Talk:Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda link allegations/Archive 5

message: could someone familiar with the discussions archive this thing with a move & copy whatever parts are still live back to talk?  this thing is 'long. Derex 16:59, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks to me like everything before ""Prague Connection" is highly disputed" could be safely archived.  The later stuff is still current.--Silverback 17:59, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: hmmm, well that's a lot of 'live' stuff to copy.  on the other hand, this is by far the longest talk page i've ever seen.  it's just unwieldy & intimidating.  does anyone mind if i 'archive' this with the understanding that current discussions should continue there; the archive page would still be 'live' until those discussions wind down.  that way, we can have a fresh page for new topics?  this seems to be a common talk-page problem for highly active articles. Derex 18:29, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Archive away!  I would say only keep the most recent 4 or 5 sections.  We have links to the archive to refer to other sections when we need to; the only reason I can see for keeping this stuff is so it can be referred to in future discussions when certain editors start repeating themselves and their arguments have already been answered.  Certainly you could at least archive everything more than a couple weeks old.--csloat 20:39, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You suggested 4 or 5 sections.  I suggested a particular breakpoint.  The archiver ignored both, so I have restored the page.--Silverback 17:52, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That was so mature of you.  Look, there's no reason not to archive.  We can always look back at the arguments through the archived page.  I don't know how to do it myself so I will have to let Derex come back and do it again.--csloat 18:29, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why didn't you look back through the archives then instead mischaracterizing my participation with "you have not replied to the arguments"?--Silverback 18:51, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I did.  You haven't.  You simply keep repeating yourself and ignoring the arguments which I conveniently broke down for you below.  There are other arguments you miss too but these are the ones that most directly address your recent destructive edits.--csloat 19:05, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

text: So, you don't know how to archive older material, while preserving recent material and active discussions on this page?--Silverback 18:25, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The way to archive is a page move which preserves edit history.  Do you know how to move half a page?  I didn't think so.  Now, do you know how to click a link?  I thought you could.  I also understand why you might feel that a link click is far too much of a burden; oh wait, no I don't. Sometimes a copy of the most active topic is made to the new talk just to highlight it.  You wanted me to copy over 30 topics, most of which hadn't been touched in at least two weeks.  Get over it, and archive stuff yourself next time without letting the page grow to 10x (320kb) the recommended limit. Derex 19:23, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: People don't generally follow postings to the archive pages, though they are only a link away.  I think your problem is, that that the process you want to use, is inapproapriate for the task of properly archiving just the inactive discussions.  Your argument is with the wikipedia software.  It doesn't excuse your impolite disruption of discussions here.--Silverback 19:29, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: He is trying to help.  I didn't see anything impolite about it; it is nice to start with a fresh page, and we can always click the link if we want to review things. csloat 20:08, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't doubt his intentions, one can be impolite without that intent, it did seem a bit thoughtless of him though to read our responses and then to take actions that were dismissive of them.  He probably didn't intend to vandalize my talk page either, but he did.--Silverback 20:19, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: no, i did not 'vandalize'.  i said, among other things, 'what the fuck did you expect me to do'?  are you really so precious that you regard that as vandalism?  look, most people don't even ask before archiving, they just do it.  particularly in the longest talk page in history.  i solicited opinion; your opinion was to leave 30 topics most of which were untouched in two weeks leaving a talk page that was still 5x as long as when archives are supposed to happen.  not to mention that would screw the edit history, because it would be a massive copy.  i have explained this to you at length.  if your brain cannot comprehend working on two pages at once: (one for older topics, one for new), then i don't know what else to say.  surely, you edit more than one article at once.  finally, this page is not just for Silverback's convenience, it is for everyone's.  you may be on broadband, but lots of people are on dial-up.  it is ridiculous that they have to download 1/3 MB just to even see the latest discussion.  i really don't know why i care, except that your overbearing attitude really ticked me off.  and no, your quarrel is with the wikipedia software; i'm just following standard procedure with which i have no problem at all.  i have never encountered anyone so intransigent before they would spend this much time objecting to a purely routine archive, according to guidelines, which were designed for good reason.  good day, sir. Derex 23:12, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I make it a practice not to delete anything from my talk page, because I believe in open communications, and not communicating anything in private that I wouldn't in public.  Your post to my talk page was the most abusive of the privililege of an open forum, ever posted to my talk page, other than the porn vandal, and the only other one I have had to delete.  Your "standard procedure", must not be that common, because I only recall one other time I had to confront such inconsiderate behavior on a talk page.--Silverback 03:47, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is just a test, can Silverback stand not to have the last word?  fuck. Derex 05:15, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Archive

message: I'm not going to start an edit war over what Silverback called "argumentative commentary," but I wanted to respond to his edit summary -- the fact that Iraq offered up Yasin indicates that they were not "harboring" him.  The term implies an offer of protection -- ironically, it was the Clinton administration, not Saddam, who refused the deal.csloat 00:33, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Life is cheap to Saddam, just because he offerred Yasin for something he wanted, doesn't mean he wasn't harboring him.  Do you ever admit you were wrong?  It was just a week ago that you wrote: "First, there is no reason to believe Saddam knew Yasin's location".  Letting a wanted al-Qaeda terrorist stay in Iraq, is harboring him.  Evidently he wasn't concerned this al-Qaeda member was a threat despite all bin Laden's bluster.--Silverback 03:29, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I admit I was wrong a week ago about Saddam not knowing where Yasin was; the link I added was the first time I saw the claim that he was offered as extradition.  What's funny is you appear to have known that, yet you kept quiet about it when you were making the (now indefensible) argument that Saddam offered Yasin "sanctuary".  This has nothing to do with whether life is cheap to Saddam or any other dictator - the issue is that if he offered to give the guy up he was not "harboring" him, since to harbor is to hide in order to protect, usually from the law.  Offering to give someone up pretty much ends the illusion that you are "protecting" him.  The more important issue here is that there has never been any question of Saddam actually having cooperated with Yasin in any meaningful way (such as preparing a terrorist attack with him).  Even if it were true that Saddam "harbored" Yasin, there is no basis to claim based on that that Saddam cooperated with al Qaeda.  There is, in fact, no evidence that Yasin had anything to do with al Qaeda or terrorism after he got to Iraq - and it is unlikely he would, assuming he wanted to stay alive at that point, since of course the US knew who he was.  I'm not sure what you mean about bin Laden's "bluster" - I don't know that I've ever made the claim that bin Laden threatened to use Yasin to attack Saddam.  Face it - Yasin moved to Iraq because he was Iraqi, not because of any nefarious plot by Saddam to work with al Qaeda.  There's a guy named Occam you should see about a razor here. --csloat 06:29, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Refusing to give someone up unless you get what you want is continuing to harbor him.  I didn't know about this offer of Saddams, but I did know our article already stated Clarkes assessment that Iraq was gave him sanctuary, and I also knew that Saddams secret police generally knew most of what was going on.  Saddam was known for using people as pawns.  If he didn't know where Yasin was, when informed that he was probably in the country, he probably tried to find him ASAP, so that he would have another pawn.  By "bluster", I mean his talk never amounted to any action.  After all, he had also said negative things about the Saudi Royal family, yet during Gulf War 1, he offered to defend the country.  Absent any other evidence, he statements really don't contribute much to the implausibility argument.--Silverback 07:29, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Clarke's assessment was that it was not unusual for an Iraqi to want to flee to Iraq.  Again, the razor.  To "harbor" is to hide or protect -- Saddam was not protecting him.  This article is not about what in your estimation Saddam "probably tried" to do.  I am not sure which talk you are referring to that never amounted to action - bin Laden made threats against the US, and we have thousands of dead Americans (and others) from the 1990s on suggesting that his bluster did amount to something.  I am not aware of threats ever made against Saddam by OBL, although we have AQ-related terrorist groups in northern Iraq who were Saddam's sworn enemies and actively working for his overthrow.  But it's unlikely these people knew Yasin.  And, like I said, it's unlikely (and there is certainly no evidence) that Yasin had anything to do with terrorism after 1993.  Obviously you know very little about OBL (another reason you should not be editing this page as aggressively as you do).  He made many negative comments about the Saudi royals -- after 1991, when they rejected his offer to defend them.  Since then, of course, he has been a consistently staunch foe of the regime and has murdered many in terrorist attacks against the regime dating back to the early 1990s.  You throw in the last sentence above as if it meant anything here - I've refuted that point above and you ignored the refutation.  Bin Laden's statements, and other indications of hostility towards Saddam, do in fact render the conspiracy theory implausible (and in fact that is what every intelligence agency on earth has concluded when examining that particular claim, so whether or not you are convinced of it is completely immaterial).--csloat 08:16, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Apologies, I was wrong about bin Laden--Saudia Arabia.  I thought he had made early statements critical of the Saudi and other governments of the time for their corruption and failure to impose Sharia law.  On the Yasin issue, perhaps I should have used the term "sanctuary" like Clarke did.--Silverback 09:28, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

