignment of truth values to each of the relevant assertions." Can you give me an example of what you mean exactly? RonCram 00:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the element of time, the positions have been largely static. Certainly individuals in the Bush Admin changed their view on the possibility of the Atta connection. But an openness to the idea Atta was in Prague is not the same as belief Saddam was behind 9/11. The official position of the Administration never claimed Saddam was behind 9/11 (even if Bush and other officials were privately suspicious of Saddam's involvement). I just do not see the change by Cheney and Rumsfeld as being significant enough to mention in the Intro. It could certainly be mentioned elsewhere. We have to list at least three views. The Intelligence Community's view has not changed at all. The Mylroie "false flag" view has not changed either. RonCram 00:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

There are only two views that need to be indicated here - the view that Saddam and AQ did conspire, and the view that they did not. We can include Mylroie's view as a subset of #1. But it is not notable enough to constitute a third view on its own, as I noted above.--csloat 03:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
There is one view that Saddam and AQ did not conspire. However, there appear to be many distinct views that Saddam and AQ did conspire. I have tried not to express any opinion on what constitutes a notable view. I was just trying to begin by listing what all the logically possible views were. However, there is little interest in this approach (maybe it's not even viable), so it's clear I have little more to contribute to this discussion.--CSTAR 04:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. There are several views that they did not conspire, as noted above. There is no way to claim that the views of Mike Scheuer, Richard Clarke, Rohan Gunaratna, and Loretta Napoleoni, for example, are the same. Scheuer and Clarke are extremely at odds over certain details. Gunaratna does not clearly agree with either of them. But such differences are simply not that notable for the purpose of separation in this article. That's my point here. While I agree with Ron that Mylroie's fringe view should be noted here, it does not deserve the prominence of the various Bush Admin views on the matter nor of the consensus view of intelligence experts.--csloat 04:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
OK that only reinforces the substance of my point; but in any case, I would like to withdraw from this discussion since my participation here serves no (useful) purpose.--CSTAR 04:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

this is from the New York Times[2]:

President Bush and Vice President Cheney said yesterday that they remain convinced that Saddam Hussein's government had a long history of ties to Al Qaeda, a day after the commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks reported that its review of classified intelligence found no evidence of a "collaborative relationship" that linked Iraq to the terrorist organization.
Mr. Bush, responding to a reporter's question about the report after a White House cabinet meeting yesterday morning, said: "The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and Al Qaeda" is "because there was a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda."
He said: "This administration never said that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated between Saddam and Al Qaeda. We did say there were numerous contacts between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. For example, Iraqi intelligence officers met with bin Laden, the head of Al Qaeda, in the Sudan. There's numerous contacts between the two."

hasn't this always been the position of the bush administration? what is the confusion?Anthonymendoza 18:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

That was its position in 2004. Comments from 2002-3 implied that Saddam was likely involved in the 9/11 attacks. Polls from the time period showed that over 70% of Americans believed Saddam was behind 9/11; this belief seemed to be encouraged by comments from Bush. Since 2004 the Bush Admin has backtracked and said that they haven't seen any evidence of Saddam's cooperation with al Qaeda (though of course they continue to maintain that contacts existed, which is true). I don't think there's any confusion, really; the Bush position has changed with the times for obvious reasons -- more research and more conclusive statements from investigative bodies have likely convinced them that they were wrong (or at least that they are unable to continue maintaining the position credibly).--csloat 20:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
can you source that bush implied saddam was behind 9/11? i've never heard this. this article from 2003 contradicts what you are saying [3]. Anthonymendoza 16:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
this quote doesn't imply that bush thought saddam was behind 9/11: "The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11th, 2001. With those attacks, the terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States. And war is what they got." the bush administration has always said iraq is a battle in the overall war on terrorism that came about as a result of 9/11. Anthonymendoza 16:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
this is from 2002: "Ms Rice told American television that the US Government did not contend that Iraq was behind the 11 September attacks on New York and Washington."[4]Anthonymendoza 00:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Ron's POV version

