RSN June 14 Fundraising
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Owen reports: "'Curveball', the Iraqi defector who fabricated claims about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, smiles as he confirms how he made the whole thing up. It was a confidence trick that changed the course of history, with Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi's lies used to justify the Iraq war."

Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi's lies about Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction were used as justification for the Iraq war. (photo: The Independent UK)
Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi's lies about Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction were used as justification for the Iraq war. (photo: The Independent UK)



Man Whose WMD Lies Led to Iraq War Confesses

By Jonathan Owen, The Independent UK

01 April 12

 

Defector tells how US officials 'sexed up' his fictions to make the case for 2003 invasion

man whose lies helped to make the case for invading Iraq – starting a nine-year war costing more than 100,000 lives and hundreds of billions of pounds – will come clean in his first British television interview tomorrow.

"Curveball", the Iraqi defector who fabricated claims about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, smiles as he confirms how he made the whole thing up. It was a confidence trick that changed the course of history, with Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi's lies used to justify the Iraq war.

He tries to defend his actions: "My main purpose was to topple the tyrant in Iraq because the longer this dictator remains in power, the more the Iraqi people will suffer from this regime's oppression."

The chemical engineer claimed to have overseen the building of a mobile biological laboratory when he sought political asylum in Germany in 1999. His lies were presented as "facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence" by Colin Powell, US Secretary of State, when making the case for war at the UN Security Council in February 2003.

But Mr Janabi, speaking in a two-part series, Modern Spies, starting tomorrow on BBC2, says none of it was true. When it is put to him "we went to war in Iraq on a lie. And that lie was your lie", he simply replies: "Yes."

US officials "sexed up" Mr Janabi's drawings of mobile biological weapons labs to make them more presentable, admits Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, General Powell's former chief of staff. "I brought the White House team in to do the graphics," he says, adding how "intelligence was being worked to fit around the policy".

As for his former boss: "I don't see any way on this earth that Secretary Powell doesn't feel almost a rage about Curveball and the way he was used in regards to that intelligence."

Another revelation in the series is the real reason why the FBI swooped on Russian spy Anna Chapman in 2010. Top officials feared the glamorous Russian agent wanted to seduce one of US President Barack Obama's inner circle. Frank Figliuzzi, the FBI's head of counterintelligence, reveals how she got "closer and closer to higher and higher ranking leadership... she got close enough to disturb us".

The fear that Chapman would compromise a senior US official in a "honey trap" was a key reason for the arrest and deportation of the Russian spy ring of 10 people, of which she was a part, in 2010. "We were becoming very concerned," he says. "They were getting close enough to a sitting US cabinet member that we thought we could no longer allow this to continue." Mr Figliuzzi refuses to name the individual who was being targeted.

Several British spies also feature in the programme, in the first time that serving intelligence officers have been interviewed on television. In contrast to the US intelligence figures, the British spies are cloaked in darkness, their voices dubbed by actors. BBC veteran reporter Peter Taylor, who worked for a year putting the documentary together, describes them as "ordinary people who are committed to what they do" and "a million miles" from the spies depicted in film. He adds: "What surprised me was the extent to which they work within a civil service bureaucracy. Everything has to be signed off... you've got to have authorisation signed in triplicate."

Would-be agents should abandon any Hollywood fantasies they may have, says Sonya Holt at the CIA recruitment centre. "They think it's more like the movies, that they are going to be jumping out of cars and that everyone carries a weapon... Yes we're collecting intelligence but we don't all drive fast cars. You're going to be writing reports; you're in meetings so it's not always that glamorous image of what you see in the movies."

 

Comments   

We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.

General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.

Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.

- The RSN Team

 
+15 # Ray Kondrasuk 2012-04-01 08:38
Jonathon,

For establishing credibility with your American readers, you might have avoided this publication date.
 
 
+5 # Ray Kondrasuk 2012-04-01 11:58
Jonathon, this is why...

April 1, 2012

Republicans Reveal that Entire Presidential Race was a Prank

andy@borowitzreport.com
 
 
+34 # AMLLLLL 2012-04-01 09:12
Now why is it that citizens, US or UK, don't trust their government?...
 
