How U.S. Fell Under the Spell of 'Curveball'

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
That's the problem with being a two-term President: The lies you spewed during your first term are just starting to be discovered during your second. How embarassing this must be for the administration who just can't stop covering up their outrageous BS.

How U.S. Fell Under the Spell of 'Curveball'
The Iraqi informant's German handlers say they had told U.S. officials that his information was 'not proven,' and were shocked when President Bush and Colin L. Powell used it in key prewar speeches.


By Bob Drogin and John Goetz, Special to The Times

BERLIN ? The German intelligence officials responsible for one of the most important informants on Saddam Hussein's suspected weapons of mass destruction say that the Bush administration and the CIA repeatedly exaggerated his claims during the run-up to the war in Iraq.

Five senior officials from Germany's Federal Intelligence Service, or BND, said in interviews with The Times that they warned U.S. intelligence authorities that the source, an Iraqi defector code-named Curveball, never claimed to produce germ weapons and never saw anyone else do so.

According to the Germans, President Bush mischaracterized Curveball's information when he warned before the war that Iraq had at least seven mobile factories brewing biological poisons. Then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell also misstated Curveball's accounts in his prewar presentation to the United Nations on Feb. 5, 2003, the Germans said.

Curveball's German handlers for the last six years said his information was often vague, mostly secondhand and impossible to confirm.

"This was not substantial evidence," said a senior German intelligence official. "We made clear we could not verify the things he said."

The German authorities, speaking about the case for the first time, also said that their informant suffered from emotional and mental problems. "He is not a stable, psychologically stable guy," said a BND official who supervised the case. "He is not a completely normal person," agreed a BND analyst.

Curveball was the chief source of inaccurate prewar U.S. accusations that Baghdad had biological weapons, a commission appointed by Bush reported this year. The commission did not interview Curveball, who still insists his story was true, or the German officials who handled his case.

The German account emerges as the White House is lashing out at domestic critics, particularly Senate Democrats, over allegations the administration manipulated intelligence to go to war. Last week, Vice President Dick Cheney called such claims reprehensible and pernicious.

In Congress, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence is resuming its long-stalled investigation of the administration's use of prewar intelligence. Committee members said last week that the Curveball case would be a key part of their review. House Democrats are calling for a similar inquiry.

An investigation by The Times based on interviews since May with about 30 current and former intelligence officials in the U.S., Germany, England, Iraq and the United Nations, as well as other experts, shows that U.S. bungling in the Curveball case was worse than official reports have disclosed.

The White House, for example, ignored evidence gathered by United Nations weapons inspectors shortly before the war that disproved Curveball's account. Bush and his aides issued increasingly dire warnings about Iraq's biological weapons before the war even though intelligence from Curveball had not changed in two years.

At the Central Intelligence Agency, officials embraced Curveball's account even though they could not confirm it or interview him until a year after the invasion. They ignored multiple warnings about his reliability before the war, punished in-house critics who provided proof that he had lied and refused to admit error until May 2004, 14 months after the invasion.

After the CIA vouched for Curveball's accounts, Bush declared in his 2003 State of the Union speech that Iraq had "mobile biological weapons labs" designed to produce "germ warfare agents." Bush cited the mobile germ factories in at least four prewar speeches and statements, and other world leaders repeated the charge.

Powell also highlighted Curveball's "eyewitness" account when he warned the United Nations Security Council on the eve of war that Iraq's mobile labs could brew enough weapons-grade microbes "in a single month to kill thousands upon thousands of people."

The senior BND officer who supervised Curveball's case said he was aghast when he watched Powell misstate Curveball's claims as a justification for war.

"We were shocked," the official said. "Mein Gott! We had always told them it was not proven?. It was not hard intelligence."

In a telephone interview, Powell said that George J. Tenet, then the director of central intelligence, and his top deputies personally assured him before his U.N. speech that U.S. intelligence on the mobile labs was "solid." Since then, Powell said, the case "has totally blown up in our faces."