Rather than responding to any of the arguments against his POV version, which is a massive rewrite of this page, Ron has continued to update that version. While I appreciate the hard work he is putting into that, I also think two things must come first: (1) a justification for a massive POV-shifting rewrite. He has asserted over and over that there are POV issues with the current version of this page, yet has failed to indicate what those issues are specifically, or why those issues cannot be addressed with specific fine tuning rather than a massive rewrite. (2) the arguments against Ron's specific version have not been addressed. Besides the nine arguments I made above, I have also offered specific reasons that the assertion of four or more perspectives on the Saddam/AQ question does not belong in the article, yet Ron continues to edit as if that were a consensus position. Ron has consistently refused to address the arguments against his version other than to press for "links," ignoring the hundreds of links that are already in the timeline. Every argument I made was based on something in the timeline. Rather than have Ron work on his own separate article, I think it would be best if we both, and anyone else who would like to be involved, work together to improve the article that exists. I also offered suggestions for a more modest rewrite, starting with issues that Ron and I agree on rather than hilighting points of disagreement that are likely to stall progress. Neither Ron nor anyone else has been willing to discuss that version at this point, although I believe that version is similar to something CSTAR proposed earlier.

I realize this page is extremely contentious given that there are two dramatically opposed POVs on this issue. One issue that will remain a sticking point is the question of how much notability to give to arguments that have been thoroughly rejected by the intelligence community, the mainstream media, and even at this point much of the Bush Administration. While it is notable that certain arguments were once embraced by the Bushies - notably, Atta in Prague, or Zarqawi as a connection between Saddam and Osama - Ron's continual assertion that these are issues that are "still being debated" are extremely misleading. I don't mind if we indicate that certain voices still support this view, but I do contest the idea that these voices should be presented as if they were as significant and notable as the resounding chorus of experts who argue in the other direction. We can count on one or two hands the number of people who still forward such claims. Ron even finds it necessary to hilight voices such as Mike Scheuer in his 2002 book, even though Scheuer has publicly stated that after conducting a study of the evidence available to the CIA between 2002 and 2004 he has come to the opposite conclusion. I feel that it is immensely dishonest to submit Scheuer's name as evidence that some intel analysts believe in a Saddam/AQ conspiracy when he has himself said that after studying the evidence he no longer believes in it.

There are a few options for proceeding forward: (1) we can take a vote on the two versions -- the current version with or without the minor changes I suggested (which I have not developed but only introduced), vs. Ron's version (which is much further developed), and be done with it. Ron and I can offer our arguments for each version and we can take a vote -- if there is consensus that Ron's version is better or less POV than the current version (with or without minor repairs), then I will back off. I think such a vote is premature, but I also sense that a lot of people are getting sick of this discussion in talk and would like to just be done with it. (2) I (and others) can start editing Ron's version. So far I have held back from making edits to Ron's version as I don't accept his contention that there is any need for such a massive rewrite to begin with, and because I don't want to get into edit wars on the talk page over a hypothetical version. Needless to say, I have very strong objections to his version (nine of which I spelled out above, and which have not been substantively answered), so the changes I would make in it would be quite significant. (3) we can put Ron's version on a separate page and I can indicate my problems with it in a footnote-style as someone suggested a week or so ago. That is a long-term process, but it is one I am willing to engage in if there is some consensus that we should let Ron's version set an agenda at this point. I would rather that Ron address the question of why he thinks such a rewrite is necessary before we get to that point, but if he is not willing to do so, I would still be willing to do this. It's not something I will be able to do overnight, however, but if that is the only way to get Ron to address my arguments against it, then so be it.

I've been trying to bend over backwards here to work with Ron on this but I refuse to compromise on issues of truth and accuracy. It is also very difficult to engage in a dialogue when the other party to the dialogue not only refuses to engage the arguments I have made but also continues to proceed as if the arguments were never made. I feel as if Ron is trying to present his new version as a fait accompli rather than discussing its merits. Again, I appreciate that he has worked very hard on that version, but I don't think it is right to steamroll ahead with it without engaging in the dialogue about it (and, indeed, without even presenting an argument as to why it is necessary to have a new version).--csloat 15:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Sloat, I have dealt with your nine objections. It does not do any good to pretend I have not responded. Your claim that you have bent over backwards to work with me is completely false. You make a bunch of assertions that are not supported by any sources in the timeline and you refuse to provide links to support your claims. I brought in CSTAR to help mediate the discussion and to help make the article better. You chased him off with your intransigence. CSTAR made some valuable suggestions before he left and so I incorporated them into the rewrite. Mr. Billion made a few comments and I immediately made his suggested changes as well (or clarified the issue). I would certainly welcome your comments with links in the reference style format as CSTAR suggested a while back. I continue to look for bright people who are willing to mediate this discussion. RonCram 22:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Cram, you have not dealt with them; what you have done is offered cryptic responses which I then refuted. As it stands, you have not responded to the refutations. Hope that clears up what I mean. Every assertion I made there was supported with sources in the timeline, as I have pointed out over and over again. Your claim that I have "chased off" anyone is a personal attack, and I don't see the merit of it. CSTAR above withdrew from the discussion about the number of different positions because he didn't see it going anywhere. My position is simple - there are two notable positions here. Why have you not incorporated this information into your POV version? Why have you not yet offered a single reason for changing the current version? As for the footnote style commentary, please move your version to a separate page and we can begin that long and unnecessary process. But until you refute the arguments against that version and offer reasons why the current version should be radically changed, the exercise is merely academic.--csloat 23:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Sloat, if you go to your nine objections [5], you will see that I have answered your objections. You replied in the middle of my answers and so I offered my rejoinder immediately after your reply. By the way, your replies do not meet the definition of a "refutation." You have not replied to my rejoinder. None of your assertions have been supported with sources. You always claim the sources are in the timeline, but that is not true. And the only time you have supplied links, they did not support your claim. (You had claimed the Powell speech before the UN was incorrect regarding Saddam and al-Qaeda. Your links had to do with the WMD portion of Powell's speech. I pointed out that page 369 of the Senate Report says the terror portion of Powell's speech was well vetted by the Intelligence Community). The fact you chased CSTAR off with your intransigence is not a personal attack. Anyone reading the Talk page can see the truth of it. Your position that there are only two notable positions is clearly wrong. I made the changes suggested by CSTAR for the Intro. CSTAR's question what the different views believe got me thinking about the two main questions, so I added them to the Intro: A. Did Saddam and al-Qaeda have a cooperative relationship? B. Did Saddam support the attacks of 9/11? Each of the four main positions answers these questions differently. You know that I gave my reasons for rewriting the article. I will give them again. 1. The current article is strongly anti-Bush in its POV. This is contrary to wikipedia policy. The article does not in any way represent the debate that occurred inside the Intelligence Community or why the Bush Administration rejected the claim Saddam and al-Qaeda would not cooperate because of differences in ideology. You complain that my rewrite constitutes a "POV shift" and I admit that is true. A shift to NPOV is required. If you can find anything in my rewrite that is POV, I would be willing to consider any changes (as I already have with Mr. Billion). 2. The current article is poorly written and argues with itself. Whenever evidence of a possible relationship is given, it is immediately followed with a sentence saying there is no evidence of a cooperative relationship (or the statement the CIA, NSA, DIA, et al have fully investigated the question and determined no relationship existed). The arguing within the article is annoying and muddies the issue. The rewrite is more clearly written, flows more logically and is much more readable. It lays out the facts with appropriate links to support the facts and allows the reader to research the views and make his own decisions. 3. The rewrite is far more accurate and provides more historical information. It also provides more information about the intelligence gathering and analyzing process which is so important to understand this debate. The article in its current form is not salvageable. RonCram 03:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Ahh, so you did, Ron, a couple of days ago; my apologies for missing it completely. I will read and respond shortly; thank you for continuing the dialogue. I will also provide more specific links in my responses, as you still seem unwilling to read the information in the timeline. As for Powell, you are in fact incorrect about that. Powell's speech may have been vetted before the SSCI did their report but it has now been pretty soundly rejected by the intel community, and it is also clear that the intel community warned the white house that some of the info was incorrect before the powell speech (I refer specifically to the DIA analysis of the al-Libi statements that Powell based some of his comments on, which was on Bush's desk in February 2002). See here for a link (also in the timeline, of course).
I did not chase CSTAR off the page; and I don't see the need for either of us to speak for him. Your claim that my position is "clearly wrong" is simply an assertion, Ron; I gave a clear analysis of why there are only two real positions to discuss here; Mylroie's is a subset of the position that Saddam and AQ did collaborate. I could easily break down major differences between the positions of several people who believe they did not collaborate; for example, the differences between the State Dept, the CIA, and the Pentagon's positions, or between various terrorism experts. But why would that be necessary, except as a subset of the major position that they all share - that the two entities did not collaborate.
Now, let's examine your reasons for changing the article one by one; I think this is the major issue that needs to be dealt with. I hope the formatting below is OK for such a discussion.--csloat 03:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

JUSTIFICATION for Rewrite

Below is RonCram's justification for a rewrite; I am sectioning it off like this so others can easily follow the arguments. I realize both Ron and I type a lot here, and important things have a tendency to get buried, so hopefully this will help.--csloat 05:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

(Ron's argument): 1. The current article is strongly anti-Bush in its POV. This is contrary to wikipedia policy. The article does not in any way represent the debate that occurred inside the Intelligence Community or why the Bush Administration rejected the claim Saddam and al-Qaeda would not cooperate because of differences in ideology. You complain that my rewrite constitutes a "POV shift" and I admit that is true. A shift to NPOV is required. If you can find anything in my rewrite that is POV, I would be willing to consider any changes (as I already have with Mr. Billion).

