Secret source of phony Iraq intel outed

[techs]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200...o_ot/us_iraq_curveball

Secret source of phony Iraq intel outed

The Iraqi defector code-named "Curveball," whose false tales of biological weapons labs bolstered the U.S. case for war, wasn't the prominent chemical engineer he claimed to be and invented stories to help his case for asylum in Germany, a new report says.

"Curveball" is Rafid Ahmed Alwan, who did study chemical engineering but made poor grades and never managed a biological weapons facility, according to CBS' "60 Minutes," which will broadcast on Sunday a report describing how Alwan became a secret intelligence source.

Although known publicly only by his code name, Curveball has been repeatedly discredited by investigations of the United States' faulty prewar intelligence and became an embarrassment to U.S. spy agencies. A presidential intelligence commission found that Curveball, who mostly told his stories to German intelligence officials who passed them on to the U.S., was a fabricator and an alcoholic.

"60 Minutes" reports that Alwan arrived at a German refugee center in 1999 and began spinning his tales of a facility making mobile biological weapons in an effort to gain asylum. The ploy apparently achieved his goal, and Alwan is assumed to be living in Germany today under an assumed name.

Although German intelligence officials warned the CIA that Curveball's claims of mobile bioweapons labs were unreliable, and U.N. inspectors determined before the war began in 2003 that parts of his story were false, the Bush administration continued to promote the existence of such mobile labs for months after the invasion, until it was widely accepted that they could not be found.



Alcoholic, drop-out, cab driver seeking political asylum some of whose claims had already been proven false
Way to go Bushie.
You're doing a heckuva job!

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

You forgot to say "you're doing a heckuva job, Billie." After all, Curveball started in '99 and the Clinton admin didn't reject the intel as bogus either, even though there was much discussion over its veracity then as well.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: techs
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200...o_ot/us_iraq_curveball

Secret source of phony Iraq intel outed

The Iraqi defector code-named "Curveball," whose false tales of biological weapons labs bolstered the U.S. case for war, wasn't the prominent chemical engineer he claimed to be and invented stories to help his case for asylum in Germany, a new report says.

"Curveball" is Rafid Ahmed Alwan, who did study chemical engineering but made poor grades and never managed a biological weapons facility, according to CBS' "60 Minutes," which will broadcast on Sunday a report describing how Alwan became a secret intelligence source.

Although known publicly only by his code name, Curveball has been repeatedly discredited by investigations of the United States' faulty prewar intelligence and became an embarrassment to U.S. spy agencies. A presidential intelligence commission found that Curveball, who mostly told his stories to German intelligence officials who passed them on to the U.S., was a fabricator and an alcoholic.

"60 Minutes" reports that Alwan arrived at a German refugee center in 1999 and began spinning his tales of a facility making mobile biological weapons in an effort to gain asylum. The ploy apparently achieved his goal, and Alwan is assumed to be living in Germany today under an assumed name.

Although German intelligence officials warned the CIA that Curveball's claims of mobile bioweapons labs were unreliable, and U.N. inspectors determined before the war began in 2003 that parts of his story were false, the Bush administration continued to promote the existence of such mobile labs for months after the invasion, until it was widely accepted that they could not be found.



Alcoholic, drop-out, cab driver seeking political asylum some of whose claims had already been proven false
Way to go Bushie.
You're doing a heckuva job!

The law of unintended consequences comes into play.

Here's a great article from Salon on the new book on Curveball.

The most popular German nation for Iraqis to apply for asylum is Germany; only one out of 25 get it.

Take a person and put them in that situation, and you see easily where they'd try to get an edge over the other 24 by inventing stories. You ask them to put the consequence of lying ahead of not getting asylum? Does that make any sense? It's not reliable to rely on their being willing not to get asylum.

It is an example of the old saying about how injustice propagates - prop up a cruel dictator like Saddam for our own 'interests', and it creates an injsutice against men like this; leave them with few options (1 out of 25 chance), and you get the lies; the lies are used for an unnecessary war, and so on. If there wasn't a Saddam allowed in power oppressing people, if there wasn't a lack of Asylum, this'd not have happened.

Human rights should be universally pursued. The arrogance of the 'I only care about our own citizens' position is just wrong, IMO.

One question, though, is how culpable the Bush administration and the CIA in particular are for following Curveball - and ignoring the Germans' warnings. The Germans aren't entirely blameless, either, in how they did not allow the US acess to Curveball - this is a good example of how the bureacracy can lead to disaster, how what seems reasonable (hey, we found a great source about Iraq!) can cause big problems.

Thomas Jefferson warned about the dangers of a standing army, and I think this is the sort of thing he had in mind - it's hard not to look for ways to use it, too easily. If we had to wait for a clearer threat to act militarily, this wouldn't have happened. I understand the right's desire for defense as well, but clearly the pendulum swung too far when you have the leadership of the US government setting policy on such weak and wrong evidence as this, the Colin Powell UN speech debacle (which Powell had already greatly toned down).

The thing is, those who set their foreign policy the way they pick their cars, by small penis compensation (figuratively), aren't going to learn many lessons here.

In fact to them, it seems there's something 'noble' about the whole narrative of the soldiers killing and getting killed in Iraq; as long as the liberals aren't getting away with 'weakening America' not to 'deal with the threats', they don't really see it as too much of a tragedy, since the alternative is some sort of weak, surrendering America; they're ok with the casualties. The liberals are left to say, no, it's not justified, like Harvey who protests the wrongness without the worship and romanticization of war as the right does.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
You forgot to say "you're doing a heckuva job, Billie." After all, Curveball started in '99 and the Clinton admin didn't reject the intel as bogus either, even though there was much discussion over its veracity then as well.

As usual, what you claim TastesLikeChicken actually SmellsLikeBullshit with the tired old "Clinton did it" card.

At least, Clinton was smart enough not to start a war over that bogus "intel" that, as of 11/1/07 3:02 pm EDT, has squandered the lives of 3,845 American troops for LIES.

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
You forgot to say "you're doing a heckuva job, Billie." After all, Curveball started in '99 and the Clinton admin didn't reject the intel as bogus either, even though there was much discussion over its veracity then as well.

As usual, what you claim TastesLikeChicken actually SmellsLikeBullshit with the tired old "Clinton did it" card.

At least, Clinton was smart enough not to start a war over that bogus "intel" that, as of 11/1/07 3:02 pm EDT, has squandered the lives of 3,845 American troops for LIES.

As usual Harvey, you fail to advance a debate. Read the post before yours to see how an educated person converses.

 

[cliftonite]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
You forgot to say "you're doing a heckuva job, Billie." After all, Curveball started in '99 and the Clinton admin didn't reject the intel as bogus either, even though there was much discussion over its veracity then as well.

I guess it wasnt good enough to sacrifice thousands of lives and trillions of dollars.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
You forgot to say "you're doing a heckuva job, Billie." After all, Curveball started in '99 and the Clinton admin didn't reject the intel as bogus either, even though there was much discussion over its veracity then as well.

Now this I can agree with you on.

Indeed, thanks Billie for not starting a war based on bogus intel like your successor.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: dphantom
As usual Harvey, you fail to advance a debate. Read the post before yours to see how an educated person converses.

Uh-huh... That's why two more members replied to make the same point. :roll:

 

[StageLeft]

Remember "Saddam's Bombmaker"? He wrote a book. it has 4 stars on Amazon and people are still giving it substantially positive reviews as if the last four years didn't happen. He also betrayed reality and fibbed to make a nice story.

You forgot to say "you're doing a heckuva job, Billie." After all, Curveball started in '99 and the Clinton admin didn't reject the intel as bogus either, even though there was much discussion over its veracity then as well.

He didn't start a war over it, don't be disingenuous.

 

[piasabird]

Clinton did Invade Somalia.

Clinton also bombed Iraq on several occasions.

 

[Stoneburner]

Clinton invaded somalia?

when was this ?

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: Harvey
At least, Clinton was smart enough not to start a war over that bogus "intel" that, as of 11/1/07 3:02 pm EDT, has squandered the lives of 3,845 American troops for LIES.

So I guess the article in this thread proves its not George W Bush who was lying to us, he just had bad intel. Just like most of us conservatives have been saying all along.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
You forgot to say "you're doing a heckuva job, Billie." After all, Curveball started in '99 and the Clinton admin didn't reject the intel as bogus either, even though there was much discussion over its veracity then as well.

As usual, what you claim TastesLikeChicken actually SmellsLikeBullshit with the tired old "Clinton did it" card.

At least, Clinton was smart enough not to start a war over that bogus "intel" that, as of 11/1/07 3:02 pm EDT, has squandered the lives of 3,845 American troops for LIES.

Hey, TastesLikeChicken, WWYBYWB?

 

[P229SAS]

Originally posted by: piasabird
Clinton did Invade Somalia.

Clinton also bombed Iraq on several occasions.

Bush Senior "invaded" Somalia with about 20,000 US Marines and other personnel for humanitarian operations and efforts against local militia groups. Once the Marines left, the anti-militia operations continued under the Clinton administration. What you are referring to is Operation Gothic Serpent aka Black Hawk Down. I won't get into details now but that mission went the way it did due to a combination of government bureaucracy and tactical errors.

The bombing of Iraq by "Clinton" you refer to is probably Operation Desert Fox, which lasted all of four days and was almost entirely fought with TLAMs.

Throughout the 90's after Desert Storm, Iraqi AA batteries would occasionally take potshots at allied aircraft enforcing Operations Northern and Southern Watch. There were other skirmishes that went on but they were almost entirely defensive in nature.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Harvey
At least, Clinton was smart enough not to start a war over that bogus "intel" that, as of 11/1/07 3:02 pm EDT, has squandered the lives of 3,845 American troops for LIES.

So I guess the article in this thread proves its not George W Bush who was lying to us, he just had bad intel. Just like most of us conservatives have been saying all along.

You have been saying it all along, because of course, you weren't little cultish ideologues who assume your side is right and say whatever you make up to make that claim.

No, you had all the facts and new just what happened - you know, you were wrong to say things you didn't know, even if the facts later learned show the claims were right.

But before you get too sure you were right, look at what we're saying - the administration grabbed ahold of unverified claims from one guy out of thousands of refugees who was greatly incented to make things up, who the Germans warned us was not credible, who the US had never talked to and didn't even know the identity of, and made that the cornerstone of the war decision?

At best, that's bogglingly reckless, and a worse possibility is that it is the result of the adminstration already having made up its mind to go to war for other reasons, lying to the public about its agenda, and trumping up this lousy source in an intentional inflation to justify their war. It's not as if the PNAC hadn't been calling for the invasion of Iraq since they asked Clinton to do it, and the PNAC people weren't put in the top positions by Bush where they could be expected to push the war.

You're hardly vindicated. In fact, you are shown to have made big mistakes.

And they weren't even gray areas, such as 'there was no way to fid out about WMD, so they did the safe thing and made sure'. They were HANDED THE WMD ANSWER ON A FRICKIN' SILVER PLATTER by Hans Blix' inspection team, who was in Iraq but kicked out for the invasion, a few months before they'd get the answer. It's criminal what the administration did - the question is whether the legal apparatus exists to hold them accountable for the crime. What do you do when it's the sheriff that's criminal?

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Corbett
So I guess the article in this thread proves its not George W Bush who was lying to us, he just had bad intel. Just like most of us conservatives have been saying all along.

Been smoking that Kool-Aid again? :shocked:

 

[P229SAS]

Originally posted by: Corbett
So I guess the article in this thread proves its not George W Bush who was lying to us, he just had bad intel. Just like most of us conservatives have been saying all along.

Sitting back and blaming the intelligence community for this is about as low as the administration demanding the military turn shit into sugar over there and cycling through Generals when the effort isn't up to snuff. Intelligence is hardly an exact science, rarely is there a smoking gun, and "x" never marks the spot.

There is a very distinct and identifiable road to war that the administration (Note that I am not saying Bush) was determined to take. They go into situations with preconceived notions not only with a bias, but virtually demanding that the results are a self fulfilling prophecy. This is the absolute worst way to collect intelligence and plan for war.

Sure we don't know everything that they had intel on before the war because it could compromise sources, but don't you think that if they had more evidence to support going to war, they would have shown it? The CIA warned them that certain claims were not reliable yet they kept insisting on using them anyways. Wonder why?

Actually, the person that I am most disappointed in is Colin Powell for being complicit in this travesty. I expected a lot more from him.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
You forgot to say "you're doing a heckuva job, Billie." After all, Curveball started in '99 and the Clinton admin didn't reject the intel as bogus either, even though there was much discussion over its veracity then as well.

Clinton didn't go to war over it.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Harvey
At least, Clinton was smart enough not to start a war over that bogus "intel" that, as of 11/1/07 3:02 pm EDT, has squandered the lives of 3,845 American troops for LIES.

So I guess the article in this thread proves its not George W Bush who was lying to us, he just had bad intel. Just like most of us conservatives have been saying all along.

LMAO. First off, using the term "conservatives" when disregarding the reality that most of us knew before the war even started just gives conservatism a bad name. Call yourself what you are, a naive neocon.

Having pointed that out, your first sentence is even more laughable. Two guys get the same intel, one uses his head. The other's head is so filled with the sound of banging drums before he even takes office that ANY intel that came along bolstering his plans to invade Iraq was going to be tried and sold to the American public. His words and actions since have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to any honest, thinking human being that bad intel had ZERO to do with our invasion of Iraq and that "bad intel" in just a synonym for "cherry picking intel" intel until they found something they could run with.

 

[P229SAS]

Exactly. Once you have a self convincing idea in your head, there is almost a certainty that the only evidence you will pay attention to is that which supports your initial thoughts - human nature. This can be both intentional and unintentional depending on the situation of course. In this case, I think we know which one it is.

IMO one of the major motivating factors (not underlying purpose but rather motivation) for actually carrying the war out was that they (administration) and many others thought that it would be easy. Without any thought of an insurgency, they probably thought back to the victory in 1991. The rest of the war supporters whether they recognized the poor intelligence or not probably thought, "Saddam is a bad guy anyways, why the hell not."

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Harvey
At least, Clinton was smart enough not to start a war over that bogus "intel" that, as of 11/1/07 3:02 pm EDT, has squandered the lives of 3,845 American troops for LIES.

So I guess the article in this thread proves its not George W Bush who was lying to us, he just had bad intel. Just like most of us conservatives have been saying all along.

Two words: Incubator Babies

We have now established how low a Bush will go to commit war. The apple does not fall far from the tree.

And of course the glue that binds would be Richard B. Cheney, Secretary of Defense under GHW Bush.

Gitmo is too good for these guys.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: P229SAS

Originally posted by: Corbett
So I guess the article in this thread proves its not George W Bush who was lying to us, he just had bad intel. Just like most of us conservatives have been saying all along.

Actually, the person that I am most disappointed in is Colin Powell for being complicit in this travesty. I expected a lot more from him.

Check out the Lawrence Wilkerson talk on The Colbert Report this week if you get a chance, he agrees about himself and Powell.

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Corbett
So I guess the article in this thread proves its not George W Bush who was lying to us, he just had bad intel. Just like most of us conservatives have been saying all along.

Been smoking that Kool-Aid again? :shocked:

3 years of ranting and raving about how Bush lied. Even going so far as to write a song about it, and this is the best you can come up with?

I guess that just shows how petty your entire argument of Bush "lying" to the American people was to beging with.

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Harvey
At least, Clinton was smart enough not to start a war over that bogus "intel" that, as of 11/1/07 3:02 pm EDT, has squandered the lives of 3,845 American troops for LIES.

So I guess the article in this thread proves its not George W Bush who was lying to us, he just had bad intel. Just like most of us conservatives have been saying all along.

LMAO. First off, using the term "conservatives" when disregarding the reality that most of us knew before the war even started just gives conservatism a bad name. Call yourself what you are, a naive neocon.

Having pointed that out, your first sentence is even more laughable. Two guys get the same intel, one uses his head. The other's head is so filled with the sound of banging drums before he even takes office that ANY intel that came along bolstering his plans to invade Iraq was going to be tried and sold to the American public. His words and actions since have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to any honest, thinking human being that bad intel had ZERO to do with our invasion of Iraq and that "bad intel" in just a synonym for "cherry picking intel" intel until they found something they could run with.

And yet, you still have not been able to prove that Bush "lied" to take American troops into Iraq.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Corbett
So I guess the article in this thread proves its not George W Bush who was lying to us, he just had bad intel. Just like most of us conservatives have been saying all along.

Been smoking that Kool-Aid again? :shocked:

3 years of ranting and raving about how Bush lied. Even going so far as to write a song about it, and this is the best you can come up with?

I guess that just shows how petty your entire argument of Bush "lying" to the American people was to beging with.

Corbett, if a friend of yours tells you that some drunk guy with a huge conflict of interest had told him something, but he wouldn't say who, would you then start asking people to risk and lose their lives, based on the information, by spreading the word how you had 'solid info' they could rely on it was accurate?

If you can't see how that's at least incredibly irresponsible, and lying at least in the sense of misrepresenting the solid level of the info... you have issues.

And if you had a huge interests in pushing the point that the info helped with, as Bush had a huge interest in pushing war with Iraq, then it's worse.