Intelligence source codenamed "Curveball" admits lying about WMD

[Mr. Shaman]

SNIP:

Democrat Quotes on Iraq 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 Bill 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

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 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, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and 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

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

read the rest here.
Democrat Quotes on WMD

Yep, people need to understand both parties are at fault for the Iraqi disaster and react accordingly.

Good post.

Yeah....sure.....that's how things developed......

May 25, 2004​

"Before the Iraq War spins further out of control, former President George H.W. Bush should sit down his son, George W. Bush, and level with him about the real history of U.S. relations with Iraq, Iran and Israel’s Likud Party – even if the father has to admit to illegal and unethical conduct in the process.

The latest Iraq embarrassment – allegations that the longtime U.S. favorite Ahmed Chalabi and the intelligence chief for Chalabi’s Iraqi National Congress were Iranian spies – derives from the younger Bush’s continuing failure to see the Middle East as it is, not how he might like it to be. While Bush junior crafts hopeful nation-building plans, he doesn’t seem to have the foggiest notion who the players are, where their true allegiances may lie or why these conflicting interests could undermine U.S. policy."

Bush Sr.'s Iraq-Iran Secrets​

 

[Mustang]

Man admits to WMD lies that triggered Gulf War (The Guardian)

And he found a President gullible enough to believe him, even when evidence told a different story. Over 5,000 dead US and many more Iraqis. Nearly a Trillion dollars spent on a lie.

There's something that's important to acknowledge here.

Skeptical US officials were NOT duped.

Bush and Cheney (along with numerous officials at the highest levels of the US Gov't like Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and others) WANTED to invade Iraq. Iraq was one of the first topics of conversation within days after Bush took office.

Consequently, there was no source on the planet who would have been considered too unreliable to site as evidence (proof, really) that Saddam had WMDs if that person came forward to say he did.

Jon (Yeah, that's the ticket) Lovitz could have made a guest appearance on SNL to say that Saddam had WMDs, and they probably would have played that video at the UN as supporting evidence.

 

[California Girl]

Man admits to WMD lies that triggered Gulf War (The Guardian)

And he found a President gullible enough to believe him, even when evidence told a different story. Over 5,000 dead US and many more Iraqis. Nearly a Trillion dollars spent on a lie.

There's something that's important to acknowledge here.

Skeptical US officials were NOT duped.

Bush and Cheney (along with numerous officials at the highest levels of the US Gov't like Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and others) WANTED to invade Iraq. Iraq was one of the first topics of conversation within days after Bush took office.

Consequently, there was no source on the planet who would have been considered too unreliable to site as evidence (proof, really) that Saddam had WMDs if that person came forward to say he did.

Jon (Yeah, that's the ticket) Lovitz could have made a guest appearance on SNL to say that Saddam had WMDs, and they probably would have played that video at the UN as supporting evidence.

You are aware, are you not, that congress voted for this, right? It was a bipartisan effort.

 

[Liability]

Why is this new news? It was established a long time ago that "Curveball" had credibility problems.

He is not the sole reason we went to war to oust Saddam from Iraq, anyway.

President Bush didn't go out and dig up the "intel." It gets dug up, reviewed, honed and checked by folks whose job it is to do this professionally. But no system is perfect and sometimes folks turn out to have agendas. The belief that Saddam HAD WMDs was not something new to the Bush Administration. In fact, to this day, the fact that so little has been found of a stash of WMD in Iraq STILL doesn't constitute proof that Saddam didn't have WMDs.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Man admits to WMD lies that triggered Gulf War (The Guardian)

And he found a President gullible enough to believe him, even when evidence told a different story. Over 5,000 dead US and many more Iraqis. Nearly a Trillion dollars spent on a lie.

There's something that's important to acknowledge here.

Skeptical US officials were NOT duped.

Bush and Cheney (along with numerous officials at the highest levels of the US Gov't like Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and others) WANTED to invade Iraq. Iraq was one of the first topics of conversation within days after Bush took office.

Consequently, there was no source on the planet who would have been considered too unreliable to site as evidence (proof, really) that Saddam had WMDs if that person came forward to say he did.

Jon (Yeah, that's the ticket) Lovitz could have made a guest appearance on SNL to say that Saddam had WMDs, and they probably would have played that video at the UN as supporting evidence.

You are aware, are you not, that congress voted for this, right? It was a bipartisan effort.

Wrong. Most Democrats in Congress voted against the Iraq war authorization.

 

[California Girl]

There's something that's important to acknowledge here.

Skeptical US officials were NOT duped.

Bush and Cheney (along with numerous officials at the highest levels of the US Gov't like Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and others) WANTED to invade Iraq. Iraq was one of the first topics of conversation within days after Bush took office.

Consequently, there was no source on the planet who would have been considered too unreliable to site as evidence (proof, really) that Saddam had WMDs if that person came forward to say he did.

Jon (Yeah, that's the ticket) Lovitz could have made a guest appearance on SNL to say that Saddam had WMDs, and they probably would have played that video at the UN as supporting evidence.

You are aware, are you not, that congress voted for this, right? It was a bipartisan effort.

Wrong. Most Democrats in Congress voted against the Iraq war authorization.

'Most'. It was, therefore, a bipartisan effort.

And, for the record, using a large font, in bold, makes you look like an attention seeking whiner.

 

[rightwinger]

You are aware, are you not, that congress voted for this, right? It was a bipartisan effort.

Wrong. Most Democrats in Congress voted against the Iraq war authorization.

'Most'. It was, therefore, a bipartisan effort.

And, for the record, using a large font, in bold, makes you look like an attention seeking whiner.

Congress Authorized Bush to go to war if necessary. It did not order him do do so

It was Bush's call to pull the trigger. It didn't take him long even though mounting evidence said there were no WMDs

Why mess up a chance for a good war?

 

[Liability]

There's something that's important to acknowledge here.

Skeptical US officials were NOT duped.

Bush and Cheney (along with numerous officials at the highest levels of the US Gov't like Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and others) WANTED to invade Iraq. Iraq was one of the first topics of conversation within days after Bush took office.

Consequently, there was no source on the planet who would have been considered too unreliable to site as evidence (proof, really) that Saddam had WMDs if that person came forward to say he did.

Jon (Yeah, that's the ticket) Lovitz could have made a guest appearance on SNL to say that Saddam had WMDs, and they probably would have played that video at the UN as supporting evidence.

You are aware, are you not, that congress voted for this, right? It was a bipartisan effort.

Wrong. Most Democrats in Congress voted against the Iraq war authorization.

But although smaller in number than the ones who voted "nay," there were still MANY Democrats who voted "aye." Somewhere around 40%. so, you are the one who is wrong. It was indeed still a "bipartisan" vote even if more Dims voted against it rather than for it.

Definition of BIPARTISAN
: of, relating to, or involving members of two parties <a bipartisan commission>; specifically : marked by or involving cooperation, agreement, and compromise between two major political parties <bipartisan support for the bill>

Bipartisan - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

 

[rightwinger]

Interesting point about Ole Curveball

He never spoke to US interrogators. He spilled his guts to the Germans.

But for some reason, the Germans decided it was not a sufficient threat to go to war but Bush jumped all over it

 

[rightwinger]

Curveball admissions vindicate suspicions of CIA's former Europe chief | World news | The Guardian

My impression was always that his reporting was done in January and February," said Drumheller, adding that he had been warned well before 2003 by his counterparts in the German secret service (BND) that Curveball might not be reliable. "We didn't know if it was true. We knew there were real problems with it and there were inconsistencies."

He passed on this information to the head of the CIA, George Tenet, he said, and yet Curveball's testimony still made it into Colin Powell's famous February 2003 speech justifying an invasion. "Right up to the night of Powell's speech, I said, don't use that German reporting because there's a problem with that," said Drumheller. "[Curveball] recanting doesn't really change that. It just makes me feel better. It confirms what we found at the time."

 

[Liability]

Wrong. Most Democrats in Congress voted against the Iraq war authorization.

'Most'. It was, therefore, a bipartisan effort.

And, for the record, using a large font, in bold, makes you look like an attention seeking whiner.

Congress Authorized Bush to go to war if necessary. It did not order him do do so

It was Bush's call to pull the trigger. It didn't take him long even though mounting evidence said there were no WMDs

Why mess up a chance for a good war?

A dishonest quibble from leftwinger.

Congress couldn't possibly "order" the President to go to war. ALL they have ever had the Constitutional authority to do is AUTHORIZE him to use our nation's military might.

In this instance, we got attacked. The President sought authority to go fight terrorists in general. Authority granted. When he asks and they grant, they damn well know that he will use it, so your petty quibble is a difference without a meaningful distinction.

As to Iraq, the authorization from Congress was similarly in response to the Bush Administration's specific request. Again, therefore, before they "authorized," they knew that granting authority was exactly the same as voting TO fight.

Again, your quibble is meaningless double-talk.

Typical of you, Leftwinger.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You are aware, are you not, that congress voted for this, right? It was a bipartisan effort.

Wrong. Most Democrats in Congress voted against the Iraq war authorization.

But although smaller in number than the ones who voted "nay," there were still MANY Democrats who voted "aye." Somewhere around 40%. so, you are the one who is wrong. It was indeed still a "bipartisan" vote even if more Dims voted against it rather than for it.

Definition of BIPARTISAN
: of, relating to, or involving members of two parties <a bipartisan commission>; specifically : marked by or involving cooperation, agreement, and compromise between two major political parties <bipartisan support for the bill>

Bipartisan - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

There wasn't any 'agreement' between the parties. If most Democrats didn't want the authorization, it can't mean that the Democrats agreed to it.

 

[rightwinger]

'Most'. It was, therefore, a bipartisan effort.

And, for the record, using a large font, in bold, makes you look like an attention seeking whiner.

Congress Authorized Bush to go to war if necessary. It did not order him do do so

It was Bush's call to pull the trigger. It didn't take him long even though mounting evidence said there were no WMDs

Why mess up a chance for a good war?

A dishonest quibble from leftwinger.

Congress couldn't possibly "order" the President to go to war. ALL they have ever had the Constitutional authority to do is AUTHORIZE him to use our nation's military might.

In this instance, we got attacked. The President sought authority to go fight terrorists in general. Authority granted. When he asks and they grant, they damn well know that he will use it, so your petty quibble is a difference without a meaningful distinction.

As to Iraq, the authorization from Congress was similarly in response to the Bush Administration's specific request. Again, therefore, before they "authorized," they knew that granting authority was exactly the same as voting TO fight.

Again, your quibble is meaningless double-talk.

Typical of you, Leftwinger.

Quite wrong my friend

It was entirely up to Bush to pull the trigger. He could have changed his mind at any time. He also could have given UN Weapons Inspectors the additional time they requested. Bush pulled the trigger when he did because he suspected the UN Weapons inspectors would report there were no WMDs

There was no rush for Bush to invade when he did....other than to make sure his reason for invading didn't evaporate

 

[Liability]

Wrong. Most Democrats in Congress voted against the Iraq war authorization.

But although smaller in number than the ones who voted "nay," there were still MANY Democrats who voted "aye." Somewhere around 40%. so, you are the one who is wrong. It was indeed still a "bipartisan" vote even if more Dims voted against it rather than for it.

Definition of BIPARTISAN
: of, relating to, or involving members of two parties <a bipartisan commission>; specifically : marked by or involving cooperation, agreement, and compromise between two major political parties <bipartisan support for the bill>

Bipartisan - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

There wasn't any 'agreement' between the parties. If most Democrats didn't want the authorization, it can't mean that the Democrats agreed to it.

40% of the Dims voting wouldn't agree with you.

If what you are trying to grunt out is the claim that "bipartisan" requires a majority of both sides, then you would be better served by proving that point.

40% of one side and just shy of 96% of the other side amounts to bipartisan support, otherwise.

 

[Liability]

Congress Authorized Bush to go to war if necessary. It did not order him do do so

It was Bush's call to pull the trigger. It didn't take him long even though mounting evidence said there were no WMDs

Why mess up a chance for a good war?

A dishonest quibble from leftwinger.

Congress couldn't possibly "order" the President to go to war. ALL they have ever had the Constitutional authority to do is AUTHORIZE him to use our nation's military might.

In this instance, we got attacked. The President sought authority to go fight terrorists in general. Authority granted. When he asks and they grant, they damn well know that he will use it, so your petty quibble is a difference without a meaningful distinction.

As to Iraq, the authorization from Congress was similarly in response to the Bush Administration's specific request. Again, therefore, before they "authorized," they knew that granting authority was exactly the same as voting TO fight.

Again, your quibble is meaningless double-talk.

Typical of you, Leftwinger.

Quite wrong my friend

It was entirely up to Bush to pull the trigger. He could have changed his mind at any time. He also could have given UN Weapons Inspectors the additional time they requested. Bush pulled the trigger when he did because he suspected the UN Weapons inspectors would report there were no WMDs

There was no rush for Bush to invade when he did....other than to make sure his reason for invading didn't evaporate

Quite wrong. The AUTHORIZATION came from Congress and the President had no ability to pull the trigger on his own without their authorization (absent some exigent circumstances not involved in this matter).

It is true that when they granted him the authority, they left the factual determination as to the triggering event(s) within his purview. And yet, even that much required their assent. And they gave it. And it came with certain other strings attached including (not limited to) the power of the purse strings.

You can try your quibble all day long, Leftwinger, but you remain an abject fail in the process since the actual facts are starkly contrary to your dishonest efforts at spin.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

"Iraqi democracy will succeed, and that success will send forth the news from Damascus to Tehran that freedom can be the future of every nation."

The audience at the National Endowment for Democracy in Washington answered with hearty applause.

"The establishment of a free Iraq at the heart of the Middle East will be a watershed event in the global democratic revolution."

That was....2003. George W. Bush.

Now look at today, he called it. Democratic self-determination revolution all over the world. Despots and tyrants everywhere are nervous as hell. Oppressed people everywhere demanding freedom. Like a virus, it spreads.

And here is a report on Iraq itself, today:

A Democratic Iraq Is Emerging - Newsweek

The elections to be held in Iraq on March 7 feature 6,100 parliamentary candidates from all of the country's major sects and many different parties. They have wildly conflicting interests and ambitions. Yet in the past couple of years, these politicians have come to see themselves as part of the same club, where hardball political debate has supplanted civil war and legislation is hammered out, however slowly and painfully, through compromises

Read on at link.

Will the opponents of Bush ever admit he was right? History is playing out just as he said while President, and just as he said in his book. I guess you can continue denying and bashing and be happy living on the wrong side of history, or you can stand and applaud this visionary man with me.

Here we have a guy predicting "global democratic revolution" eight years ago, and look! We HAVE it now. Ppl can blame economic conditions, food shortages and high prices, they can make all the excuses, whatever they want but the truth and they know it themselves is, the freedom of self determination in Iraq is spreading. The information superhighway is the carrier of the virus. Bush planted a seed and look at it starting to crop up!

The terrorists knew this all too well, which is why they tried so desperately to stop it. But it can't be stopped now. People want a one world order? Its coming, just not the communist totalitarian John Lennon type one they imagined!

We get Carter? Hostages taken, free people all over the world living in fear.

We get Reagan? We get Tienanmen square and the fight for freedom. We get the Soviet Bloc crumbling like the house of cards it always was.

We get HW Bush? Berlin wall falls, Saddam's Hitleresque invasion stopped.

We get Clinton? NINE terrorist attacks either on our soil or on our personnel overseas. Nothing at all done about it. There's your 9-11 legacy.

We get Bush? We hit back at the terrorists finally. Tyrants and despots backing down. Iraq is liberated. Global Democratic Self-determination Revolution seeds planted and begin to grow.

We get Obama? Increased terrorist attacks and attempts here at home and abroad after he went around apologizing to the muslim world. He tries but cant stamp down the revolution! Despots and tyrants everywhere are emboldened again, even Gaddafi has resurfaced flapping his yap. He's no longer worried about having to eat a smart bomb for a midnight snack!

But this revolution is far too powerful for Obamas machinations, terrorist acts or Gaddafi's piehole to stop it. Its inevitable.

 

[Liability]

And one more point on the FACT that the Iraq War Authorization WAS bipartisan. The SENATE also had to provide its assent. And it did.

And it was a MAJORITY of the DIM Senators who voted "aye." 29 outta 50 of em, in fact.

 

[Mustang]

Man admits to WMD lies that triggered Gulf War (The Guardian)

And he found a President gullible enough to believe him, even when evidence told a different story. Over 5,000 dead US and many more Iraqis. Nearly a Trillion dollars spent on a lie.

There's something that's important to acknowledge here.

Skeptical US officials were NOT duped.

Bush and Cheney (along with numerous officials at the highest levels of the US Gov't like Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and others) WANTED to invade Iraq. Iraq was one of the first topics of conversation within days after Bush took office.

Consequently, there was no source on the planet who would have been considered too unreliable to site as evidence (proof, really) that Saddam had WMDs if that person came forward to say he did.

Jon (Yeah, that's the ticket) Lovitz could have made a guest appearance on SNL to say that Saddam had WMDs, and they probably would have played that video at the UN as supporting evidence.

You are aware, are you not, that congress voted for this, right? It was a bipartisan effort.

That was the point, wasn't it? GET Congressional approval. And to get that approval, the administration was willing to site any source, regardless of its merit.

As I recall, the supporters of the measure also used post 9/11 fear to help get that approval. That was a pretty questionable tactic seeing as how Saddam wasn't involved in 9/11. But then again, the administration DID push the since discredited "intelligence report" that Saddam had someone meet with a member of al Qaeda in Eastern Europe.

The administration even played the patriotism card in the most cynical way. Or don't you remember those campaign ads that ran in GA which suggested that triple amputee Vietnam war veteran Sen Max Cleland was somehow soft on terrorism by showing pictures of bin Laden in the ad.

Yeah, the message was clear. Vote to give the president the authorization to use force to oust Saddam or you would be labeled as unpatriotic in the coming election.

 

[California Girl]

Interesting point about Ole Curveball

He never spoke to US interrogators. He spilled his guts to the Germans.

But for some reason, the Germans decided it was not a sufficient threat to go to war but Bush jumped all over it

Why would he have spoken to US interrogators? Have you even read the article? Or are you another one of the droolers who think we captured this guy?

 

[Liability]

There's something that's important to acknowledge here.

Skeptical US officials were NOT duped.

Bush and Cheney (along with numerous officials at the highest levels of the US Gov't like Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and others) WANTED to invade Iraq. Iraq was one of the first topics of conversation within days after Bush took office.

Consequently, there was no source on the planet who would have been considered too unreliable to site as evidence (proof, really) that Saddam had WMDs if that person came forward to say he did.

Jon (Yeah, that's the ticket) Lovitz could have made a guest appearance on SNL to say that Saddam had WMDs, and they probably would have played that video at the UN as supporting evidence.

You are aware, are you not, that congress voted for this, right? It was a bipartisan effort.

That was the point, wasn't it? GET Congressional approval. And to get that approval, the administration was willing to site any source, regardless of its merit.

As I recall, the supporters of the measure also used post 9/11 fear to help get that approval. That was a pretty questionable tactic seeing as how Saddam wasn't involved in 9/11. But then again, the administration DID push the since discredited "intelligence report" that Saddam had someone meet with a member of al Qaeda in Eastern Europe.

The administration even played the patriotism card in the most cynical way. Or don't you remember those campaign ads that ran in GA which suggested that triple amputee Vietnam war veteran Sen Max Cleland was somehow soft on terrorism by showing pictures of bin Laden in the ad.

Yeah, the message was clear. Vote to give the president the authorization to use force to oust Saddam or you would be labeled as unpatriotic in the coming election.

Hm. How about that? If that's true, then the Dims who voted in favor of the authorization must have been more inclined to vote against it, but found it expedient in a gutless, cowardly, spineless way, to cave in to mere political expediency. That's some lot of pussies you guys have over there at the Democrat Parody.