text: 1. Saddam did not "play host" to anyone.  Yasin moved there of his own accord.  Saddam offered to give him up.  Which means he wasn't much of a "host" anyway.  2. This page is not about Saddam Hussein and all terrorists but it is about Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.  Therefore the al Qaeda connection is not a "litmus test"; it is simply the topic of the page.  That's what belongs here.  3. Saddam did not get attacked for "playing host" to terrorists.  He was attacked (in part) because the US Government convinced Americans that Saddam was collaborating with al Qaeda terrorists who were considered a direct threat to the United States.  Connections to terrorists in Israel, in Egypt, in Iran may be troubling but they would not have justified the war to the American public.  That is why this is considered a bigger deal than, say, the money Saddam offered Palestinian suicide bomber families.  Substantial evidence of ties to al-Qaeda would be troubling.  I do not fault Bush for suspecting such ties, but I do fault those around him who insisted on the existence of such ties when the agencies charged with investigating those ties were concluding that they didn't exist.  This, in the end, is why as you say "the Administration is getting creamed" on this issue.  But again I don't think this page should be about whether the war was justified or about the 2004 election campaign.  This is (and ought to be) a historical account of Saddam's ties (or lack thereof) to al-Qaeda. --csloat 18:46, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure what you want.  The connections to al-Qaeda affiliated groups are already mentioned in the timeline.  This article is not about whether Clinton wanted to attack Iraq.  It is about Saddam's connections to al-Qaeda, which have turned out to be a lot less than some people thought.--csloat 20:47, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

text: "The media" is not making it seem like this or that; they are reporting the information they are getting from the CIA, FBI, NSA, 911 Commission, etc., ad nauseum.  I don't think it is strange at all that there were people who changed their minds between 1996 and 2002 -- we learned a lot more about al Qaeda in the intervening years.  Some of those officials - e.g. Daniel Benjamin - even changed their minds about this long before 2001.  You are not making any sense -- the al Shifa plant and Saddam offering OBL "safe haven" are separate issues; there is no Saddam/AQ connection to the plant that has been demonstrated here, and there is no evidence of weapons and training being transferred.  You can say there is a "tie" if you consider it a tie that Saddam's government asked OBL if he wanted "safe haven" and OBL said "no."  By that reasoning, there are ties between the US and the Taliban, since the US asked the Taliban to give bin Laden up and they said "no."  The argument is just stupid and I can't believe we have to keep debating it -- al Qaeda had "contacts" with governments around the world, their contacts with Iraq were nothing special and nothing that led to cooperation.  Most importantly, all of the "contacts" are already reported here in the timeline, so I don't understand what you are complaining about.-csloat 22:45, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  harboring Yasin 

message: I agree with csloat that the "Statements" segment needs attention.  I think that one particular "statement" should go.  It is long (more of a dialogue really) and the person cannot back up the statements he is making.  It is not informative at all.  I am not certain if the statements should be divided as "for" and "against" the link.  The reason is that some of the statements skeptical of Iraq being involved in 9/11 are spoken by people who see the relationship but do not see Iraq involved in 9/11.  I think it would be best if we could find the dates these were all spoken and put them in chronological order.  Do you agree?
I just completed doing that to the "Sources" segment.  I am certain someone will find fault with the way I did it.  If it can be wikified into better conformity with wikipedia's standards, I am all for that.  I did find one dead link and pulled it down to an area that is not readily seen.  If someone can find the same article on another website and restore it, that would be fine by me.  Having Sources and Statements in chronological order at least puts them in some context. -RonCram 15:45, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with putting the statements and sources in chronological order.  I am not sure about the dialogue with Hayes but the quotes at the end of that dialogue should probably stay.  I agree we should find the dates and the sources of these quotes.  As for the sources, there is no rhyme or reason why they are here.  I think we should just have important articles from the mainstream press and links to such things as the Senate report, the 9/11 Commission, etc.  There is no need for every Weekly Standard piece on the issue - perhaps one representative article from Stephen Hayes, since he has been a major voice here, but we should in general avoid having the list dominated by such openly partisan (and, in this case, demonstrably inaccurate) sources. --csloat 20:08, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Statements" and "Sources" segments 

message: This part
::(...) conclude that "Saddam Hussein, if sufficiently desperate, might employ terrorists with a global reach – al-Qaida – to conduct terrorist attacks".
Strikes me as totally made of tendencious non-information. I am sorry to break this to you, chaps, but famous other countries with did use terrorism when "sufficiently desperate" include the USA, the UK, the USSR, China, France, Italy, Spain, ... Any country will and often has used terrorist measure in extreme predicaments. Suggesting that Saddam Hussein's Iraq is somehow special in this is extremely misleading. Rama 08:16, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  if sufficiently desperate 

message: Silverback please stop reverting.  The two things you keep reverting -- the Able Danger and the speculation that Saddam "might" use terrorists "if sufficiently desperate" have been discussed and rejected above.  You have not responded to the arguments against their inclusion like this.  Your reversions are testing the limits of good faith.  I have asked you to stop this stuff both here and on your user page. The arguments against these changes are very clear and spelled out over and over above, in painstaking detail, and neither you nor Ron has responded to their substance.--csloat 08:19, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The "rejections" are in name only and fail to meet wikipedia standards.  I am making good faith edits and you are reverting.  I am not asking you to do anything, lets not make this personal.--Silverback 09:04, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  As I have stated several times, I regard the way that this "if sufficiently desperate" is used by Silverback as very misleading. If csloat's version is not perfect, it can be worked upon, obviously, but I do not find Silverback's version acceptable. Rama 09:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The "if sufficiently desperate" is in a quote, so it is as used by the sources.  I happen to disagree with them, it should really read "if sufficiently secret", because the Saddam's threshold would not be as high as "desperate".  Instead of being repetitive, can you give a wikipedia reason for opposing this relevant, sourced, and fairly presented passage?--Silverback 09:17, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: SB your reverts are not in good faith.  Your summaries are even misleading; you are trying to hide the fact that you are reverting to versions of the page that have been disputed here.  The wikipedia problem with this passage is not the passage itself (which is already below on the page) but its inclusion in the intro and its being characterized as a "conclusion."  This passage already exists where it is supposed to on the page.  You are adding it in the intro to mislead that there was some CIA "conclusion" that Saddam was about to get "desperate."  This has been pointed out over and over and the claim is unrefuted by you or Ron.  Also you are reverting the Able Danger passage yet you have conceded the arguments there as well and you no longer seem to be defending that edit.--csloat 09:45, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You are lying about my intent, and mischaracterizing the edits.  What about the passage implies that Saddam was "about to get desparate"?  I don't even believe that.  If you think that is what is suggested by the wording, then show good faith, by balancing it or suggested better wording.  There should be a way we can do this without corrupting the quote itself, since it is a conditional, without such implications.--Silverback 10:09, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not know your intent but you are the one lying about the number of reverts.  Your first edit since midnight was a revert.  As I noted in my edit summary.  I have shown good faith by leaving the quote in, completely, where it belongs.  I have not corrupted the quote at all - your putting it in the intro as a "conclusion" is corrupting it.  And you have no explanation why it should be in there twice, or why you would delete the CIA's actual conclusion and the Senate Report's comment on it, as you keep doing in your revert.  Also you are reverting another entire section without responding to the arguments against it. -csloat 10:34, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I leave the quote in its original location for completeness, as part of the original list, it would be clumsy to refer people up to the intro for this missing conclusion.  I hope this puts your mind at ease.  It was called a conclusion also in its original location, why didn't you contest it there?  You may find wikipedias counting rules unfairly favoring editors over deletionists, but that issue has been discussed and is the community's decision.--Silverback 10:48, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I never stated that the intro was the original location.  You are not a careful reader or thinker.--Silverback 05:14, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Personal attacks like this are unnecessary Silverback.  They also are non-responsive to the arguments, which is why I assume you are conceding them.--csloat 05:53, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Silverback's reversions 

message: SB proposes the following paragraph be included under the 911 Commission section:  "The 9/11 Commission may not have heard all the evidence possibly available to it because it rejected information that did not agree with its preconceived conclusions. For instance it failed to include some Able Danger information. Fox News reported that former 9/11 commission spokesman Al "Felzenberg said the information about Atta was considered suspect because it didn't jibe with many other findings. For example, the intelligence officer said Atta was in the United States in late 1999, but travel records confirmed that he did not enter the country until late 2000.""
#Oppose.  As I pointed out again and again, there is no article here that specifically addresses the Commission's credibility on the issue of Saddam/AQ connections.  To make that inference constitutes WP:NOR original research.  If SB thinks this is such an obvious point, why have no mainstream journalists scholars or politicians bothered to mention it in the public sphere?  If you take a look at the discussion over the past few days, you can see that Silverback has even stopped defending this proposed change but he nonetheless keeps reverting it.  It is time to put a stop to it.  I know there is at least one other user who supports including this information but he seems to have backed off too.  I wonder what others think.  It seems to me the Commission's credibility has not been questioned on this particular issue, and that the Able Danger revelations, while interesting, do not have anything to do with a Saddam connection.  If they did, why is there nobody speculating about it in the mainstream media? --csloat 18:59, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you think of something more NPOV descriptive of "information about Atta was considered suspect because it didn't jibe with many other findings".  As usual, I am open to suggestions.--Silverback 11:57, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The only source I have seen connecting the two things in any way at all was the Weekly Standard article cited by RonCram.  It was discredited even by Ron himself, and the article does not even coherently speculate about what Able Danger might tell us about Saddam and AQ.  I am open to putting it in the article if it is relevant (and I have not bothered the edits Ron made over at 9/11 Commission about this), but I still have seen no evidence or even a coherent theory as to what Able Danger might tell us that would illuminate the Saddam/AQ story.  The only connection that SB seems to be drawing is a sort of generic indictment -- that because Able Danger proves the 9/11 Commission was sloppy in discussing Atta's timeline in 2000, and because the 9/11 Commission concluded that there was no Saddam/AQ evidence, SB seems to think that it therefore follows that there is some Saddam/AQ evidence that the Commission, in their sloppiness, overlooked.  That is the best I can make of Silverback's otherwise nonsensical sputtering about Able Danger -- and to be frank it's a rather generous reading.  It's a strange version of the fallacy of composition, methinks.  If SB had any articles that support the statement he would have produced them by now.csloat 09:11, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You have made your case and asked for input towards a consensus, which I have given.  I will not be drawn into the slanging match.  If you continue to argue your side in response to others' opinions, you risk SB jumping back in too and this will drag.  I have said "qualified oppose" and am sticking with it: it should stay out unless SB can support it.  The onus is on him to provide a proper basis. 195.157.197.108 09:24, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough - I don't mean to start fights here.  I'm just trying to lay out the record as accurately as I can.  Sorry about that.-csloat 18:53, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

text: You and Derex were the first to attack the "preconceived conclusion" language in detail.  It does go a little beyond the cite.  I have removed the whole phrase related to this.--Silverback 16:51, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: SB's change #2

message: The reason I want to quote the Senate conclusion about the CIA's "judgement", is that it directly and authoritatively relates to the opening sentence of this article and this articles subject matter, that Saddam and al Qaeda "might conspire to launch terrorist attacks ".  I also leave it in its original location because it is in context there.  This would not be the first time that a quote has been repeated more than once in an article, and this is the type of situation where that is appropriate. I will try to address csloats concerns in the new text.--Silverback 05:29, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please participate in the vote above on this and the other issue.  I believe I have responded to your concerns above.-csloat 05:51, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that would give it legitimacy.  You have been given a fair chance to make your points and they don't hold up.  You are seeking to impose some standard of relevance that you cannot rigorously communicate or defend, and you have repeatedly spent more time mischaracterizing my position, my proposed text and my sources than you have spent fleshing out and explaining the principles of your own position.  You supported the premature archiving of active discussions, which the other voters probably have not read.  If you want votes to be valid you must fairly characterize the positions because voters will assume good faith, and you purposely sought to get the vote started before I would have a chance to correct your mischaracterizations, taking advantage of the fact that I was blocked.  You have been opposing my posts for the slimmest of reasons, your own more limited view of relevance and restrictive view of the scope of credibility issues.  I have corrected your judgement vs conclusion concern about the introduction, although I think that was a nit of a point.--Silverback 06:26, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please Silverback - I proposed the vote precisely because you would not respond to my points and you kept changing things anyway.  I offered my arguments above for my vote and I will accept whatever consensus emerges.  You have a fair opportunity to make whatever arguments you have here as well.  Everyone is welcome to read the archives.  And you are welcome to direct their attention to particular quotes from there if you like too.  If you disagree with my characterization of your changes please address that too.  Please do not tell me what my motives are.  If you have arguments to make relevant to the vote, please make them there.  I really don't want to continue debating you like this when you don't respond to my arguments and you make changes anyway -- this way, you can make your case to others, and if your case is persuasive, you will win the vote.  It's really quite simple.  The alternative is an endless edit war, and I really don't have time to participate in that.--csloat 06:35, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't care about winning votes, I am seeking the truth, what you characterize as "changing things" are my attempts to address your concerns.   One thing about truth, is that just because it doesn't agree with your POV, doesn't make it any less true.  What is untrue or unsupported about any of the text that I have proposed? What compromise text have you proposed that addresses your concerns in a way that I apparently haven't been able to?  --Silverback 06:53, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The text is not "untrue" or "unsupported"; it does not belong there and you deleted the text that does belong there.  My arguments opposing these changes are above, and repeated over and over on this page and the archive.  Please review them if you like but I am not going through it again.  Please consult my arguments above by the vote and offer your vote there too.  I don't see the point of continuing to argue with you - you ignore my arguments, and I'm not likely to convince you anyway.--csloat 07:59, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've no objection to the deleted text being added back in.  I thought with my more specific text, it was redundant.  You are welcome to append that text in the appropriate paragraph, I was unaware that it was even an issue.  Have you made any argument other than that you consider the Able Danger text irrelevant on both the timeline and credibility issues and that you consider the text in the intro to give a misleading impression (somehow?)?--Silverback 08:16, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Thank you.  Now please participate in the voting process and stop reverting this page.  Should your arguments be convincing to others, you can make your changes.  In the meantime please do not continue a silly revert war.  Can someone else consider protecting this page?  Thank you. --csloat 08:41, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The use of senate conclusion 97 in the intro. 

message: What is your evidence of this? csloat's only work towards "consensus" has been to revert and solicit votes.  I've responded to his arguments and made changes, just as I would to your suggestions.  Are you being fair?  Are you proposing any compromise text?  Soliciting votes is an attempt to steamroll, you haven't seen me doing that.  I have stuck to the merits.--Silverback 12:09, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: since the merits are all stacked against you, i find this difficult to swallow.  no, looking back through the talk history, i find csloat to have been astoundingly patient and accomodating.  you will find me less so. i run more your speed, SB. Derex 12:22, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be easier to believe you are being thoughtful rather than willful, if you actually discussed the merits.  BTW, can you name one accomodation that csloat has made on this issue?  I have made several.--Silverback 13:00, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: see my comments in the poll.  i believe those qualify as "discussing the merits".  it would be awful sporting of you to name these several accomodations.  then, csloat can speak for himself if he so chooses. it would also be easier to believe that you are being thoughtful rather than willful if i hadn't read the talk page and archives. Derex 13:11, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is the original Able Danger text.  Not only have I produced a much trimmed down version, aimed at only at the credibility of the commission and timeline issue.  I have edited that trimmed down version and relocated it 1st out of the timeline, 2nd out of the introduction to the timeline and then finally to the 9/11 commission section, all in response to feedback.  Similarly for my modifications to the introduction.  Most recently I restored some deleted text when he pointed it out.  I assume, since you characterized csloats participation in this, that you must have spotted at least one accomodation?--Silverback 13:35, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: * 2005, August 7 -- Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer disclosed that a highly classified U.S. Army data-mining project known as Able Danger had identified Mohamed Atta and three other 9/11 hijackers as potential al Qaeda operatives inside the U.S. in January 2000.  The military unit prepared a chart with photos of the four men and recommended to US Special Operations Command that the information be shared with the FBI. The request was denied due to a memo written by Deputy Attorney General Jamie S Gorelick, who was also a member of the 9/11 Commission. A former spokesman for the 9/11 Commission confirmed that information regarding Able Danger was presented to the Commission. The 9/11 Commission subsequently issued a statement saying that Able Danger was not considered “historically significant” and the information was “not sufficiently reliable” to warrant further investigation. On August 22, US Navy Captain Scott J Phillpott and former contractor James D Smith confirmed that Able Danger had identified Mohamed Atta as al Qaeda as early as January 2000.  The Able Danger travel timeline puts Atta in the U.S. in January 2000. To travel to the U.S., Atta must have used an alias and a fake passport. Establishing that Atta used an alias is significant. The 9/11 Commission Report claimed Atta could have traveled to Prague in April 2001, but he could only have done so if he traveled using an alias. Since the Commission believed this was not his practice, it concluded that it was not likely Atta made the trip to Prague. (Page 229)  However, the information from Able Danger indicates that Atta did travel using an alias and now the only logical hurdle to the trip to Prague is removed. Upcoming Congressional inquiry into Able Danger and possibly other information provided by the 9/11 Commission is expected to shed light on Mohamed Atta's travels.  
If you actually read the April 2001 entry here on this page you would see that the issue of Atta using an alias is not the main reason that this story has been shown to be false.  Atta was in the US.  Al-Ani was nowhere near Prague.  Al-Ani was meeting with someone else who looked like Atta.  The entire story is half-baked; it came from a single unreliable source in Prague.  The Czechs have backed off the story.  No intel agency in the world believes it happened.  Even the 911 Commission found numerous reasons it could not have happened.  The above paragraph picks up one of their reasons - the alias thing - and blows it out of proportion, as if the entire case against the Atta Prague meeting was based on the silly assumption that Atta would never use an alias.  That is simply and utterly false.  
Also there are no mainstream analysts who have published this argument.  The only source for this claim is from the Weekly Standard article (cited twice above to make it look like two sources?), and if you actually read the article you can see it is sheer speculation.  The subtitle makes it sound really damning -- it specifies and April 2001 discrepency in the timeline -- but then reading the article it is clear the discrepancies are over a year earlier and there is no April 2001 discrepancy at all!  The author never even speculates about an April 2001 discrepancy so the subtitle is either an intentional distortion to sell more copies of the rag or it was written by an editor who didn't actually read the article him/herself.  Ron found other problems with the article as well.  The point is it sensationalizes Able Danger in order to insinuate a connection to Atta in Prague but never makes the connection explicit.  This piece does not rise to the level of encyclopedic notability.  
You trimmed this entry down significantly, but in trimming it down you also deleted any connectin between Able Danger and this page.  While I applaud your taking material out of the entry that was dubious at best, what remains is not at all notable on this page.  There is no mention at all of Saddam in your new text!  It is simply and utterly irrelevant.  The connection to Saddam/AQ is one you feel is obviously implied by the questioning of the Commission timeline, but such speculation on your part does not belong in the wikipedia.--csloat 18:32, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I made no attempt to keep the connection to Iraq, because I think the stronger point is 9/11 commission credibility issue, although the connection to the timeline is still strong.  I think the text itself can be strenghtened again based on some of the Able Danger testimony at the hearings that specifically questioned the 9/11 commissions handling of evidence.  I will be working on that, I will be interested to see what the consensus will be on the new texts.--Silverback 01:02, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, until you actually do make a connection to Iraq (specifically, to Saddam's connection to al-Qaeda), this passage is simply not relevant here.  Your point about the Commission's credibility belongs on the Commission page (where it already is), not here.--csloat 01:33, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: csloat, your argument is bogus.  Lots of information is available on more than one page. The credibility of the 9/11 Commission is relevant here because the Commission is quoted as an authority here.  Your POV is showing. -RonCram 01:40, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ron I don't want to argue with you - you placed your vote and I don't think either of us will convince the other.  My argument is not about information being on more than one page; it is about the info being on the pages where it is relevant.  Once again, and I reguse to keep going back and forth here, Able Danger has not indicted the commission's credibility on the issue of Saddam and al-Qaeda and nobody is making such an argument in the mainstream press so I consider it original research.  If you are comfortable with such original research in an encyclopedia article, that is your POV.  Mine is that such speculation should first be published in books, articles, newspapers, etc. before it makes it into an encyclopedia.--csloat 01:59, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  you certainly haven't satisfied my objections. how about genuinely working towards consensus on talk instead of continual steamrolling of the article 

message: I don't have the Senate document in front of me.  Can someone add Conclusion 92?  SB has added the (barely) tangentially relevant #91, so now we have skipped 92 without explanation -- I assume he left it out because it doesn't fit with his conspiracy theory (IIRC the conclusion was about the CIA having reasonably reviewed the evidence, but I could be wrong).  In either case it is silly to have 91 and then 93-8 without 92. --csloat 01:51, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have the document in front of me, but I got to it with by following the link on this page to another page, and then to the document.  The skipped conclusion was about the reasonableness of the CIA methodology or something.  I've no problem with it being added.  It was just a more peripheral conclusion.--Silverback 02:14, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Senate Conclusion 

message: Sorry, I hadn't noticed that one.  I did leave in an instance or two that were in quotes.  And I think I did remove a whole quote that did not have a redeeming qualities other than questioning credibility.  That quote should have been on the appropriate page.--Silverback 15:50, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  SB, please don't "clean up" direct quotes 

message: As I pointed out above, the INC's credibility has been specifically attacked on this issue, unlike the 911 Commission.  SB you know this yet you deleted that stuff anyway, with a lame press in your edit summary that had already been answered here.  If someone wants to add links to citations and change the wording that is ok but do not erase this information.  Here is the CJR article I was talking about but if you do the research yourself you will see there are many articles about this.  The INC has been accused of fabricating evidence for a Saddam/AQ connection because they were working for Iran.  Please don't start another edit war SB I don't want to have to repeat these points more than I already have.--csloat 17:29, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I notice that you bring up INC credibility even when the sources are only "associated" with the INC, and you use that as an excuse to remind of the reader of the INCs credibility issues again.  Nothing in the cites provided (one was bad) suggested that these sources that the lack of INC credibility should be transferred to them.--Silverback 17:47, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Those "associates" are actually members of the Congress.  That is not an excuse.  Please check the cite provided; it is correct and there is a quote and link after the cite further substantiating the case.  Again please cut the crap SB - make edits to improve the page, not to make a point.csloat 18:04, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That source does not state that they were members of the INC, and does not question their credibility based on any membership or association with the INC.  In fact the credibility of only one of them is "questioned" at all, in fact it wasn't really questioned.  The relevant text is "Hoagland's column said the defector should not be automatically believed. Hoagland said he wrote it to call attention to "the difficulties that two defectors had in receiving an evaluation from the CIA." " Difficulties in receiving an evaluation, and not being able to be "automatically believed" are not particularly stinging indictments.  Why are you focusing on the INC and its credibility in relation to Khodada and Abu Zeinab? --Silverback 18:25, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I just read the CJR article and it is equivocal.  Mainly the credibility of defectors are questioned, but reporters evidently also found some of them credible.  The only source that is specifically questioned on a specific Saddam/al Qaeda link is Chalibi and that is only on one alleged meeting.  Do you really want to question the INC's credibility based on the equivocal evidence in this article and to extend that questioning of credibility to ALL Iraqi defector sources?  I think you will need more specific questioning of credibility.--Silverback 18:08, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The reporters considered them credible once but do so no longer.  If you have specific suggestions regarding the wording of information here fine but do not simply censor information because you think it makes a point in another argument you are having.  It's childish.  Chalabi is not the only source questioned; he was just seen as the leader of this group.  And it is not just about a meeting; it is about the other info given by the INC such as Salman Pak.  It is pretty well known - or at least well established among American journalists - that the INC defectors as a group had been laying the groundwork for war by planting false or misleading stories in the press for about a decade.  So, yes, I do want to question the INC's credibility on this particular issue.  They had a clear motive to distort the truth (unlike the 911 Commission) and they have been found doing exactly that.  Their information should be reported here, no doubt, but that qualifier should be here too because in cases where we have no corroborating evidence other than the word of a defector, it should be clear what that defector's agenda is.  In the case of INC defectors, it has been shown that as a group they have distorted the facts in order to draw the US into war (possibly to help Iran, whose intelligence organization Chalabi and other INC defectors have close ties with).--csloat 18:19, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What other sources alleged al Qaeda/Saddam links are questioned in the article besides Chalabi?  Several reporters still consider their defector sources credible in the article, apparently mostly those that were not giving information on WMD however.  Motivation to get US into a war, is also motivation to provide correct information, not just false information.  Some defectors apparently were credible although the article is not specific and which where and weren't on any al Qaeda links.  The questioning of the 9/11 commission credibility is not based on bias, but based on haste and lack of thoroughness, and the rejection of evidence that was inconsistent with prematurely reached conclusions.--Silverback 18:33, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the Knight-Ridder article too and do some further research if you like; I am sick of spoon-feeding you every piece of information that has already been gone over several times.  The article says the journalists who once trusted INC sources now have doubts.  As for the 911 Commission that is exactly my point - the Commission is not charged with lying or distorting out of motivation to deceive; but that is exactly what is being said about the INC sources.  The only thing alleged about the 911 Commission re:Able danger is that they missed some things, nothing specific addressing the Saddam/AQ connection.  We have specific info that INC members distorted the connection in order to lure us into war.  And these guys were probably working for our enemy Iran.  Which makes it even more bizarre to see conservatives rush to their defense like this. --csloat 19:03, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The Knight-Ridder article doesn't bear on our discussion at all.  It doesn't even mention the IRC.  You also seem to have viewed the Columbia article through a special filter of your own:  "Almost all played down the INC’s role in influencing their stories and said they were aware of the group’s agenda of regime change, and included disclaimers to that effect in their work." doesn't sound like reporters whose trust of the INC has changed, or who dismiss the defectors reports completely.  Several of them question the validity of the "list" because their names are on it.  Your case for questioning the INC credibility on this page is thin.  It looks like you should restrict that questioning of credibility to Chalibi rather than paint with a broad brush,  it also looks like each defector should be evaluated indepently and not painted with a presumed INC taint.  On the subject of the commission, there are lots of legitimate ways to impeach credibility rather than mere evidence of deception or bias. There is evidence that their work was not thorough and without prejudice.--Silverback 19:54, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you lying or just confused?  The Knight Ridder article is exactly about INC disinformation; perhaps you were looking at another article.  You're the one using special filters for the CJR piece since you pull out one quotation out of context to make the point - read the whole article, which mentions several reporters such as the NYDaily News reporter who no longer believe the INC.  Hell, just read the subtitle of the article: "Ahmad Chalabi’s defectors told stories to a lot of reporters who now wish they’d kept their distance" (emph. added).  It is not "my case for questioning INC's credibility" -- it is a case that has been made by journalists and investigators and the INC's claims and motives are doubted by the CIA and other intel agencies; even the Pentagon has distanced itself from them.  Why do you think we stopped paying Chalabi hundreds of thousands a month, or that we stopped pushing for him to be the new Saddam?  Finally, there is no reason to go defector-by-defector when they have all been shown to be party to a campaign of disinformation (again, just read the subtitle of the CJR piece if you don't want to read the rest of these articles).  This is also written about in many other places as a simple google search will show you.  Why must I spoonfeed you this information?  If you're not even capable of doing this sort of research yourself, why are you participating so aggressively on this page?  Finally, you're bringing up the 911 Commission again in this context which leads me to assume that this is all still about making a point rather than about actually trying to have an accurate entry here.  As Kevin explains below, you are just wrong about this.  The INC has specifically been challenged on this issue -- journalists and intel people now believe that the INC has been distorting the Saddam/AQ connection all along.  You can call that "mere evidence of deception" if you like, but deception is deception.  The 911 Commission has been challenged on an unrelated issue and the information has not led anyone in the mainstream press to actually question the 911 Commission's handling of the Saddam/AQ connection, and there has certainly been no claim that the commission engaged in any overt deception about this issue.  The two cases are just not commensurate.--csloat 23:03, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Your wrong, this is the Knight Ridder article, I searched the article and found it.Knight Ridder article--Silverback 05:56, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL, I didn't say every Knight-Ridder article would mention this topic; just the one I linked above.  It's a big company, you know, and they publish a lot of articles.  Sadly, your finding an article from two years earlier and claiming that I'm "wrong" because this information doesn't appear in that article, when it is quite obviously evident in the article I linked above, is only slightly more ludicrous than your insistence that Able Danger is relevant here.  csloat 06:20, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You didn't link to the one above until after you referred me to it.  I was forced to make a good faith search for it myself.  And then you suggested I might be lying.--Silverback 07:45, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No; I linked it in the post before you were "forced" to make your "good faith search."  What's the difference?  The point is, the Knight-Ridder article linked on the encyclopedia entry on this page has the correct information.  I'm a little unclear what you're trying to prove by all this, but whatever.  You've clearly conceded the relevant points.-csloat 08:10, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The point is whether you will ever admit you made a mistake and apologize. Look at your post at 19:03 above. --Silverback 08:30, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I looked at the post; I don't understand what you want me to apologize for.  I didn't mean anything personal when I said "are you lying or just confused"; but your statement that the article did not refer to INC seemed completely incongruous with reality as I knew it.  I referred to the article, then I linked it in the 23:03 post, though I didn't need to there either since it is already there in the article Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda; you may be familiar with that article since that is what this discussion page is supposedly about!  And the link was in fact in the part of the article you were editing so when I mentioned it at 19:03 I assumed you knew which article I referred to there.  Then you argue based on another Knight-Ridder story that you somehow found in a search for INC even though it doesn't mention INC?  Now that we've cleared up the article confusion, you want me to apologize.  OK, sure - I'm sorry.  Feel better?  Let's try to keep future discussions on this page on-topic.--csloat 09:53, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You first referred to the Knight Ridder article here on the talk page without specifying a link.  The link idenfied as Knight Ridder on the article page, is not the link you eventually identified above.  This link you eventually identified above as your intended Knight Ridder article is on the article page in two places.  In neither occurance is it identified as as Knight Ridder in any way.--Silverback 10:50, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Silverback, you don't seem to realize that you are consistently applying a different standard to the INC than you are to the 9/11 commission, and that that is specifically why the INC's credibility was elaborated on in comparision to the 911 commision and with respect to this discussion. Kevin Baastalk: new 20:04, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you are confusing the times I apply my standards with the times I apply your standards.  Your standards seem to be the consensus ones for the article, and csloat has objected to applying your standards in the case of the INC and adopted your standards in the case of the 9/11 commission.  I hope you are not intending to be as selective in applying your standards as csloat appears to be.--Silverback 20:09, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you are confused.  Try breaking down the standards into discrete logical units and applying each and every one of them to the one, and then the other, separately.  The standards are pretty simple, so it shouldn't be very time-consuming. Kevin Baastalk: new 21:50, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  INC Credibility 

message: SB why do you insist on trying to erase the information about the INC?  It's almost as if you're defending them -- an organization that most likely worked for Iran to hurt US interests in the Gulf.  And whether or not they worked for Iran, the evidence is pretty clear that they waged a sustained disinformation campaign, aimed at US citizens, at our expense!  (After all most of their funding came from the US government).  Several of their leaders - e.g Chalabi - are notorious criminals while some of the witnesses they supplied - e.g. Curveball - are notorious liars.  They clearly had an agenda and it was not to get to the truth -- it was to manipulate US citizens through our media.  Now, you may agree with their overall goal of drawing the US into war, and you may even believe that their cause was noble and just, but why do you insist on eliminating accurate information about them?  You quibble with a word choice -- e.g. "coached", or "associate", or the use of passive voice -- but then you erase the rest of the information, well beyond your quibble.  And then you completely hypocritically accuse me of "going beyond the evidence."  I reined in the language to address your claims but I will resist the removal of the information itself.  And it's clear to me from your deceptive edit summaries that your real goal is to remove the information itself.  Be honest about your edit summaries.--csloat 07:38, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: They probably were terrible, but that doesn't make those two "members" and doesn't mean they were "coached", I look at you source, and it doesn't say either of those things.  So why are you inserting an attack on the INC credibility at that particular point?  If you can't find an appropriate place to attack INC credibility on this page, attack it on the INC page.--Silverback 08:08, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I conceded that they did not say those things.  My point was that you were deleting other stuff that was perfectly well substantiated by the article.  The "members" issue is something that needs further research, it's probably true but you're right we can't assume it.  "Coached" is my interpretation of the article's meaning but I understand that you consider it POV and I backed off it.  But you also deleted other claims that are backed up by the article.  You did not justify those other deletions.  It is a pretty transparent agenda visible to anyone who looks at your edits and your edit summaries.  All I'm asking is that you use accurate edit summaries rather than hiding behind minor quibbles about wording while making major changes that you refuse to justify (or even acknowledge) in talk. --csloat 08:52, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what other deletions you are referring to.  MY edit summaries sometimes assume you have read the other edit summaries and are made with recent talk page discussion in mind.  They probably should be more complete, if it weren't just you and me. Your "supplied" language is supported by your cite.  I still think the INC credibility attack is over the top.  The INC quotes in your source, say they left it to the reporters to evaluate the credibility of defectors on their own.--Silverback 09:00, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You know exactly what I'm referring to.  You made this edit and your summary was "eliminate passive voice, associeted is not "membership", where is the source for the membership claim?"  Nothing at all in the edit summary questioning the claim that the INC was "accused of deliberately supplying false information to the US government in order to build support for regime change", which you deleted without comment.  Your next edit deletes the same line, with the summary "rv, I never delete facts inconsist with my politics, instead I change my politics. There is no coaching in your cite, why do you insist in going beyond the evidence?"  Again, nothing in the summary justifies removing the claim you keep removing.  Stop the deceptive editing and stop playing dumb about it; it is getting tedious.--csloat 10:25, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I really am this dumb.  I thought removing the membership removed any link to the INC for those two in that part of the text, the INC credibility attack was in a dependendant clause.  What was I susposed to do, say something like "These is no evidence that these two were members of the INC, an organization whose credibility has been questioned ...."  That reverses the meaning of the text!--Silverback 10:45, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm not going to change it back right now but I disagree with your interpretation of the article.  It does say the INC found these people and got their stories and made them available to the media as part of their campaign to pull the US into war.  The article strongly implies that they were coached though it's true it does not use that word.  I think "association" is reasonable but it implies that the only issue here is guilt-by-association, which is incorrect.  The issue is that these defectors were part of an INC public relations strategy and that their stories were brought to the media because of the organization's agenda.  Anyway until I think of something better I will leave it as you edited it.--csloat 19:57, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, feel free to improve it.--Scimitar parley 20:09, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Silverback Edits on the INC 

message: An anonymous user inserted the Stephen Hayes claims; while I think the claims belong there, Stephen Hayes' speculation making the connection that AP is clear is not in the original document is deceptive and unnecessary.  That AQ attacked embassies is not big news; terrorist groups including AQ had attacked embassies for a long time by 1998.  Clinton's public accusation about Iraq and chemical weapons (which has not been clearly substantiated, btw, but many seem to believe it occurred) does not have anything to do with this.  Hayes asserts it as a matter of innuendo, which is typical of his reasoning.  The issue at stake in the memo is a plot to attack targets in Pakistan, not Africa.  I don't see the point of giving Stephen Hayes' faulty reasoning such a central stage on this page.  His articles are invariably deceptive and this one is no exception, but even he admits "It's possible, of course, that the evidence presented by military prosecutors is exaggerated, maybe even wrong."  The way the anonymous editor made the changes here makes it sound like Hayes' arguments are credible and substantive, and it makes Hayes seem way more sure of this point than he even is.  Yet these aren't even arguments - they are sheer innuendo.  Something may come out of further interrogations with this prisoner, but so far all we have is this cryptic Summary of Facts that tells us very little.  It's easy to make innuendo based on very little data but I don't think an encyclopedia needs such conjecture.
If we're going to make Stephen Hayes' work so prominent on this page, I suggest we have a caveat in the intro or background section that specifically addresses him, noting that his work is the source of many of the allegations addressed on this page, that he has been on a concerted campaign to make a case for the conspiracy theory for some years now, and that his work has been roundly discredited by journalists and counterterrorism experts, that his articles are often deceptive, and that his reasoning is often fallacious.  
By the way, I find it curious that the anonymous user also went directly to the RfC page for Silverback to vote on a discussion item without having previously participated in that discussion.  I don't think it's a sockpuppet -- the anon user frankly seems more intelligent than SB -- but I don't think it's a coincidence either. --csloat 05:44, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Hayes Innuendo 

message: tdc has been adding a suspect interview w/an anonymous source (translated by memri) - I have no problem with this, but it does not indicate that US troops have found evidence of terrorist activity at salman pak. The claim he keeps removing - that nothing has been found there & that many question the admin's claim - is not refuted by this interview, and is backed up by the CJR article. -csloat 18:55, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I see TDC has been active yet has not responded to this note; I am assuming it is ok by him to make the revert.  I am moving the memri link up with the other defectors where it belongs and returning the sentence that indicates nothing was found at SP (if you have info that something was found there please include it).--csloat 19:07, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Actually reading the memri piece again I am not moving it - the guy is not a defector (though who is he we don't know unfortunately).  But the deleted sentence is returned; it is backed up by the reporters in the cjr piece who are all bemoaning the fact that they had been tricked by INC-supplied sources.--csloat 19:25, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tdc's deceptive edits 

message: Ron, please provide full bibliographic information, or at least a date, for the ABC item you added.  It is a useful period piece.  But it is a little misleading to present it as if it were current (especially when all the specifics mentioned in the video are addressed on this page with more recent information).  Also, I realize you and I disagree about Saddam's relationship to al-Qaeda, but it would be constructive if we discussed those differences on this page, rather than all over Wikipedia.  I realize it is relevant on some other pages to mention it, but it is deceptive to only mention things that have been refuted by more recent evidence, and post them there as if you had never heard of the information available on this page.--csloat 09:40, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ron, you keep spamming this link on various pages, but you still have not provided any information about it.  When is this from?  It is misleading and disruptive to wikipedia to spam this link on a dozen pages without date information, often representing it as current information.  It looks like relentless pov-pushing.--csloat 20:06, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: csloat, I do not think of it as POV pushing but bringing balance. I do not have a date for when the piece aired, but based on the content it appears to be late 1998 or early 1999. I agree that a date would be helpful.  If you find one, please post it.  I noticed that you dated it about four or five years before the invasion.  I can accept that until we get an actual month and day. RonCram 21:16, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please figure out the date Ron - if you're going to spam this link to every page on wikipedia, the least you can do is a little research to find an actual date.  More importantly, don't include it without comment like you did on several pages, implying that it is current.  I see you're engaged in a little mindwar again.  This is getting tedious.  Actually, it has been tedious for a while.  I am not sure what is "balanced" about spamming a link to a video from 7 years ago which makes points that have been disputed and discredited since the video was released.--csloat 23:56, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: csloat, it brings balance by reminding people the link between Saddam and Osama was commonly accepted in the late 1990s and early 2000s.  The link only became questioned for political reasons.  But I agree the clip should be dated.  I will try to find the exact date the clip was aired.  RonCram 01:26, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The link became questioned because it was investigated by many different analysts and found to be lacking in evidence.  There are no "political reasons" at play here -- it was not investigated by a committee to bring down the president, or by some nefarious group of democrats.  It was investigated by the CIA, by the DIA, the NSC, the FBI, the 9/11 Commission, and even the Republican-dominated Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (not to mention the various non-US intel agencies that have looked into it).  The stuff in this video has been specifically disputed.  But that is neither here nor there; I am glad you understand this clip should be dated.  You should also stop spamming it; there is no need for it to be on every page that mentions terrorism.  It is out of date and it pushes a viewpoint that has since been judged incorrect by most intel agencies, experts, and journalists.  As I said, it's an interesting period piece but that's it.  Imagine the outcry if I spammed a link to the Power of Nightmares documentary or Fahrenheit 911 on every page mentioning terrorism!--csloat 01:39, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  ABC link 

message: hi everyone - just stopping by - i see things are going reasonably well here?  ;) just one thing, i see this has been discussed before, but i don't understand why able danger is not mentioned anywhere in this article?  i think the reasoning for why it absolutely ought to be mentioned is very simple:
1. the 9/11 commission is a key source for much of the info in this article 2. anything pertaining to the credibility of the 9/11 commission is therefore relevant 3. able danger pertains to the credibility of the 9/11 commission. i'm not saying it deserves its own section, but it should be mentioned somewhere, under "9/11 commission report" if not in the timeline.  comments? 
it seems to me the vote for just mentioning it (not in any way tied to iraq) would be pretty evenly split.  considering that this is reasonably well sourced information (at least if we're not trying to tie able danger to iraq in any way, which would probably be original research) we should "err" on the side of inclusion.
ObsidianOrder 17:50, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Welcome back.  Please look at the archive where there is a lot of discussion of this point.  We decided that able danger was not relevant to this page.  The able danger stuff has never specifically been relevant to the 911 Commissions conclusions on this point.  It is mentioned on the 911 Commission page, which is where it should be mentioned, but it is not relevant here, except through the original research speculation that leaps from questioning the 911 timeline on one issue to their credibility on another.  Again, these arguments are hashed out over and over in the archive and I really don't want to get into them again.  To respond specifically to your points above -- 1. the 9/11 commission is one source among many here 2. its credibility is mentioned where it is relevant - on the page about that commission 3. If we mention it without tying it to Iraq, then it is simply not relevant here.  This page is about Saddam and al Qaeda; mentioning it without any implications for that topic is simply non sequitur.  It we tie it to Iraq it is original research; if we don't it is non sequitur -- it's the same as if I advocated mentioning Bush admin distortions about CO2 in the atmosphere, since it cuts to the credibility of the Bush Administration, who is a major source for the claim that Saddam worked with al-Qaeda.  You see why this would not be relevant?  I really don't want to get into this argument again, so I suggest reviewing the discussion in the archive.--csloat 18:21, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Obsidian, welcome back.  The Able Danger info is definitely relevant here because it goes to the credibility and thoroughness of the 9/11 Commission, which is often cited as an authority.  However, there is a systematic effort to censor the subject from this page. RonCram 21:20, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ron, you are wrong.  Please check the archive where we went through this again and again.  There is no effort to "censor" anything; there is only an effort to keep this page filled wih relevant information rather than non sequiturs and original research.  I did not censor this information; I only insisted that it be placed where it belongs (e.g. the 9/11 Commi9ssion page, where I did not disturb it).--csloat 23:53, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  able danger, revisited 

message: I don't understand a lot of the additions in the sources section.  There is no order to this section and there are several sources - e.g. webpundit and Richard Miniter - that don't really belong there; they are just compilations of other sources that are already cited in the timeline.  Also government docs are interspersed with crap from Stephen Hayes - the latter could have his own section of links with a note about the problems with that source; the govt docs should be separated in its own section, and the actual news accounts should have their own section, and webpundit and similar crap should just go.  The way it is looks like the Weekly Standard articles are as legitimate as MSNBC or ABC News, and that's just not the case.--csloat 22:48, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources section

message: The edit wars surrounding this page have died down.  Assuming there are no specific NPOV or factual accuracy problems anyone can point out here, is it time to remove the NPOV tag?--csloat 02:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Time to remove NPOV tag?

message: On this, I must disagree with csloat. Putting the Sept. 11 attacks on the timeline is informative, especially since the next item on the timeline refers to the attacks. I understand you don't wanna create the impression that Saddam and al Qaeda were involved in the 9/11 attacks (since there isn't any evidence)... but al Qaeda certainly was, and the article speaks to the very issue in dozens of cites. I'd ask you to leave the item about the attacks in the timeline, in the interests of increasing the timeline's informativeness. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 19:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your point, but I thought that the link to the 9/11 article in the 9/21 entry would be sufficient.  It might help to put it back in but also add a sentence about Saddam's non-involvement?  Perhaps not - I'm ok with it either way.--csloat 19:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

text: You too, thank you :) --csloat 20:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Removing 9/11 attacks from timeline

message: This is fairly minor in comparison to other arguments over factual accuracy, but in the timeline under '1994', it says "Sudan -- Farouk Hijazi, then head of Iraqi Secret Service, meets with Osama bin Laden in Sudan". The link to 'Iraqi Secret Service' is a dead link due to the fact the Secret Service was the fourth directorate of the Iraqi Intelligence Service and no page exists for it. Should a page be created for the Secret Service, or should the link direct to the Intelligence Service? --Stretch 07:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably a link to the Intelligence Service, if it talks about the history of the organization.-csloat 18:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done --Stretch 11:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iraqi Intelligence Service/Iraqi Secret Service 

message: http://www.ict.org.il/articles/fatwah.htm
If this link is accurate, it would appear that Bin Laden's "fatwah" was in part regarding American treatment of Iraq, not a clear connection, but would give any reasonable observer pause to think, especially as this predates the Iraq War, 9/11 etc.  (Comment by 
:I don't see any reason to link the fatwa, since it doesn't have anything to do with any kind of Saddam Hussein - al Qaeda connection at all.  The fact that bin Laden -- like every other Islamist critic of the US, including every Arab leader in the world -- criticized the US attacks on Iraq and the US embargo against Iraq is hardly evidence of any collaboration between Iraq's leader and al-Qaeda, is it?  If you find evidence in that fatwa of praise for Saddam's government or of an alliance between Saddam and Osama, that would certainly be interesting information.--csloat 22:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about the Declaration of War vs. the USA? 

message: : 'Intelligence 'Misused' to Justify War, He Says' By Walter Pincus, Washington Post Staff Writer
:The former CIA official who coordinated U.S. intelligence on the Middle East until last year has accused the Bush administration of "cherry-picking" intelligence on Iraq to justify a decision it had already reached to go to war, and of ignoring warnings that the country could easily fall into violence and chaos after an invasion to overthrow Saddam Hussein.'
:{an} assessment, completed in August 2004, warned that the insurgency in Iraq could evolve into a guerrilla war or civil war. It was leaked to the media in September in the midst of the presidential campaign, and Bush, who had told voters that the mission in Iraq was going well, described the assessment to reporters as "just guessing."
:Shortly thereafter, Pillar was identified in a column by Robert D. Novak as having prepared the assessment and having given a speech critical of Bush's Iraq policy at a private dinner in California. The column fed the White House's view that the CIA was in effect working against the Bush administration, and that Pillar was part of that. A columnist in the Washington Times in October 2004 called him "a longstanding intellectual opponent of the policy options chosen by President Bush to fight terrorism."
:Leaked information "encouraged some administration supporters to charge intelligence officers (including me) with trying to sabotage the president's policies," Pillar wrote. One effect of that, he said, was to limit challenges to consensus views on matters such as the Iraqi weapons program. 
See also Paul R. Pillar--csloat 19:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New article: Ex-CIA Official Faults Use of Data on Iraq

message: Ron, we already have an entry on the Saddam tapes - we don't need two.  Hoekstra's remarks can be incorporated into the entry.  I'm going to let someone else do it because if I do it you will accuse me of "censoring" information.  But I don't see the need to make a separate entry every time someone mentions them on the news.  Except for the purpose of obfuscation.  Especially since the video linked says nothing about ties to al Qaeda other than "the tapes might show involvement with terrorists, and they might not."  This is evidence of something?--csloat 20:04, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Duplicate Entries?

message: I'm still in Rome, but I read this piece and they have an internet cafe here so I got sucked in. Can't find the tilde on this Italian keyboard, so I'll sign manually. -- RyanFreisling
"And, more importantly, we've stopped a mass murderer in Saddam Hussein. Nobody denies that he was supporting al-Qaida."
In a clear attack on Democrats, Hatch added, "Well, I shouldn't say nobody. Nobody with brains." 
:Rumsfeld, however, had a different opinion, in October 2004:
:Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said Monday that he hasn't seen "any strong, hard evidence" to link Saddam Hussein and the al-Qaeda terrorists who staged the Sept. 11 attacks, a more direct statement than he has made on the subject before. 
::Both statements are true.  Nobody with brains who has seen the documents about Saddam and Islamic terrorists doubts that al-Qaeda were among the Islamic terrorists Saddam trained.  (Plus the Senate Report on PreWar Intelligence says Saddam trained al-Qaeda.)  Many of the terror organizations with different names are al-Qaeda affiliates.  But it is also true that the evidence tying Saddam to the 9/11 attackers is not conclusive. RonCram 16:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL... Please share your definition of "brains," Ron.  On second thought, never mind.  Don't.--csloat 17:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Senator 0rrin Hatch claims connection is undeniable

message: I'm not sure why we should care what Sen. Hatch thinks of all this, but in any case he has now taken back his comment, pretending what he meant was ties between current Iraqi insurgents and al Qaeda; check it out.  Brainless indeed...--csloat 21:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Senator Hatch backtracks on brainlessness

message: Again I think we might need a Saddam tapes entry... though I'm not going to start it now :)  But this information should definitely be included, minus Nimmo's hysterics, as well as the information coming out about Loftus and Tierney.  Perhaps this should just be added to the The Intelligence Summit page.--csloat 22:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cherney, Loftus, and the Saddam tapes