The Source of the Iraqi WMD Claims Comes Clean ... And Shows that the American and British Governments Willfully Manipulated the Evidence

George Washington's picture

Washington’s Blog

As I've repeatedly pointed out, everyone knew that Iraq didn't have WMDs.

The Guardian just interviewed the infamous "Curveball" who provided false evidence about Iraq's
weapons of mass destruction. Curveball admitted that he knowingly lied
about WMDs, in order to topple Saddam Hussein. Today, the Guardian is
running a series of articles on Curveball which reinforce the conclusion
that the American and British governments deliberately manipulated the
evidence to justify the Iraqi invasion.

In one article, the Guardian notes :

former head of the CIA in Europe ... Tyler Drumheller, who says he
warned the head of the US intelligence agency before the 2003 invasion
of Iraq that Curveball might be a liar ....




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."


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.




recalled a conversation he had with John McLaughlin, then the CIA's
deputy director. "The week before the speech, I talked to the Deputy
McLaughlin, and someone says to him, 'Tyler's worried that Curveball
might be a fabricator.


"And McLaughlin said, 'Oh, I hope not, because this is really all we have.' And I said, and I've got to be honest with you, I said: 'You've got to be kidding? his is all we have!'"

In a second article, the Guardian reports:

senior aide to Colin Powell at the time of his pivotal speech to the
United Nations said on Tuesday that Curveball's admission raised
questions about the CIA's role.


Lawrence Wilkerson, who was chief
of staff to the then US secretary of state Powell in the build-up to
the invasion, said the lies of Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi, also known
by the codename Curveball, raised questions about how the CIA had
briefed Powell ahead of his crucial speech to the UN security council
presenting the case for war.


In particular, why did the CIA's
then director George Tenet and his deputy John McLaughlin believe the
claim by Curveball, "and convey that to Powell even though the CIA's own European chief Tyler Drumheller had already raised serious doubts.


why did Tenet and McLaughlin portray the presence of mobile biological
labs in Iraq to the secretary of state with a degree of conviction
bordering on passionate, soul-felt certainty?"




"This is
very damning testimony and an indictment of the work the US put into
the pre-war intelligence. The decision to go to war, to spend billions
on sending hundreds of thousands of soldiers to the region, was in
large part taken on the basis of an admitted liar," said Ashwin Madia, head of an organisation of progressive US military veterans, VoteVets.




Yaphe, a former CIA analyst on Iraq now at the National Defence
University in Washington, said ... "There were people at the time who
doubted what Curveball was saying, but if the administration doesn't
want to believe it, it doesn't make much difference."

And in
a third piece, Carne Ross - Britain's former Iraq expert at the UN
security council, and the person responsible for liaison with the
weapons inspectors - writes:

Again, we will be confronted with the "not my fault!" excuse from those who manufactured the case for an avoidable war.


But once again, they are trying to mislead. Here's why.


I learned in my work on Iraq's WMD in the late 90s and early 2000s,
when I was Britain's Iraq expert at the UN security council and
responsible for liaison with the weapons inspectors, intelligence on WMD
is a confusing and complicated issue. There was a great deal of data,
much of it contradictory, from an array of different sources –
intercepts of communications, aerial and satellite imagery and "humint"
from defectors or agents inside Iraq. Our task in the government was to
try to make sense of all this, and interpret from the data a
reasonably plausible and coherent picture of what was actually going




Given the complexity of the data, no single source could ever be taken as authoritative. And the
least convincing sources – by their very nature – were defectors. We
knew full well that, for very understandable reasons, defectors had a
powerful incentive to exaggerate the nature of Iraq's development of
WMD. They hated Saddam and wanted him gone. Long before Curveball,
there were other defectors who made sometimes wild claims about Iraq's
weapons programmes. I remember one report that suggested Iraq had armed
its Scud missiles (none of which, in fact, existed, it later emerged)
with nuclear warheads, ready to be launched at Israel and other
targets. Defector intelligence was, therefore, lowest in the hierarchy
of evidence; photographic or signals intercepts were, for obvious
reasons, treated as more plausible.




All evidence
had to be tested by the simple method of seeking corroboration from
other sources. This method was used across Whitehall, and in the
Ministry of Defence and the Cabinet Office in particular, and was the
basis for the Joint Intelligence Committee assessments of the WMD
threat, several of which I contributed to. In the years I worked on the
subject (1997-2002), the picture produced by this method was very
clear: there was no credible evidence of substantial stocks of WMD in Iraq.


it was this method – clearly – that was abandoned in advance of the
war. Instead of a careful cross-checking of evidence, reports that
suited the story of an imminent Iraqi threat were picked out, polished
and formed the basis of public claims
like Colin Powell's presentation to the UN security council, or the No 10 dossier. This
was exactly how a false case for war was constructed: not by the
deliberate creation of a falsehood, but by willfully and secretly
manipulating the evidence to exaggerate the importance of reports like
Curveball's, and to ignore contradictory evidence.




Others of my former colleagues in the MOD and Foreign Office have
freely admitted to me that this is precisely what took place. Yet, for
all its subtlety and secrecy, we should name this process for what it
was: the manufacture of a lie.


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
proLiberty's picture

The WMD issue was just one piece of the puzzle that went into the decision to invade.  Another big piece was Saddam's training facility at Salman Pak.  That camp featured an irplane fuselage used for practicing hijacking.  

After 9/11 the media hammered the question of why the intelligence community could not connect the dots.  With Saddam, all the dots we could see went only in one direction.  When the usual useful idiots presented their counter evidence, it was not credible.

gasmiinder's picture

I'll give you this though George - you do know how to whip-up the mob.

falak pema's picture

Every intelligence service thought the other guy was satan's son, his horns only too visible to those whose eyes were open. In name of this evident, unquestionable truth they raped his country, saying we've saved humanity...never bothering to look at their own faces in the mirror... Athens and the Melians...we never learn do we...

Ironmaan's picture

I find the intellectual dishonesty regarding this issue astounding. Every intelligence service around thought he had WMD's. Most democrats thought and said he had WMD's. Mistake yes, lie no.

Why don't you histerical nuts on the left go a bit further back in time and explore Tea Pot Dome scandal.

Sathington Willougby's picture

The saudis did it.  Why didn't we attack them?

falak pema's picture

Take you back four decades : Gulf of Tonkin incident, superb lie manufactured by then Johnson regime + military complex (remember Gen. Curtis B Lemay of Dr Strangelove parody!), remember what that best and brightest genius of american management McNamarra revealed in the 'Fog of War' interview...breathtaking what a false 'Casus Belli' can achieve to start a sterile war that mutilated three small third world countries...for nothing!

falak pema's picture

GW : the logic of your apologetic reminiscing to nail the whole WMD caper in Iraq on one defector felon and the chain of command who fell for it like gospel truth is a pathetic joke.

You know as well as the whole world that after 9/11 GWB, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the whole American military industrial complex and Oil lobby à la Carlyle tip of the ice berg, all wanted to finish off the job left unfinished in 1991, when rogue Arab spear carrier Saddam Hussein FAILED in mission allocated to him by said masters in USA and Saoudian  surrogates in Ryad to take out those evil knievels sitting in Tehran who had humiliated Carter and taken revolutionary Iran out of USA's orbit of control. So this was all a preplanned scheme in the order of things, ratcheted up by the Bush's New World Order become great crusade of the clash of civilizations under Dubya. All this hand wringing to pretend this was not part of the great ongoing game as played by the US of A since John Foster/Allen Dulles days , successors of Rule Britannia, as world imperial player, does not add credit to your curriculum vitae as retired player of State department (I'm assuming here).

dcb's picture

het, don't we all know Obama has givena free pass to all the crooks in the past. MY guess is that was what he had to agree with to get the backing of the bilderberg group. Plus the promise of future riches for doing so.

Coldfire's picture

So maybe, like, the government actually lied to us? What an outrageous suggestion.

AR15AU's picture

Looks like GW is too big of a pussy to respond to keating.

PulauHantu29's picture

MSM doesn't even mention the Iraq War anymore. All they write is "Better then Expected" about Wall Street earnings, profits, etc.

keating's picture

The transfer of Iraqi WMD overseas started even before the outbreak of the Gulf War. Back in late 1990, when Baghdad realized Iraq would be subjected to intense bombing, key sensitive elements were smuggled out. Then, in the Spring of 1991, once the extent of the post-War inspection regime became clarified, especially given the type and amount of data provided to the West by numerous defectors, a second round of hasty smuggling took place. Essentially, the core of the next-generation projects of the Iraqi WMD programs was moved to safe-havens. A lot of know-how and key subsystems were shipped out with the idea of building alternate production facilities in the host countries.

Most important are the programs transferred to Libya and Sudan -- two of Iraq's closest allies during the Gulf War that have strong aspirations for WMD of their own. Libya, long struggling to overcome embargoes and the cancellation of arrangements for the supply of technology and systems from Western Europe, has been looking for the Iraqi embargo-busting knowledge and for Iraqi proven solutions for Libyan problems....In January 1995, Iraq and Libya signed a major agreement whereby Iraqi specialists will work at a secret Libyan establishment on the development of a long-range ballistic missiles with range of about 1,000 km. A senior Iraqi Trade Ministry official, Hajem Attiya Salma arrived in Tripoli for final discussions with AbdAllah Hijazi, the head of Libya's Scientific Research authorities. In the agreement reached, Qadhafi agreed to pay the salaries of the Iraqi experts -- some $1,200 a month -- as well as finance the acquisition of Western technology. Moreover, the Iraqis were promised access to the Chinese, Iranian, and North Korean missile technology Libya had already acquired. Baghdad promised to share all the experience acquired in the Gulf War. Iraq did not have much alternative. Incapable of working, the Iraqi design teams built around experts trained at the best European and Russian establishments were falling apart. Now Qadhafi was offering to fund and provide cover for the revival of the al-Hussein and Badr missiles under the cover of the Libyan al-Fatakh program..........

The first step was the quick transfer to Libya of an Iraqi military nuclear project that numerous Arab and European experts described as being "in its final stages". By then, after Kamal's "defection" went sour, Saddam gave up on keeping the key elements of the WMD programs in Iraq and ordered their swift transfer to Libya before the UN closed in on them. Hence, several experts and equipment were immediately dispatched to Libya to prepare for the transfer of the nuclear program.

The main item Baghdad was adamant on saving was a limited quantity of semi-enriched nuclear fuel transferred to the Aba Agricultural and Scientific Research Center, east of Baghdad, under the direct supervision of Lt.Gen Amir Rashid, director the Iraqi Military Industrialization Organization (MIO). The initial transfer was made possible by the suspension of UN surveillance of this center after the Iraqis had moved its equipment to Abu-Ghurayb region near Baghdad. In the meantime, Iraq was hiding the nuclear fuel in large underground storage facilities near the Aba center. After conditioning the nuclear material for transportation, it was sent by sea to Libya within weeks.

Meanwhile, a high-level MIO delegation headed by Dr. Jafar Diya Jafar, one of Iraq's leading nuclear scientists, arrived in Libya in mid October 1995 to oversee the installation of the small nuclear furnaces. The Iraqi nuclear program would be located at Sidi Abu Zurayq in the desert 380 km southwest of Tripoli. By the end of 1995, the MIO experts began enriching the Iraqi nuclear material having successfully installed the small- and medium-sized kilns/furnaces there.

