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

bloodyminded · February 26, 2011

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

In many ways worse. Religious fanaticism is way up; sectarian violence; a refugee problem of catastrophic proportions.

Many intial supporters, being decent and intelligent human beings, have changed their tune, in accord with reality.

Those who still support the travesty are intellectual and moral cowards.

Or--to be fair to the ignorant--are simply unaware of what was wrought in that country.

Edited February 26, 2011 by bloodyminded

ToadBrother · February 26, 2011

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

The problem, at the heart, seems to have been a small cabal of men who were torn between two entirely different extremes; on the one hand they wanted to duplicate the exporting of democracy carried out in post-war Europe and Japan, but on the other hand they also wanted to play the game conservatively. Or to put it another way, these were not big men, there were no MacArthurs or Marshalls or Claytons, big thinkers with political masters with, if not the vision, then at least the confidence and intelligence to recognize the vision.

Take General MacArthur, here was a larger than life man, just the kind of man to stare right into the eyes of a God Emperor and tell him what to do, who literally through force of will pushed through a new constitution and government, and more tellingly, an entirely new relationship between a people and that government.

You need big men, and you need deep pockets. Bush was no Roosevelt or Truman, who, whatever else you may think of them, were savvy guys who picked smart cabinets and advisers, and just as importantly gave these guys the latitude they needed. Yes, MacArthur went one step too far and Truman finally had to reign him in, but what MacArthur oversaw in Japan is probably one of the greatest state-building exercises of all time, and what was accomplished in Europe with the Marshall Plan, the transformation in particular of the Western zones of Germany from shattered, smashed and burned post-industrial zone into one of the great economic and political marvels of all time.

Guys like Rumsfeld probably had similar dreams, but they were little men, small, mean people with a audacity, but no coherency of vision, and ultimately insufficient will to impose a vision. They utterly miscalculated the cost of a post-invasion peace, of rebuilding a country brought very low by years of sanctions and a government that pissed what wealth it still had on to the sand.

I don't think Dubya and Rumsfeld should be thrown in chains into a deep dark hole for the invasion. If it had been done properly, much as the use of atomic bombs in Japan in 1945, the moral questions of the initial attack phase would have been largely academic. But it was done wrong, not just wrong but with gross incompetence by men whose ideology and perhaps greed overwhelmed that most critical faculty of leadership, and that is to listen to the experts. They were so busy slapping themselves on the back they couldn't see their own inadequacies. They remind me of the Brits during the Boer War, with a vast military arsenal at their fingertips, but little sense of what the end goal was going to be, beyond vague notions of projecting power and even vaguer ideas that somehow it would all create a more civilized, sensible world.

It wasn't that Bush and Rumsfeld and their other neo-con cronies were bad or evil men, I doubt you could find very many who reaches their high offices who could be considered good or moral in any conventional sense. But what they were were inept. If you're going to mount an invasion, you either do one of two things, you either kill or enslave everyone in the territory you seize, or you bloody well do the hard work and create new governmental systems to replace the ones you broke. You can make the new governing system friendly to your aims, and so you should, if you're going to go to all the trouble of busting the old one, but one way or the other you don't create a situation that is materially worse, and then make-believe that toppling some statues and putting on some elections is a replacement for a properly functioning government and infrastructure.

Moonlight Graham · February 27, 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.

What does what "most Canadians" think have to do with my thoughts?

Yes, let's talk about the sanctions, which arguably caused even more death and suffering than the 2003 war.

The civilian casualties of the 1991 war are not even comparable, a few thousand are estimated. Never good, but the war was at least legitimate in that Iraq had invaded another country. The 2003 war was a preventive war (not "preemptive"), which is illegal under international law, as if that means anything anyways.

Listing all the "disgusts" i have would take far too long.

Now run along and continue being another tiny bolt that keeps the machine turning.

Moonlight Graham · February 27, 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.

Exactly. He was being "the good soldier". A "good" military man like Powell is trained to take orders from his commanding officers, despite any personal or moral objections. Woops!

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.

Whether Bush himself I knew or not, who knows. The man was a puppet of Cheney and Rumsfeld, and is such a simplistic moron i have doubts he even knew to ask the right questions. Just read the teleprompter, George.

What is certain is that Cheney and Rumsfeld knew. Yellowcake claims, Curveball claims. The Bush admin knew these were garbage, but used them to sell the war. Former CIA officers are on record in video interviews claiming that Cheney would come down to the CIA HQ (which they said VP's NEVER do unless for ceremonial purposes) while the National Intelligence Estimate was being constructed and put intimidating pressure on them to find more "evidence" etc. "Many members of the CIA believed that the Vice President himself was determined to control the content of the NIE". link (Watch chapter 4, or read the extended former CIA interviews)

Using truth or lies was meaningless, the only thing that mattered to the admin was the effectiveness it had in convincing the public, the rest of the US gov, and other governments to the "justness" of an invasion.

bloodyminded · February 27, 2011

Guys like Rumsfeld probably had similar dreams, but they were little men, small, mean people with a audacity, but no coherency of vision, and ultimately insufficient will to impose a vision. They utterly miscalculated the cost of a post-invasion peace, of rebuilding a country brought very low by years of sanctions and a government that pissed what wealth it still had on to the sand.

I agree. Their dreams, if we can call them that, were of "democracy," as if the word is sufficient. (Though I don't think even naive ideals were the sole reason, nor even the primary one.) And not only did they miscalculate, as you say (perhaps the single point that everyone, supporters and not, can agree upon), but they utterly lacked vision, and ultimately they lacked true respect for the democratic ideals they claimed to be exporting. They chose, imperial-style, with "viceroy" Bremer at the helm, to alter Iraqi law and constitution along ostensibly free-market principles. They abolished the Western-style, mildly socialist ideals--in a way that would be unacceptable to, oh, say, Americans themselves. Saddam's monstrous police state and murderousness were quite unrelated to the health and education programs, the best in the region after Israel's (pre-sanctions, anyway). Women were legally equal to men, another aspect currently being flushed down the toilet. And I don't think the administration gave a good goddamn about any of this, being, at heart, simpletons..including the intellectuals, like Paul Wolfowitz.

It wasn't that Bush and Rumsfeld and their other neo-con cronies were bad or evil men

No, it doesn't generally work that way.

,

You can make the new governing system friendly to your aims, and so you should, if you're going to go to all the trouble of busting the old one

But this takes careful navigation (which seems to be part of your point anyway). If one is "exporting democracy," then shutting the Iraqi people out of discussions, committing to torture, supporting even worse tortures (and murders) and imposing a sectarianism in a place where sectarianism is plainly a simmering danger anyway...this is where "friendly to your aims" becomes unreasonable.

More to the point, if you're genuine about "exporting democracy," then by definition your own aims are not of utmost importance. By definition. We can't have it both ways, no matter how much we might adore the glories of American empire.

As for President Bush...he now says that "the worst" part of his Presidency was hearing Kanye West remark that Bush was a racist!

Really, George? That's the worst thing that happened?

Bush and Rumsfeld and Cheney remain as blind as they ever were.

Edited February 27, 2011 by bloodyminded

Jack Weber · February 27, 2011

we do not acknowledge your sham political system...

We do not accept your sham lucidity....

Moonlight Graham · February 27, 2011

From Michael Ignatieff's Year of Living Dangerously:

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. [/indent][/i]

This is a foolish perspective. Exerting political power, including violent aggression, needs both the will and the capability to do so, as Ignatieff alludes to. Saddam has always had the will. There are many third-world dictators who have the will, as do terrorist and everyday individuals. What it comes down to then is capability. Saddam did not have the capability. It doesn't make logical, strategic sense to start a war on "well he might gain the capability in the future". Based on this logic, we should start attacking various countries across the globe and invading most of the middle east to destroy all Islamists who may attack us in the future. But that would be a complete waste of resources and lives. With the trillion dollars or so the US has spent on the Iraq War they could have bought 10,000 F-35 aircraft (or whatever combo or war toys) and had an almost unstoppable war machine.

Saddam should only have been attacked if he was a clear threat with capability to harm. If that had happened in the future, then wait for it to occur when the threat was actually becoming real, not imaginary. Glad Iggy wasn't Liberal leader in 2003.

If Bush wanted regime change, they should have expanded on the Clinton strategy and waited patiently until they had guaranteed intel of the location of Saddam and his boys and then dropped a few missiles on their head. New leadership would have come in, then wait and see what kind of regime that turned out to be. All that would cost is the price of a dozen missiles and some jet fuel.

bloodyminded · February 27, 2011

It doesn't make logical, strategic sense to start a war on "well he might gain the capability in the future". Based on this logic, we should start attacking various countries across the globe and invading most of the middle east to destroy all Islamists who may attack us in the future.

Yes, "preventive" war is a damnfool idea, whether we wish to misname it "pre-emptive" or not.

Even aside from the clear and obvious problems that you highlight, there's also the little problem that such a doctrine demands absolute trust in the veracity of leadership's unsubstantiated claims.

Which is unwise, to put it gently.

Edited February 27, 2011 by bloodyminded

Moonlight Graham · February 27, 2011

There are some that feel there are no such things as righteous or unrighteous wars, only well-executed and poorly executed wars.

What about strategically smart vs strategically stupid wars? My opinion is that the Iraq War was unrighteous, poorly executed, and strategically stupid. Batting O for 3!

bush_cheney2004 · February 27, 2011

This is a foolish perspective. Exerting political power, including violent aggression, needs both the will and the capability to do so, as Ignatieff alludes to. Saddam has always had the will. There are many third-world dictators who have the will, as do terrorist and everyday individuals. What it comes down to then is capability. Saddam did not have the capability.

Ignatieff has already answered this line of reasoning. Sans continuous inspections, nobody was sure of any such thing. That's what drove the issue and ultimately led to the invasion. Hindsight is 20/20.

It doesn't make logical, strategic sense to start a war on "well he might gain the capability in the future". Based on this logic, we should start attacking various countries across the globe and invading most of the middle east to destroy all Islamists who may attack us in the future.

Afghanistan was attacked before Iraq was invaded. Iraq was attacked repeatedly over the course of 12 years. However, Saddam was not attacked for being an Islamist. Saddam attacked "Islamists" himself, several times.

But that would be a complete waste of resources and lives. With the trillion dollars or so the US has spent on the Iraq War they could have bought 10,000 F-35 aircraft (or whatever combo or war toys) and had an almost unstoppable war machine.

I hope the irony of this claim is not lost on others.

Saddam should only have been attacked if he was a clear threat with capability to harm. If that had happened in the future, then wait for it to occur when the threat was actually becoming real, not imaginary. Glad Iggy wasn't Liberal leader in 2003.

Well, the Kurds and so called Marsh Arabs would disagree with your assessment of Saddam's capabilities and intentions. As would the Israelis, Saudis, Jordanians, and even his old enemies in Iran.

If Bush wanted regime change, they should have expanded on the Clinton strategy and waited patiently until they had guaranteed intel of the location of Saddam and his boys and then dropped a few missiles on their head. New leadership would have come in, then wait and see what kind of regime that turned out to be. All that would cost is the price of a dozen missiles and some jet fuel.

It wasn't that Bush wanted regime change...it was the policy of the United States as directed in Public Law. Clinton and Blair attempted but failed to decapitate Saddam and his regime. Bush and Blair succeeded, with a little help from their friends.

Edited February 27, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

Moonlight Graham · February 28, 2011

Ignatieff has already answered this line of reasoning. Sans continuous inspections, nobody was sure of any such thing. That's what drove the issue and ultimately led to the invasion. Hindsight is 20/20.

You don't start a freaking war based on a hunch. If "Curveball" and bogus Niger yellowcake is some of the best you've got, reevaluate.

I hope the irony of this claim is not lost on others.

I said "could have", not "should have".

Well, the Kurds and so called Marsh Arabs would disagree with your assessment of Saddam's capabilities and intentions. As would the Israelis, Saudis, Jordanians, and even his old enemies in Iran.

Why? Do they know where the WMD's are?

It wasn't that Bush wanted regime change...it was the policy of the United States as directed in Public Law. Clinton and Blair attempted but failed to decapitate Saddam and his regime. Bush and Blair succeeded, with a little help from their friends.

It was US policy, re: Iraq Liberation Act, to support regime change (ie: Iraqi pro-democracy opposition groups), not to use military action themselves to do so.

The Clinton admin claimed (at least to the UNSC) that the 1998 Desert Fox strikes were legitimate because Saddam broke previous UN resolutions. Which one these resolutions affirmed the right of the US/UK to launch attacks if Saddam didn't comply to end-of-war terms etc.? (seriously, i'm asking). There seemed to have been controversy over launching such attacks without UNSC approval, and without US Congress approval. What was the Clinton admins' claimed reason for legitimacy to Congress? It certainly couldn't have been the Iraq Liberation Act. The US had launched attacks previously to this (ie: 1996). Seriously, i'm curious if you or anyone knows.

Edited February 28, 2011 by Moonlight Graham

bush_cheney2004 · February 28, 2011

You don't start a freaking war based on a hunch. If "Curveball" and bogus Niger yellowcake is some of the best you've got, reevaluate.

Why not? This hunch had a lot more context than you are admitting. It was not a "bolt out of the blue".

I said "could have", not "should have".

Doesn't matter...it's ironical either way.

