Talk:Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda link allegations/Archive 6

message: no one has taken the time to break it up cuz it's a piece. skizznologic3.1 08:19, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  this article is a piece 

message: "The story of Saddam training foreign fighters to hijack airplanes was instrumental in building the case to invade Iraq," a detailed report in the March-April issue says. "But it turns out that the Iraqi general who told the story to the New York Times and 'Frontline' was a complete fake a low-ranking former soldier whom Ahmed Chalabi's aides had coached to deceive the media."-- Nomen Nescio 15:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Another Iraq story gets debunked

message: to shorten the article the Statements could be moved here-->  http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein_and_al-Qaeda thoughts?
--Whywhywhy 13:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good.  I also think it should be broken down into sections on different pages - it is true this is far too large and unwieldy.  The timeline could perhaps be split into pre-2003 and post-2003 to separate what was known before the invasion of Iraq from information that has come to light later.  Or perhaps we could just give each year it's own page?  Another idea is to organize the major points raised -- even with all the stuff on the timeline, there are only a few major stories -- the meetings with Hijazi, the Salman Pak camps, the meeting that never took place with Atta, the relationship with Zarqawi, the documents now being released.  The rest of the points are relatively minor and based on confusion over names and on testimony from al-Libi and Curveball and the like that has been totally rejected by intel agencies.  We could put the major stories on their own pages (there is already a Salman Pak page, for example) with links from the timeline; that would shorten things a bit.  Also, the Harmony/Docex documents could have their own page, and we could have a page for the Saddam tapes.  This is a huge undertaking that I'm not going to begin at this time but it's something to keep in mind for the future; as new documents are released by the Pentagon we will want to include summaries of the relevant ones here so I think the 2006 section will keep growing (it's already one of the bigger ones).  In the meantime though, definitely put the quotes on wikisource.--csloat 19:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikiquote 

message: I am not going to enter a revert war over this, but I think it is pretty silly to censor the word "conservative" when it appears in valid places (CNSNews, for example, is an openly conservative source.  I had a nice talk with David Thibault, for example, and he seemed to feel no shame about calling himself or his news outlet "conservative.")  It's strange, though amusing, that TDC finds enough shame in the label that he would need to censor it for fear of "poisoning the well."  I think it does belong here in some places such as the CNSNews stuff, it isn't necessary in others (like the sentence describing Robert Novak).  But I'm not going to insist on it -- congratulations, Mr. Dead Chickens (or Curmudgeon, or whatever it is you want us to call you this week); you "win."--csloat 06:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: TDC censors conservatives

message: The recently added stuff from Investor's Business Daily is mentioned as if it were a document written by Saddam's secret service.  It is actually a web page from the FAS that was based on information from 1997; the summary was likely written by John Pike or another FAS writer.  It is interesting information but hardly new and certainly not the "manual for Saddam's spy service" that the Investor's Business writer thinks it is.  This should be obvious, as the freaking document has the FAS information all over it.  The reason this is included in the stash is the web page was found printed out with arabic writing on the printout -- there is no indication on the leavenworth website what the arabic writing means, nor is there any information about the significance of the document.  This illustrates a problem with Hoekstra's proposal to let the blogosphere determine the significance of these documents -- a lot of morons will say a lot of stupid things about them.  (Don't get me wrong, I support them being released too, but I don't think we should trust everything some random person says about them, no matter how official sounding their blog title is).  I think this section should be removed from the article until we have some real information about what the Arabic writing is on the document; as it is the entry is sheer misinformation.--csloat 20:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The addition of the IBD article was my edit.  Looking back now, it's not really helpful - especially given the >100kb size of this page.  Again, I was trying to find some relevant recent translations of the DOCEX documents from a reputable source.  I'll remove both your and my additions. Benny the Beaver 21:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks - I don't like to delete information that others add, but in this case I think it's the best bet -- the IBD blog is just wrong about the document itself (and it seems pretty obvious; again just looking at the document you see the FAS web page markings all over it).-csloat 21:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Docex document on Mukhabarat