Many officials interviewed for this report, including the German intelligence officers, spoke on the condition they not be identified because they were bound by secrecy agreements, were not authorized to speak to the news media or because the case involved classified sources and methods.

Curveball lives under an assumed name in southern Germany. The BND has given him a furnished apartment, language lessons and a stipend generous enough that he does not need to work. His wife has emigrated from Iraq, and they have an infant daughter.

The BND has relocated him twice because of concerns that his life was in danger. They still watch him closely. "He is difficult to integrate" into local society, said a BND operations officer. "We are still busy with him."

[...]

linkage

Everyone saw the same intel, huh? Riiiiiiiiight, only the idiots in our current administration (A) believed it, (B) decided to go to war over it. Pathetic, absolutely pathetic.

:|
 

arsbanned

Banned
Dec 12, 2003
4,853
0
0
You're preachin' to the choir AFAIC. Bush and Cheney had planned to attack Iraq long before they got into office.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,813
6,234
126
Insanity and certainty go hand in hand. You really don't need to verify when you are right. PNAC must become a reality for the good of the world. Have faith in the ego.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Oh, that?s ok. The Propagandist is ?not a stable, psychologically stable guy? either. He says he talks to God for crying out loud.

And, we also know that Russia and France weren?t keen on a swift invasion. They wanted inspections to continue. But, the Propagandist KNEW that if inspections were continued, nothing would have been found and, therefore, his entire justification for invading Iraq would have vanished into thin air.

Too bad George decided to listen to the voices in his head instead of the voices of reason.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,147
5,664
126
Originally posted by: conjur
Oh, that?s ok. The Propagandist is ?not a stable, psychologically stable guy? either. He says he talks to God for crying out loud.

And, we also know that Russia and France weren?t keen on a swift invasion. They wanted inspections to continue. But, the Propagandist KNEW that if inspections were continued, nothing would have been found and, therefore, his entire justification for invading Iraq would have vanished into thin air.

Too bad George decided to listen to the voices in his head instead of the voices of reason.

but Dude, they couldn't wait! In a couple months it would be so hot it would be impossible to fight! Think of the Troops who would have to fight in such conditions, do you hate them that much?
 

TRUMPHENT

Golden Member
Jan 20, 2001
1,414
0
0
I saw Powell's multimedia presentation at the UN, live on TV. The concept of mobile BIOLOGICAL weapons labs struck me as the dumbest idea ever. They could be stolen, ambushed, attacked, whatever. I think it would take a large convoy of tractor trailers to make such labs mobile. You could easily imagine Powll as the guest host on SNL doing a parody of himself making that presentation. I'm surprised he kept a straight face throughout it.
 

chowderhead

Platinum Member
Dec 7, 1999
2,633
263
126
what is worse (if that is possible) is that "curveball" is the brother of a top aide to Ahmad Chalabi. Chalabi brought him to the Germans. Only one Pentagon analyst from the US Government interviewed him before invasion. who concluded the man was an alcoholic and utterly useless as a source.

After reading Powell's speech, the analyst decided he had to speak up, according to a devastating report from the Senate intelligence committee, released last week, on intelligence failures leading up to the Iraq war. He wrote an urgent e-mail to a top CIA official warning that there were even questions about whether Curve Ball "was who he said he was." Could Powell really rely on such an informant as the "backbone" for the U.S. government's claims that Iraq had a continuing biological-weapons program? The CIA official quickly responded: "Let's keep in mind the fact that this war's going to happen regardless of what Curve Ball said or didn't say," he wrote. "The Powers That Be probably aren't terribly interested in whether Curve Ball knows what he's talking about."

DIGUSTING. This administration was hell-bent on going to war with Iraq. They cherry-picked intelligence, BELIEVED what they wanted to fit their case and disregarded everything else.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
The Bush Admin didn't actually believe any of it- they didn't have to. But they could use it, and that's all that mattered.

It's a classic example of fearmongering and agitprop, where policy drives information, rather than the other way around.

