Talk:Iraq-al Qaeda Connection

Vandalism and Personal Attacks
I had barely posted this new article when it was viciously vandalized with personal attacks against me. There is no thought or effort to make the article better, only to destroy it in anger. RonCram

This article should be deleted and redirected
This is the first time I have seen this article - it is full of misinformation. The real article on this topic addresses each of these pieces of misinformation in turn. I believe this one should be deleted, with anything not addressed on the other page merged in (though after a quick glance I don't see anything new here). Why must people continue to spread this misinformation? --csloat 23:45, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I have just read it over more carefully. There really isn't anything new here except a lot of insistence that there was a Saddam-alQ connection during the Clinton Administration. I will leave it alone for a few days but it is my intention to replace the entire page with a redirect to the real page, which lists all of the meetings and incidents listed here but also includes the evaluation of those supposed links by terrorism experts, intelligence analysts, and the mass media. It is bizarre to me that so much of this keeps getting reposted. If my experience on the other page is any clue, the conspiracy theorists will cling tooth and nail to the fantasy of Saddam-OBL collaboration, which means more of my time will be wasted debunking a lot of this crap. --csloat 23:51, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

This article is unsubstantiated talking points long discredited - and reading it, it became obvious that it dances around fact, to a maddening degree. Like the original 'Saddam and al-Qaeda' article, this is trash. And I honestly do not mean that as a personal attack on the original poster (who has performed the lion's share of the edits) for this regurgitation of disinformation. I blame Feith, Hayes, and those who favor power over fact, and ambition over nation. -- RyanFreisling @ 01:44, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

This article is a complete mess, both informationwise and writingwise (try using a comma!). It also appears to be structured like a persuasive essay ("the evidence suggests.." in the introduction then a list of selectively chosen facts to prove this). Horrible. Any credible bits of information not in the existing article should be edited into the existing article by someone who does not have an agenda to push. --Jamieli 16:35, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Let's redirect as csloat suggests. . . -asx- 17:35, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Attempt to Delete and Redirect is Attempt at Censorship
There is much here that is not in the other article (which I did not know about until today). I have added a note at the top of the article for readers to see the other article. The best way to deal with controversial subjects, if the information is too large for one article, is to allow editors to state their case in a factual and unbiased manner and include a link to an opposing viewpoint. In that way, readers can read facts that support different conclusions.

Claims that the facts in this article are "unsubstantiated" or "debunked" are simply untrue. Putting "alleged" in front of a statement of fact does not debunk it.

The attempt to delete and redirect this article is attempt at censorship. The facts stand on their own as long as people are allowed to access to them. RonCram


 * Both articles deal with the same things and reacch opposite conclusions. I don't want to censor anything - if you know of a fact that is not on the other page please list it in the timeline.  I read this page and did not see anything not already dealt with, but if there is something please include the evidence there.  These items are not just alleged; in many cases they have been disproven, and in other cases it has been the conclusion of experts and intelligence analysts that nothing came out of the meetings.  The problem with this page is we have been over all this ground extensively before on the other page.--csloat 08:49, 23 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Cry censorship! That's it! If you can't write an article that ruthlessly culls fact out from a mess of fiction, and you selectively base your premise on uncorroborated intelligence 'line items', you should not be surprised that your article falls appallingly below the 'level of quality' required for a free encyclopedia. You're not bringing truth to an unreceptive group - you're bringing pre-existing propaganda, now heavily discredited, back to the Wikipedia for it's second time thru the filter. Did you even read the 'Saddam and al-Qaeda' article before you decided your allegations merited an article unto themselves? Hardly censorship, if you made no effort to incorporate your 'facts' into the pre-existing body of information... -- RyanFreisling @ 13:15, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

The bottom line is that we don't want the same article twice on Wikipedia under different names. Regardless of the content, there should only be one article on this topic. It would be a better use of all our energies if we collaborate on a single article, instead of two. -asx- 17:38, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

What Makes This Article Different
The facts in this article are not disproven or even in doubt. The article cites substantiated evidence that that the meetings DID result in a working relationship in the area of chemical weapons development and training. The problem is that no one here has covered the ground on the connection.

This article:
 * *extensively quotes and references The 9/11 Commission Report and the Senate Report
 * *proves the connection between Saddam and al Qaida was fully understood under Clinton, specifically citing the writings of Richard A Clarke and Patrick Fitzgerald
 * *proves there was a working relationship between Saddam and al Qaeda in the area of chemical weapons development and training
 * *names specific Middle East experts who see the connection even after it became politically unpopular, including former Clinton DCI James Woolsey, think tank researchers and investigative journalists
 * *dicusses the difference of opinion between the Intelligence Community and the Office of the Secretary of Defense
 * *refers to a federal court case that found Saddam was involved in 9/11
 * *provides significant research material that readers can access for additional information

It is not possible to disprove the facts in this article. Most people will not read The 9/11 Commission Report or the Senate Report for themselves, but they may read an article that quotes from it extensively (rather than the usual media tactic of quoting only one conclusion of the report). That explains your attempt to censor the article.

Censorship is the nuclear option. Are you really that afraid of the truth? RonCram


 * I see you still haven't bothered to read the Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda article. Read the timeline - everything you've quoted from the 911 Commission and other sources is refuted there.  Also, it is distorting reality to quote the 911 Commission on alleged meetings without citing their overwhelming conclusion!  Or to cite Clarke in 1997 but not his conclusions in 2004!  There was no Iraq-Al-Qaeda conspiracy; what there was was a few meetings and attempts to make contact, all of which led nowhere.  All intelligence agencies, including the CIA, and all terrorism experts now believe the two did not work together.  It doesn't matter what Woolsey thinks -- he was DCI, a political position, not an analyst actually sifting through the data.  The collective intelligence community reached a different conclusion; Woolsey is one person with a political agenda.  As for the DOD - what you mean is the OSP, created within the Pentagon specifically to make an end-run around the CIA conclusions in order to make a phony case for war.  This was exposed by Karen Kwiatkowski and is confirmed by the fact that the OSP was staffed by hacks like Douglas Feith.  The federal court case is irrelevant as well -- all it proves is that Saddam did not show up to court to defend himself (duh).  ALL of this material is covered in the timeline and has been extensively refuted on the discussion page.  Please read it carefully and if you think you have "truths" here that are not covered, please integrate them.  Stop whining about censorship - if you have information here that is not duplicated there, just include it in the timeline where it belongs.  On another note this page is a mess -- the other one is chronologically organized, which is at least slightly better.  --csloat 18:18, 23 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I see you still have not bothered to read this article or do any kind of comparison of the topics, quotes and people discussed. I searched the conspiracy article for a series of key terms and only a few were found in the conspiracy article.  All of the following were NOT found:
 * Shifa
 * Patrick Fitzgerald
 * Fadl
 * dual-use
 * VX
 * boogie
 * Deroy Murdock
 * Jonathan Schanzer
 * Laurie Mylroie
 * Joseph Farah
 * Richard Miniter
 * Suleiman
 * al-Janabi
 * Shahab
 * Conclusion 94
 * Conclusion 95
 * Conclusion 97
 * Mujahidin e-Khalq
 * MEK
 * OSD
 * Office of the Secretary of Defense


 * Quit saying all of this was covered in the conspiracy article. That is clearly untrue to anyone who bothered to read both articles.


 * Contrary to your assumption, I was referring to the Office of the Secretary of Defense as my source indicates, if you had bothered to read it.


 * It is completely inaccurate to say "all terrorism experts now believe the two did not work together." That would only be true if you discount nearly a dozen terrorism experts who were quoted or referenced in this article.


 * Regarding the federal court case, there are very specific rules about trying a case in abstentia. The judge did not allow any hearsay evidence but did allow the testimony of expert witnesses like James Woolsey, who despite your denials was recognized as a terrorism expert by the court.  I suggest you watch the video on the CBS News website that I linked to.  By the way, Woolsey is a Democrat who was appointed by Clinton and Laurie Mylroie worked on Clinton's campaign staff in 1992.  Their conviction of the connection has nothing to do with politics.


 * You want to pretend there is no evidence for a connection and then try to suppress the facts. The fact is this article is nothing like the conspiracy article.  There are a few minor points of overlap but that is all.


 * In some cases the best way to present a story is to do it chronologically. Sometimes that is not the best way to tell the story at all.  In this case, a strict chronological retelling is not the best.  Certainly there are ways to make the article better but switching to a chronological approach is not it.  RonCram


 * Despite your posting of a list of google terms, they, nor your article, nor the cases cited in your article, explain the factual reality that al Qaeda and Iraq under Saddam Hussein did not collaborate or conspire on operations of terrorism. The citations and intelligence 'blips' do not add up to that conclusion. The 'dozen experts' you mention who would publicly allege such a connection are welcome to substantiate their claims - each time, however, it turns out those conclusions are in fact the goal of their research, and rigorous corroboration of allegations the first casualty of their zeal to justify war.


 * As the DSM memos state, "The intelligence was fixed around the policy". Alleging Clinton knew of ongoing collaboration between the two is patently false. Both were targets, but not collaborators. Your conclusions are faulty, and your article is too poorly written to communicate anything other than propagandistic desire to substantiate a war policy based on lies. -- RyanFreisling @ 23:25, 23 July 2005 (UTC)


 * It's very obvious you want to tell a story - but this is an encyclopedia. Please take your untruth elsewhere. -- RyanFreisling @ 23:25, 23 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Ron: It would be better if you actually read the timeline rather than scanning it for key words.  I believe these items are all part of other items covered (e.g. under visits to Sudan, etc.), and if you disagree please feel free to edit the page -- all you need to do is include (for example): "1994 - July - Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden seen in a cafe in Sudan puffing on a hookah filled with VX gas" or whatever in the timeline.  All you need is a date and an explanation, with whatever quotes from "experts" you want to include.  I will not delete such items (though of course I may find myself researching them and adding material, as I have with the other items on the timeline).


 * Also a couple of things. The OSP was in the Office of Secretary of Defense -- so we are talking about the same office.  And neither employs intelligence analysts -- those are at CIA and DIA, and they concluded that the so-called "connection" was bogus.  What happened was that the OSP was created in the Pentagon specifically to go through raw intelligence reports that the CIA and DIA had already been through.  But instead of analyzing it for information, they used it to construct a case.  This is called "Team B" - they did the same thing in the Reagan admin -- a group of people hired for their ideology rather than their expertise, using the raw intel to tell a different story.  This all came out when Karen Kwiatkowski quit.  Also, James Woolsey is no terrorism expert.  He, like most people who occupy the DCI position (Stansfield Turner being a notable exception perhaps), is a political figure, not an analyst and certainly not an expert.  Let's face it, the DCI's main job is to be ready to fall on his sword.  I'm not saying that to disrespect Woolsey's experience in his role, or even the need for that role,but I think we need to be honest about what that role is.  Especially when all the real analysts at his organization conclude the other way.  But it doesn't matter - if you want to include Woolsey's quotes here that is fine, they are certainly relevant, but it is more relevant that the entire organization has concluded the opposite way.


 * Also, when I say "terrorism expert" or scholar I mean someone with actual expertise in the field, which could include advanced degrees, extensive public service experience specifically on the terrorism question, or extensive field research (interviews with terrorists, for example). I do not include ideologues with no expertise in the area who happen to work for think tanks.  Just because the Heritage Foundation considers someone a scholar does not cut it for me, sorry.  I'm interested in people who have committed themselves to actually understanding the phenomenon, not people who are essentially producing PR.  Laurie Mylroie is a classic example.  A university press would never have published that book about the 93 WTC attack.  Here are some comments from an actual Middle East expert about Mylroie's "expertise".  By the way, when I say people like Mylroie are ideologues it has nothing to do with whether they are democrat or republican - I could care less.  It's a question of whether they look at the evidence to figure out the truth or whether they look at the evidence to build a stronger case for the conclusion they have already arrived at.  In Mylroie's case I think she goes even farther and distorts things.  And there are plenty of republicans and former republicans whose expertise here is much more credible to me -- folks like Michael Scheuer, Larry Johnson, Brent Scowcroft, Jeffrey Record.  Also the Clinton administration folks who actually dealt with terrorism day to day -- Clarke, Daniel Benjamin, Scheuer, etc. -- have all concluded the Iraq al Qaeda allegations are bogus.


 * Also many items on your list are disingenuous. There is no "Office of the Secretary of Defense" but there is "Pentagon" and "Defense Secretary" and "DoD."  You cite MEK -- the reason there is no MEK is because their closest links were with John Ashcroft and Richard Perle, not with Saddam.  Salah Suleiman is not mentioned because he was working with Zarqawi, who was not al Qaeda at the time (and certainly was not connected to Saddam).  Shifa is not mentioned by name but is referred to (search for Sudan).


 * Again, nobody wants to censor you. Go ahead and add to the timeline anything you think belongs there.  Others will have a go at it, but if you have information that is backed up with evidence, it will stay up.  But I think you are way overstating the items on this page that you think are new. --csloat 00:06, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Stop editing this page
I notice the anon user is still adding material to this page. Besides the fact that the material is inaccurate, it should no longer be added here, unless you have a contribution to the discussion about deleting this page. Otherwise you are just spinning wheels, as this page will be soon deleted. Please add any information relevant to the Saddam-Al-Qaeda conspiracy theory on the proper page.--csloat 01:05, 26 July 2005 (UTC)