Why? Do they know where the WMD's are?

WMD's were a secondary concern....dying conventionally was more of a pressing concern for those already experienced with Saddam. What you are proposing is that the US/UK shoulder the brunt of Saddam's "containment"...indefinitely. Easy to do from Canada.

It was US policy, re: Iraq Liberation Act, to support regime change (ie: Iraqi pro-democracy opposition groups), not to use military action themselves to do so.

Wrong...there was direct US military support and operations in country that you are not aware of.

The Clinton admin claimed (at least to the UNSC) that the 1998 Desert Fox strikes were legitimate because Saddam broke previous UN resolutions. Which one these resolutions affirmed the right of the US/UK to launch attacks if Saddam didn't comply to end-of-war terms etc.? (seriously, i'm asking).

UNSC Resolution 687, which Saddam was confirmed to have been in "material breach" of by UNSCOM. Confirmed in UNSCR 1441.

There seemed to have been controversy over launching such attacks without UNSC approval, and without US Congress approval. What was the Clinton admins' claimed reason for legitimacy to Congress? It certainly couldn't have been the Iraq Liberation Act. The US had launched attacks previously to this (ie: 1996). Seriously, i'm curious if you or anyone knows.

Read Clinton's speech and decide for yourself:

http://articles.cnn.com/1998-12-16/politics/1998_12_16_transcripts_clinton_1_saddam-hussein-unscom-iraq-strike/3?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS

Sir Bandelot · February 28, 2011

Why? Do they know where the WMD's are?

Yes. The Kurds were gassed by Hussein, and died in large quantities.

"The provision of chemical precursors from United States companies to Iraq was enabled by a Ronald Reagan administration policy that removed Iraq from the State Department's list of State Sponsors of Terrorism.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42293000/jpg/_42293264_saddam_getty.jpg

bush_cheney2004 · February 28, 2011

....The civilian casualties of the 1991 war are not even comparable, a few thousand are estimated. Never good, but the war was at least legitimate in that Iraq had invaded another country. The 2003 war was a preventive war (not "preemptive"), which is illegal under international law, as if that means anything anyways.

Listing all the "disgusts" i have would take far too long.

Clearly you are very misinformed on the entire continuum of actions against and by Iraq during and after the Gulf War, but also choose to ignore Canada's role in those actions. Hence your "disgust" is relegated to personal rantings established far after the fact, and are of no consequence.

Now run along and continue being another tiny bolt that keeps the machine turning.

I would have anyway....your personal disgust isn't much of a deterrence! I mean...really?

Edited February 28, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

bush_cheney2004 · February 28, 2011

Yes. The Kurds were gassed by Hussein, and died in large quantities.

"The provision of chemical precursors from United States companies to Iraq was enabled by a Ronald Reagan administration policy that removed Iraq from the State Department's list of State Sponsors of Terrorism.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42293000/jpg/_42293264_saddam_getty.jpg

Actually, such pre-cursors, binary munitions, delivery systems and other weapons came from many nations, including Canada. As DoP has reported many times, the bulk of the weapons came from Russia, France, and China (>80%)

Imported weapons to Iraq (IRQ) in 1973-2002 (Source: SIPRI)


Imported weapons to Iraq (IRQ) in 1973-2002

Country $MM USD 1990 % Total 
USSR 25145 57.26 
France 5595 12.74 
China 5192 11.82 
Czechoslovakia 2880 6.56 
Poland 1681 3.83 
Brazil 724 1.65 
Egypt 568 1.29 
Romania 524 1.19 
Denmark 226 0.51 
Libya 200 0.46 
USA 200 0.46 
South Africa 192 0.44 
Austria 190 0.43 
Switzerland 151 0.34 
Yugoslavia 107 0.24 
Germany (FRG) 84 0.19 
Italy 84 0.19 
UK 79 0.18 
Hungary 30 0.07 
Spain 29 0.07 
East Germany (GDR) 25 0.06 
Canada 7 0.02 
Jordan 2 0.005 
Total 43915 100.0

Edited February 28, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

DogOnPorch · February 28, 2011

Actually, such pre-cursors, binary munitions, delivery systems and other weapons came from many nations, including Canada. As DoP has reported many times, the bulk of the weapons came from Russia, France, and China (>80%)

Imported weapons to Iraq (IRQ) in 1973-2002 (Source: SIPRI)
Imported weapons to Iraq (IRQ) in 1973-2002

Country $MM USD 1990 % Total 
USSR 25145 57.26 
France 5595 12.74 
China 5192 11.82 
Czechoslovakia 2880 6.56 
Poland 1681 3.83 
Brazil 724 1.65 
Egypt 568 1.29 
Romania 524 1.19 
Denmark 226 0.51 
Libya 200 0.46 
USA 200 0.46 
South Africa 192 0.44 
Austria 190 0.43 
Switzerland 151 0.34 
Yugoslavia 107 0.24 
Germany (FRG) 84 0.19 
Italy 84 0.19 
UK 79 0.18 
Hungary 30 0.07 
Spain 29 0.07 
East Germany (GDR) 25 0.06 
Canada 7 0.02 
Jordan 2 0.005 
Total 43915 100.0 

As well, the majority of Saddam's VX nerve agent precursors came from an United Arab Emirates owned company in Singapore of all places: the Kim Al-Khaleej company. Never did find that pile o' stuff...est 5,000 tons. As I've also said countless times here on MLW, it's probably buried in Iraq or long since shipped to Syria.

eyeball · February 28, 2011

Actually, such pre-cursors, binary munitions, delivery systems and other weapons came from many nations, including Canada. As DoP has reported many times, the bulk of the weapons came from Russia, France, and China (>80%)

Great, fellow super-rogues from the U.N.'s insecurity council.

We should be deeply ashamed of our association with any of them.

Edited February 28, 2011 by eyeball

bush_cheney2004 · February 28, 2011

Great, fellow super-rogues from the U.N.'s insecurity council.

We should be deeply ashamed of our association with any of them.

Yes, but only if it's important for you to have such shame, even as you enjoy the economic and political "association".

DogOnPorch · February 28, 2011

Great, fellow super-rogues from the U.N.'s insecurity council.

We should be deeply ashamed of our association with any of them.

Hardly. Saddam used American insecticide/herbicide products supposedly meant to be used in agriculture...feeding Iraqis...and instead experimented with them in his chemical weapons program. But sure...America is evil blah, blah, blah.

eyeball · March 1, 2011

Yes, but only if it's important for you to have such shame, even as you enjoy the economic and political "association".

No, I'm quite certain I'm suffering the economic and political association. It's not been particularly enjoyable at all really.

eyeball · March 1, 2011

Hardly. Saddam used American insecticide/herbicide products supposedly meant to be used in agriculture...feeding Iraqis...and instead experimented with them in his chemical weapons program.

So ignorance and incompetence is America's official excuse or is that just your apology?

But sure...America is evil blah, blah, blah.

If a foo shits as they say...

DogOnPorch · March 1, 2011

So ignorance and incompetence is America's official excuse or is that just your apology?

If a foo shits as they say...

My apology?

:lol:

Sir Bandelot · March 1, 2011

Actually, such pre-cursors, binary munitions, delivery systems and other weapons came from many nations, including Canada. As DoP has reported many times, the bulk of the weapons came from Russia, France, and China (>80%)

Imported weapons to Iraq (IRQ) in 1973-2002 (Source: SIPRI)
Imported weapons to Iraq (IRQ) in 1973-2002

Country $MM USD 1990 % Total 
USSR 25145 57.26 
France 5595 12.74 
China 5192 11.82 
Czechoslovakia 2880 6.56 
Poland 1681 3.83 
Brazil 724 1.65 
Egypt 568 1.29 
Romania 524 1.19 
Denmark 226 0.51 
Libya 200 0.46 
USA 200 0.46 
South Africa 192 0.44 
Austria 190 0.43 
Switzerland 151 0.34 
Yugoslavia 107 0.24 
Germany (FRG) 84 0.19 
Italy 84 0.19 
UK 79 0.18 
Hungary 30 0.07 
Spain 29 0.07 
East Germany (GDR) 25 0.06 
Canada 7 0.02 
Jordan 2 0.005 
Total 43915 100.0 

It's a good list. Well at least we're near the bottom so that gives me a smug sense of superiority.

How about this claim-

"I was born in Kirkuk, the major Kurdish city in Iraq. In 1974, when I was twelve, the U.S. government encouraged the Kurdish people to rise up against Saddam Hussein. My family joined the struggle against Saddam, but the United States betrayed us by signing the Algiers treaty with Saddam and Kissinger. My people were brutally massacred by the Baathist government, while the United States and other European countries helped Saddam procure the weapons and chemicals he used on us. The helicopters that bombed us while we were fleeing Kirkuk were US helicopters."

http://www.peacepalpitations.com/article.html

I have heard things like this before, and that US fighter jets were ordered nt to engage, but could only observe the massacre from a distance.

True, or not?