Talk:Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda link allegations/Archive 7

List of sources

I think the list of sources should be cleaned up at some point. One option is to list only sources cited in the article. That is unnecessary since we have works cited in the footnotes as well. Another option is a "further reading" section. Such a section should be subdivided -- works from official sources, books, articles, and major news stories. Opinion pieces should be sparing at best -- a couple on each "side" of the issue perhaps. There is no need to cite every article on the issue, and I certainly don't want to start a tit-for-tat with Ron -- he keeps piling every article he finds in support of the theory that Saddam ran al-Qaeda, and I am resisting the urge to pile on articles that conclude the opposite every time. Some of the sources he adds are useful to researchers, e.g. the Baer opinion; others are simply rehashes of the arguments that he includes only to make the case for the conspiracy theory. I don't want to turn that section into another battleground, but I'd like to hear what others think about it.--csloat 10:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I would ask you not to delete any of the sources I list as I plan to use these sources in an upcoming rewrite. The article is badly non-compliant with wikipedia policy and I am looking forward to making it much better. Specifically, the Baer decision in U.S. District Court that Saddam and al-Qaeda did cooperate in the 9/11 attacks is an interesting historical event that readers deserve to know about, even if I am not totally convinced myself. One of the main uses of an encyclopedia is the list of sources so researchers can learn more. Researchers deserve access to Baer's reasoning in the case.RonCram 11:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Why not indicate what you think is noncompliant about this article rather than teasing us with promises of an upcoming rewrite? I have been making suggestions for several months about ways of reorganizing this article; the only thing you have seemed interested in doing, however, is turning the article into a forum for various conspiracy theories. Since the article is about a conspiracy theory, some of that is perhaps inevitable, but I have been trying to steer the discussion away from a right-wing/left-wing debate and towards producing a more concise and useful encyclopedia entry. I think the timeline should be a separate page and the major points should be dealt with here thematically. There are really only a few "connections" to discuss -- the Zarqawi link, the Atta meeting, the meetings in 1994, the alleged meetings in 1998, Salman Pak, and perhaps a couple other things; a lot of the stuff from the timeline could be broken up and put into those sections. Then there are the various investigations to detail -- the CIA, NSA, FBI, State Department, DIA, 9/11 Commission, SSCI, British intel, Spanish intel, Czech intel; probably a couple others I can't think of offhand. Then a section for major statements -- Bush Admin statements, Clinton Admin statements, comments from experts (including the comments from Mr. Scheuer that you are so fond of, Ron). It would still be pretty long but the timeline itself would have a separate article for people who want to do more in-depth research. As for Baer, please re-read my comment above - I agree the Baer decision is useful to researchers. I don't see the use of your other additions. Again, I'd like to stop all the left-wing/right-wing debate games, since they are leading us nowhere, and I am tiring of them.--csloat 11:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I misread your comment on Baer. Each of the other articles I linked to add something useful to the article and to researchers. This is not a case of "piling on." RonCram 11:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I see you're continuing to "pile on" biased articles in the sources section. Why not initiate a discussion about what you're trying to prove with all of these excessively biased articles? Thomas Joscelyn, of course, is another known prevaricator like Mr. Hayes. Again I am resisting the urge not to balance each of your sources with sources from the other side. There are plenty of articles from the Nation, from antiwar.com, from Mother Jones, from the World Socialist Web Site, and other left-leaning opinion sources that I could add to balance off the stuff you are adding. I think all of it should be deleted and we should just include mainstream objective news sources. So, once again, can you please explain what you're trying to do with this information rather than continue nickle-and-diming the source list until it loses all credibility? Thanks.--csloat 01:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite of the article

Several people have complained about the article being too long and too POV. One proposed solution was to move the timeline portion to its own article. I have done so.

The article was also strongly POV and needed balancing. I have made a strong effort to maintain all of the main points favoring the official view that no operational relationship exists. But I have also attempted to present a fair amount of evidence to explain why some experts, such as 9/11 Commission member Bob Kerrey, has changed his mind and now sees an operational relationship.

I have also addressed briefly information about the possibility Iraq was involved in the attacks of 9/11. This is done not because I am convinced Iraq was involved in 9/11, but because it provides researchers the original sources about this debate. These sources include the “Opinion and Order” by Judge Baer that concluded Saddam and bin Laden conspired on the 9/11 attacks.

The final goal was to make the article more readable.RonCram 01:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The article's problem was organization, not POV. Please, Ron, to avoid an edit war, make a list of the major changes you have made with your justifications. When an article is contentious, a host of massive POV-shifting changes without explanation is extremely destructive to discourse here. I have asked you several times what was wrong with the article and you chose not to answer; waiting to drop all of your changes at once in order to avoid discussion of them. Just looking over your changes at a glance, I see a number of horrific POV shifts. The inclusion of an entire section about the utterly discredited conspiracy theories of Mylroie, for example, is beyond ludicrous. I realize also you put a lot of stake in Bob Kerrey's opinion, but he is not an expert, and he is the only known member of the 9/11 Commision to have changed his opinion, and he never explained precisely what evidence from the OIF documents led him to do so (esp. since most of those documents suggest that the 9/11 Commission's conclusions were justified). I also see a number of organizational changes that make your version far less readable than the previous one (such as the inclusion of the SSCI conclusions in the wrong section, for example). Please list all of your changes with explanations so they can be discussed point by point, or let's revert the whole thing and make the changes one by one. Thanks!--csloat 01:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Just one more point -- I also see some outright misinformation in this new version, such as the claim that Czech intelligence now believes that Atta was in prague. I'll be reverting your changes within the next couple of hours without a thorough explanation of them. Thanks.--csloat 01:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I just left a note on CSTAR's Talk page. I mentioned that the biggest problem I had with you in the past is that you revert my edits before other editors get a chance to read them and evaluate them on their own. There is no way to achieve concensus if other editors do not get a chance to read the new version. This version dramatically improves readability. I would appreciate it if you would allow other editors a few days to read the new version before you make changes. The conclusions of the SSCI are in the right section because they represent the official view regarding the link. If you read the timeline, you will see it also says that Czech officials still believe Atta was in Prague. Please do not make changes until you have read the underlying source I cite. Give it a few days. No great harm will come to the nation if you leave the article alone for within the next 72 hours. RonCram 01:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Ron. Wikipedia software allows you to take a look at previous versions, so your complaint is not really an issue. There is no way to achieve consensus if you make changes without justifying them. This version actually subverts readability as I noted above. Since you refuse to justify your changes I will be reverting them; other editors can use page history to take a look at your changes if they like. I don't see why we should leave an inferior and extremely misleading version of the page for even 72 hours when the person making the changes is unwilling to list the changes and justify them. I did read the timeline and I am well aware of what the Czechs believe; we have been over that one a number of times.--csloat 02:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is an issue. Wikipedia allows you to see older versions, but in practice people rarely go back to a version two or three days old to read it. They usually act on the belief the most recent version is the concensus version. Please allow other editors a chance to read this version before you make changes. RonCram 02:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Ron, the consensus version is the one that has been here for months, hammered out through many painstaking discussions about every single change. You have made multiple changes all at once, and you refuse to even discuss those changes. All I asked for is a list of your changes and justifications; yet you can't even be bothered to offer that?--csloat 02:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

csloat, the concensus, for a long time, has been that this article needs a rewrite. Several editors have talked about it here. I have provided one. I did not make a list of changes as I rewrote the article. I tried to make certain that all of the main points for the official version were included in this version. I added the section on "Why this subject is controversial." I added some background on Laurie Mylroie because her books played an important historical role in persuading certain members of the Bush Administration that Saddam was a threat. I provided more detail on the foreign news reports about the working relationship. I believe you were familiar with all of this information from our past discussions. The rewrite mainly improves the organization and readability. Much of the information will be new to people who were not involved in our discussions over the last year.RonCram 02:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Ron, a list of changes would help people see what you have changed and would help in the process of building consensus. Surely you understand that your word alone that you haven't made any major changes -- especially when it is obvious you have -- is not enough of an explanation of this massive rewrite. A simple list of changes -- 1, 2, 3, etc. -- would allow discussion of each change. Or, if you prefer, make one change at a time. The consensus version had been argued over for a long time and there was general satisfaction with it; the NPOV tag had been taken off a while ago, and additional changes had been discussed one by one. Making massive contentious changes all at once like this and shifting the POV significantly is unacceptable in terms of consensus. Your claim that there was consensus for a rewrite is inaccurate; I believe there were many who believed it was too long, and I had long suggested changes, and tried to start a debate on such changes. The goal is to actually reach consensus about specific changes. I am not aware of a consensus that a massive POV shift is necessary here.--csloat 02:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Csloat's revert

csloat, I see you have already reverted my rewrite. It took all of ten minutes? I asked you to wait 72 hours so other editors could read this version [1], discuss it and come to concensus before making changes. Would you please discuss here why you think this rewrite was POV?RonCram 02:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Ron, I've asked you to discuss your changes and you refuse to list them and justify them; the burden of proof is on you. It is very difficult to compare versions when you have made so many changes all at once without discussing them. But a brief look over your changes tells me a few things in response to your question:

(1) you have made the question of Saddam's involvement in 9/11 the central focus of this article, yet not even the Bush Admin supports such a claim. Only a very extreme fringe forwards that argument yet you have made it the central focus of this article. That is a massive shift in the focus and POV of the article.

(2) You include this sentence in the introduction: "The official view has come under increasing criticism as new information from Operation Iraqi Freedom documents comes to light." It is untrue. Only Kerrey has changed his view, and since there has been more info about the OIF documents, it has become clear that they do not offer anything to challenge the official view.

(3) Your section about why there is controversy is not unreasonable, but the wording of it is. You include the Feith memo without any of the attendant criticism of it; the fact that even the Pentagon challenged its release, that Michael Hayden was extremely uncomfortable with it, that its leaking was potentially illegal, and that it made public unvetted intelligence reports, most of which were hearsay and in many cases known to be utterly false.

(4) You put all of the SSCI conclusions in the intro for no apparent reason. Only the main conclusion relevant to the issue is necessary there; the rest of them justifiably had their own section in the consensus version of the article.

(5) You included a lot of extraneous information about Saddam and the PLO, and Carlos, and Abu Nidal, etc. This page is about Saddam and al-Qaeda.

(6) Your info about the OIF documents carefully excludes all of the info from those documents that suggests the conspiracy theory about Saddam and al Qaeda was incorrect. The OIF documents show, for example, that Saddam was not working with Zarqawi, yet you exclude that info; this is a very biased presentation of those documents.

(7) Your version falsely states that the Atta/Prague meeting is still supported by Czech intel. That is false -- there was a lot of embarrassment for Czech politicians who supported that story, and Czech intel was very upset with the Americans who leaked that unconfirmed report. In fact, when recently asked about it, the Czech intel representative threw up his hands and said that the ball was in the American court on that issue. Claiming they stand behind the report now is totally incorrect.

(8) Your version portrays Mylroie's theories of 9/11 as credible and as central to this debate. They are neither. Mylroie has been thoroughly discredited by every terrorism expert who has looked into her claims (even conservatives!) She also believes Saddam was behind the Oklahoma bombing and TWA 800. Her theories are not at the center of this debate; they are on the fringe. I am not saying they shouldn't be mentioned here but they already were. And you have carefully excluded any criticism of Mylroie even though that criticism is well known.

(9) Your comments on the Baer decision also carefully exclude the discussions of that decision, and Fitzgerald's take on it, that were in the original version of the page. Your version of this page is extremely biased.

That's just what I notice offhand; I'm sure there is more. It's also fascinating to me that the one major change that there did seem to be consensus about -- that the "statements" section should be organized or deleted -- is something you didn't bother to do at all. All of your changes seem focused on presenting a very biased and false presentation of the issue. Again, if you are going to make changes, please list your changes and justify each one in turn rather than telling us that you are just responding to "consensus" or that you did not bother to list your changes. If your changes are important enough to make here, they are important enough to list and justify. Thanks.--csloat 02:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

csloat, I address your remarks as you enumerate them:

Ron I am going to go one by one below and sign each paragraph so that it is readable; I think this will be better than producing more lists of nine things. However I am still waiting for you to list your changes one by one; this list is simply the nine things I noticed at first glance at your version of the page; since you wrote the page you need to list your changes and justify each one as well as respond to the arguments here.--csloat 17:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

1. Not true. Discussion of Saddam's possible involvement in the 9/11 attacks is a small part of the article that comes at the very end. Some people confuse the issue of Saddam's relationship with al-Qaeda to think that he was definitely involved in 9/11. The article makes clear that the Bush Administration has never claimed the evidence supported that conclusion. Mylroie's book was influential and explains why some in the Bush Administration wanted Saddam looked at, but the article is about the relationship mainly and discusses possible involvement in 9/11 in an appropriate fashion stating clearly that most people do not hold to it. (RonCram)

How can you say that? The entire section on 9/11 is the most detailed section in the article, obviously the one where you spent the most time, and it foregrounds the "crackpot" theories of Laurie Mylroie among others. Mylroie's book is a sham Ron; if she submitted it to a university press it would have been thrown in the garbage heap; it would never pass an actual review. It is true it was influential for a time but nobody takes it seriously anymore, and every terrorism expert who has looked at it has treated her theories with contempt. Peter Bergen is not an author who uses the term "crackpot" loosely, yet he says it of Mylroie. Look at what Daniel Benjamin or Juan Cole has to say about her. She believes Saddam was behind OKC in 1995, among other things. The consensus version of the article already dealt with the 9/11 relationship in a reasonable manner; your version foregrounds it and takes it far more seriously than the mainstream press, than the bush admin, and than every investigative body in the world that has looked at the question.--csloat 17:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Wrong again. The most detailed section is the one supporting the Intelligence Community's view. It is more than two times as long as the section on 9/11. The section on 9/11 makes it quite clear that the majority of people do not find it compelling. However, several different aspects of the story have been in the news and need to be discussed. This is done in an even-handed manner. If you can show some evidence that indicates POV, I am willing to discuss changing it. RonCram 06:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

There are POV problems all throughout your version. The section allegedly supporting the intel community's view is riddled with inaccuracies. It cites the SSCI as hinting "at an operational relationship including training al-Qaeda terrorists in Iraq in the handling and use of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons" - when you are well aware that it concluded that there was no evidence of an operational relationship. That section also implies that the only reason the intel community concluded the way that it did was that it didn't think Osama would work with Saddam for ideological reasons. That was a reason to be skeptical, for sure, but they concluded the way they did because the evidence that they looked at did not add up to an operational relationship. Then the section on Powell's speech cites "a senior al-Qaeda detainee" without ever indicating that this detainee is widely recognized as having lied about this under torture! How can you leave out such crucial bits of information and claim your version is more accurate and less POV?? All you have to say in that section is that the speech was "carefully vetted," yet we know for a fact that the DIA had sent a report to Bush a month earlier saying that that information was not reliable. I already gave the link for this one below but here it is again; it's in the NYT archive now, but you can easily google for more information yourself. How can you call this "even-handed"?--csloat 04:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

2. Not true again. Kerry has changed his position and lots of articles and televised news stories are coming out that are critical of the official view. It appears the conclusions about the relationship between Saddam and Osama are another example of the intelligence failures this country has had.(RonCram)

ONLY Kerrey has changed his view, and he has not yet told anyone why. The only articles and news stories "coming out that are critical of the official view" are from the far right. It may appear to you this is an intel failure, but it does not appear that way to experts or scholars on the issue. It also does not appear that way to anyone in the mainstream beyond Kerrey. The OIF documents have not shown us anything new, and people like Negroponte (hardly a left winger) and Hayden concur that this debate is over. This is one thing the intelligence community got right consistently since 9/11.--csloat 17:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

What is your point? RonCram 06:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

My point is that you are incorrect. Trying to turn this article into a diatribe on intelligence failures is WP:NOR. I think you're wrong about those things, but I am not going to debate you on them; I am just going to insist that such theories do not belong here unless they are backed up by reliable published sources.--csloat 04:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

3. If you wish to include additional info about the Feith memo, I would not be opposed. The leaking of the memo did cause controversy, however, it is wrong to accuse Feith or anyone else of the leak. We simply do not know if it came from his office or from some Congressional aide. It is true that it made raw intelligence reports public, but I do not see that as a bad thing. In fact, that is exactly what the Operation Iraqi Freedom documents release is doing. The Intelligence Community hates it because now the rest of the world can see what information they had and they can be second guessed. No one likes to be in that position.

Ron we know Feith leaked the memo; it came from his office with his stationery! And the problem was that much of the raw intelligence that it made public was pure hearsay, and a lot of it has been shown to be completely fabricated by people from the INC! The memo has been roundly criticized and even the Pentagon suggested it should never have been leaked. General Hayden said he was profoundly uncomfortable with what Feith's office did. We also know that there was an Israeli spy in Feith's office; there were a lot of problems there, and your version ignores them and treats the Feith memo seriously. The claims in that memo had already been vetted and rejected by intelligence experts; they were released for political reasons rather than to find the truth. It's not that the intel community hates to be second guessed; it is that their analysis is secret, and the release of this information puts them in a terrible position -- either go public with more secrets to dispute these claims, or allow them to poison the public sphere without a response.--csloat 17:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Sloat, you are jumping to conclusions. Feith's memo was on his stationary because it was an official response from his office to a Congressional committee. Once Congress was in possession of the memo, someone there could have leaked it. Everyone agrees that the memo should not have been leaked. The Feith memo does accurately portray the raw intelligence the Defense Department (or some of them) considered important. Again, Feith himself has never been named as a suspect in the leak. No one knows who leaked it. To hint that Feith was the leaker would be to put wikipedia in a position to be sued.RonCram 06:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The issue at hand isn't whether Feith leaked the memo; the issue is why it shouldn't have been leaked. The Pentagon was upset at the leak because it was a leak of raw intelligence that had not been vetted -- including hearsay, including stories collected from sources of extreme unreliability, including much information that we now know was mistaken. It does not portray what the DoD considered important; it is what Feith considered important. Feith went through the raw intel with an ideological predisposition to find evidence for links, and he only included items that he perceived as constituting such evidence, regardless of how reliable the information was. Feith was not familiar with the figures involved, was not familiar with the practice of intelligence gathering or analysis. The DIA was pissed off about this because the raw intel can be used to concoct any story you want. Here is how Gen. Hayden described the problem: "I got three great kids, but if you tell me go out and find all the bad things they've done, Hayden, I can build you a pretty good dossier, and you'd think they were pretty bad people, because that was I was looking for and that's what I'd build up. That would be very wrong. That would be inaccurate. That would be misleading." He also acknowledged that after "repeated inquiries from the Feith office" he put a disclaimer on NSA intelligence assessments of Iraq/al-Qaeda contacts.[2] Your comment about getting sued is a straw man; I am not saying that wikipedia should name feith as the leaker (though I think it's a little naive to think it would have been leaked without his implicit OK).--csloat 04:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

4. The SSCI conclusions are not in the Intro, they are in the section on "Questions on the plausibility of the link." This is the proper location because this section details the reports and reasoning behind the official view that there was no working relationship. The SSCI certainly provides the official view.

The main relevant SSCI conclusion necessary in that section was already there in the previous version. The rest of the conclusions were in a separate section; it seems to me they are better off there as some of them are extraneous to this page.--csloat 17:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The SSCI conclusions are part of the Intelligence Community's view. They are in the proper place. RonCram 06:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I see. I would point out that we don't need all of those points in that section as some are extraneous, and that section is pretty long and rambling as it is. I think it's much better if the SSCI has a separate section where all the relevant conclusions can be cited, though I agree with you that organizationally the SSCI is part of the intel community's view. I would like to see a section on the intel community that specifically lists each organization and includes the SSCI study. I think that would be an excellent thing to incorporate into the current version and will help work on that.--csloat 04:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

5. I did provide a short mention of Saddam's support for other terrorists so that readers would have an historical context in which to assess the other reports about Saddam's actions. Why should you consider this POV?

It's not POV; it is just irrelevant to this page Ron. This page is about Saddam and al-Qaeda, which is not the PLO or Abu Nidal. It is ok to have a few words on the topic but a paragraph with two footnotes is hardly a "short mention." By the way, you included a whole section on Clinton bombing al-shifa; we have been down that road many times before and as you know that should not be foregrounded either (it was already mentioned in the timeline).--csloat 17:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

It is not irrelevant, it provides important historical context. It is critically important that the article discussed Saddam's support for Islamic Jihad because the Intelligence Community's view is that Saddam would not support al-Qaeda because they are Islamist. Well, Islamic Jihad is Islamist and that did not stop Saddam. Sloat, I understand why your POV does not want this information in the article, but really... you have to deal with facts. RonCram 06:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with my POV. I don't have a problem saying Saddam supported other terrorist groups. But I don't see the need for a discussion of Abu Nidal and the PLO. If you have a published reliable source indicating that Saddam's support for Islamic Jihad is relevant here then let's see it; otherwise that claim looks like WP:NOR to me. It's not that I think your claim is unreasonable - in this case it's not - but I don't see a published source indicating its relevance here. (as an aside, I must ask you again to please stop insulting me. When you make claims that my POV makes me want to censor things, it is insulting and unnecessary).--csloat 04:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

6. I am not familiar with OIF documents that say Saddam was not working with Zarqawi. If there is something meaningful there, I would not be opposed to include it.(RonCram)

Ron, read the OIF page if that is the case! If you are not familiar with this topic, why are you so insistent on controlling this page? It is ludicrous -- you are acting as if you know this stuff better than all of the editors who worked on this for over a year and yet when faced with counter evidence you plead ignorance. And then you demand that I leave the now admittedly ill-informed version of the page up for 72 hours. Meanwhile there is nothing in the OIF documents to suggest Saddam worked with al Qaeda at all, nothing, and the Pentagon group that worked on those documents acknowledges that. --csloat 17:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Sloat, you need to read the rewrite and my links to the OIF documents. I have read the document that talks about Saddam wanting Zarqawi arrested. Other OIF documents show the IIS did find Zarqawi, spoke to him and let him go. You also have to realize that Saddam had a changing relationship with lots of people. Saddam supported Abu Nidal for years before he had him killed. So even if Saddam did want Zarqawi arrested, that does not prove that he did not support Zarqawi before that... and possibly after that. RonCram 06:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

What it proves is that Saddam was not sure whether he was in the country or not, an odd thing not to know about someone whose actions Saddam was allegedly directing. And what is interesting is that it is not in your rewrite, yet Powell's assertion that Zarqawi remains free to come and go is included. I believe this kind of one-sidedness in terms of what is included to be a significant POV problem, Ron.--csloat 04:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

7. Certain Czech officials still support the Atta story. That fact is well documented by the Slate story. If there is another angle to this story that you believe readers deserve to know, provide the link. I am certain we can alter the entry to fit the facts. As it stands now, the entry fits the facts as I know them. If there is new evidence, I would like to know what it is. (RonCram)

Which Czech officials still support the story Ron? The Czechs who supported the story were publicly humiliated in the Czech press. Here is what the Czechs think (from the consensus version of the article):

the Czechs backed off of the claim: "After months of further investigation, Czech officials determined last year that they could no longer confirm that a meeting took place, telling the Bush administration that al-Ani might have met with someone other than Atta."[77] This perception seems confirmed by an associate of al-Ani's who suggested to a reporter that the Czech informant had mistaken another man for Atta. The associate said "I have sat with the two of them at least twice. The double is an Iraqi who has met with the consul. If someone saw a photo of Atta he might easily mistake the two."[78] The Chicago Tribune on 29 September 2004 also reported that a man from Pakistan named Mohammed Atta (spelling his name with two "m's" rather than one) flew to the Czech Republic in 2000, confusing the intelligence agency, who thought it was the same Mohamed Atta.[79] In September 2004, Jiří Ruzek, the former head of the BIS, told the Czech newspaper Mlada fronta Dnes, "This information was verified, and it was confirmed that it was a case of the same name. That is all that I recall of it." (3 September 2004). Opposition leaders in the Czech Republic have publicly called this a failure on the part of Czech intelligence, and it is not clear that any Czech officials still stand by the story.[80] In hopes of resolving the issue, Czech officials hoped to be given access to information from the U.S. investigation but that cooperation was not forthcoming.[81] In May 2004, the Czech newspaper Pravo speculated that the source of the information behind the rumored meeting was actually the discredited INC chief Ahmed Chalabi.[9]

The Slate article you refer to from 2003 I believe has been refuted by the above, and in another more recent article the Czech official throws the information back at the US intel community, clearly upset that the unvetted info was made public by US officials in the first place. That is hardly "standing by the story."--csloat 17:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Your lengthy quote does not prove anything to me. The statement "it is not clear that any Czech officials still stand by the story." seems weaselly. The Slate story shows the Czech officials do stand by the story. Your assertion "the Czech official throws te information back at the US intel community" does not mean much of anything to me without a link. RonCram 06:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The link is one you provided originally Ron - the Opinion Journal article from 2005. Here is the relevant passage:

Mr. Ruzek was furious. He considered what he had passed on to the FBI to be unevaluated raw intelligence, and its disclosure not only risked compromising the BIS's penetration in the Iraqi Embassy but also greatly reduced the chances of confirming the intelligence in the first place. In Baghdad, al-Ani, through an Iraqi spokesman, denied ever meeting Atta. In Prague, Czech officials who had not been fully briefed added to the confusion. Prime Minister Milos Zeeman, wrongly assuming that the meeting had been confirmed, stated on CNN that Atta and al-Ani had met to discuss Radio Free Europe, not the 9/11 attack. Meanwhile, pressure on Mr. Ruzek mounted. Richard Armitage, Colin Powell's deputy, complained to Prime Minister Zeeman that Mr. Ruzek was not cooperating in resolving the case, even though Mr. Ruzek had extended unprecedented access to the FBI and CIA, access that included allowing their representatives to sit on the task force reviewing the case. He was also warned by a colleague in German intelligence that he could become entangled in a heated hawk-versus-dove struggle over Iraq. Mr. Ruzek decided that if this was an American game, he did not want to be a part of it. So he threw the ball back in the CIA's court, taking the position that if al-Ani did meet Atta for a nefarious purpose, it would have been not on his own initiative but as a representative of the Mukhabarat. The answer was not in Prague but in Iraq's intelligence files; and the CIA and FBI would have to use their own intelligence capabilities to obtain further information about al-Ani's assignment. That more or less concluded the Czech role in the investigation.[3]

The slate article is older than this. The statement you quote sounds weasely because it was added after another editor - possibly you - kept insisting that they did. Yet it is clear they don't want to take a public position on it at all. It was a huge embarrassment for Czech politicians at the time, as is easily verified.--csloat 04:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

8. Laurie Mylroie is a very bright woman who earned a Ph.D. from Harvard and was a Middle East advisor to Bill Clinton. Mylroie's work deserves to be mentioned here because it is historically important. It was Mylroie's book that caused the Bush Administration to look first at Iraq after 9/11. They did not find adequate evidence to prove Saddam was involved and so never made the claim. It is also true that a good many people strongly disagree with Mylroie. I think the article makes that clear. I have also retained a link to a debate between her and others who disagree with her. The debate is interesting reading because the people who disagree with Mylroie were obviously bright people. Unfortunately, they had not actually read her books and so were in over their heads. If you can find a link to a debate with Mylroie by someone who has read her books, I would greatly appreciate it.(RonCram)

Ron Mylroie has been called a "crackpot" by Bergen, who is normally not given to such language. Real terrorism scholars treat her theories with contempt. She believes Saddam was behind 9/11, the 1993 bombing, the Oklahoma City bombing, and TWA 800, and probably aliens in Roswell. Even conservatives consider her a joke - look at Leiken's interview about her in Frontpage magazine. They have read her books and they think they are trash. It is not a matter of her not being mentioned here - she was already in the timeline - but foregrounding her theories like this makes this page a complete embarrassment.--csloat 17:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I read the interview with her in Frontpage magazine. It is unfortunate Leiken had not read her book prior to the debate. He was obviously out of his depth. Her theory from her first book is historically significant because it was her book that caused the Bush Admin to begin looking at Iraq right after 9/11. RonCram 06:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

LOL - your comment about Leiken is hilarious. Even if your claim were true - which it is decidedly not - it is original research. I agree that her theory is significant because it influenced bush - I have not disputed that. But we should not pretend she has a positive reputation in the counterterrorism scholar or intelligence communities.--csloat 04:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

9. I am not certain what you mean on the Baer decision. If you have published criticism of the Baer decision you would like to include, please do so. I am simply not aware of any. I am also not sure what connection Fitzgerald has to the Baer decision. (RonCram)

Ron the Baer decision did not investigate these claims; it was a court decision. The party suing Saddam brought forth evidence against him; Saddam never appeared in court to refute the evidence. If you don't know what Fitzgerald has to do with this, again, I suggest you re-read the timeline, where the Baer decision is already mentioned. It is very frustrating to have you steamroll massive edits like this Ron and then admit that you really haven't researched it very carefully.--csloat 17:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Sloat, you did address my statements. Do you have published criticism of Baer's decision? Fine. Let's link to it. Fitzgerald mentioned Saddam and Osama linking up in an indictment. His indictment had nothing to do with the Baer decision. You are confusing two very different court cases. Don't pretend like I haven't researched the issue. I make statements I can back up and then provide links. RonCram 06:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes I was off my rocker on Fitzgerald, sorry about that. But the main argument here is not fitzgerald. It is that the Baer decision was not the same as an intelligence analysis, and that it has not played a major role in the analysis of this question. Especially problematic in your rewrite is the hilighting of the Muhalhal article that Woolsey quoted there. We've been over that ground a million times -- this is an article from a local paper in Nasiriyeh that makes vague allusions at best. How is it evidence of Saddam colluding with al Qaeda? Or even foreknowledge? There's no evidence Saddam even read the article! But the question of foreknowledge itself is a little off-base anyway; if Saddam had foreknowledge of the attacks, all it means is that his intelligence agency was picking up the same chatter as ours were. The exact date may not have been well known, but the fact of upcoming attacks by bin Laden's network against targets in the US was an open secret among intelligence agencies around the world. US intel had a PDB on it. No doubt the Iraqis had their equivalent, as did the Saudis, Israelis, Iranians, etc. (And, by the way, there is much better evidence of possible foreknowledge in the article about Saddam's state of alert that Anthony added to the timeline last week than there is in anything in this editorial). So I don't see why this should be highlighted here. It is already in the timeline.--csloat 04:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The rewrite flows much better, is more readable and is more NPOV than the previous version. It has its faults and I would encourage you and others to make it better. All in all, it provides a much better framework for tightening up the presentation than the previous version. Please leave it untouched for 72 hours so other editors can read it. This is the only way we can come to some concensus on whether to use it as the foundation or not. RonCram 14:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Ron why should it stay untouched for 72 hours or even an hour? You have still refused to list your changes and justify them; you have left it up to me to figure out what you have added that is problematic here, and then when I do bring it up, you often say "I am not familiar with that" in response. This is very frustrating. I will propose a solution below. But your claim that it is more NPOV is completely false. What POV problems were there before? I asked you this several times before you made the changes and you ignored the question. You still have not articulated any POV issues with the consensus version. Your version has many blatant POV problems pointed out above. Your assertion is simply false.--csloat 17:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Strengths and weaknesses of both versions

First of all, I have done what csloat suggested earlier by making a special page for the timeline. We should at least agree on that change. The timeline should not be on this page even on the old version. Second, if you have info that should be in the rewrite, at least leave me a link to the source so I can read it and add it. Third, the list of POV problems with the earlier versions is really long. I can put one together the general tone of the article was the biggest problem. csloat, you have often spoken of the people who hold to the non-official position as "flakes" that might as well be "members of the flat earth society" or something like that. The non-official version is a tenable position that deserves to be treated with some respect. Former 9/11 Commission member Bob Kerrey is a Democrat and he has been persuaded. I will post several examples of this tone later. But the biggest advantage of the rewrite is the improved readability. The narrative flows much more freely. RonCram 19:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I think we can agree to a separate timeline page, though what I think would be best is to first hash out the question of what should be included on the main page. I made a short list above (before Ron's massive changes); perhaps what we can do is start discussing a list of major items here, and then write a new page. Then we can remove the timeline after the new structure has met with general agreement here. I think the timeline should stay for the time being. Ron I'm not sure I see any major POV problems with the consensus version. The NPOV tag was removed a long time ago and nobody, not even you, has articulated a specific POV problem to address here. Complaining that I sometimes call people flakes is not a clear argument -- there is no such language in the article itself, and if there is, I would agree with you that it should be removed. The "non-official position" is treated with respect in this article, but the balance of evidence comes out against it. You may not think I treat that view with respect in the talk page, but that has no bearing on whether the article maintains NPOV sufficiently. You keep bringing up Bob Kerrey; I have responded to that over and over and you ignore my arguments. Once again, Bob Kerrey is already mentioned in the article. My problem with Kerrey is he points to no specific document that changed his mind. And when you look at the documents themselves, there really isn't any new evidence in there that would change anyone's mind about this. In fact, the documents show that Saddam was trying to arrest Zarqawi, not work with him. Finally, you make the claim that your version offers "improved readability," yet you never show any evidence to support that assertion. I don't see any evidence of that; in fact, there are places where it is less coherent than the consensus version.--csloat 20:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

csloat, regarding the new timeline page, you now appear trying to be difficult. If we have two different timeline pages, people may be editing to both and some valuable edits may be lost. Your argument for keeping the timeline for the time being makes no sense. Why should hashing out changes to the main page preceed separating the two pages? That makes no sense. Regarding the balance of evidence, yes, the majority of the evidence favors the official version. This is as it should be. One of the goals should be to treat the non-official version as a tenable position. The older version does not. BTW, it makes no sense to call the older version, the site of so many edit wars, the "concensus version." How the POV tag was removed, I do not know. I am not sure what to make of your problem with Bob Kerrey. There is not just one OIF document but 10-15 (so far) that support the link between Saddam and Osama. How could Kerrey choose between them all. BTW, rather than list all of them, the rewrite only mentions two. Regarding Zarqawi, only one document indicates Saddam tried to arrest him and it could be a fake or possibly Zarqawi offended Saddam. Saddam supported Abu Nidal for years before he had him killed.

The narrative of the older version did not flow in this manner. It would be impossible to outline. The rewrite improves readability because it moves from section to section fluidly. The Intro briefly describes the controversy. The next section discusses why and how the subject became controversial. The next section discusses the official view that there is no working relationship. The next section discusses the evidence viewed as important by critics of the official view (this evidence is broken down by when it was learned: pre-war or post-invasion). And finally, the issue of whether Saddam was involved in 9/11 is discussed. The discussion makes it clear that the Bush Administration looked at the issue and decided that the insufficient evidence existed to make the claim. However, researchers (probably high school and college students writing reports) deserve to have access to the main stories and investigations that have tried to tie Saddam to 9/11. RonCram 21:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Ron, you keep repeating your POV complaints about the consensus version but you have yet to offer any evidence that it is POV. It does treat the conspiracy theory as a tenable position, but it also acknowledges that the balance of evidence does not favor it. I call that version the "consensus" version precisely because it has been the site of so many edit controversies; the point is that those controversies have been resolved over a period of a couple years now. Which suggests that POV problems have been raised, discussed, and worked out. Until you made these massive changes, there has been no significant edit war over this page recently. Again, if you have a specific POV issue to raise, it would be really nice if you would let the rest of us know what it is.

You say "how the pov tag was removed, I don't know." I know. After a series of discussions and changes of specific pov problems there had been no activity on the talk page for a while; at that point - and this is months ago by now but I'm sure you can find it in the edit history - I asked if there were any remaining POV issues. The POV tag, according to wikipedia policy, should only stay on the article if people explain specific POV problems in the article. It is not the "default" state of the page. Since nobody could articulate a specific POV problem, the tag was removed. When a specific POV issue is identified, we can put the tag up and deal with it (or, preferably, we can simply deal with the POV issue itself without needing the tag).

You say there are 10-15 OIF documents that support a Saddam-OBL conspiracy. That is news to me. It is also news to the Pentagon experts who published a study of the OIF documents. It would be great if you would identify those 10-15 documents on the Operation Iraqi Freedom documents page and cite the mainstream news sources that published information about them. They certainly must have made a big splash in the news; I'm surprised that I missed them. I'm also surprised John Negroponte missed them, or Lieutenant Colonel Kevin M. Woods, who was one of the Pentagon experts working on the documents. But if they were reported on in the mass media, they should be reported on that page for the OIF documents. But please be aware that the OIF documents offer very strong evidence that Saddam was not only not working with Zarqawi but that he was trying to apprehend him. There is of course one document about a meeting in Sudan in 1995 that was mentioned in an ABC report; I believe that document is already mentioned both on that page and on the timeline. Perhaps that is the "10-15" pages you're referring to? That is already on the timeline; it does not need to be in the introduction or on the main page when we separate the pages; one article in an ABC news report about a document from 1995 that even the ABC report acknowledges does not support a connection to al Qaeda (their words were "The document does not establish that the two parties did in fact enter into an operational relationship," and they noted that the document had no official seal of any sort) hardly merits central focus here, even if it did make Mr. Kerrey change his mind.

You claim that the Zarqawi document "could be a fake" -- now you are entering into the realm of totally non-notable speculation. That is fine for the talk page, but until published sources back up your suspicions, they don't belong in the article. It is also somewhat ludicrous given that this is consistent with everything else we know about Saddam and Zarqawi -- take a look at the evidence yourself -- and that the OIF documents have already been vetted for forgeries and known fakes have been pulled from the pile. It's also unclear what would be gained by forging such a document. Your comment that Saddam supported Abu Nidal is totally irrelevant -- Abu Nidal was a secular left-wing socialist, not a Salafi jihadist. And he certainly had no connection to al-Qaeda.

On to the issue of readability. Can you be more specific? Cite a specific sentence or paragraph that is incoherent in the consensus version of the page? Your recap of the narrative flow in your last paragraph above does not tell us what is wrong with the other version. Improving readability does not require a massive POV shift. All you need to do is eliminate or rewrite sentences that are obtuse without changing the information those sentences convey. And again you have yet to show a specific problem with readability in the previous version.

Finally, I want to address breaking the page up. The reason I don't want to take out the timeline prematurely is that all of the minor points are covered in the timeline -- things like Dr. Mylroie's stories, the 1995 meeting in the OIF document, the Baer decision, the Clinton bombing of al-Shifa, etc. I don't want moving the timeline to become a justification for putting minor points at the center of the debate. If we can move the timeline but not change the introductory sections until consensus has been reached on any changes, I would support such a move. But if we move the timeline and you immediately add a section that supports Mylroie's conclusions, or makes Saddam out to be the mastermind of 9/11, we will have problems. So if you can agree that we should reach consensus on these issues before changing the introductory material I will be ok with moving the timeline prematurely.--csloat 23:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Sloat, your comment that the edit controversies have been resolved is a real hoot. I do not believe your story about how the POV tag was removed. What conservative editor was present to say no other POV issues remained? Was it ObsidianOrder? Or Evensong? Or maybe it was TDC? I know it was not me.

The older, not concensus version, was unreadable. Read the very first sentence under "History of claims." It talks about evidence they worked together operationally and then jumps to the statement that Saddam was not involved in 9/11. Then it goes back to saying that the evidence they worked together was not good evidence. It is mixing up two distinct issues.

Regarding the article's POV, someone has removed the very informative ABC News clip from the narrative. The article is more POV now than it was when it had the tag. As I have said to you before, the question of POV is not so much what is said but what is not said. It has always been your censorship that I have complained about the most, Sloat. I do not know if it was you or someone else who removed that bit of info, but it was pure censorship. Whoever did it wants to control what readers know and what they think.

Regarding the 10-15 articles so far that indicate a working relationship between Saddam and OBL, not all of them have generated news articles. So they are not all suitable for inclusion here. But they have been translated and you can expect a fuller reporting of these translations in the future.

Your complaint of a massive POV shift is a complaint because the POV has swung from your favor back to neutral. Believe me, I could rewrite the article to make the CIA officials look like total nincompoops and that representation would be well deserved. But such a presentation of the facts would hardly be NPOV. I could have rewritten the article to showcase all of the intelligence failures these CIA and NSC officials are guilty of. I did not do so because that is not the purpose of an encyclopedia. Believe me when I say you have not seen a truly Republican POV version of this article.RonCram 00:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

First Ron I must ask that you assume good faith or I will stop engaging in this debate entirely. You claim I am lying about the NPOV tag but you refuse to look it up yourself. A simple glance at the archive index above shows that about a year ago I placed a note asking if anyone had any extant NPOV problems with the page. I left that note up a week, and the only response was from a conservative editor (the one who started this page, in fact, because he believed so strongly in the conspiracy theory!) who said he agreed that the NPOV tag should be removed. see for yourself. Please do not accuse me of lying again.

Second, if you had POV issues with the article why have you refused to bring them up in a year? Another user brought up the NPOV tag again - he was mistaken about it being there, but he again raised the issue and nobody responded with a specific POV problem on the page. About a month ago the tag was added again and I posted a note asking for a specific problem that should be addressed. Nobody replied, so the tag was removed. It's that simple -- the tag indicates a specific problem exists; it is removed when either the problem is resolved or nobody can articulate a specific problem. Something similar happened after some POV issues were discussed around November 2005; the tag was added again and after some time I posted another note asking for a specific POV issue; nobody responded to the note and the tag was shortly removed. If you have a specific POV issue to address perhaps you should add the tag, then we can address the pov issue and then remove the tag.

Third, your claim that the consensus version is unreadable is not supported by your example. If you want to put those sentences in a different order I don't think I will have a problem with that, but it is hardly "unreadable." I have read it many times. A problem with the order of sentences hardly justifies a complete POV-shift.

Fourth, your complaint about the ABC clip does not make sense. This clip from 1999 is already in the sources list where it is clearly identified. Perhaps it should go in the 1999 section too, though I do not see how it is that notable. How many times do you want it in the article? You want it in the intro too? Why? In 2006 this clip is far less notable than, say, a video of some 9/11 Commission conclusions, or of Dick Cheney acknowledging that there was no Saddam/al Qaeda conspiracy. Yet I am not insisting on putting such videos in the intro. I'm not going to respond to the ludicrous charge of censorship; the video is in the source list for all to see. I see no reason to make that video the most prominent thing on this page, when its conclusions have been pretty widely discredited. Please do not make any more personal attacks about thought-controllers lurking in wikipedia.

Fifth, you mention that there are 10-15 articles proving Saddam worked with al Qaeda that nothing has been published about, but you promise that we'll be hearing about them in the future. What do you want me to say? I don't believe they exist, but if they do, and someone publishes about them, then they might be relevant here. At the moment, there is no reason to even bring it up.

Sixth, you claim that your version is more neutral than the consensus version yet you have said nothing to indicate that. You have refused -- over and over -- to even list the changes in your version, and you have refused to justify them. When I listed nine POV-related objections to your version, you attempted a response but then dropped the issue after I responded to your responses. This is not a tit-for-tat, but if you refuse to even respond to the key issues, how can you expect your view of this to carry the day?

Seventh, you threaten to write an even more POV version of this, telling a story about a CIA full of "total nincompoops." This really isn't the best place to discuss your low opinion of men and women who have given up a lot to become lifelong public servants for little recognized intelligence work. Personally I find that view somewhat insulting. I have myself been very critical of things the CIA has done over the years, but I have always believed strongly that most people who go into the CIA or military service do so because of a strong sense of patriotism and love of country. Some of them may be less competent than others, and the institutions often make mistakes, but your claim that they are "total nincompoops" is extremely insulting to people who give up their personal lives to defend your country. I'll leave it at that; as I said this really isn't the place for such a discussion. As for your threat to write a "truly Republican POV version" of this article, I am simply not interested in playing politics here. This isn't about Democrat vs. Republican. In fact, many of the sources emphasizing that there was no Saddam/AQ connection are lifelong Republicans. And, as you keep insisting, we know of at least one Democrat who believes otherwise. So this really has nothing to do with your "Republicanism." I'm really not sure what to do with that threat anyway -- are you saying we should have a ridiculously POV version of this page just because you are capable of writing one that is even more ridiculously POV?--csloat 01:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Sloat, I simply haven't the time to address all of your comments again. However, I must set the record straight on the tag issue. Ryan talks about a "Totally Disputed" tag on July 18, 2005, sometime after when you indicate the tag was removed. On August 6, 2005 I wrote that it was my goal to get the "Totally Disputed" tag off of the article but I could not support removing it while it was no badly POV. At some point it was removed, even though I could not find any place where a conservative editor agreed the tag should be removed. On May 18, 2006 you complain that someone had added the tag back on without saying why on Talk. The link you gave me to ObsidianOrder's agreement was anachronistic at best and intentionally deceptive at worst. I will address your last point by saying that you misunderstand me. I did not threaten to write a POV version of this. What I was trying to say was that if you understood how much constraint I had used in writing this version, you would be commending me - not complaining. Your edits, on the other hand, have been aimed at trying to make respected people like former Clinton DCI James Woolsey out to be some kind of nut. Your edits have been completely and totally disrespectful to people like Woolsey and to editors like me who believe Woolsey's viewpoint should be presented in this article. Sloat, I honestly think you do not know what a neutral POV article on this subject would look like because you have never tried to understand the other side. I am trying to get you to see there is a lot more evidence that could be added but I am not trying to do that because that would make it POV favoring the position I hold. Do you understand now? RonCram 06:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Ron, as I said, the tag should not be the default state of any article. It was removed a couple times in 05 after specific issues were resolved, and once more in 06 recently as I documented above. A tag should not stay on if nobody can articulate a reason for it -- we are not dependent upon a "conservative editor" to agree with its removal. Your claim that my link was "intentionally deceptive" is insulting and wrong. You said that no conservative editor agreed with its removal and I showed you where one did, after a week of waiting for a response! If you cannot articulate a POV problem with the article, the tag does not belong. It's that simple. It was restored a couple times in 05 and 06 and then removed after specific issues were addressed, and I linked each of those moments, not just the "anachronistic" one. I'll ask you again to please stop calling me a liar! It is incredible that you have filed a RfC complaining about me making personal attacks and yet you continue to insult me every time you write. In this case it is truly bizarre, since you called me a liar, I showed you why you were incorrect, and then you call me a liar again!

As for the last point, you are correct that I am no fan of Woolsey's conclusions on this issue, but I don't see anything in the article calling him a nut. If you can point that passage out we can change it because I agree we shouldn't have such claims in the article. Your claim that there are things you could have added but didn't has no impact here Ron. If there is real evidence then it should be here; if it is not real evidence then it should not (or whatever claim exists should be cited and set in context). But this isn't about who can put more evidence in on one side or another. This is about telling the story accurately.

By the way, your claim that I have not tried to understand the other side is totally incorrect. After 9/11 I thought there might be a connection between Saddam and al-qaeda, and I read voraciously every article I could find about it on either side. I had been writing and researching about Saddam and about terrorism for at least a decade before 9/11, though not about the connections between the two. I had only researched al Qaeda in passing before 9/11; I was well aware of who bin Laden was and what he had been doing, but I really had no formed opinion about a link between bin Laden and Saddam until well after reading a multitude of sources on the topic. But that is neither here nor there; the only thing at issue is here is what makes a good encyclopedia entry. As for the POV tag and so forth, if you can articulate specific POV problems we can address them. Your claim that you don't have the time to respond to the arguments above is understandable, but you should not try to impose a new radically different version of this page on wikipedia without responding to them.--csloat 06:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposition

I'd like to put Ron's version of the page to a vote. Please indicate below whether you prefer the RonCram version or the consensus version of the page. Thanks!

It seems to me that the vote is a little premature. I suggest we discuss the strengths and weaknesses of both versions above for a few days before we call for a vote. RonCram 19:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I find it interesting that you think it is too soon for others to evaluate your work and express their opinions in a vote but it is not too soon to insist on totally replacing the consensus version with a radically POV version.--csloat 19:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

RonCram version

consensus version

1. csloat 17:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
2. Kevin Baas^talk 15:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC) per wikipedia policy and common sense.
3. BigA 9 July, 2006 The "consensus version" clearly incorporates a lot of work by a lot of people over an extended period of time. As such, any changes to this article should be incremental in nature rather than a wholesale rewrite. Any issues from the RonCram version should be brought forward and addressed one at a time in an orderly manner.

undecided

1. I was "invited" here by RonCram. It will take a lot of time to sort through all the diffs and determine which is the most neutral. I doubt I will be able to add much except that I recommmend an Rfc rather than this vote here. The Rfc will bring many that can assist with helping to ensire the article follows WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:EL and WP:NOT. I also recommend no edit warring. Detail in the Rfc the major points of argument.--MONGO 09:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Alternate Proposition

Rather than debate the old version vs. the Ron version, let me try to indicate some issues Ron and I may agree on, so perhaps we can work together or with others here to make this page more acceptable:

1. The timeline should have its own page. For reasons above, I don't want to do that prematurely, but I think Ron and I can both agree on that, and based on what others have said here over the months, many others can as well. The timeline is a great resource for researchers, but it is far too detailed for most casual readers.

2. In order for the timeline to go, there needs to be some agreement on what parts of the timeline should be foregrounded on the first page. I think this is a big point of disagreement for Ron and I, but let me try to offer suggestions for common ground:

(a) the 9/11 conspiracy theory. Even though I disagree with the emphasis Ron wants on that thoroughly discredited theory -- and it is quite thoroughly discredited at this point -- there is no question it is important to mention that the Bush Administration led Americans to believe there was such a conspiracy, and that they were in turn led to do so by some shady characters -- certainly members of the INC first and foremost (some of whom were working for Iran), but also Laurie Mylroie. I don't have a problem having this mentioned on the page but I do not think it should be the first or the main thing, and I think the public record should be made clear -- Mylroie's reasoning is considered shoddy and her theory is considered a crock by every counterterrorism scholar and journalist who has read it. This is not a question of my POV or of Wikipedia inserting opinion; these are facts shown by the public record, and the experts have been none too silent about them.

(b) atta in prague -- I also don't have a problem making this part of a section on the 9/11 charges, but I do have a problem with inaccuracies such as the claim that the Czechs still stand behind the story. They do not; when asked by the WSJ in 2005, the official Ron claims "stands by the story" threw it back in the CIA's face. I also think it should be made clear that nobody in the world really supports that story anymore - even Cheney backed off it very publicly, and the CIA, FBI, and DIA have all looked into it and consider it nonsense. The American and Czech press published a series of explanations of why the story is wrong, and the Weekly Standard or litlegreenfootballs or whatever have never published a response to these explanations. Ron seems to think that "balance" requires that we treat the story as just as likely as not; my argument is that "balance" is not more important than accuracy. I would not suggest that we "balance" the Holocaust article with Holocaust denial claims, for example.

(c) various 1990s possible meetings with officials from Iraq + AQ -- a section with a few pieces of information and quotations here is fine; the gory details are drawn out in the timeline.

(d) Salman pak -- a brief discussion of Salman Pak, along with the information that the main sources of information here are known prevaricators from the INC, should be sufficient, along with a link to the Salman Pak article, which unpacks some of this stuff in more detail.

(e) Zarqawi -- I think the section in the timeline is very long but it does an accurate job of presenting all the information that is known here. This section will be difficult but it should include the following:

• the Bush Admin's statements that Zarqawi was the link between Saddam and al Qaeda

• the information that Zarqawi was at the time a rival to al Qaeda rather than a member of the organization

• the claim of Hayes and others that Zarqawi received a prosthetic limb in Baghdad and the claim that he was supported by Saddam

• the information that Ansar al-Islam (which Zarqawi was associated with) operated in a region not controlled by Saddam

• the information that Zarqawi did not receive medical treatment in Baghdad (in fact, we have his body now, and there is no prosthetic limb)

• the claim of some intelligence agents that the Bush Administration passed on a couple of opportunities to take out Zarqawi in 2002 and early 2003 because they allegedly wanted to keep him alive to help maintain the claim that they were making about Saddam and al Qaeda

• the information from Zarqawi experts that makes it clear that Zarqawi would not work with Saddam

• the OIF document that indicates that Saddam's government had an APB on Zarqawi and was trying to have him arrested but that they were not sure whether or not he was in the country.

I realize that is a lot of points to do with Mr. Zarqawi; I think these are all in that ridiculously long paragraph in the timeline. If they were broken up in a separate section on the main page it would be more readable. I would be happy not including all of this information and simply have a couple sentences indicating that it is generally agreed that the alleged Zarqawi link is inaccurate, but I am afraid that will not be sufficient for those editors who believe the link is accurate in spite of the evidence; thus, a more thorough summary of the evidence is probably necessary.

(f) the official investigations into the "link" -- a list of investigations here, citing major conclusions and links, is what we need. The CIA, DIA, NSA, State Department, the FBI, the 9/11 Commission, the SSCI -- a few sentences on each should be sufficient.

(g) the OIF documents -- again, a brief discussion is sufficient here, since the details are pretty well fleshed out on the OIF documents page. A comment about Kerrey, a few sentences about each of the two documents that have anything to do with Saddam and AQ, and that's it. When Ron's 10-15 pages show up, anything relevant there can be mentioned as well.

(h) the manipulation of intelligence -- this section will be tricky in terms of NPOV because there will be significant disagreement here from people who call CIA agents and analysts "incompetent nincompoops" or whatever. But I think we can do it -- a quotation from an officer discussing the manipulation of intel, a quotation from the SSCI indicating their conclusion that there was no manipulation of intel, a quotation criticizing the SSCI's conclusion, and a quotation from Pillar's recent public statements on the topic should do the trick. Wikipedia need not take a position on this in order to report it fairly.

(i) also in the intel manipulation section (or perhaps in the history of charges section currently in the intro) should be the feith report and the criticism of that report.

The above is my summary of what I think should be in the body of the main article at this point; no doubt I have likely missed something. I offer this as a starting point for discussion towards revision. If Ron wants instead to debate his version vs. the consensus version, I direct the reader to the 16 arguments I made against that version above (9 original points, which Ron started to answer but since has moved on from, and then 7 points in response to his more recent arguments, only one of which he appears to have addressed so far). There may be overlap between some of those arguments, but I think they need to be dealt with before taking Ron's version as the starting point for a change.

3. The "statements" section. This is a list of quotes with no structure. I don't see the utility of it at all. Necessary quotes are in the timeline; if someone wants to pull quotes from here that are important and add them to the timeline or the main body of the page, that's fine, but I don't see the point of having this long section here.

4. The "sources" section. As I have said, Ron has been piling on opinion pieces from the Weekly Standard, Frontpage magazine, etc. here. I think it would be much more useful to have a list of major public documents (e.g. 9/11 Commission Report, the SSCI text, etc.) here and nothing else. The news articles that have important things to contribute are already linked here and on the timeline. Opinion pieces really shouldn't be here; if they are, we should also include relevant articles from Mother Jones, the Nation, World Socialist Review, etc. My position on the sources is if they are contributing something unique to the debate, cite them where they are relevant. If we ever convert this to Wiki style footnotes, there will be a rich list of sources available that way; there is no need for an exhaustive source list and there's certainly no need for each side to pile on opinion pieces like there's no tomorrow.

5. All of the above said, let me mention a few things from Ron's version that are fine in the timeline but simply do not belong on the main page as they are non-notable and their only purpose is to have the article lean heavily towards a POV that has been discredited:

• The Baer decision. This is already dealt with in the timeline. I do not see how it is important enough to include here other than in the sources list and in the timeline. It was not really an "investigation"; it was a court case in which the defendant - Saddam Hussein - never appeared to defend himself. So the fact that he was charged in absentia with helping OBL really does not help settle this question at all.

• The "foreknowledge" section. This is an editorial from a local Iraqi paper that made some vague comments that Senator Hollings suggested indicated "foreknowledge" of the 911 attacks. The comments are extremely vague and there is no indication Saddam Hussein was aware of the comments (it is a local paper), much less that he endorsed them. There is certainly no indication these comments indicate Saddam knew anything about 9/11 or provided material help to those who attacked us on that date. We could just as easily say that the governor of Texas was working with al Qaeda because on september 10th a Dallas schoolboy told his teacher, "Tomorrow, World War III will begin. It will begin in the United States, and America will lose." (see Houston Chronicle, 9/19/01). There is as much connection between that claim and the claim Ron inserted into the main page in his version. This is something that Ron and I debated extensively almost a year ago (see [4] and the section below it); I don't believe we need to rehash those arguments again every year.

• The various newspaper articles in the "Before the invasion" section on Ron's version -- a sentence or two stating that in the late 1990s there were several newsreports of contacts between Saddam and al Qaeda is fine (in fact, that is what we have now in the consensus version). We don't need all these quotes, especially when they reflect opinions that have since been discredited. I am particularly concerned that Ron places so much emphasis on the quote from an Italian paper stating a "pact" had been signed, since nobody has ever confirmed this report, and of course nobody has ever seen such a "pact." The specific meeting it refers to - the 1998 meeting with Hijazi - is widely referred to by other news accounts as having ended "disastrously" for any kind of Iraq/AQ cooperation. This quote is already in the timeline; it does not deserve any further notoriety than that. Other disinformation in that section includes the Weekly Standard article about Iraqis in Afghanistan, which has since been substantively refuted by the Pentagon's analysis of the OIF documents -- the Pentagon synopsis of the relevant document (ISGQ-2003-00004500-0) reads: "Fedayeen Saddam received news of a rumor that 3,000 volunteers from Iraq and Saudi Arabia had traveled to Afghanistan to fight with the Mujahideen against the US. This letter is a request to investigate the rumor to determine whether it is true." What Stephen Hayes in the Weekly standard takes as evidence of government-sanctioned Iraqi volunteers in Afghanistan turns out to be a government investigation of a rumor -- with no indication whether it is even accurate -- of non-sanctioned Iraqi volunteers in Afghanistan. This is the problem with writers like Hayes; he distorts the issue completely (consciously or not), and then presents his distorted version as proven fact. If we are going to include this quote on the main page, we need to include the above information as well. The problem is that eventually such tit-for-tat will expand the new front page to the same size as the version with the timeline....

There are other cherry-picked bits of information I have problems with, e.g. the Weekly Standard's claim that there is an Iraqi in Gitmo who was sent to Pakistan by Saddam to blow up embassies. Ron's version includes this claim - which is in the timeline - but ignores the Associated Press version of the claim (also in the timeline), which states "There is no indication the Iraqi's purported terror-related activities were on behalf of Saddam Hussein's government, other than the brief mention of him traveling to Pakistan with a member of the Iraqi intelligence.... The assertion that the [detainee] was involved in a plot against embassies in Pakistan is not substantiated in the document." This is the sort of cherry picking that makes Ron's version of the page far too POV to keep here.

What I have done above is outlined the basis for a thorough rewrite of this page; I think most are points that many of us can agree on, and I tried to begin at least with points that even Ron and I can agree on. I don't have time to keep having these debates with Ron, but this issue is important enough to me that I do not want this page to become a treasure trove of disinformation. I look forward to the suggestions of other editors about improving this page. After a week or two of discussion about these points perhaps we can start making some of these changes. I really don't want to keep fighting with Ron over and over on these pages.--csloat 03:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Sloat, it is pretty difficult for us to evaluate any of your viewpoints because you did not supply us with links to your sources the way I did. Provide us with links to your sources and then we can discuss it. RonCram 05:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

They're all in the timeline Ron. Indicate which source you find problematic and I'll help you find it.--csloat 06:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Sloat, some of the points you make deserve to be in the article. Some of it is just flat wrong. For example, you say Mylroie’s reasoning is shoddy. Not true. She has a fine mind and has done some incredible research. That does not mean I am convinced completely by her writings. For example, she lacks the evidence necessary to convince me that KSM is an Iraqi intelligence officer rather than an al-Qaeda operative. But her theory is not without some merit and deserves to be mentioned. It would be wrong to say her theory has been discredited, because no proof exists to disprove it. Of course, the article should mention that her theory remains unproven and has been rejected by most intelligence experts, even the majority of those who do see a working relationship between Saddam and Osama. (Cram)

Myroie's reasoning is shoddy - but it's ok, we don;'t have to agree on that. We can include Mylroie as long as we include the fact that every terrorism expert who has evaluated her work, no matter what political perspective, has agreed that she is a "crackpot" and that her reasoning is shoddy. We don't have to debate what you consider "incredible research" (KSM an Iraqi intelligence officer? LOL. She also believes Iraq was behind the OKC bomb and the TWA-800 crash, by the way). Again, I am not against mentioning her, but we do not need to take her seriously; her theory has been discredited in the sense that everyone refutes it. Read Bergen, for example. Your claim "there is no proof to disprove it" shifts the burden of proof. If she thinks Saddam was behind the WTC in 93 or 01 it is her burden to prove it, not mine (or the FBI's, which has also rejected her theories) to disprove it.--csloat 09:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Your comment We can include Mylroie as long as we include the fact that every terrorism expert who has evaluated her work, no matter what political perspective, has agreed that she is a "crackpot" and that her reasoning is shoddy. is simply untrue. Former Director of Central Intelligence James Woolsey still believes Mylroie is correct. He testified in support of her theory in the court case and his support has not wavered. Regarding Middle Eastern involvement in OKC, Congress is investigating that now. Congressman Rohrbacher (sp?) will hold hearings soon. And there are others who believe TWA800 was shot down as well. Regarding my statement, I was only trying to correct wording. You had earlier claimed that her theory had been debunked or discredited. That is not true. Most people have not been persuaded, but you cannot say that her theory has been disproven. Those are two different things.RonCram 15:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

