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

Goldberg article
this article is mentioned in the timeline. The main source of information is identified as a "Kurdish prisoner" who worked for both Iraqi intelligence and al-Zawahiri. I cannot find his name anywhere in the article, but I believe him to be the same Kurdish prisoner that Jason Burke exposes here as a liar. The details and dates certainly match up, and it would help explain this far-fetched story. Comments?--csloat 21:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Footnotes?
The footnotes (using the "ref" tags) are missing from this page. You can see them in the edit box but there is nothing at the bottom of the page and clicking on a footnote does nothing (except when it's a direct link). Anyone know why? Thanks.--csloat 22:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * i think you fixed the problem. there was no reference section when the page was created.Anthonymendoza 15:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Hudayfa Azzam and similar edits
I've left such edits alone for now, but I really wonder how much we should put in this about al Qaeda entering into Iraq to confront the US invasion. There is little dispute that the US invasion brought al Qaeda members and other terrorists into Iraq to confront it. This is distinct from any al-Qaeda presence in Iraq that was used to justify the invasion -- that is something that used to be made clear on the original page, before splitting off the timeline, but I think it is confused now. This is a confusion promoted by right-wing blogs, as a simple google search for Hudayfa Azzam will show -- numerous right-wing blogs claim this constitutes a link between Saddam and AQ justifying the invasion, yet all this tells us about are things that were caused by the invasion (or the knowledge that an invasion was forthcoming). It's an obviously circular argument, and I think something should be done here to clear up the confusion. Any suggestions?--csloat 00:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Since Azzam said it himself I simply added that; I suppose that will do for the time being. Eventually though this should probably be cleaned up in some way to separate these points out.--csloat 01:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Mind the disinformation please
Unfortunately we have people adding every possible bit of information that has anything to do with this whether relevant or not. It's a little tedious to have to re-research each one of these and often discover that the main source is "insane" (Zubaydah), a "liar" (Shahab), spreading disinformation as an agent of Iran (Chalabi, Khodada, Qurairy, etc.), that the relevant documents are known forgeries (Atta in Prague), or that a quoted expert concludes the exact opposite of what the wikipedia editor added (Gunaratna). Those are just the examples that come to mind offhand. I feel like it's a big game to some people; they come across a right-wing blog and shout "ah-ha!" and add the information here as if it is conclusive proof that there was a conspiracy all this time, and then it is up to me to google or lexis/nexis for half an hour to track down the information that I remembered reading a year or two ago that clarifies the information (or, in many cases, disinformation) that had been inserted. In the end it does make the article more comprehensive, I suppose, but I would feel less annoyed by all this if people inserting such things would spend a little more time researching them more thoroughly before putting them in here. The fact is that there is a lot of disinformation out there, so some of this is inevitable, but if people are wary about the disinformation to begin with we might have less trouble. Remember, there might be a good reason that all intelligence agencies and all experts who have looked at this have concluded that there is no evidence of Saddam-alQaeda cooperation.--csloat 01:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Zubaydah
LOL. You're killing me here, Anthony. Yes, the 9/11 Commission was wrong about Zubaydah, whether or not an anonymous official said something different to the Moonie newspaper. Dan Coleman, the FBI's main al Qaeda expert, who actually put his name and reputation behind this claim, was pretty clear on this, and if you read the Ottawa Citizen article (rather than simply playing "gotcha"), you would come to the same conclusion yourself -- read the comments in his diary for example. (And, as has been typical, you don't even quote the part of the moonie paper that rebut the claim of this anyonymous official; did you stop reading after you found your money quote, or did you want to make me do it for you once again?) What's really ridiculous about this is we now have 617 words about Zubaydah in here - a man who (whether or not he was insane) told the CIA only that he knew of no Saddam/AQ cooperation, but that if there was some, he would not be privy to it. In sum, over 600 words about what the guy does not know. Oddly enough, you are now claiming that he was "a senior planner" inside al-Qaeda -- something Zubaydah denied in the passage that you quote from the Senate committee. So we have a lot of strange logical contortions here -- if the guy was the "senior planner," then he would have information about Saddam ties, which according to his knowledge did not exist. Again, all I'm asking is that you put a little more thinking and reading into your edits; I'm sure you mean well, and I am sure you think my edits are one-sided too.--csloat 01:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * i really hate your "LOL" remarks. based on one book you now believe Zubaydah is insane. ok. the newspaper article you cite simply repeats what the book says.  i did a search and the only people who believe the book are left wing bloggers.  the washington times article also states He told us in an interview that Zubaydah did provide the United States with key pieces of information, such as identifying an al Qaeda code name as that of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the man who planned the September 11 attacks. The information led to Mohammed's capture. so he is insane yet provided valuable information like this.  you are killing me and i'm growing tired of debating you as you always attempt to put me down and ridicule my edits.  from now we should just edit as we see fit, add to each other's edits, and not engage in discussion's as i'm tired of feeling insulted by you.  Anthonymendoza 02:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I found your changes amusing. I believe Dan Coleman + Suskind's other sources, not "one book."  I realize that the Ottawa Citizen quoted the book, and the evidence in the Citizen is convincing.  I have not yet read the book, but the moonie paper you cite is not convincing.  Your claim that only "left wing bloggers" believe the book is totally false; do a lexis nexis search or go to the library and look up articles in mainstream newspapers.  Zubaydah was a "taxi driver" for al Qaeda, which makes it credible that he was able to identify KSM.  He wasn't important; he drove important people around; and I never disputed that getting KSM was valuable.  It really doesn't matter for the other reasons I mentioned above - I'm not trying to ridicule you; just point out that it is pointless to play "gotcha" with this information, since the Zubaydah stuff in the article - now almost 800 words - adds precisely zero substantive information to it, since we are talking about what Zubaydah didn't know (whether he was "insane" or not).  Anyway I'm not trying to insult you, I'm just hoping for less one-sided participation here.  You seem to be going out of your way to find things that make it sound like there was a Saddam/AQ conspiracy, even when you have to ignore other parts of the articles or basic facts in order to do it.  You don't think I should find that problematic?--csloat 02:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

So... Cleaning up the article... Discuss.
This is a huge article with a huge amount of information to sort through in the clean-up. Let's discuss how to most effectively and most quickly accomplish that task. First, some questions and series of questions that I think should be answered:

1) Should the article be broken down into smaller sections for certain editors to tackle? If so, how many sections/editors? Who will the editors be? Should each section be done by multiple editors?

2) What should the goal be for the finished, cleaned-up article? Format, content, etc.

Add your own ideas (and questions). Jinxmchue 04:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Reorganizing might be too large a task to take on at this point - I'd say to start with, we should focus on removing the information that is duplicative or not significant. There should not be a timeline entry for an article published in a magazine unless that particular article has major news (e.g. the NYT publication of information about al-Libi lying, or the publication of Nasiri's book).  There should also be some attempt to weed out stuff that does not meet WP:RS.csloat 05:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Dispute - accuracy and RS
This article includes numerous claims that have been disputed, refuted and/or disproven by the US Gov, and various commisions. It presents them as 'facts'. This is an outrageous misuse of Wiki and violation of WP, and is the equivalent of if the '9/11 attacks' article incorporated the various conspiracy theories regarding 'controlled demolition' and other hypothesies into the body of the article. I deleted two claims by conspiracy theorist Stephen F. Hayes. His claims reagrding Saddam/Iraq and Al Qaeda were specfically denied by the DOD, and most of his other conspiracy theories have been thoroughly rejected by the US Gov, and other experts, as well. He can not be considered a reliable source. Someone reverted my edits.

As an admin opined:


 * "Misuse of Wikipedia as a platform to espouse "hypothesises" and "theories" with no basis in fact is not to be tolerated.--MONGO 08:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)" Words of wisdom applicable to this article and Stephen Hayes too. - F.A.A.F.A. 23:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * What pieces are hoaxes? Bring anything you think is a hoax to the talk page to discuss.  --Tbeatty 05:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Who said 'hoax'? I said 'Conspiracy Theory'. A major source for the Conspiracy Theories was a memo from Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith. The so-called Feith Memo was based on leaked intelligence, which the Defense Department subsequently rejected as "inaccurate," noting that the information leaked "was not an analysis of the substantive issue of the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda, and it drew no conclusions."DOD refutes allegations and condemns Conspiracy Theorists - F.A.A.F.A. 07:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Many of them are hoaxes, but the problem is that if they are removed, someone who believes them will put them back in a month from now and we will have to re-research the information exposing it as a hoax. Better to have all the info in here now, but it can certainly be described differently; in fact, there was some discussion a while ago about renaming this to Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda conspiracy theory, which would be more accurate, since this is all about the conspiracy theory and mostly consists of information debunking the generally bogus "links" that have been raised by conspiracy theorists.  I'd say that too many notable people believe this conspiracy theory right now to simply remove reference to their various "points"; but I agree they should not be stated as fact.  If all we have is Stephen Hayes alleging something, that should be clear.  If all we have is info from the Feith report, that too should be clear, with reference (perhaps on a new separate page) to the fact that the Feith report was rejected by the pentagon and consisted of unanalyzed "intelligence" that was mostly rumor and speculation rather than actual fact. csloat 06:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Good idea, ill do the rename. --Striver 17:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Please seek consensus before such a contentious page move. I changed it back -- this is a timeline, and it is linked to Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.  If there is to be a move, both pages should be moved, and this one would become Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda conspiracy theory timeline.  Some review of the previous discussion about moving this page would be helpful; such a move was rejected about a year and a half ago.  I wouldn't necessarily oppose such a move but I would want to hear some discussion about it first. csloat 17:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Hijazi 1994 meeting
I think I agree with Catchpole that the entry is not a stellar example of coherent writing. But I also agree with FAFA that the sourcing is better than the weekly standard junk that was there before. But given that the 1994 hijazi meeting is probably the one meeting that actually may have occurred, we should not delete this information. Best thing to do would be to quote the 2006 SSCI report on the issue, methinks. Again, I think it's better to have such things in the article along with the evidence refuting it than it is to take it out and wait until someone else puts it in a few months from now and then have to re-research the evidence refuting it.csloat 09:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I've attempted a re-write. (I didn't realise that FAFA had only altered this recently) I agree that the myths about Iraq and Al-Qaeda need to be disspelled. Catchpole 10:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Good job; I added "allegedly" since the meeting (like the others) is not actually confirmed. I also got started on removing some of the cruft.  I don't see the need for random quotes from random articles unless they are tied to specific claims on the timeline.  I also don't think anything should be published here that is pure speculation from sources that lack credibility -- nothing wrong with citing WS if their claims are supported or mentioned by other sources, but if that's the only source and it's just a bunch of speculation about what some documents might say, it should be nuked. csloat 10:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Good work. Won't have time to do much editing 'till tonight. - F.A.A.F.A. 20:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I think there is confusion as to the date of the alleged 'Sudan' meeting. The timeline says 1994, and 1995. I think both dates refer to the same alleged meeting and claims like " Iraq's contacts with bin Laden go back some years, to at least 1994, when, according to one U.S. government source, Hijazi met him when bin Laden lived in Sudan. " have caused confusion. Does any  RS report that there were multiple Sudan meetings in 1994 and 1995?
 * I think you're right; there was probably just one meeting, but there are conflicting reports about it. csloat 08:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Trimming
This page is currently number 29 on Special:Long pages. The recent Afd discussion called for the article to be cleaned-up. I don't see the need for quoting verbatim from referenced sources when they can just be summarised. I think the article should be trimmed to make it less verbose and improve its readability. Catchpole 19:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree in general, but I object to the specific material you cut out of the 1994 section. I think at the least the Bergen quote should stay as it accurately and succinctly summarizes the consensus of official investigations on the issue. In truth it's going to be hard to pare this page down too much because the conspiracy theorists will insist that every reported meeting or phone call is notable. I think we can get rid of the long Atta in Prague paragraph and just point to Atta in Prague. I think we can make a similar page for Zarqawi and the conspiracy theory related to him (Saddam, al-Qaeda, and Zarqawi?) and get rid of another long section.  Possibly we could do the same with the 1993 conspiracy theory.csloat 19:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion for cleanup
My suggestion is first to work through all the citations, and templatize them so that they display in the references section as something more than just a URL link. As each one is templatized, it can be verified for still being "alive", and if dead, or otherwise inappropriate, removed. That should winnow down the references and statements at least a little bit. Once each cite is verified and formatted, then another pass through for "debunking". This process is a bit more research-intensive. I suggest that something that is "debunked" remain in the article, and be identified as such, with a second reference to the reliable debunking source. This will prevent editors in the future from reinserting bad info that has already been debunked. Sound reasonable? Crockspot 19:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and started converting the citations, starting from the top, but there are almost 300 of them, so this is going to take a while. If anyone wants to help, to avoid edit conflicts, I suggest picking a section out of the middle, or from the bottom, or whatever. Just leave a note here so we don't muck up each other's work. Crockspot 19:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * If ANYONE wants to help... (anyone?... Beuler?) I am using the templates from WP:CTT such as cite web, cite news, cite book, etc. I am enclosing them in ref tags, using ref names that include the publisher and the date in a consistent format. For example, if the reference was a Commondreams article published on Jan 15, 2003, the refname would be "commondreams20030115". It would be nice if people could follow the same convention. I don't think we'll run into different refs having the same refname that way, but if we do, we can add an a or b to the end of the refname. As of this moment, I've only done up through and including the 1994 section. I will keep working my way down the article slowly. If you want to lend a hand, grab a section from further down the article. Crockspot 15:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Last sentence before content box
This sentence is lifted verbatim from the source article, yet there are no quotation marks or anything else to indicate it is not an original sentence. Jinxmchue 15:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Hoax tag
Not everything in this article can be considered a "hoax", and the article is being actively worked on by several editors to identify such items that could be classified as such. Also considering that the hoax tag should be used with an AfD, and the AfD was rejected, I respectfully request that the hoax tag please stop being added back in. Some people may be quite surprised at how much of this article is NOT a hoax. - Crockspot 19:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * To those who keep adding the tag to this article -- I understand your objection to the alleged connections between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. But the  tag is not the Wikipedia way to indicate that a notable subject is the product of misinformation. Please read Hoaxes. This subject, however mendacious, has received "sustained media attention" and "been believed by thousands of people including academics". Even if it is a fraud, it's not only notable -- it's historic. -- Shunpiker 22:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey, Ben, knock off the cute little trick of slipping in the "Hoaxes" category at the bottom of the article. If the hoax tag isn't at the top, the category doesn't belong at the bottom. I don't see anything in Shunpiker's above comment that justifies the addition of that category. Please stop misusing Wiki guidelines and policies. Jinxmchue 02:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, yeah, and also, please stop using weasel words. Jinxmchue 02:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, assume good faith. I don't make revenge edits, Ben. I actually follow Wiki policies and guidelines. Jinxmchue 02:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Not a "cute little trick" its the truth of the matter. And the statement I added is the view of MANY in this country and elsewhere.  Some even in the CIA and the Senate.  So you have no basis for calling that NNPOV.  I have the the BBC, as WP:RS as can be, reporting the results of a Senate report citing CIA sources.  My statement STANDS in this article as does the HOAX categorization.  If you don't like it, then I suggest that you call for mediation because I don't intend to back down on this.  --BenBurch 03:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Ben, the hoax categorization requires that the article be tagged as a hoax (see Category:Suspected hoax articles). Your attempt to do that was shot down in flames and now you're simply trying to get around that. Additionally, you're edit regarding the CIA report is NPOV via the use of weasel wording (see WP:WEASEL and pay particular attention to the examples). None of your edits stand because they fly directly in the face of Wiki guidelines and policies. You are misusing them and you know it. Jinxmchue 03:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment: Actually, the guidelines for using (or not using) the tag do not apply to "hoax" categories. The  tag is for flagging non-notable hoaxes (usually those perpetrated entirely or primarily on wikipedia). They tend to get deleted pretty quickly. The "hoax" categories, on the other hand, are for permanent articles on notable hoaxes, keeping in mind that the designation of "hoax" should conform to the policies of WP:V and WP:NPOV. In the case of this article, it seems too broad (IMHO) to be entirely categorized as a "hoax". But it's worth noting that at least one element that belongs to the timeline (but oddly isn't there) is classified under a sub-category of Category:Hoaxes: the Niger uranium documents are categorized (aptly) as a political forgery. -- Shunpiker 05:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I added the bolded text to the opening: "The Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda timeline below lists allegations of meetings, many now denied or disproven by the United States Government, between al-Qaeda members and members of Saddam Hussein's government, as well as other information relevant to the theory.... " OK? - F.A.A.F.A. 07:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

What this article is and what it isn't
As the title and introduction imply, this article is a timeline of sources relating to an alleged connection between Hussein and al Queda. These sources (which I am in the process of verifying) did actually get published, and unless someone can show that the publication of nearly 300 sources cited in this article were actually not published by those who published them, the article cannot be a hoax, because it is indeed a timeline of sources that were actually published. The idea that there was a link can be suspected of being a hoax (I don't think it has been verifiably proven to be a hoax, so that is why I used "suspected"), but that is not what this article is about. It's basically a list of all relevant sources. I don't even think that, beyond the introduction, there should be much, if any, commentary or summarization going on. I would like to get on with the first step of verifying and formatting the sources without disruption. Would some of you like to assist me in a positive way? Crockspot 15:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that the hoax tag is not appropriate here. But it is incorrect to say that it has not proven to be a hoax -- there are, actually, proven hoaxes involved here, in particular, the testimony under torture of Ibn Shaykh al-Libi, which was the key component of Powell's now-completely discredited speech to the UN.  There are other hoaxes, such as the forged document connecting Mohamed Atta to Iraqi intelligence, the interviews with the rapist/murderer Mohamed Mansour Shahab, the comments of the phony Iraqi general al-Ghurairy, etc.  There is strong evidence that the entire set of allegations that came out of the INC are part of an elaborate hoax (and, again, this information is now thoroughly discredited).  But you are right - that's not the proper use of the "hoax" tag in this context.  It is necessary, however, for this article to include the information when it is known that a particular statement or article was a hoax.csloat 21:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Crockspot - Claims that involve living, named people which have been denied, disproven or discounted by official sources must be removed.


 * Biographical claims about living people need special care because of the effect they could have on someone's life, and because they could have legal consequences. Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons immediately and do not move it to the talk page. This applies to the website as a whole, not only to the main namespace.


 * Remove unsourced or poorly sourced controversial material


 * Editors should remove any controversial material about living persons that is either unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Reliable sources, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source. In cases where the information is derogatory and poorly sourced or unsourced, this kind of edit is an exception to the three-revert rule. These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia, including user and talk pages. Administrators may enforce the removal of such material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked. See the blocking policy and Libel.


 * How would you like it is some delusional Conspiracy Theorist like Stephen Hayes of Laurie Myorie wrote that you met with al Qaeda, based on unsubstantiated rumor? - F.A.A.F.A. 21:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You're actually making a BLP claim in this article? I have no response to that. - Crockspot 22:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think he is dead on. Saddam is still alive, and this page is 99% about him and what he did or did not do.  I have marked it as a biography of a living person, and added tags suggesting that it be merged (perhaps as a sub-page?) with the main Saddam article. --BenBurch 22:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * BLP guidelines apply to all living people, whether an article is a biography or not. Furthermore, Crockspot, I am researching the history of this article from when it was split off from the main article. AFAIK, it was never intended to be an article that documented all 'allegations', including disproven ones. It was meant to be an article about the timeline of actual contact between Saddam and AQ. If this was the original scope and intent of the article, it needs to be be returned to that. - F.A.A.F.A. 23:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It isn't a BLP violation if Saddam or some Iraqi agent was slandered in mainstream media, and the historical information is presented alongside reliable sources that now prove the claims were baseless and exonerate the person. That is the nature of NPOV. We present the history of all sides, using reliable sources. Since, as you say, we have new additional reliable sources that discount all of those claims, one would think that the both of you would want that notable and historical information in the article together, to expose the BFEE/PNAC agenda of lies. It's curious that you just want it to go away. But knock yourselves out. I have taken on the task of verifying and formatting all of the sources (and learning the material better along the way), and as you can see by the edit history, I have a long way to go. I'm not going to allow myself to be distracted by you two any longer. I'll reserve judgement on whether or not all the claims were refuted until I've read all the sources. - Crockspot 00:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * That's not correct. It has always been a repository for all documented allegations, along with documentation disproving them.  The problem with your suggestion is that we can delete the stufff that is not true, and then a month from now someone will add it again with a link to the article, and we will have to re-research the information showing it is not true.  That is a lot of extra work -- I don't like the fact that all these false charges were made either, but at least the article as it currently stands allows us to look up a false charge and immediately see the information refuting it. I'd hate to have to do that research again in 6 months when some Laurie Mylroie fanatic comes by to re-add all the bogus claims.csloat 00:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You're correct. I misinterpeted the earliest intro. Sorry. If this article is going to list alleged meetings which have been denied or disproven by the 9/11 or other commissions though, it must be renamed to include 'conspiracy theory' in the title as it once was. The unsupported claims of Conspiracy Theorists like Hayes that have been denied by the U.S. Gov can not be presented as fact. - F.A.A.F.A. 00:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm OK with that, but I don't think others will be. csloat 22:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Crockspot: What's a BFEE? Thanks - F.A.A.F.A. 00:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Boron trifluoride diethyl etherate, of course. --BenBurch 23:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Senate report
in case there is confusion, the 2006 senate report made the conclusions cited in the intro. the report states that the cia stands by prewar assessments-that saddam and al qaeda were independent actors who exploited each other. the 2005 cia report solely deals with zarqawi. this report is classified but the senate report states the cia concluded there was no relationship between zarqawi and saddam. a cia source told newsweek the report also acknowledges there are wide gaps in knowledge about the issue.Anthonymendoza 01:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Do you know the links to PDF's of those reports? Thanks - F.A.A.F.A. 01:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * That is at significant odds with the BBC article. Can you prove this?  BBC are usually very careful to not make errors like this when talking about foreign governments. --BenBurch 04:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * i'm sorry it's taken me so long to respond to this, but i believe what i stated above is correct. unfortunately, the link to phase 2 is dead, but here is a direct quote from the report


 * ''The CIA has not published a "fully researched, coordinated and approved position" on the postwar reporting on the former regime's links to al-Qa'ida, but has published such a paper on the postwar reporting of Abu Mus'ad al-Zarqawi and the former regime. The CIA told the Committee that regarding Iraq's links to terrorism, "the research the Counterterrorist Center has done on this issue has called into question some of the reports of contacts and training...revealed other contacts of which we were unaware, and shed new light on some contacts that appeared in prewar reporting. On balance, this research suggests that the prewar judgment remains valid."


 * according to the 2004 report, the cia's position is


 * The CIA assessed that: Regarding the Iraq-al-Qaida relationship, reporting from sources of varying reliability points to a number of contacts, incidents of training, and discussions of Iraqi safehaven for Usama bin Laden and his organization dating from the early 1990's. Iraq's interaction with al-Qaida is impelled by mutual antipathy toward the United States and the Saudi royal family and by bin Ladin's interest in unconventional weapons and relocation sites. The relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida appears to more closely resemble that of two independent actors trying to exploit each other - their mutual suspicion suborned by al-Qaida's interest in Iraqi assistance, and Baghdad's interest in al-Qaida's anti-U.S. attacks. The Intelligence Community has no credible information that Baghdad had foreknowledge of the 11 September attacks or any other al-Qaida strike, but continues to pursue all leads.


 * as for the 2005 CIA report, read this.


 * i'm not saying the BBC article is wrong. here is what the article states:


 * The finding is contained in a 2005 CIA report released by the Senate's Intelligence Committee on Friday. US President George W Bush has said that the presence of late al-Qaeda leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in Iraq before the war was evidence of a link.


 * i think the BBC article is referring to the Zarqawi report. i've changed the intro to reflect this information.Anthonymendoza 03:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Abdul Rahman Yasin
The article states (in 1994)


 * Baghdad: Abdul Rahman Yasin, one of the bombers in the 1993 World Trade Center attack, flees to Iraq where he moves in with a relative and receives a monthly stipend from the regime.[6] Iraq had actually made an offer to the Clinton Administration to trade Yasin in 1998, but the Clinton administration rejected the offer.[7] The Iraqis made a similar offer to the Bush Administration in 2003 but this offer was also spurned.

1) Please find a RS stating that Yasin was a member of al-Qaeda. The US Gov does not allege this.

2) Why does the article omit the claim that Iraq imprisoned Yasin in 1994 where he apparently remained until at least 2002 when he was interviewed by CBS? LOL! No POV with that omission, huh?


 * "Abdul Rahman Yasin fled to Iraq after the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993. He lived as a free man for a year, but the authorities in Iraq tell CBS News they put him in prison in 1994." CBS Interview

The Wiki article on him even includes that info, but I guess that info isn't too appealing to a certain POV - F.A.A.F.A. 01:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * If you have reliably sourced and relevant info that is missing from the article, then put it in. Making smart remarks about the alleged lack of good faith of unnamed editors is unproductive, and baiting. Crockspot 13:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Please address the points I raised. 1) The US Gov does not allege that Yasin was al-Qaeda, so why is he listed? 2) Why does the info on him, that shouldn't be listed anyway, not include the claim that Iraq imprisoned him? 3) Speaking of smart remarks, your insulting of of the hard working bipartisan (50% GOP) Iraq Study group by calling them 'surrender monkeys' will not endear you to many here- F.A.A.F.A. 20:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Number one, don't EVER assume that you have the right to tell me what to do. I did not write this article, I am simply trying to verify the sources. Number two, I was simply quoting the headline from yesterday's New York Post. If that does not endear me to you and your ilk, then that's too fucking bad, isn't it? Anything that you have to say or think has absolutely zero importance to me. Go piss on someone else's leg. Crockspot 21:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * LOL! I could NPA you, but I will cut you some slack. I understand that you may be upset that your Alpha-dog decided to 'cut and run'. Talk about 'surrender monkeys' ! LOL! - F.A.A.F.A. 21:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * And you think that your gloating over MONGO is going to endear you with anyone other than trolling vandals? Bring yourself into compliance with WP:DICK, please. - Crockspot 21:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not gloating. I'm disappointed. I didn't expect him to display the sort of behavior that could cause conservatives to describe him as a 'cut and run surrender monkey'. I thought he was a 'fighter'. I thought wrong! - F.A.A.F.A. 21:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess you'll be doubly disappointed if/when he decided to return. All he did was delete his user page. He still has admin powers. But you know what? You win. I've really tried to work with you, and I've tried to work alongside you without working directly with you, but I can't seem to get any work done when you are present. You keep baiting me, and distracting me from what I have told you several times is my sole objective on this article: to verify and upgrade the citing of the sources. Clearly you intend to continue to distract me, and clearly you intend to gut parts of this article, so there is no point in me putting in large amounts of tedious work here, if it isn't going to be any fun doing, and it's just is going to end up being removed. So knock yourelf out. I'm removing this from my watchlist, and maybe I'll come back some day when you are through, and continue my technical improvements. But for now, I'm tired of the frustration and waste of time that seems to follow you around. Don't direct any more comments to me, here or anywhere else, because I am just going to ignore you. - Crockspot 21:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * "Number one, don't EVER assume that you have the right to tell me what to do". I brought up two legitimate concerns. 1) Yasin and al Qaeda. 2) Lack of info on Yasin's imprisonment. You chose to not to address them, but to attack me for my 'smart remarks' instead - and that's after you just called a panel which included 5 respected Republicans 'surrender monkeys'. Some might call that hypocrisy. - F.A.A.F.A. 22:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Gentlemen, please cut it out. If you have disputes on another page about Mongo or surrender-primates, please leave those debates on the other page. I think FAAFA's info about Yasin being imprisoned is valid and should be included. There is no need to smear editors' good faith when this article has been worked on for a couple years by various editors of various POVs. So we missed a detail -- just add the detail and let's move on. csloat 23:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for addressing my concerns. Abdul Rahman Yasin is undoubtedly a terrorist if he did participate in the 93 WTC attacks as alleged, but I don't see RS allegations (such as US Gov) claiming that he was ever part of al Qaeda. If he wan't, why is he in the timeline?


 * Here's what one RS MSM article says:


 * "The World Trade Center bombing was carried out by a group headed by Ramzi Yousef, who is serving a 240-year prison term. Federal authorities say Yousef's group received financial support from al-Qaeda via Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks. But a direct al-Qaeda role in the 1993 attack hasn't been established." usa today


 * Does that make Yasin a member of al Qaeda? - F.A.A.F.A. 00:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Al Qaeda was not a formal structured organization at that point. It's hard to say whether he was a "member," or if they even conceived of it as an organization with members at the time, but he certainly was involved with the same terrorists who attacked the WTC in 2001, including bin Laden. csloat 22:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Weasel words, POV and unverified second-hand info
The last paragraph and quote before the "Contents" box does not, in my opinion, meet Wiki standards.


 * "...many believe..." - is weasel-wording (see the examples)


 * "...the entire connection between Saddam Hussain and al-Qaeda constitutes an official hoax or deception" - is POV (slipped in using said weasel-wording)

Jinxmchue 16:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * "The BBC reports the reaction to this report" - is unverified second-hand information (where are the actual quotes from Democrats saying these things?)


 * We could replace 'many believe' with a long list, like 'the 9/11 commission, senate select panel', etc, etc. Would that be better?


 * I agree with not including the word 'hoax', 'Deception' is accurate. Maybe add 'cherry-picking of intelligence to bolster the administrations rationale for invasion'. Better?


 * The article states "the BBC reports..." That is verifiable. They are a RS. That's all that is needed. Even if the BBC article said the moon is made of green cheese, we could include 'The BBC reports...."


 * You know that. - F.A.A.F.A. 21:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I have made some of the changes you suggested. --BenBurch 21:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

suggested merge
This article is way too long and too specific to merge with Saddam Hussein. The material in this article was extracted from Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, which is the "main" article on this topic. csloat 23:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Saddam Dossier, Ray Robison
I wish to contest the following edit dated 16 June, 2006.


 * The translation process was supervised by Ray Robison, a military operations research analyst and former contractor for the Defense Intelligence Agency. He was also part of the CIA-directed Iraq Survey Group (ISG).

According to information in the public domain, Mr Robison is a military operations analyst with Scientific Applications International Corporation. SAIC won a large Army Aviation and Missile Command contract for "advisory and assistance service" provisions. To the best of my knowledge his one and only DIA contract relates directly to period he worked with the Iraq Survey Group, where he temporarily held the position of sorting clerk.

Mr. Robison does not understand Arabic. He is not nor has he ever been an intelligence professional. Indeed, he states quite clearly on his own blog that, "I am certainly not a terrorism expert". The above sentence needs revising to reflect this. SMB 03:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree - Fairness And Accuracy For All 06:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree. Robison is a hack and as little as possible should be said about him here; that the page makes him look like some kind of expert is ridiculous. csloat 09:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Disagree-although i see the changes have been made, so this probably isn't an official vote. for starters, Mr. Robison wasn't a "sorting clerk".  he was a day shift supervisor for the media section where he reviewed and provided triage level analysis for thousands of items for over a year.  if you read the fox news article, it outlines his credentials:
 * One of those who has taken up the challenge is Ray Robison, currently a military operations research analyst specializing in aviation and missile research in Huntsville, Ala. Robison served on active duty as a fire support officer for the 3rd Brigade of the 2nd Infantry Division at Fort Lewis, Wash. and as a Battalion Signal Officer with the 101st Airborne. His 10 years of active service include duty in the Gulf War and on peacekeeping assignment in Kosovo.


 * Robison also served in Qatar as a contractor for the Defense Intelligence Agency, working as part of the CIA-directed Iraq Survey Group (ISG) that examined efforts by Saddam Hussein to build and hide weapons of mass destruction, among other objectives. Robison supervised a group of linguists to analyze, archive and exploit documents and materials of Saddam's regime. He has seen thousands of these documents and translations previously, having worked with them for a year in Iraq. He was involved with briefing his group's findings to senior U.S. military and political leaders. Robison was awarded for his efforts by the Iraq Survey Group as a media shift supervisor.


 * and i'm not sure why it's significant he doesn't speak Arabic. also, it's important to note that the translations were published by Fox News, which is considered a mainstream news outlet.  i saw a segment on Special Report with Brit Hume detailing these translations, and in the segment it stated that those documents were reviewed by three editors and the translations were verified by fox news, and a former CIA agent acting as a consultant for fox news reviewed the documents and agreed with the analysis of them given by Robison (i can't find a link to this segment but i do remember it clearly).  so if a caveat must be added to the translations, it should be that only fox has translated the documents, and no other news agency has, meaning no comparison can be made in translations.  but to date, i have seen no one dispute the translations.  i'm not sure why Robison is considered a "hack" either.   he has a blog with some right wing links on it, but Juan Cole has a blog with left wing links on it and i doubt the same people would call him a "hack".  also, remember the CIA told the senate committee "the research the Counterterrorist Center has done on this issue has called into question some of the reports of contacts and training...revealed other contacts of which we were unaware, and shed new light on some contacts that appeared in prewar reporting. On balance, this research suggests that the prewar judgment remains valid."  these translations by fox news fit into that analysis.  so this isn't some far fetched translation. Anthonymendoza 15:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Ray Robison's area of expertise relates to aviation and missiles (this was strangely omitted in the edit I contested, above). Yes, he spent several months working at the Combined Media Processing Center-Main (CMPC-M) in Qatar, principally doing administrative work. As I understand it, he worked as part of a team to triage, gist, digitize and upload material into a government database. Basically, captured material was taken out of storage and allotted to skilled transcribers. Robison isn't a linguist. If the material was thought to contain valuable information then it was passed on to professional intelligence analysts. Robison clearly had no business interjecting himself during this particular process either, as he revealed in a letter to the American Thinker:


 * "Many times when we reviewed the information with intelligence professionals on site, we were rebuked as not being intelligence specialists, despite the fact that many of us had extensive operational military backgrounds like me as a Gulf War and Kosovo vet and former field artillery officer."


 * Robison seems to think that his conventional military background qualifies him as a competent intelligence analyst. It simply does not. In fact his critical thinking skills are very, very poor (try reading his blog ). He only provided triage level analysis as a means of gisting and cataloging each item, which he then uploaded into a computer system. I have no idea if he was demoted to media shift supervisor! --smb1971 00:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It's significant that he doesn't speak arabic since what is at issue is his interpretation of Arabic-language documents. It should also be noted that the person who translated these documents is the genius who brought us this proof of Saddam's ties to terrorists... Robison is a kook who proclaims himself "The smartest man alive!!!" and threatens "Now tremble as you prepare to be crushed under my awesome logic and reasoning capacity!!! I will destroy you, AAAARRRRGGGGHHHH!!!!" (these are direct quotes from his biography page). Comparing Robison to Cole is ridiculous; Cole has a PhD; he is a tenured full professor at a research university; he is the president of the professional association in his field, and he is widely respected by scholars and professionals as well as journalists. He also is fluent in Arabic and Persian. The fact that they both have blogs is irrelevant. (I'm also not sure Cole is used as a source here at all, certainly not as extensively as Mr. Robison). I agree that the Fox translations are not problematic and that they really don't call into question the overall conclusion that Saddam never worked with al Qaeda, so I'm not sure why this stuff is all that important anyway.csloat 00:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I have no idea if he was demoted to media shift supervisor!  Is this an attempt to be funny.  if it is i strongly suggest you remove it, for it can be seen as defamation.  even though this is a talk page, you shouldn't be trashing the reputation of others like that.  the letter you cite also states "While working with ISG, I worked in the media section. Our job was to document, digitize, and provide triage level analysis of captured audio and video from Iraq."  As far as i know Mr. Robison was a supervisor, was never disciplined, and was awarded for his work.  he also held the position for a year.  if his area of expertise is only "aviation and missiles", then why did the ISG hire him.  he must have impressed somebody in the intelligence community.  as far as the "AAAARRRRGGGGHHHH!!!!" post on his blog, it's not there anymore.  it may have been an attempt at a joke, but who cares.  the fact that it's being used to try and discredit him shows how foolish all of this is.  Robison didn't translate the documents himself.  He supervised a team that translated them.  fox news verified the translations and a former cia agent vouched for the analysis given.  Mr. Robison was awarded for his service with the ISG and does have a distinguished military career. Unless you two have documented proof that Robison is not competent, i think it's unwise to characterize him as a "kook" who was demoted by the ISG.Anthonymendoza 23:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The documented proof of Robison's incompetence is his own website. You may want to look into defamation law a bit before hurling accusations; a mild joke like that is hardly grounds for a lawsuit, and it really isn't defamation to question the reputation of someone whose reputation is already in question.  But I think that's a red herring anyway -- Robison's qualifications are at issue here, and he doesn't speak Arabic, and in fact the translator (not "team") that he supervised is as much of a kook as he is, interpreting the document I linked above as serious proof of Saddam's collaboration with terrorists.  And, of course, as both of us have agreed, the documents in question are not really that remarkable anyway - their translation is not at issue and they say nothing challenging the dominant view that there was no relationship between Saddam and al-Qaeda.  It's truly amazing that anyone still believes that there was such a relationship, but I guess that is the longer-term effect of a sustained disinformation campaign. csloat 00:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Anthonymendoza wrote: If his [Ray Robison's] area of expertise is only "aviation and missiles", then why did the ISG hire him? He must have impressed somebody in the intelligence community. You will have to ask Mr Robison that question. I can only speculate. Try contacting him through his blog.


 * I think there is a large assumption in your question, in any case, that everyone who worked for the Iraqi Survey Group must be some kind of intelligence expert. That is not necessarily the case at all. The ISG also hired administrators, cleaners and chefs. People need to eat off clean tables, right? If you want me to speculate why Ray got a desk/media job, then the following two articles might shed some light. Here is the first: You'll note that Robison also worked for the same company, Science Applications International Corporation, which won the contract to run the Iraqi Media Network. And a small extract from the second:


 * "In keeping with the philosophy of information dominance this was paid for by the Pentagon and supplied, not by an independent news organisation but, by a defence contractor, Scientific Applications International Corporation (SAIC). Its expertise in the area - according to its website - is in ‘information operations’ and ‘information dominance’."


 * There are plenty more links like this. So is Ray's blog an organised propaganda effort aimed at a much wider audience, or is he merely an opportunist, happy for others to exaggerate his credentials, and capitalising on his previous position? I think the latter, judging by the quality of his output. --smb1971 02:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)