http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/01/60minutes/main3440577.shtml

So now we know the source for the person who was used to make a case that Saddam was developing chemical weapons. Too bad he was a total liar. Even 60 minutes reporters were able to debunk his story using Google Earth (which showed what Curveball was saying wasn't even possible). This was even confirmed by the weapons inspectors. The only explanation I can think of is that GW didn't want to hear the truth and a convenient liar was all they needed to make the final case.

(http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/01/60minutes/main3440577.shtml)

As the guy from the CIA said in the interview, without curveball, they would have found a different justification for going to war. War in Iraq was pretty much a foregone conclusion.

but they wouldf have needed another liar
and as all this shows, war was not his 'last option' . They did everything they could to sell this and that, is again another sad day in US History

but they wouldf have needed another liar
and as all this shows, war was not his 'last option' . They did everything they could to sell this and that, is again another sad day in US History

The Andy Rooney piece was interesting last night also. He was doing a piece on how difficult it must be to actually be president and make tough decisions--he ended with "but I think I'd have been smart enough not to get us into the war in Iraq." Zing!

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/01/60minutes/main3440577.shtml

So now we know the source for the person who was used to make a case that Saddam was developing chemical weapons. Too bad he was a total liar. Even 60 minutes reporters were able to debunk his story using Google Earth (which showed what Curveball was saying wasn't even possible). This was even confirmed by the weapons inspectors. The only explanation I can think of is that GW didn't want to hear the truth and a convenient liar was all they needed to make the final case.

(http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/01/60minutes/main3440577.shtml)

Just to blatantly pimp a book by the dad of my daughter's good friend:
Curveball: Spies, Lies, and the Con Man Who Caused a War (http://www.amazon.com/Curveball-Spies-Lies-Con-Caused/dp/1400065836/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-5394605-4860906?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194280179&sr=8-1)

The reviews have been good from what I can tell. I haven't read it yet.

Just to blatantly pimp a book by the dad of my daughter's good friend:
Curveball: Spies, Lies, and the Con Man Who Caused a War (http://www.amazon.com/Curveball-Spies-Lies-Con-Caused/dp/1400065836/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-5394605-4860906?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194280179&sr=8-1)

The reviews have been good from what I can tell. I haven't read it yet.

I've been hearing interviews of him on NPR for one, and as a whole he's getting blasted on his choice of TITLE. This guy didn't cause a war, Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld did.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/01/60minutes/main3440577.shtml

So now we know the source for the person who was used to make a case that Saddam was developing chemical weapons. Too bad he was a total liar. Even 60 minutes reporters were able to debunk his story using Google Earth (which showed what Curveball was saying wasn't even possible). This was even confirmed by the weapons inspectors. The only explanation I can think of is that GW didn't want to hear the truth and a convenient liar was all they needed to make the final case.

(http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/01/60minutes/main3440577.shtml)

actually, I figure that some in the administration, like Cheney, Addington, and the rest of the neo-con cabal, still believe everything he told them. probably a few people on this board still believe what he said also.

anyway, how can you believe this story? remember Dan Rather?

I love this part
Tenet wanted the Germans to let Curve Ball appear on television or have an American expert debrief Curve Ball and then go on TV with the story.



the administration wasn't interested in finding out the truth. If they were, they could have followed this guy's trail after he left Iraq just as well as 60 Minutes did.

All they were interested in was getting a fantastic story on TV out before the public to use as propaganda to sell their war.

I've been hearing interviews of him on NPR for one, and as a whole he's getting blasted on his choice of TITLE. This guy didn't cause a war, Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld did.

I think that's the point of the title. As George Will wrote, "This book is so powerful, it almost refutes its subtitle: The man called Curveball did not cause a war; he became a pretext -- one among many."

I believe the books author was making a point by using that title, but maybe I'm mistaken. How did he answer the questions about the title on NPR?

I think that's the point of the title. As George Will wrote, "This book is so powerful, it almost refutes its subtitle: The man called Curveball did not cause a war; he became a pretext -- one among many."

I believe the books author was making a point by using that title, but maybe I'm mistaken. How did he answer the questions about the title on NPR?

find evidence (however bad) to suit your already existing theory

find evidence (however bad) to suit your already existing theory

5000 years or 15 billion years. What doe it matter? What's 14,999,995,000 years with no one around to reckon time? (Is this a facile thought?)