One of those "Tell me you love me and then you can have sex with me" kind of deals...
 

musicc

Member
Jul 3, 2005
74
0
0
So what if the Bush Admin lie?
What can you do about? Nothing. We can't do anything, until the next election.
 

TRUMPHENT

Golden Member
Jan 20, 2001
1,414
0
0
Originally posted by: musicc
So what if the Bush Admin lie?
What can you do about? Nothing. We can't do anything, until the next election.

You are incorrect, sir!

Much can be done to keep the lying sacks from broadening their scope of damaging influence. If you do nothing between now and the next election, you will have not participated.

Don't let a grumpy old man like Murtha keep yoiu from sailing forth on boats swift and unsure.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: musicc
So what if the Bush Admin lie?
What can you do about? Nothing. We can't do anything, until the next election.

Tell that to Conyers. He has the impeachment papers at the ready.
 

Polish3d

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2005
5,501
0
0
I doubt the Bush administration believed that there weren't weapons of mass destruction and decided to fool people.

I think they took it as a given that there were WMDs and an ongoing nuclear program, just like the Senate, House, CIA, other foreign governments, etc

They decided to act, and were't particularly interested in more diplomatic wranglings with Saddam because of how it had worked in the past.

So, they said to themselves "Look, its a "slam dunk" that Saddam has WMDs, we are going to go in and remove him, let's build the case for the war, and to build this case, we are going to use the most compelling evidence we have on the forefront of our case becuase that is the most effective way to do it if we wish to avoid being mired in beaucracy."

They did, and because there was already such a general belief that Saddam had such weapons, it was supported by the House, Senate, etc...

Basically they picked the most dramatic evidence in a pool of evidence, but I'm sure they believed that the actual question of Saddam having WMDs was totally true, or else (IMO) they probably wouldn't have been nearly so eager to go to war.

(I don't personally buy the idea that the main motivation was Iraq's oil, although I'm sure it was a "Top 3" or "Top 5" for the "reasons to remove Saddam.)

I think they were more worried about:

- Saddam sitting comfortably behind sanctions developing a nuclear bomb, or WMDs that could end up in terrorist hands. If I were a leader of the US government, I would not take the (IMO suicidal) viewpoint that some here have expressed that "Hey, even if Saddam DID develop WMDs, he's a secular sunni and isnt friends with Bin Laden so there's no worry that he'd pass them on to terrorists."

- Saddam gaining WMDs and using them to threaten his neighbors; Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, etc, potentially cutting off or disrupting our supply of oil. This we will go to war for, see: 1991 Gulf War.

- Terrorism: I genuinely believe (and think they are correct in this assertion) that if Iraq becomes a democratic state, it will move other nations in the region towards democracy, effectively getting in front of a serious current and future problem: Ultra-prosperous nations rife with Islamic fundamentalism, and the likely spread of nuclear weapons throughout the region because the nations have the ambition and the means. Iran, Syria, Iraq, (not now) Lybia (not now.)


- New bases in the region, outside of Saudi Arabia (big muslim sorespot), in a friendly nation (democratic Iraq), bordering unfriendly nations like Iran and Syria.


- Securing oil for the future for the west? Maybe ... obviously this concept would not escape them, but I am not sure that I am assessing that accurately, nor do I believe it was the primary motivation.


There you have it. My opinion of what happened.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: Frackal
I doubt the Bush administration believed that there weren't weapons of mass destruction and decided to fool people.

I think they took it as a given that there were WMDs and an ongoing nuclear program, just like the Senate, House, CIA, other foreign governments, etc

They decided to act, and were't particularly interested in more diplomatic wranglings with Saddam because of how it had worked in the past.

So, they said to themselves "Look, its a "slam dunk" that Saddam has WMDs, we are going to go in and remove him, let's build the case for the war, and to build this case, we are going to use the most compelling evidence we have on the forefront of our case becuase that is the most effective way to do it if we wish to avoid being mired in beaucracy."

They did, and because there was already such a general belief that Saddam had such weapons, it was supported by the House, Senate, etc...

Basically they picked the most dramatic evidence in a pool of evidence, but I'm sure they believed that the actual question of Saddam having WMDs was totally true, or else (IMO) they probably wouldn't have been nearly so eager to go to war.

(I don't personally buy the idea that the main motivation was Iraq's oil, although I'm sure it was a "Top 3" or "Top 5" for the "reasons to remove Saddam.)

I think they were more worried about:

- Saddam sitting comfortably behind sanctions developing a nuclear bomb, or WMDs that could end up in terrorist hands. If I were a leader of the US government, I would not take the (IMO suicidal) viewpoint that some here have expressed that "Hey, even if Saddam DID develop WMDs, he's a secular sunni and isnt friends with Bin Laden so there's no worry that he'd pass them on to terrorists."

- Saddam gaining WMDs and using them to threaten his neighbors; Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, etc, potentially cutting off or disrupting our supply of oil. This we will go to war for, see: 1991 Gulf War.

- Terrorism: I genuinely believe (and think they are correct in this assertion) that if Iraq becomes a democratic state, it will move other nations in the region towards democracy, effectively getting in front of a serious current and future problem: Ultra-prosperous nations rife with Islamic fundamentalism, and the likely spread of nuclear weapons throughout the region because the nations have the ambition and the means. Iran, Syria, Iraq, (not now) Lybia (not now.)


- New bases in the region, outside of Saudi Arabia (big muslim sorespot), in a friendly nation (democratic Iraq), bordering unfriendly nations like Iran and Syria.


- Securing oil for the future for the west? Maybe ... obviously this concept would not escape them, but I am not sure that I am assessing that accurately, nor do I believe it was the primary motivation.


There you have it. My opinion of what happened.

I tend to kind of agree with what you're saying, with the possible exception of how airtight the intelligence was. I think the decisions based upon it were part factual intelligence and part wishful thinking. Nothing I've seen has convinced me that Bush went into the whole debate as a totally neutral party, it's pretty clear he wanted to get rid of Saddam going into the whole thing, and it sounds like this could have skewed how he looked at the intelligence. As to how everyone else was fooled, remember that intelligence gathering is a responsibility of the executive branch, I think it is entirely possible that some "filtering" was going on.

The basic problem with the whole thing is that it involves a very complex operation and what is probably a lot of classified information. We really have no way of ever being sure on way or the other exactly what the raw intelligence said, but the fact that the Bush administration was clearly eager for invading Iraq should give us at least some doubt.
 

Polish3d

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2005
5,501
0
0
I agree generally that Rumsfeld, Cheney were definitely pro-Saddam removal, they advocated such in a signed PNAC letter to Clinton in the late 90's. Bush probably was too, but I'd have to read more before saying anything for sure, one reason being that I've heard a few times that Bush was 'wavering' a bit on the WMD thing and asked Tenet "are you sure?" and that's when he responded with the famous "slam dunk" statement.

I dont think they entered into the Iraq issue after 2001 in an objective/exploratory way, but I dont think they knew that Saddam lacked WMDs and decided to go in anyway. Also, remember that regime-change had become official policy already under Clinton with the Iraqi Liberation Act. http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/libera.htm

From 1998:

"Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 - Declares that it should be the policy of the United States to seek to remove the Saddam Hussein regime from power in Iraq and to replace it with a democratic government. "


http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/Legislation/ILA.htm


The notion that somehow it was the Bush admin who first coined the idea of getting rid of Saddam is innaccurate. They were just decided to do it militarily, for right or wrong.


 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Please, gentlemen- are your memories quite so short, or so convenient?

The invasion of Iraq had been much sought after in some circles, particularly of the neocon kind, ever since GHWB declined to fulfill their wishes. They didn't need a reason, they needed a pretext, and 9/11 was that, and more...

Saddam! 9/11! Osama! 9/11! Terrarists! Iraq! 9/11! Nukes! 9/11! WMD's! 9/11! Terrar! Terrar! Terrar!

