Curveball

Originally posted by techsouth
Funny one would accept the fact that this man constructed a fantasy to bring down a regime, yet accept everything he says now at face value.

I guess GWB and Rumsfield aren't the only ones who believe things because they want to believe them.

I don't see how anyone is accepting "everything... at face value" now: now we have 20/20 hindsight that all claims, hints and innuendo regarding the threats Iraq represented were, in fact, unfounded. Alwan al-Janabi is simply confessing what we now know as true.

Looking back with that same 20/20, it is hard to condemn any leader involved with the process, Powell upwards. If we find out that the real culprit, the CIA, was merely acting on behest of top down management, i.e., creating an otherwise non-existent scenario because they were instructed to, then and only then should Powell upwards be labeled warmongers.

The obverse scenario--- in that climate--- demanded immediate action. The reverseReveal Hidden Content makes all actions taken appear rash and ill-advised. In retrospect, if the intelligence received had been valid and our leaders hadn't acted promptly, they would go down in history as hand-wringers when immediate action was the only reasonable course.

No, as stated, the real culprits are the folks in the CIA, DIA and the upper echelon of German intelligence, BND.

Interesting to checklist the lead up to this war. Thanks for that info. However, the issue is NOT the need for action, surely the issue is the need for IMMEDIATE action. Ten years of severe sanctions, with repeated bombing of Iraq in that period, might by some be described as action for example. There was an inspections process in place, the United Nations had its own grinding, legal process in place. The UN wanted Bush and Blair to wait while that process continued. There was plenty to complain about in the UN policies and behaviour. But why was the Bush / Blair war better? And in what way could it be legal (if there are international laws that matter)?

The people angry about all this are not all anti war pacifists. The former Yugoslaivia, Rwanda, Cambodia and other experiences had built up a reasonable case and support for intervention in failed states. A lot more people would let the matter rest if the War Aims had been more acceptable and the planning for the post invasion process had been effective. Recognizing that disaster is a first step to recognizing why the Bush / Blair plan was misconceived and wrong in every way.

Curveball illustrates I think that this war is an example of "groupthink," the stupid way in which "leaders" insulated from authentic critical advice take absurd decisions based on delusions.

if the US errs on the side of caution, as they now may be doing with Iran, we could end up with a nuke in our laps.

but i guess Europe is likely to get one first. you're like the canaries in the coal mine!

i seem to recall that the Iraqi military was also talking over the airwaves about the WMDs they would unleash on the Coalition were it to invade. not exactly a smart move, in retrospect.

Originally posted by finnegan
Interesting to checklist the lead up to this war. Thanks for that info. However, the issue is NOT the need for action, surely the issue is the need for IMMEDIATE action. Ten years of severe sanctions, with repeated bombing of Iraq in that period, might by some be described as action for example. There was an inspections process in place, the United Nations ...[text shortened]... "leaders" insulated from authentic critical advice take absurd decisions based on delusions.

Amen.

Originally posted by zeeblebot
if the US errs on the side of caution, as they now may be doing with Iran, we could end up with a nuke in our laps.

but i guess Europe is likely to get one first. you're like the canaries in the coal mine!

The day the US errs on the side of caution will be a novelty except that the US likes to export as much risk as possible. In what way does transforming the Middle East into a heavily armed version of the Wild West promote peace and prevent nuclear incidents? Europe is far more at risk from the loss of control over weaponry in the former USSR than from an organized state like Iran, even in Islamist hands. Europe's interests would be better served if our governments abandoned their facile acceptance of US domination in foreign plicy.

Originally posted by finnegan
The day the US errs on the side of caution will be a novelty except that the US likes to export as much risk as possible. In what way does transforming the Middle East into a heavily armed version of the Wild West promote peace and prevent nuclear incidents? Europe is far more at risk from the loss of control over weaponry in the former USSR than from an o ...[text shortened]... served if our governments abandoned their facile acceptance of US domination in foreign plicy.

you'll be able to test that theory out pretty soon, because it looks like the US is sitting out the Iran nuclear arms scenario, and they may fall to the rabble the same as Tunisia and Egypt.

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/colin-powell-iraq-wmd/2011/02/16/id/386373

Colin Powell Rips CIA Over Sham WMD Source
Wednesday, 16 Feb 2011 07:22 PM
Article Font Size

By Newsmax Wires

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell is demanding answers from the CIA and Pentagon after an Iraqi defector stepped forward to admit that he fabricated claims that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction in advance of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Powell — who has stated that his prewar speech to the United Nations accusing Iraq of harboring weapons of mass destruction was a "blot" on his record — spoke out a day after Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi told Britain's Guardian newspaper that he made up claims of mobile biological weapons and clandestine factories when making reports to Germany's intelligence service, the BND.

The BND had approached Janabi, who was codenamed "Curveball" by U.S. and German intelligence officials, in 2000 and again in 2002 looking for inside information about Iraq.

"They gave me this chance. I had the chance to fabricate something to topple the regime," Janabi told the British newspaper. "I and my sons are proud of that and we are proud that we were the reason to give Iraq the margin of democracy . . . Maybe I was right, maybe I was not right. I had a problem with the Saddam regime, I wanted to get rid of him and now I had this chance."

The revelations shocked Powell, who presented America's case against Saddam in a Feb. 5, 2003, speech to the United Nations.

"It has been known for several years that the source called Curveball was totally unreliable," Powell told the Guardian. "The question should be put to the CIA and the DIA [Defense Intelligence Agency] as to why this wasn't known before the false information was put into the NIE sent to Congress, the president's State of the Union address and my 5 February presentation to the U.N."

....

dup.

Originally posted by zeeblebot
you'll be able to test that theory out pretty soon, because it looks like the US is sitting out the Iran nuclear arms scenario, and they may fall to the rabble the same as Tunisia and Egypt.

"Rabble" - that'll be the citizens aspiring to democracy and human rights I imagine? Not American of course.

Originally posted by finnegan
"Rabble" - that'll be the citizens aspiring to democracy and human rights I imagine? Not American of course.

He has plenty of contempt for American rabble too.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
He has plenty of contempt for American rabble too.

any hoods in LA you can't hang out in?

Originally posted by finnegan
"Rabble" - that'll be the citizens aspiring to democracy and human rights I imagine? Not American of course.

1979, Iran. have they got democracy yet?

Originally posted by zeeblebot
1979, Iran. have they got democracy yet?

Well let's see. That was the revolution which got rid of the American sponsored Shah. There was a huge support at that time for the replacement regime which is now slipping. The current intensification of internal repression reflects a growing popular rejection of the self style religious leadership and a demand for democratic reform. They have not got democracy yet and they are not an uneducated, stupid rabble either, but a civilized people going through complex changes. As such, they merit respect, not patronizing.