5000 years or 15 billion years. What doe it matter? What's 14,999,995,000 years with no one around to reckon time? (Is this a facile thought?)

well Joe I ain't a literalist. 7 days could have been 7 Billion years

see I'm always amused when literalists say all this stuff, the earth is 5K and such and then when you ask them that if so then they must believe the antichrist will be a multiheaded crowned dragon they instantly want to take a metaphoric stance. oops

if the bible is the very word of God I feel really soory for folks. Considering Genesis, the original word of God was plagiarlzed from the epic of Gilgamesh. Kinda sad when your supreme being has to lift creation storis from Pagans

but tis lovely, your species centrism.

well Joe I ain't a literalist. 7 days could have been 7 Billion years

see I'm always amused when literalists say all this stuff, the earth is 5K and such and then when you ask them that if so then they must believe the antichrist will be a multiheaded crowned dragon they instantly want to take a metaphoric stance. oops

if the bible is the very word of God I feel really soory for folks. Considering Genesis, the original word of God was plagiarlzed from the epic of Gilgamesh. Kinda sad when your supreme being has to lift creation storis from Pagans

but tis lovely, your species centrism.

"5000" wasn't "literal" when Jerry Seinfeld corrected his converted dentist?

My question had to do with the meaning of time to unthinking creatures, ATP. Just a thought experiment.

Why do you repeatedly choose to kneejerk-barf the ole literal/metaphorical camps here and in prior threads? Why don't you understand scripture, ATP?

I don't understand why this is news. We've known for years about this guy and how the Bush Admin exploited his lies.

I don't understand why this is news. We've known for years about this guy and how the Bush Admin exploited his lies.
True, but it seemed apropos to mention it again since before the neocon faithful poo-poohed it as a libbie conspiracy theory when it first came to light. Just want to put the screws to those who thought they could wish the lies of this administration away. There is little doubt now that this man Curveball's lies were used as a convenient excuse to invade rather than continue to work things out in other ways.

My question had to do with the meaning of time to unthinking creatures, ATP. Just a thought experiment.
I don't really have a clue what you're trying to communicate here--if the Bible was written by unthinking creatures then why would anyone take anything it said seriously today? The Bible says [in Genesis] that the Earth is flat and covered by a dome. The stars are described as lights attached to the dome and it rains because the firmament (dome) has little holes to let in the water every once in a while. The water, of course, is above the dome out in space somewhere.

While that is an interesting theory to primitive man it hardly holds up to what science has discovered since then. Do you really want to base your life on a book that got something that wrong from the start?

<img src=http://scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts/OTcosmos.jpg>

True, but it seemed apropos to mention it again since before the neocon faithful poo-poohed it as a libbie conspiracy theory when it first came to light. Just want to put the screws to those who thought they could wish the lies of this administration away. There is little doubt now that this man Curveball's lies were used as a convenient excuse to invade rather than continue to work things out in other ways.
Fair enough.

But why do you hate America?

What is amazing to me is that with the preponderance of the evidence continuing to support a total fabrication of the justification for this invasion, there are still those defending it as the right thing to do.

What's up with that?

len

What is amazing to me is that with the preponderance of the evidence continuing to support a total fabrication of the justification for this invasion, there are still those defending it as the right thing to do.

What's up with that?

len
House of cards.

House of cards.
Yup...what the GWB administration has done and continues to do makes Nixon's crimes seem pretty tame by comparison. Breaking into the Dem headquarters to get a little inside info? No big deal compared to all of this. Like they say in the Matrix...how far down the rabbit hole do you want to go? Most people don't want to go there.

True, but it seemed apropos to mention it again since before the neocon faithful poo-poohed it as a libbie conspiracy theory when it first came to light. Just want to put the screws to those who thought they could wish the lies of this administration away. There is little doubt now that this man Curveball's lies were used as a convenient excuse to invade rather than continue to work things out in other ways.


Do you have any examples of this "poo-pooh[ing]" or is it yet another strawman argument?

To me, it was never a matter of whether or not Curveball was telling the truth, but whether or not the CIA believed him.

The continual argument is that the administration knew that the evidence wasn't true, but used it anyway. I.E. "Curveball's lies were used as a convenient excuse". I believe that's a lie.

It's unfair to use information that we have after the invasion to judge what happened before the invasion.

So, a challenge for you. From your OP's article, find some evidence that the CIA believed that CB was lying. Not evidence that they could have, or should have known. Evidence that they knew.


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/01/60minutes/main3440577.shtml

So, a challenge for you. From your OP's article, find some evidence that the CIA believed that CB was lying. Not evidence that they could have, or should have known. Evidence that they knew.


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/01/60minutes/main3440577.shtml
The CIA didn't even know who Curveball was till after the war started. They were going from second-hand info that the German govenment was supplying them. Tenet was obviously under pressure to come up with a reason to go to war with Saddam so he took a chance when he should have done more homework before making his "slam dunk" comment.

