• 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

"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.
Click to expand...

Does anyone believe that we couldn’t get into see/interrogate curveball while he was locked up for the 90 days?:roll:
 
donc said:
Does anyone believe that we couldn’t get into see/interrogate curveball while he was locked up for the 90 days?:roll:
Click to expand...

If we wanted to know. It wouldn't have been too hard to know he wasn't realiable.
 
StillBallin75 said:
I won't go as far as to say Bush lied, but the onus was on his administration to prove beyond all doubt that the casus belli was sound and justified. The fact that it wasn't sound leads me to the conclusion that they likely had ulterior motives in invading Iraq (or just plain didn't know what they were doing).
Click to expand...

I think at the end of the day you're left with one or the other. But I find it hard to believe Cheney, if no one else, didn't know what he was doing. He was experienced. He's intelligent. And has been competent his entire career. So, as part of the administration, to which Bush is accountable for, I fall on the side of the effort being dishonest.
 
This "Curveball" guy should be put on trial in Iraq.
 
Doesn't really matter who lied or if Bush was in on it. That war was going to happen one way or another. Public consent didn't matter all that much.
 
Councilman said:
This was before I retired and as I recall doing research on the subject for my Show at the time the evidence was much more than one defectors claims.

For one thing Saddam did his best to make the world believe he had WMDs to insure that Iran would not attack Iraq again.

Saddam also played cat and mouse with UN inspectors trying to find evidence of WMDs in the form of a Nuclear Program and it interpreted as hiding the same when in truth it was to keep his lack of them from coming to light.

We also knew that Saddam did have Chemical weapons because he had used them on his own people. What we didn't know was to what extent they went.

Turns out he had a pretty big stock pile of Chemical Artillery Shells in that warehouse that was burned making a lot of the Allied Troops sick in the process.

I wonder if Curveball was payed for this story. His lies in my mind were used only to varify what the UN, ours and other Intelligences, already believed.

The Left will once again ignore the volume of evidence used to get the Bi-Partisan votes in Congress that authorized the invasion
Click to expand...


It always amazes me how the anti-bush conspiracy theorists ignore these facts. The naysayers are a drop in the bucket compared with these other facts. Why would anyone in their right mind believe what a handful of people are saying compared to what everyone else is saying?
 
jamesrage said:
It always amazes me how the anti-bush conspiracy theorists ignore these facts. The naysayers are a drop in the bucket compared with these other facts. Why would anyone in their right mind believe what a handful of people are saying compared to what everyone else is saying?
Click to expand...

What really amazes me is that so many people think the best way to defend the decision to go to war against Iraq is point out that most democrats supposed it, as if that has anything to do with the final analysis of the situation. Or as if two groups being wrong means its impossible to call just one of them wrong.
 
Wiseone said:
What really amazes me is that so many people think the best way to defend the decision to go to war against Iraq is point out that most democrats supposed it,as if that has anything to do with the final analysis of the situation. Or as if two groups being wrong means its impossible to call just one of them wrong.
Click to expand...

The reason most people point out the fact that those democrats supported the war in Iraq or uttered the line that Saddam has WMDs is to point out that those democrats who changed their mind are merely tossing the salad of anti-war trash for votes and that it is idiotic to sit there like a retard going Bush lied for war.
 
Last edited:
jamesrage said:
The reason most people point out the fact that those democrats supported the war in Iraq or uttered the line that Saddam has WMDs is to point out that those democrats who changed their mind are merely tossing the salad of anti-war trash for votes and that it is idiotic to sit there like a retard going Bush lied for war.
Click to expand...

The two are separate issues, the question of whether Bush willfully lied and how many democrats attempted to distance themselves from their previous support are completely unrelated and the only reason to bring it up to is distract from the actual question. Why? Because Bush was capable of lying regardless of what any democrat in congress or elsewhere said or did. Now I don't think Bush lied, but I know how to defend a point without simply attacking my opponent to distract them from the original question.
 
Wiseone said:
The two are separate issues, the question of whether Bush willfully lied and how many democrats attempted to distance themselves from their previous support are completely unrelated and the only reason to bring it up to is distract from the actual question. Why? Because Bush was capable of lying regardless of what any democrat in congress or elsewhere said or did. Now I don't think Bush lied, but I know how to defend a point without simply attacking my opponent to distract them from the original question.
Click to expand...
The fact that these anti-war trash salad tossing politicians changed their mind is very relevant. Anyone with at least an ounce of integrity and honesty would know that it is idiotic to say Bush lied when you consider Saddam's history, the fact that not only republicans have said that Saddam has WMDs but also democrats have said the same thing as well, and a whole bunch of other things. A few naysayers doesn't prove ****.
 
CriticalThought said:
The larger picture is that the world is not a safer place, Osama bin Laden is likely still alive, we are involved in two extremely expensive wars, and all of it was apparently because Bush relied on one person's intel. I would say that makes Bush one huge failure.
Click to expand...


Obama's spending in the two years he's been in makes Bush's follies with the war on terror look like peanuts.


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
Obama's spending in the two years he's been in makes Bush's follies with the war on terror look like peanuts.


j-mac
Click to expand...

And that is for another thread. Obama's spending has absolutely nothing to do with the false intel that led us to war. Start a thread on Obama's spending, and I will post there, agreeing with you. However, that is not the topic here.
 
danarhea said:
And that is for another thread. Obama's spending has absolutely nothing to do with the false intel that led us to war. Start a thread on Obama's spending, and I will post there, agreeing with you. However, that is not the topic here.
Click to expand...