The number of times that whole bit was strung together in the media has to be in the millions... with a steady drumbeat of agitprop from the Whitehouse... The CIA and others said the african uranium info was unreliable, but they used it anyway. The Germans warned that curveball was unreliable, too, but they used it anyway. The DOE said the aluminum tubes were unsuitable for uranium centrifuges, but they used that anyway... Chalabi was known as a liar and a thief, but they used whatever he gave them, anyway...

They used whatever they could force-fit into a rationale for war, while smearing, threatening or dismissing anybody who said anything different... Saddam and the top 500 persons in the Baath party could have surrendered at the Kuwaiti border, and they'd have invaded anyway...
 

cwjerome

Diamond Member
Sep 30, 2004
4,346
26
81
It's getting harder to stomach the liberal mavens. I appreciate political dialogue, and while I don't often agree with with the learned Libs, at least they offer carefully reasoned food for thought. But this venomous barrage of hallucinations in the mold of Molly Ivins and Maureen Dowd is beyond belief... the manufactured reality of some of you political hacks makes it more difficult than ever to take you seriously.

First it was the style over substance rants, that labelled Bush as an incoherent buffoon. That didn't really go anywhere. Then there were the Bush-mistake/No WMDs rants, but that didn't achieve the right results either. Now we have an elevated "BUSH LIED" strategy that's sure to fail because there can be no real proof, just a collection of theories and beliefs.

It's a last ditch effort because all others have been exhausted. Buoyed by polls, and with a faint taste of blood, the Dems are jumping onto a ship that's sure to sink... and take their political hopes to the bottom also. I see this as a last gasp of desperation of a party on the rocks.

Dues-paying members lof the "Bush Lied" fanclub like Kerry, Edwards, both Clintons, and Rockefeller are lying opportunists, feeding at the wounds of a now unpopular president. The fact that these people are willing to expose themselves as dupes or liars to thwart Bush politically is both sicking and humorous to watch.

As the usual goofball fanatics on P&N seek out their sweet revenge, they have committed themselves to a revisionist, false view of history... and on that ignores the solid evidence of a half-dozen commission investigations. Like a chorus of ducks quacking over and over again, they have seemed to stumbled upon a presidential lowpoint, and now they think they're gaining ground with the lies and propaganda.

Instead of using this as an opportunity to advance a clear and rational alternative, they just crank of volume of the "Bush-Lied" mantra. I gotta hand it to the Left... they're a lot more stupid than I thought. I guess that's why the Dems have been floundering, since they appear to be getting more deliriously unhinged in their losing ways, instead of strategizing a sensible comeback. Bravo.
 

GoPackGo

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 2003
6,441
501
126
When you are eager for war, you put up blinders.

I will admit, I was eager for war...especially post 9/11.

We are really stuck their until things get in order....

We could just leave, wait for civil war and then let things sort themselves out.

Nations ravaged by war having to rebuild themselves is nothing new.
 

wirelessenabled

Platinum Member
Feb 5, 2001
2,190
41
91
Originally posted by: Frackal
I doubt the Bush administration believed that there weren't weapons of mass destruction and decided to fool people.

I think they took it as a given that there were WMDs and an ongoing nuclear program, just like the Senate, House, CIA, other foreign governments, etc

They decided to act, and were't particularly interested in more diplomatic wranglings with Saddam because of how it had worked in the past.

So, they said to themselves "Look, its a "slam dunk" that Saddam has WMDs, we are going to go in and remove him, let's build the case for the war, and to build this case, we are going to use the most compelling evidence we have on the forefront of our case becuase that is the most effective way to do it if we wish to avoid being mired in beaucracy."

They did, and because there was already such a general belief that Saddam had such weapons, it was supported by the House, Senate, etc...

Basically they picked the most dramatic evidence in a pool of evidence, but I'm sure they believed that the actual question of Saddam having WMDs was totally true, or else (IMO) they probably wouldn't have been nearly so eager to go to war.

(I don't personally buy the idea that the main motivation was Iraq's oil, although I'm sure it was a "Top 3" or "Top 5" for the "reasons to remove Saddam.)