message: :"despite President Bush's plea not to "tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th; malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists, themselves, away from the guilty," several members of his administration have—to varying degrees—tried to tie the attacks to Saddam Hussein. These claims owe much to scholar Laurie Mylroie's efforts over the past decade to link Iraq to everything from the Oklahoma City bombing to TWA Flight 800." Village Voice, February 2006
:"Laurie Mylroie, who authored the book, "Study of Revenge: Saddam Hussein's Unfinished War against America," and advised Clinton on Iraq during the 1992 presidential campaign, told CNSNews.com that the papers represent "the most complete set of documents relating Iraq to terrorism, including Islamic terrorism" against the U.S. Mylroie has long maintained that Iraq was a state sponsor of terrorism against the United States. The documents obtained by CNSNews.com , she said, include "correspondence back and forth between Saddam's office and Iraqi Mukhabarat (intelligence agency). They make sense. This is what one would think Saddam was doing at the time." CNSNews, October 2004
Please help me understand what's being disputed. The view that Mylroie's documents might be an 'October Surprise'? -- User:RyanFreisling @ 23:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What's disputed is that some people considered that the documents might be an Oct Surprise.  It's an admission made by numerous voices left and right in the blogosphere, and it's an obvious question raised by the timing of the CNS news story.  It's just not that relevant though; the documents discuss nothing useful, as we've seen, beyond the events of early 1993.  But that doesn't stop the conspiracy theorists from pretending these documents are the big smoking gun they've all been desperately hoping for.  TDC pretends this has something to do with verifiability but he conveniently ignores that the fact to be verified is whether or not bloggers were making this point, something blogs are uniquely situated to demonstrate.  Like I said, though, it's not important, and I'm not going to keep pressing the case since TDC thinks it's so vital to censor this minor detail.--csloat 02:26, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Its like I have said, find a source that backs this which complies wtih WP:V, and it can stay. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 04:25, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Calling people names like 'Studley' is quite rude, and very unbecoming to your argument. Please stop. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 04:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: October Surprise

message: I'm tired of all the trash-talking about the Weekly Standard.  Here are direct quotes in praise of Weekly Standard.
"The preeminent political journal in America." —Slate.com
"The oracle of American politics" —CNN's Wolf Blitzer
"...The Weekly Standard has become a forceful presence in the world of political opinion...It is the most intelligent, aggressive and well-written publication out there." —National Journal
"Has The Weekly Standard become the most powerful magazine, Mara?" "Brit, it certainly has." —exchange between anchorman Brit Hume and reporter Mara Liasson, Fox News Channel
"The Standard's editors have inaugurated one of the most interesting Beltway debates in years." —The New Republic
"DC's opinion makers are reading The Weekly Standard." —PRWEEK
"[The Weekly Standard] is the magazine I get most grumpy about when it's not delivered." —Abe Rosenthal, former editor, The New York Times
"I don't think you can do without it if you want to know what's going on in Washington." —Robert Novak
"Widespread reaction to the editorial proved that of the roughly 65,000 people who read the Standard each week, many are what you might call important." —GQ Magazine
"The Weekly Standard is required reading up here. You have to see it to be a part of the conversation." —John Kasich, former House Budget Committee Chair
"[One of] Washington's better read political magazines" —The Economist
"The Weekly Standard is a must-read for people in Washington." —Jack Nelson, The Los Angeles Times
"The Weekly Standard [has] the advantage of possessing...editors whose insights and arguments are uncommonly provocative...[They] know Washington, know politics and have demonstrated over the years a rare capacity for civil and unusually sensible argument and analysis." —David Broder, The Washington Post
"...you speak in two very influential pulpits. You're on television a lot of the time...and you're the editor of an influential magazine." —Peter Jennings, ABC News [live interview with William Kristol]
"The Weekly Standard is a 'must read' for anyone interested in American politics and American life." —William J. Bennett
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RonCram"
*The Standard is an ultra-partisan rag. It might be notable and influential, but it's a source of editorials, not facts. 71.236.33.191 23:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: High Praise for Weekly Standard

message: The 'Operation Iraqi Freedom documents' allegations and citations are not fact. There is no verification of the documents on which they are based:
:"The US Government has made no determination regarding the authenticity of the documents, validity or factual accuracy of the information contained therein, or the quality of any translations, when available."
So therefore the text as revert warred, which contains examples of third-party claims 'X claims Y' masked as factual, first hand assertions of 'Y is', is unverifiable. To represent these claims as fact is an outright and blatant falsehood, and a vulgar misuse of Wikipedia. Revert warring won't make it factual, any more than circular citations will. Keep the propaganda out.
When and if the documents are verified and the allegations they contained are corroborated, the talking points brought here will be valid - in the meantime, they are fetid and reek of misinformation. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 06:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sewer

message: Below is the current text, edited by Ryan:
:The U.S. government is currently releasing documents, called the 'Operation Iraqi Freedom Documents', regarding which the Pentagon has cautioned it has made 'no determination regarding the authenticity of the documents, validity or factual accuracy.'" . Some claim the unverified allegations contained in the documents suggest Saddam and Osama Bin Laden were willing to work together. Eight months after an alleged offer of operational partnership, U.S. forces in the region were attacked by al-Qaeda operatives. Another unauthenticated document has been described by some as a statement by Abu Zubaydah, a high-ranking al-Qaeda operative, about al-Qaeda's capability to deliver a nuclear weapon to the U.S. It is not not known for certain if the recipients of the letter were Iraqi officials, making any ties to Iraq unclear.  9/11 Commission member Bob Kerrey has said these documents will further enlighten us on the relationship between Saddam and al-Qaeda. These documents, whose contents have not been verified or certified by the Pentagon, have been suggested by some to challenge the conclusion of the Intelligence Community that no "operational" ties existed. 
I think this is an improvement over the Roncram&Co. version (nice of you to invite your friends to your little edit war, by the way, sometimes using language that makes it clear this is all a game of annoy-the-liberals to you rather than a somewhat serious endeavor to discuss issues accurately).  However there are a couple of things I don't understand: (1) Why is the Zubaydah document mentioned in the introduction to this piece?  There is no indication this document ties Zubaydah to Iraq in any way.  It is likely a speech or writing by Zubaydah that was published on an al Qaeda website that was printed out by an Iraqi bureaucrat, just like the FAS web site from 1997 that was copied in another document (and was wrongly interpreted by right-wing bloggers as a Mukhabarat manual even though it had the FAS logo on it).  It is just plain scaremongering to put it in here (especially in the intro!), especially given that this document has not yet been the topic of speculation even in the Weakly Standard or even CNSNews.  (2) The claim that "Eight months after an alleged offer of operational partnership, U.S. forces in the region were attacked by al-Qaeda operatives" is also scaremongering without substance.  If we want to say the NYSun speculates that one of the documents makes this suggestion we might be closer to something, but we also need to make clear that the alleged "offer of operational partnership" was based on a meeting in 1995, and that we know that the talks between the two parties ended by 1998.  We should also add for context the fact that nobody has ever even suggested Iraq was involved in the attacks 8 months later and that no evidence ever materialized of such an Iraqi connection.  Mentioning one without the other is a flagrant example of invalid post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning.  (3) Bob Kerrey's change of heart is not an appropriate topic for the intro.  This is about Saddam and AQ, not Bob Kerrey.  If you feel it is important, let's have it in the timeline rather than the intro.
Finally, I want to ask those of you who have come late to RonCram's little edit war party to please take note of the fact that his claim on your user pages that we are trying to censor information about these documents is mendacious.  I have in fact inserted information on these documents into several places in the timeline over the last week, as is easily verified by a glance at the edit history.  I have included information on both sides of the debate, contrary to RonCram's assertion that I am POV-pushing.  I even included quotes from the Weakly Standard in my edits!  It is completely disingenuous for me or Ryan to be accused of trying to suppress this information -- we have been insisting only that these issues be discussed in a level-headed manner.  The additions Ron made to the page were not level headed.  And his edit war on the page about the OIF Documents themselves is actually about him trying to suppress information, not me or Ryan.  Look, there will be different points of view on these issues, but trying to raise group interest in an edit war is juvenile and futile.  We would be a lot better off if we focused on improving the articles rather than trying to start edit wars with people we don't like.  I myself have wasted way too much time on this edit war that would be better spent reading the IPP study, which has been released, and incorporating the relevant information on these pages.--csloat 06:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So far nobody has offered any reason to keep the disputed parts of the paragraph.  I will move the 8 month claim to a more appropriate place and delete the other two.--csloat 18:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Not to beat a dead horse on the Zubaydah issue, but I notice the document collection also includes this document, apparently about "Israel's Nuclear Weapon Capabilities and Willingness to Use Them."  Should we delete this article and get started on the Saddam Hussein and Israel Connection article? ;) -csloat 03:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you really think the horse is dead? He's just sleeping a really long time. Kevin Baastalk 15:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit war

message: Yes, csloat, I did invite some other editors to visit the page.  I was tired of having you and Ryan tag team me in a ridiculous edit war designed to keep facts from readers.  And it worked.  We now have an entry that mentions the documents.  It is cumbersome, redundant and poorly worded but it is much to be preferred over the silence imposed by Ryan and encouraged by you.  However, I am bothered that you feel the need to stalk my contributions to other users talk pages.  I have often wondered about you stalking me to other pages in the past but always tried to think the best of you.  But when I see other editors complain of your stalking and then experience it myself, you make it difficult to give you the benefit of the doubt.  In addition, I see that you still wish to delete well-sourced information - Zubaydah, the 8 month post and Bob Kerry. Have you changed your mind on the Kerry portion?  Earlier you said you didn't mind posting his comments.  And why would you want to delete the 8 month post when this was brought up by ABC News? RonCram 13:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Accusations, accusations - and nary a single instance of proof. Seems to be a very common problem surrounding these 'documents'. 'well-sourced'? The Sun isn't a source... it's a repeat of the Standard, and the government's claims. And the government said the documents cannot be verified or authenticated. Therefore your source, which asserts the documents as proof, is bogus. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 15:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Ron, I'm sorry but that is just full of shit.  Pardon my language.  Please look up the wikipedia definition of "stalking" before you hurl accusations.  Stalking does not mean checking on a user's contribution page to correct errors the user has introduced into wikipedia.  It also does not mean editing pages that are on my watchilist, which is what has occurred in this case.  Also, you will note that when the other user called me a stalker, he turned out to be wrong, and when I called him on it, he stopped responding, indicating not only that he could not substantiate his claim but that he probably felt some embarrassment in having made it in the first place (esp. since that user was caught lying about stalking me himself by using DNS entries).  But that's really neither here nor there.  I articulated clear and appropriate reasons for removing the three claims above.  The 8 month claim perhaps belongs on the timeline but not in the intro; the other two don't seem to have any relevance to this page.  As for Kerrey what I said was it was fine to put his opinion somewhere where it is notable.  Nobody has established its relevance here.--csloat 18:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: csloat's stalking

message: TDC made some edits to the prague connection section, and he apparently believes that there is truth to the claim even though Cheney himself has backed off of it.  His claim that the BIS still stands by the claim is not supported by the evidence he offers.  Here is the offending line:
:This claim, known as Prague connection, is generally considered to be false, although the former head of the Czech Stb, Jiri Ruzek, Foreign Minister Jan Kavan and Ambassador Hynek Kmonicek continue to stand by the claim.  
The line used to read that Ruzek "continued to give credence to the report in
2003.," which is supported by the slate article.  I looked through the 2005 Opinion Journal piece that he added but I do not see any evidence that any of these people "continue to stand by the claim."  I doubt that they do.  The opinion journal piece indicates Ruzek threw the ball in the CIA's court, making it seem as though he is happy not to have to deal with that issue any more.  Which is understandable; the article says he was furious that the Americans leaked what he considered raw intelligence that had not been verified, and of course it is well known that the Czechs being wrong about this became a political issue there.  I have not changed this section back yet in case I am missing something -- can TDC explain where in the WSJ piece it substantiates that these guys still stand by the claim, which every other intel agency in the world considers false?  It's pretty clear the whole thing is a huge embarrassment for the BIS, who seem to think the claim should never have been made public.  James Risen notes that the whole thing "emerges as a complex Central European tale of political infighting among Czech leaders and feuding between rival intelligence services, topped off by a series of simple blunders and overheated statements that inadvertently fueled an American debate involving war and peace."  (NYT 10/21/02).  No responsible journalist seems to take the disputed claim seriously anymore.  If there really is recent evidence to suggest someone still supporting the story, I'd like to see it.  I also think we may need a separate page for this claim (even though I was originally against a "Prague Connection" page). --csloat 03:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Prague connection

message: Is this entire article disputed, or can the dispute be handled under a section npov tag?  Can anyone tell me what the top one or two NPOV disputes are?  Scanned current talk page, but archives are _long_. Derex 18:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know of any extant NPOV issues that have been raised recently for this page; I believe the npov tag was removed a while ago.--csloat 20:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, nevermind.  Had two browser windows open to separate pages, and commented on the wrong page.  I think I wanted to ask about Plame affair, or some such. Derex 20:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV tag (nevermind) 

message: This has gotten out of control.  I think it is imperative that anyone wishing to add POV material to the intro should first read the rest of the timeline.  I have made corrections (and left out the so-called "slur" the anon objected to), but this is just going to go on forever.  I would be happy to take this disputed material out of the intro entirely and go back to how it was a few days ago; otherwise, if others keep adding junk that is already discussed in the timeline I will have to keep adding the context.  Perhaps a separate section for the Office of Special Plans would be useful here.  I really don't think this stuff belongs in the intro at all; soon the intro will be as long as the timeline if people keep adding things.  A clear and simple summary of the controversy and the conclusions of major investigations is fine.  (By the way, I removed the fact tag on the CIA claim since the NPR cite confirms it; it is also confirmed below in the timeline.)
Anon editor, if you are reading the talk page, can you please enter dialogue here rather than making drive-by edits?  Thanks.--csloat 16:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anon edits on the intro 

message: Someone added the NPOV tag a while ago but I see nothing in talk justifying it.  If someone wants to add that tag, please explain in Talk what the NPOV problem is and how it can be remedied.  That way the tag does not become the default state of the article.  Also, it is better to use the tag on a particular section that has a problem rather than the whole article (esp with an article of this size).  Thanks.--csloat 19:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV tag

message: There is a poll going on at the Iraq War article that is related to this article. You can add your vote here:  -- Mr. Tibbs 05:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Iraq War]] Poll

message: i'm new to this page, so i didn't want to make any edits without knowing if a consensus had been reached through debate with regards to the intro paragraph.  the first sentence is followed by five links, plus the sentence contains a link as well.  six links in the opening sentence is a bit odd to me.  is there a reason for this?  also, why is a reference to the "downing street memo" in the intro?  i think the intro could be rewritten and simplified. thoughts?Anthonymendoza 21:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The links were added after a user complained that there was not enough evidence to support the point.  I agree, one link is more than enough on that obvious a point.  As for the DSM reference, I'm not sure who added that; it seems to have been included to support the claim that there was pressure on intelligence agencies to manipulate the Saddam/AQ data.  That claim is discussed in the timeline.  I'm not sure the DSM is that important in the intro, though I do think the claim of pressure is reasonable.  If you want to give it a shot at rewriting, go for it -- as you can guess, it has been heavily rewritten and contested many times, but it is still far from ideal.--csloat 23:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro

message: this section desperately needs to be rewritten.  it's incoherent. i'll get the ball rolling.Anthonymendoza 17:12, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you be more specific about what was "incoherent" about it?  I don't have a problem with most of your changes, but I don't think they added coherence per se.  I did restore a couple things that were deleted, probably inadvertently.  I do think there are organizational problems that might be remedied if the timeline were broken off into a seperate article and this article was reorganized thematically, with a Zarqawi/A-I section.  There are a couple main issues here -- (1) Zarqawi's relationship with al-Qaeda, and (2) Zarqawi's (non)relationship with Saddam.  The organization of that section should deal with each of these in turn.--csloat 20:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: i shouldn't have used the word "incoherent".  you said it best; the section has an organizational problem.  it's too long and too much info is crammed into the paragraph.  it should be broken up.Anthonymendoza 15:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: May-July 2002