This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
The Source of the Iraqi WMD Claims Comes Clean ... And Shows that the American and British Governments Willfully Manipulated the Evidence
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 :
The
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 ....
***
"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.
***
He
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:
A
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.
"And
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.
***
Judith
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.
As
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
on.
***
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.
And
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.
- advertisements -
Those terrorist pilots that were washed out of flight school because they couldn't handle a Cessna 172 were in the cocpit of those airliners that were on remote control. Those pilots were monitored by Mossad the minute they were in the U.S.
If you are a pilot you know there is a lot more to flying than just operating in level flight. "Washing out of flight school", if it actually happened, can be a result of many things, such as failure to master the radio, failure to master landing, failure to master difficult landings (crosswind, quartering tailwind), even failure to learn the FAA rules. As for operating a plane in level flight, navigating via GPS, VORs, maps or just pilotage, it is pretty damn easy.
And of course you have "proof" about the Mossad allegation? You may want to compare notes with another regular poster on threads that drift toward 911, because that guy "knows" that it was actually a KGB/FSU operation. Oh, and the CIA or Cheneyites have a following, too, as do the Bilderbergers and Rothschilds.
Dueling conspiracies! Who's got the popcorn?
"operating a plane in level flight..."
"because that guy 'knows' that it was actually a KGB/FSU operation."
Etc., etc.
Straw man arguments. Your specialty. In your struggles to form a logically valid argument, it would behoove you to spend some time studying the following web site:
Fallacy: Straw Man
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
-----------------
Pilots for 9/11 Truth - Credentials & Experience
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/credandexper.html
American 77
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon.html
"So, to sum up. Hani Hanjour, took a 757, with zero time in type, did the maneuver described above, a 400 knot 330 degree spiraling dive at 2500 fpm, only gaining 30 knots, then 30 knots more descending from 2200 feet at full power, with a very steady hand as to not overshoot or hit the lawn, inside ground effect, at 460 knots impact speed, but was refused to rent a 172 cause he couldn’t land it at 65 knots? C'mon... sounds like a bad B movie... Please see right margin for more testimony regarding Hani and his training."
ROTFLMAO!!!...excellent...may I add to it?
And Mossad themselves picked up the tab in all the strip clubs that these randy, but pious, jihadist warriors for peace went to leading up to their final adventure in a completely different type of cockpit ;-)
that would be the simplest thing wouldn't it? But you would be committing simple minded mistakes just like Bush did.
The House of Representatives on Oct. 10 passed the resolution (H.J. Res. 114) by a vote of 296-133. Senate approval came in a late-night vote of 77-23.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:H.J.RES.114:
One of the biggest lies ever told is the one told often enough.
GW-ignore the naysayers. Anyone with an IQ over 50 realizes our govt lies, manipulates and distorts information in order that the ends always justify their means!
AV I see your view and confirm it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House_Iraq_Group
I am not participating in this junkfest, but I would like to point out that many of you have preconceived ideas and you want to believe this curveball. How do we know that this anonymous source really is curveball?
Many of you have so convinced yourself of government conspiracy and manipulation that you will leap on the thinnest of evidence as proof.
Ok...changed my mind. It's a junkfest!
"thinnest of evidence" is not the best description of the pile of information surrounding the iraq invasion, its preparation, and our subsequent behavior
There was evidence?
In Australia we suffered the ignominy of our sycophantic monarchist Prime Minister, Dubya's "Man of Steel" "honest" Johnny Howard's gutless me too joining of the coalition of the willing. Willing to mass murder and demolish the ancient land of Mesopotamia. We didn't need any dossiers.
But didn't Saddam use chemical weapons against the Kurds and others? I'm just wondering how a man who thrived on power found it possible to voluntarily give up a weapon of mass destruction. It seems to be contrary to his nature. Puzzling.
Contrary to his nature, maybe. But the fact is he did surrender them. He had none as revealed by the invasion.
Maybe only the nature of the US citizens is eternal after all, all other human beings can change theirs...
Nutso articles bring all the kooks come out and allow them to post nonsense.
How sad that Zero Hedge would do this. This is supposed to be a financial site, not an anti-American hating wacko site.
These middle east wars did wonders for USSR.. great blue print to destroy America, no?
And the Bolsheviks showed what forced collectivism farming can do to a country (Ukraine Kulaks)
You are a fascist doucher...and this is a site for dissidents you moron. Were not just pissed off about our Soviet Style economy. We're pissed off about a lot of issues in case you haven't noticed.
"this is a site for dissidents you moron" - comment of the string award
Calling out criminals within your government is not "anti-American" or "wacko" Burying your head in the sand or blindly believing one political party is good and the other is bad however might fit that category
calling out "criminals" based on an anonymous source who hasn't proved he is curveball is anti american. This anonymous source may or may not be curveball. many deceptions like this have been played before. Why do you assume that everytime someone accuses our government of wrongdoing that the source is always correct ?
you might have a point if this was the only piece of evidence on the subject matter
Oh horse manure George. The entitlements are 10x worse. What are you going to do when your check is cut off? Can you actually fend for yourself?
WTF?
We go from the KNOWN issue of lies used to toss corpses on the fire and you start talking about social entitlements?
If you start from a base of "it's OK to lie," Then what?
Both the legislative and executive branches violated the Constitution. Congress failed to declare war. Bush acted without a declaration of war: if he'd never used "war" in conjunction with this action then maybe you (and others) could weasel out of this, but that's not the case. NOTE: yes, the executive CAN act in times of extreme crisis, but that really wasn't the case, was it, no one was breaching our shores, were they?
How people can believe that goverment can be trusted about war but not about anything else just plain defies any reasonable logic...
No one Manipulated Evidence in the government.
Given the information available, it would have been dereliction of duty for Bush and Blair to ignore the threat. You screwball liberals just can't accept that and won't leave it alone.
WHAT duty, you right-wing nutcase?
WHERE did the Constitution give Bush ANY authority to invade Iraq? Certainly you right-wing "constitutionalists" can tell us.
Congress authorized it, hello you idiot. Bush did things correctly. What part of authorization to go to fucking war did you miss?
I'm not getting into this old debunked POS argument - no more replies to you.
Here Here! Where did the Constitution give
Obama the authority to mandate US citizens
purchase health care?
And our government-owned MSM aren't covering this. Nothing. Obama will never allow Holder to prosecute Bush/Cheney/Rummy/Wolfy for WAR CRIMES because Obama himself is guilty. Within a couple of days of taking the oath of office, he DRONED Pakistan, killing civilians. He wanted to show the Republicans he has the nads to be PRESIDENT.
Oh stop it. There were no war crimes, except the genocide and rape rooms of Saddam.
I guess that proves it. Saddam is the only dishonest, crime driven leader. Makes sense since those qualities are so rare and our government has a consistent track record of honesty
Classic George here.
The only reference above requires a double link to get to - and then says Britain received a report 10 days before the invasion that Iraq MIGHT not have reassembled their chem weapons - from that and a 10 years later Democrat claim (that wasn't brought up at the time) GW makes the bald statement that "everyone knew" Saddam didn't have WMD. But the Saudis warned us, and our military required soldiers to fight in chem suits, and the freakin New York Times and Clinton administration had been pumping the danger for YEARS before George effin Bush even became President or 9/11 occurred.
I happen to agree that people wanted to believe certain things. And that paradigm induced blindness bit them in the ass. But this bullshit ongoing crusade to make it out that certain politicians you hated were vicious evil lying bastards determined to murder vast numbers of Arabs so that they could steal their oil is 1) stupid, 2) over, 3) a waste of freaking time and energy, and 4) not remotely supported by any facts.
You want a crusade? You want to hate Bush? How about the fact he handed a trillion of your kids dollars to bankers and unions? How about your beloved progressive President who has doubled down on that shit? We have VERY serious problems about to crush us and whether Bush was too dumb to see through faulty intelligence 10 years ago is NOT one of them.
gas minder another troll. Please report to the Michelle Bachman Club website. Your mommy is asking for you.
Ahh the joys of George W's comment strings. 11 junks overnight, instant ad hominem attacks and only a few hours before the first accusations of "troll/inauthenticity". I suspect CogDiss will be along any minute to hurl accusations of that I'm in the pay of the government propaganda machine because 'facts' are being mentioned........
So at the risk of exploding your tiny little brains I would make a couple points:
1) Do you understand that the Clinton administration repeatedly bombed Iraq because (stated in multiple legal filings that Saddam was hoarding WMD)? Do you understand that GW Bush was NOT yet in power? Do you recall the NYT (that bastion of right-wing thought) was touting the danger, and stated that it was GWB's biggest challenge, BEFORE he was sworn in?
2) Do you understand that only the French Intelligence service (who we KNOW had been bought and paid for) ever made any public finding that suggested otherwise?
3) Can you think of ANY scenario in which we GET the Iraqi oil? Can you name any AMERICAN oil company that has been allowed to even PRODUCE any Iraqi oil?
And finally - if any of you can find "raving patriotism" "right-wing thought" etc in the original comment feel free to point it out. What was in the original comment was this - this is a stupid argument that means nothing. It is based on ignorant premises completely divorced from reality. Give it up and focus on what matters NOW - of course that will force you to admit that your fine "progressive" government is following EXACTLY all the same policies.
Thanks for posting again, gasminder.The brand of pure shit/propaganda you peddle has been sorely missed since BP(BP=EVIL) destroyed the gulf.
I especially like the patriot act and the "I wanna see your daughter nekkid" airport scan that president fail, I mean bush, brought to fruition by his feckless embrace of all things NAZI.
Look up fruition...it does not mean you are gay.
Just a paid for hack/scumbag/oppressor/shill.
Get lost.
++++ to infinity and beyond
there were lot of people quick to believe Iraq had wmd. There are now lots of people quick to believe anything that is attributed to an anonymous source who may or may not be curveball. This is how we get into problems. Making quick decisions without having good evidence. Leaping quickly to the assumption that America is bad and engages in evil conspiracies based on very thin evidence is just as bad as the Bushies leaping to the conclusion that Iraq had WMD based on thin evidence.
Yes, I agree that being too quick is not good.
"America" (is the North or South? :-) ) cannot be "evil," as it's a geographic area, comprised of MANY different people. What is EVIL is the misuse of power, which will ALWAYS occur, regardless of any set of coded laws (or the god that people worship). Concentration of power that is not NATURAL is, well... UNNATURAL! Power corrupts. How difficult can this all be to figure out?
Really? That's big. So guys who lied to get into an actual war killing thousands of people and jeopardizin the future of the entire nation of Iraq are simply as bad as people drawing quick inferences on the very same people who lied to trigger an actual war killing thousands of people and jeopardizing the future of an entire nation?
How US.
A nation that refuses to enforce its laws, that accepts the rape of its citizens by the banker elite, that knowingly creates inflation that dooms millions to starvation and death, that manipulates markets, public statistics, and distorts and impedes the information available to its public while at the same time groping their balls, are you saying that these are good things?
Alan Greenspan, John McCain, George W. Bush, Sarah Palin, a high-level National Security Council officer and others all say that the Iraq war was really about oil.
anyone who thinks this was NOT about oil fits category 1) and belongs to that group who "want[s] to believe certain things" "Faulty intelligence" is not incompetence, its orchestrated. The intelligence agenices were specifically taken over and the info that did not fit the agenda was specifically ignored or discredited.
Definitely oil. Which is why the French and Chinese got it.
nice try. The oil companies ( and our government / same thing) specifically intended to revert to the mid east fifties model and tried to get the new Iraqi government to OK transferring oil ownership rights back to international companies. They didn't figure that Iraqis have a brain, figured out the scam, and nixed it. They are perfectly willing to let companies develop this stuf but no way in hell are they going to transfer ownership. You'd do the same thing. After that, wouldn't you sell to the countires that have cash and didn't try to scam you?
Under the tutelage of the US, under the tutelage of the US.
Denial of the advantage of intermediation now... Funny one.
Should be clear though that instead of convincing Iraq alone, people have to convince the US altogether as the US controls the access to the Iraqi oil.
That is what intermediation is all about. But with US citizens and their new start in History, facts commonly established for millenia have to be proven obvious facts once again.
Hahahahahaha! Really, it's all gone now? Wow, they got that shit outta the ground mighty fast. Where are they storing it?
So it was all about 'American Altruism' ? Fuck Yeah, I got your freedom fries right here.
What the fuck is this guy ON? Meth kills bud, seriously get some help.
+1T
When can we arrest Bush/Cheney/Rummy/Wolfy for war crimes?
One of the first thing "our savior" said when he got into office was that he was "going to look forward" and "not look back." They're all criminals, they're all co-conspirators. This could not have happened without both teams looking the other way, playing stupid, and/or jumping on the bandwagon.
The pain of the facts brought back up are ? It's so painfull to be versed on the Major fkn fraud that took place.
And then to see the cheerleaders for it by the negs on the in the know folks. Discusting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House_Iraq_Group