 
+56 # Dion Giles 2012-04-01 09:13
The imperialists had their own geostrategic reasons to seek to dominate the middle East, just as their vile predecessors and moral equals had geostrategic reasons to seek to grab Europe and Asia, starting with aggression against Poland and against China. Al-Janabi’s WMD lies won’t have fooled them for a minute. They knew there were no WMDs but found al-Janabi’s fabrication convenient. The lie wasn't al-Janabi's, it was Bush's and Bliar's and Howard's even though they would no doubt be glad to let al-Janabi claim ownership of it.
 
 
+21 # Patch 2012-04-01 09:30
Dion Giles you are right on. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the USA uses this reveralation to exonerate Bush and Chaney.
 
 
-18 # Ray Kondrasuk 2012-04-01 10:32
Dion,

We who argue "See? No WMD!" should be careful to acknowledge that dozens, perhaps hundreds, of our military demolitions specialists were charged with the destruction of hundreds, if not thousands, of tons of noxious chemical compounds that were the binary precursors to Saddam's toxic cocktails.

Those returning vets give powerful, personal testimony to the fact that they did (stupidly, in retrospect, by simply blowing the stuff up into the environment) render unusable Saddam's lethal stores.

Here's where we must be careful to state:
that WMDs were indeed found... exactly where the Iraquis said they would be, all declared in that pre-invasion testimony
presented to the U.N.

As Hans Blix notes in his signal work,
"Disarming Iraq" (c. 2004, p. 29),the Chief Inspector of the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) states that he is "...not aware...that any significant amount of weapons or nuclear material was ever found hidden" (on sites that had not been declared).
 
 
+15 # Texas Aggie 2012-04-01 16:15
I'm curious as to why neither of the two commissions that Bush sent to Iraq with the expressed purpose of finding WMD found any evidence of the "destruction of hundreds, if not thousands, of tons of noxious chemical compounds that were the binary precursors to Saddam's toxic cocktails." Surely at least one of the "dozens, perhaps hundreds, of our military demolitions specialists" would have talked with one of the commissions. After all, the commissions were charged with finding evidence that the WMD existed. There wouldn't have been any reason to hide evidence.
 
 
+12 # Ray Kondrasuk 2012-04-01 16:46
Aggie,

You're right; I've confused time lines. The weapon destruction took place mid-1990s.


One day on her doggie stroll, the Republican lady from the next block (at the house plastered with "I stand with Governor Walker" signs) struck up a conversation with me about the Iraq invasion, proud army grandma that she is.

When I mentioned that no WMDs were found,
she staunchly declared, "That's a lie! My grandson was there blowing them up!"

Such, then, is my argument about no undeclared WMDs ever found.

Thus I repeat, the most accurate claim is that there were no UNDECLARED caches of weaponry. What remnants our forces may have found were right where the Iraqis said they would be.

By late 2002, the Iraqis had indeed revealed all sites, opening them to Blix's inspection teams in the futile hope that an invasion could be forestalled.

With all such sites declared, inspected and verified, secured, and monitored, there would be no justification for military action. But Bush withdrew the UNMOVIC team, allowing him to continue the WMD accusations with no way of disproving them.

Thanks, Aggie. I hope this brings me closer to the accepted view.
 
 
+6 # Ray Kondrasuk 2012-04-02 05:49
And Aggie,

Thanks for the correction that was poised and gentle.
 
 
+31 # reiverpacific 2012-04-01 09:33
Well, saying "Told you so" doesn't bring back the dead, maimed and mentally crippled humans and other creatures slaughtered by the resultant "shock and awe" does it?
This guy should be added to names of Bush, Blair, Cheney, et al to swell the war criminals for prosecution list.
I can't wait until the next "Veterans for Peace" meeting when they get ahold of this.
And anybody whose kids served in this illegal and illegitimate conflict should feel as outraged and conned by this too, no matter what they originally believed. I personally know a couple of families who already have come to the truth and asked their kids to go to "Veterans for Peace". Support them as best you can -and those who made it back.
That's all I can think of -except thanks to the "BEEB" for getting the truth out of this cove, whom I never trusted from day one.
 
 
+8 # kaleah 2012-04-01 20:11
I agree with you on adding his name to the names of Bush, Blair, Cheney and the entire gang who instigated this deadly fiasco. They all need to be held responsible for their war crimes. I never believed there were WMDs to begin with, but if I were the mother or grandmother of someone who went to that illegal war, and was forever ruined physically, mentally or both, or worse, someone who never lived to come back, I would be beyond outrage. I would want someone to pay for what they did. Thank you!
 
 
+2 # AMLLLLL 2012-04-02 17:41
I so clearly recall when the first Gulf War was 'declared'. We marched in the streets of San Francisco, knowing that it was under false pretenses. We were right. Halliburton was using horizontal drilling from Kuwait into Iraq to suck out oil illegally.
 
 
+2 # futhark 2012-04-04 05:34
I maintain that Bush knew there were no WMDs in Saddam Hussein's arsenal. Evidence: the weeks and months spent building up troop strength and pre-invasion materiel supplies just over the Iraqi border, during which time the American enterprise was fully exposed to biological, chemical, or nuclear attacks. If Saddam had had such weapons and was disposed to use them, this would have been the time to do so. The results would have been a political disaster for Cheney/Bush, but they knew that they were taking no risks.

The real responsibility lies with Cheney, Bush, Rumsfelt, and their neocon Project for a New American Century conspirators who broke federal laws by deliberately misrepresenting the situation in Iraq for the purpose of using American military might to achieve their personal political goals.
 
 
+22 # PABLO DIABLO 2012-04-01 09:45
Dion Giles hit the nail on the head. EXACTLY. Wilkerson knew it too. He was the first to admit it.
 
 
+44 # John Locke 2012-04-01 09:51
No mention of the close to 1,000,000 Iraqi civilians murdered and considered collateral damage. This character should also be in prison for what he did. along with Bush and Cheney!
 
 
+7 # Ray Kondrasuk 2012-04-01 17:06
As of 31 March 2012, the very conservative Iraq Body Count documents 105,890 civilian violent deaths since March 2003, while the 2006 Johns Hopkins/MIT Lancet survey estimated more than 600,000 excess Iraqi deaths. Key differences:

Documented: The IBC's toll counts only reported deaths; because of the Islamic custom of quick burials, many deaths went uncounted during the early tank-lead firestorm.

Civilian: The IBC numbers do not tabulate Iraqi military killed nor deaths inflicted on one another by Sunni/Shia militants.

Violent: Only bullet- and bomb-induced fatalities make the IBC list. Death by illness from water-borne diseases because of destroyed sewage systems, from delayed or unavailable medical attention, from malnutrition, or radiation poisoning from depleted uranium weaponry goes unattributed.

The Lancet study simply counted increased deaths by all causes. Adding the "safe" IBC totals to the now 5-year-old Lancet statistics gives my front-yard fence its grim, monthly-updated , posted extrapolation: 722,025 excess post-invasion Iraqi deaths.
 
 
+5 # kaleah 2012-04-01 20:14
You're right, Mr. Locke. I, too, meant to say that in my previous comment, that nearly a million Iraqi civilians paid the price for his lie, also. How can he and everyone else who created such a false plan of attack go free and unpunished?
 
 
+3 # John Locke 2012-04-02 16:33
I want to add here something about a CIA asset, his name was Michael Riconosciuto. Michael attempted to inform Powell of the pending 9-11 attack by ("40") hijackers, he offered their names but powell had No interest. It is not common knowledge that Michael was a CIA asset. I am aware of it through a close friend who was FBI and knew him personally...He was framed for drugs after he testified before congress over the Inslaw matter. Where Atty General Meese actually helped the government steal a software program called PROMIS from the Hamiltons. 9-11 was an inside job!!!!!
 
 
+1 # paulrevere 2012-04-01 10:27
"so it's not always that glamorous image of what you see in the movies." I wonder if Mz Holt had second thoughts about this statement, is the 'not always' a non sequitor or are there literally hundreds if not thousands of 'agents' running around sporting Omega Speedmasters as they time their next flick of the plastique load under the bad guys limo?
...OR, is the UK model more the reality?
 
 
+4 # Activista 2012-04-01 10:29
This was yesterday - new Iran War and Syria is today - "friends" of Syria
several million dollars a month and communications equipment for Syrian rebels and opposition activists, signaling continuous involvement in the conflict amid a growing belief that we have to destroy Syria as we did Libya
U.Srael and its Western and Arab allies toward seeking to sway the military balance in Syria - rebels lost militarily - Killary continues killing - civil war.
Where are all OUR media? Report truth on today - NOT historical channel.
 
 
+7 # paulrevere 2012-04-01 10:31
...btw, I apologize for being lite minded there for my real gut wrench is how 'curveball' can live with himself and all of those deaths lingering in his sleepless nights, along with Powell allowing himself to be so egregiously used at that level, and still not to have issued a world wide apology for his part.
 
 
+6 # Pancho 2012-04-01 17:37
Don't expect sociopaths and psychopaths to have "sleepless nights." They're quite comfortable with whom they are.
 
 
+7 # dick 2012-04-01 10:56
This must be an April Fools' story, because "Curveball's" line of baloney was never taken very seriously, & was quickly discredited, like the Mobile Bio-Labs, "nuculer tubes," etc., etc. He couldn't even describe correctly the facility he claimed to be reporting on. He did NOT cause the war, anymore than the made up yellowcake uranium from Niger did. Stovepipe LIES enabled war making that had been decided on YEARS earlier. Next we'll hear Chalabi has "confessed." The one we can take seriously will be Scooter-Cheney' s. All else is crapola.
 
 
+10 # Texas Aggie 2012-04-01 16:24
Curveball's lies were used as the basis for Powell's testimony to the UN. They were what convinced the UN to back the sending of the inspectors. Without Curveball's lies, the UN wouldn't even have budged on the issue. It would have been a lot more difficult for Cheney/Bush to start their wonderful war.

Whether or not Powell knew before hand that they were lies is something to look into. As you said, any reasonably intelligent person would know that they were fabrications, especially since German intelligence had flat out told the CIA that Curveball was lying. If Powell did know, and I personally believe that he did, he lost any credibility as a human being for not going onto the UN stage and flat out stating that this was all Bullhockey and the buildup to the war was a complete farce.
 
 
+5 # Ray Kondrasuk 2012-04-01 18:26
Aggie,

Someone described Powell as the most credible of the Bush cabinet who got "pushed to the microphone". The good soldier fell on his sword for the team where loyalty was the highest of virtues.

He indeed lost so much.
 
 
+3 # kaleah 2012-04-01 20:19
I don't understand how you can say 'Curveball's lies were never taken seriously. Wasn't it because of him that Powell ended up going to the UN? Isn't that why Bush and Cheney were able to get the war sanctioned by the UN? I realize it's been several years now, but still, my memory is pretty clear on that. I always had a feeling Powell was a patsy set up by Bush/Cheney to take the fall for being "wrong" about the presence of WMDs.
 
 
+15 # Regina 2012-04-01 11:03
What a handy-dandy coincidence, when Dubya, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and the neocons were itching for a little unbudgeted war. Powell was kept out of the insiders' loop so that he would "validate" the chorus crying for the invasion. And Joe Wilson, who first blew the whistle in the NYTimes, was pilloried, along with his wife. With or without prosecution for war crimes, these criminals make it essential for us NEVER to vote the Republican Party into office again, no matter how much slush money they get from the Citizens United mis-decision..
 
 
+6 # Pancho 2012-04-01 16:14
I can't imagine how Powell knew less than I did. I live on a farm 15 miles from the nearest store. I don't read hard copy news. Except for PBS, I don't watch network news. I don't get any magazines that deal with foreign policy.

However while I listened to Powell's bullshit, much as did "Vermont grandma," below, I was screaming at the TV as Powell's lies were broadcast. Flabbergasted, I damn near fell off the treadmill I was walking on. I knew that half of what he was saying was lies, and the other half I wasn't sure about, but assumed that he wasn't telling the truth about that either.

That was a very accurate guess.

If he was "kept out of the loop," that would have been a choice of his own making. It would have required substantial effort on his part to ignore everything pertinent going on around him and a failure to ask questions about any of the clear implausibilities.

Powell is a 1% member, a millionaire. The appointment of his odious son as the head of the FCC was but one payoff for keeping his own counsel. He doesn't need anyone to make excuses for him. There's the blood of a million on his hands.
 
 
0 # AMLLLLL 2012-04-02 17:52
Powell is the one person in that 'administration ' who might lose even one night's sleep over the promulated lies.
 
 
+2 # LeeBlack 2012-04-01 11:14
Maybe 'intelligence' is missing in the intelligence agencies. The fault lies with those who used the lie not the original liar.
 
 
+3 # hewhoasks 2012-04-01 18:03
Fair enough, but doesn't the fact that the two authors of the CIA/DIA White Paper that Cheney relied on so heavily were in effect DEMOTED after it was released indicate there's more to the story? I suggest that there is still a very major story involved with that white paper. I find it easily possible that the CIA professionals who wrote it fully expected that the White Paper would be instantly exposed as nonsensical garbage, provoking an investigation into why it was garbage and why it was released - an investigation that they desired and believed would serve the country, its people, and the CIA itself. Claim after claim in that document is ludicrous, would never come from a professional. But the material could easily have originated from a high administration official spending a lot of time at the CIA and pressuring them to take the highly unusual step of issuing such a document and pressuring them as well to bend the facts to back the myth that high administration official wanted spread. The high administration official would not recognize how ludicrous the claims and conclusions were.
 
 
+18 # Sensible1 2012-04-01 12:03
Does anyone really doubt that Bush and his gang of bad actors did not know there were no WMD's? That we are so dumb as to believe this guy will be blamed, and not Bush and his crony supporters, will be the one held responsible for invading a sovereign nation who was not a threat to us, caused more than a million deaths, destroying and maiming of an unheard magnitude, and displaced untold millions from their homeland? You've got to be kidding! The UN inspectors, the General officers of Desert Storm, our own intelligence, representatives of the Iraqui Government including Saddam himself gave evidence that there were no WMD's. Saddam submitted 2500 documents, CD's, tapes, etc. to prove the destruction of all WMD's given to him in the mid 80's by the U.S. were destroyed. It was aired on national TV! It was the Bush administration who insisted that all of that was a lie and there was WMD's even as Iraq begged that they had none and did not want war with the U.S. and showed it by destroying much of their conventional weapons as well. The world fell in behind Bush, including democrats in congress, because we could not believe that a U. S. president would lie and fabricate a senseless war....but in fact he did.
 
 
+2 # Pancho 2012-04-01 18:12
You'd have to be pretty naive to believe that "democrats (sic) in congress," believed the WMD horseshit and, more importantly, the purported "9/11 'connections'."

In fact, a majority of Democratic Senators voted against the October resolution, despite the "with the terrorists" bilge brought to the country by Bush, Cheney, Murdoch and the NY Times and Washington Post. In further fact, there was only one Senator who was up for reelection weeks later who had the guts to vote against it: Paul Wellstone who died shortly afterward.

Only a single Republican had the courage to resist: Lincoln Chafee. The "R"s tried to get rid of him for his honesty by funding a primary opponent in his next election.

If you think the "world fell in behind Bush," you're similarly mistaken. The "world" did not consist of that whore Tony Blair and his allies in the press and Parliament. You managed to miss speech after speech by such Foreign Ministers as the right wing Dominique de Villepin (France), the Green Party
Joschka Fischer (Germany) and left wing Igor Ivanov (Russia). Senator Bob Byrd, the 85-year-old spoke passionately on the floor against the illegal invasion.

Fifty-four countries opposed the war, most agreeing it was illegal: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_the_Iraq_War

If you've slept through history, you should probably avoid pontificating about it.
 
 
0 # Pancho 2012-04-01 18:18
After reading your comments below, I must admit that I spoke to severely. I think you're right about most everything you've written save that last statement in the above comment.
 
 
+19 # Vermont Grandma 2012-04-01 12:10
Colin Powell was NOT mislead. He lied to the UN at his February 2003 speech claiming Iraq had biological warfare labs (mobile at that). I knew it at the time from doing a little research before hand and thus was screaming at the TV as his speech to the UN was broadcast. He knew he was lying as he spoke. He knows that today, whether he admits it or not.
Sadly, the Secretary of the UN at the time, Kofi Annan, probably also knew these claims were lies. But prior to the US & UK invasion he failed to galvanize the United Nations to take a vote declaring US and UK to be violation of international law by threatening unprovoked hostilities, despite millions of people demonstrating worldwide against US threats to go to war against Iraq.
I agree that this individual, and those who proceeded to war, should be held responsible for war crimes and the deaths of millions, abroad and here.... We have entered a time eerily reminiscent of George Orwell's description of civil live in his novel 1984.....
 
 
+8 # Pancho 2012-04-01 16:19
You're absolutely correct. See my responses to others posting here who are apologists for the homicidal co-conspirators.


Obama and Eric Holder have been unwilling to prosecute the liars, thieves and murderers who looted Wall Street and led much of the world to war. They haven't been nearly as reticent when it comes to punishing whistleblowers who have disclosed the elements of the iniquity.
 
 
+5 # Ray Kondrasuk 2012-04-01 18:31
Take an extra blood pressure pill or two before reading

The prosecution of George W. Bush for murder / Vincent Bugliosi.

Bugliosi, Vincent.

c2008. xi, 344 p.
 
 
+11 # Sensible1 2012-04-01 12:22
In view of all of the public evidence, our intelligence resources, UN investigators, general officers in Iraq, air power and satellite surveillance technology, sworn testimonies from Iraq, and many other world leaders, that contradicted his so called lies; the Bush administration went ahead, based upon his lone testimony, and launched an aggressive attack on a sovereign country that was never a threat, otherwise, to the U.S. or our interests. What a jerk!!! Has an American president ever been so naive, gullible, or reckless in our entire history? I think not!
 
 
+8 # Regina 2012-04-01 13:54
Bush was a superannuated adolescent just drooling to one-up his Poppy, with a bigger war on Iraq.. The rest of the conniving crew gathered 'round him for their own agendas. Now we have to make sure that we get an adult into the presidency, not another hallucinator with an axe to grind for his personal glorification (and eventual profit!).
 
 
+8 # DurangoKid 2012-04-01 15:20
Placing Iraq and Afghanistan at the feet of Gee Dub kind of misses the point. He was just the front man for the 1%. It was their war, not his. He just happened to be the fool on the horse with his saber held high against an army of straw men. Any scion of the 1% would do. He fufilled his institutional role, as Chomsky might put it. As did all the purveyors of false intelligence, too. Just ask Smedley Butler about war.
 
 
+4 # Texas Aggie 2012-04-01 16:29
Yesterday there was an article in Washingtonmonth ly about how personalities are a lot less important in world events than organizations. In this case, I have to disagree.

Powell knew CB was lying. He knew that Bush/Cheney were planning the war from the very beginning of his reign. Powell could have changed the whole trajectory of the war mongering if he had stood up in front of the UN and called out Bush/Cheney for what they were instead of repeating what he must have known were fabrications.
 
 
+4 # DurangoKid 2012-04-01 20:25
Powell would have been out on his ear if he dared offer any resistance or even called the plan into question. He could never have survived the pressure that the 1% would bring to bear. He was there to do a job, not question policy or be the whistle blower. Just look at what happened to Valerie Plame. Do you for a nanosecond believe Chenney, Inc. would be any less vindictive toward a traitor in the White House? If Powell had any doubts, he should have resigned straight away, but he didn't. So, what does that tell us about him? It's easy to be Mr. Honesty after the fact. Was he so naive as to believe he could affect policy? Or, was he just looking out for his own carreer? Whatever his thinking, he stayed on and told all the lies he was scripted for. He probably wouldn't have been appointed in the first place if the 'they' had any doubts about his fealty. Had he stood up at the UN and called them on it, he might have met with an accident of some sort or just have been assassinated in the press. Powell is an accessory to war crimes. It's that simple.
 
 
+8 # DurangoKid 2012-04-01 12:52
I have to wonder how much of this is to rehab Gee Dub and Chenney as a way to clean up the immage of the GOP. Vote for Republicans because they only made 'honest' mistakes in Iraq and Afghanistan. Vote against Obama because he's going to sell Israel to the Iranians. Curveball wasn't fooling anybody. He was just convenient. Kind of like the ambassador's daughter lying about babies and incubators in Kuwait. Of course the lie is only discovered after the fact of billions of dollars squandered and hundreds of thousands of lives lost. Chalk that one up to the corporate media cheerleaders for the latest and greatest war on terror. Or should we say corporate grab for resources, markets, and labor?
 
 
+6 # Pancho 2012-04-01 13:08
Wilkerson is being much too kind to Powell. I think his loyalty is misplaced.

I spoke at length to Scott Ritter in August 2002, two months before the war resolution was pushed through Congress. He detailed chapter and verse, and how it was all bullshit.

When Powell spoke to the Security Council, I knew that at least half of his statements were lies. His contention that Saddam had something to do with 9/11 was nothing short of ludicrous. No one with any knowledge at all would have believed he and bin laden were allies: They were sworn enemies, an Islamic theocrat and a secularist Baathist.

He claimed that Saddam was supporting and tolerating the Ansar al-Islam camp in Northeast Iraq, and that it was part of al Qaida. It was fairly common knowledge that it wasn't true, and if anything, the camp was protected as it was in the no-fly zone the U.S. had established in the north, eliminating the possibility that Saddam could wipe it out.
 
 
+3 # Sensible1 2012-04-01 15:56
Powell lied. There is no doubt he lied and was just as guilty as the rest of them, however, he was able to get sympathy because he was a stooge for those that masterminded the plan, and they left him out of the loop in the end.
 
 
-3 # dick 2012-04-01 13:54
Although others on his team knew they were lying, I think W was worried about WMDs. That's because Bush,Sr., had overseen giving Saddam WMDs to use on Iran & Kurds. The Bush family worst nightmare: identifiable American WMDs used against US.
Even though the bio-agents had long since degraded, Bush couldn't be sure. Capturing & destroying them was alluring. He would have & did lie independent of that, but he may actually have been worried. War was mainly a status building lark for him.
 
 
+8 # Sensible1 2012-04-01 15:53
There is no doubt now that Bush Sr was a traitor. As Reagan envoy he subverted U.S. integrity when he met with Iran in Paris to plan an arms for hostage maneuver to cast a shadow on president Carter's efforts. American lives were lost then. It was a known fact that, at the same time, Cheney, Bush Sr and Rumsfeld were sucking up to Saddam and giving him gas and other WMD's for use on subversive groups such as the Kurds and supplying him with weaponry to offset the war between Iraq and Iran. They dishonored America, and corrupted our efforts around the world.
 
 
+4 # Pancho 2012-04-01 15:59
Way too complicated.

The truth is that Bush was Sarah Palin, wearing pants and with a better education, but a moron all the same, and even easier to manipulate.

From Fair.com...

Consider Bush's statement about Saddam Hussein, made at a joint press conference with U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan (7/14/03): "We gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in." This charge, repeated at a joint press conference with Polish President Aleksander Kwasniewski (1/27/04), is an astonishingly brazen falsehood, given that U.N. inspectors were busily going about their work in Iraq with a great deal of publicity in the months before the U.S. invasion, yet it was not even reported by most media outlets. The New York Times, for instance, never mentioned it. The Washington Post's report on the comment (7/15/03) took pains to avoid calling it a lie, instead writing that the president's assertion "appeared to contradict the events."

The media's habit of tiptoeing around the truth and the patent refusal of many reporters to call things by their proper names prompted Paul Krugman,... to write this grim assessment (9/6/02):

The next time the administration insists that chocolate is vanilla, much of the media—fearing accusations of liberal bias, trying to create the appearance of "balance"—won't report that the stuff is actually brown; at best they'll report that some Democrats claim that it's brown.
 
 
0 # lcarrier 2012-04-01 15:39
Mr. Janabi deserves to spend the rest of his life in prison. His lies resulted in the death of nearly 5,000 of our military and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens. In addition, the stupid people in the Pentagon who believed and supported his lies should be cashiered and denied pensions. No wonder we don't trust calcified military minds to conduct diplomacy. Also, Judith Miller should never be allowed to spread lies again in the national media. She is so, so rotten.
 
 
+6 # Texas Aggie 2012-04-01 16:33
It might be interesting to deport Mr. Janabi to Iraq. I wonder what would happen to him.
 
 
+5 # Midwestgeezer 2012-04-01 16:18
What in hell were they thinking of? Surely, you would have expected that they'd have waterboarded the man to check his story before taking such a rash step as invading a sovereign nation who had done us no harm. Wouldn't you? Naaah...
 
 
+7 # Willman 2012-04-01 17:34
It actually goes back to the supreme court jesters, who in their infinite wisdom anointed GWB as the POTUS.
It was downhill from there.
And if anybody is contemplating voting for the court jester Romoney$$ they should think long and hard what damage he will bring upon us with his repub ilk.
 
 
+3 # hewhoasks 2012-04-01 17:45
Curveball did not create all the lies. The drawings Powell showed were done by a team that included non-scientist Scott Ritter. The CIA/DIA White Paper had plenty of lies that originated there.

A team of scientists was sent to Iraq to examine the trailers. Their report came back to Washington before the White Paper was issued. It is still classified - although the Annex to the CIA's final report doubtless greatly reflects the findings of that team.
 
 
+8 # Allison 2012-04-01 20:20
It's all so convenient: A defector decides to lie at precisely the moment an oil-thirsty administration is looking for a pretext to build bases in the Middle East.

I have to think there is more to the story.
 
 
+5 # stonecutter 2012-04-03 05:15
Many of the comments in this thread are trenchant and depressingly accurate, but also galactically redundant: since the Iraq war was hatched, they've been made and re-made a million times, kinda like whispering in a hurricane. Alas, Bush is still living la vida loca, waving at ballparks, receiving the cheers of his fawning base, having his hard-earned dumbbell image scrubbed by Ari Fleisher and a small army of professional PR liars (by the time he dies, he'll be compared to FDR); Powell is still out somewhere making a lunch speech for $30 grand (Was Harry Belafonte right about him, or what?); and Cheney, 71, has received a new heart against all medical ethics (for the 99%) in the transplant world (pity the poor 40 year-old patient who didn't get that heart because of Cheney's "juice"). I'd bet my life savings that Scooter Libby is somewhere making money hand over fist, welcomed at the finest country clubs and slapped on the back for lying through his teeth for 8 years.

Is this a great country, or what? Now these same con men are trying to turn Trayvon Martin into the head gangbanger of the Miami Crips, while Zimmerman is portrayed as a put-upon Boy Scout Leader with a Glock. How long can I continue to read this stuff before I just blow up my desktop and watch old movies 24/7?
 
 
+4 # rcmpvern 2012-04-03 07:29
Dick Cheney (who was recently given a human heart), Feith, Wolfowitz, Rice and the rest are the ones responsible for picking useful lies and selling them so that they could invade Iraq.
 
 
+1 # cruella 2012-04-03 13:16
I strongly encourage everyone to get a copy of The War Within, by Bob Woodard, one of the Washington Post's journalist who exposed Watergate. All will be educated regarding Bush,Chaney and WMD.
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN