Curveball admits WMD lies, Colin Powell PO'd at CIA

Moonlight Graham · February 26, 2011

A new exclusive interview video interview by The Guardian with the man codenamed "Curveball" who finally admits his lies.

Defector admits to WMD lies that triggered Iraq war
• Man codenamed Curveball 'invented' tales of bioweapons

• Iraqi told lies to try to bring down Saddam Hussein regime

• Fabrications used by US as justification for invasion

The defector who convinced the White House that Iraq had a secret biological weapons programme has admitted for the first time that he lied about his story, then watched in shock as it was used to justify the war.

Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi, codenamed Curveball by German and American intelligence officials who dealt with his claims, has told the Guardian that he fabricated tales of mobile bioweapons trucks and clandestine factories in an attempt to bring down the Saddam Hussein regime, from which he had fled in 1995.

...

The admission comes just after the eighth anniversary of Colin Powell's speech to the United Nations in which the then-US secretary of state relied heavily on lies that Janabi had told the German secret service, the BND. It also follows the release of former defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld's memoirs, in which he admitted Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction programme.

Also, a related article:

Curveball doubts were shared with CIA, says ex-German foreign minister
Germany's former foreign minister Joschka Fischer has accused the former head of the CIA George Tenet of making implausible claims about the handling of the Curveball case by the US.

On Wednesday Tenet, the director of central intelligence between 1997 and 2004, issued a statement on his website saying he discovered "too damn late" that Curveball – the Iraqi defector who became a key source for the CIA and the German secret service (BND) – might be a fabricator.

Reprinting an extract from his autobiography, Tenet claimed he only found out in 2005, two years after the Iraq invasion, that the BND had doubts about Curveball's claims to have witnessed first-hand Saddam Hussein's bio-weapons programme.

Asked by the Guardian whether Tenet's claims were plausible, Fischer said: "No. I don't think so."

Fischer said the BND realised some time before the war that Curveball was not a watertight source, and passed on his testimony to the CIA with warnings attached.

"Our position was always: [Curveball] might be right, but he might not be right. He could be a liar but he could be telling the truth," said Fischer at a press conference in Berlin to promote his memoir about the Iraq war.

Fischer said Germany was put in a "very difficult position" when the CIA asked whether they could "have" Curveball, or at least use his evidence to justify a war in Iraq. Germany's official position was that it would not join the coalition of the willing. Fischer himself famously told Donald Rumsfeld in February 2003 that he was "not convinced" about the case for war.

He said the then head of the BND, August Henning, wrote a letter to the CIA outlining the possible problems with Curveball. Fischer also pointed out that it was common practice in security circles – then, as now – to not rely on a single source, but to get at least three independent sources that corroborate each other.

Now Colin Powell is PO'd. As if he hasn't figured this out over the past 7-8 years?

Colin Powell demands answers over Curveball's WMD lies
Colin Powell, the US secretary of state at the time of the Iraq invasion, has called on the CIA and Pentagon to explain why they failed to alert him to the unreliability of a key source behind claims of Saddam Hussein's bio-weapons capability.

Responding to the Guardian's revelation that the source, Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi or "Curveball" as his US and German handlers called him, admitted fabricating evidence of Iraq's secret biological weapons programme, Powell said that questions should be put to the US agencies involved in compiling the case for war.

In particular he singled out the CIA and the Defence Intelligence Agency – the Pentagon's military intelligence arm. Janabi, an Iraqi defector, was used as the primary source by the Bush administration to justify invading Iraq in March 2003. Doubts about his credibility circulated before the war and have been confirmed by his admission this week that he lied.

Powell said that the CIA and DIA should face questions about why they failed to sound the alarm about Janabi. He demanded to know why it had not been made clear to him that Curveball was totally unreliable before false information was put into the key intelligence assessment, or NIE, put before Congress, into the president's state of the union address two months before the war and into his own speech to the UN.

Curveball told the Guardian he welcomed Powell's demand. "It's great," he said tonight. "The BND [German intelligence] knew in 2000 that I was lying after they talked to my former boss, Dr Bassil Latif, who told them there were no mobile bioweapons factories. For 18 months after that they left me alone because they knew I was telling lies even though I never admitted it. Believe me, back then, I thought the whole thing was over for me.

This part is gold. George Tenet trying to lie his way out of this:

George Tenet, then head of the CIA, is particularly in the firing line. He failed to pass on warnings from German intelligence about Curveball's reliability.

Tenet refers to his own 2007 memoir on the war, At the Centre of the Storm, in which he insists that the first he heard about Curveball's unreliability was two years after the invasion – "too late to do a damn thing about it".

:lol: nice try Tenet. I hope you they put you on the stand under oath and you say the same thing, then head to prison when they nail you for perjury. Maybe Mr. Drumheller could be a witness:

Tyler Drumheller, head of the CIA's Europe division in the run-up to the invasion, said he welcomed Curveball's confession because he had always warned Tenet that he may have been a fabricator.
Tenet has disputed Drumheller's version of events, insisting that the official made no formal warning to CIA headquarters.

I'm sure Powell has been asking a lot of questions about the B.S. put in his speech before all this came out.

This is all just so disgusting. Of course the Bush admin knew Curveball was a crappy source, they were just desperate for any speckle of legitimation for the invasion. They are a bunch of liars, murderers, & war criminals. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Tenet, and any one else (even Powell?) guilty of perpetrating these lies in order to justify their B.S. war should all be strung up and hanged in Saddam-like fashion, fireworks exploding in the background. Maybe the families of dead soldiers or dead Iraqi civilians could kick away the chairs.

America, you f***ing disgust me. How Congress and the especially much (but not all) of the American public were/are so ignorant, gullible, and outright stupid not to demand the Bush admin to be held to account for their historic lies. Americans either don't know (ignorance) or don't care (immorality). Congress is more concerned with their next election than justice. The American system & public has failed, & i have little faith Powell's new "concerns" will lead anywhere.

The problem is not only that this happened & people are not held to account, but that nothing has been done to prevent something like this from happening again. Unbelievable.

For those Americans who have demanded answers and justice, i salute you. Those that are too uninformed/gullible, wake up. For those who know the truth but do nothing about it, the lives of dead soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians are on your conscience too and i hope you rot in hell.

Sir Bandelot · February 26, 2011

Indeed many people were involved in making similar false claims, to get their vengeance against Saddams regime. There are no friends when the game is played full of lies and intrigue. Chalabi was also an unreliable source who was alleged to have fabricated stories, to enable the US war machine and ultimately increase his own personal power. But this is common, not new and the US intelligence services should have known better. This was a case where actual facts did not matter, what was more important was to catapult the propaganda.

I think Colin Powell already knew that he was spouting pure horse, even while he delivered the famous speech. What happened with Powell is a tragedy because many people now seriously doubt the administration when they claim that some enemy is developing weapons of such and such, to the detriment of our own security. Their lies have now become self-defeating.

Shady · February 26, 2011

I don't think Powell knew at all what he was saying was fabricated by an Iraqi intelligence source. If he had known, I don't think he would have ever given the speech. But at least this finally puts to an end the ridiculous notion that George Bush lied. George Bush certainly didn't have anything to do with the CIA director telling him it's "a slam dunk.". And George Bush also didn't have anything to do with this intelligence source providing faulty information.

bush_cheney2004 · February 26, 2011

Spare me the crocodile tears for poor dead soldiers and Iraqis, as neither were given a second thought by most Canadians when Iraq was attacked in 1991, strangled and sanctioned to death by the UN, patrolled and attacked from the air, and forced to comply with surrender instruments long before the invasion of 2003. Selective "disgust" has even less credibility than Colin Powell.

The invasion of Iraq by the United States, United Kingdom, Australia, and other nations was about far more than just some silly ass game concerning "WMD lies" and "Curveball".

GostHacked · February 26, 2011

Curveball was mentioned years ago. I guess many have not been paying attention.

But overall .. DURRRRRRRR, and I told you so.

scouterjim · February 26, 2011

Spare me the crocodile tears for poor dead soldiers and Iraqis, as neither were given a second thought by most Canadians when Iraq was attacked in 1991, strangled and sanctioned to death by the UN, patrolled and attacked from the air, and forced to comply with surrender instruments long before the invasion of 2003. Selective "disgust" has even less credibility than Colin Powell.

The invasion of Iraq by the United States, United Kingdom, Australia, and other nations was about far more than just some silly ass game concerning "WMD lies" and "Curveball".

Yup. It had a lot to do with Dubya's ego. He needed a bigger page in the history books, and had to one-up his father.

Edited February 26, 2011 by scouterjim

Shakeyhands · February 26, 2011

Spare me the crocodile tears for poor dead soldiers and Iraqis, as neither were given a second thought by most Canadians when Iraq was attacked in 1991, strangled and sanctioned to death by the UN, patrolled and attacked from the air, and forced to comply with surrender instruments long before the invasion of 2003. Selective "disgust" has even less credibility than Colin Powell.

The invasion of Iraq by the United States, United Kingdom, Australia, and other nations was about far more than just some silly ass game concerning "WMD lies" and "Curveball".

The difference here is a "just" reason to respond and one that was made up for personal reasons

Wilber · February 26, 2011

The invasion of Iraq by the United States, United Kingdom, Australia, and other nations was about far more than just some silly ass game concerning "WMD lies" and "Curveball".

Of course it did, that's the whole point. WMD's were used to sell it even though a lot of people at the top knew the claim was questionable at best. Just another lesson that governments are quite willing to put their own agendas before honesty.

Sir Bandelot · February 26, 2011

I don't think Powell knew at all what he was saying was fabricated by an Iraqi intelligence source. If he had known, I don't think he would have ever given the speech.

Powell writes that he had reservations about making the speech at the time. Why? He was reluctant to do it, but the duty fell upon him. Lies or no, he did his "job". And he knew it, and now he carries the shame of it.

at least this finally puts to an end the ridiculous notion that George Bush lied. George Bush certainly didn't have anything to do with the CIA director telling him it's "a slam dunk.". And George Bush also didn't have anything to do with this intelligence source providing faulty information.

Bush either knew, or didn't know. If he knew, our judgement of it is obvious. If not, then he and the whole of the intelligence apparatus can be judged as either ignorant, incompetent or criminal.

Ignorant- they refused to listen to other intelligence agencies about the reliability of this "curveball".

Incompetent- they did not check the validity of the information, like fools they trusted illegitimate sources.

Criminal- they didn't care about the real truth, seeking only to pursue their aggressive military agenda.

GostHacked · February 26, 2011

Powell writes that he had reservations about making the speech at the time. Why? He was reluctant to do it, but the duty fell upon him. Lies or no, he did his "job". And he knew it, and now he carries the shame of it.

Powell could have ended up in a 'mishap' if he did not go along with the plan. I am guessing he was threatened.

Bush either knew, or didn't know. If he knew, our judgement of it is obvious. If not, then he and the whole of the intelligence apparatus can be judged as either ignorant, incompetent or criminal.
Ignorant- they refused to listen to other intelligence agencies about the reliability of this "curveball".

Incompetent- they did not check the validity of the information, like fools they trusted illegitimate sources.

Criminal- they didn't care about the real truth, seeking only to pursue their aggressive military agenda.

I am under the impression Curveball was a fabrication of the CIA. But you are right, others knew the information was fake/incorrect. I am pretty certain Bush knew Iraq did not have the WMDs. Most of us knew that there were no WMDs in Iraq, it did not take a genious to figure it out. The first Gulf War took care of that cabability to the point where Iraq had no hope in getting a nuclear arms or WMD program restarted.

Bush's speach about Iraq and the mushroom cloud was pure psy-ops against the people of the USA. Saying it's A, when it's actually B. Invoking 9/11 in a way to garner support for the invasion of Iraq, when there was no connection, but the speach was done in a way to make people think just that. The lies were obvious as soon as they left Bush's mouth.

So Bush should be classified as a war criminal.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/17/curveball-doubts-cia-german-foreign

Edited February 26, 2011 by GostHacked

Topaz · February 26, 2011

As far as I'm concerned the Bush gang were all liars and thousands of people have died because of those lies. On Aug.6th 2001, Bush was given a an update that said tha terrorists group were planning on using planes to run into building within the US. Cheney and Bush ignored this because they wanted to go after Hussein and the only way to do that was to use the US military, after the attack happen, into Afghanistan, after blaming OBL for the attack. It didn't take Bush long after invading Afghanistan to invade Iraq and kill Hussein and his sons. As far as the WMD's, I watched that presentation and I KNEW that it was all lies because those pictures I've seen after the Desert Storm.

bush_cheney2004 · February 26, 2011

Of course it did, that's the whole point. WMD's were used to sell it even though a lot of people at the top knew the claim was questionable at best. Just another lesson that governments are quite willing to put their own agendas before honesty.

Then you agree that WMD's were just the sales vehicle, not the complete reason or even the underlying policy. The US Congress provided the underlying "legal" framework for regime change in Iraq, both in 1998 (Public Law: Iraq Liberation Act) which resulted in Operation Desert Fox with the U.K.), and the resolution for war in October 2002 (Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002,[1] Pub.L. 107-243, 116 Stat. 1498, enacted October 16, 2002, H.J.Res. 114).

We've have already been over this many times..."Curveball's lies" are old news. Saddam was only compliant with inspection protocols after the US/UK went camping in Kuwait with 240,000 troops.

Edited February 26, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

Wilber · February 26, 2011

Then you agree that WMD's were just the sales vehicle, not the complete reason or even the underlying policy. The US Congress provided the underlying "legal" framework for regime change in Iraq, both in 1998 (Public Law: Iraq Liberation Act) which resulted in Operation Desert Fox with the U.K.), and the resolution for war in October 2002 (Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002,[1] Pub.L. 107-243, 116 Stat. 1498, enacted October 16, 2002, H.J.Res. 114).

We've have already been over this many times..."Curveball's lies" are old news. Saddam was only compliant with inspection protocols after the US/UK went camping in Kuwait with 240,000 troops.

If you think governments should use the same kind of "sales vehicles" as fly by night used car lots then I guess it's OK. It's one thing to use WMD's to sell the war. It is something quite different to do so knowing at best, it was very unlikely they existed and at worst, they didn't exist at all.

bush_cheney2004 · February 26, 2011

If you think governments should use the same kind of "sales vehicles" as fly by night used car lots then I guess it's OK. It's one thing to use WMD's to sell the war. It is something quite different to do so knowing at best, it was very unlikely they existed and at worst, they didn't exist at all.

I like your car analogy, because before any such sale, the car has to be designed and built, and this was done long before any WMD lies, and before Bush was ever president. The underlying policy was for regime change in Iraq, and it had been thus for over ten years. I don't know why some people choose to ignore this entire continuum, including Canada's support and enforcement for this policy, which resulted in the deaths of thousands.

Wilber · February 26, 2011

I like your car analogy, because before any such sale, the car has to be designed and built, and this was done long before any WMD lies, and before Bush was ever president. The underlying policy was for regime change in Iraq, and it had been thus for over ten years. I don't know why some people choose to ignore this entire continuum, including Canada's support and enforcement for this policy, which resulted in the deaths of thousands.

Of course Canada would like to have seen a regime change, lots of countries would but that doesn't mean they thought invading the place was an acceptable way of doing it. That is why they wouldn't join the Coalition. The issue is the method used to justify invading a sovereign country and give it a facade of legality, not whether or not it was US policy.

bush_cheney2004 · February 26, 2011

Of course Canada would like to have seen a regime change, lots of countries would but that doesn't mean they thought invading the place was an acceptable way of doing it. That is why they wouldn't join the Coalition. The issue is the method used to justify invading a sovereign country and give it a facade of legality, not whether or not it was US policy.

Great, then we can dispense with the concern over deaths, because that was happening as a part of that policy long before the invasion. The method used included but was not totally dependent on unfounded WMD claims; there was a long shopping list of noncompliance and violations of original 1991 surrender instruments. AS I have long stated, justification was not required...all Bush needed were continuing reasons and a post 9/11 political environment. Clinton and Blair didn't even need that to attack Iraq in December 1998.

Wilber · February 26, 2011

Great, then we can dispense with the concern over deaths, because that was happening as a part of that policy long before the invasion. The method used included but was not totally dependent on unfounded WMD claims; there was a long shopping list of noncompliance and violations of original 1991 surrender instruments. AS I have long stated, justification was not required...all Bush needed were continuing reasons and a post 9/11 political environment. Clinton and Blair didn't even need that to attack Iraq in December 1998.

Of course justification was required, why else try and sell the WMD story?

bush_cheney2004 · February 26, 2011

Of course justification was required, why else try and sell the WMD story?

Because Bush sought UN approval to trigger more support, which was not forthcoming. Obviously, it was desired but not essential in the end. War was authorized in October 2002....the invasion was in March 2003.

From Michael Ignatieff's Year of Living Dangerously:

I supported war as the least bad of the available options. Containment -- keeping Saddam Hussein in a box -- might have made war unnecessary, but the box had sprung a series of leaks. Hussein was evading sanctions, getting rich through illegal oil sales and, so I thought at the time, beginning to reconstitute the weapons programs that had been destroyed by United Nations inspectors. If he were acquiring weapons, he could be deterred from using them himself, but he might be able to transfer lethal technologies to undeterrable suicide bombers. Such a possibility might have been remote, but after 9/11 it seemed unwise to trifle with it. Still, I thought, force had to be a last resort. If Hussein had complied with the inspectors, I would not have supported an invasion, but the evidence, at least till March 2003, was that he was playing the same old games. Getting Hussein to stop these games depended on a credible threat of force, and the French, Russians and Chinese weren't ready to authorize military options. So that left disarmament through regime change. Where I live -- in liberal Massachusetts -- this was not a popular view.

The discovery that Hussein didn't have weapons after all surprises me, but it doesn't change my view of the essential issue. I never thought the key question was what weapons he actually possessed but rather what intentions he had. Having been to Halabja in 1992, and having talked to survivors of the chemical attack that killed 5,000 Iraqi Kurds in March 1988, I believed that while there could be doubt about Hussein's capabilities, there could be none about the malignancy of his intentions. True, there are a lot of malignant intentions loose in our world, but Hussein had actually used chemical weapons. Looking to the future, once sanctions collapsed, inspectors had been bamboozled and oil revenues began to pick up, he was certain, sooner or later, to match intentions with capabilities.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/14/magazine/14WWLN.html

Sir Bandelot · February 26, 2011

Actually believe it was Powell who strongly wanted UN involvement, and not to go into Iraq unilaterally. Others in the admin maybe did not care so much about that. So if true then in this sense, it was his baby. I believe that Cheney was quoted as saying, if Powell should fall on his sword over this speech, Cheney would not mind that happening. This tells me there was considerable doubt and speculation over the data. But that, as B_C points out was not terribly important.

So now having thought this over, it hints that Powell et al may well have known this story to be false, but what hangs in the balance is UN involvement. They went ahead and made the case because, either way, this war was going to happen.

Edited February 26, 2011 by Sir Bandelot

bush_cheney2004 · February 26, 2011

....So now having thought this over, it hints that Powell et al may well have known this story to be false, but what hangs in the balance is UN involvement. They went ahead and made the case because, either way, this war was going to happen.

Agreed...the orchestrated drama complete with modeled anthrax in a bottle was just for extra credit, the decision had been made long before. One doesn't mass 240,000 troops just to play poker in the desert. The logical mistake is to believe that UNSC action was required to "morally" or "legally" justify the invasion as PM Chretien insisted; he didn't give a damn about UNSC approval when NATO attacked Serbia (Kosovo War - 1999).

Edited February 26, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

Wilber · February 26, 2011

Because Bush sought UN approval to trigger more support, which was not forthcoming. Obviously, it was desired but not essential in the end. War was authorized in October 2002....the invasion was in March 2003.

Not essential from a diplomatic point of view, which is after all just deal making between governments but certainly essential in order to gain some public support for an invasion. Point is, the administration played fast and lose with the truth in order to advance its own aims.

Hopefully this country will never find itself in a position where it invades another country because of what Ignatieff thinks might happen. After all, you are foremost invading a country and its people, not its leader.

ToadBrother · February 26, 2011

Agreed...the orchestrated drama complete with modeled anthrax in a bottle was just for extra credit, the decision had been made long before. One doesn't mass 240,000 troops just to play poker in the desert. The logical mistake is to believe that UNSC action was required to "morally" or "legally" justify the invasion as PM Chretien insisted; he didn't give a damn about UNSC approval when NATO attacked Serbia (Kosovo War - 1999).

There are some that feel there are no such things as righteous or unrighteous wars, only well-executed and poorly executed wars. I'm somewhat uncomfortable with that, because taking that to its logical end leads to the state of affairs we had in Europe from the Thirty Years War onward, and culminating in such delightful struggles as the Napoleonic Wars and WWI. How you divide right and wrong wars is very often subjective. A lot of people viewed toppling Hussein as simply cleaning up the mess from the First Gulf War, and quite frankly I didn't exactly shed a lot of tears at the thought of him swinging from the end of a noose. My judgment of the Iraq invasion isn't that it was right or wrong, but rather that Rumsfeld and Co., being ideologues and not soldiers, buggered it up.

People will, of course, note that the Serbian bombing campaign ultimately didn't deliver flowers in the streets of Kosovo, and some of the folks the liberators put in charge turned out to be rather criminal deviant sorts. Again, as much as we can debate the rightness or wrongness of larger powers effectively cutting out chunks of smaller nation states to make new nation states, I wasn't exactly crying tears watching the Serbs get bombed back into the stone age, it taught them a good deal of humility which they were in desperate need of.

Jack Weber · February 26, 2011

There are some that feel there are no such things as righteous or unrighteous wars, only well-executed and poorly executed wars. I'm somewhat uncomfortable with that, because taking that to its logical end leads to the state of affairs we had in Europe from the Thirty Years War onward, and culminating in such delightful struggles as the Napoleonic Wars and WWI. How you divide right and wrong wars is very often subjective. A lot of people viewed toppling Hussein as simply cleaning up the mess from the First Gulf War, and quite frankly I didn't exactly shed a lot of tears at the thought of him swinging from the end of a noose. My judgment of the Iraq invasion isn't that it was right or wrong, but rather that Rumsfeld and Co., being ideologues and not soldiers, buggered it up.

People will, of course, note that the Serbian bombing campaign ultimately didn't deliver flowers in the streets of Kosovo, and some of the folks the liberators put in charge turned out to be rather criminal deviant sorts. Again, as much as we can debate the rightness or wrongness of larger powers effectively cutting out chunks of smaller nation states to make new nation states, I wasn't exactly crying tears watching the Serbs get bombed back into the stone age, it taught them a good deal of humility which they were in desperate need of.

Interesting...

I remember watching a program on this very subject and seeing Dick Armitage getting visibly upset on this point...

He said that he noticed that it was the ones in the Administration that had actually shouldered guns in combat (He and Powell) that has the most misgivings about the use of the flimsey evidence available,AND,it was the ones who had spent thier lives as policy ideologues that had never shouldered a gun that were the most gung ho about going tinto Iraq...

I share your views on Hussein,as well...The problem I have was therationale of regime change because either

(a) He had the capability to use weapons of mass destruction

(b ) He was an unhinged despot

(c ) All of the above

That criteria could apply to a whole host of other "leaders" on this planet that require the very same treatment...

And little,or nothing,was going to be done about them....

Edited February 26, 2011 by Jack Weber

bush_cheney2004 · February 26, 2011

... How you divide right and wrong wars is very often subjective. A lot of people viewed toppling Hussein as simply cleaning up the mess from the First Gulf War, and quite frankly I didn't exactly shed a lot of tears at the thought of him swinging from the end of a noose. My judgment of the Iraq invasion isn't that it was right or wrong, but rather that Rumsfeld and Co., being ideologues and not soldiers, buggered it up.

This is a completely valid criticism and I concur....the planning and execution of the invasion had several false expectations and assumptions. Winning the peace became the sticking point and cost driver, in money and lives, and had that gone better, much of the disdain for the invasion itself would have been muted. Yours is the fairest approach possible, stripping out the "moral" considerations entirely and focusing on results, just as you suggest for any other conflict in history.

GostHacked · February 26, 2011

This is a completely valid criticism and I concur....the planning and execution of the invasion had several false expectations and assumptions. Winning the peace became the sticking point and cost driver, in money and lives, and had that gone better, much of the disdain for the invasion itself would have been muted. Yours is the fairest approach possible, stripping out the "moral" considerations entirely and focusing on results, just as you suggest for any other conflict in history.

It was a debacle even before Iraq was invaded. The country is in no better shape now than it was under Saddam.