Moreover...2 weeks BEFORE the invasion Hans Blix and the inspectors sent a report debunking Curveball's accounts of chem weapons factories, but it was ignored.

more reading:

http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/006076.php

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.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."

Yup...what the GWB administration has done and continues to do makes Nixon's crimes seem pretty tame by comparison. Breaking into the Dem headquarters to get a little inside info? No big deal compared to all of this. Like they say in the Matrix...how far down the rabbit hole do you want to go? Most people don't want to go there.

I think the destinction I hear this administrations defenders keep making is that they were trying to do the right thing and they were misled.

Problem with that is that it is hard to make that argjument and still consider them competent.

History will not be kind.........unless this mess leads to peace in the
ME.....which is unlikely even with the most optimistic assumptions.

Can you imagine being the parent of one of our brave soldiers who was killed in Iraq, when the realization occurs that the whole thing was a manipulation?

len

I think the destinction I hear this administrations defenders keep making is that they were trying to do the right thing and they were misled.

Problem with that is that it is hard to make that argjument and still consider them competent.

History will not be kind.........unless this mess leads to peace in the
ME.....which is unlikely even with the most optimistic assumptions.

Can you imagine being the parent of one of our brave soldiers who was killed in Iraq, when the realization occurs that the whole thing was a manipulation?

len

I'll even give them the benefit of the doubt and say they were truly interested in doing the right thing, but they certainly used the wrong methods to try and get it. It was like Machiavelli brought to life again except the ends didn't turn out like they thought. Gross incompetence and hubris is about the kindest thing I can say about this administration.

The CIA didn't even know who Curveball was till after the war started. They were going from second-hand info that the German govenment was supplying them. Tenet was obviously under pressure to come up with a reason to go to war with Saddam so he took a chance when he should have done more homework before making his "slam dunk" comment.




I've been saying from Day 1 that the intelligence was a royal screw-up. Totally wrong.

It's your side that is saying that "Bush lied". In other words, we knew it wasn't true, so the intel. was fabricated. I'm sorry, but getting it wrong is not lying, or fabrication. It's just getting it wrong.

I asked for something from the article that showed the CIA believed that CB was lying, and all you can say is "he took a chance"?

Here's a paragraph from your OP article that sums it up for me:


Asked if Colin Powell accepted all this on blind faith, Wilkerson says, "Well, you’re the secretary of state. You’re not the head of intelligence for the United States. And you depend on the director of central intelligence to assimilate all the intelligence community’s input and give it to you."

I've been saying from Day 1 that the intelligence was a royal screw-up. Totally wrong.

It's your side that is saying that "Bush lied". In other words, we knew it wasn't true, so the intel. was fabricated. I'm sorry, but getting it wrong is not lying, or fabrication. It's just getting it wrong.

I asked for something from the article that showed the CIA believed that CB was lying, and all you can say is "he took a chance"?

Here's a paragraph from your OP article that sums it up for me:
Asked if Colin Powell accepted all this on blind faith, Wilkerson says, "Well, you’re the secretary of state. You’re not the head of intelligence for the United States. And you depend on the director of central intelligence to assimilate all the intelligence community’s input and give it to you."
Sounds to me like a classic "pass the buck" defense--if you're Commander in Chief you have to weigh the evidence yourself instead of deciding what you'd like the outcome to be and then getting your flunkies to make it so and then jumping on the first shred of evidence that falls into your lap like the Curveball thing--The CIA was saying to Powell and the others that the ONLY shred of evidence they had was this Curveball testimony--don't you think that doublechecking whether or not the man was even credible would be your first priority? It wasn't like they had 5 reports of WMD from different sources--this guy was it and rather than wait it out until they could verify they used it as an excuse to invade. Ultimately the buck should stop with the president. I have yet to see GW admit to anything other than that his subordinates messed up. After it happens over and over again it starts to become a pattern.

So, a challenge for you. From your OP's article, find some evidence that the CIA believed that CB was lying. Not evidence that they could have, or should have known. Evidence that they knew.


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/01/60minutes/main3440577.shtml

may not be in the article, but in reports at the time there were the revelations that the Germans didn't believe him, and were telling the CIA that.

so why did the CIA choose to believe him? and what effect did the visits to them by Cheney have in that choice to believe?

may not be in the article, but in reports at the time there were the revelations that the Germans didn't believe him, and were telling the CIA that.

so why did the CIA choose to believe him? and what effect did the visits to them by Cheney have in that choice to believe?
Undoubtedly the CIA was pressured and hounded by the likes of Rummy and Cheney to come up with intelligence that matched what the president wanted to hear--what the president and his cronies actually knew and when they knew it may never be public record, but I have a strong hunch they realized that this was flimsy evidence going in, but thought that they'd eventually find WMD to justify the invasion. They played their cards terribly wrong.

Do you have any examples of this "poo-pooh[ing]" or is it yet another strawman argument?

To me, it was never a matter of whether or not Curveball was telling the truth, but whether or not the CIA believed him.

The continual argument is that the administration knew that the evidence wasn't true, but used it anyway. I.E. "Curveball's lies were used as a convenient excuse". I believe that's a lie.

It's unfair to use information that we have after the invasion to judge what happened before the invasion.

So, a challenge for you. From your OP's article, find some evidence that the CIA believed that CB was lying. Not evidence that they could have, or should have known. Evidence that they knew.


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/01/60minutes/main3440577.shtml
Is this (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/24/AR2006062401081.html) good enough for you?

"Drumheller, who is writing a book about his experiences, described in extensive interviews repeated attempts to alert top CIA officials to problems with the defector, code-named Curveball, in the days before the Powell speech. Other warnings came prior to President Bush's State of the Union address on Jan. 28, 2003. In the same speech that contained the now famous "16 words" on Iraqi attempts to acquire uranium, Bush spoke in far greater detail about mobile labs "designed to produce germ warfare agents."

///My favorite tactic by repubs is that of ignoring the facts, then daring dems to present them, then either continuing to ignore or doubting the veracity or (my personal favorite) sliming the source of the facts (i.e. "Valerie Plame is a high-priced wh0re," as my republican client continually says).

I don't really have a clue what you're trying to communicate here--if the Bible was written by unthinking creatures...

By "unthinking creatures" I meant creatures inferior to man, all those I presume cannot intellectualize a concept of "time," which may be all of them? Maybe except apes? Monkeys? I dunno. So, in the timeline of billions of years of evolution, it would mean billions of years of species on earth in which no creature can "reckon time."

That is all. That's the whole thought. Nothing about biblical authors. Nothing about basing my life on a book, as you so primitively grunted.

whose info was shared with us and the French. Which explains why the French weren't so big on the invasion (and why they were Plamed).

the intel was fine. it was the selection and processing of intel that was bad and that was the admins call.

Why is this distilled down to the idea that it was only about WMD? It was/is about much bigger issues such as facing radical Islam on their soil; like having a huge military presence next to Iran who is trying to go nuclear; like taking out the leader of a nation that was supporting world wide terrorism and trying to further destabilize the ME. It was/is about much more than the merely obvious. It could never be spelled out as such. But these are more the reasons than the "excuse" that was used to go there. Saddam provided the perfect opportunity as he violated every aspect of the cease fire agreement he signed. Every nation's intelligence agencies believed Saddam was developing WMD. No one can argue that point.

Why is this distilled down to the idea that it was only about WMD? It was/is about much bigger issues such as facing radical Islam on their soil; like having a huge military presence next to Iran who is trying to go nuclear; like taking out the leader of a nation that was supporting world wide terrorism and trying to further destabilize the ME. It was/is about much more than the merely obvious. It could never be spelled out as such. But these are more the reasons than the "excuse" that was used to go there. Saddam provided the perfect opportunity as he violated every aspect of the cease fire agreement he signed. Every nation's intelligence agencies believed Saddam was developing WMD. No one can argue that point.
Soooooooooo when Condi stood in front of the cameras and recited her line that we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud, that's US doing the distilling?

Very good. Now you're getting it.

It could never be spelled out as such.

Why? Our government officials work for us. Why shouldn't we expect them to tell the truth about why we are going into a costly long-term war? I don't want a government who does things behind the public's back because they say they know better--that is way too Machiavellian for my taste.

Sounds to me like a classic "pass the buck" defense--if you're Commander in Chief you have to weigh the evidence yourself instead of deciding what you'd like the outcome to be and then getting your flunkies to make it so and then jumping on the first shred of evidence that falls into your lap like the Curveball thing--The CIA was saying to Powell and the others that the ONLY shred of evidence they had was this Curveball testimony--don't you think that doublechecking whether or not the man was even credible would be your first priority? It wasn't like they had 5 reports of WMD from different sources--this guy was it and rather than wait it out until they could verify they used it as an excuse to invade. Ultimately the buck should stop with the president. I have yet to see GW admit to anything other than that his subordinates messed up. After it happens over and over again it starts to become a pattern.

Sorry for the long delay, but what are you talking about?

The President is supposed to second-guess the CIA and the Intelligence Community?
You can't be serious.

