Intelligence source codenamed "Curveball" admits lying about WMD

[BrianH]

Let's not revise history, a republican president approved of the war as well as a majority of the democrats in the Senate.

Keep that in mind when you go to the voting booths.

Exactly...the president alone did not send us to war. It took a majority vote in Congress....in which Republicans and Democrats voted for the war.

 

[mdn2000]

Actually it was the Democrats under Bill Clinton that led to giving Liberty to Iraq, a disaster, not at all. To label it as such shows lack of knowledge.

Consider, eight years of Bill Clinton gathering intelligence on Iraq, eight years of failed Democrat polices, like intelligence, it was Bill Clinton's intelligence that gave us the U.S. Cole being sunk in Yemen as well as Bill Clinton's CIA that gave us 9/11.

Was it not Boxer, Kerry, and Pelosi who sat on a committee and they all stated the intelligence showed Iraq was producing WMD's, this was during Bill Clinton's presidency.

Yes, Liberal's gave us 9/11 and Iraq yet they want us to beleive that Iraq was nothing but a lie and a disaster. Pure lies.

Far from a disaster, Iraq, if we do not desert Iraq, is about the best thing that has happened in the Middle East since Israel declared independence from England.

Actually it was the unholy union of the ACLU and the Republicans that blocked most of Clintons Anti-terrorist bill of 1995. Many of the provision he ask for were implemented after 9-11.

Better check your intel, the USS Cole was not sunk. 17 sailors died in an attack on her and Clinton should have damn well dropped the whole Israeli/Palestine peace BS and taken care of business. But then again Bush had nearly 8 months to do something about the Taliban's guests too. But they opened negociations for the pipeline with the Taliban.

It was President GHW Bush that gave us Iraq. Had he told Saddam in no uncertain terms that we would defend Kuwait as if it were our 51st, Saddam would not have dared invade.

Al Queda gave us 9-11. Not Bush, not Clinton. Americas interventionist policies however can be questioned when the motive of these sick fucks come up.

I think the democracy in Iraq is going to vote for us to leave, post haste.

England quit it's Mandate for Palestine because they were tired of fighting a three way battle. Tired of its' ambassadors being assassinated and tired of its' soldier being kidnaped and killed, yeah they quit. Soon after, the Jewish settlers declared themselves to be an independent state. Then they defended their independence with weapons.

The USS Cole was not sunk, your right, I better check my facts.

Clinton would of saved us if only the Republicans would of not stopped Clinton,

Yea, that is why Sandy Berger, United States National Security Advisor, under President Bill Clinton from 1997 to 2001 stole Top Secret documents from the National Archives. I am sure those were the documents that showed Clinton did all he could, right or is it you think wire tapping could of stopped 9/11.

Just think, after the Federal Building was blown up in Oklahoma, after the Word Trade Center was attacked in 1993, after our embassies were blown up in Africa, after Black Hawk Down, after the USS Cole was sunk, Bill Clinton could of stopped it all if only he could of tapped a phone?

You are right about the USS Cole, that boat did not even come close to sinking.

 

[QUENTIN]

The more intelligent - and slightly less partisan - among the board - might be tempted to ask some hard questions, rather than use this thread as yet another 'let's blame Bush' bonanza.... Questions about why we were not and still are not putting more effort into our clandestine services. Had we had a decent clandestine network, we would have been in a better position to verify information, develop further information and generally would not have made such a fucking mess of things.

However, I'm sure it's easier... and much more fun.... to just scream about Bush et al.

It requires no "partisanship" to blame Bush and especially his inner circle of neo-cons for the debacle in Iraq that wrought untold human death and suffering and cost us a trillion dollars based entirely on bullshit. Holding someone responsible for their actions should be standard practice, the fact that someone at fault for any given problem may have an R or D next to their name doesn't make holding them accountable a partisan issue. Partisans do have a reason however to deflect from holding people on "their team" accountable, as we see.

Our clandestine services have billions upon billions of dollars, innumerable extralegal powers, incredible technology and support behind them. Much of the clandestine service recognized Curveball and the rest of the manufactured intelligence for the bullshit it was, but the higher ups didn't want to listen because they had a goal and just needed to find an excuse. This incredibly unreliable and untrusted yahoo was taken seriously solely because he was telling the government what they wanted to hear. As long as they could plausibly claim someone somewhere suggested Saddam had WMDs or ties to Al Qaeda, they could finally get to do what they'd been itching to since 1997. Everyone, including CIA Agents, diplomats, and military commanders who didn't tell them what they wanted to hear was systematically ignored.

Where is the quote where I say he was tortured?

Do you ever really listen to what anyone says?

He was a criminal who changed his story to get what he wanted.

They knew he was a liar and a thief and used what he was willing to say because its what they wanted to hear.

Let's review... OP starts with some guy who lied about WMD. You jump in with some crap about torture and how it doesn't work.... the thread had nothing to do with torture, it was about a specific individual who lied to the US about WMD..... now, since the thread was nothing do to with torture.... why did you bring it up? Clearly, you thought this was a case where we tortured a prisoner and then acted on that information. You were wrong, truth. But, instead of saying 'hey, my bad, I got it wrong'.... you start your usual wiggle to get around your fuck up.

Have some courage, man up and admit you didn't read the article before you decided we had tortured someone.

You're such a fucking liar.

And yes, they also tortured people to try to find a rationale for the war via a non-existent Al Qaeda connection.

Powell aide says torture helped build Iraq war case - CNN
Report: Abusive tactics used to seek Iraq-al Qaida link | McClatchy

There's no way that's off-topic in a thread about how we were duped into invading Iraq.

Let's not revise history, a republican president approved of the war as well as a majority of the democrats in the Senate.

Keep that in mind when you go to the voting booths.

Exactly...the president alone did not send us to war. It took a majority vote in Congress....in which Republicans and Democrats voted for the war.

This is quite true. Everyone who voted for it should be held to account because they didn't do their duty as representatives to investigate and educate themselves before signing our country up for an aggressive invasion and occupation of a sovereign country.

However most of them are primarily guilty of believing what they were being told by their president, Secretary of State, and trusted the cooked reports they were provided.

They still deserve our scorn not our votes, but the fooled are not nearly as guilty as those who worked to fool them.

 

[sparky]

Let's not revise history, a republican president approved of the war as well as a majority of the democrats in the Senate.

Keep that in mind when you go to the voting booths.

Exactly...the president alone did not send us to war. It took a majority vote in Congress....in which Republicans and Democrats voted for the war.

well on the surface, yes

but technically, since the war powers act of 1973 (which was a complete backfire, btw) , Congress votes on any other term that 'war'


the ever elloquent peace keeping mission , or perhaps democracy building has been in vouge every since

 

[Liability]

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.

So 40% is now a majority? What's 60% then?

btw, your logic means that the 2009 stimulus bill was bi-partisan, so the Republicans are just as responsible for that as the Democrats are. Correct?

No, you dishonest idiot. If you could quote anywhere, any post, anything I said that actually claims that 40% is a majority, I'd be happy to address it. But you can't since I never said any such thing, you dishonest hack.

The Republicans who voted for the "stimulus bill" ARE just as responsible for it as the Democratics who voted for it.

Wipe the drool of your chin.

 

[Liability]

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.

Most Democrats voted against the war authorization. How many times do you need to be told that?

You guys that were 200% gung ho for the disaster that was the Iraq war, now want to blame it on the Democrats.

That's funny.

Hey, douche bag. I SAID "Dims who voted in favor of the authorization . . . ." I DIDN'T say all Dims voted for it or even that a majority had. You idiot.

You really need to work on your reading comprehension, moron. Or your honesty. Because if you understand the words used, then your reply indicates that you deliberately distort. If your distortions aren't deliberate, then you are one addled fuckwad.

The Iraq war was not a disaster and I am more than pleased that right-thinking folks like the MAJORITY of the GOP representatives and Senators (and Administration) were in favor of it. You pinheads SHOULD be embarrassed that you can't claim a majority of the Dims supported it.

By the way, though, I am pleased to remind you yet AGAIN that a MAJORITY of the DIM Senators DID support the Iraq War Authorization.

 

[QUENTIN]

The Iraq war was not a disaster and I am more than pleased that right-thinking folks like the MAJORITY of the GOP representatives and Senators (and Administration) were in favor of it.

You... SHOULD be embarrassed...

.

 

[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.

Yep

And it ended up costing Hillary the Presidency

Not exactly. What "cost" her the nomination was the fact that the Dims were divided between a clean articulate storybook black liberal and a shrill, former first lady, but arguably more qualified liberal.

And even if her vote DID "cost" her based on some calculus of the cost-benefit analysis, that only means that your peeps reward the kind of spineless weasel-dick behavior of guys like then Senator Obama (i.e., voting "present" avoids having to apologize for taking a stand).

 

[Liability]

The Iraq war was not a disaster and I am more than pleased that right-thinking folks like the MAJORITY of the GOP representatives and Senators (and Administration) were in favor of it.

You... SHOULD be embarrassed...

.

,

 

[Sallow]

Let's not revise history, a republican president approved of the war as well as a majority of the democrats in the Senate.

Keep that in mind when you go to the voting booths.

Exactly...the president alone did not send us to war. It took a majority vote in Congress....in which Republicans and Democrats voted for the war.

well on the surface, yes

but technically, since the war powers act of 1973 (which was a complete backfire, btw) , Congress votes on any other term that 'war'


the ever elloquent peace keeping mission , or perhaps democracy building has been in vouge every since

Congress has always been a Presidential rubber stamp in terms of calls for war. Doesn't matter the make up of the parties.

Which is now the predicament. If any serious investigations are held in regards to the Iraq war..it should be clear to everyone there was absolutely no reason for it.

So the question becomes, how do we keep the President's ability to react swiftly to a danger while impeding this power in regards to a situation like Iraq?

That probably has to start with an end to open-ended deployments.

 

[KissMy]

By choosing to invade Iraq congress & the president followed the will of the people.

