• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Defector 'Curveball' admits he lied about Iraqi WMD

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,256
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
He claims officials implied that his cooperation would make it easier for his Moroccan-born wife and child to join him in Germany.

"Curveball" initially told his tales to the German secret service, and the information wound up in Secretary of State Colin Powell's speech in 2003 to the United Nations stating the case against Saddam Hussein.

"Curveball" tells The Guardian that when he complained to his German handlers that they had violated an agreement not to pass his information to a third country, he was told not to speak and was placed in lockdown for about 90 days.

Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi - A name quite hard to remember, but his codename, Curveball, will be remembered in infamy as the man who supplied the lies that enabled the Bush administration to invade Iraq. But is this Bush's fault? As the head of state, Bush is responsible, but I strongly believe that Bush acted upon what he thought was honest intel, and that he was betrayed by those who had a plan for a Pax-Americana, since the Soviet Union had dissolved, and a power vacuum existed at that time. The Neocon scheme was harebrained, but was attempted nonetheless.

Bush was played, and given false information. I do not fault him for the decisions he made. In his shoes, I may have done the same. And Bush was highly pissed at being lied to, which is evidenced by the way he kicked the Neocons to the curb during the latter part of his second administration.

IMHO, I believe that people are judging Bush too harshly. Yes, he is ultimately responsible for our going to war based on a lie, but we need to look at the larger picture. There were forces and ideologies in play which were anathema to the ideas of America and democracy.

People laugh when they see Bush's "We won't be fooled again" gaffe, but was it really a gaffe? Bush was not fooled again, and got rid of many Neocons in his administration, and marginalized the rest. I just wish he has seen it sooner, but in his shoes, would I have? I am not too sure. I might have ended up going down the same exact road that Bush followed, had I been president. Saddam was a bad man, and it would have been so easy for me to believe the lies that I was told.

That said, we can still say that the world is better off without Saddam, but was the loss of so many soldiers, along with the economic blowback that resulted from the invasion, worth it? I believe that this is the question that historians will be wrestling with for many years, but in the end, I do not believe that Bush will be judged as harshly as some judge him now. After all, Bush did act when he perceived a threat, and this is what the American people ask for in a president. The real villain here is Curveball, and the intel community, which chose to pass along what they knew were lies to Bush.

Watching Colon Powell attempt to portray what turned out to be a fire department hook and ladder as a missile launcher was painful. Watching all the lies unravel was painful. Watching our troops die when they might not necessarily have had to was painful. Watching the erosion of our credibility in the world was painful. But this is to be laid at the feet of operatives who were not only appointed by Bush, but had been appointed by Clinton before him. Yes, this debacle could just have easily been committed by Clinton, had the timeline been different.

The real issue here is about an intelligence community run amok, not about Bush, Clinton, or any other Commander in Chief. Such a screw up must never happen again. Rather than bash Bush, or whoever else may in power at any given time, I strongly believe that we should fix a broken information system instead.

Finally, where in the hell was Congressional oversight on the events that led to the Iraq war? For those who are so keen to bash Bush, were is your outrage against Congress, who also had the same information?

As for Bush, I forgive him. I know he cared. Let's move on and fix what is broken.

Article is here.
 
Last edited:
Whatever happened to "The buck stops here?" Bush's intelligence and advisors may have lied, but Bush bears the responsibility, and that is the big picture. We can't let our chief executive slide by because he fell in with the wrong crowd.

I'll forgive Bush once he's stood trial for the war crime of torture, and not before.
 
Last edited:
This is going to stir the Bush lied for war wacko conspiracy theorists.
 
There is a clear conflict of interests in the source of the information that should have raised red flags to everyone involved. No jury in their right mind would accept the testimony of an individual who clearly had something to gain from lying. As far as I'm concerned, they're all guilty of the same bull****.
 
This is going to stir the Bush lied for war wacko conspiracy theorists.

I dunno dogg, still like to know where the WMDs are...

So would Mr Rumsfeld

Unless I misunderstood Bush... "he's got em"?
 
Oh gheeze this crap again? Ok, what is it that the ADD, shinny object folks need to be distracted from seeing now?


j-mac
 
IMO, this episode reaffirms the argument that policy making should rest on verification either through multiple source corroboration or additional credible evidence that confirms a source's account. Relying on a single source is inherently risky. While there is some risk that occasionally a single source might be correct, the benefits of rigorous verification typically outweighs the risks. In addition, it is absolutely imperative to develop an understanding of a source's motives. If an individual hates a given regime/leader, wants him/it toppled, he/she might well have motive to exaggerate his/her claims in trying to facilitate that desired outcome. All of this is a process issue.

At the same time, when it comes to "surprise attacks," Congress needs to demand much more when it comes to military plans. It simply should not take plans at face value as they are presented. Congress should ask for the military planners to lay out various contingencies and scenarios. They should ask the planners to specifically identifical historical cases and references that relate to the country in question and the underlying assumptions of the strategy (e.g., in Iraq the risk of post-conflict insurgency was extremely high). They should run plans by experts (past military leaders who have been responsible for an area or had successfully devised and implemented plans for major operations. They should insist on being provided with budget estimates (a range rather than a point and the underlying assumptions). Authorization should probably be decided after Congress is satisfied with the plans, not before such plans have been devised, much less analyzed.
 
There is a clear conflict of interests in the source of the information that should have raised red flags to everyone involved. No jury in their right mind would accept the testimony of an individual who clearly had something to gain from lying. As far as I'm concerned, they're all guilty of the same bull****.

But if everyone regardless of political affiliations has been saying Saddam got WMDs and this was even before Bush was office and Saddam has used WMDs in the past then a jury would believe the testimony of that individual with something to gain. Besides that how many juries believe the testimony of a man with a plea bargaining deal?


What Democrats said about Weapons of Mass Destruction
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
 
our EOD guys were incinerating cannisters of nerve/mustard gas on a regular basis. sure we never found caches of thousands at any one time, but a dozen here a dozen there...it adds up.

I am sure now the anti-Bush conspiracy theorists/the leftist version of Birthers will claim its not a massive stock pile of WMDs or just pretend that those things never existed.
 
I am not willing to excuse Bush. Curveball was never considered a valid source. The new Yorker wrote about it as early as 2004. Do we really believe Bush was this far in the dark?


The C.I.A. remained skeptical of the defectors that the I.N.C. was promoting, and insisted on examining them independently. President Bush was informed of the C.I.A.’s view of Chalabi soon after taking office, but he ultimately sided with Vice-President Cheney and the neocons.

Read more A Reporter at Large: The Manipulator : The New Yorker

Before the war, the CIA was largely skeptical of Chalabi and the INC, but information allegedly from his group (most famously from a defector codenamed "Curveball") made its way into intelligence dossiers used by President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair to justify an invasion of Iraq. "Curveball" – allegedly the brother of one of Chalabi's top lieutenants – fed officials hundreds of pages of bogus "firsthand" descriptions of mobile biological weapons factories on wheels and rails. However, this allegation made by reporters from Newsweek (Michael Isikoff), Knight-Ridder (Jonathan Landay), and the Los Angeles Times (Bob Drogin) has been proven completely false.[6] Secretary of State Colin Powell later used this information in a U.N. presentation trying to garner support for the war, despite warnings from German intelligence that "Curveball" was fabricating claims.

Ahmed Chalabi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
I am sure now the anti-Bush conspiracy theorists/the leftist version of Birthers will claim its not a massive stock pile of WMDs or just pretend that those things never existed.

It's not a conspiracy. It's dishonesty. Bush wanted to invade Iraq, for reasons not clear, and used intel that was seriously doubted to do so.
 
I guess anything to distract from the trainwreck that is the Obama administration. :shrug:
 
I guess anything to distract from the trainwreck that is the Obama administration. :shrug:

Really? He's got a long way to go to equal the wreck bush left. :coffeepap
 
I am not willing to excuse Bush. Curveball was never considered a valid source. The new Yorker wrote about it as early as 2004. Do we really believe Bush was this far in the dark?


The C.I.A. remained skeptical of the defectors that the I.N.C. was promoting, and insisted on examining them independently. President Bush was informed of the C.I.A.’s view of Chalabi soon after taking office, but he ultimately sided with Vice-President Cheney and the neocons.

