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

message: "Regime" is POV. "Baathist" is an "-ist" of the thing and not the thing itself. Not particularly useful in referring to a specific. Lets not pick up bad habits from news anchors, now. -SV|t 01:19, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shouldnt this be 'Alleged links between the Baath party and Al-Qaeda'? 

message: It's not like Al-Qaeda was even allegedly meeting directly with Saddam (but Donald Rumsfeld has).  The best title is Alleged links between the Baathist government of Iraq and Al-Qaeda  What do people think?  zen master    T  01:42, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that brings up a good point; we know there were links between osama and saddam, in that both were financially and militarily backed by the Reagan/Bush administration. QED!!Gzuckier 21:24, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Saddam and Al-Qaeda is POV 

message: ;Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda
#Kevin Baastalk: new 01:44, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)
#--MONGO 03:00, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Question: is Al-Qaeda allegedly meeting with Saddam specifically? zen master    T  02:00, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair point, but calling his government the "Baath government" is a bit off as well. -SV|t 17:14, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: vote on title, v.2

message: The case for asserted links between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda, by George W. Bush
"This [Saddam Hussein] is a person who has had contacts with al Qaeda."
Source: President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat; Remarks by the President on Iraq, White House (10/28/2002).
"Saddam Hussein is a man who told the world he wouldn't have weapons of mass destruction, but he's got them . . . . And not only that, [he would] like nothing more than to hook up with one of these shadowy terrorist networks like Al Qaeda, provide some weapons and training to them, let them come do his dirty work, and we wouldn't be able to see his fingerprints on his action."
Source: Iraq Must Disarm Says President in South Dakota Speech, White House (11/3/2002).
"And I also mentioned the fact that there is a connection between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein."
Source: President Condems Attack in Bali, White House (10/14/2002).
"It's a man who has got connections with Al Qaida. Imagine a terrorist network with Iraq as an arsenal and as a training ground, so that a Saddam Hussein could use this shadowy group of people to attack his enemy and leave no fingerprint behind. He's a threat."
Source: Remarks by the President in Texas Welcome, White House (11/4/2002).
"This is a man who has had Al Qaida connections. I want you to think about a scenario in which he becomes the arsenal and the training grounds for shadowy terrorists so that he can attack somebody who (sic) hates and not leave any fingerprints behind. He is a threat."
Source: Remarks by the President at Missouri Welcome, White House (11/4/2002).
"He's had contacts with Al Qaida. Imagine the scenario where an Al Qaida-type organization uses Iraq as an arsenal, a place to get weapons, a place to be trained to use the weapons. Saddam Hussein could use surrogates to come and attack people he hates."
Source: Remarks by the President at Arkansas Welcome, White House (11/4/2002).
"He's a threat because he is dealing with Al Qaida. In my Cincinnati speech I reminded the American people, a true threat facing our country is that an Al Qaida-type network trained and armed by Saddam could attack America and leave not one fingerprint."
Source: President Outlines Priorities, White House (11/7/2002).
"Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help develop their own."
Source: President Delivers "State of the Union", White House (1/28/2003).
"Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses, and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other planes -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known."
Source: President Delivers "State of the Union", White House (1/28/2003).
"Saddam Hussein has longstanding, direct and continuing ties to terrorist networks. Senior members of Iraqi intelligence and al Qaeda have met at least eight times since the early 1990s. Iraq has sent bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with al Qaeda. Iraq has also provided al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training. We also know that Iraq is harboring a terrorist network, headed by a senior al Qaeda terrorist planner."
Source: President Bush: "World Can Rise to This Moment", White House (2/6/2003).
"One of the greatest dangers we face is that weapons of mass destruction might be passed to terrorists who would not hesitate to use those weapons. Saddam Hussein has longstanding, direct and continuing ties to terrorist networks. Senior members of Iraq intelligence and al Qaeda have met at least eight times since the early 1990s. Iraq has sent bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with al Qaeda. Iraq has also provided al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training. And an al Qaeda operative was sent to Iraq several times in the late 1990s for help in aquiring poisons and gases. We also know that Iraq is harboring a terrorist network headed by a senior al Qaeda terrorist planner."
Source: President's Radio Address, White House (2/8/2003).
"He has trained and financed al Qaeda-type organizations before, al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations."
Source: President George Bush Discusses Iraq in National Press Conference, White House (3/6/2003).
Kevin Baastalk: new 05:43, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)
Well duh, cause Saddam was behind 9/11. --kizzle 20:27, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
:Sarcasm? zen master    T  21:21, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: saddam hussein vs. former iraqi government

message: Just wanted to mention thet I am overall fairly happy with the way this article has evolved.  I wanted to step back for a bit and see what people will do with it.  I may not agree with everything, but I think overall it has been an improvement.  I'll be back eventually, don't worry ;) ObsidianOrder 12:24, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  evolution 

message: csloat, your version is innacurate:
:Evidence suggests this was a case of mistaken identity by Czech authorities . The meeting is similarly disputed by U.S. intelligence organizations, who after extensive investigation have determined it never took place. Even the Czech government later admitted they did not believe Atta was at the meeting ()
# the "mistaken identity" article only suggests there were two entry attempts into the Czech Republic by people who gave very similar names but had different passports (one Pakistani, one Egyptian).  It does not suggest anything about whether one or both of them were or were not the hijacker Atta.  Additionally, this refers to the May/June 2000 visits, not the April 2001 visit.
# "have determined it never took place" is a way more definitive statement than what anyone has claimed.  I gave an exact quote by Mueller, I think it best to leave it at that.  And it is best to cite the FBI, not some anonymous "U.S. intelligence organizations".
# "the Czech government later admitted they did not believe Atta was at the meeting" is not what the article that you cite says, and that does not even quote the Czechs aside from a tiny out of context quote ("he may be different") by an unidentified source.
All in all this is a very inaccurate characterization of the positions and statements of the various people involved.   (1) should be paraphrased, (2) should be left as the exact Mueller quote, and for (3), if you can find a better source for any Czech retraction, give an exact quote from that as well.  I think that's fair.  ObsidianOrder 22:38, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The Czech retraction was widely reported and you could easily find a source for it if you were motivated to. I'll dig up my sources when I've got the time to revise what is now an inaccurate assessment of this highly controversial allegation. -- RyanFreisling @ 00:17, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

text: That's simply untrue, in both allegations. It was no figment (it occurred), and the meeting very likely DID NOT take place, in the estimation of actual intelligence professionals. And you are now the second person to regurgitate that untruth without sources. -- RyanFreisling @ 13:11, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm fine with switching to exact quotes, though the Mueller quote is not the only relevant statement.  Intelligence analysts have been pretty clear that they have concluded Atta was in Florida in April 2001.  There seems to be nothing substantial backing this up, and in fact the source does show the Czech officials backing off the claim and agreeing the CIA was probably correct. --csloat 02:44, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  atta/prague 

message: I vote we delete this entire section.  These long unanalyzed quotes add nothing to the discussion.  We can put them on the discussion page so we can easily quote from them when necessary but they do not belong on the main article at all.  Any objections to removing them completely?  
I also question the value of the "Statements" section.  Again, we should use the important ones in the article itself; there is no need for a list of all this stuff.
--csloat 02:47, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the 9/11 commission section should stay, it is almost impossible to summarize without changing its meaning.  I've already trimmed it to just the relevant paragraphs+footnotes.  Perhaps it can be trimmed more (esp the footnotes) but I am generally opposed to replacing it with an original summary or analysis.  The statements section is also useful, it should contain the ones that do not pertain to any specific bit of evidence or specific occurence.  ObsidianOrder 15:24, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In what way is any of this information useful?  Nobody is going to read through these long quotes from the 911 Commission report.  It's useful to researchers to have them all in one place, perhaps, but then you make a web page for that and link to it from Wikipedia rather than putting it here.  Can you show me a printed encyclopedia anywhere that has an entry with long unexplained quotations filled with details like this?  As for the statements section, I think whatever is useful there could be integrated into the introduction.  Perhaps there should be an "Analysis" section after the intro that includes some of these quotes and, most importantly, emphasizes that all serious analyses of the so-called "links" have turned up nothing meaningful.--csloat 16:58, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  911 Coimmision Section