The CIA was saying that Curveball was the only evidence they had? Evidence of what? Please be specific.

may not be in the article, but in reports at the time there were the revelations that the Germans didn't believe him, and were telling the CIA that.


If you had bothered to read the article, you'd have found this:

On Dec. 18, 2002, sources tell 60 Minutes that an urgent request from CIA Director George Tenet was relayed to the head of German intelligence. Tenet was going to meet President Bush in three days to discuss the case against Iraq. Tenet wanted the Germans to let Curve Ball appear on television or have an American expert debrief Curve Ball and then go on TV with the story.

Failing that, Tenet wanted to use Curve Ball's information publicly. An answer was requested within 48 hours, before Tenet went to the White House.

The answer came from Berlin 48 hours later from the German intelligence chief, Dr. August Hanning. In a letter, a copy of which 60 Minutes has obtained, Hanning began, "Dear George." He said no to Curve Ball being interviewed on television or by an American officer. Hanning wrote that Curve Ball’s reporting was "plausible and believable," but, he added, "attempts to verify the information have been unsuccessful." Curve Ball’s reports "must be considered unconfirmed," Hanning wrote. If Tenet still wanted to use the information despite these caveats, Hanning said he could if the source was protected.

That doesn't sound like "we don't believe him" to me.


and what effect did the visits to them by Cheney have in that choice to believe?

You don't know the answer to that question? Several years after the SSCI report?

Sheesh.

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/13jul20041400/www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/pdf/s108-301/sec9.pdf


(U) Conclusion 84. The Committee found no evidence that the Vice President’s visits to the Central Intelligence Agency were attempts to pressure analysts, were perceived as intended to pressure analysts by those who participated in the briefings on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs, or did pressure analysts to change their assessments.

Undoubtedly the CIA was pressured and hounded by the likes of Rummy and Cheney to come up with intelligence that matched what the president wanted to hear--what the president and his cronies actually knew and when they knew it may never be public record, but I have a strong hunch they realized that this was flimsy evidence going in, but thought that they'd eventually find WMD to justify the invasion. They played their cards terribly wrong.

Undoubtedly?

You're welcome to your hunches, but I prefer facts. The analysts have already testified that they believed it. No one was pressured to change their mind.

Is this (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/24/AR2006062401081.html) good enough for you?

"Drumheller, who is writing a book about his experiences, described in extensive interviews repeated attempts to alert top CIA officials to problems with the defector, code-named Curveball, in the days before the Powell speech. Other warnings came prior to President Bush's State of the Union address on Jan. 28, 2003. In the same speech that contained the now famous "16 words" on Iraqi attempts to acquire uranium, Bush spoke in far greater detail about mobile labs "designed to produce germ warfare agents."



You'll notice that your story is pretty much the same one as the OP story. Is there anything new in it? There are a few other ones out there, all with the same storyline.

You have someone claim that they knew there was a problem with the intelligence, took out some offending language from a document or speech, and then was "surprised" when it was put back in.

The articles don't tell you the following:

Is Drumheller telling the truth?

Did Drumheller have the authority to take out the language?

Who put the language back in the speech?

The following, taken from your article, gives you a clue to the answers:

Although no American had ever interviewed Curveball, analysts with the CIA's Center for Weapons Intelligence, Nonproliferation and Arms Control believed the informant's technical descriptions were too detailed to be fabrications.

"People were cursing. These guys were absolutely, violently committed to it," Drumheller said. "They would say to us, 'You're not scientists, you don't understand.' "

What is amazing to me is that with the preponderance of the evidence continuing to support a total fabrication of the justification for this invasion, there are still those defending it as the right thing to do.

What's up with that?

len

Maybe it's because the "preponderance of the evidence" is exactly the opposite of what you believe.

Sorry for the long delay, but what are you talking about?

The President is supposed to second-guess the CIA and the Intelligence Community?
You can't be serious.

The CIA was saying that Curveball was the only evidence they had? Evidence of what? Please be specific.

the admin also had the intel coming from Saddam's own cabinet member who was spying for us and the French just as a single piece that curveball wasn't all there was

the admin also had the intel coming from Saddam's own cabinet member who was spying for us and the French just as a single piece that curveball wasn't all there was


I'm not making a statement, I'm asking a question. See the question mark?

The question is about this statement:



The CIA was saying to Powell and the others that the ONLY shred of evidence they had was this Curveball testimony--don't you think that doublechecking whether or not the man was even credible would be your first priority? It wasn't like they had 5 reports of WMD from different sources

Curveball was the primary evidence for the mobile bio-trailers, but this makes me think that BJ believes that Curveball was the sum total of our WMD intelligence.

Hence the request for specifics.