Even before the 9/11 attacks, GWB & Cheney Attack Iraq Propaganda, the larger majority of Americans wanted to send in ground troops to remove Saddam from power. Gallup Poll below proves this. Attacking Iraq was democracy in action.

 

[Sallow]

By choosing to invade Iraq congress & the president followed the will of the people.

Cheney made no bones about this.

CHENEY: On the security front, I think there’s a general consensus that we’ve made major progress, that the surge has worked. That’s been a major success.

RADDATZ: Two-third of Americans say it’s not worth fighting.

CHENEY: So?

RADDATZ So? You don’t care what the American people think?

CHENEY: No. I think you cannot be blown off course by the fluctuations in the public opinion polls.

Watch it:


[flv http://video.thinkprogress.org/2008/03/cheneysoiraq.320.240.flv]

ThinkProgress » Cheney On Two-Thirds Of The American Public Opposing The Iraq War: ‘So?’

 

[Intense]

Just as a Reminder, the Primary Obligation is to Protect and Defend, Public Opinion Polls are not a Factor in that Equation. Long Term, Yes, the Will of the People Matter. Reactionary, Response to Immediate Circumstance, Eminent Threat, No.

 

[KissMy]

Just as a Reminder, the Primary Obligation is to Protect and Defend, Public Opinion Polls are not a Factor in that Equation. Long Term, Yes, the Will of the People Matter. Reactionary, Response to Immediate Circumstance, Eminent Threat, No.

The public opinion favoring the invasion of Iraq was long term. For 13 years before we invaded Iraq, the majority of Americans wanted to send in American forces to get rid of Saddam. From 1990 to 2003 when we finally invaded Iraq & years after that it was always the will of the American people to do so. It was not the result of reactionary, response to immediate circumstance, eminent threat or fluctuations in the public opinion polls. It was the will of the people. Democracy in action.

 

[Intense]

Just as a Reminder, the Primary Obligation is to Protect and Defend, Public Opinion Polls are not a Factor in that Equation. Long Term, Yes, the Will of the People Matter. Reactionary, Response to Immediate Circumstance, Eminent Threat, No.

The public opinion favoring the invasion of Iraq was long term. For 13 years before we invaded Iraq, the majority of Americans wanted to send in American forces to get rid of Saddam. From 1990 to 2003 when we finally invaded Iraq & years after that it was always the will of the American people to do so. It was not the result of reactionary, response to immediate circumstance, eminent threat or fluctuations in the public opinion polls. It was the will of the people. Democracy in action.

Personally I think we went in when we did because the Administration at the least suspected a change in the wind coming. I supported the Invasion once we were committed, but thought personally we needed more time in Afghanistan, to Establish a Working Model Republic that was not hostile to Islam, to show the World that Representative Government and Unalienable Rights are not a Threat to Islam, in relation to Personal Belief. Can Islam Thrive in Non Sharia Lands? Yes. Can Islam Thrive Separate from Totalitarianism? Yes. Is Free Will an Enemy to Piety? It is what Each makes of it.

That said, there was misinformation and Polarization on All Sides, which effected Public Opinion, leading up to the Invasion.

 

[jgarden]

Intelligence source codenamed "Curveball" admits lying about WMD

The Republicans still have alot of explaining to do when it comes to the Iraq invasion and all the "stonewalling" in the world won't stop the whole truth from eventually being told.

If "Watergate" taught us one thing, its that the American public (with the exception of The Tea Party/Republicans/birthers) generally wants their president to succeed and are presisposed to forgive a mistake or misdeed.

What they will not forgive is being deliberately misled or deceived because their president thinks he/she is above the laws of the land. President Nixon would have probably served his full term if he had just taken the American people into his confidence and made a complete "mea culpa," before the nation read about "Deep Throat," "The Plumbers" and the "White House tapes" in the Washington Post.

Even at this late date, George W Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld might be able to rehabilitate some of their public reputations if they made a candid confession to the American public and admitted their shortcomings - before somebody else does it for them.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

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.

Bingo!!!!!!

​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

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.

Yeah....that was the timeline......

June 20, 2005​

"Some time between January and May 1999 presidential aspirant George W. Bush was talking with Mickey Herskowitz, a former Houston Chronicle sports columnist who'd been signed on to ghostwrite his autobiography. And the future president spoke unto Herskowitz, saying:

"One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief. My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it. If I have a chance to invade---if I had that much capital, I'm not going to waste it. I'm going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I'm going to have a successful presidency."

"Herskowitz was at some point pulled off the autobiography project by Bush's handlers, who thought he wasn't presenting the chosen one in a sufficiently adulatory light. But even if he had stayed on in the job, that honestly ejaculated little Bushism probably wouldn't have gone into the book. Just doesn't look too good when someone running for president of the USA says if he has a chance to invade he won't waste it."

Bush Craved Opportunity to Attack Iraq​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

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.

Yeah....people like.....

The DICK; Cheney
Cherry-Picker; Extraordinaire

 

[Mr. Shaman]

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

Bingo!!!!

Former weapons inspector:
Iraq not a threat