Talk:Operation Iraqi Freedom documents/Archive 1

message: These Iraqi documents have already generated several national news stories because they tie Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda together and show Iraq's and al-Qaeda's interest in delivering nuclear weapon attacks against the U.S.  New documents are being released regularly, so updates on the article will probably be very active. Let's try to keep the article as NPOV as possible and as readable as possible.RonCram 15:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, let's.  I'm worried about your ability to carry out your own advice, though.  I mean no offense, but I get the impression that you have an agenda on this matter. --Mr. Billion 20:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ron has now violated 3RR, in addition to his advice above. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 17:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Please research carefully before changing article

message: say what>?--205.188.116.10 00:52, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: hey look, 2006 elections

message: This article is as much about the bold innovation of releasing documents over the net and allowing private citizens to help in the translation and analysis of documents relating to national security as it is to the contents of the documents themselves.  The implications of this approach on how intelligence is gathered and analyzed could be huge historically.  One of the tensions in a democracy has to do with how much secrecy is allowed.  This move to release untranslated documents over the net is historic. Whether it happens only once or whether it changes the way things are done in the future, this experiment will not be forgotten.  The Iraqi Perspectives Project is an interesting set of documents, but simply play no role at all in this historic step. RonCram 14:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Balderdash.  Ron with all you have said on this talk page, you have not once cited a published source making the distinction you claim between the "Iraqi Perspectives Project" documents and the "OIF Documents."  The fact is these are the same document set; some of them were translated and most were simply looked at.  I don't mind adding information about this move being characterized as a kind of open source intelligence as you suggest, but I do mind the persistent deletions of the opinions of experts about these documents.  If you want a divider between translated and untranslated documents that is fine, but it is disingenuous to make it a separate page when nobody in the media or intelligence analysis is making that artificial separation.--csloat 18:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A bold innovation

message: If this is a 'bold innovation', it can't discard fact and the burden of proof. In relation to the 'February Sudan' meeting, ABCNews article clearly states:
: (Editor's Note: This document is handwritten and has no official seal.  Although contacts between bin Laden and the Iraqis have been reported in the 9/11 Commission report and elsewhere (e.g., the 9/11 report states "Bin Ladn himself met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in Khartoum in late 1994 or early 1995) this document indicates the contacts were approved personally by Saddam Hussein.
:It also indicates the discussions were substantive, in particular that bin Laden was proposing an operational relationship, and that the Iraqis were, at a minimum, interested in exploring a potential relationship and prepared to show good faith by broadcasting the speeches of al Ouda, the radical cleric who was also a bin Laden mentor.
:The document does not establish that the two parties did in fact enter into an operational relationship. Given that the document claims bin Laden was proposing to the Iraqis that they conduct "joint operations against foreign forces" in Saudi Arabia, it is worth noting that eight months after the meeting — on November 13, 1995 — terrorists attacked Saudi National Guard Headquarters in Riyadh, killing 5 U.S. military advisers. The militants later confessed on Saudi TV to having been trained by Osama bin Laden.)
And again, the Pentagon has said:
:"The US Government has made no determination regarding the authenticity of the documents, validity or factual accuracy of the information contained therein, or the quality of any translations, when available."
So, we can't prove it's a real memo from the real meeting, written by the real individuals involved, describing the real details. There is no proof of authenticity. I frankly cannot see how this article justifies the continued assumption and inference that documents are authentic. It's frankly appalling. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 18:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Burden of Proof

message: TDC has started an edit war by deleting quotations without explanation of his edits.  Inadvertently I deleted other paragraphs when reverting him but they are all back in place now.  TDC if you would like to continue this edit war I am going to have to ask you to explain yourself; don't hide behind the erroneous deletion of other material to avoid explaining your own edits.  Thanks.-csloat 23:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  TDC's edit war 

message: csloat recently made some major changes to this article that appear to reflect a biased POV. Of course I reverted them. [[User:Commodore Sloat|csloat], please discuss your changes here and let's reach a consensus before you make further changes of any significance.--Mr j galt 03:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Each of those changes was explained and there are several discussions about them above.  You have not even edited this page before you started revert warring.  And you ignored my explanations in the edit summaries as well as on this page.  Then you disingenuously claim that I am not justifying my edits -- do you even know what this page is about?  This is uncivil behavior and it is clear that you are disrupting wikipedia to prove a point.  Please stop.--csloat 05:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You should assume good faith (see WP:FAITH) on my part.  I merely want an neutral and balanced article on wikipedia.  By asking "do you even know what this page is about?" you are clearly trying to belittle my contribution here in violation of the wiki policy on civility (see WP:CIVIL).  It is true that, unlike you, I do not write a political blog on Iraq War subjects (See csloat's blog at http://www.shockandblog.com/blog/index.php).  But I think it is better if wiki editors write on topics on which they do not have strong political feelings.  Your recent edits suggest that you have tried to make this article an extension of your political blog, and that violates wiki's policy on Neutral Point of View (See WP:NPOV).  I have merely asked that you comply with the wiki policy on consensus (See WP:CON).  Please note the policies I have mentioned and consider this a warning.  If you want to make changes to the article, please discuss them here first and let's try to reach a consensus on whether they should take place.--Mr j galt 06:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: galt, WTF?  I mean, really, this article has nothing to do with my blog.  Why do you keep mentioning it?  You might look into wikipedia policy yourself, specifically WP:NPA, which suggests that you shouldn't use a person's affiliations to belittle their contributions.  These edits are explained one by one and you never once made an argument against them.  In fact, you have never edited this page before starting a massive revert war, which you appear to have started without even having bothered to read my changes!  You have, in fact, offered not a scintilla of evidence that you are even aware of what this page is about.  It is you, not me, who is making massive changes without justifying them in talk.  Many of your changes result in a poorer article just in terms of basic readability.  (what is codeetc?  what kind of English is "Document ISGP-2003-00014127 is translated to be the diary..."?  Why delete bullet points?)  You are also deleting sourced quotations and other information that is clearly cited and relevant.  And the only justification you have for making all these changes is that it has something to do with my blog?  Seriously, this is ludicrous!  I update that blog maybe once every two months and you're one of the few people who actually read it!  If you don't like my blog, please, visit another site, or go take a walk or something.  But stop disrupting wikipedia just because you don't like my blog.  Hell, the blog has a discussion board -- why not go to the blog and post your arguments and complaints there, instead of disrupting Wikipedia?--csloat 07:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Let's reach consensus before making major changes

message: I took a shot at rewriting the Iraqi Perspectives Project reference.  In particular, the Foriegn Affairs article isn't the authoritative study, it's a summary of the study's key points, and the project didn't just review the documents, it also based its conclusions on interviews.  I don't object if people want to summarize a few conclusions of the study if they relate to some of the specific documents in the pile, but I'd appreciate it if we could keep the introduction I've got now, and stick to study conclusions that clearly relate to the documents rather than to Saddam's regime as a whole.  The Chemical Ali interview, for example, is interesting, but it's not one of the Iraqi Freedom documents.  Thanks, TheronJ 20:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good points.  I do think the information about the Powell misinterpretation is based on analysis of the documents, however; is that not correct?--csloat 22:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Theron, for your willingness to open a discussion on disputed content.  The Foreign Affairs article of course does not publish the entire study, but it does accurately reflect the study, correct? Let's discuss!--Mr j galt 12:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I've re-added the stuff on Powell; feel free to tinker with it as it is too long compared to the rest of the conclusions now.-csloat 18:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: More on the Iraqi Perspectives Project

message: I included a note above about removing the Ray Robison material; please look under "Untranslated Documents" above for the discussion.  Please indicate here if you can think of any reason to keep this material in the article as it is.  Thanks.--csloat 19:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: In case the note above gets lost

message: I think almost all of us can agree that some of these documents are somewhat abstract.  I take issue, however, with the author's dual-standards in his/her analysis.  When confronted with the possibility that some documents may justify certain tenets of the Iraq war casus bellum, the author quotes statements that the documents may not be genuine.  On the other hand, the author does not question the reliability of the documents when he/she quotes Saddam Hussein as saying, "Don't think for a minute that we still have WMD. We have nothing."  We should not stoop to "cherry-picking" documents (emphasis added).  In fact, we should avoid analysis altogether, especially with a subject as charged as this one.  At the very least we should work to inform, rather than persuade; relegating political potshots to subsections devoted to that end.  -Futobingoro 21:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to me that the questions about authenticity apply to all documents, not specific ones.  There are other questions raised about specific translations and about the interpretations of specific documents; such questions should not be generalized to other documents.  If there are specific questions about the reliability of a particular document that have been left out, please add them to the article.  I agree we should not cherry pick documents -- I made the argument above that we should really just discuss documents here that have been noted by the media (rather than every random blogger; especially one whose integrity has been credibly impugned).  If you do see "political potshots" in the article, please remove them, no matter whose side they support.--csloat 08:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Futobingoro makes some good points.  However, there is no serious question as to the authenticity of the majority of these documents.  It is my understanding the documents that were questioned are not being posted.  The article should address the issues that are most important to readers, such as the reasons for going to war.  The article should not "cherry-pick" only documents that support the decision to go to war nor documents that would not support the war.  ALL the documents relating to the war decision should be discussed.  I fully agree that we should work to inform and not persuade.  The fact citizen translators can be involved in this project is incredibly innovative and exciting.  Hopefully, it ushers in a new ear of openness in intelligence and foreign policy.  Gentlemen, this project is historic.  It is very important that wikipedia do a good, honest job at representing the event and the content of the documents. RonCram 15:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your statement that 'there is no serious question as to the authenticity of the majority of these documents' is directly at odds with the Pentagon's admonition that they have 'made no determination regarding the authenticity of the documents, validity or factual accuracy of the information contained therein, or the quality of any translations, when available'. (an admonition posted on the same web site to which the documents you refer have been posted). Do you have any proof to back up your blanket statement?  -- User:RyanFreisling @ 17:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

text: If "ALL the documents relating to the war discussion" are discussed, this page would be longer than the Bible.  I think we should stick to just those documents that have been deemed notable by the media or other notable sources (scholars, government officials, historians, etc.)  I don't see the value in publishing everything that pops up on someone's blog, especially when they have been credibly indicted (e.g. Robison).  I do agree with Ron that this project is "historic" in that it offers historians a unique opportunity to analyze these materials in a public fashion, but I disagree that it is Wikipedia's job to participate in that analysis.  It is particularly inappropriate for Wikipedia to focus specifically on "the documents relating to the war decision," especially when those documents have not been prominent in media discussions of the documents elsewhere.--csloat 17:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I cannot believe I got confused and reverted the talk page when I meant to revert the POV edit on the main page.  I broke into a fit of laughter after reading Ms. Freisling's comment.  Very funny.  I apologize for the mistake, and Ms. Freisling's note had me smiling for half the day. Thank you.--Mr j galt 20:32, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

text: P.S. This article still needs a lot of work.  The attempt to minimize the significance of the documents or limit which ones are mentioned needs to be fixed so that wiki readers can decide the significance of the documents on their own from NPOV content.  It's on my list of things to do. --Mr j galt 20:32, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no "attempt to minimize the significance of the documents or limit which ones are mentioned."  There is simply an attempt to keep this article encyclopedic rather than making it into a place to showcase original research by wannabe intelligence analysts and translators.  Please do not start another revert war over this article too.  And while I'm glad you found Ryan's comment amusing, I do hope you'll pay heed to her point -- you should think before you start revert warring.  And, preferably, you should discuss and explain your changes on the discussion page first.  Especially when they are controversial changes, and especially when other editors have already hashed out the points very clearly on the discussion page.  Finally, it is far preferable to do additional research and add material when you see a POV problem than it is to simply delete or revert other people's edits.--csloat 21:46, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't be condescending and lecture to me.  If you find a problem such as "codeetc" or "Document ISGP-2003-00014127 is translated to be the diary..." then simply fix them and no one will object.  But don't do it at the same time you load up the article with anti-Iraq and anti-Bush POV.  You have treated this and other articles as an extension of your political blog which has an extreme POV.  (See csloat's blog at http://www.shockandblog.com/blog/index.php). BTW - I object to any deletion of the Robison material.  Please do not make unilateral changes without reaching consensus.--Mr j galt 02:56, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At the risk of lecturing you, I will once again remind you that if you object to my blog, it has a discussion board where you can post your objections.  This page has nothing at all to do with my blog.  Once again, please review WP:NPA and understand that your constant whining about my blog as if it had anything to do with my wikipedia work is understood as a personal attack.  So please stop it.  As far as codeetc, etc., you are the one insisting on a version of the page that is inferior in every way.  The fact that you preserve such ridiculous errors in your reverts exposes your actions for what they are -- pure POV-pushing based not on an understanding of the article you are reverting but based only on your dislike of my blog.  For pete's sake, just stop reading my blog, and you will find it a lot less annoying!  As for the Robison material, I posted several times noting that I was planning to remove it, and expressing my reasons why, and asking if there were objections.  So far, nobody has spoken up.  Even Robison himself has visited this talk page, not to argue for the inclusion of that material, but to argue against another editor's claims.  My point is this material is not notable and has not been recognized by the mainstream press, except a couple sentences in NYT, which are already quoted here.  Neither you nor anyone else posted a counter-argument; I removed the material based on what amounts to a consensus by default.  If you have a good reason that material should be included here, by all means tell us what it is.  So far you have not once indicated in any way that you even have the foggiest idea what this page is about.  All you have indicated is that you don't like my blog.--csloat 11:45, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Double standards, overt bias

message: If you've got a couple hours to kill, check out the video attached to the House hearing I added to the bib.  Included at the hearing are Daniel Butler of ODNI as well as the USJFC folks behind the IPP study.  There is some stuff for conspiracy theorists to distort in there, too, so Ron and Mr. galt should have a field day listening to stories of terrorist training at Saddam's camps, especially as filtered through the lens of Dana Rohrabacher's leading questions.  Back on earth, however, the USJFC guys are not having it, and they make clear that the Fedayeen Sadaam terrorists were secular and were part of Saddam's latter-day-Saladin fantasies rather than any kind of collusion with al Qaeda.  More interesting than any of that is the description of the four-tiered vetting process that these documents went through before being released, giving lie to the view that there are going to be any smoking guns here.  The docs are often characterized in the media (esp the Weekly Standard) as having not been looked at, or only glanced at, but Brig. Gen. Cuculo, Lt. Col. Woods, and Butler point out that all of these docs have gone through an elaborate process of vetting and being looked over by linguists with security clearance before being put on the internet.  It's pretty clear that any truly exploitable intel in this material has already been exploited.  Other hilights include the discussion of the forgeries (pretty blatant forgeries are simply not being posted).  Also very interesting are the speeches of Committee members Delahunt and Schiff, who both point out that this hearing seems like a distraction for a committee that should be investigating the things they actually have oversight on, like the $9 billion that went missing during Iraqi "reconstruction," rather than in the history of Saddam, as interesting as it is.  As Schiff notes, "my constituents are not writing letters demanding to know whether Saddam Hussein was a bad guy"...  Interesting stuff.  Unfortunately, there is no transcript.--csloat 09:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you got a link to the video? I can't seem to find it. Thanks. --Stephen M. Birmingham 15:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's okay. Got it here.  --Stephen M. Birmingham 16:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Csloat: "The docs are often characterized in the media (esp the Weekly Standard) as having not been looked at, or only glanced at, but Brig. Gen. Cuculo, Lt. Col. Woods, and Butler point out that all of these docs have gone through an elaborate process of vetting and being looked over by linguists with security clearance before being put on the internet."  I believe the documents are reported as having not been translated prior to their release in the declassification process.  The emphasis is that these documents may never have been translated had Peter Hoekstra and company not secured their release.  -Futobingoro 16:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct, they have not been translated, but the emphasis among some is to make it sound as if they have not even been looked at by Arab translators.  They have, and they have been vetted for exploitable intelligence.  That is why experts seem to agree that there will be no surprises in these documents.-csloat 23:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Ron, did you watch the video?  You might want to.  They claim the documents have all been looked at, and we have similar statements from ODNI as well.  I'm not sure why you think it is "bad news" that inexperienced "citizen translators" without security clearances won't be the first to look at these; I am not a supporter of more secrecy, but I do think it makes sense to have sensitive documents vetted before put on the web.  The experts are not "trying to preserve the status quo"; they are offering their expert opinion to those who ask.  If you believe there are smoking guns here, that's nice, but we certainly haven't seen any.  Only a few suggestive documents that have been creatively interpreted by the likes of Ray Robison and other bloggers.  Of course, your misinterpretation of Scheuer's opinions simply aren't relevant to this page.--csloat 00:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: csloat, I haven't had time to watch the video but I am willing to accept the fact the intelligence community is saying the posted documents have all been looked at (as I stated above).  However, I am also pointing out that was not what Congressman Hoekstra requested - nor what President Bush requested - when the idea of posting the documents on the internet was put forward.  The idea to put them out there so the government could get help translating them was a positive idea as the "History of the documents" section shows.  Regarding Scheuer, I am not misinterpreting him - simply attempting to quote him.  Your attempt to silence  me regarding Scheuer's flip-flop is another example of your basic attempt to control what others know and think.  You are constantly telling me what I can say and what I cannot say and where I can and cannot say it.  The fact is the issue of an operational link between Saddam and Osama is, was and has been hotly debated within and without the intelligence community for a long time.  For some reason, you do not want wikipedia readers or editors to know this.  In fact, you pushed for calling the Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda page the "Conspiracy Theory of Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda Link" or similarly ridiculous and prejudicial.  In fact, I believe you still "own" a page with the title "Conspiracy Theory" in it.  A great deal of evidence points to an operational link and a certain logic argues against a link.  These "suggestive" documents, as you call them, significantly support the idea of a link as point forward by Michael Scheuer, Bill Clinton, George Bush and published reports around the world - including ABC News.  By the way, I noticed someone removed the link to the ABC News broadcast from the Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda page.  Was that you?  Or was it one of your friends who also likes to control what people know and think?  That article is hugely biased and does not contain half of the facts we know to be true about the link.  csloat, I am saying this as nicely and civilly as is possible.  You need to take a long look at the way you edit wikipedia.  Your efforts to censor valid content is damaging your credibility. At one time you agreed to stop censoring and I agreed to quit calling you a censor.  But giving your recent edits, I have to point out that you are back to your unacceptable habits. RonCram 10:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, I'm not sure what to do with all that.  You should probably take your comments about Michael Scheuer to that page, and your comments about Saddam and al-Qaeda to that page.  No need to make any of this personal, Ron, let's stick to the issues relevant here.  And please stop pretending I am a "censor."  I made very clear above which documents I thought were not notable according to Wikipedia standards and why.  I explained my reason and asked for responses defending the inclusion of these documents.  Nobody stepped forward to defend the inclusion of documents that have not been commented on by the mainstream press.  It's a simple standard to use, no real "grey areas," and it is consistent with Wikipedia policy.--csloat 18:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  House Subcommittee hearing 

message: Interestingly, Ray Robison disputes the meaning of document BIAP 2003-000654, as interpreted by Joseph Shahda. Quote:
"The document is from an air force base commander of an air force base seeking volunteers for suicide missions. Joseph said "also they were recruiting Suicide Terrorist Bombers to hit US interests" in his analysis. This would have been an easy mistake to make. A lot of us assumed that these volunteers were from the air force and were most likely pilots. After thorough research, it turns out Talib (Taleb) is another name for Tallil Air Base. They are both identified as being near Al-Nasiryah. ... [Global Security] says that this air base stopped flights when it was taken out during the gulf war. Its primary function at the time of this document was as an ADA site. This facility housed the ADA sites that were firing on coalition forces patrolling the southern no-fly zone. In March of 2001, Saddam began an intensive program to fire at coalition planes to test the newly elected President Bush. These ADA sites were taken out by coalition aircraft many times in March of 2001. Indeed, serving at one of these sites and firing at coalition forces would be a suicide mission. It is clear with this new context that these suicide missions were not for terrorist attacks, but for military combat missions."  -- Ste B 04:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ray is being overly generous here. First, I should point out that Ray has no problem with the translation, only with Joseph's interpretation. Second, an air defense artillery site could be considered a "suicide mission" in one sense, but no military force on earth would call a defensive position a "suicide mission."  More importantly, an air defense artillery site could not possibly be able to "liberate Palestine."  A suicide mission is obviously an offensive mission.  Joseph Shahda's interpretation is clearly the correct one. RonCram 04:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It could rightly be termed a suicide mission if they were expected to target overhead U.S. fighter-bombers. Conversely, why would Saddam ask for volunteer suicide bombers from an air base when there were no shortage of volunteers in Palestine? It makes no sense. And just how many suicide bombers emerged from Iraq? None, to my knowledge. We need certification as to the documents meaning, ideally from Iraqis themselves. -- Ste B 16:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Stephen, no military force in the world (that I know of) would describe a defensive position as a "suicide mission," even if there was very little chance of survival.  More important, a defensive position will in no way achieve the stated objective to "liberate Palestine."  I do not know the number of suicide bombers from Iraq, but I do know of one Iraqi infantryman who joined al-Qaeda and went on missions with Iraqi Intelligence Service agents.  It appears to me that this request for volunteers were given to other military installations and branches. RonCram 19:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suicide Mission volunteers

message: This from the recently released Senate Intelligence report, pages 62-63: "The Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), which is leading the exploitation effort of documents (DocEx) uncovered in Iraq, told Committee staff that 120 million plus pages of documents that were recovered in Iraq have received an initial review for intelligence information. [...] DIA officials explicitly stated that they did not believe that the initial review process missed any documents of major significance regarding Iraq's links to terrorism. During an interview with Committee staff, the lead DIA analyst who follows the issue of possible connections between the Iraqi government and al-Qa'ida noted that the DIA 'continues to maintain that there was no partnership between the two organizations.' " Ste B 23:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iraqi Links To Al-Qa'ida