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

[bush_cheney2004]

....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?

Revisionist history....in 1974, Iraq was clearly in the Soviet Union's sphere of influence and Saddam Hussein had not yet completed consolidation of power. See Barzani Revolts and Algiers Pact. Iran was the major external Kurdish support at the time, and there was no policy of "US fighter jets" or any other direct military support in the Kurdistan conflicts. This would come much later after indifference and actual support of Saddam against Iran. Or as they say in the movie...it's complicated.

[eyeball]

You'd better give it as you're the one feeling guilty.

I said ashamed, not guilty.

In the meantime is it safe to assume you do believe an official apology based on pleading ignorance and incompetence would suffice to account for helping Saddam produce WMD?

Who knows, if America can get away with that it should be a snap using it to account for the false pretences used for invading Iraq.

[DogOnPorch]

I said ashamed, not guilty.

In the meantime is it safe to assume you do believe an official apology based on pleading ignorance and incompetence would suffice to account for helping Saddam produce WMD?

Who knows, if America can get away with that it should be a snap using it to account for the false pretences used for invading Iraq.

I'm sad you're ashamed.

The problem with folks like you...you're not alone...is that you treat every other nation on the planet as if they are children with no will of their own. It's always 'western backed this' or 'CIA led that'.

[eyeball]

I'm sad you're ashamed.

The problem with folks like you...you're not alone...is that you treat every other nation on the planet as if they are children with no will of their own. It's always 'western backed this' or 'CIA led that'.

Not always, but certainly enough during the last 50 or so years to be really ashamed.

As for maltreating other nations like they were children, the most powerful countries who have diddled weaker countries around the world have been much like powerful adults who diddle weaker kids. The result in both examples is widespread dysfunction and denial.

In this regard you're like someone who's always apologizing for a perverted priesthood or other institution of authority that should know better than to abuse others. That's the problem with folks like you.

[DogOnPorch]

Not always, but certainly enough during the last 50 or so years to be really ashamed.

As for maltreating other nations like they were children, the most powerful countries who have diddled weaker countries around the world have been much like powerful adults who diddle weaker kids. The result in both examples is widespread dysfunction and denial.

See?

In this regard you're like someone who's always apologizing for a perverted priesthood or other institution of authority that should know better than to abuse others. That's the problem with folks like you.

Perverted priesthood apologist? That's a new one...especially for an athiest like myself.

[eyeball]

See?

No, what are you looking at?

Perverted priesthood apologist? That's a new one...especially for an athiest like myself.

Or other institution of authority I said. Some atheists are world famous for their utter disregard for human rights, free will and democracy.

[GostHacked]

I'm sad you're ashamed.

The problem with folks like you...you're not alone...is that you treat every other nation on the planet as if they are children with no will of their own. It's always 'western backed this' or 'CIA led that'.

I guess invading those child like countries is the only solution then eh?

[Moonlight Graham]

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

Why not? Guesses often lead to being wrong, as was the Bush admin and their complete embarrassment of finding nothing. You know what happens when you assume...

Yes yes their hunches had context, Iran-Iraq War, Kurds, Gulf War, scuttling UNSCOM etc., discoveries of chemical/bio post-Gulf I, Saddam’s “admissions” of bio/chem etc. etc. But what did they know in 2002/2003? Not much obviously. Saddam was like a guy with his hand in his jacket pocket pointing his finger at you pretending to have a gun. Bang!

WMD's were a secondary concern....dying conventionally was more of a pressing concern for those already experienced with Saddam.

And this was a secondary (or third, fourth, fifth?) concern of the U.S.

WMD's, WMD's, WMD's, this is what the majority of ramblings/writings from the neocons hammered on time and again throughout the 90’s. If you want to talk context then this is it. Yes, as you claim, 9/11 was just the excuse the Bush admin needed to invade. The “Project for a New American Century” boys pushed for unilateral regime change via US military invasion since its 1997 inception, and separately long before this, and their concern was the WMD security threat. Neoliberal "spreading democracy" came part-in-parcel but was a secondary concern. I've read many of neocon PNAC's letters/documents/articles and some of Robert Kagan's journal articles, and it's hilarious how similar it all is to the Bush admin rhetoric leading up to the 2003 war. This is of course because the Bush admin was basically PNAC headquarters with a majority of its lead members given posts in the Bush admin, which i'm sure you're aware. Equally hilarious how they disbanded the group in 2006 amidst the sham that was their Iraq War and relaunched under a new name.

Most of those neocons are a bunch of well-educated idiots. They got their wish, the invasion of Iraq & regime change was inevitable once Bush won the 2000 election. They also had to lie ad nauseum to their countrymen, gov't/Congress, and the UN/other governments/the worldwide population to do it. Not to mention completely failing in their own personal WMD guesses, conducting an embarrassingly executed war in Iraq (& Afghanistan), crapping on their constitution, the Gitmo/Abu Ghraib torture b.s. etc. Simply based on their WMD guessings and the execution of the war, they were a clearly incompetent bunch.

Based on your defence and apologizing for these fools and the similar language you use in your arguments, ie: regime change being “the law of the land”, I’m led to believe you had much support for their ideas/actions, and likely thumped for US-led regime change via invasion during the Clinton years. Tell me if I’m wrong.

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.

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

Again, show me the US law pre-Bush that call for direct military operations in Iraq with the purpose of regime change.

You are trying to argue as if Bush was somehow compelled by US public law to go down the course he did. That’s nonsense. You continually cite the Iraq Liberation Act as context for Bush. This was a law that called for support of regime change via US support of Iraqi democratic opposition parties, but Sec.8 specifically stated that the Act did not authorize use of US Armed Forces (except to provide the opposition groups with arms/equipment/education/training).

Clinton did next to nothing to implement the act, Bush didn`t go down this road either. Clinton kept with the containment policy, which was obviously working. Bush went straight for invasion, which his neocon buds Cheney/Rummy/Wolfy/Libby etc. had wanted even long before the 1998 Act. Anyone knows the US-Saddam/Iraq situation has roots that go back many decades (including the 1963 US-backed coup that brought the Ba'athists to power), but the war was all the Bush admin's.

[DogOnPorch]

I guess invading those child like countries is the only solution then eh?

So you agree with the leftist victimhood philosophy. Not a surprise.

[Moonlight Graham]

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.

Canada has had its role in many things, and they certainly aren't immune to my criticisms. But this thread is about Curveball and the WMD lies. If you want to start a new thread about the 1991 war, or the post-war economic sanctions (which Canada strongly supported), or anything else Canada may have been involved in please do.

But what was the Canadian gov's role in carrying out the 2003 war, including the lies? If you find something substantial, i'd honestly be glad to hear it and make my gov accountable. Again, make your own thread if you wish. Beyond some mostly indirect minor involvement, including ships patrolling the Gulf, and a total of a few dozen military officers involved in exchange or working in US facilities in the M.E., the Canadian gov didn't have much involvement in the war.

Edited March 2, 2011 by Moonlight Graham

[GostHacked]

So you agree with the leftist victimhood philosophy. Not a surprise.

Care to expand and explain this and how it refers to me?

[bush_cheney2004]

....Beyond some mostly indirect minor involvement, including ships patrolling the Gulf, and a total of a few dozen military officers involved in exchange or working in US facilities in the M.E., the Canadian gov didn't have much involvement in the war.

Nope...not much at all....sending frigates to the Gulf as part of an American carrier battle group engaged in offensive military strikes is no big deal...happens every day. Certainly doesn't rise to the level of "disgust". Neither do military overflight rights and heavy airlift stops at Canadian bases in support of the invasion and occupation...nah...just business as usual. And as for the depleted uranium used in American munitions, just because it knowingly came from Canada is no reason to blame them.

[bush_cheney2004]

Why not? Guesses often lead to being wrong, as was the Bush admin and their complete embarrassment of finding nothing. You know what happens when you assume...

That's not a problem at all....Bush didn't have the option of sitting on his ass doing nothing in Canada and hoping for the best. PMs Blair and Howard agreed.

Yes yes their hunches had context, Iran-Iraq War, Kurds, Gulf War, scuttling UNSCOM etc., discoveries of chemical/bio post-Gulf I, Saddam’s “admissions” of bio/chem etc. etc. But what did they know in 2002/2003? Not much obviously. Saddam was like a guy with his hand in his jacket pocket pointing his finger at you pretending to have a gun. Bang!

Saddam was found to be in material breach of 1991 surrender instruments. That's a fact....your spin and disgust were/are irrelevant.

And this was a secondary (or third, fourth, fifth?) concern of the U.S.

But not Kuwait...or Jordan...or Israel...or Saudi Arabia.

I've read many of neocon PNAC's letters/documents/articles and some of Robert Kagan's journal articles, and it's hilarious how similar it all is to the Bush admin rhetoric leading up to the 2003 war. This is of course because the Bush admin was basically PNAC headquarters with a majority of its lead members given posts in the Bush admin, which i'm sure you're aware. Equally hilarious how they disbanded the group in 2006 amidst the sham that was their Iraq War and relaunched under a new name.

If you want a thread about the PNAC...then start one.

Most of those neocons are a bunch of well-educated idiots. They got their wish, the invasion of Iraq & regime change was inevitable once Bush won the 2000 election. They also had to lie ad nauseum to their countrymen, gov't/Congress, and the UN/other governments/the worldwide population to do it. Not to mention completely failing in their own personal WMD guesses, conducting an embarrassingly executed war in Iraq (& Afghanistan), crapping on their constitution, the Gitmo/Abu Ghraib torture b.s. etc. Simply based on their WMD guessings and the execution of the war, they were a clearly incompetent bunch.

Yet Saddam is still gone...even if don "incompetently".

Based on your defence and apologizing for these fools and the similar language you use in your arguments, ie: regime change being “the law of the land”, I’m led to believe you had much support for their ideas/actions, and likely thumped for US-led regime change via invasion during the Clinton years. Tell me if I’m wrong.

I'm not apologizing for jack....the United States and United Kingdom had stated polices going back years, with actions to match. Just because Canada lacked the balls and capability to kill Iraqis and Afghans at the same time does not change this.

Again, show me the US law pre-Bush that call for direct military operations in Iraq with the purpose of regime change.

Covert operations are not often codified into federal law...sorry.

You are trying to argue as if Bush was somehow compelled by US public law to go down the course he did. That’s nonsense. You continually cite the Iraq Liberation Act as context for Bush. This was a law that called for support of regime change via US support of Iraqi democratic opposition parties, but Sec.8 specifically stated that the Act did not authorize use of US Armed Forces (except to provide the opposition groups with arms/equipment/education/training).

Too bad...Clinton bombed their asses anyway. Sue him.

Clinton did next to nothing to implement the act, Bush didn`t go down this road either. Clinton kept with the containment policy, which was obviously working. Bush went straight for invasion, which his neocon buds Cheney/Rummy/Wolfy/Libby etc. had wanted even long before the 1998 Act. Anyone knows the US-Saddam/Iraq situation has roots that go back many decades (including the 1963 US-backed coup that brought the Ba'athists to power), but the war was all the Bush admin's.

Now you are just rambling and getting your Google hits confused. I thought you wanted to stick to WMDs only. The containment policy was no longer acceptable post 9/11, and Canada wasn't spending billions per month to enforce the failed policy anyway.

So if I understand your position, it was OK to strangle, starve, and bomb Iraqis for containment, but not to depose Saddam. Got it....

Edited March 2, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

[DogOnPorch]

Care to expand and explain this and how it refers to me?

Meh...you've always been a relativist. Like your mixes though.

Oh...btw....kissy, huggie, Hezbollah!

Cheers.

[Moonlight Graham]

So if I understand your position, it was OK to strangle, starve, and bomb Iraqis for containment, but not to depose Saddam. Got it....

I said that the containment strategy worked, I never said the methods weren't highly flawed and not atrociously inhumane.

My main argument is that the Bush admin orchestrated an organized campaign of lies, deception, and intimidation, among other things, based on fantasy WMD's and terror links in order to receive the support and legality they wanted/needed so they could execute their own neocon dream of regime change via military invasion in Iraq.

If they wanted military invasion, then they should have argued their case based on known facts and reason, not make up BS to frighten people to their side, while assuming all would be ok once they found the WMD’s they were “convinced” Iraq had but just had no proof of.

By doing so they hijacked democracy in their own country & the entire point of separation of powers by deceiving the public and Congress (along with a bogus NIE based on White House intimidation of CIA analysts), & not letting them make up their own minds on the decision for war based on facts. Bush admin also spread its crap to the UN and other govs, not to mention citizenry worldwide whom many put pressure on their govs to join the coalition based on their BS. The stakes ie: hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties makes this even more morally outrageous.

As I’ve stated before, I supported the 2003 invasion based on claims of nuclear capability and I lobbied my gov to join the coalition (though now that im older/wiser my position may have been different if put in the same situation). So the fact the US lied to me and could have resulted in Canada invading Iraq as well had the Liberals not been in power really makes me PO’d.

Those responsible should be held accountable, & my opinion of that is in the OP. You thinking I have “selective disgust” is bogus, one issue at a time. Your butt getting chapped anytime someone criticized your gov/country is also crap, that’s the price of US hegemony; if you can’t take the heat get out of the kitchen.

[bush_cheney2004]

I said that the containment strategy worked, I never said the methods weren't highly flawed and not atrociously inhumane.

Yet you explicitly preferred such policy and method(s) as stated.

My main argument is that the Bush admin orchestrated an organized campaign of lies, deception, and intimidation, among other things, based on fantasy WMD's and terror links in order to receive the support and legality they wanted/needed so they could execute their own neocon dream of regime change via military invasion in Iraq.

Regime change in Iraq was US/UK policy regardless of Bush or "neocons". Don't confuse longstanding objectives with methods.

If they wanted military invasion, then they should have argued their case based on known facts and reason, not make up BS to frighten people to their side, while assuming all would be ok once they found the WMD’s they were “convinced” Iraq had but just had no proof of.

They "wanted" to topple Saddam and modernize Iraq's oil production infrastructure. There were enough facts to win the day, and Saddam helped to provide them by playing inspection games. He was a poor poker player.

By doing so they hijacked democracy in their own country & the entire point of separation of powers by deceiving the public and Congress (along with a bogus NIE based on White House intimidation of CIA analysts), & not letting them make up their own minds on the decision for war based on facts. Bush admin also spread its crap to the UN and other govs, not to mention citizenry worldwide whom many put pressure on their govs to join the coalition based on their BS. The stakes ie: hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties makes this even more morally outrageous.

Again, we have already demonstrated that your righteous concern for dead Iraqis is quite arbitrary. Millions of citizens actually protested the invasion before and after. Bush sought and received more support than was provided for Gulf War I expressly because of the post 9/11 political environment and a non-compliant Saddam Hussein. "Containment" was no longer acceptable.

As I’ve stated before, I supported the 2003 invasion based on claims of nuclear capability and I lobbied my gov to join the coalition (though now that im older/wiser my position may have been different if put in the same situation). So the fact the US lied to me and could have resulted in Canada invading Iraq as well had the Liberals not been in power really makes me PO’d.

Don't feel too badly...Canada was in no position to invade Iraq with anything. Chretien knew that and carefully lobbied his case while sitting on the fence, never really opposing the action like France, Germany, or Russia. The US never lied to you in Canada...Iraq was going to be invaded with or without your "support", and that's exactly what happened.

Those responsible should be held accountable, & my opinion of that is in the OP. You thinking I have “selective disgust” is bogus, one issue at a time. Your butt getting chapped anytime someone criticized your gov/country is also crap, that’s the price of US hegemony; if you can’t take the heat get out of the kitchen.

Quite the opposite....the US will remain "in the kitchen" for a long time. Your disgust and criticism are irrelevant, and those "responsible" for the invasion of Iraq were held accountable by American voters...they were re-elected in 2004. Internalizing the affairs and policies of other nations if they conflict with your own belief system is a matter for you to settle, not the United States or United Kingdom. As they say...."Lead, follow, or get out of the way"....and we know what Canada did in the case of the invasion of Iraq.

[dmjust2000]

Yet you explicitly preferred such policy and method(s) as stated.

Regime change in Iraq was US/UK policy regardless of Bush or "neocons". Don't confuse longstanding objectives with methods.

They "wanted" to topple Saddam and modernize Iraq's oil production infrastructure. There were enough facts to win the day, and Saddam helped to provide them by playing inspection games. He was a poor poker player.

Again, we have already demonstrated that your righteous concern for dead Iraqis is quite arbitrary. Millions of citizens actually protested the invasion before and after. Bush sought and received more support than was provided for Gulf War I expressly because of the post 9/11 political environment and a non-compliant Saddam Hussein. "Containment" was no longer acceptable.

Don't feel too badly...Canada was in no position to invade Iraq with anything. Chretien knew that and carefully lobbied his case while sitting on the fence, never really opposing the action like France, Germany, or Russia. The US never lied to you in Canada...Iraq was going to be invaded with or without your "support", and that's exactly what happened.

Quite the opposite....the US will remain "in the kitchen" for a long time. Your disgust and criticism are irrelevant, and those "responsible" for the invasion of Iraq were held accountable by American voters...they were re-elected in 2004. Internalizing the affairs and policies of other nations if they conflict with your own belief system is a matter for you to settle, not the United States or United Kingdom. As they say...."Lead, follow, or get out of the way"....and we know what Canada did in the case of the invasion of Iraq.

we do not acknowledge your BABBLE....

[Jack Weber]

we do not acknowledge your BABBLE....

"Babble"...

Well...That explains eveything now...

You're a refugee from Bedwetter.ca!!

"We do not acknowledge your silly justifications for the misunderstanding of Joseph Stalin!!"

[dmjust2000]

Jack Weber - as we said, you are going to be TORTURED AND EXECUTED, fucker...

[Jack Weber]

More cowardly tauntings from an internet warrior!!!

Answer the very simple questions...

Or simply leave!!

[bloodyminded]

Meh...you've always been a relativist.

This from a man who defends and supports terrorism...so long as his personal Jesus, the USA, is responsible for it.

Awesome.

[DogOnPorch]

This from a man who defends and supports terrorism...so long as his personal Jesus, the USA, is responsible for it.

Awesome.

USA! USA! USA!

[bush_cheney2004]

USA! USA! USA!

:) They hate that!

[DogOnPorch]

:) They hate that!

They can all suck my Florida.

[bloodyminded]

Ah, it's so sweet that our little American tantrum-thrower has his shivery liitle Canadian sycophant.

Hopefully Corey and Trevor didn't get too stoned to Support the Troops.