The article is not anti-Bush. What sentence specifically appears anti-Bush? Let us examine that sentence and rewrite it. To assert that the article as a whole is anti-Bush is not helpful. Your second claim here, that the article does not represent the debate in the intel community, is also incorrect. The main conclusions of the intelligence community are cited in the main body of the article, and the details are discussed in the timeline, including the role of the OSP. If you believe there is missing information I am not sure why such information cannot be added to the current version. As for the POV in your rewrite, let's get the rewrite on a separate page (like this, for instance) and we shall deal with the POV issues there in the footnote manner -- frankly, the entire rewrite is extremely POV and factually incorrect on many issues. But the burden is on you to dispute the POV of the current version; that is an essential first condition before even considering a massive rewrite. The specific POV issues you name do not seem like things that cannot be addressed with minor changes.--csloat 03:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

(Ron's argument): 2. The current article is poorly written and argues with itself. Whenever evidence of a possible relationship is given, it is immediately followed with a sentence saying there is no evidence of a cooperative relationship (or the statement the CIA, NSA, DIA, et al have fully investigated the question and determined no relationship existed). The arguing within the article is annoying and muddies the issue. The rewrite is more clearly written, flows more logically and is much more readable. It lays out the facts with appropriate links to support the facts and allows the reader to research the views and make his own decisions.

Again, what is poorly written specifically? I don't doubt there are many sentences that could be better written, but that is not what we are discussing -- you are advocating an entire rewrite based on an assertion that there is poor writing. The "argues with itself" claim is something I don't disagree with, but that is the nature of an article where there is significant dispute. Shifting the POV of the article so that it definitively claims that Saddam either did or did not work with AQ would solve that problem, but then of course we have a massive POV and accuracy problem. The arguing in the article is essential when there are pieces of evidence that respond to the claims discussed. Are you seriously suggesting that we should present only one side of the issue for readability's sake? I leave aside the question of whether the rewrite is written well as we are discussing the current version here.--csloat 03:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

(Ron's argument): 3. The rewrite is far more accurate and provides more historical information. It also provides more information about the intelligence gathering and analyzing process which is so important to understand this debate. The article in its current form is not salvageable.

The issue here is not the rewrite but whether there are flaws in the current article. What exactly is inaccurate about the current article? Why can it not be salvaged? As for providing more information, why can we not add what is missing to the current version?--csloat 03:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Archive

Does anyone mind if I archive a lot of this page...probably into two archives? It's well over 300kb's at this point. If there are sections you prefer to not archive at this time, let me know. I'll wait at least 12 hours before I archive.--MONGO 17:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

There are ongoing discussions of these nine arguments as well as this proposition, so I'd say don't archive that stuff at least.--csloat 21:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
MONGO, please do not archive the rewrite. That is the core of the discussion. RonCram 21:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

FOX News uncovers documents

A former member of the Iraq Survey Group has analyzed documents gathered in Iraq after the invasion for FOX News exclusively (which has me being skeptical). Two documents, a training manual and a 1999 IIS notebook, have been translated and analyzed to show that an Arab army, possibly Iraqi, had a presence in Afghanistan before 9/11. I ask Wikipedia to examine these new allegations made by Fox News and this former ISG member. Below is the link to the Fox News article. -Amit

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,202277,00.html

Color me skeptical too; Ray Robison has been shown to have lied about a number of things, so, as with the IIS notebook also mentioned in the article, I'll be waiting for independent verification of these documents before making any judgements. It is interesting though that the article identifies an "Arab government" as "most likely Saddam's" but makes nothing clear about this -- is Iraq named or not? If not, how do we know it is "most likely" Iraq? It will definitely be interesting to see what we learn from this information.--csloat 21:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
where has Ray Robinson been shown to have lied in the past. you should always source claims like this. i'd be curious to see any research you have on him. Anthonymendoza 18:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Steven Birmingham did the work on this; the discussion is on the talk page for the Operation Iraqi Freedom documents article. There are links to the relevant blog entries there.--csloat 19:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
i read the discussion and still don't see how he's lied in the past. besides, robinson's team translated the fox documents, not robinson himself. i don't see anything to suggest the translations are made up or wrong. Anthonymendoza 16:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Atta in Prague

I have started the Atta in Prague document based on what is in the timeline here. I think it's a good idea to break out the longer sections of the timeline into their own articles so that the information is more readable.--csloat 05:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Timeline

Anthony has made a large number of edits to the timeline that involve adding quotes from articles and putting those dates in the timeline. I have stayed out of it up until now, but there is something extremely problematic and even deceptive about these edits. First, the timeline dates should indicate dates something important is said to have occurred, regardless of the date of the article. The problem with Anthony's approach is that we have the same information duplicated several times over (e.g. Hijazi meetings, Zarqawi's alleged treatment in Baghdad for a leg that turned out never to have been broken, etc.) This is deceptive because many of these claims are answered in other parts of the timeline - Anthony's approach allows for the information to be re-asserted without the response, so a reader who glances only at parts of the timeline will not realize, for example, that Zarqawi's leg was never broken, that Abu Wa'el was most likely a spy rather than a "negotiator," etc. It is not practical to have information repeated all over the timeline like this, and accuracy requires that if anthony wants to add another paragraph re-asserting the abu wael claim, that he also include the response to that claim (for example). Second, the timeline could be expanded indefinitely in this approach -- I am a little concerned that it is becoming completely useless. After all, hundreds of articles have come out indicating that there is no link between Saddam and al Qaeda -- should I add each one to the timeline independently with a date? I'm going to ask that Anthony undo his recent edits and add the information that is necessary according to the dates when events occurred rather than articles were published. Rather than rushing to add every vague quote in here -- and some of these quotes are pretty vague -- add the information where it is necessary. Use the "find" function on your browser, you will find that many of the claims you are adding already exist on the timeline! If the quote adds no new information, leave it out; if it adds something important, put that information in only and link the article. Thanks!--csloat 00:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

i don't know how closely you've been keeping track of this page, but the al-Libi story appears TEN times in the timeline. i have deliberately tried not to be redundant in my edits. if i have been redundant, please correct me, but don't say i'm cluttering the timeline when it was cluttered before i began editing.Anthonymendoza 01:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Calm down. My point is that we don't need this sort of redundance, no matter who is doing it. The problem is that you are adding items to the timeline based on date of publication. It is not a notable event that such and such magazine published this or that article. In many cases -- e.g. Abu Wa'el, Zarqawi, Hijazi -- the item in the article is already mentioned elsewhere on the timeline. This article will just grow and grow if that is the case, since we will then have to add to each magazine article the information that Abu Wa'el was a spy, that Zarqawi's leg was not broken, that meetings with Hijazi went nowhere, etc. Ideally the timeline would just indicate dates of things occurring (e.g. 1994 - meeting with Hijazi) rather than dates of articles being published (e.g. 2001 - Time publishes article about 1994 meeting with Hijazi). Does that make sense?--csloat 03:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
i think in some cases the date of publication takes precedence. the intro states "The question of a working relationship between Saddam and al-Qaeda is still being debated", and adding new information about old events furthers the debate. for example, the new fox news translations could be added to 1999, but adding them to 2006 shows the reader that this was recently disclosed, and thus shows how the debate is continuing. that is my rationale. if a consensus disagrees with this, i'll be happy to change it. but a major problem with the page is redudancy and lack of organization. i don't think i should be singled out for the cause of this. feel free to discuss issues like this with me on my talk page too, rather than singling me out on the discussion page. Anthonymendoza 18:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
I only mentioned you because you did this; didn't mean to single you out. It's the issue I'm concerned with, not you, which is why this is here and not your talk page -- I think we should reach some consensus about what entries to the timeline should achieve. I agree w/your rationale on the FOX documents, but not on the edits about Hijazi, Ansar al-Islam, Zarqawi, etc. These edits duplicate information that is already on the timeline but add them to different dates based on the publication date. I am tempted to go through and duplicate additional information on each of those edits to place the Hijazi, Zarqawi, etc. stories in context, but I think it would be better to just delete those entries and add any new info from those articles to the appropriate parts of the timeline. I really don't mean for any of this to be personal.--csloat 19:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)