Talk:US Senate Select Committee on Intelligence finds no link between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda

NPOV != truth
Why is it necessary to seek a "pro-administration" source to "balance out" the POV? You don't get truth by looking for lies on both sides. --12.216.67.70 05:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

al qaeda link vs. wmd's
I think 2 things need to be fixed to make this NPOV. 1) If the issue of WMD's are included, the title needs to be fixed and the parts of the report relating to WMD's need to be referenced in the body. 2) The Bush administration's response needs to be included. TRWBW 17:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Good points. I'll add the Bush response tomorrow, or at least the Republican response, I'm not sure if Bush has commented on this yet but I'm pretty sure some Republican Senators have something to say. helgihg 21:38, 17 September (GMT)


 * Alright. Sounds good. I'm going to remove the dispute tag. Thunderhead (talk) 21:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm having a terrible time finding anything newsworthy from the pro-war side. Maybe it's my "bias" towards peace. Bush himself doesn't seem to have commented on it, nor a Senator that I can find (which surprises me). All I can find are ultra-right blog entries that don't really have anything to say about the report, mostly talking about liberalism or Democrats in general. Anyone feel like taking a shot at this? This is my first article and I want it in NPOV. :) helgihg 06:22, 18 September (GMT)
 * here's what the white house has to say. Doldrums 06:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Q There was a link --


 * MR. SNOW: Well, and there was a relationship -- there was a relationship in this sense: Zarqawi was in Iraq; al Qaeda members were in Iraq; they were operating, and in some cases, operating freely from Iraq. Zarqawi, for instance, directed the assassination of an American diplomat in Amman, Jordan. But they did they have a corner office at the Mukhabarat? No. Were they getting a line item in Saddam's budget? No. There was no direct operational relationship, but there was a relationship. They were in the country, and I think you understand that the Iraqis knew they were there. That's the relationship.

I can't find an administration/republican response to this which either means I'm an idiot or that they've decided not to respond, or likely both. If the administration hasn't issued a clear statement on the report, I think it's NPOV publishable as is. TRWBW 16:23, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The quote above doesn't address the report, merely contradicts it. So the response is in my opinion adequately referred to in that they've been maintaining a link, although now it's not operational all of a sudden. Anyway, I agree, I think we don't have anything to add to the story on the report. helgihg 21:26, 18 September 2006 (GMT)