This is pure distraction. Is anything anyone rehashes for the 1000th time going to change reality on the ground today? No. So, let's not let dumb statements, talking points from 2006 be made today as though they have any credibility agree?


j-mac
 
jamesrage said:
It always amazes me how the anti-bush conspiracy theorists ignore these facts. The naysayers are a drop in the bucket compared with these other facts. Why would anyone in their right mind believe what a handful of people are saying compared to what everyone else is saying?
Click to expand...

Much like you and your side ignore the other facts. Odd how that works. :coffeepap
 
j-mac said:
Nah, we're just living in the here and now.


j-mac
Click to expand...

I read it another way. If you can move on without accepting the truth, you can pretend your team was good. In doing so, you're aprt of the reason why this may happen again someday. As the saying goes, those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. That's why I think this will always be a timely discussion. Some president with a weak and cowardly congress could do this again someday.
 
Old news... this was know even before the war. The Germans and the French knew he was lieing his ass off, since they and the US has better intelligence debunking his lies.
 
PeteEU said:
Old news... this was know even before the war. The Germans and the French knew he was lieing his ass off, since they and the US has better intelligence debunking his lies.
Click to expand...

The Germans definitely knew what was up, it was they who picked him up and notified the CIA that he was an unreliable source.
 
Last edited:
I read this story and just hung my head.

It's difficult to put into words how angry I am over this...the number of lives lost or forever changed due to one man's lie to force the removal of a evil dictator. And the Bush Administration went along with it and for what? Because the lie gave them a convenient excuse to push forward with their pre-emptive first-strike doctrine.

Folks who still stand firm in support of the reason given for going to war w/Iraq still miss the point: By all accounts, Saddam did NOT have stockpiles of WMDs in the days and weeks leading up to the war. And since none were found after the invasion, I think it's very logical to conclude Saddam was telling the truth, that he ended his NBC program long before the war started and by all accounts destroyed pretty much everything. Even the Bush Administration has admitted that they were wrong on this matter.

Such a waste of lives and resources for two men's selfish ambitions - one to overthrow his country's tyrannical dictator, the other to feed his ego.
 
j-mac said:
This is pure distraction. Is anything anyone rehashes for the 1000th time going to change reality on the ground today? No. So, let's not let dumb statements, talking points from 2006 be made today as though they have any credibility agree?


j-mac
Click to expand...
Who has politisize the issue? For myself, I'm just emphasizing the common sense factor of the matter. G. W. Bush was lied to but he was also well informed that the intel was wrong prior to going to war. There are plenty of books, investigative reports and other well publisized news articles to bare this fact out. Yet, Bush continued to sell that lie to the American people and the world!

I'm not going to jump on this "war crimes" band wagon, but if ever anyone within the Bush/Cheney Administration are ever brought up on charges for this over abuse of their powers from the White House, I would hope that justice is adequately served.
 
Last edited:
NIE Report: Iran Halted Nuclear Weapons Program Years Ago

December 03, 2007 11:51 AM
ABC News' Martha Raddatz, Jonathan Karl, Luis Martinez, Kirit Radia and Jennifer Duck Report: In a stunning reversal of Bush administration conventional wisdom, a new assessment by U.S. intelligence agencies concludes Iran shelved its nuclear weapons program over four years ago.
"We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program," reads a declassified version of the National Intelligence Estimate key findings.
Click to expand...

This report was put out in 2007, and used to bash Bush's strong stance against Iran, Now seeing it has since been proved false, then every liberal Democrat that used this report to bash Bush was also a liar correct ?
 
Boo Radley said:
I read it another way. If you can move on without accepting the truth, you can pretend your team was good. In doing so, you're aprt of the reason why this may happen again someday. As the saying goes, those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. That's why I think this will always be a timely discussion. Some president with a weak and cowardly congress could do this again someday.
Click to expand...


Or you can look at it as the changing times we live in are dangerous, and there are enemies of the US that would love to do us harm. This isn't about "team's" as you put it, and even if it were we are all American's are we not? Maybe the lesson we need to learn from this is that before sending in forces in today's doctrine which doesn't necessarily need a declaration of war for any President to do, and hasn't since Korea, that we need to return to that absolute.

j-mac
 
Objective Voice said:
Who has politisize the issue? For myself, I'm just emphasizing the common sense factor of the matter. G. W. Bush was lied to but he was also well informed that the intel was wrong prior to going to war. There are plenty of books, investigative reports and other well publisized news articles to bare this fact out. Yet, Bush continued to sell that lie to the American people and the world!

I'm not going to jump on this "war crimes" band wagon, but if ever anyone within the Bush/Cheney Administration are ever brought up on charges for this over abuse of their powers from the White House, I would hope that justice is adequately served.
Click to expand...


Books, maybe written by political detractors, maybe not, are not a court ruling. So unless anyone has first hand knowledge of what transpired within the circles of power during the time, and leading up to the time we went in, there is little but speculation on this. And I suspect that a Neocon of the time, and a liberal would have differing opinions as to what the standards should bare, no?


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
Books, maybe written by political detractors, maybe not, are not a court ruling. So unless anyone has first hand knowledge of what transpired within the circles of power during the time, and leading up to the time we went in, there is little but speculation on this. And I suspect that a Neocon of the time, and a liberal would have differing opinions as to what the standards should bare, no?


j-mac
Click to expand...

Some are written by those with first hand knowledge, but you're really just trying to excuse it away. We really do have the information. It isn't that big a sercret.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom