Originally Posted By ElKay In Sunday's LA Times there is an investigative article that traces one of the sources that the Bush Admin used to make a hysterically false case to invade Iraq. <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/la-na-curveball20nov20" target="_blank">http://www.latimes.com/news/pr intedition/la-na-curveball20nov20</a>,0,943136.story?track=hpmostemailedlink >> BERLIN — The German intelligence officials responsible for one of the most important informants on Saddam Hussein's suspected weapons of mass destruction say that the Bush administration and the CIA repeatedly exaggerated his claims during the run-up to the war in Iraq. Five senior officials from Germany's Federal Intelligence Service, or BND, said in interviews with The Times that they warned U.S. intelligence authorities that the source, an Iraqi defector code-named Curveball, never claimed to produce germ weapons and never saw anyone else do so. ADVERTISEMENT According to the Germans, President Bush mischaracterized Curveball's information when he warned before the war that Iraq had at least seven mobile factories brewing biological poisons. Then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell also misstated Curveball's accounts in his prewar presentation to the United Nations on Feb. 5, 2003, the Germans said. Curveball's German handlers for the last six years said his information was often vague, mostly secondhand and impossible to confirm. "This was not substantial evidence," said a senior German intelligence official. "We made clear we could not verify the things he said." The German authorities, speaking about the case for the first time, also said that their informant suffered from emotional and mental problems. "He is not a stable, psychologically stable guy," said a BND official who supervised the case. "He is not a completely normal person," agreed a BND analyst. Curveball was the chief source of inaccurate prewar U.S. accusations that Baghdad had biological weapons, a commission appointed by Bush reported this year. The commission did not interview Curveball, who still insists his story was true, or the German officials who handled his case. << >> The White House, for example, ignored evidence gathered by United Nations weapons inspectors shortly before the war that disproved Curveball's account. Bush and his aides issued increasingly dire warnings about Iraq's biological weapons before the war even though intelligence from Curveball had not changed in two years. At the Central Intelligence Agency, officials embraced Curveball's account even though they could not confirm it or interview him until a year after the invasion. They ignored multiple warnings about his reliability before the war, punished in-house critics who provided proof that he had lied and refused to admit error until May 2004, 14 months after the invasion. << The depth and breath of this article as well as it's (belated) significance to public understanding of exactly how intelligence was misused makes this article a sure candidate of a Pulitzer for investigative reporting. This article shows that the CIA was notified about this Iraqi informant by the German intelligence service BEFORE Bush's election and well before 9/11. The CIA was in fact actively following up on these tips about Bio weaponry assessments under Saddam. This is exactly what a prudent intelligence agency should be expected to do. The main problem is that very little of what Curveball said could have been independently verified as well as the suspect nature of the informant credibility. Once the Bush Admin. made the decision to go to war according to the leaked Downing St. memo, back in the summer of 2002, the Bush Admin. essentially developed evidence to support their decisions, instead of assessing the most realiable evidence, then formulating a response to eliminate the consequences found in that evidence. Essentially, the Bush Admin. "placed the cart before the horse" by using weak evidence to justify their already decided upon course of action. IMO, Bush lied by using the most sensational evidence they could find regardless if it could be verified or determine if the source was reliable. This fact was proved by the shoddy manner that they treated Sect'y. of State, Powell when he was asked to use his credibility to make the case for war before the UN Security Council. By not informing Powell that Curveball's allegations had serious problems, the CIA pretty much furthered Bush's political goals, rather than the national interests of the country. They also hoodwinked Powell by allowing him to rely on weak or noncredible evidence to mislead the SC to vote to authorize getting tougher on Saddam. If the LAT's article is proved to be accurate on most of the key allegations, and the Bush Admin did not include the doubts expressed by the German intelligence debriefers, then at least every CIA supervisor up to former Director Tenant should be tried for malfeasence or Congress should file articles of impeachment for falsely using suspect evidence to mislead Congress into voting for the use of military force against Saddam. Let the Admin make their case in the well of the Senate on national TV how they came to use faulty and false rationals to send the country to war. Arguing that getting rid of Saddam justified any means necessary to further than end. Taking that line of thinking would be 100 times more detremental to American democracy, because it would set a precidence that any President could justify lying to the Congress and public because he honestly believed that what he was doing was in the national interest. Any President owes the Congress a truthful rational for all of his actions as chief executive, especially in the decision to go to war. Making policy by deception is surely the way to end our liberties and our rights as Americans.
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> This fact was proved by the shoddy manner that they treated Sect'y. of State, Powell when he was asked to use his credibility to make the case for war before the UN Security Council. << Don't shed too many tears over powell. He had reason to know that the aluminum tubes could not be used for enrichment, but he said it anyway. He was on the "inside" and knew exactly what was happening. He had even less reason to believe his own presentation than the rest of the public, and he chose to step in front of the UN (and the TV cameras) and say what he did - >> My colleagues, every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. What we're giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence. << He lied. And he knew it at the time. >> Essentially, the Bush Admin. "placed the cart before the horse" by using weak evidence to justify their already decided upon course of action. << That's it in a nutshell. But one of the odder aspects is that bush himself didn't seem to have this urgent priority about iraq and saddam until after he managed to squeeze himself into the white house through the "back entrance" (the supreme court). He was governor of texas, what does he know about foreign policy and international diplomacy? I believe it was bush doing the bidding of the "donors" - those who arranged for him to become president in the first place. This wasn't "his idea" - it was him playing the role as written for him.
Originally Posted By ElKay "Don't shed too many tears over powell. He had reason to know that the aluminum tubes could not be used for enrichment, but he said it anyway. He was on the "inside" and knew exactly what was happening. He had even less reason to believe his own presentation than the rest of the public, and he chose to step in front of the UN (and the TV cameras) and say what he did -" My take on Powell was that he was the most qualified person to be Sect'y. of State, but he was not truely considered an "insider" by the Bushies. Unlike Michael Brownie or Harriet Miers, Powell was looked upon as someone who had loyalities beyond the close circle of Bush lackeys-- essentially the military establishment. Recall, for the months before 9/11 and afterwards, Powell was constantly being put in his "place" by Cheney or Condi. Usually, the Sect'y. of State is given free rein by most admins. to speak on behalf of the President's in the area of foreign policy. This was not the case with the Bush Admin. Powell was held on a tight leash, essentially just another ambassador. IMO, Powell was USED by the Bushies to burnish the rickety arguments for ousting Saddam before the Security Council. To his credit, Powell did throw out the most blatant arguments in favor of what could be argued as reasonable evidence or at worse disputed opinions of the threat. Regardless, his reputation (very dear to a guy like Powell) is pretty much trashed and the guy back in the 1990's who was thought to have the best chance of being the first Black President has pretty much no chance at all. Powell's an institutional sort of guy, coming from the military. Instead of throwing up his hands, resigning then writing a tell all book, like the former Treasury Sect'y. Powell decided to suck up his anger and do his duty. I'm not saying Powell didn't know that a lot of what was presented to him as fact was plain wrong, but Powell did what the President told him to do and he did it. I'm sorely disappointed with Powell for being the "good soldier" and perfoming the dirty work of the Bush Admin. I think he'll be judged in a poor light if more of the justifications for war are proved false whether or not we get out of Iraq sooner or later.