Read more A Reporter at Large: The Manipulator : The New Yorker

Before the war, the CIA was largely skeptical of Chalabi and the INC, but information allegedly from his group (most famously from a defector codenamed "Curveball") made its way into intelligence dossiers used by President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair to justify an invasion of Iraq. "Curveball" – allegedly the brother of one of Chalabi's top lieutenants – fed officials hundreds of pages of bogus "firsthand" descriptions of mobile biological weapons factories on wheels and rails. However, this allegation made by reporters from Newsweek (Michael Isikoff), Knight-Ridder (Jonathan Landay), and the Los Angeles Times (Bob Drogin) has been proven completely false.[6] Secretary of State Colin Powell later used this information in a U.N. presentation trying to garner support for the war, despite warnings from German intelligence that "Curveball" was fabricating claims.

Ahmed Chalabi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
One or two men against the fact Saddam has a history using WMDs,WMDs were found in Iraq, everybody and their mother said Saddam had WMDs even before Bush was in office said Saddam had WMDs? I hope you weren't one of those people making fun of birthers, Truffers and other conspiracy tards.
 
It's not a conspiracy. It's dishonesty. Bush wanted to invade Iraq, for reasons not clear, and used intel that was seriously doubted to do so.

You like the birther-tards and truffer-tards want to hang onto your idiotic conspiracies theory because it supports your lets bash the president band wagon.
 
Really? He's got a long way to go to equal the wreck bush left. :coffeepap

I guess that's why tards keep wetting themselves and bringing up Bush.
 
One or two men against the fact Saddam has a history using WMDs,WMDs were found in Iraq, everybody and their mother said Saddam had WMDs even before Bush was in office said Saddam had WMDs? I hope you weren't one of those people making fun of birthers, Truffers and other conspiracy tards.

you forget, we had inspectors in there for some time. His infastruture was decimated. It really was never even possible he was growing and gathering. Some were just too willing to swallow a story without ever thinking it through. The real nutters were those who thought Bush made sense. :coffeepap

Now, if you suggest Bush had any hand in 9/11, your equal to a birther.
 
I guess that's why tards keep wetting themselves and bringing up Bush.

Actually, this thread was about Curveball and Bush, something still relevent. If we don't learn from our mistakes, we will repeat them. If anyone still believes Bush didn't know of the serious doubts, that person belong with the bithers and 9/11 nutters. :coffeepap
 
Actually, this thread was about Curveball and Bush, something still relevent. If we don't learn from our mistakes, we will repeat them. If anyone still believes Bush didn't know of the serious doubts, that person belong with the bithers and 9/11 nutters. :coffeepap

If anyone still believes that it makes two ****s difference at this point, that person belongs with the troofers and birfers
 
you forget, we had inspectors in there for some time.
And you forget that Saddam did not let the inspectors go where ever they please.Another reason everybody believed Saddam had WMDs.

His infastruture was decimated.It really was never even possible he was growing and gathering.
So your saying that there was no possibility that he could have moved his operations to another building?





Now, if you suggest Bush had any hand in 9/11, your equal to a birther.

When you go around suggesting Bush lied for war you are equal to any birther-tard or truffer-tard.
 
So - "Curveball" gave statements that they believed to be true.

And now he claims that they were lies.

So - is he now telling the truth or telling a lie about those initial statements?

Further - how can we even try to confirm that Janabi is actually the "Curveball" that they claim to have this intelligence from?

I think I'm best left not altering my other views on this entire thing all on the basis of one article that has no foundation. We were alreayd AT war in Iraq far before "Curveball" came onto the scene and the invasion of Iraq was already planned before 9/11 happened.

:shrug: I don't think "Curveball" made a bit of a difference - it was only used as an excuse. . . all activities would have (did happen) regardless.
 
Last edited:
Actually, this thread was about Curveball and Bush, something still relevent. If we don't learn from our mistakes, we will repeat them. If anyone still believes Bush didn't know of the serious doubts, that person belong with the bithers and 9/11 nutters. :coffeepap

What serious doubts? One or two men against the fact Saddam has a history using WMDs,WMDs were found in Iraq, Saddam did not let the inspectors inspect where they wanted, everybody and their mother said Saddam had WMDs even before Bush was in office said Saddam had WMDs does not equal serious doubts. If this was some other dictators besides Saddam and some other country other than Iraq you might have a point about serious doubts. You are just clinging to your Bush basher band wagon regardless of how absurd the conspiracy theory is.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom