Jump to content

Talk:Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda link allegations/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Things to add

I know this is very incomplete. Some stuff to add...

  • 9/11 Commission Report
  • Doug Feith letter
  • more official statements
  • criticisms
  • make names and places (and dates?) into wiki links

ObsidianOrder 04:40, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

LOL. Add this to your list:

  • Refutations of each one of these, as published by the 911 Commission, most major newspapers, and confirmed by the conclusions of nearly every intelligence agency on earth.

Seriously, this is a laugh. Nearly everything on your timeline is sourced from Weekly Standard, Washington Times, and other right wing publications. There's even a freerepublic link or two. Worse, the points made are innacurate, distorted, and completely counter to every bit of common sense (not to mention intelligence information) that we have. Meetings are cited that didn't take place, and many of your claims are based on Michael Moore-worthy innuendo. This crap has been refuted over and over again by legitimate journalists, but of course people keep perpetuating the claim because it serves their political interest. So now ObsidianOrder has copied his web page here, making us refute these mostly inaccurate statements one by one.

And WTF is up with the title of this page?? I looked at this a couple hours ago and it was something else. The current name is terrible but I guess it makes a point. But direct refutation might make the point more, umm, directly.

Anyway, thanks for wasting everyone's time, OO. I plan to refute this crap line by line over the next few months and hopefully anyone else researching this topic will join in. Eventually this page will be a snopes-style refutation of this tired and overplayed argument. --csloat 09:07, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I copied my page, since it is the most complete synopsis of this type you will find. I hereby donate it to Wikipedia ;) By all means, if you can refute them, do so. I am genuinely interested in this, and I don't think it's a waste of time. I have also researched it in depth and have found substantial refutations for only a couple of claims (which are not in this list, although perhaps they should be together with the refutation). There is no innuendo, only the (alleged) facts stated in the most concise, factual way I could, with a source for each. "right wing publications"? You mean The Guardian, PBS and Ney Yorker? Damn, I didn't know those were right wing. (btw the freerepublic link simply cites a Evening Standard article). As for the title, well, people keep moving it around :-/ What title do you propose? ObsidianOrder 09:46, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Weekly Standard and the other pubs I named are right wing. You're right the ones you name here are not, but they are not where most of these claims come from. I'm not going to mess with the title -- I think "alleged" should stay, but I'm not going to fight the issue, because I think the substantive issues are more important. It will take me a while but as I've been researching this I have seen answers to most of this, so I will find them and link them and so forth, and then this will be, as you say, the most complete synopsis on this issue. --csloat 10:28, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This article disgusts on a few levels:
First of all, the title, without a hint of the ambiguous or unsubstantiated nature of the alleged links.
Then, there's the single line "It is important to note that not all of these claims are credible or can be substantiated with other evidence." Excuse me, but if that is the case, what the heck are those claims doing in the article?
Last, there's the luscious overarc of the article... justification for the 'war on terror' being one that requires no distinction between Iraq and Afghanistan, Syria or Saudi. It might well be titled 'The artificially constructed justification for a neverending war on terror' and include a section on how 75% of FOX viewers honestly believe in this connection (and WMD's having been found in Iraq) despite the absolute absence of credible evidence.
This article is an embarrassment to the Wikipedia that dwarfs most POV disputes or content edit wars I've seen. It's an assemblage of broken baubles. I recommend it be merged/purged with the content at Misinformation_and_rumors_about_the_September_11,_2001_attacks and September_11,_2001_attacks-- RyanFreisling @ 01:40, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps just "Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda" would be a better title. I think the text of the article points out that there have been no real links established and that the meetings that may or may not have taken place do not constitute meaningful cooperation with al Qaeda in any sense.--csloat 02:00, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The problem is, it reads like a river of untruth punctuated by disclaimers. That is far from acceptable writing. The narrative should be based on a river of truth, with tangents of ambiguity. -- RyanFreisling @ 02:08, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

uncited 9/11 "link" is POV

ObsidianOrder, you claim the 9/11 link is for visual timeline, that is ridiculous, the SUPER POV implication is that Iraq had something to do with 9/11, you can't include that without a citation. Separately, I am still surprised a DS9 fan such as yourself had the full details on all the anti anti-war arguments including the pentagon's usage of banned weapons (such as phosphorus projectile weapons) but I will save that for another article and another time. Why do you seemingly defend the U.S. military POV so ardently and have all the counter arguments ready at your immediate disposal? zen master T 06:02, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

zen - it would appear that Iraq had something to do with 9/11 given all the meetings between the hijackers and Iraqi intelligence agents, but whether it was significant or not is quite another matter. a "9/11 comission report" section (which I haven't written yet) really should be added to this article and repeat exactly what the report said about that. we have no proof (at least not declassified), however we do have some highly suggestive circumstantial evidence. during the cold war people acted on far slimmer evidence.
"anti-anti-war" - heh. why do I have the views that I do? probably because I get a lot of my information from reliable sources who're close to/in the action. you may not believe it, but I am not a blind supporter of US policy no matter what it may be (see e.g. [1]). ObsidianOrder 06:34, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
question: aside from listing the 9/11 date in the timeline, what is the POV you see here? also, what are the factual inacuracies? ObsidianOrder 06:34, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The whitehouse has annoucned that Iraq was not involved with 9/11. zen master T 06:42, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
source? how exactly was that worded? ObsidianOrder 06:46, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Here is bi-partisan commission concluding no operational links between Iraq and Al Qaeda [2] I think the title of this article is inaccurate/POV, should be "Non-operational links between Al-Qaeda and pre-invasion Iraq". Oh and here is link by Iraq health minister concluding the U.S. used banned weapons in Falluja. [3] Have you seen the movie Control Room? It's good. zen master T 07:22, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
"napalm gas, a poisonous cocktail of polystyrene and jet fuel that makes the human body melt ... the world’s deadliest weapon" - you expect me to take this crap seriously? napalm is not a gas and it is not poisonous. as for deadliest, well, come on. the restrictions on the use of incendiaries are detailed here [4] and the US has apparently complied with them, even though it is not a signatory to that treaty. ObsidianOrder 07:53, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The point is they are illegal to used, banned weapons. You failed to mention phosphorus projectile weapons? zen master T 07:57, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
"illegal" and "banned" by what law and by whom, exactly? If you are thinking of Geneva Protocol III, that is not an outright ban on incendiaries, merely restrictions on their use, and incidentally the US is not a signatory to it, although it does comply with it in practice. WP is just another incendiary, what is your point? ObsidianOrder 11:00, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

please discuss before moving

Tony, I'd appreciate it if you at least talked the move over before doing it. I disagree, I'd say the "alleged" part is pretty well covered in the text (although of course you can help improve that). Some links between Iraq and Al-Qaeda almost certainly exist, whether or not they are significant and whether or not there are links with 9/11 is a different question. Even if you really don't believe any such thing exists - have a look at Loch Ness Monster (hint: it's not the Alleged creature living in Loch Ness). I will undo the move, if you really insist on such a move, let's talk it over and then to go through Wikipedia:Requested moves. ObsidianOrder 07:18, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Update: I was not aware that it is possible to revert a move as long as it was back to an existing redirect without an edit history, so I messed that up by editing the "Links between Al-Qaeda and Iraq" page. Sorry. I moved back to the closest thing possible. Let's avoid any further move craziness, shall we? If you really want to do a move, please (a) propose your favorites here (b) talk it over until we have a small set of possibilities (c) post those on Wikipedia:Requested moves and wait for the vote. Okay? ObsidianOrder 11:30, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How about "Alleged Links between Iraq and al Qaeda"? Also, since the title is Iraq, not Saddam, this should include information about al Qaeda's new freedom of operation in post-Saddam Iraq.--csloat 17:00, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well chaps, don't forget to vote on the move. Results of WP:RM discussions are normally regarded as conclusive--until someone WP:RM's the article somewhere else.
By the way I'll assume that someone else is going to take care of actually sourcing each claim and noting what evaluations have been put on them by various agencies and independent intelligence analysts. This wouldn't be much of an encyclopedia article if those claims were represented as unequivocally factual. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:51, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
They are not presented as unequivocally factual. There are already sources for each claim (although I'd like to see something more detailed in the article itself, like "claimed by X, as reported by Y on Z date"). Evaluations, absolutely, that would be good. ObsidianOrder 21:38, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That title is/was better. zen master T 07:30, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What happened is that Tony jumped in and moved the page without talking it over. You want to move it, go through the regular procedure. I am strongly opposed, since the weight of evidence suggests some links exist (even if only in the form of diplomatic feelers). ObsidianOrder 07:33, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I liked Tony's version but I went one better with Alleged non-operational links between Al-Qaeda and pre-invasion Iraq, the citation for that is above, the congressional bipartisan commission concluded unanimously that there were "no operational links". Which actually means this article should be deleted, not renamed, but I digress. zen master T 07:59, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Training, diplomatic connections, funding, sanctuary, etc are "links" which are "non-operational". There is no alleged operational (i.e. joint op) link in the whole list. ObsidianOrder 09:00, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Both you and Tony have done controversial moves which would obviously be opposed without either talking about them or going through the procedure for doing a move, in effect relying on the fact that such a move is not immediately undoable because of the created redirect page. This is very much in bad faith. I will get an admin to restore the status quo ante and then you can go to Wikipedia:Requested moves where you can propose alternatives for the title so that everyone has a chance to discuss them and vote. ObsidianOrder 09:00, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I just read this section after making my comment above (in things to do). I think "Alleged links between al Qaeda and Iraq" is fine. The "non-operational" thing is mumbo jumbo; that should be added to the intro - the fact that the 911 Commission established (conclusively I might add) that there were no operational links. What's interesting is OO talking about bad faith here yet in the above comment indicates that the sum of the Iraq-alQ connection is probably "only in the form of diplomatic feelers." If that is the case, why is that not stated plainly at the beginning of the article? I suspect that OO is well aware that most of these claims are BS but is putting them out there anyway because they support his political position -- they are throwaway arguments. But perhaps he really believes all this stuff. Anyway I suggest that this page can be made much better not only with point by point refutation but also with key statements of the conclusions of major organizations and committees that have actually studied this. I also think there should be a section specifically discussing this as part of the discredited "state sponsorship" theory of terrorism that was nonsense back in the mid-90s when Laurie Mylroie (perhaps following in the footsteps of Claire Sterling) put it forth with regard to the WTC bombing and is still nonsense now. In my very-POV and not-so-humble opinion, this thoroughly refuted theory is the biggest obstacle we have to real counterterrorism in the 21st century. --csloat 09:24, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

csloat - I don't think it was just diplomatic feelers, I said that there is overwhelming evidence that (at a minimum) such existed, therefore there is a link, although the extent of it is debatable. Put forth all the evidence and let everyone decide for themselves. The 911 Commission report is interesting, but it is not the last word on the subject, and it does not say what most people who use it to support their points claim it says. And yes, a summary of its findings is probably the top thing that should be added to this article. As for state sponsorship, I think it was actually van Creveld that first stated the notion of "sanctuary" as a prerequisite for an insurgency, it applies just as well to terrorism, and I don't think you can refute it because it is obviously correct (also see [5]). ObsidianOrder 10:04, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The state sponsorship thesis does not apply to al Qaeda and similar groups. "Sanctuary" comes from failed states, not from states with strong central authorities (since such groups are a big threat to such states). Failed states - or areas of near-anarchy - are where such groups thrive, hence their extensive bases in Afghanistan, and their pervasiveness in places like parts of pakistan, yemen, and even northern Iraq when it was under US/UK control with the no-fly zones. And the theory that al Qaeda specifically was sponsored by a state has been refuted over and over in counterterrorism literature, despite the crap that is published in trade paperbacks like Mylroie's book. So van Creveld's theory is not "obviously correct" here; it doesn't apply at all; al Qaeda is not an "insurgency" unless you consider it a global insurgency -- one that specifically pits itself against such states as Hussein's, which it was considered a threat to (legitimately so since it wanted to overthrow them).--csloat 10:38, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
"global insurgency" - now that you mention it, yes, that is exactly right. Al-Qaeda operates from sanctuaries just like any insurgency, and all of the states which have served as sanctuaries are part of "The Gap" (as per Thomas Barnett's "The Pentagon's New Map" [6]). Yes, some are "failed states", but other are rigidly authoritarian, the two are not as different as you might think. ObsidianOrder 10:55, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Yes and according to your logic, the US, UK, and Germany, are among the states who have given terrorists "sanctuary" and "sponsored" al Qaeda. That's the problem here. There is no state-sponsored organization. There is an organization who manages to get a variety of sponsorship from a variety of states, without being controlled by any one state. It makes it very difficult to destroy them; attacking one of the states often plays right into their hands.--csloat 11:21, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
"Sanctuary" is where you're safe from the locals (for example from the police and military) and also protected by them to some extent from external threats. Presumably while in Afghanistan bin Laden was not particularly worried about being arrested by the Taliban, or about them allowing a US snatch team to get to him. That is hardly true in the US/UK/Germany, obviously. ObsidianOrder 11:34, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Uh-huh. That's one guy. We're talking about a large international organization. But you presumably know that. Again, my point is that the theory of state sponsorship, where a single state - or a small group of states working together - sponsors the group in order to influence what the group does; in order to use the group as an instrument of policy. That isn't happening with al Qaeda. And, to return to your definition of sanctuary, that is most certainly not something al Qaeda as an organization ever had in Iraq prior to 2003. Now, of course, it is a different matter. --csloat 16:58, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Alleged in title?

So shouldn't the title have Alleged in it? zen master T 18:30, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think this is something that only Wikipedia:Requested moves can sort out.
My case for "alleged" is that all the information seems to come from undisclosed intelligence sources, and as such is unverifiable. The most we can do under NPOV (ie without taking a stance on the reliability of US intelligence--which would be *extremely* problematic) is say who disclosed it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:44, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It's worse than that - a lot of it comes from intelligence sources where the agency who reported the info also announced their conclusions which were that the "links" were not substantial. The intel agencies in question have all concluded that most of these claims are bunk. --csloat 20:40, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Requested move

Links between Iraq and Al-Qaeda → Alleged links between pre-invasion Iraq and Al-Qaeda

  • The article lists mainly claims sourced from undisclosed intelligence sources which are unverifiable as fact.
The vote has expired. The page has been moved to "Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda", in alternative.
Current vote count: 13/11

Support

  1. Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:55, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  2. zen master T 22:14, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  3. csloat 22:44, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  4. Postdlf 17:20, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  5. Kevin Baastalk 20:57, 2005 Apr 22 (UTC)
  6. JamesMLane 08:38, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  7. Yuber 15:47, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC) The links should be alleged because there is little evidence to suggest they existed.
  8. RyanFreisling @ 00:03, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC) Revisionism should not be aided by validating untruth, nor permitted for the sake of brevity. The links are unsubstantiated and it is fundamentally untrue to describe them without that being clear. This is not FOX News. For greatest brevity, it should really read 'Alleged (or Purported) ties between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda'.
  9. --kizzle 04:02, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC) - see below
  10. Gamaliel 22:28, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  11. --kaijura 03:42, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC) My POV notwithstanding, it would be more NEUTRAL to ditch the whole article and edit both the Al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein articles noting the purported link. I think the article itself is inflammatory, unsubstantiated, and unnessary.
  12. FT2 04:38, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC) The article is poorly written, it reads as partisan (no matter its sources), it contains huge chunks of text rather than condensed summaries of source material. But for all that it is clearly an allegation, and in dispute, and in view of the significance of the allegated link to world affairs it is deserving of an article to itself: Agree to rename, then edit the heck out of it for NPOV and excess wordage.
  13. I agree and moved the page. Neutralitytalk 18:34, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
  14. Ketsy 19:32, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. ObsidianOrder 21:13, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  2. Jayjg (talk) 17:20, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC) Wikipedia doesn't use "alleged" in titles. It states the topic succinctly, and the article thrashes out the reality.
  3. Daniel11 18:13, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  4. --Silverback 21:06, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC) This is strange, I've heard of links between Iraq and 9/11 being denied (and justifiably so), but there is no doubt that Iraq was rendering aid and sanctuary to al Zarqawi and other terrrorists after their escape from the Afghan conflict. Sec. Powell mentioned it in several pre-war speeches and this intelligence has been clearly confirmed after the war.
    claiming 'no doubt' about a controversial issue puts one into the 'irretrievably biased' bin 21:12, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
    Silverback such speculation belongs elsewere. Saddam did not give aid or sanctuary to Zarqawi; that is complete misinformation, Powell notwithstanding, and this will be dealt with in the article itself. --csloat 21:19, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  5. —thames 21:33, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC) While I think the article should stay in this namespace, I dislike the article as it exists. I think it should stay because the content comes from official or mainstream media sources. Anything that doesn't doesn't belong in the article and should be deleted. Still, the article as it exists has limited usefulness, and seems more like a text dump for excerpts from the 9/11 commission report than anything else. It needs a major reworking to turn it into an actual encyclopedia article.
  6. --MONGO 08:13, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC) I believe after looking at the situation that the name of the article should remain as it is and within the article itself, there can be all the documentation and referencing necessary to show that either there is a connection or there isn't.
  7. --Klonimus 17:38, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC) Article titles must be kept NPOV and concise; the proposed new title is neither.
  8. A.D.H. (t&m) 00:59, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
  9. Grue 13:49, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC) Absolutely unnecessary.
  10. Porphyria 20:24, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC). Keep as it is. Some people would also like to see an article entitled "The Alleged Holocaust"
    That's disingenuous crap. This isn't something like the holocaust, which has been demonstrated by a preponderence of evidence and have been accepted as a fact by historians for a long time. In this case the alleged links have been disputed by everyone with a clue -- not just a few nutty "revisionists", as is the case with the Holocaust. There is a good list above of other wikipedia articles using "alleged" that are much more comparable to this than the holocaust example.--csloat 20:57, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    I stated a fact. That it offends you is your hang-up. Porphyria 21:23, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC).
    That it is a fact doesn't rob it of its disingenuousness -- in fact, your comment here is even more disingenuous than the original one. 21:12, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
    you made a rhetorical statement by representating an extremely small populace on an issue that people have very strong emotions about, in the context of sides of the argument regarding "alleged", associating (without any logical basis) those who support the use of the word with the population of holocaust deniers. Your comment was not meant to inform (clearly, as it states the obvious and utterly irrelevant), it was meant to arouse, irritate (as you say, offend), and persuade by way of logical fallacy. At best, your comment is absolutely worthless. At worst, and in the average case, it is destructive and obstructive. Kevin Baastalk 21:45, 2005 Apr 25 (UTC)
    Okay fine...but why take up space here in the voting area...argue about it below...please move this "crap" below.
    Agreed. Everyone should whine & moan elsewhere. Porphyria 15:40, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC).
    LOL - it's your "alleged Holocaust" comment that started that discussion.--csloat 15:35, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    LOL indeed. Your whining and moaning seem to be endless. Porphyria 16:00, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC).
    right, adding insult to injury makes your behavior more okay. right. hit someone then make fun of them when they point out the injustice, say that they are whinning. noone here is whinning. ppl are pointed out injustices. and a particular person is added insult to injury, making that person more wrong than they were before. Kevin Baastalk: new 17:08, 2005 Apr 26 (UTC)
    I think Porphyria is going for the record for consecutive personal attacks (if we count the initial one, which I interpret as a big "fuck you" to anyone who thinks otherwise than him). --kizzle 18:34, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
    I think csloat is much better at offending anyone who doesn't agree with him with stuff like "In this case the alleged links have been disputed by everyone with a clue" or "If you don't agree with me you must've been living under a rock" (can't find the exact quote, but something like that). On the other hand the Holocaust comparison is very appropriate (I know I would've used it if I came up with it). For less Godwinian comparison, how about moving Evolution to "Alleged evolution theories"? Grue 05:39, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    I'm assuming that that comment was just put there to irritate, because I can't see anything that it accomplishes besides, and the hyperbole is stretched to the point of being nonsensical ("alleged theory"?!?). Such comments are inappropriate on wikipedia. Kevin Baastalk: new 06:23, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)
    A very fine illustrative example of hypocritical tu quoque fallacy, Grue. That you can express disapproval of csloat's tactics (when employed against your position) while at the same time declaring them 'very appropriate' (when employed for your position) shows the power of the human mind to reinforce its prior beliefs independent of their validity. 21:12, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
  11. Nobs 18:42, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC) Title is ambiguous anyway, does "Iraq" refer to Iraqi regime of Saddam or to the geographic entity whose in inhabitants have been sympathetic and/or recruited into the organization.
    The soveirgn state "Iraq". therefore it refers to the governmetn taht existed during the time in question. But apparently the ambiguity isn't enough to make you want to change the title. apparently ambiguity is a reason to keep it as it is? Kevin Baastalk: new 20:00, 2005 Apr 26 (UTC)
    Good point! The answer is yes and no. Nobs 05:44, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  12. WehrWolf 20:12, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC) Leave it as it is. No need to move or change.

Proposed alternatives

(only edit here if you have voted above)

OK, maybe not that last one.

Other

  1. Did the article get renamed already? That's odd; the votes are even. Or is it automatically updated in both places?
Stevertigo renamed it, dunno why. I moved it back. It's much too early for that, the voting usually goes on for a week. ObsidianOrder 07:09, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
User:Stevertigo took it upon himself to move it apparently. I pointed out on his talk page there was a requested moves vote in progress. I agreed with Stevertigo that his title is/was better because it is neutral, but it seems OO reverted the move so we're back to the non-neutral status quo now. Is there a policy against non-neutral titles? There should be. zen master T 07:14, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Which is more neutral: a title that prejudges the data to be unsubstantiated (er, "alleged") or one that leaves such a judgment to the reader? Can you find any other article which has "alleged" in the title? ObsidianOrder 11:40, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
alleged means that there are allegations to that extent. it does not imply that these allegations are either substantiated or unsubstantiated. it is true that there are allegations. "links between iraq and al-qaeda" implies that there are links between iraq and al-qaeda, which is a pov that is not neccessarily true. That is, the lack of "alledged" prejudges the allegations to be substantiated, whereas the inclusion of "alledged" does not prejudice either way. Kevin Baastalk 15:35, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC)
  1. I suggested below Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda as a more NPOV name for this article; the allegations thing is just not concise. I guess we have to have this vote before having another one....--csloat 08:14, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

Links exist, a number of the ones on this list are also mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report (see pg 60-61 and pg 66 and footnotes) and not disputed by anyone. What is disputed is their significance (somewhere between nil and extremely important). Some of these links may be "alleged" (heck, some are even "debunked" - sort of) but not all, so it doesn't make sense to call the article that. I will also point out that even Wikipedia articles on things which probably don't exist at all don't have "alleged" in the title (try UFOs, Loch Ness monster, Kennedy assassination theories). The disclaimers in the text are more than sufficient. ObsidianOrder 21:34, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Kennedy actually was assasinated, and their are actual theories about who killed him and how. ufo stand for "unidentified flying object", and there are and have been, indeed "unidentified flying objects", thou not neccessarily of an extraterrestrial origin, but this is not implied by the title. everybody knows the loch ness monster is a mystery, some are sure it's b.s., some are excited about it. there is a "loch ness monster" insofar as the "monster" refers to the sightings and the fable. just like there is a "boogeyman" and "santa claus", or actually even more so, given the sightings. (in contrast, there are no sightings of links between al-qaeda) not the same with links to al-qaeda, it is not a fable or a wonder. And people don't generally know that it's very questionable, at best. There are rampant mispercpetions, as has been shown by some surveys. And this is not something so tame as a pleosaurus, this is international security and the justification or fabrication thereof for a war, and that is really serious. Not something to be imprecise about. Kevin Baastalk 16:03, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC)
Parts of the 9/11 Commission report cannot be taken as fact. They're the statements, based on secret intelligence, of one foreign power about the doings of another, and is utterly unverifiable. I agree that disclaimers in the text might also do. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:08, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Every "link" has been disputed in terms of its significance; the 911 Commission report confirms this (much of the evidence of which OO has, to his credit, included here). The only people who seem to consider these links extremely important are those who write for Weekly Standard and the like. I think the term "alleged" or something like it makes sense in the title because the issue is that what we have here is a somewhat concerted disinformation campaign by members of the INC that has convinced people in the US government as well as neoconservative pundits (and bloggers). I'd also like to see the intro paragraph modified to explain that most of the evidence comes from disputed sources with very little credibility, that many of the events in the timeline have been conclusively disproven, and that most intelligence agencies and investigators that have addressed this issue have come to the conclusion that no meaningful link exists. I think the important goal here is to present evidence disputing every one of these claims; the title is less important (though I support the move). --csloat 22:44, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
"Alleged links" is an improvement but I'm not completely happy with it. Ideally, as the article develops, it will give a good summary of the arguments advanced in support of various POVs, plus the broader context for the argument; an appropriate title would convey the idea that the article is about the whole controversy. "Iraq - Al-Qaeda linkage controversy"? That stinks, but I'd like to see a suitably NPOV title that captured that idea. Having failed to come up with anything, I support the change, which offers at least some improvement. JamesMLane 08:49, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My suggestions: Pre-War Iraq and Al-Qaeda relationship or Pre-War Iraq and Al-Qaeda relationship controversy or Pre-War Iraq and Al-Qaeda link debate or Pre-War Iraq and Al-Qaeda link controversy

In having an article titled "Links between Iraq and Al-Qaeda, we are assuming that such links exist in a significant manner to warrant at the very least an article. In addition, there is a major debate between ties significant enough between Al-Qaeda and Iraq that Iraq is the second-most offender after Afghanistan. From this, there are two major oppositional sides: those that believe there is a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq that justifies going to war, and those that believe there are no major links, or as the 9/11 report concluded, "no working relationship". In naming the article after one side's conclusion, I believe that the article's ability to maintain a neutral tone will be significantly impacted. At any rate, I am strongly against keeping the article named as it is, so my vote will go to the next most popular option, as sort of an anti-vote. --kizzle 04:01, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

What about Iraq and Al-Qaeda? Simple, concise, and prejudges neither viewpoint. —Charles P. (Mirv) 06:16, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree; I suggest Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda for the same reason. "Iraq" does not specify pre-2003 Iraq, which is of course a very different animal than the current state.--csloat 06:24, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
kizzle, Mirv, csloat - I think those are some pretty good suggestions, I would be ok with any of them. I think the current vote is primarily about whether the title should have "Alleged" as part of it, and I feel strongly it should not since that strongly suggests a POV to the reader. Unfortunately this was structured as a simple yes/no vote by people who really wanted the title to say "Alleged", and didn't wait for any discussion or suggestions for titles. Could I possibly persuade you to vote against this move, and then after we pick another alternative re-vote for it? I am not that enthused about the current title, I think any one of Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda, Iraq and Al-Qaeda and Pre-War Iraq and Al-Qaeda relationship would probably be better. ObsidianOrder 10:51, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It's been alleged that there were (nonnegligible) links. You think that reporting the allegation as an allegation is POV, but stating it as if it were fact is neutral? I think you have that backward. "Alleged" doesn't strongly suggest a POV that the allegation is false, only that it's disputed, which it manifestly is. How would you feel about an article titled Republican attack on Social Security? Don't worry, somewhere down in the body of the article we'll let you point out that some people contend there is no Republican attack on Social Security. Obviously, nothing in the body of such an article could correct the inherent POV of the title. JamesMLane 14:08, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

9/11 report

I added verbatim the relevant portions of the 9/11 report. I would like some opinion on (a) how to format them (indent? use <pre> tags? highlight the interesting parts?) and (b) whether they should be included in their entirety. they wouldn't be very long without the footnotes, but the footnotes contain a lot of useful info. The few paragraphs on pg 60-61 and 66 are worded very carefully and are extremely relevant to the subject of this article, so I really want to include those in their entirety in any case. Perhaps the Atta stuff can be summarized? I dunno. Also, I may have missed some relevant portions in other parts of the report - anyone? ObsidianOrder 23:39, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A short summary of the 9/11 report conclusions is that it (1) confirms the 1994 Sudan meeting (2) considers the 1995-96 Sudan meetings to be based on a not-particularly-reliable source and contradicted by some other data (3) confirms the series of 1997-98 meetings, without providing details (4) confirms the Kuala Lumpur meeting but claims that Hikmat Shakir was not an officer in the Fedayyeen (5) "cannot absolutely rule out" the Atta-Ani meeting in Prague, although FBI has a lot of evidence of an Atta trail in Florida at the same time; confirms Atta travelled to Prague on two other occasions (6) imples cooperation between Saddam and Ansar al-Islam (6) does not mention (confirm or deny) any of the following: Salman Pak; Unit 999; al-Shehhi meeting in UAE; Bin-al-Shibh and Zubayr meeting in Spain; Atta and al-Mamouri meeting in Rome. Does that about sum it up? ObsidianOrder 00:00, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sort of. The impression you give is of an inconclusive investigation. The Commission's conclusions on this topic were fairly categorical, and I think that should be emphasized. There is no reason to mention the things they do not mention, as such a list would be theoretically infinite. Aso, saying things "imply cooperation" is POV speculation. The 911 Report is written in plain language, and I think there is some twisting going on in the above summary. In general I do think the other poster (under oppose above) is right that all these quotes are not necessary; instead this should be a brief list with shorter quotations. --csloat 23:46, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Yes, it was inconclusive. "We have no evidence that X happened" is quite different from "We know that X didn't happen". They never say that Iraq did not cooperate with Al-Qaeda. What do you think are the "categorical" conclusions? The report is written in a very precise plain language, the moment you start paraphrasing it you're liable to end with something that completely twists the original meaning. That's just as true of my summary as it is of your proposed "shorter quotations". Nonetheless, the report confirms (although low on details) about 5 items from my original list (i.e. plainly states they did happen, with no conditionals). Regarding "implies", I probably should have said "indicates ... may have", what it literally says is "There are indications that by then the Iraqi regime tolerated and may even have helped Ansar al Islam against the common Kurdish enemy." which dovetails nicely with the story about "Abu Wael". There is every reason to mention the things they do not mention since some of them (Salman Pak) are among the best leads. Clearly a simple statement of "the Salman Pak story is bogus" would be extremely pertinent, if true? The fact they do not say that is almost as significant as what they do say. ObsidianOrder 04:07, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
You're being intentionally obtuse, I think. "We have no evidence that X happened" may be different from "We know that X did not happen", but if you've been carefully examining every purported piece of evidence of X over a long period of time, then it means you may be as close to certain as possible that X did not occur. I don't care if you mention the things they do not mention but I don't think it's meaningful to state here is a list of things they did not mention -- the list of things they did not mention is infinite. If Salman Pak is your best lead, then this whole story is nonsense. If Salman Pak is what you say it is, where's the freakin' plane? Why haven't US forces found anything? The fact that the 911 Commission didn't think it important enough to bother with may be significant, but not for this article. --csloat 06:23, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Where is the plane? Why, right here [7]. You might note that there is no airfield in the vicinity, but there are barracks (the plane must have been towed in). The site was captured apparently intact during the invasion [8]. "Haven't found anything" - or haven't decided to tell you and me what they've found, anyway. I think I'm not the one being deliberately obtuse, you are: you wrote "A member of the Iraqi National Congress ..." "and other lies told by the defector ..." ? First, this has been confirmed independently by a minumum of 2 defectors, "Zeinab" (alias) and Sabah Khodada, plus UN inspectors including ISG chief Duelfer who visited the site. Have you any evidence that either of the two defectors who reported this are members of the INC? Second, what "other lies" were told by either of these two defectors, specifically? ObsidianOrder 07:29, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Heh, that's a plane alright. But my question is, where is it? That article is from before US troops got there; why haven't we found it? You imply they wouldn't tell us, but come on; that would be the smoking gun they've wanted all along; it would definitely help the Admin save face for having gotten this so wrong. The evidence that these defectors are from the INC is in the Knight-Rider article I linked to the Salman Pak claim, which also points out the incongruities in their stories. I don't see the info about Duelfer but perhaps I missed it. I'm open to persuasion on this issue -- there definitely seems to have been some kind of training going on there but the analysts closest to the situation seem to have all concluded there is no al Qaeda/Saddam collaboration (and perhaps Duelfer is an exception). The article you linked even confirms it: "The administration has also talked about possible links between al-Qaida, the terrorism group headed by Osama bin Laden, and Iraq, but so far has not uncovered evidence." It is possible there is more to this story but the al Qaeda link appears to be a fabrication of two INC defectors (or at least, that's what the people who were around them seem to think). --csloat 08:16, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Still needs much more work

I'm not happy with the use of the Weekly Standard as a main source--as far I can tell these are third hand reports. In most cases that I've looked at, it's quite easy to trace an actual verifiable source for a claim, so that one can see who, precisely is saying that this or that occurred. Reducing it to "The Weekly Standard says" isn't really much help. When one gets to the actual last traceable source it usually peters out in the sand, which tells us more than just an attribution to a newspaper (even one like the Weekly Standard).

Also the declarative tone of much of the reporting here, as well as the dating, is somewhat cockeyed. For instance the first claim is dated 1994 but in fact the documentation that purports to back it didn't emerge until mid-2003--months after the invasion or Iraq. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:52, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Part of the problem is a lot of this is "Team B"-style information. The group around Douglas Feith and the Office of Special Plans in the Pentagon got access to raw intelligence data without the benefit of interpretation or discussion by seasoned intelligence experts. They used this data to make their case, rather than using it to figure out whether or not there was a link here at all. The wole thing was about politics from the get go, which is why Karen Kwiatkowski went to the press -- it was a complete misuse of intelligence resources to establish a political case. So information about potential meetings gets blown way out of proportion into a systematic conspiracy theory whereas regular intelligence analysts can tell you that such meetings are very common and often don't amount to much. So the source of much of the info is the raw intelligence reports, but the spin is all coming out of Feith's office. This information is fed directly to the Weekly Standard reporters, who swallow it hook line and sinker because it is consistent with their ideology and with what they want to be true. Other reporters may be more skeptical but they quickly get drowned out in what appears to be a sea of information, but it is information that has already been analyzed, sifted, and evaluated by intelligence experts that have concluded that it doesn't amount to much. As an aside, this is the same thing that happened during the Reagan Administration when his Team B wanted to prove that the Soviet Union was behind Islamic and Palestinian terrorism in Lebanon. It was hogwash then too, but a lot of people bought it, as they do now.

At a congressional hearing in 2003, apparently Senator Boxer and some other democrats pulled out a map of "Countries that provided al Qaeda sanctuary" that had been produced by the NSC in 1998. The map listed 45 countries, and Iraq was not one of them. Even if there are links, there's at least that many countries ahead of Iraq in terms of being important al Qaeda associates. (According to Newsweek, it's in the Congressional Record but I haven't yet been able to find it online. I'll keep looking).--csloat 20:14, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, we battle back and forth between the common sense approach and the view of the party hacks, who tend to use source attribution as a weapon for special selectiveness rather than for inclusion and handling. At this point, now that the war is "over" or else going badly, the hacks are more or less quieting down, and history can be written for what it, with the clarity of 20/20 hindsight. Regardless, from the view of the hacks, the writing of history has traditionally been institutional, and therefore inconsequential. So consider for example the quote at the bottom of the Curveball (informant) article:
On April 8, 2005, CIA Director Porter Goss ordered an internal review of the CIA...Director George Tenet...announced that they were not aware of doubts about Curveball's veracity before the war. However, Tyler Drumheller, the former chief of the CIA's European division told the Los Angeles Times that "everyone in the chain of command knew exactly what was happening" with Curveball.
A common sense approach would explore the "exceptional view", to see if it has merit, and by virtue of the complete and utter disorganization of the institutional views, the exceptional claims tend to float upward, and supercede any institutional claims which remain self or otherwise contradicted. So while there can be all sorts of official "investigations," and newfangled mathematics like "team B" (etc) which try to make sense of strange and contradicting "explanations" and testimonies, there still remains common sense: and thats whats lacking in the article in its current state. -SV|t|add 21:28, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Salman Pak

Let's talk about Salman Pak here rather than above - I still don't buy it but I'm reading more about it and it now seems murkier than I thought. Apparently they did find a plane -- in 1995. And it was a Russian plane, not a Boeing. This according to New York Daily News 7 April 2003 (I'm on lexis so no link). And according to the Knight-Rider article linked in the entry, U.S. intelligence analysts believe the plane was used for counterterrorism. (Really! it says that!) Also, an Observer article (30 March 2003) cites a former Mukhabarat officer saying that the place was used to train Fedayeen and that there were a group of non-Iraqi Islamists there. This is an article by David Rose - the same guy from Vanity Fair who is the source of another item (I forget which offhand but there's a link in the entry) and whose credibility has been questioned by some sources (again I don't feel like hunting that one down right now). And this from Ottowa Citizen (17 Nov 2001): "U.S. intelligence agents say they doubt the Sept. 11 hijackers had been trained at the camp." And here's another article by Rose (Observer 11 Nov 2001) which fills in the Duelfer stuff. This time the plane is a 707 again. Curiouser and curiouser as I read about it; but I'm convinced now that there was a training camp there and there was a plane on it; perhaps even two (how else to explain the discrepancy? Does a Boeing and the Russian plane look anything alike?) Why is nobody investigating the foreign fighters captured there in April 2003?

There's still no al Qaeda link here, at least nobody in intel seems to think so, and the foreign fighters who trained here do not seem to be under Saddam's direct control -- at least according to the David Rose Mukhabarat officer, the Fedayeen had their own project there, and the Islamists trained separately. It seems possible though unlikely that al Qaeda members trained there, but even if they did, any relationship seems to be one of convenience rather than control (nevertheless, I concede this would be a significant development). --csloat 09:11, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

More info - here's what Judith Yaphe has to say about it; she seems to think it has more to do with Palestinian-related groups than al Qaeda: "That's been known as a terrorist training camp for many years. Palestinian extremists, terrorists of many kinds that the Iraqis supported went through their training courses there. I think the question is the sightings by one or two -- there were two defectors who claimed that extremists were -- Islamists were being trained there, and I think they made the conclusion they had to be al Qaeda -- or somebody, I don't remember who did -- but they based that on the fact that they prayed a lot and wore beards. Again, maybe they were Islamists, maybe not. To answer your question, yes, that has been a long-known training center, having to do with probably all kinds of terrorist acts, including, yes there was an aircraft there. I think initially some people identified that as a Boeing aircraft. It's not. To the best of my knowledge, that's a Soviet -- and old Soviet Antonov that's been there for many, many years. So, were they training to take over an American aircraft? They probably were just training on techniques to do whatever terrorists train to do, but yes, that has been known." (9 July 2003 from Senate testimony)

Even more.... This actually does make the Knight Rider quote above more believable (though it doesn't explain the foreign fighters); this is from Scott Ritter: "There's been much made of this so-called terrorist training camp at Salman Pak (ph), located south of Baghdad. The fact is, we know exactly what Salman Pak (ph) is. Salman Pak (ph) is a camp built in the 1980s to facilitate hostage rescue training by Iraqi internal security forces. And it maintained this status until 1992, in which time the camp was transferred to the intelligence services, the Department of External Threats, the purpose of which was to focus on northern Iraq and actually eliminating Islamic fundamentalist elements that were starting to infiltrate into Kurdistan. So rather than being a camp dedicated to training Islamic fundamentalists, it was a camp dedicated to the eradication of Islamic fundamentalists. I don't support the techniques used by Saddam, but definitely the way that camp has been depicted is false and misleading." Testimony to House of Rep. (20 August 2002).--csloat 09:35, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Here's even more from Ritter:

"This site has nothing to do with terrorist training," Ritter told reporters. "Any nation that has an airline industry trains people to rescue those who have been on aircraft that has been hijacked."
"I do have a background of military activities including counterterrorist activities," said Ritter, a former U.S. Marine intelligence officer. "This is a site that was constructed in the 1980s. The United States government knows this. the British government assisted in the construction of this site. It was designed for hostage rescue training." AP (9 September 2002). --csloat 10:22, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The Salman Pak nonsense has long been debunked. It was indeed an old Russian plane and training was given there, by MI6 amongst others, in counter-terrorism. You need a plane fuselage to train in counter-terrorism tactics, whereas you can train hostage-taking and the like with a few dining-table chairs and a toy pistol. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:49, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
would you enlighten us how it was debunked, then? I wouldn't say it's even been thoroughly bunked yet. ObsidianOrder 11:32, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
csloat - Yes, it is murky. I don't have good answers to your questions. I'm not pushing a particular interpretation, I just think the degree of murkiness is interesting in itself. Frankly I think that from the very confused/confusing leaks and statements made by former and current CIA and other intelligence people, there are multiple warring factions in the intelligence community some of which are, for whatever reason, shall we say, less than interested in the truth. (see [9], [10], [11]). I also think Scott Ritter was successfully blackmailed/bribed/compromised by somebody [12] [13], thus after his astounding U-turn(s) I more or less ignore what he says these days. On the other hand Duelfer is rock-solid. Duelfer says this about Salman Pak: "We always just called them the terrorist camps ... We reported them at the time, but they've obviously taken on new significance." [14] and ""The Iraqis, he said, told UNSCOM it was used by 'police' for counter-terrorist training." "Of course we automatically took out the word 'counter'," Duelfer explained. "I'm surprised that people seem to be shocked that there should be terror camps in Iraq. Like, derrrrrr! I mean, what, actually, do you expect?"" [15]. Btw here are a couple of reports of the capture of the camp [16] [17] which mention (tantalizingly) "The Marines shelled then entered Salman Pak ... after it was discussed by Egyptian and Sudanese fighters caught elsewhere in Iraq. ... Brigadier General Vincent Brooks told reporters Sunday, "The nature of the work being done by some of those people that we captured, their inferences to the type of training that they received, all of these things give us the impression that there was terrorist training that was conducted at Salman Pak." (my emphasis). By my latest count, by the way, the people trained there have been described as "Islamists" by five Iraqi witnesses - Sabah Khalifa Khodada Alami, Abu Zeinab al Qurairy, Khidir Hamza [18], Abdul Rahman al-Shamari, and "Abu Mohammed" [19]. As far as I can tell this was described as a hijacking training camp for foreigners as early as 1998. P.S. The plane in the satellite photos has a profile consistent with a Tupolev-154, this is probably just a case of mis-identification. ObsidianOrder 11:28, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I'd like to see the evidence that MI6 trained there that Sidaway talks about above. The information about Ritter being blackmailed comes from Stephen Hayes, himself not credible, and the Slate article you linked disputes the theory. In either case, his view is called the "consensus view" by CJR in 2004, so it's not just Ritter. That article also cited Hoagland and Hedges (both who quote the defectors, Hedges from the Frontline interviews you link) backing off of their stories.
Only a miniscule fraction of the information about Ritter comes from Hayes, most of it comes from Ritter's own words. Hayes not credible - why? CRJ is not "consensus" (ask Duelfer or Woolsey), it's a hit piece, and not a good one at that. What part of their stories did the defectors that gave info on Salman Pak "back off" from? (I should also mention some of the info comes from prisoners, not defectors) ObsidianOrder 12:12, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
One of the sources I saw on Lexis says it was used for both counterterrorism and for terrorism (both by the Iraqis and by foreigners). Still nothing about al Qaeda. Then, this, which is convincing (also from the CJR article): "Knight Ridder’s Landay, who has also looked into Salman Pak, says his sources don’t find it credible that Hussein was engaged in terrorism training. 'Why would Saddam run a training camp for Islamic terrorists involving hijacking planes and trains in full view of American satellites and spy planes?' Landay says. 'And why would terrorists go there when they had the same kind of camps in Afghanistan?'"--csloat 11:41, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
yah, it could have been used for both, but the last Iraqi plane that was hijacked was ...? I think we should be careful to separate claims of fact (even if not verified) from speculation, both here and in the article. "why would Saddam..." is pure speculation (although I can think of a dozen reasons why). ObsidianOrder 12:12, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I don't know when the last Iraqi plane was hijacked but the implication of MI6 training there is that it wasn't just to protect Iraqi planes. As for your "dozen reasons," I can't really think of any legitimate ones. Al Qaeda had significant freedom of operation in Afghanistan (as well as parts of Yemen and other places), whereas there is no evidence they had such freedom in Iraq. And, again, it seems very clear that al Qaeda members would not give any operational control to the dictator Saddam who they considered an infidel.--csloat 19:33, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The debunking of Salman Pak comes from Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker [20], who in May 2003 pointed to other dodgy information from the same source, Chalabi's I.N.C. (Iraqi National Congress). Here's what he writes about his attempts to verify the hijacker training story.
Almost immediately after September 11th, the I.N.C. began to publicize the stories of defectors who claimed that they had information connecting Iraq to the attacks. In an interview on October 14, 2001, conducted jointly by the Times and “Frontline,” the public-television program, Sabah Khodada, an Iraqi Army captain, said that the September 11th operation “was conducted by people who were trained by Saddam,” and that Iraq had a program to instruct terrorists in the art of hijacking. Another defector, who was identified only as a retired lieutenant general in the Iraqi intelligence service, said that in 2000 he witnessed Arab students being given lessons in hijacking on a Boeing 707 parked at an Iraqi training camp near the town of Salman Pak, south of Baghdad.
In separate interviews with me, however, a former C.I.A. station chief and a former military intelligence analyst said that the camp near Salman Pak had been built not for terrorism training but for counter-terrorism training. In the mid-eighties, Islamic terrorists were routinely hijacking aircraft. In 1986, an Iraqi airliner was seized by pro-Iranian extremists and crashed, after a hand grenade was triggered, killing at least sixty-five people. (At the time, Iran and Iraq were at war, and America favored Iraq.) Iraq then sought assistance from the West, and got what it wanted from Britain’s MI6. The C.I.A. offered similar training in counter-terrorism throughout the Middle East. “We were helping our allies everywhere we had a liaison,” the former station chief told me. Inspectors recalled seeing the body of an airplane—which appeared to be used for counter-terrorism training—when they visited a biological-weapons facility near Salman Pak in 1991, ten years before September 11th. It is, of course, possible for such a camp to be converted from one purpose to another. The former C.I.A. official noted, however, that terrorists would not practice on airplanes in the open. “That’s Hollywood rinky-dink stuff,” the former agent said. “They train in basements. You don’t need a real airplane to practice hijacking. The 9/11 terrorists went to gyms. But to take one back you have to practice on the real thing.”
Salman Pak was overrun by American troops on April 6th. Apparently, neither the camp nor the former biological facility has yielded evidence to substantiate the claims made before the war.
Unfortunately a sensational lie can travel around the world in the time it takes the prosaic truth to put its boots on. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:18, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This is supposed to be a "debunking"? Just based on the opinions of two anonymous sources? Dang, I'm impressed. By the way, while the INC certainly did try to bring attention to the stories of some of the people who have reported on Salman Pak after 9/11 (i.e. Khodada and Zeinab), and with good reason, the stories themselves certainly predate 9/11 by a few years, and a number of the sources have never had anything to do with INC. ObsidianOrder 12:41, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Well if I were to continue we'd turn this into a political debate. I think the facts in Hersh's report, particularly the MI6 involvement, make it evident that those who claimed this was some kind of training camp for the 9/11 hijackers are not looking at the most obvious explanation, and in any case it's difficult to imagine why a plane fuselage would be needed at all if that were the purpose, since hijackers are already inside the plane at the start and have no need to storm it. You can practice stabbing air stewardesses in the comfort of your own home, no need to use an aircraft fuselage. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:58, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I have to agree; after reading the Hersch stuff it seems pretty conclusive. It also answers OO's question about when the last Iraqi plane was hijacked - it was a while ago, but apparently that is when this setup was established. And it doesn't make sense that they would train for terrorism out in the open like this, especially when they had much more freedom in camps in other places. The issue of foreign fighters is not dealt with here, however, and it is still possible this facility was used for training. What is interesting is that while we have reports of jihadi fighters training there, all the reports seem to come from former Mukhabarat rather than from any jihadists themselves. Apparently jihadists (or at least foreigners) were captured there in April 2003 -- what have they revealed in the past two years? I think if there were any significant evidence of al Qaeda cooperation to come out of those interrogations, we would have heard about it -- it's the kind of thing that would help the Bush Admin save face and that would certainly be leaked to the press. The thing is there seems to have been a concerted disinformation campaign on the part of the INC here, so I am suspicious when nearly all the sources of information on this topic are with the INC.--csloat 19:49, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
More from Hersch: "A former Bush Administration intelligence official recalled a case in which Chalabi’s group, working with the Pentagon, produced a defector from Iraq who was interviewed overseas by an agent from the D.I.A. The agent relied on an interpreter supplied by Chalabi’s people. Last summer, the D.I.A. report, which was classified, was leaked. In a detailed account, the London Times described how the defector had trained with Al Qaeda terrorists in the late nineteen-nineties at secret camps in Iraq, how the Iraqis received instructions in the use of chemical and biological weapons, and how the defector was given a new identity and relocated. A month later, however, a team of C.I.A. agents went to interview the man with their own interpreter. “He says, ‘No, that’s not what I said,’” the former intelligence official told me. “He said, ‘I worked at a fedayeen camp; it wasn’t Al Qaeda.’ He never saw any chemical or biological training.” Afterward, the former official said, “the C.I.A. sent out a piece of paper saying that this information was incorrect. They put it in writing.” But the C.I.A. rebuttal, like the original report, was classified. “I remember wondering whether this one would leak and correct the earlier, invalid leak. Of course, it didn’t.”"--csloat 19:53, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware the Bush administration kept Chalabi at arm's length--probably because they recognised that these tall tales, while useful to whip up the faithful, were unlikely to correspond to the facts on the ground. We now know that the US intelligence community had more serious problems even than that. We should take a leaf out of Bush's book and be very circumspect about handling these claims. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:44, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Arms length" literally. He sat behind the First Lady at the SOTU. -- RyanFreisling @ 00:11, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Cheney quote; Page reorganization

Personally, I would absolutely love to see Cheney's quote that the Daily Show ripped him a new one on, where he first said that there was a meeting in France between al-qaeda leaders and iraq, then he later denied he ever said that.--kizzle 04:07, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

Cheney (9 December 2001): "Well, what we now have that's developed since you and I last talked, Tim, of course, was that report that's been pretty well confirmed, that he did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack."
Cheney on CNBC (not sure of the date): CNBC: "You have said in the past that it was quote "pretty well confirmed."
Cheney: "No, I never said that. Never said that. Absolutely not."
It works better on video. I'm not sure if this quotations section really is useful at all; we could find a million quotes on both sides of the fence. I think we should junk it and that the 911 commission should be summarized with bullet points. The long quotes aren't necessary -- or, perhaps, create yet another page for primary source material that includes all the long quotes. I think for this page the timeline alone is good. And perhaps the intro needs to frame it more strongly that all of these "links" turned out to be dubious at best. --csloat 08:09, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Rewrite this article

I suggest an entire rewrite. I base my opinion on the following obvious POV violations:

  1. Osama bin Laden didn't just have bad things to say about Saddam...he was in dispute with almost every muslim country in existence.
  2. "After the Gulf War, as Iraq experienced internal unrest, Saddam apparently turned to religion to bolster his government (for example, adding the words "God is Great" in Arabic to the Iraqi flag, and referring to God in his speeches)." And what does this paragraph have to do with the rest of the text? Nothing.
  3. another sentence then uses intelligence reports to discredit but many of those supporting this sentence also spend a great deal of time lambasting the intelligence community when discussing weapons of mass destruction et al...so is the intelligence only good intelligence if it supports a left wing agenda? "The camp has been discovered by U.S. Marines, but intelligence analysts do not believed it was used by al Qaeda." in discussion about Salmon Pak.
    i think you misinterpret this. this is not lamabasting the intelligence community. this is saying that the intelligence community (the intelligence analysts, as opposed to tenet) does not believe it was used by al qaeda. if anything, this is implying that tenet is misrepresenting intelligence. and this is an important point. Kevin Baastalk 17:05, 2005 Apr 25 (UTC)
  4. One must get all the way to the end of the background section before even one redirect or footnote is provided...
  5. a number of those opposed to the current wording suggest that the links are weak and or poorly referenced, yet they seem better actually than those in other articles I have seen.
  6. The article suggests that the "alleged" links are the motivation for the "invasion" of Iraq and subsequent "occupation". Sure. I thought those that support this type of wording have been saying in other related articles that the reason for the "invasion" was due to the "alleged" weapons of mass destruction.--MONGO 12:49, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    the alleged links is one piece of misinformation used to manufacture consent for the war. wmd is the primary. the links were esential to connect iraq to sept. 11, to play off of the fear and popular support gained from that event. however, war still could not be justified without first creating the impression of a more real threat, hence "sometime in the future, they might attack us, we don't know now, because it's not the future yet, so we must attack them" and all that other jazz about hitting a person before they hit you. links was, as i recall, at the start of the campaign, then when focus and fear was sufficiently shifted from 9/11 to iraq, they began creating the impression of a dire threat, and WMD was the essential ingredient in that. i hope this clarifies. Kevin Baastalk 16:51, 2005 Apr 25 (UTC)
Well it doesn't. The intelligence community is the same throughout...you can't just say, well, they have evidence here of something and I agree with that, but over here they also have evidence of something and I don't agree with that...that's hardly encyclopedic...--MONGO 20:32, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Ummm, no. The intelligence community is just that - a community, made up of different people who sometimes have different opinions. On the al Qaeda question, most of the intelligence community believed and believe there was no link. An encyclopedia should record that fact. If you want to edit a WMD article to suggest that the intelligence community thought this or that about WMD, it belongs there, not here. In any case, there were many in the intelligence community who were skeptical of the bogus WMD claims; remember, George Tenet is not "the intelligence community."--csloat 21:08, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I agree with this except insofar as it implies that george tenet is part if the intelligence analysis community. he is a messenger; his role is not to analyze or fabricate, but to transmit important information, gathered, assesed, analyzised, by the intelligence analysis community, to the executive branch. his role and duty is to repeat as accurately and precisely as possible the intelligence and analysis of the intelligence gathering and analysis community. although his role is unique and directly involves him with higher level officials, he is nonetheless, in this respect, subordinate to - not authoritative of or a part of - the intelligence analysis community. his responsibility is to summarize and repeat their assesments, not to contradict or distort them. Kevin Baastalk 22:56, 2005 Apr 25 (UTC)

Since intel agencies are the main sources of information on this topic, their evaluation of the evidence is significant. The fact that some people who question the WMD evidence don't agree with intelligence agencies has nothing to do with this article. And many will tell you that the CIA itself - not Tenet but the analysts at the CIA - knew there were no WMD either. I'm not sure why #1 is a POV violation - it's simply not relevant to this article, which is about Saddam and OBL, not other muslim leaders. #2 - ok. #3 - my comment above about intel agencies. #4 - feel free to add footnotes wherever. The background section repeats things that are in the timeline for summary purposes; those items are footnoted there. #5 - not sure what you mean. Just having a link to an article does not mean an item has strong evidence for it. #6 - this was one of the key arguments for the invasion, and over 50% of the american public believed it, so it's a significant one. --csloat 16:43, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's an important issue, and most important of all may be the very fact that the links remain uncorroborated allegations. As I mentioned in an archived discussion, the article's entire narrative, construction and premise is fatally flawed.
The title is misinformative, without a hint of the ambiguous or unsubstantiated nature of the alleged links.
Then, there's the lack of corroboration evidenced in the single line "It is important to note that not all of these claims are credible or can be substantiated with other evidence." Excuse me, but if that is the case, what the heck are those claims doing in the article?
Last, there's the {premise}: justification for the 'war on terror' being one that requires no distinction between Iraq and Afghanistan, Syria or Saudi. It might well be titled 'The artificially constructed justification for a neverending war on terror' and include a section on how 75% of FOX viewers honestly believe in this connection (and WMD's having been found in Iraq) despite the absolute absence of credible evidence.
And the grammatical/narrative problem is, it reads like a river of untruth punctuated by disclaimers. That is far from acceptable writing. The narrative should be based on a river of truth, with tangents of ambiguity. -- RyanFreisling @ 18:10, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
What is it with you and FOX news? Many of us that disagree with your politics could easily cite problems with AP, CBS, and the BBC, all of which definitely have a left wing bias....period. If you really think that Saddam never did or did or did not have links to al Queada that is your opinion, but I say based on the evidence that there were links between the two and that WMD did exist and this isn't based on some fantasy but on facts, regardless of your perception that anyone that thinks that way is misguided or are, in all probability, a viewer of FOX news.--MONGO 20:32, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
If you believe that there was WMD and links to al Qaeda, you're problem is deeper than your choice of TV channel. Of course, if you think AP is "left wing" you're completely out of touch anyway. If you have access to "facts" about these issues that the rest of the news media (including FOX) and the intelligence community is unaware of, by all means present them; otherwise you are just spewing nonsense that has been thoroughly discredited.--csloat 21:08, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
that was so beautiful I have tears in my eyes. --kizzle 22:35, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
I think that what I am wasting my time with is arguing with infantile little children that do not have any idea what the definition of WMD's are...perhaps you should read and be enlightened by our own article. [[21]]As you'll see according to the very definitions in our own article, Saddam did have plenty of WMD's according to point #1...weapons caches are still being found all over Iraq and in them are plenty of WMD's ranging from rocket launchers, grenades, RPG's, mines and etc. Do you suggest that we alter this article as well or do you concur that this article is accurate? If so, then according to the definitions in that article, Saddam most certainly did have WMD's. I am afraid that anyone that would agree with your two opinions most be hopelessly lost in a sea of leftist delusions...too bad.--MONGO 05:27, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
We know Saddam had chemical weapons at some point, as we sold them to him to assist Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war. We know he had Botulinum and Anthrax at some point, because we sold them to him as well. Iraq did not, however, have WMD's capable of threatening the United States - as were falsely described by Powell and other officials (launchers, mobile labs, nuclear development facilities, etc.) in the selling of the shock-and-awe bombing and invasion of Iraq. Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological capabilities did not represent an imminent threat, as Rumsfeld and others publicly claimed. That is the link being proposed (which has been disproven) in this article. And again, you seem to be incapable of avoiding personal attacks by describing other editors, working in good faith, as 'infantile little children'. Can it be that your views are so based in disinformation and faith-based politics that you simply cannot distinguish truth from fact on issues that you need to be true? -- RyanFreisling @ 05:36, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
That is a personal attack as well. At the time Rumsfeld made his comments as did Powell et al...there was a more definite possiblity that WMD's did exist in Iraq. Saddam's lack of cooperation historically made it certainly appear that he was hiding things and he did have and USE these weapons in the past on his neighbors and his own people. Furthermore, the French and many other countries sold at least components and or the raw goods necessary to manufacture and or utilize WMD's, not just the U.S.--MONGO 07:00, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It's not a matter of reciprocity and each of us need to take responsibility for our actions and attacks. You've been asked on numerous occasions to stop initiating personal attacks based on your target's alleged political views. Please just stop making personal attacks.
As far as there having been a 'more definite possibility', that's a meaningless statement, and the stuff of pure revisionism. The advice of many in the intelligence community never wavered from the conclusion that Iraq's WMD programs did not pose an immediate threat to the national security of the United States. Last, I did not say the U.S. was the only company equipping Iraq with the very weapons whose alleged existence the U.S. would later claim justification to bomb and invade. -- RyanFreisling @ 07:23, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
And you have been asked to refrain from personal attacks as well, even though you initiate them with headings like MONGO's old tricks. Then you proceed to continue to insult...calling my comments meaningless statements, and pure revisionism.......the intelligence community never wavered...then read this...[22] and explain how you can support that statement.--MONGO 07:36, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Your listed source, published 9 Sep 2002, concludes:
* Iraq does not possess facilities to produce fissile material in sufficient amounts for nuclear weapons.
* It would require several years and extensive foreign assistance to build such fissile material production facilities.
* It could, however, assemble nuclear weapons within months if fissile material from foreign sources were obtained.
* It could divert domestic civil-use radioisotopes or seek to obtain foreign material for a crude radiological device.
"Iraq can certainly produce new stocks of bulk BW agent, including botulinum toxin and anthrax with its existing facilities, equipment and materials. BW agent could be delivered by short range munitions including artillery shells and rockets. Delivery by ballistic missile is more problematic given that much of the agent would be destroyed on impact and the immediate area of dispersal would be small. Civilian casualties could still be in the hundreds or thousands. Refurbished L-29 trainer aircraft could operate as weapons-carrying UAVs with a range of over 600km. Such UAVs, in theory, would be considerably more effective than ballistic missiles in delivering CBW. Commando and terrorist attack is also possible.
Assessing the production of new CW agent and precursors depends on determining the degree to which Iraq will have chosen to mobilise its civilian chemical industry to produce these capabilities. Without inspectors present, Iraq would not find it difficult to build on pre 1991 stocks and produce and weaponise fresh agent.
Unless Iraq has advanced beyond the impact fusing and warhead design of its 1990 era special warheads, its ability to disseminate effectively CW agent on ballistic missiles is questionable, since so much agent would be destroyed on impact. Iraq’s known ability to marry chemical warheads to its rocket and artillery pieces (with ranges up to 30,000 metres) could complicate operations for opposing forces, who would be required to wear protective gear.
* Iraq has probably retained a few hundred tonnes of mustard and precursors for a few hundred tonnes of sarin/cyclosarin and perhaps similar amounts of VX from pre-1991 stocks.
* It is capable of resuming CW production on short notice (months) from existing civilian facilities. It could have produced hundreds of tonnes of agent (mustard and nerve agents) since 1998. In these circumstances, it is not possible accurately to estimate present stocks.
From where I stand, that confirms Iraq in 2002 was not suspected of being in possession of WMD's that represented an imminent threat to the United States, nor was there any direct evidence that either nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons were in an immediate state of readiness. -- RyanFreisling @ 07:54, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I'll support my statements regarding the lack of evidence for WMD's in Iraq with this: [23] and I implore you again to stop tit-for-tat and take your editing and your characterization of other people to a more respectful level. I said your statement was meaningless - that is not a personal attack. I said 'Mongo's Old Tricks' to refer to repeated deletions of facts that you found distasteful (but could not disprove)... that was not intended as a personal attack, but I apologized. I continue to assume good faith. Please continue to do so yourself. -- RyanFreisling @ 07:39, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Then I say you are reading between the lines Ryan...the article states that there is as much evidence of WMD as there is against it..."Iraq can certainly produce new stocks of bulk BW agent, including botulinum toxin and anthrax with its existing facilities, equipment and materials. BW agent could be delivered by short range munitions including artillery shells and rockets. Delivery by ballistic missile is more problematic given that much of the agent would be destroyed on impact and the immediate area of dispersal would be small. Civilian casualties could still be in the hundreds or thousands. Refurbished L-29 trainer aircraft could operate as weapons-carrying UAVs with a range of over 600km. Such UAVs, in theory, would be considerably more effective than ballistic missiles in delivering CBW. Commando and terrorist attack is also possible." and "Assessing the production of new CW agent and precursors depends on determining the degree to which Iraq will have chosen to mobilise its civilian chemical industry to produce these capabilities. Without inspectors present, Iraq would not find it difficult to build on pre 1991 stocks and produce and weaponise fresh agent."...enough said, it is pertienent in the 9/11 world and it isn't logistically difficult to get those items from there to New York harbor via any one of the hundreds of cargo ships that dock in that region monthly...trust me on this for sure.--MONGO 08:29, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
All of that represent hypothetical attack scenarios, not evidence that such a scenario was underway, that the infrastructure or capabilities were in place, or that such actions were possible. 'Can certainly' does not mean 'is'. -- RyanFreisling @ 08:40, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Mongo, if you think that Saddam Hussein was an "imminent" threat to the US because he had freakin' rocket launchers, you're insane. Everyone who wasn't living under a rock two years ago is well aware that the Bush Admin claimed Saddam had nukes & CBW and that that is what was meant by WMD in this context, not grenades. Jesus. Mexico has grenades. Canada probably even has these weapons! Should we attack them too? In any case, you're right that you're wasting your (and my) time with this crap. This article is about Saddam and al Qaeda. Not about WMD. If you want to spread misinformation about WMD please do it in the appropriate forum.--csloat 06:17, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
We were discussing the links between Saddam and al Queada and I mentioned that using intelligence reports only when they back a POV is unfair....the same people who seem to wish to use intelligence reports here do not wish to do so in the WMD articles and in related articles because it doesn't support their POV. All I was trying to say at the top of this was that you can't pick and choose which reports to utilize based on your POV...either use them all or use none of them. That is, of course, (and I highly doubt this based on your contributions) unless you are a bona fide intelligence analyst.--MONGO 07:06, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I haven't edited any WMD articles of which I am aware, and to say you must either believe everything the CIA (or the larger intelligence community) says or nothing they say is just silly.--csloat 08:22, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
If you trust the bona-fide intelligence analysts, then I think this issue is pretty well closed [24]:
"CIA’s final report: No WMD found in Iraq - Recommends freeing detainees held for weapons knowledge
"WASHINGTON - In his final word, the CIA’s top weapons inspector in Iraq said Monday that the hunt for weapons of mass destruction has “gone as far as feasible” and has found nothing, closing an investigation into the purported programs of Saddam Hussein that were used to justify the 2003 invasion. “After more than 18 months, the WMD investigation and debriefing of the WMD-related detainees has been exhausted,” wrote Charles Duelfer, head of the Iraq Survey Group, in an addendum to the final report he issued last fall. “As matters now stand, the WMD investigation has gone as far as feasible.”
"In 92 pages posted online Monday evening, Duelfer provides a final look at an investigation that occupied over 1,000 military and civilian translators, weapons specialists and other experts at its peak. His latest addenda conclude a roughly 1,500-page report released last fall. -- RyanFreisling @ 07:39, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, but you failed to also summize the following issues as in the text: Among warnings sprinkled throughout the new documents, one concludes that Saddam's programs created a pool of weapons experts, many of whom will be seeking work. While most will probably turn to the "benign civil sector," the danger remains that "hostile foreign governments, terrorists or insurgents may seek Iraqi expertise." "Because a single individual can advance certain WMD activities, it remains an important concern," one addendum said. Another addendum noted that military forces in Iraq may continue to find small numbers of degraded chemical weapons — most likely misplaced or improperly destroyed before 1991. In an insurgent's hands, "the use of a single even ineffectual chemical weapon would likely cause more terror than deadlier conventional explosives," the addendum said. And still another said the survey group found some potential nuclear-related equipment was "missing from heavily damaged and looted sites." Yet, because of deteriorating security in Iraq, the survey group was unable to determine what happened to the equipment, which also had alternate civilian uses.--MONGO 08:09, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

None of those hypotheticals represents evidence that would justify the conclusion of WMD's as an immediate threat to the U.S. to be drawn. -- RyanFreisling @ 08:13, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
You think so...then you trust weapons inspectors, immigration inspectors and customs inspectors way too much.--MONGO 08:25, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
No, it's not a matter of trust, it's a matter of fact. -- RyanFreisling @ 08:43, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Ryan, I hope when you get older you'll let go of that blind left wing mindlessness....it makes you sound very juvenile and utopian...and I mean that with all due respect...because I know that now you simply can't help it.--MONGO 08:59, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I looked for something substantive in this last post to respond to, but there was nothing but an unwarranted personal attack. -- RyanFreisling @ 09:01, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Mongo, if you don't trust the words of weapons inspectors, immigration inspectors, customs inspectors, or intelligence analysts on this issue, where do you get your information from? The Free Republic?? Stop wasting everyone's time.--csloat 15:39, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Boy I wish I was around last night for this discussion. First of all, Mongo, I'd like to clear up a misconception I believe you have. WMD means weapons of mass destruction. "Rocket launchers, grenades, RPG's, mines and etc" are meant to be launched against individual targets, thus do not count as WMDs. In addition, this criteria would render almost every country having posession of WMDs. If you truly believe this, does this mean we invaded Iraq because they had rocket launchers and grenades? How is this an imminent threat to the U.S.? It is one thing to argue that Iraq in the next decade was planning on, at some point, creating new chemical weapons or other WMDs, but the report unequivocally states that there were no WMDs in Iraq in 2002, nor none in production. How is this an imminent threat to the U.S.? Finally, if Iraq's scientists are fleeing to other countries and such, how does this have anything to do with Iraq's WMD status in 2002?

Read the article of ours on WMD as I pointed out. It is most clear. Naturally I realize that rocket launchers do not equate with the same things as what we all come to know as WMD or with what the Bush administration was stating that Saddam had. Much of their opinion was based on the report from the C.I.A. dated October 2002 which detailed Iraq's weapons of mass destruction...regardless, the main differences of let's say Mexico and or Canada having these weapons and of Iraq having them is based on the past history of belligerent use of said weapons. Saddam did use chemical weapons on his own people and on his neighbors in the past, there was evidence of Saddam having ongoing and even increased stockpiles of these weapons, Saddam was rarely complying with UN weapons inspectors, and Saddam was oftentimes boastful of said weapons that he either did or didn't have. I don't doubt that Bush et al, did mislead the public, but I do doubt that it was done purely from a standpoint to lead us to war, I know that he did not have all the intelligence he needed and I also know that though the inspections have concluded, there still remains the probability that there are residual quantities of WMD's there...most countires do have them you know...they have them in case the face ultimate ruin...an ugly truth.--MONGO 20:13, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Why was Iraq a bigger target than Iran or North Korea? Is Saddam a bigger ally to Al-Qaeda than Iran? Do you think Bush, and/or Bush's cabinet had a reason to invade Iraq external to the fight against Al-Qaeda? Does this have anything to do with the Project for a New American Century and their papers, or more specifically, Paul Wolfowitz? See, my problem with the "the intelligence told us to do it!" response, is that given all things being equal, it would make sense. But there was an aggressive push to link 9/11 to Iraq, read Richard Clarke's book (a republican), Paul O'Neil's book (a republican), or Bob Woodward's book. This wasn't a simple query as in "Who did this to us?"...this was "Why did Iraq do this to us?" They assumed that Iraq was involved in the first place, and tried to find evidence to support their theory rather than finding a theory to support the evidence.
I agree with you that Bush mislead the public, but why do you think he did it if not to lead us into war? What other reason would he mislead us?
As for residual quantities of WMD, that remark sounds like it isn't based on anything but complete blind speculation. Bottom line: there are no WMDs, there haven't been any for some time, Saddam was looking to eventually re-initiate the program, but there were no WMDs period. The intelligence reports are wrong because they assumed the culprit before collecting the evidence. --kizzle 22:02, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
Iran and North Korea have yet to invade any other country...therefore, the "need" to interfere with them militarily is much less than the need to deal with Saddam. As far as the whether Iraq was a bigger sponser of terrorism than Iran, I can't say...I am not sure that any of those countries are sponsors of terrorism. I never believed that Iraq was directly involved in 9/11. In the world of politics, they tried and failed to link Iraq to the 9/11 issue because they knew that would make support of the war easier in the UN and internationally...I never doubted the U.S. was going to go into Iraq after 9/11...I am surprised the U.S. didn't nuke them...historically, most countries that have been attacked as the U.S. was on 9/11 respond much more violently...the Arab world should be happy they decided to tango with the U.S. and not most of the previous preemminent p[owers of history...--MONGO 01:01, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I can tell you with certainty that Iran is a far bigger sponsor of terrorism than Iraq ever was (and the Saudis have them both beat). You could verify this yourself with five minutes of research. If you think the US should have "nuked" Iraq, you're just plain nuts. Anybody who thinks such instantaneous genocide -- not to mention the consequent fallout, etc. -- is a reasonable approach to a political problem (esp. one which, in hindsight, didn't exist at all) is simply beyond any reasonable discourse. And you admit Iraq was not involved with 9/11, yet you still think we should have nuked them? Do you really expect anyone to take you seriously?--csloat 03:44, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
You can't read...I said I was surprised...not that I thought we should have. Your perceptions of whether Saddam and his WMD's or links to al Queada are bogus make it hard for me to take you seriously.--MONGO 04:42, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Glad to hear it; it's comforting to know you don't want to nuke the middle east. --csloat 05:17, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Maybe one day Mongo you'll let go of that self-superior right-wing mindlessness...it makes you sound very pompous and arrogant...and I mean that with all due respect...because I know that now you simply can't help it. --kizzle 19:11, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

You're right, I can't...that would be backsliding towards ignorance.--MONGO 20:13, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Sounds like you don't need to backslide to accomplish that. --kizzle 22:02, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
Kizzle, it isn't an all or nothing issue...there is and was plenty of evidence based on the issues to suggest that in all liklihood, Saddam did posses WMD and also that there has been some links to al Queada...that you wish to perceive that this isn't so is up to you...again, I think a number of folks here put too much stock in what wasn't found and not enough stock in why it wasn't found...and sorry to tell you but it isn't because it never existed...were the Kurds and Iranians killed instead by UFO's? That the WMD have not turned up in the quantities expected by those opposed to the war is no surprise...we haven't found bin Laden either...if you can hide bin Laden as well known as he is with a huge bounty on his head, how hard is it to hide WMD...it only takes one jar of anthrax or similar properly dispersed to achieve a WMD...in the post 9/11 world, and with the issues as I have described them ranging from Saddam not compling with inspectors to his previous addmittance of such weapons and his previous use of said weapons, Bush and his cabinet went with the decision to go to Iraq. I can't explain it any more than that...if you wish to believe that there zero reasons for the "invasion" based on zero evidence of WMD's and links to terrorists groups that is up to you. Regardless, the title in this article is staying as it is due to a lack of a clear concensus to change it.--MONGO 00:50, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
You can't use evidence from the 1980s to prove that Iraq had any weapons that could be a threat in 2003. It's absurd. Hell, these weapons degrade over time, so even if he did have chems from that period, they would have been useless by 2003. As far as presenting any threat to the United States -- well, it's completely ridiculous, and everyone with any sense has figured that out by now. And the idea that we were invading over a mason jar full of anthrax! Whatever. But I'm sure you can fight with the people on the WMD page about that issue and someone there will take you to school.--csloat 05:17, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The CIA report is from October 2002, not the 1980's. I am trying to figure out why you can't read. I said that it only takes a mason jar of anthrax to become a WMD if properly dispersed...obviously they hoped to find lots of WMD's to "justify" the "invasion" and nothing has turned up...by the way, the mason jar of anthrax if properly dispersed could kill millions...next time in your haste to insult sign your rudeness. You still don't get to change the name of this article.--MONGO 04:42, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
My reference to the 80s was your claim that Saddam still has wmds because he used them against the Iranians and the Kurds. (Of course you're well aware who he got those from). The 2002 CIA report is a different issue. And the CIA has issued more recent reports that reach different conclusions, as you are well aware. As for killing millions with anthrax, you're just plain wrong. Perhaps you're thinking of botulism. Either way, the idea of killing large numbers with a weapon like that is largely theoretical since such weapons do not have easy modes of delivery.
As for the name of the article, I don't like the proposed change very much though it's an obvious improvement over the current name. The substance of the article is more important to me. But I proposed "Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda" or something of the sort as a better alternative to both names.--csloat 05:17, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I looked at your citation (before which you claim I am plain wrong) and think you need an education...read this [25] by the Journal of the American Medical Association and go to the section on the history of the current threat about four sections down...that is, if you wish to be educated.--MONGO 09:30, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It may be JAMA but that is beyond worst case; they're citing an OTA study that is speculating totally worst case. And it doesn't answer any of the arguments raised on the page I linked re the difficulty of dispersing it, of weaponizing it, the fact that it won't stay in the air... it's a terrible weapon, even for terrorists. Just because it's theoretically possible -- sure in theory I could kill a million people with hemlock if it were properly dispersed - i.e. voluntarily drank by each of those people. Anyway this isn't my expertise or interest - go debate someone on the WMD page.--csloat 12:22, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
You have no expertise. I see no reason to argue with someone that has nothing to do but insult everyone here even as above when the space was just for voting. The only citations you can come up with for referencing are lousy third rate opinion pieces...and that constitutes the bulk of the items you support as evidence against the links between Iraq and al Qaeda...peddle your rubbish elsewhere as well. JAMA is hardly what constitutes worst case...it is a through article written by scientists and researchers trained to understand such issues. Your correlation of anthrax and hemlock prove to me how ignorant you are and hence my doubts that you could have anything to add to this article that would be based on the facts and utilize references that are creditible.--MONGO 13:23, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
'creditible' or not, please Assume good faith and stop making personal attacks. -- RyanFreisling @ 13:32, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep out of it if all you have to add is a warning...that is not in keeping with wikipedia civility on your part.--MONGO 13:43, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Well, I helped write the civility policy, and I know quite well that it doesnt apply toward the acceptance of your insults and pov slantedness. Your personal attacks seem to be all you have left for an argument, so why not just give it up and head back over to some crackpot chat forum? Otherwise be reasonable, calm yourself down, and stop acting like your view is somehow more correct than those who value common sense. -SV|t 14:06, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
You helped write it and have decided that the rules you wish to impose on others are beneath your dignity to follow yourself...how obtuse can you get?--MONGO 14:15, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Certainly you are right, and I apologise for the remark. Perhaps you can make a similar correction as well. -SV|t 14:44, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

alright everybody lets just chill

I think we've all come to some good progress about the nature of WMDs on this page, but I think csloat is right in that this discussion should probably continue on the WMD page... I believe a much more fruitful debate can occur in that environment. As for this page, to get the talk back on justifications for leaving it in, I have an issue with this view:

Links exist, a number of the ones on this list are also mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report (see pg 60-61 and pg 66 and footnotes) and not disputed by anyone. What is disputed is their significance (somewhere between nil and extremely important). - ObsidianOrder

If we are to use this as a justification, and set an allowable range of significance from "somewhere between nil and extremely important", then I am in every way justified in creating the following page:

Links between George W. Bush and Osama Bin Laden

It doesn't matter that the links between them are playing a game of six degrees of separation (Bush -> Bush Sr. -> House of Saud -> Bin Laden Family -> Osama) or (Bush -> Arbusto -> Saudi Investors -> Bin Laden Family -> Osama)... Do these links exist? Yes. Are they significant? Highly questionable. But according to your guideline, I am justified in creating such an article. Clearly, in naming an article, there is possible meaning inherent in the phrase that is more than its literal interpretation. --kizzle 16:52, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

kizzle - your example is a little bit more speculative than what we have here, but an article on Links between George W. Bush and the Saudi Royal Family for example would be fine. We are not talking about six degrees, we are talking about direct meetings. nobody disputes at least some of those meetings happened; they merely assume (based on no evidence) that the result of the meetings was insignificant. which is certainly possible, but the point is we don't know either way. that is a very different conclusion from "there is no connection". that's the whole point of this article. that's also what the 9/11 report said, and that's all i have to say on the subject. ObsidianOrder 17:52, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
We are not talking about direct meetings. No one has alleged that saddam hussien personaly met with al qaeda (unless you would like to be the first to). Kevin Baastalk: new 18:01, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)
Exactly KB. That's why I bring it up, Obsidian. --kizzle 18:05, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
And characterizing the 9/11 report's findings as "we don't know either way" is a bit unfair, I'm pretty sure I'm quoting verbatim that they found "there was no working relationship." --kizzle 18:06, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
In any case, there remains a great burden of proof, and no evidence. Kevin Baastalk: new 18:16, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)
Sounds like two great articles - Links between Bush family and the House of Saud and Links between George W. Bush and Osama Bin Laden. Anyone have any other ideas, now that fact is, apparently, something to be required by degree and he-said/she-said mistruths can be used to 'balance' facts? Hello, FOXipedia!-- RyanFreisling @ 18:11, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
How about Links between me and Bill Clinton? Here are two such links: (me->Peter Walthime->Bill Clinton) (me->(a friend of mine who had lunch with the clinton family)->Bill Clinton) There are multiple eye-witness accounts, and I can get testimonies. Kevin Baastalk: new 18:26, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)

Alright, alright, I think we get the picture :) But my point remains, any justification to name Links between Iraq and Al-Qaeda can also be used for Links between George W. Bush and Osama Bin Laden. Significance of these links in determining the tone of the article along with the title is paramount and not something that should be dismissed. And, as I write this, I don't believe that anyone has pointed out a "significant" relationship between Al-Qaeda and Iraq that justifies the article accepting these links as fact. --kizzle 18:53, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Be patriotic. Treason is wrong. To attack President Bush more than Saddam Hussein is disgusting. Thanks to Bush, Iraq is now democratic.

Alright, granted these links are just as, if not more substantial than the links between saddam hussien and al-qaeda, and therefore if an article exists for that, which such a title, so, too, should an article for more substantive links. Can we agree on a title, then? The current suggestions are:

Kevin Baastalk: new 20:53, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)

WP:RM removal

Since the debate is ongoing (to a massive degree) I have delisted this from WP:RM. The scope of the article now seems to be in question as well as the title. I would usually add it to "Voting time extended" but I don't see how a deadline can easily be set. violet/riga (t) 21:17, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think the first vote can be pretty much considered a deadlock. I think we need to put up a vote whether or not the current title is appropriate and announce ahead of time a simple majority after 72 hours will prevail (or any other fixed time limit)? Then, if we do decide to change, then we can decide on a name. Maybe that will tip the balance one way or the other. --kizzle 01:42, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

Nonsense. As proposer of the move I object to a simple majority. It's clear that we don't have consensus for the move, so the article should not be moved. We don't do votes on Wikipedi. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:49, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Alright, sheesh, just throwin that out there :) --kizzle 02:50, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

If a move was proposed from alleged links to links, there wouldn't be a consensus either. if both possibilites are below the threshold of "consensus", then the page title may be stuck in a sub-optimal state. w/a simple majority, the page can reach an optimal title.

In other words, if from one title, the vote to change to the other title is higher than vice-versa, then it is clear that the other title is more acceptable to the community.

In other words, if the title was alleged links, and the vote was to move it to links, there would not be a clear consensus to, and therefore, by your logic, tony, the title of the article should be "alleged links". yet at the sime time according to that logic, it should be links, and many other things - that logic leads to an inconsistent system. Kevin Baastalk: new 02:13, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)

There's no consensus to keep it under this title either, so I'll restate: Why not just move it to Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda? I see no objections to that simple, concise, and neutral title so far. —Charles P. (Mirv) 02:56, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I just did. Anyone who objects, move it back, but please explain why. —Charles P. (Mirv) 02:58, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I have no complaints...it seems NPOV and far better than the term alleged as part of the title...as I mentioned earlier...the article can be the place to either prove or disporove any links based on clear and factual referencing.--MONGO 03:07, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Please get Guiness on the phone, and someone take a picture :) - I agree with MONGO. -- RyanFreisling @ 03:11, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Don't say this much but I think I'm with Mongo on this. --kizzle 03:13, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

This title is mere speculation until a transcript of Saddam's interogation is published. Nobs 03:26, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not to pick a fight, but I would be less inclined to believe anything Saddam has to say now more than I would have while he was still in power...in light of the fact that he will probably be fighting to preserve his life.--MONGO 06:56, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The title, and the real origin of this content

As csloat noted Talk:Links_between_Iraq_and_Al-Qaeda/Archive1, you'll notice a complete overlap of content (and similar commentary) on the original author's web page [26]. That article is titled, interestingly enough, 'Saddam and Al Qaeda'. If that's a good enough title for their disinformation, it's good enough for us! -- RyanFreisling @ 04:06, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think Ryan was being sarcastic? Saddam and Al Qaeda is even more POV, it still needs alleged or something. zen master T 05:40, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oh my god we are never going to get a title for this. How is "Saddam and Al Qaeda" POV? Its just two names connected together with "and". Fine. How about The nature of relationship and/or linkage between Pre-War/2002 Iraq (specifically Saddam Hussein) and Osama Bin Laden and/or Al-Qaeda which is alleged by some but heavily disputed by others --kizzle 17:51, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

Saddam turning to religion

I have just a slight problem with this quote:

After the Gulf War, as Iraq experienced internal unrest, Hussein apparently turned to religion to bolster his government (for example, adding the words "God is Great" in Arabic to the Iraqi flag, and referring to God in his speeches).

"Apparently" is the word one uses when their not sure of their sources. Can we get some sourcing for this statement, or links to detailed analysis of this phenomenon? --kizzle 19:20, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

You're right, while I'm pretty sure this is correct I had not done the work to source it. It seems Saddam_Hussein#Postwar aftermath also refers to this in passing: "Saddam increasingly portrayed himself as a devout Muslim, in an effort to co-opt the conservative religious segments of society. Some elements of Sharia law were re-introduced (such as the 2001 edict imposing the death penalty for homosexuality and sexual offenses), and the ritual phrase "Allahu Akbar" ("God is great"), in Saddam's handwriting, was added to the national flag." I don't know of any detailed analysis (I'll look) but it was more or less common knowledge. ObsidianOrder 07:31, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
That's fine, I'm not a stickler for sources, but when someone uses "apparently", they're telling the reader they're unsure of them.--kizzle 08:45, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

title sentence

The alleged link was claimed to have caused considerable concern in the United States Bush administration, about a combination of their resources, motivating the subsequent invasion and Occupation of Iraq.

I'm not sure what the author of this is trying to say? Seems kind of awkward at best. --kizzle 19:27, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I wrote it, and I completely agree with you that its virtually senseless. The sad thing is that it was a 300 percent improvement over what was there before. :( -SV|t 21:49, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Aw it's alright :) Well, I'll try something else, just didn't want to step on anyone's toes. --kizzle 21:56, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

Content

One more thing, can we please stray from the "Some say/but others say" model for half of this page? If you know someone said it, then say who said it rather than attributing it to random hearsay. This is Wikipedia, not Fox News. --kizzle 19:34, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

Why was article renamed while vote was still in progress?

I don't support the currently Saddam title, less confusion (more specific) but also more POV. There are currently 14 to 11 votes in favor of the alleged links title. Should we revote for or against the current title, revert to old title, or go with alleged links? zen master T 06:33, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sidaway stated that there wasn't a concensus either way and that he was opposed to a change at all...though there is a majority in favor of changing it. Then it was changed, I agreed with the change, two others actually agreed with me and here we are. If you wish to take a new vote in favor or opposed to the current change or to redo the vote either way that's fine too. Personally I find the new title best because it allows us to create an article discussing the "links" between the previous government of Iraq and al-Qaeda, not the links since the "end of major combat" as Bush put it.--MONGO 06:53, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
There is more support for the alleged links title than anything else... zen master T 07:03, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The common manner of moving a page is without vote, just like editing content. It was determined rather quickly that the current title has more consensus than the suggested title. so the move was done. If you want to move it back, have a vote. i'm pretty confident that the majority will favor the current title. Kevin Baastalk: new 07:53, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)
How about Alleged links between the Bathist regime of Iraq and Al-Qaeda? There are already 14 votes in favor of alleged links.... zen master T 07:57, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
No, because Wikipedia titles don't have "Alleged" in them. The titles concisely list the subject matter, and the article details the various allegations. Jayjg (talk) 08:09, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Jayjg, see Gzuckier's post above. --kizzle 16:52, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

"Regime" is POV. "Baathist" is an "-ist" of the thing and not the thing itself. Not particularly useful in referring to a specific. Lets not pick up bad habits from news anchors, now. -SV|t 01:19, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Saddam and Al-Qaeda is POV

It's not like Al-Qaeda was even allegedly meeting directly with Saddam (but Donald Rumsfeld has). The best title is Alleged links between the Baathist government of Iraq and Al-Qaeda What do people think? zen master T 01:42, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, that brings up a good point; we know there were links between osama and saddam, in that both were financially and militarily backed by the Reagan/Bush administration. QED!!Gzuckier 21:24, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

vote on title, v.2

Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda
  1. Kevin Baastalk: new 01:44, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)
  2. --MONGO 03:00, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  3. Grue 05:33, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  4. --kizzle 20:25, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
  5. ObsidianOrder 10:02, 1 May 2005 (UTC) maybe not perfect but better than any of the proposed alternatives. I'm ok with it.
  6. Jayjg (talk) 04:02, 2 May 2005 (UTC) A reasonable title in line with Wikipedia naming conventions.
Alleged links between the Baathist government of Iraq and Al-Qaeda
  1. zen master T 01:51, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Alleged links between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda

Who moved this by the way? SV|t 01:58, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Question: is Al-Qaeda allegedly meeting with Saddam specifically? zen master T 02:00, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Fair point, but calling his government the "Baath government" is a bit off as well. -SV|t 17:14, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Alleged links between Iraq and Al-Qaeda
  • SV|t 17:14, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

saddam hussein vs. former iraqi government

The case for asserted links between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda, by George W. Bush

"This [Saddam Hussein] is a person who has had contacts with al Qaeda." Source: President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat; Remarks by the President on Iraq, White House (10/28/2002).

"Saddam Hussein is a man who told the world he wouldn't have weapons of mass destruction, but he's got them . . . . And not only that, [he would] like nothing more than to hook up with one of these shadowy terrorist networks like Al Qaeda, provide some weapons and training to them, let them come do his dirty work, and we wouldn't be able to see his fingerprints on his action." Source: Iraq Must Disarm Says President in South Dakota Speech, White House (11/3/2002).

"And I also mentioned the fact that there is a connection between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein." Source: President Condems Attack in Bali, White House (10/14/2002).

"It's a man who has got connections with Al Qaida. Imagine a terrorist network with Iraq as an arsenal and as a training ground, so that a Saddam Hussein could use this shadowy group of people to attack his enemy and leave no fingerprint behind. He's a threat." Source: Remarks by the President in Texas Welcome, White House (11/4/2002).

"This is a man who has had Al Qaida connections. I want you to think about a scenario in which he becomes the arsenal and the training grounds for shadowy terrorists so that he can attack somebody who (sic) hates and not leave any fingerprints behind. He is a threat." Source: Remarks by the President at Missouri Welcome, White House (11/4/2002).

"He's had contacts with Al Qaida. Imagine the scenario where an Al Qaida-type organization uses Iraq as an arsenal, a place to get weapons, a place to be trained to use the weapons. Saddam Hussein could use surrogates to come and attack people he hates." Source: Remarks by the President at Arkansas Welcome, White House (11/4/2002).

"He's a threat because he is dealing with Al Qaida. In my Cincinnati speech I reminded the American people, a true threat facing our country is that an Al Qaida-type network trained and armed by Saddam could attack America and leave not one fingerprint." Source: President Outlines Priorities, White House (11/7/2002).

"Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help develop their own." Source: President Delivers "State of the Union", White House (1/28/2003).

"Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses, and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other planes -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known." Source: President Delivers "State of the Union", White House (1/28/2003).

"Saddam Hussein has longstanding, direct and continuing ties to terrorist networks. Senior members of Iraqi intelligence and al Qaeda have met at least eight times since the early 1990s. Iraq has sent bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with al Qaeda. Iraq has also provided al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training. We also know that Iraq is harboring a terrorist network, headed by a senior al Qaeda terrorist planner." Source: President Bush: "World Can Rise to This Moment", White House (2/6/2003).

"One of the greatest dangers we face is that weapons of mass destruction might be passed to terrorists who would not hesitate to use those weapons. Saddam Hussein has longstanding, direct and continuing ties to terrorist networks. Senior members of Iraq intelligence and al Qaeda have met at least eight times since the early 1990s. Iraq has sent bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with al Qaeda. Iraq has also provided al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training. And an al Qaeda operative was sent to Iraq several times in the late 1990s for help in aquiring poisons and gases. We also know that Iraq is harboring a terrorist network headed by a senior al Qaeda terrorist planner." Source: President's Radio Address, White House (2/8/2003).

"He has trained and financed al Qaeda-type organizations before, al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations." Source: President George Bush Discusses Iraq in National Press Conference, White House (3/6/2003).

Kevin Baastalk: new 05:43, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)

Well duh, cause Saddam was behind 9/11. --kizzle 20:27, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

Sarcasm? zen master T 21:21, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

evolution

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

Title double standard, what is WP policy?

Why is this article's title straightforward and doesn't need an "allegations" or "claims" in it, yet there are other articles such as the 9/11 controversy articles that seem to require caveats such as "conspiracy claims" or "conspiracy theory" in them? 9/11 domestic conspiracy theory Someone mentioned on a talk page recently that there is a wikipedia policy that states articles should not have caveat words or words that pre-judge the subject in them such as "allegations". At the very least this alleged policy should be consistent and apply to all articles? Does this policy apply to titles with "conspiracy theory" or "conspiracy claims" in them? For a general discussion about this and the requisite degree of neutrality in a title see Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory. Using this article's title as an example and comparing it to an arguably equally dubious subject it seemingly would make sense to retitle the AIDS conspiracy theories article as AIDS and biowarfare (spliting irrelevant content to already existing articles). What do people think? zen master T 01:09, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

zen - it is simply because nobody credible has disputed the existance of some of the connections, specifically the first 1994 meeting in Sudan and the 1998 meeetings. The Kuala Lumpur meeting and the Salman Pak camp are also near universally accepted to be real, but it is unclear whether both parties participated in them. I'm sorry, but an encyclopedia does judge. If I make a wild claim out of thin air (such as most of the "AIDS conspiracy theories"), that is one thing. If numerous sources independently report things which support each other and are later confirmed by physical evidence, that is another thing. The current status of the Saddam-al-Quaeda connection is simply undecided (pending further evidence). It is not probably false (in which case it might merit "alleged" in the title), nor it is probably true (in which case the critics will be relegared to a section of the article). There is no double standard. What I think is more likely is that you are so unhappy with the extent of the evidence presented here that you feel the need to prejudge the subject before the reader gets to it. ObsidianOrder 01:32, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
The current status of the Saddam-al-Quaeda connection is simply undecided (pending further evidence)
"There is no evidence of a working relationship between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda" - Conclusion of the 9/11 report. --kizzle 19:24, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
In addition to Obsidian's points, I'll simply re-iterate that Wikipedia articles do not use "alleged" etc. in the titles. The subject is stated, and the article sorts out the details. And an allegation is not at all alike a conspiracy theory. Jayjg (talk) 17:44, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
Jayjg, see my earlier post pointing out Gzuckier's post above on other articles with "alleged" in the title. --kizzle 19:24, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
Why should allegations of a conspiracy theory be treated differently? All articles' titles should be simply stated. Allegations of Saddam involvement with Al-Qaeda is precisely a conspiracy theory so why the double standard? zen master T 18:12, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
They are simply two seperate articles, AIDS and AIDS conspiracy theories. One article speaks of information that is generally known and factual, the other is basically asks more questions than it answers. Nobs 01:45, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
Ok, then this article should be titled Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda support theories or Allegations of Baathist government of Iraq support for Al-Qaeda to be consistent? ObsidianOrder, there is more evidence that Iraq and Al-Qaeda did not have a relationship. Basically, a title should be 100% neutral and not assume any possible conclusions contained in the article. If something is factually a "wacky theory" any facts and citations that support that conclusion should be included in a neutrally titled article. zen master T 02:44, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
It is relevant to note here that as the article intro states (albeit buried), a comparable series of meetings to those listed here occured between Al-Qaeda and Saudi government officers, as well as those from other nations as well. Are such citations welcome in the timeline? If not, are we seeing POV by selectively listing only these contacts without context for the 'foreign policy' actions of these terrorist and national groups? -- RyanFreisling @ 03:57, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
Ryan - that would be fine, either under a section of the Al-Qaeda article ("Governments supporting ..."), under its own article (such as "Links between Al-Qaeda and various governments"), or if sizeable enough, under "X government and Al-Qaeda". I think that's fair, I have no objection to it. In particular "Iran/Saudi Arabia/Pakistan and Al-Qaeda" will be quite interesting and I'd be interested in contributing to them. This article can crosslink to those for context. I don't think that other government links properly belong in this article, though. ObsidianOrder 06:32, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
How about Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda conspiracy theories? Kevin Baastalk: new 04:04, 2005 May 3 (UTC)
If the justification is that the truth of a few of these allegations remain undetermined, and others are widely accepted to have taken place, then I think it's appropriate that the now-debunked allegations be marked more clearly, to keep from justifying the 'Alleged' title that this kind of half-true content would normally call for. -- RyanFreisling @ 04:26, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
so where would the claim that "Saddam Hussein has longstanding, direct and continuing ties to terrorist networks.", made by none other than the president of the United States, lie in that respect? Kevin Baastalk: new 04:30, 2005 May 3 (UTC)
Interviewer, Jan 31, 2003: "Do you believe that there is a link between Saddam Hussein, a direct link, and the men who attacked on September the 11th?" President Bush: "I can't make that claim."
Note he made that statement before this and after this. I'd call it either gross incompetence or complete manipulation of fact based on the desired goal.
Moreover, as I've maintained from the beginning, the more informative and contextually 'true' narrative for this article is one based on the administration's ongoing, relentless effort to twist intelligence to justify their war in Iraq (of which the Al-Qaeda relationship was but a single facet). The article as it stands is little more than the original poster's now-debunked list of allegations that he has posted to his web site and numerous blogs. The longer this article retains that flawed content and premise, the longer this page serves to disinform while it informs. -- RyanFreisling @ 04:42, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Talk:9/11_domestic_conspiracy_theory#Title_vote_.28various_options.29 Kevin Baastalk: new 04:36, 2005 May 3 (UTC)

An example of the need for a new format

PLEASE read through the below excerpt, which illustrates the significant need for a new context/format for the presentation of this article's content in an accurate and informative way.

It belongs in the article, as more than a 'statement'. The relationship between the claims and the evidence is a large part of the story. It also makes clear by direct example the danger of intentional 'cherry-picking' of allegations without context, without corroboration or relation to the existing body of actual evidence.

Quoted from the Knight-Ridder report of March 9, 2004 detailing Tenet's testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee CIA director disputes Cheney assertions on Iraq:

{Senator Carl} Levin {(D-MI)} also questioned Tenet about a Jan. 9 interview with the Rocky Mountain News, in which Cheney cited a November article in the Weekly Standard, a conservative magazine, as "the best source of information" on cooperation between Saddam and al-Qaida.
The article was based on a leaked top-secret memorandum. It purportedly set out evidence, compiled by a special Pentagon intelligence cell, that Saddam was in league with al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden. It was written by Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith, the third-highest Pentagon official and a key proponent of the war.
"Did the CIA agree with the contents of the Feith document?" asked Levin.
"Senator, we did not clear the document," replied Tenet. "We did not agree with the way the data was characterized in that document."
Tenet, who pointed out that the Pentagon, too, had disavowed the document, said he learned of the article Monday night, and he planned to speak with Cheney about the CIA's view of the Feith document.
In building the case for war, Bush, Cheney and other top officials relied in part on assessments by the CIA and other agencies. But they concealed disputes and dissents over Iraq's weapons programs and links to terrorists that were raging among analysts, U.S. diplomats and military officials. -- RyanFreisling @ 00:12, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
Ya seriously. Stephen Hayes = propaganda toolbag for Douglas Feith. --kizzle 02:05, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
Lets keep in context: the above is a press report about a press report (what's wrong with using the Congressional transcript), secondly, the memorandum originated in the Pentagon, Levin's question is addressed to CIA chief; (no evidence that the Pentagon is in the purvue of the CIA); third, question is about "agreement", Tenet does not dispute contents; fourth, the Knight-Ridder writer then makes a leap to the Pentagon disavowing the document. Obviously the report was a minority opinion, and there is no requirement that policy makers must use consensus data to make decision; fifth, the Knight-Ridder third genreation material uses the loaded language, "Saddam was in league with...", whatever that means, with no explaination. Nobs 17:43, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
Yes, let's keep it in context, as I have been pleading:
  1. The transcript is fine - the excerpt however shows CONTEXT, in a few lines, that links Cheney, the rationale, the memo, the Weekly Standard article, Hayes' book, and Tenet all in 3 easy-to-read lines. THAT IS WHAT THIS ARTICLE DESPERATELY NEEDS. In the absence of it this article is misinformation.
  2. The information needed is not necessarily the press report itself, it's the FACTUAL information contained in the report regarding the context of the leaked memo and its inaccuracy.
inaccuracy is unfair charchterization; should read disputed conclusions Nobs 02:49, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
I do not characterize. If my few-days old recollection serves, inaccurate is the very term used by both the Pentagon and Tenet to describe the memo. -- RyanFreisling @ 05:35, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
  1. The memo originated in the Pentagon, summarizing CIA data in a way that the CIA did not agree with.
  2. Tenet disputes the report. The contents may or may not be true - it's raw intelligence and should be treated as such, not taken as absolute fact (as the report and this article currently do).
  3. No leap. The Pentagon did indeed disavow the document at the link I provided in the article.
  4. It was not a minority opinion, it was a memo written by Feith based on selected, unsubstantiated raw CIA intelligence. You mischaracterize its origin.
  5. I don't understand your comment about loaded language vis a vis KR. Can you elaborate? -- RyanFreisling @ 17:53, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
  1. Tenet does not dispute the contents, only the analytical conclusions. In fact it may be leap to use the word "dispute", the CIA may have considered the conclusions use of the data premature. As also the Pentagon.
  2. There is no hint in the Knight-Ridder article that the Feith document was based on "CIA data" as you claim. I beleive the information in question originated with external (non-U.S) agencies. (the only connection of the CIA to this document in fact is Levin asking Tenet about it)
  3. A minority opinion is just that, a view less popular or conventional in government circles when discussing or analyzing information. The Feith document would appear so. This isn't to say that the view was corrupted or wrong, the only criticism appears to be it lacked evidence, thus the argument to do nothing and wait for more evidence. That response also must be considered in light of 911 Commission Report, etc., the changeing role of the FBI toward "prevention" and not just reacting, "failure to connect the dots" etc.
  4. "in league with" is certainly a journalistic phrase and I don't believe appears in the Congressional transcript or the Feith Report (I'm not certain and I could be wrong, but either way it doesnt belong there). "in league with" has a myriad of meanings, most of which would best be characterized as from a Western idiomatic point of view, and would fail to penetrate and understand nature of the relationship (assuming of course, there was a relationship).
  1. He and they do indeed. 'Raw Intelligence' means 'ww said xx did yy', not 'we have proof that xx did yy'. Conclusions so drawn are faulty, as Tenet and the Pentagon described as 'inaccurate' and 'unsupported conclusions'. Premature or no, they were inaccurate and unsupported. 'Disputed' is not strong enough - the memo was 'disavowed'.
  2. Claiming the Feith memo was not based on CIA data is blatantly untrue. From a site with which you may be familiar: "The Pentagon's statement continues: The items listed in the classified annex were either raw reports or products of the CIA, the NSA, or, in one case, the DIA. The provision of the classified annex to the Intelligence Committee was cleared by other agencies and done with the permission of the Intelligence Community. The selection of the documents was made by DOD to respond to the Committee's question. " [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1027628/posts]
  3. Claiming there was a 'majority' and a 'minority' opinion is assuming that there are only two opinions. From raw intelligence, that too is a failure of logic. Feith's 'opinion' existed already, and he chose 'facts' from raw, uncorroborated intelligence, to try to 'sell' that opinion.
  4. I still don't understand how that alters the relevance or veracity of the information or the context in which it is provided. And I promise I'm not trying to be obtuse. -- RyanFreisling @ 01:56, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
  1. As the source states "products of the CIA, the NSA, or, in one case, the DIA", in other words KR nowhere states Feith report is based on "raw CIA intelligence"; CIA may have been working on its own understanding of the intelligence that was collected by another agency and shared with the U.S. government. But Douglas Feith's work is not subordinate to CIA.
  2. From the KR full text: "The administration's statements, he said, reflected a prewar intelligence consensus that Saddam had stockpiled...". There really is no disagreement here. If the Feith report's view was held by no other persoan than Feith himslef, it still would be a minority or dissenting view from either the "consensus" view, or an "emerging consensus" view if one was not yet in existence at that time. It was most likely written to give cover for the lack of a consensus view because of the lack of corraborating evidence, yet certain higher level policy makers did not wish to be charged with "failure to act", or "failure to connect the dots" etc. etc. etc.
  3. The confusion comes from Carl Levin himself trying to twist facts with his loaded question: "Did the CIA agree with the contents of the Feith document?", when in fact Sen. Levin clearly means "Did the CIA agree with the conclusions of the Feith document?". Nobs 02:49, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
  1. Subordinate? Feith making conclusions from raw data is like a high-school biology major interpreting a cat scan. It's not reason or expertise enough to operate. That's why his conclusions were described as inaccurate, and the data as 'raw intelligence'. As Cheney himself described it, "the analysts analyze, the policymakers decide." Feith did neither. His memo (like this article) cherry-picked the intelligence useful to suggest the opinion he already held or the opinion his superiors (like Rumsfeld) held.
Absolutely correct. Feith analyzed. Cheney decided. Nobs 04:20, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
In his official role as policymaker (not analyst) "Undersecretary for Policy" at the Pentagon Feith discarded the preponderance of valid analyzed intelligence, parroted unconfirmed/'unanalyzed' data, and reported it upwards, to the Senate, and perhaps to Hayes and the Weekly Standard and media sources. He did not analyze, nor did he decide. -- RyanFreisling @ 04:41, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
  1. That quote refers to the intelligence gathered to support the WMD claim, not the terrorism claim.
  2. I don't think that reinterpretation of Feith's question is required. Why do you think his question was in error? -- RyanFreisling @ 03:55, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
I think the question was deliberately worded to give the false impression that CIA disagreed with the contents; Tenet did not disagree with the contents, i.e. raw data. He stated that the CIA either did not support Feith analysis of the raw data or that CIA had not yet made a finding to support a similiar analsis. As a note of claritity, what specifically is the rawq data in question? Is it the Czech intellence agency's report of Muhammad Ata's activities in Prague? Nobs 04:20, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
The data is contained in the memo, in the form of references to fifty or so different documents selected by Feith. This article comprises some of them as well. To respond to your specific allegation, Atta has already been proven by extensive review by other intelligence services than just the Czechs NOT to have visited Prague as alleged... but that point is no longer een strongly alleged in the article. And Tenet did indeed dispute the accuracy of the raw data - not because it was proven false or true - but because it was not yet proven! Because it was raw, and in widely varying states of corroboration and truth, and therefore not reason enough to bring a democracy into war. Much of these points, though described by Cheney as "the best source of information" on the link, had at the time and have remained debunked by the vast preponderance of contrary evidence. -- RyanFreisling @ 04:41, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
I would not characterize "waiting for coroboration" with "disputing" Nobs 04:59, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
"Waiting for corroboration" is a completely invalid approach to intelligence, for it presupposes a foregone conclusion. -- RyanFreisling @ 05:05, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
Note on method: the discussion centers around a bureaucracy's unwillingness to take risks and make judgements for fear of anyone being wrong. The consensus view does not pass judgement on the raw data, yah or nay; it rather can be characterized as "do nothing and wait" because there is not enough evidence for a valid judgement to be made. So in other words, a judgement could not be made because they didn't know all the facts. Not being in possession of all the facts then I see in the above posting a similiar process: "therefore not reason enough to bring a democracy into war", i.e. making a premature judgement not based on all the evidence. This is permissible, provided one is willing to accept the consequences of being wrong. Nobs 05:16, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
Your characterization of the discussion around bureaucratic intransigence is, to say the least, to miss the point I'm making here. -- RyanFreisling @ 05:27, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
Lack of corroboration does not disprove a theory; it only remains uncorroborated. Nobs 05:20, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
That borders on doublespeak. It doesn't justify the misinformative content and conclusion included in Feith's memo. And the leak puts these allegations in the public domain, where allegations without substance by their very nature cannot always be disproven - you cannot always prove something definitively did not happen, especially those allegations based on incorrect information by sometimes quite dubious sources. In government, to do anything less than one's best to determine and represent the truth to one's colleagues is to endanger the security of the nation and the world in exchange for selective policy goals. The very thing such 'memos' represent - communication between the executive and the legislative. -- RyanFreisling @ 05:27, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm not certain where the term allegation comes from, which you use four times in the above posting.
  • An uncorroborated premise remains uncorroborated until it is either corroborated (established as fact) or disproven. This was the case of the "raw data" under discussion in the KR article, which was the subject of the Levin-Tenet discussion. Sen. Levin was asking if Tenet & the CIA agreed with Feith judgement's and conclusions that Feith wrote based on the "raw data", a job analysts throughout the government were tasked with. No consensus view emerged whether the data was valid or invalid, only that it was inconclusive. Feith dissented from that consensus view. Cheney adopted the arguement. Nobs 05:42, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
All of which was and is as yet unproven. Desired policy determines the requisite intelligence. Staggering. You'll notice the dissenting CIA has since begun a purge at the hands of the new Bush-appointed Porter Goss.
Last, your summary about Feith/Cheney alone necessitates a proper description of the context here on Wikipedia for these allegations (and when I say allegation think 'unproven report or assertion'). Remember that many of these cherry-picked allegations/reports have been roundly disproven, by contradictory information that was not included, not leaked, and is thus still secret. Enough to cause the CIA to dissent. -- RyanFreisling @ 05:51, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
"allegation" is a journalistic disclaimer, i.e. a phrase domestic newspapers use to disclaim liability from slander when reporting news about suspects and crimes, and only serves to clutter up this discussion with the discoloration of "wrongdoing"; wikipedia is not a news outlet in need of legal protection by disclaiming "alleged wrongdoing" either on Saddam Hussein's part or policymakers. Nobs 05:14, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
"allegation" is an accurate characterization of a statement made. See This is not a pipe. If, indeed, that which was alleged was witnessed and verifiable by the general public, then the allegation would be extraneuous and wikipedia would simply state "the sky is blue". In contrast, if an event that cannot, by nature, be witnessed, such as a purported past event, is alleged by someone to have happen, the only fact we have, and therefore the only thing there is to present, is the allegation itself. We simply do not have access to the referant, and to refer to the referent from a first-person or third-person omniscent perspective would be to decieve the reader as to our relation to it. Kevin Baastalk: new 05:58, 2005 May 7 (UTC)

proposition for new format

Kevin Baas's proposal

  1. What has been alleged - statements made by the adminstration, such as "[Saddam Hussein] has trained and financed al Qaeda-type organizations before: al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations...", "He's had contacts with Al Qaida.", and "Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda."
  2. what the known facts are, from intelligence reports and the like - in proportion.
  3. how the allegations stand up under the facts.
  4. (this is usually analysis, but analysis doesn't belong on wikipedia) public perception on this issue.

Kevin Baastalk: new 21:00, 2005 May 3 (UTC)

3 seems dangerously close to original research, unless all we are doing is citing, but who would we cite in this case? --kizzle 22:34, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
I'd say 2 before 1 (facts as we know them are more important than official statements), scratch 3 since frankly there is no neutral source for that, and very brief 4. ObsidianOrder 23:13, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
I like having 1 in the beginning, remember what context we're talking about in discussing this link, as it was cited as a main reason for invading Iraq and taking out Saddam. It is important to preface the article with that information and how this discussion of linkage began in the first place. --kizzle 23:20, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
Regards 3: I didn't word it very well, more or less I meant matching the allegations with the known facts, in retropsect, if 1 and 2 are organized in the same way, this section would be extraneous. Kevin Baastalk: new 23:36, 2005 May 3 (UTC)

I am considering moving the "statements" section up to directly after the "background" section, in pursuance of the proposed format. What are people's views on this matter? Kevin Baastalk: new 02:57, 2005 May 17 (UTC)

The "statements" in this case are like Quotes, which usually go at the bottom. Jayjg (talk) 03:00, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
My reasoning is that the statements (at least those made by the administration) are the charges, which provide the context of this article, and context should come first. Kevin Baastalk: new 03:19, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
I disagree. Since the charges in this case are all demonstrably false, it would be a bad idea, since putting them at the top will make them seem like they are true, especially for a reader who doesn't read all the way through. From the beginning this article should be clear that all these charges are disputed. --csloat 17:03, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
I second csloat. The allegations, some of which have absolutely no corroboration other than the leaked, now-disavowed Feith memo, are misleading and as I mentioned above, constitute actual misinformation. As with other controversial articles, I feel we should lose the allegations other than those specifically corroborated (and a number of them are indeed corroborated). Note that such corroboration does not include reports that quote the source, but rather includes other reports from other sources as to the same allegations. For instances like allegations now disavowed by the purported participants themselves (some of whom are now-captive, proven Al Qaeda operatives), I believe a presentation of both sides of the issue is warranted, if the point is relevant enough to be included in this article. Obsidian Order's website that contains the original text of this article is already out on the web, and duplicating those bullet points here, especially when uncorroborated, does not serve to inform the reader.
All of this presupposes, however, that these specific allegations are required for this article. I lean to the belief that such a listing is indeed useful - being illustrative of the controversy within the administration, intelligence community and public opinion - but only where such a listing accurately represents the scope of 'known knowns', to quote Donald Rumsfeld. -- RyanFreisling @ 04:35, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

proposition 2

I think this is what ryanfresling meant in some brief discussin i had with him before he took a wikivacation:

This page is about saddam hussein and al qaeda, so lets talk about saddam hussein and al qaeda. you knowk like, "saddam hussein is a person", "al qaeda is a terrorist organization", "they have nothing in common". and them at the end of the article we can put any recent events that are related to the two, like "after much discussion about how he could get the public to support an invasion of iraqt , george bush had the intelligence agency look for links between the two (see data mining/confirmation bias), and the cia came back and told him that they couldn't find any, so he put a vagure refrence to links in his speeches (quote, cite some such speeches).... the intelligence report found "no collaborative relationship...".

I.e. first just tell it like it is: "the grass is green." then talk about people's views: "some people think it's red", along with balancing views "most scientists say that those people think that because they are red-green colorblind."

what are people's views on this? Kevin Baastalk: new 18:28, 2005 May 18 (UTC)

Well, it seems that the article was moved to a new title, and now you're saying the contents no longer match the title, so we should change the contents to match. I think it makes more sense to move it back to the old title. Jayjg (talk) 20:10, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
It was established that the old title was POV. Perhaps it would be more appropriate to, in keeping with the same organization as other topics, such as AIDS, as well as the consensus on Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory to move this article to or have a new article titled "Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda conspiracy theory", esp. since the phrase "conspiracy theory" has been established by consensus to be a NPOV phrase. We can have a page under the current title for the facts, and a page under the new title for the conspiracy theory - the contents would thus match the NPOV title. Kevin Baastalk: new 22:02, 2005 May 18 (UTC)
No such thing was established, or has been established. If you look at the votes on this subject, the strong consensus is that "conspiracy theory" is not POV. Moreover, the conclusion on this page was to keep the article where it was, since most "consensus" votes require at least a 2/3rds majority. Please stop trying to misrepresent your POV as "consensus". Jayjg (talk) 22:15, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
Jayjg, what I have stated is not my POV. It is your POV (as evidenced by the vote), and it is contrary to my POV. As you clearly stated directly above, speaking in opposition to your POV (which you erroneosly called my POV), "If you look at the votes on this subject, the strong consensus is that "conspiracy theory" is not POV." My POV that "conspiracy theory" is POV, is distinct from your POV which you call "the strong consensus". (and I agree that it is.) Given my position, I am personally against making an article with the title "Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda conspiracy theory". However, my POV is not the consensus, and I will not, nor have I ever, represented it as such. Kevin Baastalk: new 22:30, 2005 May 18 (UTC)
You see, when I said "the phrase "conspiracy theory" has been established by consensus to be a NPOV phrase.", I was saying that "If you look at the votes on this subject, the strong consensus is that "conspiracy theory" is not POV." I said that, since "the strong consensus is that "conspiracy theory" is not POV.", it would, according to the strong consensus, which includes your vote, not be POV to title this page "Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda conspiracy theory". As you can see by my vote, I think it would be POV to title this page "Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda conspiracy theory". However, unlike you, I am not representing my view as the consensus. Kevin Baastalk: new 22:44, 2005 May 18 (UTC)

More views?... Kevin Baastalk: new 21:03, 2005 May 20 (UTC)

Hey there. I'm back. I'm not sure I follow this section's point enough to comment yet, but I don't think I disagree with Baas. I'll parse and think. -- RyanFreisling @ 04:36, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
Kevin - "they have nothing in common" - indeed? and your evidence of that is? this is a lot more complicated of an issue than what you suggest. even the sources people commonly cite as proof of "no relationship" do not actually say (or suggest) anything of the kind, on a more careful reading. you typically mangled what the 9/11 report says: the full quote is "we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship". read that a few times and think about it. heck, the 9/11 report does not even say that atta definitely did not meet al-ani in prague ("cannot absolutely rule out"!) and that's one of the least well supported claims. the "tell it like it is" story is that we don't know. there are some links which are very suggestive of a relationship, even of collaboration on 9/11, but none of them are definitively proven. there are some things which pointing the other way too. everyone has to come to their own conclusions about this. ObsidianOrder 15:36, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
Why is the burden of proof, as you suggest, on disproving an event rather than proving it existed in the first place? --kizzle 16:18, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
Umm, because this is not a court? We want to present what is known about the subject (including the degree of reliability of various information), not pass a sentence. ObsidianOrder 16:28, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
Right, ok, my bad. Next time I'll pull something completely out of my ass, and when you can't find anything to disprove it, we can just simply conclude we don't know either way. --kizzle 16:49, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
Look, in case you didn't know, bush didn't say that there were links because there were links - that whole iraq-al qaeda bit had nothing to do with american intelligence. it had everything to do with manipulating public opinion. they have about as much in common as any random country has with any random terrorist organization - i say this because iraq was not picked on the basis of having any ties to al qaeda, nor was al qaeda picked on the basis of having any ties to iraq - iraq was picked because bush wanted to invade it, and al qaeda was picked because of 9-11. the reason this article - the reason any of this discussion is here in the first place - has nothing at all to do with links between saddamm hussein and al-qaeda. the cia was asked to data mine for links, and no surpirse they found some, there's going to be a little bit for every country, but incidental. really, we'd be much more just in writting an article linking saddam hussein and donald rumsfield: they actually met, twice, and that's evidence we don't have to search the entire cia data repository to find. they met so that donald, and former emissary George W. Bush, could give him weapons to sue agianst his neighbors - that's proof of a collaborative relationship right there, something the 9/11 commission report said hussein and al qaeda didn't have. being that there is no article on the collaborative relationship between hussein and rumsfield, and noone is seriously suggesting that there should be - being that, supposedly "donald rumsfield and saddam hussein have nothing in common", supposedly the secular saddam hussein and the religious fundamentalist group al qaeda, sworn enemies of each other, supposedly do? For one reason and one reason only: the bush administration wanted people to associate 9/11 with iraq, to turn the surge in support from 9/11 into consent for the war. it had nothing to do with the existence or lack thereof of any actual "links" between the two. Kevin Baastalk: new 16:13, 2005 May 25 (UTC)
"didn't have" - no, it does not say that. read that full quote again. you are dragging the war and political decisions into this. sorry, but it is not relevant: whether (and how much) iraq supported al-qaeda is a question that has an independent existance and an answer regardless of what anyone may or may not want to use that answer for. our purpose is only to try to find that out or at least lay out what is known about it, the rest belongs in Influence of perceived links between Saddam and Al-Qaeda on the decision to go to war with Saddam which is a different article. ObsidianOrder 16:28, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
I'm not dragging the war and political decisions into this, I am trying to take them out of this. Kevin Baastalk: new 16:56, 2005 May 25 (UTC)
The whole existence of this article is b.s., and it would not be here did bush et. al. not have the audacity to desecrate the victims of 9/11 by using people's grief for them as a political tool. This article shouldn't be here. It endorses such desecration of the victims of 9/11 and represents an otherwise random and arbitrary juxtaposition of two otherwise independant things. but this article is here, and the best we can do is not start with that insignificant b.s. about "links" between hussein and al-qaeda that are weaker than the links between hussein and George W. Bush, the trumpeter himself. Kevin Baastalk: new 16:32, 2005 May 25 (UTC)
I love that we have an article who's main point, Links between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda, cannot even be shown to be likely through evidence. I swear, when I get bored sometime in the future, I am creating a Links between George W. Bush and Osama Bin Laden page just to spite this page. --kizzle 17:24, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
Actually there would be far more evidence for such an article than there is for this one, at least if you call speculations about possible meetings "evidence," as is implied in this article. I agree; this article is bogus, but if it's going to be here, every potential "link" should be refuted clearly. A George Bush/OBL connection article is actually a good idea, because the links are stronger and go back further (for example, OBL's brother supposedly was involved in "October Surprise" 1980, according to Paul Thompson). The overall effect would be the same - speculation about meetings combined with innuendo, painting a picture of a conspiratorial relationship between Saddam (or George) and al Qaeda. --csloat 20:37, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
Mmmm...I love misleading through blind speculation and innuendo. --kizzle 23:45, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

atta/prague

csloat, your version is innacurate:

Evidence suggests this was a case of mistaken identity by Czech authorities [27]. The meeting is similarly disputed by U.S. intelligence organizations, who after extensive investigation have determined it never took place. Even the Czech government later admitted they did not believe Atta was at the meeting ([28])
  1. the "mistaken identity" article only suggests there were two entry attempts into the Czech Republic by people who gave very similar names but had different passports (one Pakistani, one Egyptian). It does not suggest anything about whether one or both of them were or were not the hijacker Atta. Additionally, this refers to the May/June 2000 visits, not the April 2001 visit.
  2. "have determined it never took place" is a way more definitive statement than what anyone has claimed. I gave an exact quote by Mueller, I think it best to leave it at that. And it is best to cite the FBI, not some anonymous "U.S. intelligence organizations".
  3. "the Czech government later admitted they did not believe Atta was at the meeting" is not what the article that you cite says, and that does not even quote the Czechs aside from a tiny out of context quote ("he may be different") by an unidentified source.

All in all this is a very inaccurate characterization of the positions and statements of the various people involved. (1) should be paraphrased, (2) should be left as the exact Mueller quote, and for (3), if you can find a better source for any Czech retraction, give an exact quote from that as well. I think that's fair. ObsidianOrder 22:38, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

The Czech retraction was widely reported and you could easily find a source for it if you were motivated to. I'll dig up my sources when I've got the time to revise what is now an inaccurate assessment of this highly controversial allegation. -- RyanFreisling @ 00:17, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Ryan, the Czech retraction was a figment of the NY Times imagination. I was just reading about this so I do not have the source at hand but the Czech government actually contacted the U.S. and assured them the meeting DID take place. RonCram

That's simply untrue, in both allegations. It was no figment (it occurred), and the meeting very likely DID NOT take place, in the estimation of actual intelligence professionals. And you are now the second person to regurgitate that untruth without sources. -- RyanFreisling @ 13:11, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
I'm fine with switching to exact quotes, though the Mueller quote is not the only relevant statement. Intelligence analysts have been pretty clear that they have concluded Atta was in Florida in April 2001. There seems to be nothing substantial backing this up, and in fact the source does show the Czech officials backing off the claim and agreeing the CIA was probably correct. --csloat 02:44, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

911 Coimmision Section

I vote we delete this entire section. These long unanalyzed quotes add nothing to the discussion. We can put them on the discussion page so we can easily quote from them when necessary but they do not belong on the main article at all. Any objections to removing them completely?

I also question the value of the "Statements" section. Again, we should use the important ones in the article itself; there is no need for a list of all this stuff. --csloat 02:47, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I think the 9/11 commission section should stay, it is almost impossible to summarize without changing its meaning. I've already trimmed it to just the relevant paragraphs+footnotes. Perhaps it can be trimmed more (esp the footnotes) but I am generally opposed to replacing it with an original summary or analysis. The statements section is also useful, it should contain the ones that do not pertain to any specific bit of evidence or specific occurence. ObsidianOrder 15:24, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
In what way is any of this information useful? Nobody is going to read through these long quotes from the 911 Commission report. It's useful to researchers to have them all in one place, perhaps, but then you make a web page for that and link to it from Wikipedia rather than putting it here. Can you show me a printed encyclopedia anywhere that has an entry with long unexplained quotations filled with details like this? As for the statements section, I think whatever is useful there could be integrated into the introduction. Perhaps there should be an "Analysis" section after the intro that includes some of these quotes and, most importantly, emphasizes that all serious analyses of the so-called "links" have turned up nothing meaningful.--csloat 16:58, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I haven't seen any response from OO and nobody else is stepping in to defend this section. I am going to delete the 911 Commission section and put the quotes on a separate page in case anyone wants to refer to it.csloat 22:03, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

RFC

I have listed this article, which no longer informs but now represents an act of active disinformation of the sort originally employed to 'leak and pervade' these now-disproven allegations, on RFC. This is a step on the way to it's eventual removal or drastic rewriting, especially since the list of allegations remains in multiple locations on the web, as posted by the original author. Wikipedia is not a tool for propaganda, it is an encyclopedia. -- RyanFreisling @ 15:42, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Ryan, I simply don't understand why this is such a problem. The criticisms of and problems with some of the things the article talks about are well documented. I think the article has gone a long way towards being more informative, more complete and more neutral since my original version, and you contributed to that. "now-disproven"? Is that true of everything in there? That is one hell of a POV. Surely, if slim evidence is not enough to "prove" one of these, neither is equally slim evidence enough to "disprove"? I consider most of the items in there to be indeterminate, not proven or disproven, and I would put their likelyhood at anywhere between 20 and 80% depending on which one we're talking about. They are not presented as facts (except for the few which are essentially not disputed by anyone). There is no "propaganda" here, just laying out all the evidence, and every single thing is extensively sourced. "disinformation"? What, exactly? ObsidianOrder 16:13, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
I consider most of the items in there to be indeterminate, not proven or disproven...
Just thought I'd help in finding some words to characterize the items in this article. --kizzle 19:09, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
ru·mor Pronunciation Key (rmr) n. - A piece of unverified information of uncertain origin usually spread by word of mouth. [29]
hear·say Pronunciation Key (hîrs) n. - Unverified information heard or received from another; rumor [30]
base·less Pronunciation Key (bsls) adj. - Having no basis or foundation in fact; unfounded. Synonyms: baseless, groundless, idle, unfounded, unwarranted [31]
The word you're hunting for is simply unverified (or perhaps incompletely verified) ObsidianOrder 21:31, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
They are not presented as facts...
Then what the fuck are we doing? --kizzle 19:09, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
We are presenting the available evidence. You may want to look up how that compares with fact in the dictionary. ObsidianOrder 21:31, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
fact n :
  1. a piece of information about circumstances that exist or events that have occurred; "first you must collect all the facts of the case"
  2. a statement or assertion of verified information about something that is the case or has happened; "he supported his argument with an impressive array of facts"
  3. an event known to have happened or something known to have existed; "your fears have no basis in fact"; "how much of the story is fact and how much fiction is hard to tell"
  4. a concept whose truth can be proved; "scientific hypotheses are not facts"
The word you're hunting for is simply unverified...
See definition #2. --kizzle 23:41, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
You know well that I do not claim everything in this article is disproven. I claim that the collection of these allegations, intended to establish a collusion between Iraq and Al-Qaeda regardless of the overwhelming preponderance to the contrary, is disinformation. For many of the bullet points in your list, there is no other source that reported the alleged event, and there are some instances where those who originally reported it (informers, intelligence services, etc.) accompanied or clarified the leaked allegations with disclaimers, which were omitted and will remain so unless others 'clean up your work'. It's disingenuous, for example, to claim the Czechs maintain Atta met in April 2001 with an Iraqi intelligence agent in Prague. It's disingenuous to maintain that the connections listed herein are in any way indicative of a pattern of involvement by Iraq in Al-Qaeda's war against America. And it's extremely disingenuous (and disinformative) to revert what are completely accurate, widely-known facts (that you yourself are aware of) because sources haven't been cited to counter uncorroborated, now-discredited Feith memo/Weekly Standard propaganda. And most of all, it is patently disinformation to repeat a claim by an unidentified source when that claim has been disavowed.
It is patently disingenuous to rate the likelihood of an allegation as anything % when there is an unknown, uncorroborated source, without anything but a disavowal by the intelligence and defense services that collected it.
Wikipedia requires a far more critical filter than that. -- RyanFreisling @ 16:36, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
"there is no other source that reported the alleged event" - true, in some cases. that is the nature of intelligence work, you do not always get a nice independent confirmation. "overwhelming preponderance to the contrary" - you're welcome to add that to this article, of course. the problem is that the absence of any information that X is true is not preponderance that not-X is true, even if you have really spent a lot of effort looked for information about X. "those who originally reported it accompanied or clarified the leaked allegations with disclaimers" - which ones? add them. "to claim the Czechs maintain Atta met in April 2001" - I have indeed looked for an official Czech denial or withdrawal of that claim, but I have not found one. This is the closest [32], and it is merely "doubt", not denial. Do you have an actual withdrawal or denial? "indicative of a pattern of involvement" - have I said that? "revert what are completely accurate, widely-known facts" - such as? "now-discredited Feith memo" - that's your opinion, I tend to think rather that the DIA and the CIA have a significant disagreement. "claim has been disavowed" - which one? ObsidianOrder 17:09, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
I don't need niceties. An intelligence report can contain an item saying 'a secret informant reports that ObsidianOrder is a paid operative of the Erode Wikipedia Cabal run by Bozo the Clown and the now-bodysnatched Colonel Sanders', but such a data point does not constitute intelligence. It's a report. The experts cull such reports to those that can be proven, and actively search for such proof, to shore up their conclusions before they are made. The unique nature of this situation is that those attempting to make the case for war against Iraq used such uncorroborated reports, bypassing corroboration - and in the words of the director of Britain's MI6, "fixed the intelligence around the policy". By leaking all the datapoints, corroborated and not, one performs an act of disinformation. Re: the Czech retraction - it has been cited in the article's sources already, and it is not at all personal opinion that they have stated that their original conclusion was in all likelihood, incorrect. That is fact and I cannot believe you have been unable to find independent corroboration. And The CIA (Tenet) and the DIA (Pentagon) both publically addressed the Feith memo, in Congressional testimony and in a press release, calling it in both cases 'inaccurate', and stating that they did not support the conclusions made therein. -- RyanFreisling @ 17:26, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
Dang, you've blown my cover ;) The "experts" aren't all they're cranked up to be. Sorry, I prefer to figure things out for myself, and I think most readers would agree. "leaking all the datapoints" - that would be ideal, as it is we only have some, but all would certainly be preferable. "those that can be proven" - very rarely can anything be proven when it matters. "those attempting to make the case for war" - maybe, or maybe they just didn't have a lot of confidence in the intelligence evaluations coming from certain agencies. "I cannot believe you have been unable to find independent corroboration" - well, believe it, I could not find one from the Czech. Denials from US sources, certainly. Can you find one? ObsidianOrder 19:57, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
Actually, in a simple search of my records, I found six different reports, from the NYTimes, Guardian, UPI, Associated Press, Newsweek and the Washington Post, describing the Czech retractions. And again, placing this 'challenge' here to provide known information to counter sketchy information is directly counter to the idea of Wikipedia. You should have done your own homework.
In addition, I don't even think you appreciate how appalling your statement "very rarely can anything be proven when it matters." is. A fundamental respect for fact (which cannot be balanced by allegations in the interests of balance) is core to Wikipedia, and is the first thing jettisoned in the creation and dissemination of disinformation. Based on your perception of the role of fact, and on your seeming inability/disinclination to remove spurious rumor and provide facts that might counter your premise, this article is propaganda. -- RyanFreisling @ 20:06, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
Ok, so perhaps you can grace us with a reference to one of the six? Mind you, what I'm talking about is an official statement by a Czech source preferably of the same caliber as the ones which made the original announcement. "appalling statement" - no, I just have a higher standard for considering something "proven"; most of this does not meet it. "remove spurious rumor and provide facts" - again, that is entirely subjective - a neutral statement would be "remove claims (which RyanF considers wrong) and provide claims (which RyanF considers accurate)". Rumors are information from an unknown source (which this article does not contain, all sources are stated) and facts are verified information about something which has really happened (which this article contains few of, since insufficient information is available about many aspects of it to consider them facts). What fact is not provided? What "spurious rumor" is not removed? ObsidianOrder 21:28, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
So, information that contradicts your premise must be 'official', but the allegations you brought here from your website can be from unnamed sources in leaked memos? And statements supporting linkage between Al-Qaeda and Iraq can be from unnamed sources, in leaked memos disavowed by the Directors of those intelligence and defense services, but statements that do not support your premise must all be of an 'equal' stature to prior claims? Just so I understand what you consider accurate and 'useful' information. Moreover, your personalization of this around my beliefs is entirely irrelevant to this discussion, and does not bear on the objective establishment of fact. Fact is fact, and your 'higher standard' is the personal POV, not my request for corroboration. For references, I ask you to expend approximately 30 seconds on the web and come up with them yourself, to demonstrate that you are in fact interested in objective research that might contradict your premise. I have them, and can provide them, if you demonstrate you are in fact able to learn from them. The article is based largely on spurious rumors, often anonymous and discredited by the 'experts' whose professional opinions you selectively ignore in favor of your own, uninformed 'opinions', and I have already identified a number of them for you, so I will not go circular with this. -- RyanFreisling @ 21:43, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Saddam_Hussein_and_al-Qaeda_link_allegations/Archive_1&oldid=1276862150"