Tom:
"There are a number of sources tying Ansar Al Islam to Saddam, and also to Al Quaeda, but since most of them are Kurdish and Kurdish newspapers, you will of course discount them."

No, of course I won't. Some of MY sources are kurdish news papers.

However, and again, trace down the links and you will find it all based on the claims of a single captured Iraqi intelligence officer in the hands of the kurds- a people more then happy to have us kill Saddam and a man likely in the position of desperately wanting to stay alive and stay useful.

Again, that AAI is linked to Al-Qaeda is likely in the least. That AAI is/was/would ever suck from the diseased tit of Saddam Insane is, well, as insane as Saddam.

Tom wrote:
"you must also concede that it is highly likely that Saddam was supporting these terrorist camps in Northern Iraq, primarily as a weapon against the Kurds. "

Why must I concede this? I have heard rumors and I have heard what the Kurds are telling the west, but I see no evidence. Either before the war or after the war. I will concede it when you proffer up some sort of factual basis for me to place my concession on- then it is yours.

And Highly Likely is one thing. Decisively prooved fact is another.

Tom wrote:
"And whether this was Saddam's real intent or not, squashing him squashed that support."

Okay, lets for a moment stipulate Saddam was supporting Yeti..oh.. I mean terrorist training camps in N. Iraq. How does it follow that we have stabilized or eliminated the threat those theoretical terrorist camps pose. Why not just pack up and go over to join the truckloads in Syria? Or howabout join up wwith Iraq?

Ansar Al Islam- regardless if it was supported by Saddam or not, is not going to pack up and go just because we are there. They may re-locate operations, but not go away.

Tom wrote:
"Correct me if I'm wrong, but all your links discounting the Salman Pak terrorism link seem to boil down to this Seymour Hersh article, although certainly there are others"

No, but in the particular thread you site that is true. Recall- we have been debating about AAI since a month before the war.

Tom wrote:
"Hersh quotes only two unnamed sources as saying this was NOT a terrorist training camp."

Notice that unless Hersh is pulling A Stephen Glass (remember him? From the New Republic? The ORIGINAL mass plagiarist?), then I recall that those two sources were quite unconnected. One unnamed source is one thing, but two unnamed sources that do not refer to eachother (like the way Khodada and the Lt. General do) is very credible.

Tom wrote:
"Hersh's conclusion, since the two former Iraqis are connected to an anti-Saddam group (the INC), they therefore must be lying. For some reason, his own sources are assumed to be unimpeachable. Why?"

This is a serious misrepresentation of Hersh's conclusion. I distrust the INC for several reasons, some of which are at least alluded to by Hersh.
1) Challaby and his rather, er, Shady past in 2 other countries. To say the least.
2) NO INC claims of WMD have EVER panned out please recall:
2a) Khidhir Hamza, a former senior Iraqi nuclear official who defected from Iraq and was one of the pigeons of the INC claimed, among other things, that Iraq had a Pressurized Water Reactor completed or nearly completed
2b) That there were underground caverns where Saddam was cooking up nukes (Hamza and others)
2c) That there were active BioWarfare factories at dual-use installations
2d) They [the INC] also claimed Salman Pax was a 'Testing Ground' for Chemical weapons. The testing of Chem weapons, by nature, leaves a detectable trace. There is no such trace at Salman Pax, so everything they say about SP is properly suspect.
3) The INC sought to replace Saddam as the central Iraqi Governmental authority in the post-saddam Iraq. All their supplied 'information' has to be held up and evaluated in the light of that ambition
4) the INC was cutting 'deals' for money with rich international oil corporations for oil they didn't possess- basically taking bets from oil companies on them being in power

I distrust Sabah Khodada, and the unidentified Iraqi for several reasons, some of which are at least alluded to by Hersh.

1) They are connected sources, even though one is unnamed
2) They are connected to the INC, see above
3) Together, they are the ONLY evidence that Saman Pax was a terrorist training center
4) Everything they said can be refuted by other sources of better credibility (the two UNCONNECTED sources brought up by hersh, and the evidence that the Brits helped Iraq set up the site for counter-terror ops)
5) If you look into it, Khodadad is an emigre to the US, and it is in his best interest to tell us what we want to curry enough favor to become a citizen
6) there are NO VERIFYING DOCUMENTS SUPPLIED BY KHODADAD to support
6a) His status in Iraq, or even his access to Salman Pax
6b) Anything he says.
7) That the UN shows that it inspected that area prviously.

Tom wrote:
"Charles Duelfer, someone I have some personal knowledge of as a reliable source. But then Hersh doesn't like Hamza either, and has probably never heard of Duelfer."

Chaled Duelfer is an unknown to me too. Don't use Hamza as a source, though Tom. Don't even get me started on that guy. He is as impeachable as a rotten peach...

Thanks for the Czech link. I think this is kicking the baby, but I'll look into it.

Best Wishes
Davin L.