It's an accurate statement Ron. I said "every terrorism expert," not "every political appointee." If you want to include a recent (e.g. last couple years) cite from Woolsey supporting her credibility in the face of what actual terrorism experts say, fine. If she testifies at Rohrbacher's hearings perhaps that could merit inclusion, but not based on speculation that she might. I didn't say TWA 800 wasn't shot down, but I will damn sure lay odds it wasn't shot down by Saddam Hussein! Nobody in their right mind believes that! And OKC? Come on. Bergen has shown how her entire theory rests on a ridiculous assumption about Ramzi Yousef that was based on incorect information about his passport. And, again, every terrorism expert considers her a crackpot, including the right wing ones.-csloat 03:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Please provide a link that says the Czech’s do not stand by the Atta story. Contrary to your unkind words, I do not believe balance is more necessary than accuracy. I believe accuracy and NPOV go hand in hand. The fact the non-official version is gaining converts like Bob Kerrey proves it is a tenable position, not at all on a par with those who would try to deny the Holocaust. Your example shows how emotionally POV you are on the issue, Sloat.(Cram)

Stop making this about me Ron. The link is the WSJ article from '05 that you linked; it is in the timeline and easy enough to find. Bob Kerrey's "conversion" is meaningless until we see what piece of evidence convinced him; if you provide that it might make some sense (but still has nothing to do with atta in prague).-csloat 09:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Please provide a link to “the Salman Pak article.” So many articles have been written on this issue that I have no idea what you mean. (Cram)

I meant Salman Pak facility.--csloat 09:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Sloat, you still have not provided a link. What link do you think prove your point? You obviously cannot be serious when you say Bob Kerrey's conversion is meaningless. There is no way you can keep that information out of the article. RonCram 15:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The link is right here Ron: Salman Pak facility. That is where the Salman Pak information is discussed. As for Kerrey, can you tell us yet what piece of information has convinced him? Until we see that, why is this significant at all?--csloat 03:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The Zarqawi issue probably should be discussed. I wanted to avoid it mainly for space reasons. It seems difficult to me to start down the road without taking up a great deal of space. You should know that several of the OIF documents support the position that Zarqawi and Saddam’s regime worked together prior to the invasion. I almost think the Zarqawi issue should have its own page. Please provide links to all the Zarqawi sources you would like to cite. (Cram)

Actually I haven't seen a single OIF document that supports that claim. The only one that discusses him is the one where Saddam puts out an APB on him and three letters in reply say there is no evidence he is in Iraq. So these docs prove the government couldnt have been working with him - they were trying to arrest him and couldn't find him. These docs are cited by right wing blogs to make the opposite claim but the mainstream media has been on top of that. Links are in the Operation Iraqi Freedom documents page. The Zarqawi sources I cite above are all in the Zarqawi section of the article (May July 02, or do a find on page for Zarqawi; you really don't need me to lead you through this).--csloat 09:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Sloat, are you going to cooperate or not? You say you want concensus but you do not do any work to prove your case. Let's see the proof. Show me your links.RonCram 15:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Ron I have been bending over backwards to try to cooperate. The links are in the article that you yourself started about the Operation Iraqi Freedom documents. They are also in this article under 2002, where Zarqawi is talked about. You have seen them yourself. It is the documents about Zarqawi that ABC commented on. Again, please stop trying to make this about me.--csloat 03:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

You talk about investigations by the “CIA, DIA, NSA, State Department, the FBI, the 9/11 Commission, the SSCI.” I have links to the 9/11 Commission and SSCI. In fact, their conclusions were already in the rewrite I wrote. Please provide links to the others.(Cram)

These are all in the timeline, do a find on page if you have trouble. They're all there, I think, but this is why a bulleted list will help.--csloat 09:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Sloat, this is getting ridiculous. I provided links for all the information I thought was important for the article. You say you want to discuss changes. Fine, then provide links. I think this is all a stall tactic. You make wild statements and then cannot back them up. RonCram 15:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

This is not a stall tactic Ron; I have spent over a year including links on the Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda page; they are all there and quite easy to find. I am not going to do your homework for you. If you don't want to look at them, it is fine; but don't pretend you can't find them or that you disbelieve they exist.-csloat 03:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree there should be some discussion on the “manipulation of intelligence” issue. We may disagree on what exactly needs to be covered here. Please provide links to the sources you wish to cite.(cram)

I did, they are in the timeline and referred to above.--csloat 09:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

You sound like a broken record, Sloat. I asked you to cite your sources here in the discussion. You are losing credibility, Sloat.RonCram 15:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

This isn't about my credibility. I referred to these issues in the above discussion. This is mentioned several times in the timeline, including the most recent entries. If you refuse to read the article, please do not demand that it be changed.--csloat 03:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the Statements section, I agree that it is currently too long and tangential. It should be statements only from people in policy making role from the Administration or from the Intelligence Community or investigative committees. That long interview with the politician that doesn’t know anything does not provide any value.(cram)

I'm not sure it has any role at all, but if we are keeping it, I agree it should only be very prominent figures, and it should be topically organized.--csloat 09:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I stand by my earlier statement. I see no problem with organizing them topically.RonCram 15:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems you are changing your mind on the Baer decision. You did not explain why. Your reasons for not including other material is not persuasive. For example, when a Democrat Senator reads an editorial from a state-run newspaper in the Congressional Record and talks about Iraqi foreknowledge of 9/11, that is a significant event. It shows that it was not just Republicans who were considering Saddam as the possible perpetrator. It is just plain wrong to try to prevent todays’ readers from knowing about that event. (cram)

I always said Baer decision was fine in the sources list but not in the main page. It is simply not a significant part of the public discourse on this despite showing up once in the CR. It is not mentioned in any significant mainstream account of these issues, and the Iraqi article from a local paper tells us nothing interesting, as I noted above. I refuted this pretty clearly both here and a year ago (see link above); I don't see the point of rehashing that debate.--csloat 09:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The Baer decision is significant enough for the article to mention it and the key witnesses. Avoiding this significant court ruling would be extremely POV. RonCram 15:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Well then take your POV complaint to the mainstream media, the 9/11 Commission, the SSCI, and the Bush Administration, all of whom have basically ignored this "significant court ruling." Just don't blame Wikipedia.--csloat 03:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the pact that was signed, several news reports indicate the nature of the working relationship. If you think these reports have been discredited, please provide a link. (cram)

The 9/11 Commission and the SSCI concluded that there was no operational relationship. There is no evidence of any pact having been signed. There is lots of evidence such a pact is highly improbable at the very best. This is just a poor word choice by a reporter in a 1998 italian newspaper article. the only evidence cited in the article is Hijazi and that issue is dealt with in the timeline. Emphasizing the word "pact" because it was used once in 1998 is inserting POV bias in the article when nobody would use that word seriously today to characterisze what may have happened in the 90s. Again you are shifting burden of proof -- if you argue a pact was signed you need evidence (like some signatures would be nice).-csloat 09:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not shifting the burden of proof. The pact was reported in one newspaper and other newspapers reported how the pact was being carried out. The statements are well-documented with sources cited properly. The fact the CIA did not properly investigate these claims says more about the competency and thoroughness of the CIA than it does anything else. RonCram 15:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The "pact" has never been shown to have existed. The one paper that reported it has never brought forth any evidence of such a pact. If you have complaints about the CIA, I believe they have a public relations office where you can direct them. But your speculation about what the CIA should have done is not relevant to what Wikipedia publishes.--csloat 03:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Finally, do you really think the Associated Press’s report “There is no indication the Iraqi's purported terror-related activities were on behalf of Saddam Hussein's government, other than the brief mention of him traveling to Pakistan with a member of the Iraqi intelligence.... The assertion that the [detainee] was involved in a plot against embassies in Pakistan is not substantiated in the document" is significant? Read the sentence again. It says “no indication” and then states that he traveled with a member of Iraqi Intelligence. It says the assertion is not substantiated in the document but does not mean the story is substantiated elsewhere in the OIF documents. The fact is this detainee is a member of Saddam’s military. He joined al-Qaeda and was teamed with a member of Iraqi Intelligence. His stated goal was to attack US embassies with chemical mortars. How can you even suggest such a report is not significant to this article?RonCram 16:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not interested in your interpretation of the AP report or your second guessing of their conclusions. That report was mentioned once in a wire service article and never again. There is no indication of how credible it may be -- and it sounds highly unlikely at best -- only the wire report that says it there is no indication of cooperation here. It is not significant because if it was, we would have more information about it than we do about Salman pak, for example. Instead we have one article that nobody mentioned again except for Stephen Hayes. I don't think stuff should be on the main page that was not a part of the mainstream discourse on the issue. If there was an Iraqi at gitmo connecting Saddam to al Qaeda we would be hearing a lot more about it in the media. Why has the Bush Admin not chosen to mention it? Where is Rumsfeld on this one? Cheney? If even the US government has not seen fit to make this story an issue it is not something so central it belongs on the main page.

I am leaving the country for a while and while I don't imagine I will be able to escape wikipedia that easily, I won't be editing as obsessively as I normally do. I don't want to keep fighting with Ron about these things -- hopefully others here will read these arguments and help direct changes in the page. I hope Ron doesn't take that as a license to make a page that is as POV as his last effort. I realize there are a lot of intricate arguments here that Ron and I are both more familiar with than most others. My standard on this page is simple, it should be accurate in terms of what has been published in news sources -- not just opinion/editorial journals like weekly standard or the nation. Such sources should be treated with skepticism; they are cited enough in the timeline and should not be foregrounded on the main page. Official sources should be the bulk of the main page. Mylroie can be included as an influence on official sources but the information that her arguments have been rejected by every major counterterrorism scholar should not be hidden from readers. I think I've hit on all the main points that should be in here above.

None of these articles should be stages for personality conflicts between editors and that is what this one has become of late. I am stepping out of the fray for a little while and will try to lay low. I have said what I have to say above, and before that I have outlined my objections to the version Ron was pushing -- I'm not going to go tit-for-tat on these arguments anymore, though I will try to respond to any major issues that have not already been raised by Ron or anyone else. That said, I invite others to watch things as they develop here.--csloat 09:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Originally posted by csloat:

"I am not interested in your interpretation of the AP report or your second guessing of their conclusions. That report was mentioned once in a wire service article and never again. There is no indication of how credible it may be -- and it sounds highly unlikely at best -- only the wire report that says it there is no indication of cooperation here. It is not significant because if it was, we would have more information about it than we do about Salman pak, for example. Instead we have one article that nobody mentioned again except for Stephen Hayes. I don't think stuff should be on the main page that was not a part of the mainstream discourse on the issue. If there was an Iraqi at gitmo connecting Saddam to al Qaeda we would be hearing a lot more about it in the media. Why has the Bush Admin not chosen to mention it? Where is Rumsfeld on this one? Cheney? If even the US government has not seen fit to make this story an issue it is not something so central it belongs on the main page."

This is a highly significant story that the major media does not want to cover. Bias in the media is a major problem, but the story is out there. This is being discussed in mainstream discourse. I do not know how to answer your question regarding the Bush Administration exactly. RonCram 15:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Uh, which is it Ron? Is it a story the media does not want to cover? Or is it being covered? I think it is not being covered. If it is being covered please cite the relevant sources. The one source I have seen cover it does not see it as a serious piece of evidence. I agree, for reasons stated above. And it appears even the Bush Administration agrees, even though they have a strong incentive to be shouting about this from the rooftops.--csloat 03:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

After looking to try to figure out who said what, I've tried to separate out RC's statement from CS's. Ron, it would be less confusing if you wouldn't insert replies into the middle of someone else's statement. Just quote what you're replying to instead of sticking a comment in the middle. I don't know if there's a Wikipedia policy on this, but it probably is not a bad idea to keep separate comments separate.

Now, as to the reversion dated 18:17, 21 June 2006 back to revision as of 17:43, 20 June 2006 by Wikipediatrix: Derex, Csloat, and myself have all found that your radical changes to the article insert too much bias. You seem to be grasping at straws for a connection, and inserting a good deal of insinuation. --Mr. Billion 18:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Billion, Sloat began responding to my response in the middle of my comments. He tagged my comments with (cram) and tagged each of his paragraphs with his signature. I merely followed suit and signed each of my paragraphs. Regarding each the findings of you and derex, I would like you to consider the information in the links I have provided. If you think I have been unfair to the source or misinterpreted what was said, please point that out. However, the flow of information as I have provided it is much easier to read and flows more logically. Please allow the rewrite to stand so that editors can make a few changes to try and improve the article. RonCram 19:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Billion, I see you have returned to the page but did not answer the question I posed above. Please tell me where you think I have inserted bias. I believe all of my statements are well supported by the sources I cited. Where do you disagree?RonCram 00:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Please tell me where you think I have inserted bias.

Honestly, I don't think I've ever seen any edits from you that didn't. Your revision changes the tone of the article and incorporates what seems to be a strategy to make the idea of joint ventures between the two seem plausible.
Some members of the Intelligence Community have complained... What members? This is uncited.
Why is it necessary to add that Cheney praised Feith's article? Cheney likes it, and you should too.
The question of a working relationship between Saddam and al-Qaeda is still being debated by intelligence analysts and reporters. --But not those intelligence analysts in the CIA, and not those journalists who work somewhere other than the Weekly Standard or Fox News. Your strategy seems similar to that of "Intelligent Design" supporters: Inflate the controversy, then pretend that neutrality requires that we treat the established consensus and the fringe view equally. Advancing the idea that Saddam and al-Qaeda are like peanut butter and jelly (heck, maybe Saddam was behind 9/11, the first WTC attack and the OKC bombing too, as your girl Laurie Mylroie believes) is a specifically right-wing issue. There is no ongoing debate in the intelligence community about whether Saddam and al-Qaeda worked together. --Mr. Billion 02:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree with Mr. Billion on this -- Ron is forwarding a view that is demonstrably on the fringe of political discourse. This is not being seriously debated within the intelligence community. Even the new DCI, who is extremely aligned with the Bush Administration in terms of POV, like the Pentagon experts who went over the Iraqi Freedom Documents, has rejected this conspiracy theory.--csloat 03:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Billion, you are incorrect. There is an ongoing debate. Because of this debate former Democrat Senator and 9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey has changed his view. He now believes Saddam and al-Qaeda did have a working relationship. It is difficult for me to understand how you can say there is no debate when the non-official version is picking up supporters from the other party. RonCram 22:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

"This is a very significant set of facts," former 9/11 commissioner, Mr. Kerry said yesterday. "I personally and strongly believe you don't have to prove that Iraq was collaborating against [sic] Osama bin Laden on the September 11 attacks to prove he was an enemy and that he would collaborate with people who would do our country harm. This presents facts [sic] should not be used to tie Saddam to attacks on September 11. It does tie him into a circle that meant to damage the United States." Saddam, Al Qaeda Did Collaborate, Documents Show NY Sun March 24, 2006 Well, you read it how you want to read it. If anybody had any doubt previously that Saddam was not an ally of the US, that certainly ought to clear it up. As for me, I personally and strongly believe you don't have to prove that Iraq was collaborating with Osama bin Laden for the Bushies to tell us all it's been proved.Gzuckier 17:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Fox news notebook translation

Saddam and the Taliban certainly had a relationship and additional evidence indicates al-Qaeda was involved in the 3 way effort. The same thing happened between Saddam, Sudan and al-Qaeda as can be seen by the OIF document translated by Laurie Mylroie and Ayad Rahim. You can read that translated document from the link at the bottom of the Operation Iraqi Freedom documents page. RonCram 21:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

This new entry has little that is relevant to Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. As it says, "the notebook translation makes no reference to al-Qaeda." This is pretty vaporous. --Mr. Billion 23:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Billion, it is not vaporous. Everyone knows al-Qaeda and the Taliban had a working relationship. This document simply gives evidence that Iraq had also joined the team. Did you read the article on Iraq, Sudan and al-Qaeda working together? [5] You can also read the translation by Laurie Mylroie and Ayad Rahim here.[6] As you read through these documents, you need to keep in mind that the cooperation between Saddam and al-Qaeda was an on-again, off-again type affair. They worked together in 1993 and then stopped. They worked together in 1995 (the above document details this contact) and then stopped. Then in 1998 they "sealed the pact" that later was reported in many newspapers around the world. We still do not know the whole story but it is coming out all the time through the OFI documents.RonCram 00:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, of course. Similarly, everyone knows Abdul Qadeer Khan and Pervez Musharaff had a working relationship. Much like Rahman and someone from Iraq's government had a meeting where Rahman asked for favors, Pervez Musharaff and and George Bush have had meetings where Musharaff asked for favors. Ergo, George Bush has joined Khan's team. Of course. Because Al lives with Betty, and Betty once called Cindy, Cindy is in a relationship with Al.
They weren't on a "team." You are exaggerating and distorting things in favor of your point of view. This is an attempt at unsupported insinuation: Although al-Qaeda wasn't there and these documents make no mention of al-Qaeda having anything to do with Iraq, you desire to use these documents to make that association independently. --Mr. Billion 02:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Not only that, his argument is pretty circular -- he begins with "everyone knows" that Saddam was working with al-Qaeda; therefore, this document proves it! Beyond that, this document indicates only that Saddam, like many other countries, had a diplomatic relationship with the government in power in Afghanistan. Hardly proof of sponsorship of al Qaeda.--csloat 17:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing circular about the argument at all. What "everyone knows" is that al-Qaeda and the Taliban had a working relationship. If they did not, the Taliban would not have gone to war with the U.S. to protect Osama. I recognize the Saddam/al-Qaeda relationship is still being debated. Also well documented is the working relationship between Iraq and Sudan (that al-Qaeda was a part of) at the Al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory. No one doubts Iraq and Sudan worked cooperatively on that factory. See William Cohen's testimony before the 9/11 Commission for proof. The relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda, while still debated, is coming into better focus all the time. The CNS News documents show Saddam and Zawahiri (co-founder of al-Qaeda) had a developing relationship in 1993. We know Saddam gave Zawahiri $300,000 shortly after he merged his organization with Osama to form al-Qaeda. We know from the OIF documents that Saddam reached out to Osama again through the Sudanese. How much cooperation happened after that contact is not exactly known. If they cooperated much, then it was followed by a split. Saddam reached out to Osama again through the Taliban. Hidjazi traveled to Afghanistan and "sealed the pact." By 1998, newspapers and magazines around the globe were reporting the cooperative relationship between Saddam and al-Qaeda, including terrorists being trained in Iraq. State-run newspapers in Iraq began to praise Osama. It was only after the pact being sealed that al-Qaeda began to hit the U.S. hard with attacks against our embassies and finally the attacks of 9/11.RonCram 22:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

My bad - your argument isn't circular; it is just wrong. In 1999 many countries had a "relationship" with the Taliban. I see nothing in the document about Saddam offering support to bin Laden or directing al Qaeda to attack US interests anywhere. Al-Shifa has been dealt with over and over in these pages, I don't have the time or inclination to discuss this again. The CNS documents have not been supported by any established media sources, and they do not in fact show much about what may have happened in 1993 -- this information is ambiguous at best, and this is 1993 we're talking about. The alleged $300k in 1998 is an allegation shrouded in mystery -- we do not "know" it; what we know is that an INC defector told some US agent (and of course the information coming out of the INC is notoriously unreliable to the point of complete fabrication) and that the agent believed him in 1998. We also know that at the time Zawahiri was the leader of Egypt's Islamic Jihad -- not yet bin Laden's right hand man -- and that the Egyptian organization was broke and needed cash. That Saddam would support that organization is not that bizarre nor does it add up to a relationship with al Qaeda -- in fact, when Zawahiri joined al Qaeda, he was "disowned" by Egyptian Jihad, who did not agree with his tactic of fighting the "far enemy" (i.e. America and Israel). Let's look at what Spencer Ackerman wrote specifically addressing the information coming out in 1998, including the alleged $300k payment:

First, as far as we know, there were no significant contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda after 1998. Second, these Iraqi overtures do not appear to have been reciprocated. According to officials familiar with the debriefings of senior al Qaeda terrorists, especially 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and his deputy Ramzi bin al-Shibh--who, unlike Hijazi, have no hope of gaining release from captivity-bin Laden was simply uninterested in cooperating with Saddam. In fact, not only is there no evidence of a partnership between Saddam and al Qaeda; there is ample evidence that al Qaeda was actively hostile to Iraqi outreach. Rohan Gunaratna, director of terrorism research at Singapore's Institute of Defense and Strategic Studies and arguably the world's foremost expert on al Qaeda, has interviewed al Qaeda members personally and maintains ties with various national intelligence services. After the U.S. rout of the Taliban, he examined several thousand documents coming out of Afghanistan, including al Qaeda's video collection. After viewing 251 videos, says Gunaratna, "we could not find any evidence of al Qaeda links to Saddam Hussein or the Baghdad administration." Two videos that he watched in particular "speak of [Saddam] as a real monster and not a real Muslim," he adds. "I can't think in those videos Osama ever wanted any kind of association with Saddam Hussein." Just the facts? All in all, says an ex-intelligence official who personally viewed the Iraq portfolio during the buildup to the war, the administration "never had and still doesn't have any evidence of Iraqi government cooperation with al Qaeda. Zero."[7]

Finally, please stop bringing up the "pact" that you claim was "sealed." When you have evidence of such a pact -- like a signature perhaps -- then someone might listen to you. But repeating this word based on what an Italian newspaper may have said in 1998 is ludicrous for all of the reasons I have stated above, multiple times.--csloat 21:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The biggest thing Saddam and bin Laden had in common is that both were supported by the Reagan and Bush I administrations. We could put that in.... Gzuckier 15:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

according to an additional translation of another meeting, the former vice president of iraq likely references iraq bin laden. this is rather significant. also, this is from the wikipedia page on the taliban: At its height, the Emirate was diplomatically recognised by Pakistan, by the United Arab Emirates and by Saudi Arabia. It then controlled all of Afghanistan, apart from small regions in the northeast which were held by the Northern Alliance. Most of the rest of the world, and the United Nations continued to recognize Rabbani as Afghanistan's legal Head of State, although it was generally understood that he had no real influence in the country. unless this is wrong, the assertion that "Saddam, like many other countries, had a diplomatic relationship with the government in power in Afghanistan" is not true. plus, the documents talk of a "secret" relationship between saddam and the taliban. as for the analogy that "Because Al lives with Betty, and Betty once called Cindy, Cindy is in a relationship with Al", new information will be coming out with regards to this topic for years to come. i don't think it should all be dismissed so easily. Anthonymendoza 21:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how many other countries recognized the Taliban, but if it is only those three, that is pretty significant, since all three are supposedly staunch US allies in the war on terror. I think it is pretty obvious from much other evidence that all three had much stronger ties to al-Qaeda than Saddam ever did. Why is there no article on the U.A.E. and al-Qaeda? This document does not seem to prove anything. The alleged reference to bin Laden does not say anything about the Iraqis offering him support. Anyway I'm not out to dismiss new information that proves noteworthy but I'm just not sure at all how this is.--csloat 21:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

it's a piece of a complex puzzle. and if you feel there should be a U.A.E and al-Qaeda page, start one. i don't see what argument you're trying to make with that. as for the significance of the taliban being recognized diplomatically, i suggest you look into what kind of relationship the taliban had with pakistan, saudi arabia, and the UAE. even there allies were getting wary of their actions and the fact that they reached out secretly to iraq is telling. Anthonymendoza 17:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

"telling" of what, exactly? "reached out" in what way? Was money exchanged? weapons? We know for a fact that al-Qaeda received money and weapons from people in the intelligence organizations of Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Qatar. We have no evidence of any such cooperation with Saddam's agents.--csloat 11:12, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

telling in that it shows that while they had ideological differences, they saw a common enemy in the U.S. As for how they reached out to each other, that story is still being told. jordanian officials believe iraqi agents told two zarqawi operatives that jordan was looking for them. while no money or weapons were exchanged, it shows some type of cooperation, or understanding, with zarqawi's group. that seems like solid evidence to me that saddam was willing to do business with islamic fundamentalists. i think everyone is looking for a smoking gun connection, but i don't think there is one. it's going to be more pieces of a puzzle. Anthonymendoza 19:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, here is what I don't get. Pieces of a puzzle? We know that Saddam was trying to arrest -- not work with -- Zarqawi, but three intel agents said there was no evidence he was even in Iraq. Yet you cite Jordan's suspicions, not any hard evidence, as proof of a "puzzle piece." Yet it doesn't bother you at all that al Qaeda members have been busted with ATM cards from banks in UAE and Saudi Arabia. And you cite a potential conversation with the Taliban -- not an exchange of money, arms, or promise of influence -- as another "puzzle piece." Seriously, do you think this is the kind of thing worth going to war over? When we know for a fact that other countries have provided arms and material support to al Qaeda, yet we continue to be allies with them? It just seems really bizarre and strange to me. As far as this page goes, my position is simply that we should stick to what is being reported in the mainstream media and what has been confirmed by official sources, rather than dwelling on every alleged conversation that some blogger thinks proves a conspiracy. Is that so wrong?--csloat 00:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

the CIA confirms what the jordanians said. is that not hard evidence? and we didn't go to war based solely on an al-qaeda/saddam connections. as far as "dwelling on every alleged conversation", you seem to hold the ABC translations in high esteem. what's wrong with the fox translations?Anthonymendoza 18:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

An anonymous official confirmed what they said "providing no further details"; other summaries of the report -- the ones most commonly cited in the mainstream media --

include the comment that "The evidence is that Saddam never gave Zarqawi anything." Don't distort the issue. I don't see the value in continuing the "case not closed" on Zarqawi argument -- we have his body. He has a leg! Come on. As for the translations, I agree that ABC is a better source than FOX, but I am unclear on what the translation dispute is here. Again, my point above is that Saddam's interactions with al Qaeda over the years do not amount to material operational support. I realize you are joining the conspiracy theory, and that's your right; my only claim on this article is that we should hilight the dominant conclusions of every major investigative body rather than pulling specific conversations or meetings out of context in order to support the fringe conspiracy theory of Stephen Hayes. We can note that his view is notable and in the minority, and that is fine. There is no point to debating who is right in talk.--csloat 10:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I might point out that it's a little absurd to say (as Cram said above) that the Taliban went to war with the U.S. The U.S. invaded Afghanistan because the Taliban harbored al-Qaeda. I only mention this because it seems that Cram's getting some important distinctions confused.
Anthony, your response to the analogy doesn't make much sense to me. "New information will be coming out," so we can't dismiss this ridiculous idea that the intelligence agencies have already dismissed. Anyway, the point of the analogy is to point out the hole in the logic that the addition in question uses to try to support the al-Qaeda & Saddam connection.
You say "and if you feel there should be a U.A.E and al-Qaeda page, start one. i don't see what argument you're trying to make with that." If you don't see what argument he's trying to make with that, refer to the sentence preceding the one you responded to. The point is that it is pretty obvious that all three countries in question had much stronger ties to al-Qaeda than Saddam ever did.
As to the argument that the two conspired in spite of their opposing goals because they had "a common enemy in the U.S.": al-Qaeda's chief target has always been the U.S., "the West," and "infidels" in general. Iraq's chief targets have always been Iran, followed by Kuwait and Israel. The U.S. itself was not an object of aggression for Iraq, as the first President Bush's national security advisor publicly noted. The "pieces of a puzzle" you're talking about are more like a cloud: If you turn your head, squint, and think of an elephant, it looks like an elephant. --Mr. Billion 22:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

the intelligence agencies have not dismissed the notion, only said that currently the evidence is not conclusive. a big difference. we were patrolling a no fly zone that would often lead to hostile fire, yet you seriously believe the US was not an object of aggression for iraq. and again, start a al-qaeda and the UAE page if you think it's noteworthy enough. why is that brought up! you seem to want to believe the case is closed with regards to this issue, when it's not. Anthonymendoza 18:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The intelligence agencies have dismissed the notion Anthony, unless you have evidence they are still working on it? The "big difference" is not so big at all if it doesn't result in different action. I never said the US was "not an object of aggression for Iraq" - the constant incursions by Iraq in the no fly zones is not something I ever disputed and is not relevant here. The reason I bring UAE up is obvious -- we did not go to war with UAE. Or the Saudis or Pakistanis. We did not try to establish a conspiracxy theory about any of those govts. Yet we have far more evidence of their connections to al Qaeda than we do of Iraq's. My point is that Iraq's interactions with al Qaeda do not and never have amounted to conspiracy; the fact that deeper collusion and interaction with other countries -- considered US allies -- is routine during the period under disucussion suggests that this page is much ado about nothing.--csloat 10:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

first off, i was responding to Mr. Billion when i was referring to the no fly zone. one of my biggest frustrations with you, csloat, is that you always manage to put words into my mouth. "I realize you are joining the conspiracy theory, and that's your right"-where do you get stuff like that?! the intelligence communities have all said that the evidence is inconclusive, not final. and my position is that new information about what was going on in the underworld of islamic fundamentalism prior to 9/11 will continue to come out and thus shed new light on who al-qaeda was communicating with. how am i now part of a conspiracy theory?? saddam ordered zarqawi operatives released and may have tipped them off that jordan was looking for them. and now we know that the taliban and iraq entered into secret talks. were you at those meetings? do you know what they discussed? does anyone know?? there are many more documents to be translated too. i know you have already reached your conclusions, but don't accuse me of joining conspiracy theories just because i disagree with your positions. history is being written with regards to this topic. it's not already set in stone. Anthonymendoza 21:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The conclusion that I have reached with regard to this is that the intelligence communities have been unable to find any evidence of collaboration between Saddam and al-Qaeda. What little has been found, including the new information about Zarqawi and the Taliban -- even if your wildly exaggerated claim about what we "know" about that information turns out to be true -- still does not even come close to what is known for a fact about the relationship between al Qaeda and staunch US allies like Pakistan, Saudi Arabia or UAE. Anyway, I am not interested in going back and forth on this. My position is that we should emphasize what the consensus view of the intelligence and investigative community is on this question. These tidbits of new information are worth including in the timeline of course. My main issue here is that they should not be presented as having changed the consensus view until that view actually changes. Sorry if I put words in your mouth but you seem pretty convinced those items are really important; I don't agree. Let's leave it at that, and let's just make sure the article focuses on what has actually been established in the public record. If there is a new investigation by the State Dept or the CIA that finds a need to revise their conclusions, let's report that here. No need to focus on what you or I have concluded.--csloat 02:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

To clarify: Iraq did indeed flail at the planes patrolling the no-fly-zones. Saddam did want to get rid of them so that he could regain control of large parts of his country. But that is not relevant to NSA advisor Scowcroft's assessment that "the United States itself" (not the air forces occupying parts of Iraq) was not an object of Saddam's aggression. He had no intention of striking at the U.S., as that would have had serious consequences and would not have gained him anything. This is relevant because it is a common assumption among those making the case for a Saddam/al-Qaeda conspiracy that Saddam's chief obsession was the U.S., or that attacking the U.S. was one of his big goals. --Mr. Billion 20:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The OIF documents make it clear that one of Saddam's goals was to attack the U.S. One document orders the recruiting of volunteers from his military to make terror strikes against Israel and the U.S. It is very difficult to argue that Saddam did not want to strike the US. One of the detainees was one of the Iraqi military who volunteered. He joined al-Qaeda and traveled with an Iraqi Intelligence Service officer to attack US embassies in Pakistan (I believe that is the right country). At any rate, the statements from detainees are confirming the OIF documents. That is why people are changing their minds on the issue. The argument that Saddam would not cooperate because of ideology does not wash. We already knew of Saddam's support for Islamic Jihad. As for Osama, he did not agree religiously with the Sudanese or the Taliban for that matter, but he cooperated with both. It is far better to look at the evidence of what they did than to make an argument from logic. RonCram 21:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

No; the OIF documents make it clear - as the official pentagon study of the documents concluded - that Saddam's obsessions were first and foremost internal upheaval and Iran; while the document you speak of did exist, it was clearly not a priority, and the Pentagon concluded these plans went nowhere. Read the Pentagon report on the documents and stop cherry picking the information that suits your argument. "People" are not changing their mind on this issue; you have presented no evidence of this other than repeatting flawed comments about Kerrey that have already been refuted. Your argument about Saddam's and Osama's ideology is wrong. Saddam was locking up jihadists and considered them a threat; most of the so-called contacts you emphasize are actually instances of Saddam trying to spy on the jihadists. Osama's ideology was far closer to the countries he worked with than with Saddam's, but it runs far deeper than that too, Ron.--csloat 10:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

the study says Saddam's first concern was internal, but that those around him feared an American invasion. it also paints a picture of Saddam losing control of his country, which supports what David Kay told Tom Brokaw: I think Baghdad was actually becoming more dangerous in the last two years than even we realized. Saddam was not controlling the society any longer. In the marketplace of terrorism and of WMD, Iraq well could have been that supplier if the war had not intervened... Look, I found no real connection between WMD and terrorists. What we did find, and as others are investigating it, we found a lot of terrorist groups and individuals that passed through Iraq.[8] Whether Saddam was aware of these groups or not is the real mystery.Anthonymendoza 16:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's that mysterious. Saddam was aware of Ansar al-Islam and was trying to spy on them. His government appears not to have known where Zarqawi was, but to have suspected that he was in the country. The issue relevant to this page is not whether he was aware of them but whether he conspired with them. The problem is that certain writers collapse those issues.--csloat 22:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

this is from the Senate Report of Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq: Iraqi Support for Terrorism described a network of more than a dozen al-Qaida or al-Qaida-associated operatives in Baghdad, and estimated that 100-200 al-Qaida fighters were present in northeastern Iraq in territory under the control of Ansar al-Islam.[9] is it plausible Saddam was unaware of this? Anthonymendoza 00:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

What is plausible is that Baghdad is not in northeastern Iraq and was never under the control of A-I. The question at issue here was whether Saddam knew the precise location of Mr. Zarqawi and whether Zarqawi was in Baghdad, not whether Saddam was aware that there was an anti-Saddam terrorist group in northeastern Iraq in an area not under his control. We know Saddam was aware of it; he even had a spy there (Mr. "Abu Wail").--csloat 18:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Evidence the pact was sealed

csloat, has asked for evidence to support the news report that a pact was sealed between Saddam and al-Qaeda in 1998. Of course, the evidence was in the rewrite I made for this page and he keeps reverting. But here is the evidence again - multiple news reports by media around the world:

In December 1998, President Clinton ordered Operation Desert Fox, a four day bombing attack on targets inside Iraq. Shortly after Operation Desert Fox, a number of news reports came out around the world giving details of the new working relationship between Saddam and Osama:

• "Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Ladin have sealed a pact." - Corriere Della Sera (Milan) - December 28, 1998.

• "…several western diplomatic and security sources which have good relations with Sudan, warned in secret reports they sent at the end of [1998] that Iraq, Sudan, and bin Laden were cooperating and coordinating in field of chemical weapons" at several facilities. - Al-Watan Al-Arabi (Paris) – January 1, 1999

• "President Saddam Hussein, whose country was subjected to a four-day air strike, will look for support in taking revenge on the United States and Britain by cooperating with Saudi oppositionist Osama bin Laden, whom the United States considers to be the most wanted person in the world." - Al-Quds Al-Arabi (London)

The ‘’Weekly Standard’’ reported:

’’The London-based Al-Majallah added even more details. According to the Saudi-backed publication, "scores of Iraqi military intelligence men . . . arrived in Afghan territory in December." Also in December, "the Iraqi Embassy in Islamabad held a series of meetings between an Iraqi security official and the leaders of a number of Pakistani fundamentalist movements and elements from the Taleban, with the knowledge of Pakistani military intelligence." The purpose of such meetings was to whip up support for Saddam in his confrontation with the U.S. and Britain.’’[10]

These news reports are corroborating evidence. RonCram 17:32, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

So, no evidence of a "pact" other than the word being used once by the Milan paper, and of course we know that the 1998 meetings "ended in disaster" for the Iraqis (see the timeline for that information). Nice work, Ron, but no cigar.--csloat 11:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC)