Talk:Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda link allegations/Archive 10

message: By csloat:
#Hijazi meetings - these are a major point for the Saddam/AQ conspiracy theory, and they have been added in about 10 different places in the timeline (seem my timeline comment above). This can be synthesized into one paragraph.  
#:I agree, work to streamline this.MONGO 07:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So what we have here is a summary by ABC of documents that have been recently released, which indicate that Saddam did in fact seek out and endorse some level of collaborative effort with OBL. I have zero problem with this source being in the article.--MONGO 19:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nor do I.  And, as it turns out, it's already there; see the first entry in the timeline under 1995.  Thanks.--csloat 19:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major points 

message: by Ron Cram
#The possibility and extent of a relationship between Saddam and Osama is a controversial issue that is still being debated.  If this is not admitted upfront, there is no hope for the article.
#:But who is debating it? If no formal investigations are still ongoing, my bet is the Bush administration would like to put it behind them...maybe we should too. Let's try to stick to the evidence of whether or not there was a connection and not whether it is still debated...unless we can demonstrate that there is any active effort by anyone that is going to bring forth new evidence...are there any formal investigations still underway that seek to find the connection, if there ever was one?MONGO 07:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So what we have here is a summary by ABC of documents that have been recently released, which indicate that Saddam did in fact seek out and endorse some level of collaborative effort with OBL. I have zero problem with this source being in the article.--MONGO 19:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nor do I.  And, as it turns out, it's already there; see the first entry in the timeline under 1995.  Thanks.--csloat 19:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Just a section break

message: I hadnt noticed the Tiger group comment there; certainly it should be included too; it is too cryptic to tell us anything interesting, but it is suggestive.  Of course, nothing in that section has anything to do with what this article is about -- Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda -- whatever went on at Salman Pak clearly involved Baathists rather than Islamists -- but obviously it should be included here since people who are confused on the issue still cite it as "evidence" of a connection.  But I'm not sure what relevance the rest of the stuff has -- anti-Iranian assassinations, etc., don't seem even tenuously related to this article.  As for the Goldberg article, my suggestion is to put the non-redundant stuff in the section on Zarqawi rather than in a timeline based on the date of the article publication, for reasons we already discussed above.  The same is true of several of your other recent edits.  I'm not going to make the changes myself on this right now; hopefully you will.--csloat 19:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: well, i think it shows more was going on at salman pak than counterterrorism training.  i don't think all links to al qaeda/salman pak have been discredited, or have they?  i did move the zarqawi info to the relevant section.  the other stuff i think is fine where it is.  it's info that's not in the article, but if you feel it should be moved i don't object.  i do think it should be in the article somewhere however.  i suggest you condense all the al-Libi material if you are really concerned about the timeline.  let's make a deal here.  let's stop accusing each other of cherry picking.  this isn't the first time we've accused each other of it, but it's getting old, do you agree?  just add info you feel i've left out, and i'll do the same for you, ok.  Anthonymendoza 20:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know of any evidence that al Qaeda was in Salman Pak.  I am skeptical of the Saddam regime's claim that only counterterror training was going on there, but I believe Saddam was training Baathists there.  The folks who said that there was al Qaeda there have been shown to be liars, as far as I can tell.  There was Qurairy, the guy claiming to be a general, who wasn't one, and there was Khodada, and another guy whose name I forgot who is an admitted liar, rapist, and murderer (I'm not making this up; he's in the timeline)  It's pretty clear there was an organized campaign of disinformation coming from Iraqi defectors on this issue; they were all coached by the INC as to what to say, and they've been making these claims since the late 90s.  I agree with condensing the al-Libi information as well - my concern is that if we have an al-Libi claim mentioned elsewhere on the timeline, that readers be informed that al-Libi's information is not considered credible.  As for cherry picking accusations - there's a tendency for anyone with a strong POV to only look at the information that supports that POV.  I know it happens to me too, so I don't mean to offend with the accusation.  But I also notice in your edits a clear pattern -- you do not seem to be concerned with truth-seeking from a neutral POV; you seem intent on only bringing in the information that supports one side of the issue, even when you are well aware of info on the other side, or when you are aware that the information you are bringing in is known to be disinformation.  Your additions on Zarqawi fall in the first category, and I believe your additions of Abu Wail and Ansar al-Islam fall in the second category.  I find it all suspicious because you suddenly became interested in this page after having disputes with me on another page and right around the time Ron suggested you guys email privately to discuss changes to this page without my "interjections."  I just want to keep disinformation off this page or, if you and Ron insist that it must be added, I want to insist that the information that calls it out as disinformation be published here alongside it.  (It's a little disturbing, by the way, since it is well known that a lot of this disinformation came from people who were working closely with Iranian intelligence; it makes me wonder why people who consider themselves American conservatives would want to help the clerical regime in Iran undermine American public discourse on war -- but that is neither here nor there).  I will try to resist taking this stuff personally and will try to assume good faith in your future edits; as you suggest, instead of "aha! cherry picking!" I will just try to correct errors that I see and make changes to your edits that I feel are appropriate.--csloat 23:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: csloat, your comment that we want to add disinformation is insulting.  All of Anthony's and my entries have links to accepted media sources like ABC News or Weekly Standard.  Your claim that you want to keep disinformation off the page is ridiculous.  You are constantly trying to censor information to limit what people know and think.  You don't want them to know about certain OIF documents or about the fact these documents are increasing the intensity of the debate and changing people's minds.  You don't want people to know that former 9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey has changed his mind.  You want people to think that anyone who can see a possibility of Saddam and Osama working together is some kind of nut.  Is Democrat Bob Kerrey some kind of nut?  You don't want people to know the CIA admitted to lots of solid reporting about high-level contacts between Saddam and al-Qaeda.  You do not want people to know the Powell speech before the UN was reviewed by the Senate Report and found to be well-vetted.  You don't want people to know that lots of news organizations reported Saddam and Osama were working together back in 1998 and 1999.  You have fought the inclusion of this material every step of the way.  You claim information has been discredited when you have absolutely no proof whatever.  Why is that csloat?  What are your motives?  I only want the article to be accurate and NPOV.  The article does not meet that standard now.  That is why I worked so hard on created an NPOV version. RonCram 15:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No insult intended Ron.  However, there are many claims that are known to be disinformation spread by people associated with the INC who were working with Iranian intelligence.  As for censorship, you cannot point to a single instance of actual censorship on my part, whereas you are notorious for censoring comments you don't like on your talk page.  I have never suggested we delete references to the OIF documents or to Bob Kerrey's vague statement that he suddenly learned from them that Saddam was anti-American.  Your claim about what the CIA "admitted" is, as you ought to know, highly misleading.  What was said by George Tenet relied upon the statements of al-Libi and the SSCI even called him on it.  I've pointed this out to you before; instead of responding, you bizarrely accuse me of trying to censor you.  I'm not calling you a nut; I'm just saying that you are insistent on repeating claims that are known to be incorrect or at least unreliable. You keep coming back to the Powell speech even though I showed you above that the crux of his claims rested on two things that have since been thoroughly refuted -- al-Libi's confession and the Zarqawi "link."  Again, instead of responding, you make the bizarre claim that I want to censor the former Secretary of State!  I have never fought the inclusion of this information; I have simply argued that it needs to be set in an appropriate context.  As for news reports from 1998 and 99 that have since turned out to be false, I never objected to including them; I simply objected to pretending they were more important than the 7 years of knowledge that has been accumulated since then.  You once again assert without any specifics that the article is not NPOV or accurate.  Ron I have been pressing for weeks for you to explain this comment and you refuse to.--csloat 18:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sloat, you don't listen.  I have told you repeatedly why this article is POV.  I even put the reasons in the POV tag.  You have not proven that Powell's statements were based on al-Libi.  You have two guys who are anti-Bush make a claim that disagrees with the Senate Report that looked into Powell's speech.  These two anonymous guys are not notable.  Your "appropriate context" means some bizarre statement that there is nothing to corroborate the facts... that is crap.  Corroboration is all over.  I will say this again.  The rewrite I did is a better platform from which to build an NPOV article.  My rewrite is not perfect, but it approaches each view in a fair manner.  If you think the Intelligence Community view needs to be reinforced, you are welcome to do that.  But the article should not argue with itself in order to present one view as fact and that is exactly what your "context" does most of the time. RonCram 20:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have made assertions without specifics Ron; the NPOV tag is for specific POV disputes; not vague claims that an article is an "embarrassment."  As for Powell's speech, nobody, not even Powell, has stepped up to claim the two intelligence officers are incorrect about the Libi claims in his speech.  Your assertion that they are "anti-Bush" is wishful thinking; there is no evidence to back that up.  Your claim that they are "not notable" is something you can take up with the editors of NEWSWEEK.  Your claim that "corroboration is all over" is nonsense -- where, besides Libi, did Powell get his information?  What evidence besides Libi's confession is there?  Do you have a published source indicating that Powell got information from elsewhere?  I have a published source indicating two intelligence officials in the employ of the Bush Administration stated that Powell based his claims on Libi.  Powell himself refers only to "a top al-Qaeda operative in custody" -- who else do you think this could be?  More importantly, what evidence do you have that it is someone other than Libi?  Again, if you have complaints about a specific sentence or paragraph in the article, that would be useful, but your general claims about what you think I think are really not relevant here.--csloat 20:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: cherry picking

message: The senate report on prewar intelligence says the following: Notwithstanding four decades of intelligence reporting, IC officials and analysts expressed frustration over the lack of useful intelligence collected on Iraq’s involvement in terrorism, particularly on links to al-Qaida. A January 2003 IC assessment of Iraqi support for terrorism explained, “Our knowledge of Iraq’s ties to terrorism is evolving and (REDACTED).  and: Conclusion 99. Despite four decades of intelligence reporting on Iraq, there was little useful intelligence collected that helped analysts determine the Iraqi regime's possible links to al-Qaida. (Page 355)  yes, the intelligence community assessment has concluded that a collaborative relationship between iraq and al qaeda was nonexistent, but the judgment was based on poor intelligence.  even the ic assessment said knowledge is "evolving".  any rewrite of this page must include this and thus leave the debate open rather than closed.Anthonymendoza 01:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anthony, I agree.  The current page treats the subject like the final decision is in when really the debate is more intense than ever. RonCram 16:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey guys - why not just include this quote under the SSCI section?  In fact, it seems it already is there!  I don't see what the problem is.  I don't see anywhere that it says the debate is "closed."  However, it is accurate to say that every investigation has concluded that there was no evidence of a collaborative relationship.  My concern with what Ron has been asserting is that he seems to want to use this window as an opportunity to insert original research about a conspiracy in the intelligence community to help al Qaeda or some such; I don't see how the evidence bears that out, and even the extremists who make such claims in the public discourse - e.g. Hoekstra - do not seem to relate those claims to the many investigations of Iraq-alQaeda ties.  Those investigations were quite thorough, regardless of the comments of the SSCI -- the fact that "little useful intelligence" has been collected may in fact be evidence that there was little evidence to collect on the matter.--csloat 18:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Those investigations were quite thorough, regardless of the comments of the SSCI -- the fact that "little useful intelligence" has been collected may in fact be evidence that there was little evidence to collect on the matter. this is completely your interpretation.  so now it doesn't matter that the SSCI report stated that "there was little useful intelligence collected that helped analysts determine the Iraqi regime's possible links to al-Qaida."  this has been discredited too?  you said above, i believe, that the focus of the article should be on what the intelligence agencies have determined.  well, they determined, along with "no collaborative relationship", that intelligence gathering on the issue was of poor quality.  so this then needs to be focused on as well in any rewrite.  right?Anthonymendoza 20:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't say it was discredited; I said it was already in the article.  I just don't understand what argument there is in favor of a rewrite.  This quote is already there.  If you think it should be more prominent, add it somewhere in the background section, but what need is there to rewrite an entire article that is the product of years of collaborative research?  Just to include a quotation that is already in the article?--csloat 21:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

text: csloat, the point is that the Intelligence Community is admitting that its view is "evolving."  The amount of information is not enough to preclude changing their position.  More importantly, the analysis during this time period is depressingly poor.  It is a systemic problem as you can read from the quotes below from the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. RonCram 22:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see where the intel community is admitting this; what I see is the SSCI indicating that there is not a lot of evidence to go on.  Clearly, there is no evidence of a collaborative relationship, or at least, that is what everyone who has looked at this - including the SSCI - has concluded.  That the SSCI also concluded we need better intel is not surprising.  I don't see the quote "depressingly poor" in the SSCI report, but if you find it, please feel free to include it in the article.--csloat 21:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

text: That quote is already in the article.  I do not see any quote that indicates the analysis is "depressingly poor."-csloat 03:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the quote is in the timeline - not the narrative.  As you know, the plan is to split the narrative and the timeline. RonCram 05:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand.  Actually I think with SSCI we should follow the procedure we have for 9/11 Commission - the timeline should simply link to the SSCI section of the narrative.  The SSCI and 9/11 Commission have their own sections now; the quote can be there.  As it is, the SSCI stuff is split up between the timeline and the SSCI section, which makes no sense.  I have not objected to including this quote; it should be in the SSCI section.--csloat 20:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We should follow the wikipedia standard, not a standard you wish to impose.  A quote is used in the narrative when it illuminates and authoritatively supports the facts being presented.  The fact is that the assessment of the Intelligence Community is open to modification by new information. RonCram 04:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Intelligence Community admits knowledge is "evolving"

message: The Senate Committee that looked at Pre-war Intelligence failures also looked at 9/11 intelligence failures.  They published a 10 page report with several interesting findings.  These findings do not cause readers to have much confidence in the Intelligence Community conclusions regarding Saddam and al-Qaeda.  This is one reason why the debate is continuing today inside and outside the Intelligence Community.  Read these two "Systemic Findings" for yourself:
:5. Finding: Prior to September 11, the Intelligence Community’s understanding of al-Qa’ida was hampered by insufficient analytic focus and quality, particularly in terms of strategic analysis. Analysis and analysts were not always used effectively because of the perception in some quarters of the Intelligence Community that they were less important to agency counterterrorism missions than were operations personnel. The quality of counterterrorism analysis was inconsistent, and many analysts were inexperienced, unqualified, under-trained, and without access to critical information. As a result, there was a dearth of creative, aggressive analysis targeting Bin Ladin and a persistent inability to comprehend the collective significance of individual pieces of intelligence. These analytic deficiencies seriously undercut the ability of U.S. policymakers to understand the full nature of the threat, and to make fully informed decisions. (Page 7) 
:15. Finding: The Intelligence Community depended heavily on foreign intelligence and law enforcement services for the collection of counterterrorism intelligence and the conduct of other counterterrorism activities. The results were mixed in terms of productive intelligence, reflecting vast differences in the ability and willingness of the various foreign services to target the Bin Ladin and al-Qa’ida network. Intelligence Community agencies sometimes failed to coordinate their relationships with foreign services adequately, either within the Intelligence Community or with broader U.S. Government liaison and foreign policy efforts. This reliance on foreign liaison services also resulted in a lack of focus on the development of unilateral human sources. (Page 9) 
We need a section that talks about the many Intelligence Failures that happened from 1992-2003.  How else can readers understand the historical context of this debate? RonCram 22:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's already a section for the SSCI report.  I read the quotes above and don't see where they indicate anything about Saddam Hussein being connected to al-Qaeda, however; you may want to start a separate article on 9/11 intel failures, or see if there already is one.--csloat 21:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What the quotes indicate is that the majority viewpoint is based on the assessment of "inexperienced, unqualified, under-trained" analysts who "depended heavily on foreign intelligence and law enforcement services for the collection of counterterrorism intelligence."  It does not prove a link between Saddam and al-Qaeda, but it certainly indicates that majority opinion is not as strong as outside observers might think.  Even the Intelligence Community indicated the view was "evolving" (as new information comes to light) as Anthony pointed out above. As I mentioned earlier, this is important information as it puts the majority viewpoint within the proper historical context. RonCram 21:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The quotes do not speak to the relationship between Saddam and al-Qaeda; there must be an article about pre-9/11 intelligence failures where this stuff is relevant.  I don't see how it is relevant here.  The connection you seem to be drawing looks like original research to me.--csloat 03:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This report was published regarding poor intelligence reporting and analysis regarding al-Qaeda - and that would have to include any possible relationship al-Qaeda may have had with Saddam's regime. How can a quote be original research? RonCram 05:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A quote is original research when you use it to "logically" infer an argument that is not made in the quote.--csloat 20:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The quote is referring to intelligence and analysis regarding al-Qaeda.  No leap of "logic" is required to see it fits this article. RonCram 04:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The quote has no direct bearing on the link between Saddam and al-Qaeda without your leap of logic.--csloat 05:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course the quote has a direct bearing on the link.  These are the analysts who decided it is not likely a link exists.  It is ridiculous to say there is no direct link. RonCram 18:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it is ridiculous to say there is no direct link, surely the SSCI said there was a direct link?  Oh but they did not?  So it is just your leap of logic that establishes a direct link?  It doesn't matter how logical you believe your leap to be, Ron; if the quote does not say what you say it says, your claim is original research.  This is pretty clear, and I know you understand this, since we had this same conversation about a year ago over the Able Danger stuff that you kept trying to add to this page.  Either find a published source making the link you want, or leave it off the page.  Thanks.--csloat 18:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm sorry, Nescio, but I think you are in error.  It is my understanding both the 9/11 Commission and the Senate Select Committee looked into failures by the Intelligence Community.  The Senate Report looked at the claims made by Powell in his speech before the UN.  While portions of Powell's speech dealing with WMD were criticized by the Senate Report, his claims regarding the possible links between Saddam and al-Qaeda were not.  See page 369 of the Senate Report.  Does that answer your questions?  RonCram 18:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you point out which inquiry was conducted and what exactly were the results regarding the causes of these discrepancies? As I understand it that is part of the so-called Phase II investigation which has not been started, or at least has not concluded.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 19:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Ron, I have asked you before and I will ask you again to please stop reporting false information on wikipedia.  I have established above quite clearly that Powell's speech has been thoroughly refuted on this point since after the SSCI was published.  The "link" came from a single defector whose credibility has been rejected.  The Newsweek quote above establishes this quite clearly.  You claimed I was "grasping at straws" and then you bowed out of the argument, but Newsweek established that Powell told the entire story of the one defector and that story is now considered a complete fabrication.  This is true regardless of what you find on p. 369 of this report. Do you know of another source for Powell's information?--csloat 18:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sloat, now you are spreading disinformation.  Powell clearly refers to several sources in his speech.  You have an article in which some anti-Bush types in the Intelligence Community claim Powell's speech was based solely on al-Libi, but they are clearly spreading disinformation themselves. RonCram 18:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What other source does he refer to?  Where in the Newsweek piece does it say there are "anti-Bush types" involved in this?  You are simply making unverifiable assertions.  What is well known is that the Powell speech relied on al-Libi's stories.  Read the speech yourself, Ron, and tell us what other sources he has.--csloat 19:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have taken Powell's comments from his speech and outlined Powell's sources below. RonCram 02:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Intelligence Failures

message: These excepts are taken from a transcript of Powell's speech. 
* "And it's no secret that Saddam's own intelligence service was involved in dozens of attacks or attempted assassinations in the 1990s." - This means there are lots of sources, probably both classified and unclassified.
  
* “We asked a friendly security service to approach Baghdad” - This means a foreign intelligence service.
* “According to detainee Abuwatia (ph)”  - This is not al-Libi.
* “the detainee who provided the information about the targets also provided the names of members of the network” - This could be Abuwatia or someone else.
 
* “an Al Qaida source” - not clear, but almost certainly not al-Libi.
* “We know members of both organizations met repeatedly and have met at least eight times at very senior levels since the early 1990s.”  This refers to multiple, credible witnesses about multiple meetings.  Probably no one knew about all eight meetings, but several people knew about each of them.  
* “a foreign security service tells us”  - Again, not al-Libi.
* “A detained Al Qaida member tells us” - Not clear, but again this is probably not al-Libi because he described al-Libi differently.
* “And the record of Saddam Hussein's cooperation with other Islamist terrorist organizations is clear.” Again, Powell is talking about multiple reports by credible witnesses.  This information is not in doubt.
* “I can trace the story of a senior terrorist operative telling how Iraq provided training in these weapons to Al Qaida. Fortunately, this operative is now detained” This person is also described as “responsible for one of Al Qaida's training camps in Afghanistan.” - This may indeed be al-Libi, but notice that Powell reports that al-Libi said "a militant known as Abu Abdula Al-Iraqi (ph) had been sent to Iraq several times between 1997 and 2000 for help in acquiring poisons and gases."  This is important because... 
* “Abu Abdula Al-Iraqi (ph) characterized the relationship he forged with Iraqi officials as successful.”  Do you see?  Abu Abdula Al-Iraqi confirmed the report al-Libi. Now stop spreading the disinformation that Powell's speech has been discredited. RonCram 02:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see the misunderstanding now.  Let me clear this up -- the specific claim at issue is the one associated with "al-Iraqi."  We are not concerned with the totality of claim Saddam-AQ connections; we are talking about the "poisons and gases" connection specifically.  Certainly Powell also refers to the Zarqawi information, which is clearly not from al-Libi.  It has also been thoroughly refuted, as I showed in an earlier post.  There is also a reference in your list above to meetings with Hijazi - I never claimed that that information came from al-Libi.  I am talking specifically about the poisons and gases comments, the one associated with al-Iraqi -- the Newsweek article I quoted says: "two U.S. counter-terrorism officials told NEWSWEEK they believe the information about al-Iraqi came exclusively from al-Libi."  I did not mean to give the impression that I was sourcing the Zarqawi material or the Hijazi material to Libi.  Those items are dealt with elsewhere, and they have their exclusive sections of the timeline where the relevant arguments are made.--csloat 04:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sloat, if there is a misunderstanding, it is on your part.  "The information about al-Iraqi" did not come exclusively from al-Libi because Powell clearly says that al-Iraqi confirmed the report saying "the relationship he forged with Iraqi officials as successful."  It is absolutely wrong to say al-Libi was the only source for the information. RonCram 14:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No; if there is a misunderstanding, it is on the part of the two intelligence officials consulted by Newsweek, who stated quite clearly that "the information about al-Iraqi came exclusively from al-Libi."  Whatever Powell has to say about al-Iraqi does not appear to come from al-Iraqi but from al-Libi.  I have yet to see you cite a single comment from anyone -- not even from Powell -- objecting to this categorical statement reported by Newsweek.--csloat 19:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sloat, you are talking about two anonymous intelligence officials making a statement that is clearly wrong.  Your statement "Whatever Powell has to say about al-Iraqi does not appear to come from al-Iraqi but from al-Libi" is baffling.  Powell said "Abu Abdula Al-Iraqi (ph) characterized the relationship he forged with Iraqi officials as successful.”  If there is anything we know for certain it is that al-Iraqi said it himself.  The Senate report looked into all of this and concluded that the terrorism portion of Powell's speech before the UN was well-vetted.  Your comment "I have yet to see you cite a single comment from anyone -- not even from Powell -- objecting to this categorical statement reported by Newsweek" is equally bizarre.  Powell's statement is clearly intended to reflect that Abu Abdula al-Iraqi had confirmed al-Libi's statement.  Since the invasion of Iraq, we have additional evidence that Iraq support al-Qaeda with chemical weapons and training. RonCram 22:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cram, I am talking about a published account of what intelligence officials have said that has never been refuted in a published source.  Nobody has stepped forward to deny this information, not Powell, not Newsweek, not the Weekly freakin standard.  Your assertion that it "is clearly wrong" is totally irrelevant here; until you find a published source to back it up, I see no need to even address the comment.  Your claim that al-Iraqi had some conversation with Powell is what is baffling.  Whatever he did to "characterize the relationship" is something he did with al-Libi, or at least that is what we can assume based on the only information that is known.  Your second-guessing about Powell's intent is irrelevant here - if Powell himself didn't feel the need to clarify what you think Newsweek got wrong, I think we are safe going with the assumption that Newsweek did not just make this crap up, as you seem to be implying.  As for your last comment that since the invasion we have found stockpiles of chemical weapons giftboxed "to al-Qaeda, from Saddam," I must have missed that report.  If it exists, it has no bearing on the Powell speech.  Ron, either put up or shut up.  If you have inside information that the intelligence officials who talked to Newsweek lied, let's see the information, otherwise drop it.--csloat 00:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Uh, where does the spanish paper indicate this is the source of Powell's claims?  Powell himself says the Abu-Abdulla information came from al-Libi -- "He [al-Libi] says that a militant known as Abu Abdula Al-Iraqi (ph) had been sent to Iraq several times between 1997and 2000 for help in acquiring poisons and gases. Abdula Al-Iraqi (ph) characterized the relationship he forged with Iraqi officials as successful."  Clearly Powell is reporting what al-Libi said about al-Iraqi.  There is nothing in the spanish google link that indicates these are the same person, and it does not say "al-Iraqi," and it certainly does not indicate anything about Powell's speech.  Again, put up or shut up.  If you have evidence that Powell (or anyone else) responded to the intelligence officers cited in the Newsweek article, let's hear it.  Otherwise you are just insisting on original research.--csloat 01:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Geez Sloat.  Powell does not say "Al-Libi told us that Abu Abdula said he was successful."  Powell tells us what al-Libi said.  Then Powell tells us what Abdula said.  The link to the Spanish paper just shows that Abdula was in custody.  As you should know, al-Iraqi just means he is an Iraqi.  It is not a part of his real name.  This is the same guy. He was associated with al-Libi in Afghanistan.  He ran one of the camps.  They knew each other and they were both captured. You cannot hide from the facts, Sloat.  And you cannot rewrite them to fit your worldview. RonCram 16:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where does Powell say that Abu Abdula told him this and not al-Libi?  I have shown you where he said al-Libi told him this, and I have pointed out that two intelligence officials confirmed that al-Libi was the sole source of the information.  Can you point to where Powell disputed what these two officials said? Your claim about al-Iraqi is fine but does not help us with anything, since Abu-Abdula is a common Arabic name; it has been used by at least two other al-Qaeda members - Abu Abdullah al Baghdadi and Jose Padilla!  It is even the name often used to describe bin Laden himself.  The fact that you found an undated Spanish article that appears to say someone with a similar name was captured does not help much; does Powell mention this article?  Does this article indicate which Abdulla we are talking about?  Powell acknowledges that the information about Abu-Abdula al-Iraqi is second hand, and two intelligence officials confirm it.  How can you keep insisting that something else is true in the face of such evidence?  Please tell me you have more than an undated ambiguous report in another language.--csloat 20:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text: You might find this Boston Globe piece informative on the issue Ron.--csloat 20:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text: LOL, and, by the way, there is an Abu Abdullah al Iraqi producing videos in Iraq as of 2005.  Clearly not the same person (if the person al-Libi referred to existed at all), but more evidence of how common the name is.--csloat 20:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text: One more thing my googling has turned up -- according to Iyad Allawi, an OBL associate named Abu Abdullah al-Iraqi was sent by OBL to Fallujah sometime in 2004, which means if he is the same person, he could not have been in custody in February 2003.  Of course, former Mukhabarat agent and car bomber Allawi is a known prevaricator, and it is possible that he made this story up too and based the Abdullah character on Powell's speech, so I'm not sure how reliable this information is, but even if he is lying it does suggest that the man Powell was talking about was not in custody at the time.--csloat 21:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Powell's sources

message: Could someone cite a source for this part: "This was also the conclusion of various U.S. government agencies that investigated the issue, including the CIA, DIA, FBI, and NSA."?--Emcee2k 07:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Each of those investigations are cited and sourced in the timeline - do a search for each agency.--csloat 08:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sloat, that is a bogus answer. The truth is that it is believed all of these agencies agree with the majority intelligence view but they have not all published reports of any investigations.  I suggest the wording be changed to something that can be supported. RonCram 14:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think we can say, "This was the conclusion of the CIA, etc." unless we can cite a document that says it was the conclusion. Tom Harrison Talk 15:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: as far as i know, the senate report on prewar intelligence cited CIA conclusions.  i did a search of the timeline and there is no link to any NSA conclusion on the issue.  FBI conclusions are related to specific terrorist attacks, ie the african embassy bombings, and is mainly sourced in a frontpagemag.com article.  there is no link in the timeline to a broad based fbi report on ties.  and the DIA did report the following: "Saddam’s regime is intensely secular and is wary of Islamic revolutionary movements. Moreover, Baghdad is unlikely to provide assistance to a group it cannot control."  but this is referred to as a "comment" in a feb. 2002 declassification at the request of senator levin.  there is no indication this was a conclusion of some broad based report.  so there is no reference in the timeline to "investigations" conducted by the fbi, dia, and nsa relating to a saddam/al qaeda relationship.  this sentence, "This was also the conclusion of various U.S. government agencies that investigated the issue, including the CIA, DIA, FBI, and NSA", should either be removed or rewritten to reflect what is actually in the timeline.Anthonymendoza 18:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: NSA should be NSC; that was the red-team effort of 1998.  CIA conclusions are cited in the SSCI and the document is quoted though it is not a public document; it was called Iraqi Support for Terrorism and was released to Congress in January 2003.  The FBI reached that conclusion in at least two incidents; the 1993 WTC attack and on the Atta in Prague nonsense.  The DIA report was concluded in 2002 and focused on the "poisons and gases" claim.  As for the 1993 WTC, there are several investigations cited --  "In sum, by the mid-'90s, the Joint Terrorism Task Force in New York, the F.B.I., the U.S. Attorney's office in the Southern District of New York, the C.I.A., the N.S.C., and the State Department had all found no evidence implicating the Iraqi government in the first Trade Center attack."  There is also the 1999 State Department study of the factory in Sudan.  We also, of course, have the British Intel report of October 2002 and the Israeli intelligence report in February 2003.  Each of these reports are cited separately in the timeline.  If you would like to add weasel words to the sentence to make it appear more accurate, that would be reasonable, but the sentence is not "bogus."--csloat 19:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: there's no reference to the NSC in the timeline either, except for a reference to the 93 wtc attack.  the FBI investigation of atta in prague didn't make any broad conclusions about iraq and al qaeda, only drew conclusions about atta in prague, or not being in prague.  the dia reference was not a broad report.  and everything else you cite was focused on individual events, not the broad question a saddam/al qaeda relationship.  the sentence as it is written makes it appear that all the mentioned agencies issued reports on the history of saddam/al qaeda relations, when they didn't.  Anthonymendoza 20:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The NSC study is mentioned in the timeline; check 1998.  The FBI concluded that Atta was not in Prague, that is correct.  Another FBI investigation addressed the WTC.  The DIA report was about the linkage between Saddam and al Qaeda regarding WMDs.  If you would like to rewrite the sentence so it is more accurate, I would not object; I am not sure what your argument is here.  Is this the issue holding up the POV tag?  Let's get on it then; there is no sense nitpicking in talk about each investigation as if you have found evidence that they concluded the opposite of what it says they did.--csloat 00:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

text: In the summer of 2004, the 9/11 Commission concluded that there was no evidence of a "collaborative relationship" between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda at the time of the September 11, 2001 attacks.[13] [14] Specifically, the Commission found that "to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States." (p. 66) This was also the conclusion of various U.S. government agencies that investigated the issue, including the CIA, DIA, FBI, and NSA. The Senate Report of Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq also reviewed the intelligence community's conclusions[15] and found that they were justifiable, although the Committee found gaps in the intelligence-gathering methods used (see July 2004 below).
Incidently, the lead sentence there may be read as a bit tendentious, if it's correct that the commission found that "to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States." I don't see that we should do more than quote what they say, rather than try to frame it with a summary almost as long as the quote. Tom Harrison Talk 00:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Please read the discussion above; the citations are all in the timeline.  Do you really want a list of links in the introduction on that sentence too?  I have been advocating a better solution all along - a separate section indicating the various investigations with links to each one.  I'm not sure why a "fact" tag is useful here since the citations are all provided in the timeline already.--csloat 00:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Please read the discussion above for clarification; each investigation was different.  Again, my solution would be to have a separate section listing each investigation independently.  I don't understand your complaint.--csloat 01:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Then you are aware of where in the timeline each investigation is supported.  Deleting that sentence seems wrong.--csloat 02:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Just to recap where this is explained above -- "NSA should be NSC; that was the red-team effort of 1998.  CIA conclusions are cited in the SSCI and the document is quoted though it is not a public document; it was called Iraqi Support for Terrorism and was released to Congress in January 2003.  The FBI reached that conclusion in at least two incidents; the 1993 WTC attack and on the Atta in Prague nonsense.  The DIA report was concluded in 2002 and focused on the "poisons and gases" claim.  As for the 1993 WTC, there are several investigations cited --  "In sum, by the mid-'90s, the Joint Terrorism Task Force in New York, the F.B.I., the U.S. Attorney's office in the Southern District of New York, the C.I.A., the N.S.C., and the State Department had all found no evidence implicating the Iraqi government in the first Trade Center attack."  There is also the 1999 State Department study of the factory in Sudan.  We also, of course, have the British Intel report of October 2002 and the Israeli intelligence report in February 2003.  Each of these reports are cited separately in the timeline."  Does this not satisfy what you are looking for?  Thanks.--csloat 06:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: a red team effort is not an official investigation. and some contacts are noted after 1998, so this obviously is not a current piece of information.  and as far as i can tell, the "DIA report" was a four page summary on al qaeda detainees, also not an official investigation into iraq/al qaeda ties ("february 2002").  when all of these are lumped together with the sentence "This was also the conclusion of various U.S. government agencies", it gives the reader a false impression.  the two investigations that should be cited prominently are the 9/11 Commission's and the CIA's/SSCI's findings. the rest should be featured in detail in the timeline only.  Anthonymendoza 02:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed (except on the red team argument); that is why I have been advocating instead a section indicating information about each investigation, though nobody else seems to think that is a good idea.  How about something to the effect of "This conclusion is consistent with the findings of various investigations into specific aspects of the Saddam/AQ relationship, such as the DIA, NSC, etc.?"--csloat 05:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: that sentence is better.  i think it could be the first sentence in a section about various other investigations.  Anthonymendoza 16:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

text: These reports are very carefully worded; "This was also the conclusion..." subsumes a lot of qualifications under a too-general statement, to the point that it is unsupported as it stands. Something like "This conclusion is not inconsistent with the findings of other investigations into specific aspects of the Saddam/AQ relationship" is an improvement. Tom Harrison Talk 22:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cite Source 

message: Dana Milbank's article of 20 Jun 04 says, After the commission staff released its findings Wednesday that there was no "collaborative relationship" between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda -- challenging an assertion Bush and Vice President Cheney have made for the past two years -- Bush declared again that there was, in fact, a relationship.
The MSNBC report of 16 Jun 04 says, It said that reports of subsequent contacts between Iraq and al-Qaida after bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan “do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship,” and added that two unidentified senior bin Laden associates "have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al-Qaida and Iraq."
According to "9/11 commission staff statement No. 15" linked by MSNBC, There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda also occurred after Bin Ladin had returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship. 
I searched "Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence assesments on Iraq" for "collaborative relationship" and didn't find any occurences. 
Is "9/11 commission staff statement No. 15" the source of the quoted "collaborative relationship"? Or is there some other source? Tom Harrison Talk 01:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: here's the full paragraph from P. 66: "Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Ladin or his aides may have occurred in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Taliban. According to the reporting,Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq.  Bin Ladin declined,apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative. The reports describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides’hatred of the United States.But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States."-csloat 01:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

text: It appears from the quote you gave that the Commission used both.  I don't see a big difference between the two.--csloat 02:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Tom, can you explain your changes please?  I understand getting the 9/11 commission quote right (though, as you noted, both quotes are correct, with or without the "operational").  But I don't see the need to slip in "operational" in every sentence mentioning "collaboration," especially when we are not even talking about the 9/11 Commission conclusions.  I also don't understand why you would have us say that the 9/11 Commission "said" something when they actually wrote that in as a conclusion (it used to say "concluded," which was more accurate).  I don't see much of a difference either way with the "operational" thing but I wonder about your insistence on including it in every paragraph; it makes the article less readable.--csloat 19:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't understand.  The 9/11 Commission said both "collaborative relationship" and "collaborative operational relationship," as you yourself established.  So I don't see why you would favor one over the other.  Second, you inserted that in other peoples' mouths including various scholars who have nothing to do with the 9/11 Commission.  I am all for getting the quote right as you say, but I don't see the value in using the same language to describe other people's views on the matter.  Finally, if the statement is a conclusion of an official investigation, I think that "Concluded" is superior to "said" -- far more accurate.--csloat 00:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't see the justification for most of the changes you made; you can start with "concluded" and then remove the excess "operational" where it doesn't belong.--csloat 01:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: It doesn't belong anywhere where it is not quoted.  You added it to places that have nothing to do with the 9/11 Commission.  There is also little doubt about where you changed "concluded" to "said."  I am trying to assume good faith here Tom but you appear to be acting intentionally obtuse.  Are my claims really that unclear?--csloat 02:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about "collaborative relationship" 

message: Does anyone object to my splitting out the timeline to its own page? Tom Harrison Talk 20:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have an objection at this time.  There is already a page reserved for it but since there have been changes to this timeline since then you should copy over that page with the current version of the timeline on this page.  Thanks,-csloat 02:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree...but give it another day to make sure we don't trample on anyones toes.--MONGO 14:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. RonCram 14:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. Kevin Baastalk 17:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: agree. Anthonymendoza 16:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Done. Tom Harrison Talk 22:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Timeline

message: Is there any specific reason to continue with the NPOV tag on this piece?  I believe we have dealt with the main objections recently raised -- the sentence about intelligence community assessments has been more accurately worded, and the timeline has been moved out.  I still think we need a more detailed list of the intel community assessments but that is hardly a POV issue.  Anything else specific left?  I don't think the POV tag should be the default state of any article.--csloat 07:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, there is a good reason for the POV tag.  The article treats a viewpoint (the majority Intelligence Community view) as a fact.  The tag cannot be removed until the article makes clear that this is a controversial issue with several viewpoints.  Each of the viewpoints has to be clearly explained with the evidence that supports the viewpoint.  NPOV is non-negotiable. We need to return to the discussion of the rewrite I put together as a starting point for the article. RonCram 16:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In what way does it do so?  Can you point to the objectionable paragraph so we can rephrase it?  Your claim that the article must make clear that this is a controversial issue is not a valid complaint; the article already says "The question of a working relationship between Saddam and al-Qaeda is still being debated" at the very outset.  Thanks.--csloat 20:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sloat, yes it makes that one statement but the article does not treat the subject as controversial.  The article treats it like the answers are settled.  Also, the article does not describe what the other positions are or the evidence that supports them.  It does not separate the two main issues whether a link may exist and whether Saddam supported the attacks on 9/11.  These are the two questions the different views answer differently. RonCram 21:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What statement, then, do you object to?  Where does it "treat it like the answers are settled"?  It only describes the places they are settled (e.g. the CIA, DIA, SSCI, 9/11 Commission, and among all experts), but it does not state that these people are correct or incorrect, to my knowledge.  What positions do you think need to be described to remove the NPOV tag?  I believe all the official positions are at least mentioned here.  What is missing?  And how is that an NPOV issue anyway?  If there is information missing, just add it; there is no need for a NPOV tag.  As for separating the main link vs. 9/11, I have two issues with that statement: (1) that is not an NPOV issue and has nothing to do with the tag, and (2) you are completely wrong; the article clearly states "On 21 March 2006, Bush sought to distance himself from the allegation of any link. He said: "First, just if I might correct a misperception, I don’t think we ever said — at least I know I didn’t say that there was a direct connection between September the 11th and Saddam Hussein."" and "While Saddam was not involved in the September 11 attacks, members of his government did have contacts with al-Qaeda over the years" -- the distinction is clearly made in at least those two places.--csloat 22:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Sloat, you are making untrue statements.  I have specifically stated the problem with the article on numerous occasions.  It treats a viewpoint like it is fact. That is the very definition of POV.  The viewpoint of the majority of intelligence community is not fact.  Many statements in the article will lead readers to the false conclusion it is fact.  There are multiple viewpoints on this subject.  None of the other viewpoints are treated with any respect.  The article does not meet wikipedia standards at all. RonCram 22:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ron, I said specifically.  Where does it specifically treat a viewpoint like a fact?  Which sentence?  Which paragraph?  Where specifically is another viewpoint treated without "respect"?  Again, which sentence do you object to?  Vague statements like the one you made are non-falsifiable and cannot constitute a reason for putting the POV tag on an article.  Either qualify your statement with specifics or we shall remove the tag.  Thanks.--csloat 07:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sloat, I have already said that the article does it throughout.  That is why it is not salvagable and a rewrite is necessary.  As I noted above, it does not mention the other viewpoints.  It does not name the viewpoints or talk about who holds to the different views or why.  It is sloppily written and argues with itself in a very glaring way all for the purpose of trying to convince readers that anyone who disagrees with the majority viewpoint is a complete idiot.  The article is completely POV. RonCram 12:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ron, you are repeating yourself without citing evidence.  Where is "throughout"?  Can you point to a single sentence that is POV?  The article's words have been agonized over by multiple editors from different political perspectives, including yourself, for something like 2 years.  To say it is "sloppily written" is an insult to all of us.  If you see something sloppy, either point it out or try to fix it.  To say it is "not salvagable" is a way of avoiding the discussion -- you have yet to point to a single example of anything wrong, yet you're suggesting throwing 2 years of work out the window to replace it with a version that has been worked on by one editor alone (you) for about a month.  You claim it "does not mention other viewpoints" - which viewpoint is not mentioned?  If there is a notable viewpoint missing, we can easily correct that.  You say it does not "talk about who holds the different views and why" -- I see views of various administration officials alongside those of the intelligence community.  Even Doug Feith is discussed here.  What other notable views need to be discussed?  I am open to suggestions, but I think we should stick to notable views here.  Again, if there are some missing, this is easily corrected without throwing out the article.  You say it is "sloppily written" - that is a cheap shot and it is false.  If you notice a grammatical error, please correct it, but do not make such claims without examples.  You say it "argues with itself" - what you mean is it presents both sides of the issue, which is true.  This contradicts your claim that it is POV or does not present other views.  You say its purpose is "trying to convince readers that anyone who disagrees with the majority viewpoint is a complete idiot" -- can you give me an example of this?  I didn't think so.  It's an absurd claim.  As I said, this version has been edited for about 2 years by editors from various points of view, including yourself.  Are you saying all of those people believe that anyone who disagrees is a "complete idiot"?  And that they put such claims in the article?  Where?  Ron, the reason another editor put a trolling tag here is that you are making claims without supporting them.  If you cannot back up your claim that the article is POV or not salvageable, you are just being insulting and causing trouble.--csloat 19:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV tag? 

message: Does anyone object to removing this section completely?  If so, can we have some suggestions on organizing it?  I think all the necessary statements should  be incorporated into the timeline and this whole section erased, but if anyone can articulate a good reason to keep it, let's organize it and eliminate some of the cruft.  As it is the list does not seem useful.--csloat 07:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey Arkon, can you tell us which information in this section should be put in the timeline (or, better yet, put it there)?  This section has been up here, and a mess, for over a year now; how much more time do you think it needs to stay here?  I think most of what is relevant has been added already, but if you want to add entries for statements that have not yet made it there, we should do it.--csloat 20:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello csloat.  I was actually going by your comments.  Specifically I think all the necessary statements should  be incorporated into the timeline and this whole section erased.  I think 2 days is a rather short period of time to expect action on this. Arkon 21:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it has been over a year, not two days, though I will certainly wait longer.--csloat 21:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks csloat.  If no one does any work on this in the next few days, I will remove the section myself. Arkon 22:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Statements section?

message: Have the major contributors here considered asking for mediation. I am not a mediator, but will be willing to work with you more if we have a formal request submitted. However, my understanding is that mediation requests take some time to get a mediator assigned to the case. Just a thought.--MONGO 16:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm happy to invite others to mediate this article; in fact, both Ron and I have informally asked you to do so.  Does the process need to be formal for any reason?  Ron is making pretty blanket claims about the article being "unsalvageable" and so far refuses to provide specific examples or evidence.  I'm confident that once the evidence is provided we can address whatever problems exist; outside input would definitely be helpful.--csloat 19:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that it could be, like forever, before a mediator is assigned due to a lack of mediators. I am always happy to help and am currently reviewing RonCrams rewrite to see what the major differences are.--MONGO 19:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks - it might help (if you want more to read, lol) to look at the nine arguments I made against an earlier version of Ron's rewrite, which I find extremely POV and inaccurate in many places.--csloat 19:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay...I'll check the references and see what I think should and shouldn't be in the article...maybe there can be some way to make everyone happy.--MONGO 19:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: You have repeated that, it is true, but you have not provided specific examples or evidence of where you believe that to be the case.  That is why it makes sense to say that.  I have not been intransigent - I have gotten frustrated, it is true, but as others here can attest, when a specific issue was named (e.g. the sentence about the various intel investigations into the issue), I worked with others to improve the sentence.  The problem, Ron, is that you have so far refused to even name a particular sentence that you think has POV problems.  Simply saying the whole thing - that has been developed over years by multiple editors from various political perspectives - should be replaced with a version that a single editor (with a single, highly charged POV) has worked on for about a month is what makes no sense.--csloat 20:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sloat, I am mostly talking about what the article does not say.  How can I give specific examples of that?  You are making a ridiculous request.  The article does not discuss the other viewpoints, say who holds them or why.  I cannot give you an example because the example does not exist.  I repeat what I said before - the article is POV.  I have made changes to the rewrite based on CSTAR's comments, but you will not.  Your intransigence is this regard is ridiculous.  It is my goal that we make this article into a featured article.  I am not insisting that I be the only editor of the article.  That is another ridiculous comment.  I am pointing out that my rewrite provides the best format necessary for an NPOV article.  In the Intro, it introduces the various views and the two key questions that each view needs to answer.  The body of the article discusses the evidence supporting each view.  And finally, there is a short discussion of the evidence that has been published about Saddam's possible involvement in the attacks of 9/11.  An outline of this kind is the only way to produce an NPOV article. RonCram 21:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please cut out the BS about my "intransigence."  It is an unwarranted personal attack.  You say my request is "ridiculous" because you are talking about "what the article does not say."  So I suppose we're agreed that what it does say currently has no POV problems; that is excellent and I am glad we can remove the tag now.  As for what it does not say, can you give specific examples of what is missing here?  That would be a good start.  Otherwise, you are just repeating yourself without specifics once again.  You are asking me to make changes to the rewrite, but there is no point in that, since we don't have any problems with the current article.  Believe me, if I get started on changing the rewrite, we have a long uphill battle ahead, as I have specific objections to nearly every sentence of it.  I have listed nine problems above with it, which you refuse to engage.  But, again, the rewrite is not necessary as we have no POV problems in the current version.  If there is something missing, let's add it!  But your mere assertion that your version is "the only way to produce a NPOV article" is not helpful.--csloat 00:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Sloat, I have given specific examples.  My rewrite is full of specific examples of what the current article does not say.  But most important is the structure of the article itself, the outline.  The article has to introduce all of the different views and how they differ on the key points.  Then the body of the article has to give the evidence to support each view. How many times have I repeated this and yet you continue to ask me the same question again and again?!!!  The current article is completely POV.  Making articles NPOV is non-negotiable.  Despite your comments to the above, I did respond to your "nine problems."  My version is not the final article, but it is the only way to begin an NPOV article.  An article cannot present a viewpoint as fact, as the current does.  As I said before, that is the very definition of POV.  You have never made any effort to defend the POV nature of the article. RonCram 15:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about putting specific examples here of what the article does not say so that we can distinguish them from the things that are also in your rewrite that are already in the article?  You keep asserting the article is completely POV but you have not yet offered a single example of a POV statement or sentence in the article.  Where does it "present a viewpoint as fact"?  It does not.  It states what the consensus of experts concludes.  You say you responded to the nine problems but you quickly dropped the debate when I replied to your responses, so the fact is, my arguments against your rewrite have ultimately not been refuted.  But again, there is no need for the rewrite since the consensus version of this article is fine as it is.--csloat 17:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Requests for mediation]]

message: Contrary to Sloat's comment above, Powell said al-Libi's statement was corroborated by Abu Abdula. Sloat did not provide a full quote. Speaking before the UN, Powell said: "He (al-Libi) says that a militant known as Abu Abdula Al-Iraqi (ph) had been sent to Iraq several times between 1997 and 2000 for help in acquiring poisons and gases. Abdula Al-Iraqi (ph) characterized the relationship he forged with Iraqi officials as successful."  As can be seen by the full quote, Powell is not quoting al-Libi saying that Abu Abdula told him that he was successful.  Powell is saying the Abu Abdula told his US interrogators the relationship was successful.  Now does this mean that Iraq actually supported one of the terrorist attacks against the U.S.?  Powell does not make that claim, but he does show that Saddam and al-Qaeda were working together toward that goal. RonCram 19:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ron you are completely ignoring all my arguments based on your very tenuous reading of Powell's statement.  The statement you quote is at best ambiguous.  I have cited evidence that Abu Abdula al-Iraqi is not in custody but is making al Qaeda videos in Iraq.  I have cited evidence that 2 US intelligence officials have indicated clearly that al Libi was the sole source of Powell's claim.  Powell has never refuted these officials or the Newsweek article that makes this argument.  Can you please drop this nonsense?--csloat 19:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sloat, there are two possible explanations for someone named Abu Abdula making videos.  One is that it is someone else of the same name.  Second, is that Pakistan, or whatever country Abu Abdula was transferred to, released him.  I have already provided you with evidence that Abu Abdula was taken into custody.  I trust Colin Powell's statement before the UN and the world more than I trust two anti-Bush intelligence types who are not willing to speak on the record.  You know well enough about the war the CIA is waging against the Bush Admin.  These guys who talked to Newsweek made statements they cannot back up and are unwilling to put their own credibility on the line.  If their statements were not anonymous, perhaps Powell would have felt compelled to refute them.  As it is, why should he waste his time?  The fact Abu Abdula confirmed al-Libi is clear. Neither Powell, nor anyone in the Bush Admin, has chosen to retract the claim. RonCram 20:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps they have not chosen to retract the claim because they never made it?  You have provided no evidence Ron.  Use Occam's razor.  A third explanation is that the one article you cited that is in a language you cannot read but that you think said an Abu Abdula was arrested is the one referring to a different abu Abdula (the spanish article did not refer to "Abu Abdula al-Iraqi").  Powell never said Abu Abdula al Iraqi was in custody.  Two intelligence officials said on the record that Powell's statement relied exclusively on al-Libi, and Powell himself began by saying that al-Libi "says that a militant known as Abu abdula al-Iraqi..."  You are fixated on the next comment, where Powell says that Abu Abdula "characterized the relationship" as successful, but you are wrong that that statement "clearly" suggests corroboration of anything.  It could mean that but it more likely means that al-Libi said that this was corroborated.  Your assertion that the two intel officers are anti-Bush is just bullshit, Ron; you have never presented a shred of evidence on that claim.  Your claim that they won't speak on the record is false too since Newsweek published their statements.  I cannot believe you are still trying to argue this point, Ron; this is almost as bad as confusing Iraq with Iran.  We don't just have Newsweek; we also have the boston globe and other news sources directly addressing this issue; all you have is a vague misreading of Powell's statement and ridiculous assertions that acting intelligence officials are "anti-Bush."  Oh yeah, and an article in a language you don't understand referring to someone with a similar name, even though we have articles with the guy's full name indicating he is not in custody.  Anyway, this argument has become tedious, since you won't respond to reason.  Is there something about this you think belongs in the article?  If not, I suggest we drop it.--csloat 21:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Abu Abdula

message: First off, I think the old version of this page, before Ron put in this new intro, was better, and Ron has yet to establish a reason for this new taxonomy.  But if people think we must move in this direction, I have made some basic changes that I think are essential for this to be NPOV, to reduce WP:NOR, and to be readable (including some basic grammatical corrections; this is inevitable when several people edit a document).  
I've created a section called "Viewpoints" to cover the issues in Ron's new intro; I think the basic intro should be simple and straightforward, and the different viewpoints should have their own section.  I moved some of the issues to the footnotes -- (1) the in extremis scenario is actually referring to WMDs and not al Qaeda, so it should probably be removed entirely (though I do vaguely recall something similar being said regarding AQ cooperation, but I could not find it - if anyone finds it we should put it there instead of this in extremis thing).  (2) I have added a note about the alleged "training" and "safe haven" -- this has been disputed by the Pentagon report on the OIF documents.  The training that did occur was not of al Qaeda.  This is also sometimes collapsed with the alleged "training" in chemical weapons that al-Libi "confessed" to under torture -- as is well known, those statements are considered completely unreliable, and the CIA and DIA have backed off of them completely (the section of Powell's speech at the UN that talked about this depended completely on al-Libi's confession, as has been established conclusively on this talk page about a month ago).  Besides those changes, I added "fact" tags in places where I think WP:NOR is a problem: (1) The claim that there are two main questions that have come up seems to me to be a claim that Ron made up.  Those are two questions that have come up, it is true, but so have other questions; e.g., Did Mohamed Atta meet an Iraqi in Prague?  Did Saddam train al Qaeda members at Salman Pak or other camps in Iraq?  Would Saddam find common cause with his enemies in al Qaeda if the US attacked him?  etc.  It is hard for wikipedia to say the two questions Ron focuses on are the central questions without doing original research, so perhaps he should look for an authoritative source that says these are the main issues.  (2) the claim that a "minority view held by some intelligence analysts is that Saddam Hussein and al-Queda did have a cooperative relationship" does not seem to be supported.  Which intelligence analysts hold this view?  Doug Feith is not an intelligence analyst.  There was apparently someone at DIA who told the Senate Committee he believed there was cooperation, but the DIA rejected his/her analysis completely; I am not sure I can think of another intelligence analyst who fits this statement.  So if it is a minority of one, we should state that clearly rather than cleverly portraying it as a significant view.  (3) "According to this view Saddam and al-Qaeda had an on-again, off-again cooperative relationship and were willing to use the other for their own purposes." -- who says this?  Is this the same DIA person?  And what does it mean in terms of the question of a collaborative relationship?  A relationship of mutual hostility and manipulation is not a "cooperative relationship" and we shouldn't call it that.  Finally, I incorporated the Mylroie stuff in the second view rather than a separate part of the taxonomy, since it is part of that view; as Ron acknowledges, she was an influence on Cheney and Feith and others in the Bush Admin who supported this view.  Her view is not important as a separate view here; it is only notable insofar as it influenced the Bush Admin view.  I have also included the information that Mylroie's thesis has been specifically vetted and refuted by the FBI.  
In the end I still think the old version is simpler; all the points made in this section are already made elsewhere on the page.  But if people think having the viewpoints hilighted like this is a good thing, this version of the page is much better in terms of NPOV, of readability, and of accuracy.--csloat 09:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just so everyone knows, I am not in favor of any version and am still looking all this over at this time. I still think that the viewpoints should be combined better and I made minor adjustments to this effect.--MONGO 20:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: MONGO, there are four main players in this debate.  Each of them answer the two key questions differently.  There is no way the article can state there are only two views.  Even csloat admits the Mylroie view is different, but he does not want readers to know the evidence behind her view.  As for the Bush view, csloat does not want readers to know how close it is to the majority intel view.  This is purely anti-Bush POV pushing on Sloat's behalf. RonCram 01:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ron has not been able to show any published source that agrees with his statement that "there are four main players in this debate."  He claims I don't want readers to know about Mylroie but I have never deleted that information; all I have done is state that her view is only notable because it influenced Bush and people in his administration.  It has nothing to do with being "anti-Bush" -- I am accepting both Bush's and Mylroie's views being represented in the article.  Ron please stop misrepresenting me.  Thanks.--csloat 05:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I am ok with the new section in its current form, though I don't really think it's necessary.--csloat 09:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  I am not okay with it.  I am okay with having a viewpoints section separate from the Intro as I had it, but it must address all the viewpoints. This is Sloat's approach to keep the Bush Admin's view and the Mylroie view from being represented in the article.  This is clearly a result chosen by Sloat's anti-Bush POV.  MONGO, what you are doing is not mediating.  You have not addressed any of the arguments I put forward. You are just "voting" with Sloat without providing any reasoning.RonCram 10:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I do not agree that the intro has to be as long winded as the one you had...what difference does it make where these points are placed? I haven't voted in any way...but I guess that unless someone agrees completely with you, then they are not being neutral? Frankly, I am trying to to mediate, but since you don't think I am, I certainly have better things to do. Good luck. I suggest since this is a hopeless tug of war, that an article Rfc be filed to bring in many editors who will be "neutral".--MONGO 12:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: MONGO, I agreed that the "Viewpoints" section was okay not being in the Intro.  That is better actually.  I disagree with your decision to only go with two of the four viewpoints.  I had rejected your mediation long ago and told you so because you were treating a viewpoint as a fact. That is not something a mediator does. RonCram 12:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Is there a reliable source who says "there are 2 [or 3, 4, 5] viewpoints, and they are..."? Tom Harrison Talk 12:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tom, I do not know of any source that says that, but my understanding of wikipedia policy does not require it before an article can list four viewpoints.  Rather each statement has to be verifiable.  I can do that. The four viewpoints listed are the four main players in the debate.  Each of these players answer the two main questions differently.  The questions are:  Did Saddam and al-Qaeda cooperate?  Did Saddam support 9/11?  Each of the four parties that hold these viewpoints are historically significant.  Mylroie's view, while held by a small number of people today, was a big influence on the Bush Admin in the days right after 9/11.  It explains why Bush and Co. were looking at Iraq immediately.  No one can argue against the historical significance of the Bush/Powell view. RonCram 12:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Does your understanding of wikipedia policy suggest that it is ok to arbitrarily claim that there are 4 main viewpoints (instead of 2, or 8)?  Ron I can cite multiple parties who answer the question differently than the 4 viewpoints you cite, but I am not insisting on adding 5,6,7,8 views to the list just because they can be shown to exist.  The claim you make is a different one; you are claiming that these four are the central viewpoints in this debate.  I think you are exaggerating - I think the main views are that either Saddam worked with AQ or he did not, and the other two claims you get out of that are subsets of the view that he did work with AQ.  This is just logic, Ron,  and it has nothing to do with pro- or anti-Bush.  Nylroie's influence on Bush is interesting historically, but her view has since then been roundly rejected by all credentialed experts who have examined it, as well as by an FBI investigation.  So it's a little bit misleading to suggest that her perspective is one of the central views on  this issue.  Yes, it influenced Bush folks -- that may be evidence of how wrong those people were, but it is hardly evidence that her viewpoint still is a central view in this dispute.--csloat 20:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding of wikipedia policy is that information is not to be suppress in order to push a particular POV.  Further, I understand that all of the historically significant viewpoints are to be represented.  There are four such viewpoints.  Sloat, your argument that there are only two viewpoints ignores the fact there are two key questions.  Did Saddam and al-Qaeda cooperate in terrorist attacks?  Did they cooperate on 9/11?  Mylroie's viewpoint is central because it is the only viewpoint that held that Saddam did support 9/11.  The fact most people disagree with her is no reason to prevent wikipedia readers from knowing the evidence that convinced her.  Sloat, what are you afraid of?  Why do you not want people to know this?  Alternatively, why do you not want people to know how closely the Bush Admin position is to the majority intel position?  All I want to do is present the facts.  Your suppression of the facts does not bring you any credit. RonCram 21:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ron the only thing I want to "suppress" here is your original research.  I have never tried to "suppress" Mylroie's discredited views.  Stop distorting this and stop attacking me.  This isn't about me.  This is about your assertion, unsupported, that there are four -- no more and no less -- central views on the issue here.  I'm not saying these views don't belong; I am just saying they are a subset of the view that Saddam conspired with al Qaeda.--csloat 21:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with Jimbo.  Since this is an ancillary article and since the Mylroie view did influence the Bush Admin to look first to Iraq right after 9/11, it seems clear to me that the Mylroie view meets his requirements. RonCram 21:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great.  So, nobody disputes that Mylroie's view is already in the article.  So we don't have a problem, right?--csloat 21:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

text: OK MONGO - just to clarify though both Ron and I agree that it can be included; my point is just that her view is a subset of the "Saddam worked with AQ" view, not a separately notable view in itself.--csloat 21:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not taking a stand on it's notability...all I'm doing is ensuring everyone knows what policy is in regards to what we do and what we don't include based on our ability to verify a viewpoint's notability. Undue weight, if followed, will limit non-notable viewpoints to a simple mention and will ensure that major points are what is empahsized. If the Mylroie viewpoint is a prominent one, then it can be expanded based on the amount of notablity it deserves.--MONGO 22:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why did you change it to the totally disputed version?  The version I had proposed, with Mylroie's view appropriately incorporated into the view that a conspiracy existed, is clearly superior.  I have added the tag until this is fixed as I do not want to start edit warring.  Let's resolve this clearly.--csloat 23:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ron's new intro

message: How much do we need on the SSCI on this page?  It is the biggest section on the page.  We already have a page devoted to the report where all the conclusions are, and they are also all on the timeline.  I suggest going back to a shorter summary of the conclusions that are relevant here, with links to the main page, rather than lots of duplicate information.--csloat 21:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: all the material in the SSCI section is relevant here and can't be found in such detail anywhere else in wikipedia.  i don't think the section is too long.  i removed duplicate info from the timeline.Anthonymendoza 23:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So shouldn't the 9/11 Commission section be longer?  Why not just reprint both entire reports on Wikipedia?  I'm being facetious because I think having the SSCI section as the longest section in the article is a little absurd.  And if it is going to be this long we should at least mention the as-yet-unreleased volume ii of the report, specifically the sections dealing with how Iraqi defectors manipulated American intelligence specifically on this issue, which is far more relevant than much of what you included.  I also think you have biased the summary in a subtle way by burying the main relevant conclusion -- that the Intelligence community was justified in its conclusion that there was no evidence of Saddam-AQ conspiracy.  You have also included totally irrelevant information like Saddam's ties to secular Palestinian groups.  Another clear bias is the inclusion of conclusion 103 without any indication that the information from al-Libi has since been totally discredited.  I don't think that needs to be here, but there should be a separate section on Powell's speech, I think, that includes this information.  It all leaves the reader with a very inaccurate impression.--csloat 23:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I see you are way ahead of me on the Powell speech.  I have included the npov tag on the ssci section until the above is resolved.  The powell speech needs to include information about the fact that the CIA and DIA have acknowledged that all those points have been totally discredited.  I'm adding a tag there too.--csloat 23:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sloat, if you want your tags to have any credibility, you need to provide some links that support your point. So far, I have no idea what you are talking about. RonCram 01:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: i have no idea what you are talking about either.  i included everything in the 9/11 report having to do with saddam/al qaeda links.  and the fact that it's now considered POV to directly quote the SSCI report is absurd to the point of being just plain silly.  as for the powell speech, where has the CIA and DIA "acknowledged that all those points have been totally discredited."  and don't simply say "it's in the timeline", give links. Anthonymendoza 01:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

text: and as for the "as-yet-unreleased volume ii of the report", you want me to quote a report that hasn't been released yet??Anthonymendoza 01:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

text: what is known about it??  as for being pov "to bury the main conclusions", i haven't buried anything.  the conclusions are there, as well as everything else the committe found.  what's frustrating is you don't quote sources.  it's like pulling teeth trying to get you to quote a source. Anthonymendoza 01:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're full of shit.  I quote sources when necessary, but I don't re-quote sources every time you or Ron decides to make an argument that I refuted months ago.  Read the timeline yourself, my sources are all in there and I have spent a couple years researching them by now.  As for volume ii, why not read this for starters?  It's ridiculous that you guys put known disinformation in over and over and then demand that I research the sources to refute it when you know goddamn well they exist.  I have been over Powell's speech extensively and refuted every point.  Powell himself no longer supports the conclusions there and the Bush Admin has backed off of them.  The al-Libi stuff is in every mainstream newspaper that has touched the issue, yet you delete it from the timeline and you pretend it doesn't exist on the main page.  Ron at least has the courage to say that he believes al-Libi was corroborated by another terrorist, but he is so wrong about that that it's laughable.  And, no, I don't feel like quoting the sources again on that point; you can find them yourself by reading where I quoted them the last time, above on this very page!!--csloat 02:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: wow.  well, i only deleted one sentence on al-libi in the timeline because there are eight references to al libi in there.  as for pretending it doesn't exist in the main page, not sure what you are talking about? as for the rest, you haven't refuted every point of powell's speech.  i think you're the one that's full of it.Anthonymendoza 02:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Stop pretending you don't know what I'm talking about.  The powell section doesn't include a single mention of al-Libi being Powell's only source of information!  That is what I'm talking about.  All you have are quotes from powell, without any indication that they are quotes, and each one stated as gospel truth.  No indication that the source of much of this (I realize the Zarqawi stuff is separate) comes directly from al-Libi.  If there are eight refs to al-libi in the timeline, that is because there are eight instances of disinformation in the timeline that came from that source!  Are you suggesting we should have al-libi's information in this article without any indication that it comes from a disputed source?  Sorry for cursing but you are being extremely frustrating.  As I said, I am really trying to assume good faith here but you are not making it easy.--csloat 02:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: we've been through this.  al libi wasn't the only source, and wasn't the source for the majority of powell's speech.  and all the information on al libi comes from leaks, with much of the intel on him still classified.  i'll have to continue this debate later.  Anthonymendoza 02:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're joking.  Al-libi was the only source, as Newsweek reported.  Anthony - what other source was there for that information?  Are you just making things up now, or are you going to jump on board Ron's thoroughly discredited argument about Abu Abdula?  I agree there is much still classified, but what has been leaked is pretty substantial -- in particular, the DIA's and CIA's conclusions about the information!  That you would wish to censor this information from this section just because you think some classified information exists that might be relevant is just absurd.--csloat 02:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: read the SSCI report on the matter.  there were 12 sources.  good night.Anthonymendoza 02:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the newsweek article on the matter.  There was one source for the specific pieces of information we are talking about -- your "12 sources" are about different things, as you are well aware.  We are talking about specifically those items mentioned by Powell in relation to "poisons and gases."  I am not disputing that there are other sources of the disinformation about al-Zarqawi etc.--csloat 02:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  SSCI additions? 

message: Below is an excerpt from the "Viewpoints" section.  The section is supposed to introduce the views of the four major players in the debate.  It currently reads like this:
:The Bush Administration view was influenced in part by the "false flag" view of Laurie Mylroie, whose answers to the questions followed along the lines that not only did Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda have a cooperative relationship, but also that the Iraqi regime supported the 9/11 attacks as well. Very few people share Mylroie's view but her book on the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center was very influential among several top Bush Administration officials. Mylroie claims Saddam used a "false flag" to attack the US on 9/11 and blame al-Qaeda for it.[citation needed] Conservative terrorism expert Dr. Robert S. Leiken of the Nixon Center noted that Mylroie "also believes Saddam perpetrated 9-11 in spite of the fact that the joint FBI-INS-police PENTBOM investigation, the FBI program of voluntary interviews and numerous other post-9-11 inquiries, together comprising probably the most comprehensive criminal investigation in history—chasing down 500,000 leads and interviewing 175,000 people -- has turned up no evidence of Iraq's involvement; nor has the extensive search of post-Saddam Iraq by the Kay and Duelfer commission and US troops combing through Saddam’s computers."[2]
We need to make clear that the "Viewpoints" section only introduces the views.  We certainly want to state this view is held by a tiny minority of people.  However, what critics say about the view should be reserved for the proper place in the body of the article.  I propose providing a "Critics of this view" section for all of the views.  In this way, each view is presented without bias and critics of each view can state their objections without bias. RonCram 17:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, Ron.  If the article presents a view that is known to be bullshit by the FBI, we should not hide that fact from readers in order to avoid "arguing with itself."  If mylroie's view is presented, the fact that her view is totally discredited must be presented too.--csloat 20:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sloat, I am certain it was accidental, but your last edit cut off my comment and my signature. I have restored them.  Regarding your view that the article should argue with itself, I strongly disagree.  This is one of the major problems with the article now and it totally destroys readability.  There is a proper place to discuss the relative merits and demerits of each view.  It is absolutely fine to say the view is held by a small minority of people... most readers will understand that.  When introducing viewpoints there is nothing to be gained by quoting experts who say the other experts are wrong.  That can be covered in the body of the article. RonCram 05:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me get this straight - you think the article should only present one side of the issue, your side?  Forget it Ron.  If Mylroie's view is put forth, the consensus of experts' opinion of Mylroie's view is being put forth as well.  This is the problem with the SSCI and Powell sections as well, which is why they have NPOV tags.--csloat 08:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you don't have it straight.  That is not what I said and anyone reading this for themselves will know you are twisting my words.  Of course both sides can be presented and MUST be presented.  But it must happen in the body of the article, not the introduction.  Articles do not argue points in the introduction.  It destroys readability and flow.  As I already said, it is fine to characterize the Mylroie view as a small minority. I think that is both true and fair.  But criticisms of Mylroie's view should in the same relative position as criticisms to the other views.  All of the views will be subject to their own criticism section. RonCram 14:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Readability and flow are not compromised by accuracy Cram.  That is not the introduction, it is the "viewpoints" section, which should have information about how credible each viewpoint is considered.  If you don't want readers to know Mylroie's credibility is nil, don't mention her in the article.--csloat 17:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sloat, you know very well that the plan is to describe the viewpoints, provide evidence for and against each viewpoint in the body of the article.  That is the way articles are written. The issues are introduced, then they are more discussed. But perhaps it is better to make other changes to the article and then come back to clean up the introductory portions. RonCram 12:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article should not argue with itself

message: I see Anthony has removed the disputed tag from the Powell section without an explanation.  I have restored it.  In order to remove it, I think the disputes about Powell's information must be discussed in this section, and I think the section needs context.  I am going to do a little in this regard, but part of the problem is we have totally out of context quotes listed here without any organization (except, presumably, the order they were presented in the speech).  For example, this quote: "Last year an Al Qaida associate bragged that the situation in Iraq was, quote, "good," that Baghdad could be transited quickly."  Well, what the heck does this mean?  Which al Qaeda associate?  bragged to whom?  What situation in Iraq?  What the hell does "transited" mean?  This is supposed to tie Saddam to al-Qaeda how?  The next one: "Last year, two suspected Al Qaida operatives were arrested crossing from Iraq into Saudi Arabia. They were linked to associates of the Baghdad cell, and one of them received training in Afghanistan on how to use cyanide."  Again, where is the link between Saddam and this alleged al Qaeda cell?  The word "Baghdad"?  Is that it?  He seems to be talking about Ansar al-Islam members, but the reader wouldn't know it without knowing this context.  I'll be removing such quotes completely; I think it is up to the person who wants to insert them to explain their relevance and insert the appropriate context along with the quote.  I realize Ron will once again whine that I am "censoring" things here, but I am not -- if you want to restore any quotes I remove, feel free to do so, as long as you can explain their relevance and context.  Just because a sentence mentions "al Qaeda" or "Iraq" does not mean it offers a claim about Saddam working with al-Qaeda.
I also think the information now known about the main claims in the speech should be presented.  Anthony presented the quotes as simple fact -- he wrote that "Powell outlined Iraq's ties to terrorism."  I have fixed this incredibly inaccurate representation.  Powell made certain claims in the speech about Iraq's ties to terrorism; the majority of those claims have not panned out (and have been widely criticized by the international community).  In January 2004 Powell himself acknowledged that "there is not -- you know, I have not seen smoking-gun, concrete evidence about the connection, but I think the possibility of such connections did exist and it was prudent to consider them at the time that we did."  So he acknowledged that all he had "outlined" the year before was the "possibility of such connections" rather than "concrete evidence."  And even that case, as we know, has fallen apart on the major charges (regarding Zarqawi and regarding the "poisons and gases" info that came from al-Libi).  The Zarqawi charges have been flat-out refuted by a CIA study (undertaken at the request of the Vice President's office) which concluded in October 2004; the results of this study prompted Rumsfeld to back off claims of evidence of any Saddam/al Qaeda relationship.  And, of course, both CIA and DIA have refuted the other claims in the speech, indicating that they were sourced exclusively to al-Libi.  Until this information is added in -- and I will try to get to it eventually if nobody else does -- the section should keep the "disputed" tag.--csloat 00:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Powell section redux 

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

message: After removing the cruft, there are three points made in the new section that Ron introduced.  The first one, the fact that the Feith memo was leaked is already discussed.  The fact that Bush cherry-picked intelligence could stand to be mentioned, but I don't see why the section is labeled in this way.  The third point, that Powell made a speech, is already covered in its own section.  I think this section could be removed, and the Bush cherry-picking charge made in the "Questions about the plausibility" section.  We don't want this article to be as long as the timeline again. 
By the way, if there is some evidence connecting the Gates quote specifically to this page, that quote should be in the "History of Claims" section, not on this section.  But in that paragraph he is talking about Saddam using WMD.  In any case I don't see the point of that quote other than to support a bizarre burden-of-proof-shifting claim that we don't need to prove Saddam was linked to al Qaeda in order to believe it is true.  I don't see the point of such a claim in the article; perhaps in the timeline, however?  It fits in with Rumsfeld's equally bizarre take on logic, "absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence."  Rumsfeld is logically correct, of course, but nobody is claiming there is "evidence of absence."  Thing about "absence of evidence" is that it means absence of evidence.  Anyway, I don't want to seem tendentious by removing this stuff, but I don't think it makes the "why this is controversial" case.
Oh yeah, the other stuff I removed about false flags and detainees making false statements is not inaccurate but it is not sourced there and it is already discussed in the article, both in the Mylroie section and in the "questions about the plausibility" section.  A third mention seems beyond the pale.--csloat 18:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I decided to "be bold"; I went ahead and incorporated whatever looked new in that section into the rest of the article.  I left out the tendentious language about how the Powell speech "decisively refuted" the CIA or whatever.  The Powell speech already has its own section.  I added the Feith sentence and the cherry picking sentence to other parts of the article where they seemed to fit better.  I am not opposed to a section on why this is controversial, but I think it is already covered in the other sections on here -- background, history, and plausibility.  Do we really need yet another background section?  If so, what should be included in it?--csloat 18:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Section on why this is controversial

message: (edit conflict) The article in its current state mentions the four main views but only provides evidence for one.  This is a clear violation of wikipedia policy not to treat viewpoints as facts.  Sloat's recent edits show he does not want a discussion of why the topic is controversial.  Neither does he want readers to know the difficulties intelligence agencies face when dealing with "false flag" operations or "misinformation" campaigns.  Neither does he want readers to know about the "risk matrix" that causes intelligence analysts to change the "level of certainty" required to make assessments.  It is absolutely essential that the article make clear the difference between the Bush Admin position as defined in the Powell speech to the majority position.  There is only one difference between the two positions and Sloat has deleted that section.  13:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So you want us to make up evidence that doesn't exist for views that have been shown to be false?  Sorry, that is not my understanding of wikipedia policy.  The false flag info is already in the article twice; your suggestion does not justify why a third repetition is necessary.  I have refuted the need for the "risk matrix" nonsense above.  It is not specifically addressing this issue; it is about WMDs.  The difference between Bush and the "majority position" is already quite clear; these are the two main viewpoints as correctly delineated in the first section after the intro.  As for the POV tag, I see no justification for it here.  Which sentence do you feel is POV, Cram?--csloat 20:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Totally POV

message: i think this article is moving along in a good direction.  if length becomes a concern again, i suggest we create a separate page titled "offical investigations and reports regarding Saddam and al Qaeda".  as of now, i think the article is a good length.Anthonymendoza 15:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think your suggestion of a separate page for "offical investigations and reports regarding Saddam and al Qaeda" is a good one.  The current article needs more information on all of the viewpoints, including the majority viewpoint, than the present format will allow. (This was my comment, I just noticed that I forgot to sign it.) RonCram 13:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think there is any need to move this information at this stage.--csloat 06:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein_and_al-Qaeda#Official_investigations_and_reports Official Investigations and Reports]

message: i removed this tag because it was preventing the entire article from being displayed.  weird.  perhaps a different tag would fix the problem?Anthonymendoza 17:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not aware of any extant disputes that require the tag to remain.--csloat 20:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: totallydisputed tag

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

message: The following sentence is accurate as stated:
:The major claims set forth in Powell's speech -- that Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi constitutes a link between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, and that Saddam's government provided training and assistance to al-Qaeda terrorists in Baghdad, are generally considered by terrorism experts and intelligence analysts to be false.
I do not support Jbbrewer's proposed change to "have been questioned" as it is extremely vague about who did the questioning and what questions were raised.  No evidence whatsoever has been found by the Intel Community to support any of these major claims -- the evidence that Powell relied on has been determined to be inaccurate.  There is no "neutrality" issue here as it is an issue of what the intel community has explicitly stated; there is no reason to weasel around it.--csloat 19:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also think its vague to say terrorism and intelligence "experts and analysts" generally consider Powell's claims to be false.  which experts and analysts?  a claim like this should be sourced in some way.  the real authority on this issue seems to be the cia and the dia, and they seem to be at odds over al-libi. the cia is clear in stating that they don't know what to believe from al libi, and they seem to be standing behind prewar assessments.  the dia has flat out stated he was lying.  therefore, we have a dispute over the intelligence used by powell, not a consensus.  i think definetely the phrase "considered by terrorism and intelligence analysts to be false" should be rewritten.  i'm not quite sure what you mean by weasel around though.Jbbrewer 19:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pretty much every expert and analyst that has commented on the issue.  Not just the CIA and DIA (who clearly consider the claims false), but also independent analysts around the globe (such as Burke, Gunaratna, and Benjamin), and former CIA and DIA analysts including Scheuer, Pillar, and Lang.  The quote that you pulled from the CIA is not their conclusion as you should know since you seem to have read the SSCI report.  There is no evidence whatsoever that the CIA and DIA are at odds about al-Libi; there is simply one statement that CIA does not know what to believe.  That hardly establishes that he was telling the truth any time, and we also know that the CIA has said that his earlier comments were questionable because they contradicted the other evidence we had at the time.  The "weaseling" referred to moving from "considered to be false" to "have been questioned."  I think your more recent change was better given that you cited specifics, but you also left a lot out.  I don't think we should try to hide the fact that there is a consensus of authoritative opinion on these issues.  If you want to add a sentence or more about specifics, please do.  Thanks.--csloat 20:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: according to the New York Times article, some of al libi's statements were in fact corroborated.  the cia statement clearly indicates they are at odds with the DIA over interpretations of his statements.  the sentence as it is is still too vague.   Jbbrewer 20:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: None of his statements regarding links to Saddam were ever corroborated.  The SSCI was quite clear on that (as was the CIA as far back as 2003), and I'm not sure what goal is served by obscuring that fact.  Anyway, I'm ok with the "disputed" language for now (though I added terrorism experts); I may add stronger language later.  I'm not sure what your problem is with their conclusions that these points (not just al-Libi's lies) were false.--csloat 20:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have an issue with the wording "have since been disputed", particularly, "have since been".  They were disputed at the time the statements were made and also prior to that time. Kevin Baastalk 14:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is "are disputed" better?  I'm not sure.  I still don't see what is wrong with "are considered to be false," which is quite accurate, and which avoids the problem of ongoing action ("disputed" when, how, by whom?  Are they still being disputed?  Not really, since nobody with expertise on this matter is continuing to advance these claims).--csloat 21:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Powell arguments considered false