Jump to content

Talk:Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda link allegations/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12

Article should not argue with itself

Below is an excerpt from the "Viewpoints" section. The section is supposed to introduce the views of the four major players in the debate. It currently reads like this:

The Bush Administration view was influenced in part by the "false flag" view of Laurie Mylroie, whose answers to the questions followed along the lines that not only did Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda have a cooperative relationship, but also that the Iraqi regime supported the 9/11 attacks as well. Very few people share Mylroie's view but her book on the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center was very influential among several top Bush Administration officials. Mylroie claims Saddam used a "false flag" to attack the US on 9/11 and blame al-Qaeda for it.[citation needed] Conservative terrorism expert Dr. Robert S. Leiken of the Nixon Center noted that Mylroie "also believes Saddam perpetrated 9-11 in spite of the fact that the joint FBI-INS-police PENTBOM investigation, the FBI program of voluntary interviews and numerous other post-9-11 inquiries, together comprising probably the most comprehensive criminal investigation in history—chasing down 500,000 leads and interviewing 175,000 people -- has turned up no evidence of Iraq's involvement; nor has the extensive search of post-Saddam Iraq by the Kay and Duelfer commission and US troops combing through Saddam’s computers."[2]

We need to make clear that the "Viewpoints" section only introduces the views. We certainly want to state this view is held by a tiny minority of people. However, what critics say about the view should be reserved for the proper place in the body of the article. I propose providing a "Critics of this view" section for all of the views. In this way, each view is presented without bias and critics of each view can state their objections without bias. RonCram 17:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

No, Ron. If the article presents a view that is known to be bullshit by the FBI, we should not hide that fact from readers in order to avoid "arguing with itself." If mylroie's view is presented, the fact that her view is totally discredited must be presented too.--csloat 20:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Sloat, I am certain it was accidental, but your last edit cut off my comment and my signature. I have restored them. Regarding your view that the article should argue with itself, I strongly disagree. This is one of the major problems with the article now and it totally destroys readability. There is a proper place to discuss the relative merits and demerits of each view. It is absolutely fine to say the view is held by a small minority of people... most readers will understand that. When introducing viewpoints there is nothing to be gained by quoting experts who say the other experts are wrong. That can be covered in the body of the article. RonCram 05:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Let me get this straight - you think the article should only present one side of the issue, your side? Forget it Ron. If Mylroie's view is put forth, the consensus of experts' opinion of Mylroie's view is being put forth as well. This is the problem with the SSCI and Powell sections as well, which is why they have NPOV tags.--csloat 08:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
No, you don't have it straight. That is not what I said and anyone reading this for themselves will know you are twisting my words. Of course both sides can be presented and MUST be presented. But it must happen in the body of the article, not the introduction. Articles do not argue points in the introduction. It destroys readability and flow. As I already said, it is fine to characterize the Mylroie view as a small minority. I think that is both true and fair. But criticisms of Mylroie's view should in the same relative position as criticisms to the other views. All of the views will be subject to their own criticism section. RonCram 14:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Readability and flow are not compromised by accuracy Cram. That is not the introduction, it is the "viewpoints" section, which should have information about how credible each viewpoint is considered. If you don't want readers to know Mylroie's credibility is nil, don't mention her in the article.--csloat 17:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Sloat, you know very well that the plan is to describe the viewpoints, provide evidence for and against each viewpoint in the body of the article. That is the way articles are written. The issues are introduced, then they are more discussed. But perhaps it is better to make other changes to the article and then come back to clean up the introductory portions. RonCram 12:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Powell section redux

I see Anthony has removed the disputed tag from the Powell section without an explanation. I have restored it. In order to remove it, I think the disputes about Powell's information must be discussed in this section, and I think the section needs context. I am going to do a little in this regard, but part of the problem is we have totally out of context quotes listed here without any organization (except, presumably, the order they were presented in the speech). For example, this quote: "Last year an Al Qaida associate bragged that the situation in Iraq was, quote, "good," that Baghdad could be transited quickly." Well, what the heck does this mean? Which al Qaeda associate? bragged to whom? What situation in Iraq? What the hell does "transited" mean? This is supposed to tie Saddam to al-Qaeda how? The next one: "Last year, two suspected Al Qaida operatives were arrested crossing from Iraq into Saudi Arabia. They were linked to associates of the Baghdad cell, and one of them received training in Afghanistan on how to use cyanide." Again, where is the link between Saddam and this alleged al Qaeda cell? The word "Baghdad"? Is that it? He seems to be talking about Ansar al-Islam members, but the reader wouldn't know it without knowing this context. I'll be removing such quotes completely; I think it is up to the person who wants to insert them to explain their relevance and insert the appropriate context along with the quote. I realize Ron will once again whine that I am "censoring" things here, but I am not -- if you want to restore any quotes I remove, feel free to do so, as long as you can explain their relevance and context. Just because a sentence mentions "al Qaeda" or "Iraq" does not mean it offers a claim about Saddam working with al-Qaeda.

I also think the information now known about the main claims in the speech should be presented. Anthony presented the quotes as simple fact -- he wrote that "Powell outlined Iraq's ties to terrorism." I have fixed this incredibly inaccurate representation. Powell made certain claims in the speech about Iraq's ties to terrorism; the majority of those claims have not panned out (and have been widely criticized by the international community). In January 2004 Powell himself acknowledged that "there is not -- you know, I have not seen smoking-gun, concrete evidence about the connection, but I think the possibility of such connections did exist and it was prudent to consider them at the time that we did." So he acknowledged that all he had "outlined" the year before was the "possibility of such connections" rather than "concrete evidence." And even that case, as we know, has fallen apart on the major charges (regarding Zarqawi and regarding the "poisons and gases" info that came from al-Libi). The Zarqawi charges have been flat-out refuted by a CIA study (undertaken at the request of the Vice President's office) which concluded in October 2004; the results of this study prompted Rumsfeld to back off claims of evidence of any Saddam/al Qaeda relationship. And, of course, both CIA and DIA have refuted the other claims in the speech, indicating that they were sourced exclusively to al-Libi. Until this information is added in -- and I will try to get to it eventually if nobody else does -- the section should keep the "disputed" tag.--csloat 00:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

investigations + reports

I've added a section on official investigations and reports that addressed aspects of the Saddam/AQ relationship. Most of this info is in the timeline, so I've tried to be concise, and not include every bit of information available about each study. I don't think we want to duplicate all of the information that is already on the timeline; otherwise we will run into the same problem that led to the forking of the timeline - this article getting too long.--csloat 00:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

al-Libi sentence unnecessary?

I still don't think the sentence is necessary but let's not fight about it. Here is the sentence as I amended it: "A government offical told the Times that al Libi's claims of harsh treatment had not been corroborated and the CIA has refused to comment specifically on al-Libi's case as much of the information remains classified; however, current and former government officials agreed to discuss the case on condition of anonymity." Let's break it down. The first part of the claim - that al-libi's harsh treatment had not been corroborated - is simply not the issue. That may be relevant on the libi page but not here. What's relevant here is that al-Libi's story is not considered credible and that the intel relating to it has been withdrawn by official sources. If al-Libi lied about being harshly treated, is that supposed to make his story more credible? That would be odd, but that seems to be the implication of stating it here in this manner. The fact is we're not in a position to judge; all we should really be doing is indicating that the CIA and DIA do not consider his story credible. Their reasoning is secondary, as is the distinction between what he said in American custody and what he said in Egyptian custody. The intel experts don't think any of it is reliable, and the stuff they tried to corroborate they could not.

The second part of the claim, that the CIA refused official comment, is taken out of context. This was the paragraph in the article:

As you can see, the claim that the CIA spokesman refused to comment on the case was inserted specifically in the section speculating about his current location and where he has been. It does not say why he refused to comment on the case; it only says that he refused on a Thursday. That is all we know about the refusal. The "classification" of "most details" of the case is the reason that officials would only talk to the NYT anonymously. However, talk they did, so the implication that we don't know what happened here because of the classification is false. There undoubtedly are some classified things we do not know about the case; however, the implication that the sentence seems to create is that we don't know anything official about the CIA's position, which is not true. The CIA withdrew support for the Libi intelligence in March 2004; we know that is a public fact and we knew it for a year prior to this article even being published. I have attempted to correct this by adding to the sentence, but it is still making an unsupported claim (that the classification is the reason for the CIA's "no comment" on a thursday). I think we'd all be better off removing the whole sentence.--csloat 02:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

i'll remove the sentence if you can find a source that says the cia has commented on al libi in an official capacity, rather than through anonymous sources. i've read the above twice and i don't see what you are arguing. the fact that torture claims haven't been corroborated is an essential fact of the entire case, and the fact that the cia refuses to discuss any aspect of al libi officially lets the reader know that all that is known about al libi has come from leaks. i think the sentence is fine as it is. Anthonymendoza 19:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
one more thing. even Senator Levin won't comment on al libi, except for the declassified DIA paragraph. much of the al libi case is unknown, and what is known has come from leaks. it's important to convey this to the reader.Anthonymendoza 19:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I am not arguing against saying that the officers who commented did so anonymously. I am against stating things that are not in any published article, anonymously sourced or otherwise. The NYT reported that the CIA withdrew its al-Libi claims in March 2004. Nobody has ever suggested that this information is false. Before that, in Jan 2003, the CIA's official report questioned the information from al-Libi on the grounds that he wasn't in a position to know. This is in the SSCI report, as you ought to know. According to Jehl, "The fact that Mr. Libi recanted after the American invasion of Iraq and that intelligence based on his remarks was withdrawn by the C.I.A. in March 2004 has been public for more than a year." We also have an official report of the DIA from Feb 2002 attacking his credibility - it may have been "leaked," but it is nevertheless the official statement of the organization. I think you're nitpicking in order to reestablish the credibility of a story that has been totally demolished in the public record.
As for the claims of torture, get real. This is about Saddam and al-Qaeda, not about whether we should trust the Egyptians when they claim they don't torture people. I can certainly provide reports from Human Rights Watch and other organizations indicating that their claims should be taken with a grain of salt. More importantly, it is noteworthy that in Libi's case, the CIA specifically considered "harsh methods" including "threatening his life and family"[1] before rendition. And al-Libi was cooperating with the FBI - and yielding useful information - until the CIA got ahold of him:
But again, I don't think that debate is relevant here. What is relevant is that every published source acknowledges that CIA and DIA withdrew their information on al-Libi because they don't find him credible. No published source questions that fact. And the problem with the disputed sentence is that it attributes the reason for the CIA's "no comment" to the "classified" status of the Libi case, but in fact the NYT article makes no such claim; it only indicates the day of the week on which the CIA said no comment. It may be a minor point - certainly not worth as much as either of us has written about it here - but it is a point of being accurate.--csloat 20:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
again, find an article where a cia spokesman comments on the record about al libi and i'll rewrite the sentence. i think we are both maybe "nitpicking", or just disagree on the relevant facts of the case. the cia has always (at least according to my research-prove me wrong if this is inaccurate) had no comment on the case. i don't understand what you mean when you write the times article "only indicates the day of the week on which the CIA said no comment". i think the sentence is accurate as written and i see no need to debate this anymore until i see an article in which the cia has commented on al libi in an offical capacity. Anthonymendoza 15:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Show me an article where the CIA has disputed the information that has been made public about al-Libi (even through an anonymous source!). You may not have noticed, but the CIA does not often make "official pronouncements" on intelligence matters. However, I have shown where they "officially" questioned his credibility in a document submitted to the Senate in January 2003. The Senate Committee even took Tenet to task for misrepresenting that report in his unclassified testimony to Congress by leaving out the caveats about al-Libi (and others), noting that Tenet's misrepresentation "could have led the recipients of that testimony to interpret that the C.I.A. believed the training had definitely occurred." But your insistence on an "official" CIA recanting is bogus; the Washington Post story (August 1 2004) in which the CIA withdraws the Libi testimony is sourced to a "senior intelligence official." The CIA has not, in an "official" or even "unofficial" capacity, suggested that this was either made up by the Post or that the senior official was lying. As for the sentence in question (the rest of this discussion is irrelevant to that), the article cited does not say that the reason the CIA would not comment has anything to do with classification. Do you seriously not understand what I mean?--csloat 19:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
here is what the article says:A C.I.A. spokesman refused Thursday to comment on Mr. Libi's case. The current and former government officials who agreed to discuss the case were granted anonymity because most details surrounding Mr. Libi's case remain classified. and the senate report states:The DCI's unclassified, February 2003 testimony addressed "training in poisons and gases" which "comes to us from credible and reliable sources." The DCI's classified, September 2002 testimony addressed "evidence that Iraq provided al-Qaida with various kinds of training" of which "details on training are DELETED from sources of varying reliability." 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. the cia won't comment on the case in an official capacity because it's classified! why is this so difficult to understand. the article also states Levin's office wouldn't comment on the case because it's classified. these are the facts. the section of the senate report you cite also shows there were sources, not a single source for the claim that iraq trained al qaeda in chemical weapons. that the sources were of varying reliability is what was left out of the unclassified testimony. i still don't see any reason to change the sentence.Anthonymendoza 17:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
It's not difficult to understant; it just isn't specifically backed up by the article. It says that "most details" are classified, and it says the CIA spokesman refused to comment, but it doesn't say that he refused to comment because it is classified. It's a minor point, but you are the one putting two and two together there, not the article and not the SSCI. The Senate report does not add to this point specifically though it too acknowledges that some details are classified. You're right the SSCI says "sources" - I never said it didn't - but it clearly acknowledges that those sources had credibility problems (otherwise why bring up the fact that source descriptions would have led people to question Tenet's testimony?) And my point elsewhere about Libi being the one source was about Powell's speech, not the SSCI report. It is true there were other unreliable sources that gave us false information. Anyway this is a minor point, as I have said.--csloat 18:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
this is what is said in the article about levin: Mr. Levin has since asked the agency to declassify four other intelligence reports, three of them from February 2002, to see if they also expressed skepticism about Mr. Libi's credibility. On Thursday, a spokesman for Mr. Levin said he could not comment on the circumstances surrounding Mr. Libi's detention because the matter was classified. there is still alot we don't know about the case. that's a simple fact and should be conveyed as such in the article.Anthonymendoza 17:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree there is stuff we don't know about the case and I have never objected to conveying that. I only object to conveying the idea that we do know certain things when those things are not backed up.--csloat 18:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
ok, i think i understand where you are coming from now. but i think both our points are conveyed in the current version. i guess it is a minor point, however. Anthonymendoza 02:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Section on why this is controversial

After removing the cruft, there are three points made in the new section that Ron introduced. The first one, the fact that the Feith memo was leaked is already discussed. The fact that Bush cherry-picked intelligence could stand to be mentioned, but I don't see why the section is labeled in this way. The third point, that Powell made a speech, is already covered in its own section. I think this section could be removed, and the Bush cherry-picking charge made in the "Questions about the plausibility" section. We don't want this article to be as long as the timeline again.

By the way, if there is some evidence connecting the Gates quote specifically to this page, that quote should be in the "History of Claims" section, not on this section. But in that paragraph he is talking about Saddam using WMD. In any case I don't see the point of that quote other than to support a bizarre burden-of-proof-shifting claim that we don't need to prove Saddam was linked to al Qaeda in order to believe it is true. I don't see the point of such a claim in the article; perhaps in the timeline, however? It fits in with Rumsfeld's equally bizarre take on logic, "absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence." Rumsfeld is logically correct, of course, but nobody is claiming there is "evidence of absence." Thing about "absence of evidence" is that it means absence of evidence. Anyway, I don't want to seem tendentious by removing this stuff, but I don't think it makes the "why this is controversial" case.

Oh yeah, the other stuff I removed about false flags and detainees making false statements is not inaccurate but it is not sourced there and it is already discussed in the article, both in the Mylroie section and in the "questions about the plausibility" section. A third mention seems beyond the pale.--csloat 18:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I decided to "be bold"; I went ahead and incorporated whatever looked new in that section into the rest of the article. I left out the tendentious language about how the Powell speech "decisively refuted" the CIA or whatever. The Powell speech already has its own section. I added the Feith sentence and the cherry picking sentence to other parts of the article where they seemed to fit better. I am not opposed to a section on why this is controversial, but I think it is already covered in the other sections on here -- background, history, and plausibility. Do we really need yet another background section? If so, what should be included in it?--csloat 18:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Totally POV

(edit conflict) The article in its current state mentions the four main views but only provides evidence for one. This is a clear violation of wikipedia policy not to treat viewpoints as facts. Sloat's recent edits show he does not want a discussion of why the topic is controversial. Neither does he want readers to know the difficulties intelligence agencies face when dealing with "false flag" operations or "misinformation" campaigns. Neither does he want readers to know about the "risk matrix" that causes intelligence analysts to change the "level of certainty" required to make assessments. It is absolutely essential that the article make clear the difference between the Bush Admin position as defined in the Powell speech to the majority position. There is only one difference between the two positions and Sloat has deleted that section. 13:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

So you want us to make up evidence that doesn't exist for views that have been shown to be false? Sorry, that is not my understanding of wikipedia policy. The false flag info is already in the article twice; your suggestion does not justify why a third repetition is necessary. I have refuted the need for the "risk matrix" nonsense above. It is not specifically addressing this issue; it is about WMDs. The difference between Bush and the "majority position" is already quite clear; these are the two main viewpoints as correctly delineated in the first section after the intro. As for the POV tag, I see no justification for it here. Which sentence do you feel is POV, Cram?--csloat 20:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Is Being Neutral Possible?

Just the subject to me says that you must be with or agenst him being with al Quidea. Explain please. --ASDFGHJKL 13:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The wikipedia policy is Neutral Point of View or NPOV. When there are multiple points of view, the article must discuss the different points of view and the evidence for each and criticisms of each. Sloat has blocked all attempts to list the viewpoints, descriptions of who holds them and why. He has blocked attempts to explain what is controversial about the subject to give readers an opportunity to understand the debate that is still raging due to the release of the Operation Iraqi Freedom documents. RonCram 13:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

It is possible for the article to report information on the subject with a neutral point of view. See Intelligent design and Apollo Moon landing hoax accusations for examples of similar situations. Present the evidence or claimed evidence for the "for" and "against" sides. Like the Intelligent Design movement, some editors try to abuse other people's instincts for fairness by making it seem as though both sides are equally-supported...A tactic known as the Wedge Strategy. It's a tough issue for WP to deal with, but not impossible. --Mr. Billion 15:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Cram is making stuff up now. I have not blocked the article on the Operation Iraqi Freedom documents; in fact, as the edit history shows, I have been a major contributor to that page. I have also added information about those documents here and on the timeline. Cram, please stop lying about me. Thanks.--csloat 20:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Sloat, I have not said you blocked Operation Iraqi Freedom documents site. I said you have "blocked attempts" to "give readers an opportunity to understand the debate that is still raging due to the release of the Operation Iraqi Freedom documents." My statement had more to do with your actions on this article than anywhere else.
I agree with Mr. Billion that not all viewpoints are equally supported and the article should accurately portray minority viewpoints as minority viewpoints and tiny minority viewpoints as tiny minority viewpoints. The minority viewpoints should receive a smaller amount of space in the article, but that does not mean a minority viewpoint should be completely dissed in the article or that evidence for the minority viewpoint should be suppressed. RonCram 19:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I understood your statement, Ron, I just didn't see any evidence for it. I still don't.--csloat 19:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Sloat, you have a right to disagree with my comment, but you do not have a right to mischaracterize it. Your statement was clearly intended to mislead readers into thinking my complaint had to do with that article rather than this one. The fact you refuse to acknowledge your bad behavior is not evidence of innocence on your part. You have repeatedly reverted edits that discuss Operation Iraqi Freedom documents and edits that have explained the reasons for the controversy. You deleted the quote by former CIA Director Gates explaining the risk matrix, a quote MONGO said he found informative and helpful in understanding the debate. I have explained on more than one occasion the only way to have a NPOV article is to name all the viewpoints and discuss the pros and cons of each, yet you refuse to go along with wikipedia policy. RonCram 05:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Nice going Cram. You tell me I am mischaracterizing your argument and then you go ahead and mischaracterize mine. What "bad behavior" are you talking about? Let's see a diff where I have suppressed the information you consider vital. All I have done with regard to OIF documents material is ensure that it is in the right place and removed original research. The "risk matrix" quote dealt with WMD as I explained above, it doesn't matter whether MONGO found it helpful. It belongs on the WMDs page, not here. Your claim about "the only way to have an NPOV article" is nonsense, as I have explained. We already have an NPOV article. If you find a sentence that is objectionable in this regard, let's work on it.--csloat 06:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I am glad you agree, Ron. All issues should be presented fairly, and it is wrong to give undue weight to fringe positions. I find the 'wedge strategy' of pretending that there is a real debate among experts to be very distasteful and dishonest. --Mr. Billion 05:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Billion, you are exactly right. The fact there is a real debate among experts in the present case cannot be credibly denied. Newspaper accounts talk about the debate and so do official reports such as the one by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. This evidence is constantly being deleted and dismissed by Sloat.
Sloat, I feel a discussion of why this issue is debated and controversial is essential. Yet you delete the essential portions (like the quote by former DCI Gates) and spread other comments around to remove them from the context. And yes, I stand by my comment that the only way to have an NPOV article is to talk about all of the major views and the evidence for and against each. I do not understand why that is so difficult for you to understand. The current version of the article is highly POV. While it mentions several viewpoints, it discusses only one. I will repeat again, my objections come not so much from what the article says but from what you will not allow the article to say. Sloat, I am tired of you suppressing information that is well-documented and pertinent to this discussion. RonCram 13:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Cram, the one thing you said that was correct was that Mr. Billion is "exactly right" -- your strategy of pretending there is a "real debate" here among the experts is both distasteful and dishonest. The article as it stands is pretty NPOV; it does need some work, but your claim that it only discusses one viewpoint is on its face completely absurd. It lists two and discusses them throughout, with plenty of commentary about the "minority" viewpoint. I have not prevented the article from saying anything that it should. The quote I deleted, as I explained at least three times now, did not have to do with the issues on this page. It is possible there is room for it on the Iraq and WMD page. The other stuff you inserted in that section was already discussed in other sections so I moved it to where that information was more appropriate. I am tired of you whining that I am "suppressing information," Cram.--csloat 17:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Ron, it's hard to have a serious discussion with you when you keep saying you agree with what I've said, then immediately say the opposite. I don't know why you do that, but it seems to be intentional. You're not making sense. --Mr. Billion 02:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Official Investigations and Reports

i think this article is moving along in a good direction. if length becomes a concern again, i suggest we create a separate page titled "offical investigations and reports regarding Saddam and al Qaeda". as of now, i think the article is a good length.Anthonymendoza 15:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I think your suggestion of a separate page for "offical investigations and reports regarding Saddam and al Qaeda" is a good one. The current article needs more information on all of the viewpoints, including the majority viewpoint, than the present format will allow. (This was my comment, I just noticed that I forgot to sign it.) RonCram 13:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't think there is any need to move this information at this stage.--csloat 06:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

totallydisputed tag

i removed this tag because it was preventing the entire article from being displayed. weird. perhaps a different tag would fix the problem?Anthonymendoza 17:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

scroll down to see the error that prevented the page from being viewed.Anthonymendoza 17:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not aware of any extant disputes that require the tag to remain.--csloat 20:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Bush incompetence section under 2003 CIA report

I'm not sure what is gained by the additions to the 2003 CIA report about whether or not the Bush Administration looked at the CIA report before making claims that were disputed in the report. The claim about the DIA in particular is misleading as the same article Anthony quotes also points out that "A DIA official confirmed to NEWSWEEK that the DITSUM report—which also questioned whether the “intensely secular” Iraqi regime would provide such assistance to an Islamic fundamentalist regime “it cannot control”—was circulated at the time throughout the U.S. intelligence community and that a copy would have been sent to the National Security Council." So we know that at least NSC knew of this report and it says further (in the part Anthony did quote) that both reports would have been circulated. All this extra info does is add to a debate about whether it was mendacity or incompetence that led the Bush Administration to cite information known to be false. Is that really a debate we need to spend a lot of time on on this page? Anyway, if we do, I think another quote from the newsweek article that must be included is this: "The new documents also raise the possibility that caveats raised by intelligence analysts about al-Libi’s claims were withheld from Powell when he was preparing his Security Council speech. Larry Wilkerson, who served as Powell’s chief of staff and oversaw the vetting of Powell’s speech, responded to an e-mail from NEWSWEEK Wednesday stating that he was unaware of the DIA doubts about al-Libi at the time the speech was being prepared. “We never got any dissent with respect to those lines you cite … indeed the entire section that now we know came from [al-Libi],” Wilkerson wrote."--csloat 20:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Who rejected whom?

Before the 2006 report, it was conventional wisdom that bin Laden rejected Saddam's efforts to form ties, yet the new report indicates it was Saddam who rejected bin Laden's attempts. it can't be both, so which is it? Anthonymendoza 12:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Why can't it be both? The evidence certainly seems to indicate that there was no love lost on either side, and that there were very few actual "attempts" to establish ties by either party. I just think the people who argue they tried to establish ties make far too much of alleged "contacts."--csloat 14:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
so bin laden asking saddam for an office in the country, chinese sea mine, and military training wasn't an effort to establish ties? it's also been reported that saddam offered haven to bin laden but bin laden rejected this. that wasn't an effort by Saddam to form ties? efforts to form ties were made, just who rejected whom is the question. i don't see how it can be both. reread conclusion number 1. it says cia assessments "accurately characterized bin laden's actions, but not those of saddam...[who] was distrustful of al qaeda...refusing all requests from al qaeda to provide material and operational support." the report indicates al qaeda sought ties but this effort was rejected by saddam.Anthonymendoza 22:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
My reading is, al Qaeda reached out at one point for assistance but was rebuffed. I don't see any evidence of al Qaeda trying to establish "ties," and I see plenty of evidence of overt hostility towards the "apostate" and "socialist motherfucker" Saddam. The "reports" of ties have been pretty thoroughly refuted, one by one, all down the line, as far as I can tell. On Saddam's side, the SSCI report is no surprise (to me at least), since the evidence that Saddam saw these people as a threat has been available, as well as the fact that Saddam was not likely to give power to forces he could not control. And, as he himself said, if he had ties to al Qaeda, why would he go to so much effort to keep them secret? His support of Palestinian terrorists was something he was very open about. I suppose you can believe what you like, however; it's kind of interesting to me that people who were adamant that the 2004 SSCI report was the final authority on everything (and who cherry picked quotes from that report in order to construct a sinister Saddam/AQ nexus) suddenly have a very different attitude toward the 2006 report, which has far less room for ambiguity. I guess folks like Deroy Murdock and Thomas Joscelyn have to save face somehow, but you'd think they'd find a way to do so that didn't require them to stay on the sinking ship.--csloat 22:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
the cia stands by its prewar assessments; that saddam and al qaeda were wary of each other but sought to exploit each other. you can only exploit each other if you have ties. ties don't have to mean an "operational relationship". the cia also assessed that if saddam felt threatened, he'd likely turn to al qaeda. there's no evidence he intended to use al qaeda to conduct a terrorist attack against the US, but there's plenty of evidence he planned the insurgency and welcomed al qaeda to be a part of it. this comes from middle eastern publications and sources, not conservative ideologues. the IIS officer cannot explain why saddam let one of zarqawi's agents go. he assumed saddam let him go so he would "participate in striking US forces when they entered Iraq." according to the iraq freedom documents, IIS saw zarqawi as al qaeda. i personally never thought the 2004 report was the final authority, and i don't believe the 2006 report is either. the biggest problem i have with the report is conclusion 9, with seems politically self serving on the part of the democrats, hagel and snowe. as the cia assessed, some leads proved accurate, some inaccurate, but on the whole, there still is alot of mystery on the issue. yes, they didn't have an "operational relationship" but it looks like they did have a relationship where they tried to exploit each other. Anthonymendoza 00:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
There is not "plenty of evidence" of what you suggest at all. But there is evidence that foreign insurgents moved into Iraq once it became clear the US was going to invade, so I assume that's what you're talking about. Hardly adds up to a prewar Saddam-AQ connection; all it is is proof that the left was right in the run-up to the war that attacking Iraq would lead to terrorism in Iraq (certainly, we're seeing that now). That Saddam prepared for chaos after his removal is obvious; he opened the prisons a couple months before the invasion for a reason. None of this adds up to a Saddam-al-Qaeda connection, however. It's hard to see how a Republican-led committee (with a Republican majority) can be producing conclusions that are "self-serving on the part of the Democrats," but whatever. I also don't see how conclusion 9 is self-serving -- it's the same conclusion as the Pentagon and the ODNI reached when they looked through the OIF documents. At a certain point, the preponderance of evidence points one direction, and it is less and less likely that new evidence will suddenly point a different direction; it's almost like saying "it's not likely the sun will rise in the west tomorrow, since all the evidence seems to indicate it will rise in the east like it has every other day." But who knows; perhaps it will surprise us one day. Sure, they looked at opportunities to exploit each other (as do all countries in the world with all such groups; the US has frequently exploited such groups for example); those opportunities did not pan out, and they wound up disliking each other even more after trying. I don't think there's much mystery left here.--csloat 02:37, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
according to the washington post, the conclusions reached in the report passed committee votes because hagel and snowe voted with the democrats. its politically convenient because the role of the committee is not to come to intelligence conclusions, rather to provide oversight on methods used. read the conclusions of the 2004 report and compare with the 2006 report. it's clear the 2006 report is a political document. there was much more bipartisanship in the 2004 report. its not the place of a senate subcommittee to come up with conclusions like conclusion number 9. sources have told the press the 2005 zarqawi report did not make any final judgments or come to any definitive conclusions.[2] the cia still views this as an open question. and there is plenty of evidence saddam welcomed al qaeda into the country. [3] as far as your comment, "all it is proof that the left was right in the run-up to the war," therein lies the problem with this issue. everyone's playing gotcha. even the 9/11 commission chairman and vice chairman stated they don't understand the fuss being made over allegations that bush lied about al qaeda/iraq links. but that's what the left is trying to prove nonetheless. an honest look at this issue won't come until the current partisanship dies down, and, in my opinion, the iraqis develop a stable society and one day explain what was really going on in there country before the invasion. Anthonymendoza 18:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
You're wrong on the vote - that info is about the INC volume, not on the WMC/terrorism volume, the conclusions of which, if I am reading this correctly, were passed nearly unanimously (only Senator Lott voted no, perhaps while waving the stars and bars). The amendments to that report were more contested, but mostly in the WMD area; again, if I am reading this right, it appears that even most of the Republicans agreed with the conclusions regarding terrorism (though a notable exception is the section on Salman Pak, where a statement was removed on an 8-7 vote). But the overall conclusions of the report were adopted 14-1. Second, even the fact that two Republicans broke ranks indicate that this is not a political document. You seem to think it would be more accurate if it were all Republicans vs. all Democrats? Strange. You're right there was more bipartisanship in '04, but that does not mean this document is inaccurate. It means more information was available, disputes were more heated, and that the Republicans felt more threatened by criticism of the Bush Administration than they did in '04. The '04 report certainly reaches some similar conclusions regarding the intel community's conclusions on all this. Your claim that conclusion 9 is "not the place" of the senate committee is a mere assertion; the fact is, that was one of their conclusions, and it was adopted 14-1 along with the others. I suppose you can get together with Senator Lott and discuss it some time (perhaps during a meeting of the Council of Conservative Citizens), but to accuse the rest of the committee of playing politics for the Democrats seems silly. The CIA does not still view the Zarqawi issue as an open question; there is one anonymous source who makes that claim. The SSCI believes they concluded otherwise, and they quote the report, and testimony of CIA spokesmen, to back them up. There is not "plenty of evidence" that Saddam welcomed AQ into the country. The article you cite acknowledges that the key "link" - Ansar al-Islam - was fraudulent, that it was an enemy of Saddam. It does cite Masari's claim that Saddam spoke with "Afghan Arabs" after 9/11 because he feared a US attack. As I've said before, it does us no good to confuse Saddam's preparation for the US invasion with prewar al-Qaeda links. Second, he makes clear this claim is "disputed by other commentators," and noone has produced any evidence of a money, paper, or weapons trail substantiating such claims. The article also talks about Zarqawi but offers no evidence of Saddam's support of him -- while a lot about Zarqawi is still unknown, what is known about Zarqawi is that he was not being supported by the regime. The only evidence left for allegations of cooperation is that Jordanian intel claims to have told Saddam's intel where he was and Saddam apparently did not act. We don't know much about what that means -- the conclusion you and the Weekly Standard seem to have drawn from that is that Saddam supported Zarqawi. Using Occam's razor I find other conclusions more plausible -- perhaps the Jordanians were wrong about where he was. Perhaps the Iraqis didn't trust the Jordanians. Perhaps they were lying. Perhaps Zarqawi moved by the time Saddam's men came looking. Perhaps the Iraqi bureaucracy moved too slowly to do anything about it. Perhaps they had other priorities besides Zarqawi. We do know that a note was found indicating they were trying to arrest zarqawi and that attached to the note were three replies indicating they didn't think he was even in the country. So what evidence does exist does not seem to support the claim of cooperation. Finally, I agree with your comment that people are playing "gotcha" on both left and right. The thing is, if the Bush Admin lied to get us into a war, there should be some accountability. Our last President was impeached over lying about a sexual affair. This is far far far more serious of an issue. So it's understandable that things are heated on both sides about that particular issue. But I also don't think that the Republican controlled Senate Committee voted 14-1 to distort the truth. I also don't think that waiting a generation or so until Iraqi society is "stable" will make any difference in what we know about pre-war Iraq. We aren't looking for clues about Iraqi culture or social life; we are looking for clues about the actions of the Iraqi intelligence agency, and we now have access to their offices, their documents, and many former employees. Sure, there will always be new things to learn, but we have already seen a lot of evidence and almost all of it points in one direction.--csloat 19:00, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Saddam didn't have WMD, but he himself believed he had them (and amazingly gased the Kurds with WMD he didn't have.) The sarin A-Q was caught with in Amman in 2004 just appeared out of nowhere. (Zaraqawi could have cook it up in a high school science lab!) Saddam was a hard line secularist, despited the fact that he called himself "leader of all muslims." He wanted to arrest Zaraqawi, but also let Zaraqawi come to Baghdad for medical treatment. Saddam wasn't linked to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, but nonetheless gave refuge to bomb-maker Abdul Rahman Yasin. The 500 poison gas shells found in Iraq by US forces is small beer, although Saddam needed only three to destroy a Kurdish village. The bottom line is that the Saddam lovers don't know what they believe.Kauffner 07:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
That's a fine collection of bad-faith arguments. Saddam didn't have WMD in 2003, and he himself believed he didn't. (When asked about WMD in a senior planning session shortly before the invasion, "He replied that Iraq did not have WMD but flatly rejected a suggestion that the regime remove all doubts to the contrary, going on to explain that such a declaration might encourage the Israelis to attack." Saddam clung to the external illusion of having WMD and his regime was secretive and incompetent, so there has been a great deal of confusion on that point, but after three and a half years in the country it's clear they had bupkis.) Amazingly, Saddam gassed the Kurds twenty years ago when he actually did have WMD. The "sarin" components A-Q apparently had in Jordan "'may generate some toxic byproducts, but they're unlikely to result in significant deaths by poisoning,' said Ron G. Manley of Britain, a former senior U.N. adviser on chemical weapons." (Let's just assume that this is Saddam's arsenal though, and he sneaked it into Jordan! That's sly, somehow!) Saddam was a self-obsessed tin-pot dictator who believed more in himself than any god, but cynically professed piousness to attempt to further his own popularity in the region. He wanted to arrest Zarqawi, but was not aware of his movements and was more concerned with his own selfish projects of self-glorification. Zawahiri, by the way, was never inside Iraq. Saddam wasn't linked to the 1993 World Trade Center attack, but that doesn't stop wingnuts from attempting to link the two by noting that one of the 12 guys involved went into hiding in Iraq. The 500 degraded shells "that had been buried near the Iranian border, and then long forgotten," and later collected "in groups of one or two" by U.S. searchers after the 2003 invasion were small beer because they had been abandoned 20 years ago and were incapable of actually causing mass destruction anymore.
The bottom line is Kauffner knows what he wants to believe, and no amount of evidence or reasoning is going to change that or stop his snide insults about "Saddam lovers". --Mr. Billion 08:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Very well said, Mr. Billion. Let me just add that this particular "Saddam lover" has been an outspoken critic of Saddam's regime since the 1980s (when the US was supporting Saddam, and Saddam was gassing the Kurds.) I'm sure Kauffner can say the same, no?--csloat 10:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
So your taking Chemical Ali's word for it that Saddam destroyed his WMD? Even Hans Blix had a more exacting standard than that. I like the "he-went-to-war-to-protect-the-fake-WMD-he-needed-to-fend-off-an-Israeli-attack" theory. That probably explains the gas masks that were issued to Iraqi troops. Even the judge in Saddam's trial is obviously afraid what Saddam can still do. You can't assume that Iraqis talk openly to investigators about this issue.
Why would Saddam destroy his WMD? To me, the obvious answer is the that he destroyed them, hid them, or moved them out of country when he knew a US invasion was imminent. To imagine that he destroy them all years earlier implies that he fought a war to protect WMD he didn't have. I seen or read hundreds of news reports on this issue over years, but I have yet see the pro-Saddam side address this question in a coherent way.
Sorry that I corrected the Zawahiri/Zaraqawi mixup. At that point, I hadn't noticed that someone had already replied to the earlier version my message.Kauffner 13:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
That reply is thoroughly empty, and I'm not sure it's actually worth responding to. Any reasonable observer can see its gaping holes. But I feel compelled to point out that your continued insults that the people who don't agree with you are "pro-Saddam" are deplorable and astonishingly dishonest. --Mr. Billion 16:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Not only that but the claim that Saddam destroyed or moved his weapons because of the invasion is silly. Why would he do that instead of, ahem, using them?--csloat 19:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
That's an easy one. The French told Saddam they couldn't continue to support him if he used chemical weapons against the US.
If you don't like Saddam, why imagine that the "pro-Saddam" moniker refers to you? Look at Saddam Hussein. Someone obviously likes him a whole lot. There are whole sections that read like a hagiography.Kauffner 02:30, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
You're using the moniker here, while arguing with Mr. Billion and I. It was a reasonable inference. If you want to call people there names, go there. As for your claim that Saddam didn't use his nukes because it would end French support for him; seriously, man, are you mad? Do you think the French are supporting him now?--csloat 02:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
When the French warned Saddam not to use chemical weapons, it was a major news story. Here is a link. Saddam and Chirac were good buddies going back to the 1970s. Saddam had the Oil-for-Presidential-Palaces program managed by a corrupt French bank (BNP Paribas). Why shouldn't they support him? Kauffner 14:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Because, umm, he's in jail, and his country is occupied. If he had WMDs, why not use them when his regime is being attacked? French support is irrelevant at that point, and why build them in the first place if you're not going to use them to defend yourself?--csloat 19:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Saddam was convinced that the French could somehow get the U.S. to halt operations short of Baghdad. See "Saddam's Delusions" in Foreign Affairs. Staying on France's good side was priority one, so he did what Chirac told him to do. Even if you believe that Saddam destroyed his WMD pre-9/11, the question of why build them and then not use them still arises. Saddam had chemical weapons in 1991 and didn't use them. Hitler had nerve gas and didn't use it. The Saddam/Clinton showdown in 1998 is hard to understand if you assume that Saddam had already destroyed his WMD at that point. Or perhaps you believe that he kicked out the U.N. inspectors and then decided to destroy his WMD?Kauffner 12:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
If you read Saddam's Delusions then you know he did not have WMD but tried to convince the world he did. Perhaps you're just trolling. Either way, there is so much wrong with every sentence you've written that I hardly know where to begin. Have a nice day.--csloat 17:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Powell arguments considered false

The following sentence is accurate as stated:

The major claims set forth in Powell's speech -- that Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi constitutes a link between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, and that Saddam's government provided training and assistance to al-Qaeda terrorists in Baghdad, are generally considered by terrorism experts and intelligence analysts to be false.

I do not support Jbbrewer's proposed change to "have been questioned" as it is extremely vague about who did the questioning and what questions were raised. No evidence whatsoever has been found by the Intel Community to support any of these major claims -- the evidence that Powell relied on has been determined to be inaccurate. There is no "neutrality" issue here as it is an issue of what the intel community has explicitly stated; there is no reason to weasel around it.--csloat 19:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I also think its vague to say terrorism and intelligence "experts and analysts" generally consider Powell's claims to be false. which experts and analysts? a claim like this should be sourced in some way. the real authority on this issue seems to be the cia and the dia, and they seem to be at odds over al-libi. the cia is clear in stating that they don't know what to believe from al libi, and they seem to be standing behind prewar assessments. the dia has flat out stated he was lying. therefore, we have a dispute over the intelligence used by powell, not a consensus. i think definetely the phrase "considered by terrorism and intelligence analysts to be false" should be rewritten. i'm not quite sure what you mean by weasel around though.Jbbrewer 19:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Pretty much every expert and analyst that has commented on the issue. Not just the CIA and DIA (who clearly consider the claims false), but also independent analysts around the globe (such as Burke, Gunaratna, and Benjamin), and former CIA and DIA analysts including Scheuer, Pillar, and Lang. The quote that you pulled from the CIA is not their conclusion as you should know since you seem to have read the SSCI report. There is no evidence whatsoever that the CIA and DIA are at odds about al-Libi; there is simply one statement that CIA does not know what to believe. That hardly establishes that he was telling the truth any time, and we also know that the CIA has said that his earlier comments were questionable because they contradicted the other evidence we had at the time. The "weaseling" referred to moving from "considered to be false" to "have been questioned." I think your more recent change was better given that you cited specifics, but you also left a lot out. I don't think we should try to hide the fact that there is a consensus of authoritative opinion on these issues. If you want to add a sentence or more about specifics, please do. Thanks.--csloat 20:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
according to the New York Times article, some of al libi's statements were in fact corroborated. the cia statement clearly indicates they are at odds with the DIA over interpretations of his statements. the sentence as it is is still too vague. Jbbrewer 20:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
None of his statements regarding links to Saddam were ever corroborated. The SSCI was quite clear on that (as was the CIA as far back as 2003), and I'm not sure what goal is served by obscuring that fact. Anyway, I'm ok with the "disputed" language for now (though I added terrorism experts); I may add stronger language later. I'm not sure what your problem is with their conclusions that these points (not just al-Libi's lies) were false.--csloat 20:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I have an issue with the wording "have since been disputed", particularly, "have since been". They were disputed at the time the statements were made and also prior to that time. Kevin Baastalk 14:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Is "are disputed" better? I'm not sure. I still don't see what is wrong with "are considered to be false," which is quite accurate, and which avoids the problem of ongoing action ("disputed" when, how, by whom? Are they still being disputed? Not really, since nobody with expertise on this matter is continuing to advance these claims).--csloat 21:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Powell's 2001 WMD claims

Why do people keep deleting this?

Powell's 2001 WMD remarks====

During a press conference in early 2001, while in Cairo on state business, Powell said of Saddams WMD and military capabilities:

"And frankly they [sanctions on Iraq] have worked. He [Saddam] has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors." [4]

It shows he stating something VERY different than he would later claim. Thanks - FaAfA 02:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Because he's not saying anything there about whether Saddam had ties to al-Qaeda. Saddam's links to WMDs or his conventional threat to the region is really not relevant to this page. csloat 02:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I know this page isn't primarily about WMD's but when there are sections like :
2003 CIA report - "The next day, President Bush gave a brief talk at the Roosevelt Room in the White House with Powell by his side and stated the following: "One of the greatest dangers we face is that weapons of mass destruction might be passed to terrorists who would not hesitate to use those weapons...Iraq has bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with Al Qaeda. Iraq has also provided Al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training."
2002 British intelligence report -In October 2002, a British Intelligence investigation of possible links between Iraq and al-Qaeda and the possibility of Iraqi WMD attacks issued a report concluding: "al Qaeda has shown interest in gaining chemical and biological expertise from Iraq, but we do not know whether any such training was provided
Powell 2003 -The support that (inaudible) describes included Iraq offering chemical or biological weapons training for two Al Qaida associates beginning in December 2000. He says that a militant known as Abu Abdula Al-Iraqi (ph) had been sent to Iraq several times between 1997 and 2000 for help in acquiring poisons and gases. Abdula Al-Iraqi (ph) characterized the relationship he forged with Iraqi officials as successful.
I feel Powell's contrary claims in 2001 are relevent, but if you don't, I won't pursue it. I'll check for an Iraq and WMD article. I'm sure there is one. I had this article checklisted. Not even sure why! FaAfA 03:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Those quotes all deal with an al-Qaeda connection. The article on Iraq and WMD is here. csloat 20:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The book, TheConnection, outlines a set of contacts between Al-Qaeda, and the Saddam Regime. I will expand on the specifics in a future update. To my knowledge the Book (The Connection) has not been discredited. There are some doubts about the Atta meeting in Czech, but that is about it. I will try to eventually list its major points.

Similarly, I note that almost all the most Western Intelligence Agencies, including the prior Clinton Administration believed that the Saddam Regime had restarted his WMD program. This reference was also deleted. Again one has to demonstrate that this citation is wrong before deleting it.

From a context perspective, I will note that Saddam had WMDs and was within three years of a nuclear weapon in 1991. Otherwise this article would imply there is no factual basis for the US concern on WMDs. In particular, the 9/11 attacks reveal that a non-state actor with access to WMDs could destroy several US cities. The doctrine of mutually assured destruction via massive retaliation does not work with non-state actors. These facts, along with increasing globalization has dramatically changed the US strategic calculus. There is a greater emphasis on premptive wars and not waiting a threat to fully mature before striking first.

My notes below will obviously generate dispute among editors. I am requesting comments as to truthfulness of these assertions and if truthful, why they should not be in the article. As it stands, the current article reflects an strong anti-Iraq War perspective and explicitly denies any valid basis for this invasion. I think this is not the case; at the very least both viewpoints should be well represented in this article.

Below is list of Eighteen (18) links (mainly journalists) on the links between Saddam and Al Qaeda. At mininum he provided money, training, weapons, passports, safe haven, and medical treatments. Joint Operations were at least discussed. Direct Operations with Ansar al-Isalm were carried out. As the 9/11 Chairman notes: Were there contacts between al Qaeda and Iraq? Yes," Thomas H. Kean (R), the panel's chairman, said at a news conference. "What our staff statement found is there is no credible evidence that we can discover, after a long investigation, that Iraq and Saddam Hussein in any way were part of the attack on the United States."

As noted by the NY Times, the statements made by the Bush Admin. on the contacts between Saddam and Al-Qaeda were essentially Correct. They never stated that Saddam had an operational role in the 9/11 Attacks: Bush Admin (Correctly) Claims Relationship between Saddam and Al Qaeda: http://work.colum.edu/~amiller/iraq-quaeda.htm

It is obviously hard to get details on the Inner workings of a small terrorist organization, but in WWII the US destroyed entire cities on the basis of information that had the same level of credibility as these articles. The 18 links I noted above are as follows:

Al Qaeda proposed Operational Cooperation with Saddam (2006): http://www.nysun.com/article/29746

Ansar al-Islam and Al Qaidia Cooperated in Killing Anti-Saddam Kurds. http://www.nysun.com/article/39631

Al Qaeda Training in Northern Iraq (under Saddam): www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1868301/posts

Al Qaeda Contacts with Saddam (from 9/11 Report): http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200406170840.asp

Detainee Assets Operational Contacts with Saddam: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/804yqqnr.asp

Senator Clinton (2002) Notes Al Qaeda and Saddam Contacts: http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2007/10/the_abcs_of_iraq_and_al_qaeda.asp

Note on Al Qaeda + Saddam contacts in Report: http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200507011134.asp

W. Safire Note on Report listing Contacts: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E05EFDA1239F932A15755C0A9629C8B63

A list of Al Qaeda Contacts with Saddam: http://www.travelbrochuregraphics.com/extra/iraq_alqaeda_connection.htm

Links Missed by 9/11 Report: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39025

Saddam Trained Thousands of Terrorists, many Al Qaida Afflicated: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/550kmbzd.asp

Original Summary of Defense Review of Contacts: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp

Ansar Al-Islam in Iraq http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.aspx?GUID={9E091170-6A9D-48CA-BC7B-02FF7F84A443}

Zarqawi Trained by Al-Qaeda in 1989, in IRAQ in 2000: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1793632,00.html

Al Qaida and Antrax Attack: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/14/usnews/whispers/main3500524.shtml http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/11/startling_implications_of_a_ji.html

Review of Selected Sources on Saddams Support of Terror and Al Qaeda: http://www.regimeofterror.com/

Saddam & Terror Funding (some Al Qaeda Links): http://www.husseinandterror.com/

Saddam & Al Qaeda Links (2003): http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31597 —Preceding unsigned comment added by ITBlair (talk • contribs) 07:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

All this stuff is fleshed out in chronological order in the timeline. Please refer there; most of the above is nonsense from non-WP:RS sources, but the little that has been published in reliable sources is already well-documented and discussed in Wikipedia on the timeline page. csloat (talk) 09:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Four View Points

Two views are proposed between Saddam and Al-Qaeda (1) Cooperative Effort and (2) Operational Role in the 9/11 Attacks. I think we should add (3) Iraq & Al-Qaeda Contacts and (4) General Iraqi Support for Terrorism to the list. I think the evidence is clear that Saddam at least provided Safe Haven, Funding, Weapons, Training and Medical Treatment to Al-Qaeda. This was in keeping with a broad range of support for Terroism Movements against his enemies. For example he provided a safe Haven and funding for individuals involved in the 1993 World Trade Attack.

The Bush Administrative has never stated that there were operational links where Saddam and Al-Qaeda planned operations together. The Evidence is not that good. There are notes, where Al Qaeda suggests joint operations against the Saudis.

After the 9/11 Attacks the Strategic Outlook changed. Mutually Assured Destruction does not work against non-state actors who follow suicide tactics and have no well-defined home to destroy. The Bush Administration felt that the US could not wait for these non-state actors to obtain WMDs. Thus, a reasonable step was to premptively move against the States that support them and might provide access to WMD weapons or Technology. ITBlair (talk) 09:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I think we should remove the stuff about how many "viewpoints" there are entirely until we can find a WP:RS that says there are two, or four, viewpoints on this. The "citation needed" tag on that section has been there a long time and nobody has come up with a citation; I think it is original research to make that claim, but I'd like to hear what others think. As for what the Bush admin said, I think the best thing to do is quote them directly and not go back and forth about whether they are claiming an "operational" link or not when Cheney says, for example, that Atta met an Iraqi diplomat in Prague.... Again, we wind up straying into original research when we try to interpret stuff like that. What we do know is that the senate concluded that there was only one actual meeting between Saddam's agents and al Qaeda's and that that meeting led to mutual hostility rather than cooperation. The other stuff in the above comment about MAD and WMD is an interesting opinion but it is irrelevant to improving the article -- let's not make this article about whether or not the Iraq war was a good idea; that will only lead to POV fighting back and forth with no real conclusion. csloat (talk) 09:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair Enough, we should eliminate all mention of viewpoints. I was keying off the Viewpoints section of this article. The viewpoints currently posited as a Cooperative Relationship (Undefined) and an Operational Relationship.

I should note that the small changes I made (and I believe deleted) in the Lead section came from the NY Times. This is an obvious WP:RS, even from a Liberal Viewpoint. The cited article pointed out the no one in the Bush Administration has every stated there were Operational Links. An operational link means that Al-Qaeda and Saddam joint planned and/or executed terror attacks. The theme of this article posits an operational link stated by Bush Admin., but no such statement was ever made. When Atta met an Iraqi diplomat is not an operational link, it is a proposed contact. One may or may not infer an operational link from such contacts. I agree that we should focus on the proposed Saddam and Al-Qaeda Contacts and Let the Wiki Readers make what inferences they feel appropriate. This means that the Lead Section has to be rewritten as a summary of contacts and then perhaps what different parties infer from these contacts.

I agree the WMD and MAD material as uncited does not improve the article. I think I can find some relevant citations from the Bush Administration and the Intelligence Agencies.

ITBlair (talk) 05:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Re the viewpoints thing - I've always disliked that section as it does not reference any sources, and there are clearly more than two ways to think about the issue. But I think the info there is useful and that info could be presented in a manner that does not state that these are the only two viewpoints possible. As for the changes to the lead - I did not object to the NYT. My edit summary got cut off unfortunately but what I meant to say was that the information about "non-operational" links is already clearly spelled out in the article and in the timeline page -- it really doesn't belong in the lead, in my opinion. I also don't think it's accurate - the definition of "operational" could be debated, but I would think it includes funding, training, and planning attacks, all of which were asserted by the Bush Admin. As for "contacts," this article shouldn't be about "contacts" but about actual links. The Senate was able to confirm only one actual contact between Saddam and AQ and it ended in utter disaster on both sides. The lead should not be a summary of contacts but should rather be a summary of the conclusions of all official sources on this matter, which was that there were no links between Saddam and al Qaeda. Rewriting this to list "contacts" would be a massive POV shift that is at odds with the consensus of all intelligence agencies in the world as well as all journalists outside of a small clique writing in the Weekly Standard and National Review.
I urge you to read through the timeline page. Several people from radically different political viewpoints have worked on this article for a couple of years now and while the discussions were sometimes extremely adversarial, the result was very good -- an extremely detailed timeline that mentions every single possible "contact" that was raised by those who believe there were links between Saddam and al Qaeda alongside whatever other information is actually known about those alleged contacts. If you find anything missing in the timeline in terms of specific contacts, that would be the place to add it, I think. csloat (talk) 05:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Ran Across a Democratic Web cite with a Summary of Quotes from the Bush Admin on both Saddam and Al-Qaeda. Although most of them seem to be after the Invasion.

http://oversight.house.gov/IraqOnTheRecord/

We might divide the discussion into (a) Contacts (we talked), (b) Links (funding, training, safe-haven, passports, conferences), (c) Operational Links (plan & execute operations). Some more context could be provided by a new Article on Saddam's (a) Contacts, (b) Links) and Operational Links to other Terrorist groups. It would provide some more context. Also, there is a question of proported contacts made before the war and then what the post-invasion analysis found. And then new Contacts found have the Invasion. ITBlair (talk) 05:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

We might divide it that way, yes, but then we would be doing original research. Get this taxonomy published and then we can include it here, but we shouldn't impose a taxonomy on the literature that is not already described in the literature. csloat (talk) 07:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The theme of this article posits an operational link stated by Bush Admin, but no such statement was ever made. Post-invasion, the vice president said the connection between the 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta and Saddam Hussein's government was "pretty well confirmed." [5] The State Dept. issued a background paper which advanced claims made by 'defectors' that Iraq had trained terrorists on how to hijack commercial aircraft using only simple weapons like knives at a facility near the town of Salman Pak, south of Baghdad. Post invasion, the vice president said: "We haven't really had the time yet to pore through all those records in Baghdad. We'll find ample evidence confirming the link, that is the connection if you will between al Qaida and the Iraqi intelligence services. They have worked together on a number of occasions." [6] That's just off the top of my head. smb 21:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Saddam - Oklahoma City

i skimmed through the talk archives and couldnt find if it was discussed anyplace prior to this. has anyone seen information on possible ties between iraq and the oklahoma city bombing? while i personally have not seen enough evidence to convince me of a credible link there are those that insist Ramzi Yousef was an iraqi agent and had ties with Terry Nichols. information places them both in Cebu Philippines at a meeting and some have theorized Terry Nichols may have also been involved in a plot to blow up 12 jetliners over the pacific in the 90s. i dont want to go digging all this stuff up if it has been discussed here already. the tie to al-qaida would be through his uncle, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, and that he was caught at an al-qaida safe house in pakistan. RodentofDeath 08:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories about oklahoma city really don't belong in this article; I would check the articles about the Oklahoma City bombing and such. csloat (talk) 09:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Weekly Standard Spin

I figured it was only a matter of time before someone did this. Sometimes I think the government releases these reports just to send Stephen Hayes into a tizzy. The mainstream media is reporting that this pentagon study found no links between Saddam and AQ. Each of the so-called links that Hayes mentions is already discussed and contextualized on the extensive timeline that we have developed with this page. If you find anything new there that belongs on the timeline feel free to add it there. But this page should deal only with the official conclusions, even if you feel those conclusions are wrong or being misstated by the mainstream media. The fringe opinion of Stephen Hayes is not really notable as part of these categories - we can include some of it on the timeline instead. Thanks! csloat (talk) 16:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

How convienent it is that anyone who disagrees with you is "not notable"! Laurie Mylorie and Stephen Hayes are influencial within the administration and have had an effect on U.S. policy, whether you agree with them or not. The Truther article argues that Truther opinion should be taken seriously because 36 percent of the population subscribes to it. I suspect the number of Americans who believe Saddam was involved is higher than that. Is the 9/11 Commission report version, with 19 untrained hijackers doing their thing with minimal assistance, really notable or plausible either? Four of the hijackers used the names of people who died in Chechnya years earlier. We have no idea who they really were. Kauffner (talk) 15:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh please. That's not what I said and you know it. This page is not for fringe voices like Mylroie and Hayes -- they are both very well represented on the timeline page which is far more detailed. But this page reflects the conclusion of official investigations. Of course you're right that Hayes and Mylroie are notable in that they had an effect on the administration -- they bear some of the shame of the miserable failure that is this country's Iraq policy as a result. But that really isn't notable in terms of this page, which relates the conclusions of official investigations into the existence of ties between Saddam and al-Qaeda. I'm not sure what the truther stuff has to do with this page, but I do agree that a section on US public opinion polls would be useful here, or on the timeline. And to answer your other questions, yes, the 911 Commission conclusions are notable, and no, the opinions of random conspiracy theorists are not. csloat (talk) 00:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
If something is believed by the American public by a margin of 41 percent to 33 percent,[7] is it still a "fringe opinion"? The belief that Saddam was involved in 9/11 is tbe principle reason Bush decided to liberated Iraq, at least according to Woodwood's Bush at War. But the conclusion you're likely to reach after reading this article is no one ever believed there was a link and it was just a big lie all along. Who decided the article was about official investigations? There are many, many references and links to material other than official investigations. There is a tape of Saddam telling an aide, "This [biological terrorism] is coming, this story is coming but not from Iraq."[8] How do you suppose he knew that? Yet this article has nothing about anthrax at all.Kauffner (talk) 01:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Hayes and Mylroie are fringe opinions among journalists and "experts." As I said above, I'd welcome information about the number of Americans duped by this nonsense, but I don't think we should fill this page with fringe opinions that are already well-represented on the timeline. Re-read the article if you are having trouble understanding it; your claim that "the conclusion you're likely to reach after reading this article is no one ever believed there was a link" is utter nonsense. The article is quite clear on who believed there was a link and even Dr. Mylroie is included there. As for the Saddam tape (yet another piece of evidence against Hayes et al), it is also discussed on the timeline as it should be. You ask who decided this page was for official investigations; that was the result of a consensus that developed as the separate timeline page was spun out -- it was too unwieldy and difficult to read to have everything on one page, so the minute details (like Saddam's comment, or like the court decision the anon editor below is whining about) were moved to a timeline page while this page was reserved for major official investigations and developments. One should not have to wade through all the stuff on the timeline just to find out the main thrust of what is known about this (non)relationship. As for anthrax, that just isn't the topic of this article at all. I'm not sure what your point is. (Maybe it refers to this, which is already cited in the article?) csloat (talk) 04:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

According the way the article is phrased now, Mylorie was “very influential among several top Bush Administration officials,” but “very few people share Mylroie's view.” This implies that her theories were promoted as a cynical gambit. This view is demonstrably false: Polls show that an overwhelming majority of Americans at the time believed that Saddam and al-Qaeda were in cahoots. But the larger problem is that if you dismiss all the mainstream theories about the origin of the war as “nonsense,” you’re left without an explanation of why the world is the way it is. If the Saddam had no WMDs and no links with al-Qaeda, why did the U.S. send troops to Iraq? Did the Saudis pay Bush off, as Michael Moore argues? And why did Saddam fight when he could have just let the UN inspectors do their thing? Was he too dumb to know that he didn’t have WMDs? Kauffner (talk) 12:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we could change that sentence to indicate that very few outside of those she duped in the bush admin shared her view. Personally I don't think it was a "cynical gambit"; I think Cheney and others believed Mylroie's theories were true until it became impossible to ignore how full of it she was. Again, please stop bringing up polls, they are not relevant here -- it doesn't matter how many Americans were duped. If you want a separate section for polls, gather the info and let's do it. Your various conspiracy theories about why the war started are intriguing, I suppose, but totally irrelevant here; all we know from the evidence is that there were no links to al Qaeda. WMDs are simply not the topic of this page (but I think the evidence also shows there were none of those; you ask why did Saddam fight; I would ask why didn't he -- if he had WMDs he never used them, and if he had ties to al Qaeda he never got them to do anything to help him out. Was he too dumb to know that he had WMDs?) Anyway it may be an interesting thought experiment but it has nothing to do with this page. csloat (talk) 15:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

We have a whole page chock-full with voices like Hayes, Mylroie et al. Their influence has waned in the face of hard evidence, and surely it cannot have escaped your attention that they've little or zero credibility in this field today. A sizeable chunk of the population also believe in ghosts. Make of that what you will. smb (talk) 16:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

If ghosts don't exist, how do you explain Dick Cheney?  ;) csloat (talk) 19:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

May I make some observations?

  1. Invoking public opinion is never a good way to ascertain the view that is held among experts. More specifically, we now know that the allegations Bush et all promulgated were not supported by any solid evidence. Clearly we can accept that what the intelligence agencies knew was not the same as what was told.
  2. Whatever the reason for invading Iraq, that is not a mandatory answer to establish the discrepancy from point 1.
  3. Regarding those reasons how about: 1 establishing a continuing state of emergency and a culture of fear to validate implementing the notion The Leader is doing important stuff and therefor should not be bothered with technicalities as the rule of law -something that already was judged to be illegal and certainly unwanted-, introducing what could be seen as a police state, keeping tabs on dissident voices, for details see the alleged blue-print to the war on terror 2 Increasing revenue for certain companies, i.e. Haliburton, Blackwater.

Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 17:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

It shouldn’t matter whether “experts” agree with it, whether editors agree with it, or whether the general public agrees with it. Neoconservative opinion on this issue deserves a place in the article because it had a major impact on U.S. policymaking, at least if you assume that Bush and other policymakers held these views sincerely. How can a reader hope to understand the behavior of a conservative administration if the article treats conservative opinion as a fringe point of view, the equivalent of believing in ghosts? If I follow Norman Nescio response, you don’t need understand the neoconservative view because the war in Iraq has nothing to do with 9/11. Bush just woke up on September 12, 2001 and decided he was a fascist.Kauffner (talk) 18:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Neoconservative opinion already has a place in this article and it is all over the place on the timeline article where such things belong. I don't see anything in the article speculating on what Bush decided when he woke up in the morning, or calling anyone a fascist -- can you please indicate which language in the article itself you are hoping to change? Thanks. csloat (talk) 19:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
While there's nothing wrong with opening up the issue of whether or not Bush held a view sincerely, any discussion of that should carry a mention of Paul O'Neill's report that Bush was seeking to invade Iraq long before 911:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/09/60minutes/main592330.shtml
Whether you agree with O'Neill or not, he is a source of some importance as a former member of the administration. O'Neill does not claim that Bush just suddenly woke up on September 12, 2001, and decided he was a fascist. O'Neil claims that Bush was talking about invading Iraq in January 2001 and had begun mapping out Iraqi oil fields by March. So, yes, by all means, let's include information about Bush's early intentions. But let's not cherry-pick the sources to favor Laurie Mylroie's point of view. O'Neill is a valid source to cite. You can come up with others and extend the list.

2003 court ruling

Let me be clear: I'm not against mentioning the court ruling, but it must be expressly made clear that R. James Woolsey's testimony (r.e. Salman Pak facility and Mohamed Atta's alleged Prague connection) is contradicted by FBI, CIA and DIA reports. Terror "expert" Laurie Mylroie also gave evidence at trial (r.e. the 1993 World Trade Center bombing). [9] On this basis, Judge Harold Baer, Jr. concluded...

"Although these experts provided few actual facts of any material support that Iraq actually provided, their opinions, coupled with their qualifications as experts on this issue, provide a sufficient basis for a reasonable jury to draw inferences which could lead to the conclusion that Iraq provided material support to al Qaeda." [10]

To assert that "The case remains the guiding legal decision on the topic in the US court system" is, quite frankly, laughable. So I'm rolling back until we can agree on balance. smb (talk) 12:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

House of cards smb (talk) 12:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
The court ruling is already receiving appropriate mention on the timeline page. There is no reason to bring it up here as it relies entirely on testimony that has been found to be false, and there was no testimony by the "opposing side" during the trial. csloat (talk) 20:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Whether you choose to laugh, or not, the statement is fact. If as you claimed earlier the INC provided testimony, by all means add that with a source. The fact is in terms of legal standing this court decision is more important than anything else mentioned in the entire article. I'm replacing the section. If you continue to delete it I'm going to add a bias tag. --72.146.230.122 (talk) 05:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

"Whether you choose to laugh, or not, the statement is fact." No, it's not. The judgment is controversial because it rested almost entirely on false evidence. The case is not "the guiding legal decision on the topic in the US court system", as you claim. Rather, it was a one-off. So please stop adding unfounded statements to the page. smb (talk) 11:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Rahman allegations

I reverted recent edits because I searched the Pentagon report for the claims that had been added and did not see them. On closer inspection, this appears to be what the user was referring to. "Extract 12" in the report refers to a memo; this is what the report says about the memo: "Drafted in Saddam's office, it refers to an agreement with Islamic terrorists to conduct operations against the Egyptian regime during the first Gulf War (1991) and for continued financial support for the terrorists after hostilities ended." The memo referred to mentions "agreement since December 24, 1990, with the representative of the Islamic Group organization in Egypt on a plan to move against the Egyptian regime by carrying out commando operations provided that we guarantee them financing and training..." It goes on to say that Saddam directed that "only financial support is available for now" and refers to a top secret March 25 1992 letter from Saddam indicating that "intelligence operatives and contacts should be maintained in any movement in the Arab homeland."

Now, there is a footnote explaining that "This document appears to refer to the Egyptian Islamic Group (EIG), and notes that the group's spiritual leader Sheikh Rahman is in prison for involvement in the 93 attack on the WTC. The footnote then notes that "Since 1998, several of EIG's leaders have renounced its violent past."

I don't think we should put this in the main article but perhaps it can go on the timeline. There is no reason to take one particular footnote from this document and interpret it somewhat wildly as conclusive proof of "connection" when the study plainly concluded that there was no connection, and it mentions that this contact only "appears to refer" to EIG, and notes that EIG leaders have since renounced violence. Whatever agreement may have existed here was quite clearly about terrorism directed at Egypt, and the document never even hints that Saddam may have played any role in the WTC attack, whereas the edits I reverted clearly gave the impression that Saddam may have played such a role. (In fact, this study isn't even making the claim with any certainty that this is referring to EIG at all.)

What's more, the next paragraph in the report after the excerpt from the document states that it is "not surprising" that Saddam would be supporting revolutionary nationalist groups but that "many of these nationalist groups changed in the late 1990s. Saddam viewed these groups through the eyes of a pan-Arab revolutionary, while the leaders of the growing Islamist movements viewed them as potential affiliates for their Jihad. In other words, two movements, one pan-Arab and the other pan-Islamic, were seeking and developing supporters from the same demographic pool." The document goes on to discuss other examples of Saddam's contact with terrorist groups and notes that "one could argue that keeping some of these extremist groups active outside of Iraq was a pragmatic defensive measure against them."

Even more importantly, none of the mainstream media commentary on this document, except the somewhat absurdly speculative comments of Mylroie in the tabloid NY Post Sun, has seen fit to even mention this particular footnote, and certainly not to jump to the conclusion that Saddam supported the 1993 WTC attack. In fact, the document more explicitly and extensively treats the conspiracy theory's usual main claim, that Saddam supported Yasin after he fled to Iraq, and indicates that the evidence rebukes that theory pretty significantly, and even discusses Saddam's speculation about whether the 93 attack was done by US intelligence. It's clear from the study that the authors believed Saddam had no idea whether Yasin was behind the WTC hit (and had a lot of doubt that he was capable of it), but he wanted to use Yasin for propaganda purposes in the Arab world. Mylroie makes the laughable claim that the meeting was a cover hiding Saddam's real intentions. This is a tape of a private meeting that Saddam had no way of knowing would wind up in the Pentagon's hands, and her claim is ridiculous speculation.

Anyway, this page shouldn't be for mentioning every little sentence or footnote in a document that has been twisted out of context by the likes of Mylroie, and giving such a footnote such importance, especially in the context of the material I point out above, is a real problem in terms of WP:NOR and WP:UNDUE. csloat (talk) 07:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

"Financing and training" Rahman's Islamic Group is far too important to be left out of this entry. The footnote says it was that group. The point is, Saddam was financing and training the group behind the 1993 attack, although he knew nothing about that operation.
This isn't a "little sentence or footnote," it's several paragraphs. It hasn't been "twisted out of context by the likes of Mylroie," she denies Rahman's involvement in the 1993 attacks altogether!
(BTW Mylroie didn't claim Saddam was talking so the tape "would wind up in the Pentagon's hands." She argued that he and his aides were rehearsing their cover story to be fed to the Clinton Administration. And her oped wasn't published in the Post, check again.)
Hecht (talk) 18:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
(1) We don't even know it was Rahman's group, we just know it "appears to be." The Pentagon was not confident of this claim, we should not be either -- your claim that the footnote says it was that group is false. (2) This is just a footnote, referring to a single memo, and the footnote does not make the wild leaps of logic that you and Mylroie are making on this topic. There is certainly NOTHING making this footnote more notable than the others in the study. It is not "several paragraphs," unless you include the ones I cited above, which essentially lead to the opposite conclusion than you are trying to push on this article. (3) You claim the group was financed and trained; see above, Saddam limited it to financing. (4) You leave out the Pentagon's conclusion that this was not at all about Saddam cooperating with terrorists but about him diminishing the threat they posed to his regime as well as exploiting the populations that were sympathetic to them for his own nationalistic purposes. (5) Mylroie's claim is illogical no matter how generously you interpret it. On what basis does she claim to know Saddam's motives? Oh that's right, she's reasoning backwards from her conclusions rather than the other way around. That's one of the reasons her "work" would never survive peer review and why she publishes her nonsense with AEI. In any case, if she meant what you say she meant, why didn't she write that? Not that any of it matters since we're not quoting her here either way. (6) Pulling this footnote out of context and making it this important is a severe WP:UNDUE problem. No mainstream sources have quoted this. (7) The Pentagon report concludes that the EIG leaders have abandoned violence since 1998. (8) The WTC connection implied in your edit is especially troubling since the Pentagon came to the opposite conclusion on that one. Please do not revert again before responding to all 8 of these arguments. csloat (talk) 19:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

(1) We do know it was that group, there's no other Egyptian terror group of that name and using the word "appears" to pretend the report doubts this isn't at all convincing. (2) There's more than that, see a couple of pages later. I object to your statement: "wild leaps of logic that you and Mylroie are making." I'm contradicting Mylroie (who exonerates Rahman's group) and following the Pentagon's logic. The extract is several paragraphs and there's more a couple of pages later. (3) Check the extract again: "we guarantee them financing and training." (4) Fine, add that quote. (5) I agree, her claim is implausible. But when there's material against her, we must include her rebuttals, plausible or not. (6) Again, it's not just a footnote. (7) Right. Your point? (8) Rahman's group did the '93 attack. Saddam financed and trained that group. Still, he didn't know about the attack. That's the evidence in the report. BTW, I responded to your points, but you have no right to impose such conditions, especially as some of your statements (2, 3) are untrue. Hecht (talk) 20:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

(1) It's nice that you have such confidence, but the Pentagon does not, and they expressed their lack of confidence in the study itself. For you to ignore that and impose your confidence on the article is WP:OR and is also extremely deceptive.
(2) What do you want me to look at "a couple pages later"? It helps if you are more specific and precise, as I have been.
(3) Saddam's letter concerning the group you believe to be the EIG clearly states that Saddam directed that "only financial support is available for now"; what are you referring to?
(4) I should not have to add more quotes to correct a false and misleading addition of non-notable material to the article -- better to not include the non-notable and misleading material in the first place.
(5) No, we must only include notable material, and not everything Mylroie says is notable.
(6) What else are you suggesting to include then?
(7) My point is your addition is false and misleading.
(8) The report does not carry any evidence about who did the 93 attack and you should not pretend that it does.
(9) Statements 2 and 3 were not untrue. If there is additional material you would like to discuss here please refer to it precisely rather than suggesting that "a couple pages later" something different is written. csloat (talk) 20:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
By the way, I am looking around at the pages nearby and I notice there is a list of terrorist groups that Saddam's IIS had contacts with and EIG is not even on the list. I still don't see the additional evidence you think I will find here but hopefully you'll point it out soon. csloat (talk) 20:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

(1) The Pentagon does have confidence, which is why they interpreted it as Rahman's group. If you check Vol. 3 (in the PDF, p. 411) Rahman is named, which should settle the matter. (2) Vol. 1, p. 18 (PDF p. 26), Rahman's group named (as Jamaal Islamiya). (3) Previous paragraph refers to guarantees of "financing and training" since 1990. (4) You're so industrious that you fill the Talk page with long numbered messages and demand a point-by-point reply, so I think you can be bothered to add a couple of lines to an entry! (7) My edit was about 1993. EIG abandoned violence 1998. I don't object to further edit that Saddam backed terrorists in early '90s but they abandoned terrorism in late '90s. (8) Untrue. The footnote says that EIG's leader, Rahman, is in prison for his role in 1993. (9) Your statement about "wild leaps of logic that you and Mylroie..." was untrue. Mylroie wrote nothing about Saddam's backing for Rahman. Instead she denied Rahman's role. Your denial that Iraq financed/trained EIG was untrue. And your denial that the report mentions Rahman's role in 1993 is untrue. I note that you also called my accurate edit "extremely deceptive." Since Rahman is named in the documents I intend to restore my edit and I assume there'll be no further problem. Hecht (talk) 23:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

(1)If they had confidence they would have said that. If you're going to cite this at all we must be clear on what the pentagon actually said, not what you think is a reasonable interpretation. Once we include all of the caveats spelled out above -- not just the "appears" but the full context of what they said -- we are talking about adding about 5,000 more words or so to the article, all based on a footnote (and allegedly something else you found buried on p. 411 of volume 3), which creates a huge WP:UNDUE problem. Again I stress that there are no mainstream sources addressing this pentagon report that even mention this particular detail. It's trivia, frankly, in the context of this page.
(2) That appears to refer to Zawahiri's group, not the EIG, which is never referred to as Jamaal Islamiya. EIJ (Zawahiri's group) is called in Arabic Jamaah Islamiya.
(3) The previous paragraph is not the only paragraph there. What it says is they wanted funding and training but then Sadaam's memo states that only funding is available at this time. You are cherry picking what you like to create a completely false portrait of the Pentagon study.
(4) I am not complaining about the work here - re-read my point 4 above. I am saying that the proper remedy for misleading and non-notable material is to delete the material, not to add more non-notable material just to make it less misleading. You are basically demanding the insertion of falsities into the article and then demanding that instead of deleting them, I add the material that shows that they are falsities. It's a very disruptive way of editing.
(5) and (6) you are conceding, correct?
(7) No, your edit removed "early contacts" that would have established that we are talking about the early 1990s and replaced it with the vague but suggestive "connections", making it sound as if Sadaam was literally connected to these organizations rather than using members of them for his own purposes or playing them against his enemies. Then you add the line about the 1993 WTC in order to make it even more suggestive that Saddam attacked the WTC even though you admit that such a theory is patently absurd.
(8) Yes it says Rahman is in prison for the WTC hit but it doesn't present any evidence that he did it nor does it even pretend to investigate who did it. If you don't think Saddam was behind it, why do you insist that we make it look like he was all throughout wikipedia??
(9) So you're conceding my argument above and complaining that I compared you to Mylroie. It's only because you are inserting her least notable and most absurd comments all over Wikipedia as if they were agreed upon facts. You say that I said things that are untrue but that is false as I have shown above. You are playing fast and loose with the language of the report in order to string together a theory that is explicitly refuted by the report. You want to censor the fact that the Pentagon could only go so far as to say - in a minor footnote - that the reference of a single memo "appears to" have been to EIG, and you want to censor the fact that Saddam explicitly sent a letter saying that only funding and not training was available at this time. If the group was EIG - something we do not know - Saddam certainly did not train them.
Yes I called your edit extremely deceptive because it was. I suggest you correct the problem immediately. Thanks. csloat (talk) 23:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

(1) I regret your refusal to admit your mistake. The same document naming Rahman appears again and again in Vol. 3. Try adding a sentence from the Vol. 1 footnote if you think anyone else will read it the way you do.

(2) Again, your mistake. It's Rahman's Islamic Group in Arabic.[11] Zawahiri's EIJ is Al-Jihad al-Islami in Arabic.[12]

(3) The financing/training agreement was 1990 onwards. Saddam changed that to financing around 1993. I'll change my edit to "supporting" if you prefer.

The rest isn't worth commenting on; I don't need to spend ages correcting every mistake. Quoting Mylroie's replies to venomous personal attacks (which I haven't done in this entry) isn't the same as agreeing with her. You don't see why it's relevant that Saddam was supporting the 1993 terrorists although he didn't order the 1993 attacks; presumably you'd see the relevance if we found that someone was supporting the 9/11 terrorists although he didn't order the 9/11 attacks.

I note that even after I pointed to your errors, you again accused me of "extremely deceptive" editing. Remember WP:AGF please.

Hecht (talk) 00:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

As an aside (hopefully a somewhat humurous one), I'd like to say that both of you know far too much about these things, and just reading this is making my head hurt. However, if there is going to be a disagreement that I enjoy reading on wikipedia, its one full of cites like you guys are throwing at each other. Good on you, and happy arguing! Arkon (talk) 00:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't enjoy arguing with Commodore Sloat. It's a waste of time. He demands point-by-point replies to his long Talk messages, you show they're full of beginner's mistakes (like confusing Rahman's Islamic Group with Zawahiri's Al-Jihad al-Islami), then he reverts anyway, and insults you ("extremely deceptive") for good measure. Hecht (talk) 01:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps if you provided actual replies to my arguments, you would enjoy it more. You can accuse me of "beginner's mistakes," but you are actually the one wrong about these things. Here we go again:
(1) Please re-read my comment above. The remedy for bad information is to delete the bad information, not to create WP:UNDUE problems by adding several paragraphs explaining why it is bad information. If the information was that notable to begin with this might be an issue, but the only place you see anyone talking about this is the NY Sun. And, thanks to you, Wikipedia. Congratulations -- you've turned an encyclopedia into a promotional device for conspiracy nuts.
(2) Looks like your mistake to me, or perhaps the Pentagon's -- at best we can say the reference is ambiguous. EIG is never referred to as "Jamaal Islamiya"... the closest you get on your link is "Jamaat al-Islamiyya" or "Jama'a Islamia." But the CFR that you cite clearly does not agree with you. Whereas a google search for the phrase the OPentagon used, Jamaal Islamiya, finds a bunch of copies of the pentagon report and a link to a WSJ article by a former member of Zawahiri's Jemaah Islamiya as well as several references to the Indonesian group of that name. The question I have, apart from your errors, is why this is relevant at all? You include info about Rahman and the 93 WTC attack as if it were relevant here yet you admit that there is no evidence of Saddam being connected to the 93 attack and you say Mylroie is wrong about this. If that's the case why is it so important to mention Rahman (who was in jail already) and the WTC attack at all?
(3) I would prefer you cite what is actually in the document if you are going to cite at all, and the document clearly shows Saddam offering financing but not training, even though training was discussed in 1990. There is no evidence presented of training in the 1990-3 period.
You have conceded the rest of the arguments, several of them stand independently - I assume you will be reverting your edit so we can remove the NPOV tag from the section? Thanks. csloat (talk) 01:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

(1) Of course if it was trivial you wouldn't be so determined to remove it. The info is good and you know that quoting a phrase from the footnote or a line or two from the text wouldn't add "5,000 more words" to the entry. Rahman's prosecutor says the same as I do about the Pentagon report, I wonder if you call him a "conspiracy nut"?

(2) Wrong, again. Rahman's Islamic Group is Al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya = "Jamaal Islamiya" (various spellings). Same name is used by related groups in several Asian countries. Islamic Jihad is translated as Al-Jihad al-Islami. Rahman and Zawahiri groups used to work together, so they're sometimes grouped together. Please admit your mistake and stop rv'ing accurate info.

(3) Training wasn't just "discussed" in 1990, there was an "agreement" in 1990.

I don't concede any of your other arguments, as I've said already: I'm just not playing your little game of having to reply point-by-point to long Talk messages from someone who won't admit his mistakes and rv's anyway. I note that after twice accusing me of being "extremely deceptive" you're accusing me of creating a "promotional device for conspiracy nuts." Yet again, WP:AGF.

Hecht (talk) 02:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

(1) No, I am determined to remove it because it is trivial. If it wasn't trivial, the primary source promoting this footnote would not be Wikipedia. If Rahman's prosecutor thinks Saddam was behind the WTC attack then yes I consider him a conspiracy nut too. I realize you claim you don't believe that but then I wonder why you are so adamant about adding in such claims here. I realize also that you are not adding that specific claim, but putting in that Saddam sponsored a group that was behind the WTC attack amounts to making Wikipedia a platform to give support to such claims. Why not add the claim without the innuendo if you are so adamant to add the claim? Why not just include EIG on the list as we have EIJ?
(2) I think you are correct, but here's the problem I am having: you are very confident about a claim that the Pentagon is not so confident (hence their qualifier "it appears"), and then the Pentagon uses a transliteration that does not appear on any of the pages you cite. But you are correct about the name for Zawahiri's group, and my confusion came from the fact that the groups worked together, as you said. (For example, read Tawfik Hamid's statement, “As a former member of Jemaah Islamiya, a group led by al Qaeda’s second in command, Ayman al-Zawahiri....”[13]).
(3) Yes, an "agreement" that did not lead to any "training."
(4) If you choose not to answer an argument, I can only assume you are conceding it. If you find a specific argument unconvincing, explain why; it's that simple. I do admit my mistakes (see above), and I am assuming good faith. I'm not speculating on your motives, but what I am saying is the result of your actions is to make this page a promotional device for conspiracy theories.
Anyway, I will not revert your changes for now; I will look at this over the next few days and see if I can reword your additions in a manner that I can live with; it may not take 5,000 words but there will definitely need to be a lot more said. And it's a bit annoying to have to do that when this material is clearly not notable to begin with (at least, it is no more notable than the scores of other "contacts" and memos discussed throughout the report's several volumes). Perhaps there is room for these claims on the timeline but it doesn't make sense that this particular detail would be highlighted on the main page like this when it hasn't gotten any more specific attention from the mainstream media than any other "contact" in the report. The question of whether it should be removed entirely perhaps should go to RfC. csloat (talk) 20:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Your friendly neighbourhood WP:Third Opinion here. I feel like I'm throwing myself to the sharks somewhat, but I've read all the relevant points made by both parties and I have come to the following conclusions:

Fundamentally if someone can reasonably read ambiguity into something it is ambiguous. Were it not ambiguous one could not construe (in good faith) ambiguity from it.

With respect to WP:Fringe theories and WP:UNDUE it would significantly aid the case for inclusion if another source could be cited that provided the same information.

I agree with the point "[...] the proper remedy for misleading and non-notable material is to delete the material, not to add more non-notable material just to make it less misleading." although I would not refer to the material as misleading, merely 'potentially ambiguous'.

In accordance with Wikipedia:Verifiability#Questionable_sources "articles about [questionable sources] should not repeat any contentious claims the source has made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources."

I cannot help but feel that csloat's reasons for wanting this removed are sound and although I do not agree with every point he has made I believe that his fundamental reasoning regarding policy is valid. Rushyo (talk) 00:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Hecht, do you have any response to this? Given the third opinion, I'm going to go ahead and remove the material again if you have no further objections. csloat (talk) 17:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

heck no

Saddam had nothing to do with al Queida so all of you iggnorant people can shut up and face the facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.114.25.223 (talk) 18:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki

"In an interview with the British Broadcasting Corporation on Monday, Mr. Maliki said all of the recent attacks had resulted from coordination between Qaeda militants and elements of Mr. Hussein’s Baathists.” - Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki April 28 2009 NYT: [14]

--OxAO (talk) 02:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Lawrence Wright material

Look, I'm ok with this material on the timeline if it meets WP:V criteria but it doesn't belong here - the consensus of editors who edit this page have always agreed that this should focus on the major public statements on the issue. We constructed the timeline page (see Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda link allegations timeline) precisely for the purpose of including minor details and allegations like the one that was added here. I'm ok with that being added to the timeline page if it is verifiable -- but so far we haven't been told where this information is from. I don't see it in my copy of Wright's book so please tell us where to find it. I also question the context which is another reason I'd like to know what page it is on. csloat (talk) 07:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

In addition to Lawrence Wright's work, it is a well established meeting that was revealed from a government memo. The beginning of the second source I included states, "The memo, dated October 27, 2003, was sent from Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith to Senators Pat Roberts and Jay Rockefeller, the chairman and vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee." That should cover your "major public statements" requirement.

As for Cs32en's "No independent secondary source given to establish notability." I would love it if wikipedia entries required at lease two sources, much less one. There is loads of "citation needed" hogwash throughout this cesspool, and no one sees it as legitimate to start deleting all the fabricated fairytales. If this page has a higher standard...great...secondary source added. User:erics1one —Preceding undated comment added 19:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC).

User Erics1one: "In addition to Lawrence Wright's work..."
Assuming Lawrence Wright's source is not Stephen Hayes. Please provide page numbers so editors who have the book can examine the context in which this claim is repeated.
User Erics1one: "[I]t is a well established meeting that was revealed from a government memo."
The opposite is true. This memo is a mixture of raw Intelligence (i.e. unverified claims) and dubious accounts, as reported by Newsweek in 2004. [15] Dynablaster (talk) 20:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
The secondary source is about the subject of Wright's allegations, not about Wright making these allegations. Thus, it does not establish the notability of Wright's allegations. The condition for inclusion here is that the allegation itself is notable. If the allegation is not notable, but the content of the allegation can be verified by reliable sources, then it may go to the Timeline article. If there is enough material on actual communication between Hussein and al Queda, as evidences by reliable sources, a new article Saddam Hussein and al Quaida may be created.  Cs32en  21:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
User Dynablaster: "Please provide page numbers so editors who have the book can examine the context in which this claim is repeated."

Page number (295-296) added to Looming Tower reference.

User Dynablaster: "The opposite is true. This memo is a mixture of raw Intelligence (i.e. unverified claims) and dubious accounts, as reported by Newsweek in 2004."

The article you linked does not refute the meeting being discussed. The only mention that might have made an attempt would be with:

"Culling through intelligence files, the Feith team indeed found multiple “reports” of alleged meetings between Iraqi officials and Al Qaeda operatives dating back to the early 1990s when Osama first set up shop in Sudan. But many of these reports were old, uncorroborated and came from sources of unknown if not dubious credibility, U.S. intelligence officials say."

1) There are many alleged meetings in the "early 90s," that term alone doesn't address the specific 1992 meeting mentioned in the Weekly Standard article 2) Al-Turabi's name doesn't appear in the article and 3) "old, uncorroborated, and unknown if not dubious credibility" is a statement of opinion, not a refutation based on fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erics1one (talk • contribs) 21:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

This is precisely the kind of nitpicky nonsense we created the other page for, so we could keep it off of this page. No, it is not just a "statement of opinion" - it is the conclusion of a consensus of sources that have investigated the Feith memo. You're right the Newsweek article does not mention this specific meeting, but the point is the entire memo is considered not credible. You could just as easily pull anything off the memo and complain that it isn't specifically disproven -- please consider that the burden of proof would be with those who claim a specific meeting happened, not those who express skepticism about such a meeting, especially when the entire memo that the meeting was mentioned on is considered unreliable. csloat (talk) 04:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 Cs32en "The secondary source is about the subject of Wright's allegations, not about Wright making these allegations. Thus, it does not establish the notability of Wright's allegations. The condition for inclusion here is that the allegation itself is notable."

The additional source was not meant to verify that Wright made the allegations. It does establish the notability of Wright's allegations since it is an "independent secondary source given to establish notability," that you personally requested.

 Cs32en "If the allegation is not notable, but the content of the allegation can be verified by reliable sources, then it may go to the Timeline article. If there is enough material on actual communication between Hussein and al Queda, as evidences by reliable sources, a new article Saddam Hussein and al Quaida may be created."

So if it's not notable it needs to go in the "Timeline" article, but if it is notable, a new article "Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda" must be created? Is this page supposed to be locked down? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erics1one (talk • contribs) 21:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

If it's not notable it doesn't go anywhere. If it's notable it goes on the timeline article, which includes all the unverified rumors from the Feith report, while this page contains only the material from official government sources and investigative reports. I'm not opposed to including a section for the Feith Report on this page that summarizes the issues regarding it, but even then I don't think this specific level of detail is necessary. Again, that's what the timeline is for -- a deeper level of detail. csloat (talk) 04:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I went ahead and added a Feith memo section to the article; if people want to add to that section, fine, but I don't think we should start adding every little detail there -- again, that's on the timeline -- unless we want to reproduce the entire memo, like we wound up doing with the Powell speech. But my preference is to synthesize (and I think we should drastically shorten the Powell speech section, or fork all that to a separate article). Perhaps the Feith memo could be its own page as well? csloat (talk) 04:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
This is a reversal of the usual Wiki criteria for judging sources. The official reports are primary sources are require secondary sources to explain them and show that they are notable. Wright's book is exactly the kind of secondary source the article should be based on. Kauffner (talk) 04:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Kauffner, do me a favor -- can you actually read the article? You are just sticking this paragraph in randomly in a section where it makes no sense. After you read the article could you come back to this page and re-read my explanation above? If we put every little detail of every meeting that is alleged to have occurred here, this page will be ridiculously long. It is already far too long.
By the way, I want to emphasize that context is important, if we do include this on the timeline. Take a look at the paragraph you are edit-warring over:
Lawrence Wright reports in his Pulitzer Prize winning book the "Looming Tower" that in 1992 Hassan al-Turabi arranged a meeting between the Iraqi intelligence service and Al Qaeda, with the goal of creating a common strategy for deposing pro-Western Arab governments. The Iraqi delegation met with Bin Laden, even flattered him, claiming that he was the prophesied Mahdi the savior of Islam. They wanted him to stop backing anti-Saddam insurgents, Bin Laden agreed. But in return he asked for weapons and training camps inside Iraq. That same year, Ayman al-Zawahiri traveled to Bagdad where he met Saddam Hussein in person.[1][2]
My gosh, I wonder what Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Lawrence Wright says, oh, I don't know, how about in the very next freakin sentence that you choose to edit out of the quote:
"But there is no evidence that Iraq ever supplied al-Qaeda with weapons or camps, and soon bin Laden resumed his support of Iraqi dissidents."
Here's a google books link, see for yourself. Taking a source completely out of context and making it seem like it says the opposite of what it says is pretty despicable, frankly. csloat (talk) 05:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, you certainly have quite an emotional investment in defending Saddam's innocence. How despicable of me to libel the good name such an upstanding citizen. It was a sad day when the Iraqis hanged him, wasn't it? Kauffner (talk) 05:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
That's a non sequitur. Saddam was a miserable thug and I have never defended him. But we were talking about the utter lack of intellectual ethics involved in a Wikipedia editor quoting a source to appear to support a completely opposite conclusion from the actual one. Are we done here? csloat (talk) 05:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I reverted because the only reason you gave for removing the material it was that belonged in some other article, which is a bogus, dishonest argument. I didn't check the sources myself earlier, but I now that I have really don't see the problem. The Feith memo says: "Overriding the internal factional strife that was developing, bin Laden came to an "understanding" with Saddam that the Islamic Army would no longer support anti-Saddam activities." (in 1993). Kauffner (talk) 06:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Bogus and dishonest? This from the person who blatantly falsely quoted the Wright book? The argument is not dishonest at all, and you haven't even addressed it! You were adding that material in a section it didn't belong in on a page it doesn't belong in, and you do not appear to have even bothered to read the page to see whether this material fits in at all. Quoting the Feith memo as if it supports you, when we have shown you again and again that the memo has been discredited, is just bizarre. csloat (talk) 06:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
You keep accusing me of misquoting Wright, but you must know that it was Erics1one who wrote the passage and selected the quote. He's obviously somebody's sockpuppet, but not mine. Like I wrote earlier, I didn't check his sources, didn't read the passage in Wright. I reverted strictly on the basis that an article entitled "Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda link allegations" is the right place for, you know, allegations. Kauffner (talk) 07:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
OK, no problem, so we're agreed the material should not be added back then? csloat (talk) 08:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Lawrence Wright, "The Looming Tower" (pg 295-296) Knopf, 2006 ISBN 978-0375414862
  2. ^ "Case Closed". Nov 24, 2003.

Sources

The additional sources section contains duplicate and expired links. Should we trim or remove it altogether? Dynablaster (talk) 12:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

what this page is not about

Please do not hijack this page to make other points, even valid ones. The page already makes clear what it is about. This edit is an attempt to insert this irrelevant information through the back door. Mead's analysis of the situation may be correct but it's irrelevant here - the page, as is clearly already stated in the intro, is about allegations that "were made by some U.S. Government officials who claimed that a highly secretive relationship existed between former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and the radical Islamist militant organization Al-Qaeda from 1992 to 2003, specifically through a series of meetings reportedly involving the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS)." Adding a clause about what the page is not about is just a way of bringing that stuff into the page where it doesn't belong, especially when you add the citations to the comment. It boils down to an invalid synthesis of research. We might as well add that this page is not about Michael Jackson's funeral. csloat (talk) 20:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

History of claims section

I made a quick attempt to reorganize the "history of claims" section into a near-chronological statement of various claims by the bush admin on this topic. I didn't delete anything but moved everything around and added subheadings. I think the section on the OIF documents can probably go; it seemed important at the time to a number of folks but that story has long seen its day. I think we could add a section on pre-9/11 claims even though these weren't as prominent. For right now the "cherry-picking" claim is in with the torture revelations but we should separate those out and add information about that claim and specifically name the Feith report there. Any other suggestions? (Or am I the only one left still watching this page? lol) Happy holidays.... csloat (talk) 19:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

This article...

is one of the most appalling examples of the partisanship of wikipedia, and the uselessness of this website as a resource.129.133.127.112 (talk) 00:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Some Authoritative Sources

Some of you may have read al-Qaeda expert Peter Bergen's 2010 book The Longest War: The Enduring Conflict Between America and al-Qaeda. On pages 130-150, he lays out his skeptical viewpoint on Iraq-Al-Qaeda ties in more detail, especially his skepticism of Laurie Milroyie's credibility.

In former CIA director George Tenet's memoir At the Center of the Storm, pages 341-358, Tenet details the CIA's conflicting reports about Iraqi al-Qaeda ties and the Agency's conclusions on them, admitting that these reports are not 100%-true concrete evidence that al-Qaeda never collaborated with Saddam.

Personally, I agree with their conclusions that Iraq and al-Qaeda had a vague relationship of some mere contacts and offers. Of course, I realize that there are some hardcore neocons out there that love to jump on isolated data points about the relationship and portray it as "proof" that bin Laden and Saddam were in love with each other. For you guys, read the book Cheney by Stephen Hayes. He has lots of information about Iraq-al-Qaeda contacts, probably gleaned from his earlier book The Connection:How al-Qaeda's Collaboration with Saddam Hussein Has Endangered America. That book has no bibliography, making it unreliable, so do not use it on this page.

Regardless of my skepticism of the extent of Iraq-al-Qaeda linkages, these books should stop all the crazy,table-thumping neocon-vs-liberal debate and finally let the so-called "controversy" rest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.173.140.53 (talk) 00:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Saddam was just too nice a guy to be mixed up with anything like 9/11? Kauffner (talk) 00:57, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Maybe someone forgot to tell that to Al Qaeda, in their 1998 Fatwa against America two of their three clearly stated grievances concerned offenses against Iraqi Muslims. That's why they attacked on 9/11. Batvette (talk) 11:22, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Intelligence community claims and doubts

After reading this section I went to its singular reference as cited. PBS Frontline "The Dark Side" Transcript and it appears the editor responsible for that passage has provided his own original research in lieu of what the transcript ever claimed. Since I assume this article has watchers I will wait about a week or two to assess opinions before I delete or otherwise modify that passage toward a more sensible version. The PBS piece is biased enough,(for instance claiming the CIA was pressured in its production of the NIE yet admitting the Senate found that was not the case-) it seems whoever wrote that section took it far above that even. Couldn't find "stovepiped" mentioned in there anywhere. Batvette (talk) 11:17, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Much of the opening of this part focuses on Saddam's effort against the Shia factions and those allied to Iran. This in itself cannot constitute proof against the allegation of the article's subject because al-Qaeda is a Sunni Muslim organisation and subsequently it too is in a permanent state of conflict with the Shia world. Over all, during Saddam's time, Sunnis were about 35% of Iraq but about half were ethnically Kurdish; most Kurds in turn mainly concentrated on self-determination regardless of a Kurdish person's faith. So between Kurds and Arabs, the overall population that might have been Sunni Islamist is around 20%. During Ba'ath rule, there was indeed discrimination directed at this grouping from the government which included non-Sunnis in prominent positions. That kind of thing can be used in such an article but the page is so long and things like the anti-Shia campaigns don't belong to this article. --IHBR-YSA (talk) 03:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Saddam_Hussein_and_al-Qaeda_link_allegations/Archive_9&oldid=1276862177"