I think they were more worried about:

- Saddam sitting comfortably behind sanctions developing a nuclear bomb, or WMDs that could end up in terrorist hands. If I were a leader of the US government, I would not take the (IMO suicidal) viewpoint that some here have expressed that "Hey, even if Saddam DID develop WMDs, he's a secular sunni and isnt friends with Bin Laden so there's no worry that he'd pass them on to terrorists."

- Saddam gaining WMDs and using them to threaten his neighbors; Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, etc, potentially cutting off or disrupting our supply of oil. This we will go to war for, see: 1991 Gulf War.

- Terrorism: I genuinely believe (and think they are correct in this assertion) that if Iraq becomes a democratic state, it will move other nations in the region towards democracy, effectively getting in front of a serious current and future problem: Ultra-prosperous nations rife with Islamic fundamentalism, and the likely spread of nuclear weapons throughout the region because the nations have the ambition and the means. Iran, Syria, Iraq, (not now) Lybia (not now.)


- New bases in the region, outside of Saudi Arabia (big muslim sorespot), in a friendly nation (democratic Iraq), bordering unfriendly nations like Iran and Syria.


- Securing oil for the future for the west? Maybe ... obviously this concept would not escape them, but I am not sure that I am assessing that accurately, nor do I believe it was the primary motivation.


There you have it. My opinion of what happened.



Thanks Karl, we appreciate your input
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: cwjerome
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: arsbanned
"Manufactered reality" indeed. Couldn't have said it better myself.

At least the American public is waking up. Only 3 states have a Propagandist approval rating >50%
http://www.surveyusa.com/50State2005/50StatePOTUS1105SortbyApproval.htm
Orwell would be proud of you guys. Well, maybe "proud" isn't the right word...
Disputing the truth now?


Denial ain't just a river in Egypt.
 

cwjerome

Diamond Member
Sep 30, 2004
4,346
26
81
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: cwjerome
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: arsbanned
"Manufactered reality" indeed. Couldn't have said it better myself.

At least the American public is waking up. Only 3 states have a Propagandist approval rating >50%
http://www.surveyusa.com/50State2005/50StatePOTUS1105SortbyApproval.htm
Orwell would be proud of you guys. Well, maybe "proud" isn't the right word...
Disputing the truth now?


Denial ain't just a river in Egypt.


Disputing what truth?

Somehow, I think you're incapable of knowing what truth is, unless it serves your range-of-the-moment political fantasies.
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,030
2
61
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Please, gentlemen- are your memories quite so short, or so convenient?

The invasion of Iraq had been much sought after in some circles, particularly of the neocon kind, ever since GHWB declined to fulfill their wishes. They didn't need a reason, they needed a pretext, and 9/11 was that, and more...

Saddam! 9/11! Osama! 9/11! Terrarists! Iraq! 9/11! Nukes! 9/11! WMD's! 9/11! Terrar! Terrar! Terrar!

The number of times that whole bit was strung together in the media has to be in the millions... with a steady drumbeat of agitprop from the Whitehouse... The CIA and others said the african uranium info was unreliable, but they used it anyway. The Germans warned that curveball was unreliable, too, but they used it anyway. The DOE said the aluminum tubes were unsuitable for uranium centrifuges, but they used that anyway... Chalabi was known as a liar and a thief, but they used whatever he gave them, anyway...

They used whatever they could force-fit into a rationale for war, while smearing, threatening or dismissing anybody who said anything different... Saddam and the top 500 persons in the Baath party could have surrendered at the Kuwaiti border, and they'd have invaded anyway...

:thumbsup: They did the same to the Soviet Union, too.

If anything, we probably knew Iraq had no WMD's.
 

doody

Junior Member
Oct 30, 2005
23
0
0
Originally posted by: conjur
Oh, that?s ok. The Propagandist is ?not a stable, psychologically stable guy? either. He says he talks to God for crying out loud.

I'll bet when god talks to GWB, he has a texas twang.
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |