Talk:Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda link allegations/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions about Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda link allegations. 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.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

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 [1]

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) [2]

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)

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. [3] [4]

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 ) [5] and in an offer to Osama of asylum in Iraq (Page 134). [6] 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. [7]

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 Baas^{talk: 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 Baas^{talk: 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 Baas^{talk: 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?

[8] Kevin Baas^{talk: 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 Baas^{talk: 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 Baas^{talk: 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 Baas^{talk: 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 Baas^{talk: 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 Baas^{talk: 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 Baas^{talk: 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 Baas^{talk: 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 Baas^{talk: 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 Baas^{talk: 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. [9] -- 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[10]). 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? [11] 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? [12]

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) [13] For unexplained reasons, Clarke came to change his view. However, former Secretary of Defense William Cohen has not. (Page 9) [14]" 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 Baas^{talk: 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."[15] 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." [16] 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 [17] 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)