The most important indication of the intimate strategic cooperation between Baghdad and Tripoli was in Western Europe. Since the mid 1990s, Iraqi intelligence has been diverting purchases of dual-use and sensitive technologies in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland to Libya. In the process, Libyan intelligence was given access to the Iraqis' most secure shipment routes -- where exported goods are shipped to Bulgaria where local companies are identified as the end-users, and from where the goods are forwarded illegally to Iraq and now also Libya. Furthermore, starting the mid 1990s, Iraqi intelligence has been assisting Russian and other ex-Soviet scientists to acquire third-country passports in Central and Latin America so they can travel to and work in Iraq. Following the new cooperation agreements, Iraqi intelligence began sending these scientists to Libya for work on the joint Iraqi-Libyan WMD projects. Honduras was the site of a major program in 1995- 96. Additional Iraqi intelligence operatives, all experts in the procurement of high-technology, arrived in Germany in early 1996. They began a still ongoing effort to revive dormant relationships as well as establish new ones. However, the reorganized Iraqi procurement system is now diverting the bulk of the goods to Libya rather than Iraq.

gasmiinder's picture

Keating - you need to be aware that providing actual information and rational argument to the George Washington fan club will not be tolerated.  Thus your multiple junks already accumulating.  Asking this group to step beyond knee-jerk partisanship and name-calling is a dangerous endeavor.  Even more intolerable is asking them to think.  Good luck with that.

keating's picture

There may have been some bombs in Iraq, later taken to Syria for safe-keeping. becoming a nuclear power is easy if you have a checkbook...

Did Iraq Detonate a Nuclear Weapon in 1989?
Two recent British reports have publicized allegations that Iraq detonated a gun-method highly enriched uranium nuclear device underneath a lake in September 1989, a test which is said to have gone undetected by UN inspectors after the Gulf War. The allegations, attributed to Iraqi defectors and others, have been publicized first by a set of stories in the Sunday Times of London on February 25, and secondly by a documentary shown on BBC 2 on March 3. Since journalist Gwynne Roberts was involved in both reports, they probably should be treated as a single story.

The story has the advantage of circumstantial detail, though the arguments against its being true are also considerable. Much summarized, the Sunday Times story — which has been published online at and

claimed that Roberts was approached by an Iraqi in the Kurdish-controlled region of northern Iraq in January 1998. The Iraqi, known by the pseudonym "Leone", claimed to be a nuclear engineer who had worked at Tuwaitha, one of Iraq's key nuclear centers. He said that a prototype weapon using a gun-style detonation had been completed. He claimed that six gun-style nuclear devices, but without fissile material, had been purchased from the then-Soviet Union in the 1980s. The fissile material was acquired from South Africa via Brazil, some 20 to 50 kilograms of highly enriched uranium. "Leone" reportedly claimed that France had also supplied highly enriched uranium after the Israeli attack on the Osirak reactor in 1981. The first test, according to "Leone", had been conducted underground under Lake Rezzaza, some 150 km southwest of Baghdad, at 10:30 am on September 19, 1989. It was reportedly a 10-kiloton explosion, It reportedly created a seismic event measuring 2.7 on the Richter scale. The test was supposedly "decoupled", a method of suspending the device in an open space in such a way that it does not register its full seismic force.

According to "Leone", there were two separate nuclear projects in Iraq. The one which detonated the alleged successful test was called "Group Four", and was working on a gun-style bomb; the other was working on an implosion bomb, and it was the program which was discovered and described by UN inspectors after the war. (A gun-style bomb, like that used on Hiroshima, fires two elements of fissile material into each other to produce critical mass; an implosion bomb uses shaped explosives to implode elements together, and is potentially more powerful, but much harder to design.) Group Four is said to have been headed by a "Dr. Khalid Ibrahim Sayeed", and not to have been discovered by the UN inspectors. The Sunday Times report quoted David Kay, one of the most prominent inspectors, as having acknowledged hearing of Group Four. The report quoted other Iraqi defectors and reporter Roberts claimed to have been shown a letter said to have been written by Saddam's son-in-law Hussein Kamel, confirming a nuclear test using 93% highly enriched uranium and yielding a 10 kiloton blast.

The story goes on to say that Iraq now has up to nine nuclear devices stored in bunkers in the Hamrin Mountains north of Baghdad. These are said to include three gun-type weapons, three implosion weapons, and three thermonuclear weapons

keating's picture


This has more detail about the Libyan effort - remember that Iraqi engineers were there to cooperate as well.

keating's picture

Iraq has even more effective and lethal platforms of the delivery of its weapons of mass destruction. In late December 1996, German intelligence confirmed that Iraqi weapons technicians developed a drone described as "the little guy's cruise missile." This unmanned aircraft is made of plastics and plywood -- simple and cheap to produce without any tell-tale equipment that can attract the UN inspectors. The drone has a range of about 700 kilometers and is equipped with a very accurate GPS navigation system illegally purchased in the West. Each drone can carry 30 to 40 kilograms of biological or chemical warfare agents to the intended target. It is almost impossible to detect this drone by radar because of its size, slow speed and lack of metal parts. The BND's experts are most alarmed by the Iraqi fielding of a version of this drone that can be also launched from ships. Consequently, one cannot rule out the possibility of an Iraqi-controlled commercial ship suddenly launching these drones outside the coasts of Europe -- from where these missiles can reach and threaten London, Paris or Berlin -- as well as the Atlantic coast of the US

keating's picture

To conclude, Iraq sent all of its nuclear engineers to the fortress in Libya, in partnership with a Libya in a secure location, away from Iran and Israel, and with uranium in the country. This was the threat we fought over.

keating's picture

They are wrong and you are wrong. First, there were small amounts of biological and chemical WMD found, of no consequence. I can make WMD in my kitchen by pouring the ammonia and chlorine bleach into the same bowl...the big deal wa nuclear weapons.


Do you remember the big nuclear project in Libya, voluntarily dismanted and now in Tennessee...

Libya operates a Soviet-made, 10 Mw research nuclear reactor in Tajurah. A Soviet pledge to construct two 440 Mw nuclear power stations never materialized. However, Russia renews its nuclear cooperation with Libya after the sanctions on Libya were lifted and assisted in a program to renovate the aging research reactor. Libya is a member of the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and of the African nuclear weapons free zone (the Pelindaba Treaty), and all its declared nuclear facilities are subject to IAEA inspections. Despite repeated allegations that Libya has sought a nuclear weapons capability, most recently by Israeli and US officials, the country apparently lacks the technical infrastructure to pursue such a program on its own. Thus, the US national intelligence estimate (NIE) presented to Congress in January 2002 notes the acceleration of the nuclear weapon program since 1999 but stresses that Libya still requires substantial foreign assistance.   Analysis and Conclusions Unlike Pakistan, Iran, or Iraq, Libya does not face any external strategic threat but nevertheless appears bent on acquiring a nuclear weapon capability. The most plausible explanation is that Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi still aspires to leadership in the Arab and the Moslem world. The prestige conferred by nuclear status would contribute to this goal. However, ambitions are not enough. Developing nuclear weapons requires a prolonged effort and a high level of technical know-how. Iraq, which possessed a very sophisticated military industry, invested almost twenty years of effort to achieve nuclear capability and was still several years away from success when its program was derailed by the 1991 Gulf War. Iran, which also has a large defense industry, is believed to be 3-5 years from realizing its nuclear ambitions. Libya, on the other hand, lacks any comparable industrial base. Although it has produced chemical weapons, it appears to have failed miserably in its al-Fatah ballistic missile project, which is a much less complicated undertaking than building a nuclear weapon. The experience of the Iraqi and Iranian projects indicates that a nuclear weapon program needs 10-20,000 skilled workers, with technical expertise in domains like metallurgy, high voltage electrical engineering, explosives, electronics, computerized machining, etc. These need to be drawn from a much larger industrial base, which Libya does not have. Given the improbable character of a Libyan nuclear project, it is possible that what lies behind observed nuclear-related activities is actually collaboration with Iraq, that is, that Libya has allowed Iraq to continue its own nuclear project in Libya in return for some of the product. This would shortcut the development process but would entail the relocation of thousands of Iraqi engineers and scientists to Libya. Even so, it would be necessary to construct the whole industrial base from scratch, something that would take less time than a pure Libyan project, but probably not less than a decade. If this is indeed the case, a joint project will make Libya the second Arab nuclear state – after Iraq. There is little doubt that Libya is pursuing a nuclear weapon program. But Libya clearly lacks the capability to proceed on its own and is totally dependent on foreign assistance. If this assistance is discontinued for any reason, the project cannot proceed. (from 2002)
damage's picture

While I get annoyed when you post stuff by Noam Chomsky, I do enjoy any bashing of our retarded foreign policy.



Everybodys All American's picture

The world is better off without Saddam and his sons. The world will also be better off with regime change in Iran. Your reasoning is called revisionist history any way you shape it. By the time the left writes the history on Hussain he will be the second coming of Ghandi. I almost forgot the author of this piece is anti American in all his blogs.

AnAnonymous's picture

The world is better off without Saddam and his sons. The world will also be better off with regime change in Iran.


You must have intimate knowledge of the world to assume what is better for it.

Could you share your knowledge or should people pay for it?

Rick64's picture

 Yes the world is better off, but at what cost? Maiming and killing thousands of our military(also foriegn troops, contractors, and reporters). Maiming and killing thousands of Iraqi men, women, and children. Tearing apart families in these countries. Disrupting and causing chaos in Iraq. Who really benefitted from this? Corporations.

  If we really cared about democracy and freedom we would not let mass genocide go on all over Africa for decades. We would not support regimes that oppress their people just so we can capitalize on their resources and cheap labor. We would not remove or assassinate democratically elected leaders, no matter what ideology they supported.


sushi's picture

You keep on about this "democracy and freedom" and you gonna find your nuts squeezed real good on your next flight.

DaveyJones's picture

Must be nice to be given the authority to make that call. Classic hypocritical "democracy spreader"

Zero Govt's picture

Just another Govt fuk up, this one global with some 300,000 civilian deaths with the usual Govt scare story drowning in bullshit, costing $Billions and breaking International Law on waging war.

The biggest Law makers (Govt) are the biggest law breakers... anarchy wears a Govt uniform    

Ahmeexnal's picture

Seems like someone is nervous about Jeb winning in 2012. 

topcallingtroll's picture

George Washington JunkFest!  BYOB!

AR15AU's picture

GW sounds like a broken record...??? Or a parrot?

George Washington's picture

You mispelled it ... p-a-t-r-i-o-t, not parrot.

The Iraq war is HARMING our national security and bankrupting our country, sir.

The top security experts - conservative hawks and liberal doves alike - agree that waging war in the Middle East weakens national security and increases terrorism. See this, this, this, this, this and this.

And in doing so, we are bankrupting our country.



SilverFiend's picture

Once again GW brings up relics of the past.  Who

the fuck really cares anymore about that shit?  I thought

we would see a post by GW today about the

freedom seeking Egyptians that gang raped

the CBS correspondent.  But that doesn't fit the

narrative does it?

DaveyJones's picture

"relics of the past" Is this what you say to statutory rape victims who come forward years later?

HellFish's picture

Listen GW, you anti-American douche bag.  There were approxmiately 20 different issues in addition to the suspected WMD in Iraq.  Any of those issues on their own legally justified the war.  You piece of shit lib.

Pheesh's picture

Dude, are those bald eagles fuming from your mouth?  You're so damn patriotic, way to slurp down that nationalism like a good boy.

So the US had so much legitimate justification that it cast it aside in favor of a fabricated WMD bogeyman?  Cool story bro

topcallingtroll's picture

with all the known spoofs where people have pretended to be someone they were not to play jokes on the media or manipulate the media, I have to wonder of there is any way to prove that the guy who claims he is curveball is the actual curveball.  I suppose we just have to take his word for it.  Take it with a grain of salt.

George Washington's picture

Given that the Guardian names him and has a taped interview with him (which I link to), and that everyone from CIA European chief Tyler Drumheller, to Richard Perle to Lawrence Wilkerson to Carne Ross have all accepted this is the real curveball, I would say that his identity was confirmed by the Guardian before running the story...

topcallingtroll's picture

yeah,  maybe.  Did any of them actually ever see this guy and could pick him up out of a line up?  Have we got confirmation from his personal handler?

If he is curveball then he did say he deceived them.  I guess they should have been more suspicious of a guy with an agenda. 

DaveyJones's picture

got it cause he's the only guy with an agenda. There is no bigger agenda than securing crude

RocketmanBob's picture

Given the complexity of the data, no single source could ever be taken as authoritative.


But the Guardian's reportage, a single source as well, enjoys the moral authority of metaphysical certitude...

I realize that many folks believe that part of the justification for undertaking the regime change in Iraq, that WMDs were in Iraqi hands or being developed, was falsified.  But that discounts the fact that leading Democrats, like Kerry, Kennedy, and Clinton also agreed that the intelligence sounded legitimate, and were completely on board with the military action.

And aside from any agenda to prove bad-faith-actions, the reason the intelligence would be believable at a high level was that it jibed with indications of the same during the Clinton administration, as well as the prima facia evidence of Saddam's possession and use of WMD against the Iranians in the 80s as well as against the Kurds following Desert Storm.

That is, if it walk like a duck and talks like a duck, how can one be blamed for deciding that is indeed a duck when it in fact is a Swan?

And as far as intelligence agencies getting it wrong?  Well one need go no further back than last week to get an example of that.

So despite the action taken that were based on the intel, which is worse, the CIA believing a rogue operator who claimed to have direct knowledge of Saddam's WMD program, or the CIA director taking information on Mubarak's abdication from the mainstream media?

Thought provoking as always, GW, even if I do disagree with your thesis.

AnAnonymous's picture

But that discounts the fact that leading Democrats, like Kerry, Kennedy, and Clinton also agreed that the intelligence sounded legitimate, and were completely on board with the military action.


The Republicans were in power therefore a special position to them as they were in the position to decide with POTUS direct link to army.

This said, the compulsion to lie was cross parties. Democrats shared the same incentive to lie and they support the Republican effort.


Prima facia evidence that are past are past. Tautology indeed but more and more required when it comes to US citizens.

Fact that Iraq had WMDs in the past was no indication they had them at the moment of the charge. Once again, a little tautology but considering US citizens' way of thinking, tautologies are required.

And the tautology was confirmed by the very fact that Iraq had no WMDs.

BigDuke6's picture

GW - these lies now confirmed... as we all knew already.

We are led by evil.

GW - what is your honest opinion on 911?

i know its tough for yanks to look at without great pain, but it looks like things were played out with that as a convenient starting point.

Savonarola's picture

Hey Georgie -

What intel did FDR use to put Americans citizens into prison camps ? Must have been thrown a curveball as well.

Oh, and what intel did Truman use to decide to burn the flesh off women and children with nuclear fire ?  Was there another solution - like blockading Japan into submission ?

Governments commit horrible crimes all the time... so of them based on false information, some not.

BigDuke6's picture

Thanks GW.

i personally think its plain to see that the predatory class took advantage of that simpleton George Bush to do whatever they wanted.

The junks show that they did a good job on the general public.

Rainman's picture

Agree. Time to fast forward to the successor simpleton.

nmewn's picture

Wait a minute...

I thought the conspiracy was the planes were pilotless...back before we thought the cell phone calls made by the victims on the planes were nothing but Mossad voice to skull technology...which was before we thought it was nano-explosives implanted on every other floor by guys in trench coats & sunglasses so they could bring in the backhoes on flatbed trailers to dig out the gold housed in the vaults now buried under tons of rubble.

This is gettin real's hard to keep up GW, can't we just say it's Bush's fault and Move On ;-)