You are herecontent / Video of Curveball Admitting He Lied
Video of Curveball Admitting He Lied
Defector admits to WMD lies that triggered Iraq war - The Guardian
• 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
Live Q&A with our reporter Martin Chulov
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.
"Maybe I was right, maybe I was not right," he said. "They gave me this chance. I had the chance to fabricate something to topple the regime. I and my sons are proud of that and we are proud that we were the reason to give Iraq the margin of democracy."
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.
The careers of both men were seriously damaged by their use of Janabi's claims, which he now says could have been – and were – discredited well before Powell's landmark speech to the UN on 5 February 2003.
The former CIA chief in Europe Tyler Drumheller describes Janabi's admission as "fascinating", and said the emergence of the truth "makes me feel better". "I think there are still a number of people who still thought there was something in that. Even now," said Drumheller.
In the only other at length interview Janabi has given he denied all knowledge of his supposed role in helping the US build a case for invading Saddam's Iraq.
In a series of meetings with the Guardian in Germany where he has been granted asylum, he said he had told a German official, who he identified as Dr Paul, about mobile bioweapons trucks throughout 2000. He said the BND had identified him as a Baghdad-trained chemical engineer and approached him shortly after 13 March of that year, looking for inside information about Saddam's Iraq.
"I had a problem with the Saddam regime," he said. "I wanted to get rid of him and now I had this chance."
He portrays the BND as gullible and so eager to tease details from him that they gave him a Perry's Chemical Engineering Handbook to help communicate. He still has the book in his small, rented flat in Karlsruhe, south-west Germany.
"They were asking me about pumps for filtration, how to make detergent after the reaction," he said. "Any engineer who studied in this field can explain or answer any question they asked."
Janabi claimed he was first exposed as a liar as early as mid-2000, when the BND travelled to a Gulf city, believed to be Dubai, to speak with his former boss at the Military Industries Commission in Iraq, Dr Bassil Latif.
The Guardian has learned separately that British intelligence officials were at that meeting, investigating a claim made by Janabi that Latif's son, who was studying in Britain, was procuring weapons for Saddam.
That claim was proven false, and Latif strongly denied Janabi's claim of mobile bioweapons trucks and another allegation that 12 people had died during an accident at a secret bioweapons facility in south-east Baghdad.
The German officials returned to confront him with Latif's version. "He says, 'There are no trucks,' and I say, 'OK, when [Latif says] there no trucks then [there are none],'" Janabi recalled.
He said the BND did not contact him again until the end of May 2002. But he said it soon became clear that he was still being taken seriously.
He claimed the officials gave him an incentive to speak by implying that his then pregnant Moroccan-born wife may not be able to travel from Spain to join him in Germany if he did not co-operate with them. "He says, you work with us or your wife and child go to Morocco."
The meetings continued throughout 2002 and it became apparent to Janabi that a case for war was being constructed. He said he was not asked again about the bioweapons trucks until a month before Powell's speech.
After the speech, Janabi said he called his handler at the BND and accused the secret service of breaking an agreement that they would not share anything he had told them with another country. He said he was told not to speak and placed in confinement for around 90 days.
With the US now leaving Iraq, Janabi said he was comfortable with what he did, despite the chaos of the past eight years and the civilian death toll in Iraq, which stands at more than 100,000.
"I tell you something when I hear anybody – not just in Iraq but in any war – [is] killed, I am very sad. But give me another solution. Can you give me another solution?
"Believe me, there was no other way to bring about freedom to Iraq. There were no other possibilities."
- Login to post comments
-
- Email this page
- Printer-friendly version
give him a book deal
Tens of thousands of lives lost, tens of thousands are maimed, millions turned into refugee's, thousands of foreign invasion and occupation troops killed and maimed, hatreds enhanced thus who knows how many will seek blowback in the coming years or decades, a country destroyed and a whole generation of youngsters who grew up among the carnage and death................................one can go on and on, and for what purpose was all this terror reigned down on innocent beings!!
Telling the lies those who sought the destruction wanted to hear!!
Maybe he's just an extreme idiot, and heartless, to empty-headed to be able to have a connected heart, rather than "scum". Now if he was clearly of Washington sort of character, then I'd agree with "scum" for description.
Blowback? I'm not worried about that, neither from Iraqis nor Afghans. I'm only worried about what's been criminally done and continues to be criminally done to these people and their countries. Concerns about blowback certainly won't prevent me from one minute of sleep.
Why?
Well, ya see, I perceive Iraqis and Afghans as people who simply want to not be aggressed, who want to be able to live their lives, raise their families, have sufficient income for living, and live in peace as much as possible. And, sure, they had need for government, political reforms, but these countries are certainly far from being unique in this respect. And they urgently need good reforms today, but clearly aren't about to get these. That's also not unique to these two countries, but it's especially heartbreaking after what they've been put through and continue to be put through because of US-made, "made in USA" wars of aggression, aka against peace.
Before wanting revenge, they want to be able to govern themselves. They want respect for their rights from both national and international powers. This is their greatest concern. And it's URGENT.
If some Iraqis seek revenge, then it will not likely be in the US or in European countries. I suppose it'd be most likely carried out against US forces and possibly embassies in and near Iraq.
The want foreign forces to withdraw and to have governments that are just. It's what they want and need, both. If they get this, then acts of revenge will be extremely few, if there are any; I believe.
To me, the blowback idea is too much like fearmongering. Instead, I prefer to think about the main issues; as per above.
Maybe, however, there'll be some real blowback for or against Curveball, now that the whole world can hear his testimony and his extremely heartless regard for the real Iraqi victims of this war. There may be a good number of Iraqis, including Shia, who'd like to get a shot at him even if he was, is and will always be a scapegoat for Washington.
Hey kidz!! Can you spot what's missing here in this video and article???
I'll give you a hint . .. it's also missing in this article:
(clipped headline and article from Israel's The Jerusalem Post)
"Report: Defector admits WMD lies initiated Iraq war - Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi, the defector who had convinced the George W. Bush administration that Iraq had a secret biological weapons program, admitted to British news daily the Guardian that he fabricated his tales. Janabi, codenamed Curveball by American intelligence officials working with him, concoted details about mobile bioweapons trucks and secret factories"
(full story)
http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=208367
Give up???
Notice there is NO MENTION anywhere of the "Niger Yellowcake Forgeries" . . .
Bush, Jr's own "babies in incubators" BIG LIE . . .
. . . nor is there any mention of Mr. Michael "Israel-Iran-Contra" Ledeen!!! . ..
. . . ooopsie . .. editorial oversight, I'm sure . . . ;-)
Flashback to October 20, 2005:
(clipped headline and article from Anti-War)
"Niger Uranium Forgery Mystery Solved? - Amid all the brouhaha over whether I. Lewis 'Scooter' Libby, Karl Rove, or any number of Bush administration insiders had a hand in leaking the name of covert CIA agent Valerie Plame, the essential crime at the core of the investigation – and its probable starting point – often gets lost in the shuffle. . . the former CIA officer tells me: 'Previous versions of the report were redacted and had all the names removed, though it was possible to guess who was involved. This version names Michael Ledeen as the conduit for the report and indicates that former CIA officers Duane Clarridge and Alan Wolf were the principal forgers.'"
(full story)
http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2005/10/19/niger-uranium-forgery-myst...
What else do you NOT see, kidz???
Anyone see any mention of Zionist Neo-Cons Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, or Charles Krauthammer???
No, we see the usual "Shabbat Goy" scape goats . . . George W. Bush, Tony Blair . . . and Iraqi "I Did It For My People" . . . Mr. "Curveball" . . . ;-)
Flashback to May 2004 kidz . . . Remember Senator Ernest Hollings?
(clip to headline and article from Institute For Historical Review)
"Iraq: A War For Israel - . . . So if the official reasons given for the war were untrue, why did the United States attack Iraq?
Whatever the secondary reasons for the war, the crucial factor in President Bush’s decision to attack was to help Israel. With support from Israel and America’s Jewish-Zionist lobby, and prodded by Jewish 'neo-conservatives' holding high-level positions in his administration, President Bush – who was already fervently committed to Israel – resolved to invade and subdue one of Israel’s chief regional enemies.
This is so widely understood in Washington that US Senator Ernest Hollings was moved in May 2004 to acknowledge that the US invaded Iraq 'to secure Israel,' and 'everybody' knows it. He also identified three of the influential pro-Israel Jews in Washington who played an important role in prodding the US into war: Richard Perle, chair of the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board; Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Defense Secretary; and Charles Krauthammer, columnist and author."
(full story)
http://www.ihr.org/leaflets/iraqwar.shtml
When asked if he would do it again, Curveball's response reminded me of Zionist Madeleine "Anything Is Worth It For Israel" Albright's comments in her 12 May 1996 CBS "Sixty Minutes" interview entitled, "Punishing Saddam":
(link to video - approx. 30 seconds)
"Madeleine Albright Defends Mass-Murder of 500,000 Iraqi Children"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4PgpbQfxgo
Well, maybe "Curveball" should get good ol' Alan "Torture Is Kosher Ipse Dixit" Dershowitz for his legal counsel . . .
. . . just to make sure that none of these bothersome "Israeli Links" show up anywhere . . . ;-)
Isn't that what Alan "Torture Is Kosher Ipse Dixit" Dershowitz is doing with Julian "9-11 Truthers Are Irritating" Assange and Zio-Leaks??? . . . ;-)
(clipped headline and article from The Harvard Crimson)
"Dershowitz Joins Legal Team for Wikileaks - Harvard Law School Professor Alan M. Dershowitz will join Wikileaks founder Julian P. Assange’s legal defense team, according to a Wikileaks statement released yesterday. Dershowitz told The Crimson that he will serve in an advisory position and said he does not expect a more active role unless the U.S. were to prosecute Assange."
(full story)
http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2011/2/15/dershowitz-case-wikileaks-new/
Yup, "Curveball" definitely tossed WE THE PEOPLE a few bad pitches . . .
. . . but I don't think the Zionist propagandists that keep trying to scrub TRUTH and rewrite history . . .
. . . have caught on to the FACT that WE THE PEOPLE are keeping our "eye on the ball" now . . .
. . . OR that the PNAC Neo-Con "Glory Days" of Zionism are OVER!!! . . . ;-)
"I had a friend was a big baseball player
Back in high school
He could throw that speedball by you
Make you look like a fool boy
Saw him the other night at this roadside bar
I was walking in and he was walking out
We went back inside sat down, had a few drinks
but all he kept talking about was
Glory days
Well they'll pass you by"
- "Glory Days" by Bruce Springsteen
peace.
I think your post provides background information that's of value about WMD fabrication and story-fabricators, but don't agree with everything you posted, not 100% anyway.
That's story-telling that many Americans believe in a hardcore manner and that doesn't make the story true. Many Americans still believe that AA 77 didn't hit the Pentagon on 9/11 and some, many or else all of these Americans refer to James Fetzer for this belief that 911review.com provides certainly sufficient proof of being false. And many of these Americans are those or among those incessantly claiming that Israel and AIPAC control Washington without actually being able to provide more than superficial evidence of Israeli influence. When that influence [appears] to be effective, then these Americans can't or refuse to analyze and explain precisely why and/or how. It could happen just because it suits the purpose of people who appear to have been influenced, but this possibility is never considered.
While Israel would profit from the US leading war on Iraq, Israel was not the primary reason for the war, and Washington wanting to war on Iraq didn't start with the Bush administration. There was a strong desire during the Clinton administration to unleash the US war machine on Iraq, to get rid of Saddam Hussein and his government or regime.
The war's primary purpose is geostrategic positioning of US military power and, thereby, US political power, as well as for control of some of the Earth's richest oil reserves. It's geopolitics, geostrategy, and economics (racket kind). And as some people have said, it's not necessarily for profiting the oil industry corporations; it's for controlling the prices on the world market for oil. Controlling supply, vs demand, permits controlling prices.
Zbigniew Brzezinski's book, "The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy And It's Geostrategic Imperatives", illustrates what these wars are about. They're part of the plan for global dominance, and Israel "benefits" by being a specially located and powerful military ally.
Saddam Hussein wasn't an enemy of Israel, because he couldn't have warred on any country after the criminal US and UNSC destroyed Iraq. A former enemy rendered a non-threat no longer really is an enemy and the US and criminal UNSC could've kept Iraq a non-threat quite indefinitely. Israeli leaders probably still wanted to exact additional revenge. They're psychopaths! But this was not the primary purpose of the war.
I've never read or heard anyone other than a segment of Americans pushing the story about the war on Iraq having been for Israel. It's a story that I've only found Americans stating. James Petras has said it as well, but he's never been able to provide actual, hard proof. Like all of the others, what I've read by him on this topic strikes me as speaking of or describing [appearances] and those can be misleading. They can also be arranged, stage-managed.
It's evidently true that they're Jewish or called Jewish, but they aren't the masters of Washington, and it's easy for someone like Senator Hollings to say what he did without it representing the real or main purpose of the war. MANY Americans claim that Israel is the main reason. It's a very popular claim and belief, but that doesn't make it accurate. However, and because of its widespread national popularity, it can be something members of the Senate and Congress can use; either because they also believe these claims, or for covering up the people most responsible for US foreign policy, war policy anyway.
There's a lot more to the real and main purpose of these wars than Israeli leadership's desires. And the top criminal elites won't make themselves public stage actors like the Zionist lunatics in the US do; or if and when the top tier criminals do present themselves publicly, then it will not be in lunatic ways like those of AIPAC and Zionists of the US, as well as Dick Cheney. Top tier, and I mean the [top], criminals do not go around making themselves and their criminal desires or plans publicly known. They can be publicly known as citizens, but they will always avoid making their undeniably criminal desires and activities public.
There are surely Jews among those top tier criminals, but I doubt that they're all Jews. And the Jews among these people or elites possibly don't take any public part in the public criminality of AIPAC and Israeli leadership. The criminality of those two parties is regularly PUBLIC, placed right in our faces; made obvious.
The US foreign policy that underlies the present wars lead by the US is global domination by the US and that definitely is not for or because of Israel. And it's not only these wars. It's also Washington dominance with many governments headed by dictators, et cetera, and who are allied, say, with Washington; Egypt and Saudi Arabia, f.e.
While I despise AIPAC and likes, extremely despising them and believing that all of their members should either be deported or else imprisoned, we have to carefully consider US foreign policy on the [global] scale that it has; militarily, economically and, therefore, politically. There is absolutely no way that even a quarter of it is for Israel. The war on Iraq is for the same reason; geostrategic, geopolitical, economic, military global domination.
In rackets, all parties allied with the winning side profit, but allies don't make all of the parties equal leaders in or of the rackets.
The top tier criminals can go along with suggestions made by prodders, but the former won't do this unless it suits their purpose. If it doesn't suit their purpose, then the prodders will either take a back seat, completely, or get dropped off, like at the nearest street corner, say.
The war on Iraq, planning for it, began before the Bush administration and people have written about this fact. The strategic need to get rid of Saddam Hussein and his government was pretty much set long (enough anyway) before the Bush administration. And this also wasn't for Israel. It's for Washington control, dominance.
But the top tier Washington criminals, who aren't politicians, for they have far more profitable things to do with their criminal lives than to become mere politicians, who are controlled by the former, or the former certainly have extremely strong controlling influence over them anyway, well, they are the deciders. And the Zionists happen to be "convenient" stage-acting lunatics who are so lunatic on the stage that they have given many Americans the impression that these lunatics control Washington. I see the appearances, but without letting these blind me about the global dominance plan, which really is very obvious.
Americans who claim that the war on Iraq is primarily for Israel and that Israel and its lobby(ies) in the US control Washington's foreign policies hardly ever, if ever at all, give the subject of the plan for global dominance any treatment, besides ignoring it, that is. And it's not a subject that can be responsibly ignored.
There are Zionists, i.e., pro-Israel, people in US politics, but they aren't the real decision makers. And they're so well publicly known and obvious in their criminal lunacy that a just court of law could either order the deportation or else incarceration of these criminals. It's starkly different from the top tier criminals, the real deciders of Washington's policies. Those people stay hidden. As some people have basically said about the CFR, the public doesn't realize the evil nature of this group or organization. The top tier people of the CFR stay hidden. They're not the public speakers; or mostly not anyway. And that's much enough like the CIA, which is extremely criminal, because of a relatively small number of the CIA people of the ops branch, or whatever the two branches or divisions are called. The public doesn't see these people and what they do is kept as secret as possible, including from members, officers or agents of the agency. The analytical branch comes up with good NIE's, f.e., but we can easily note that these are given little to no real, effective weight. Those officers or agents, like the honest people in the ops branch, give the public a nice facade or view of the CIA. The criminal group in the CIA uses this innocent public facade to hide behind.
Washington is controlled by a rich and powerful [oligarchy], and I will guess that plenty of them don't care about Israel, except for its strategic military value to the US.
Global domination is about EMPIRE and this empire is not for Israel, but Israeli leaders will profit as long as they're allies. The US and EU could drop their support for Israel, which would be left extremely isolated, but this would be counter-strategic for the top tier criminals controlling Washington and who aim for global dominance; politically, militarily, economically.
They want economic dominance, but not for most Americans. They want it for themselves. Hence, they can sacrifice American consumers because Americans constitute maybe 5% of the world population. They cause depressions and booms while always profiting, a lot. There is no political border for them. They will profit in the US or elsewhere. They don't work for the US or any particular country. They work for themselves.
Zbigniew Brzezinski's book has the focus of gaining dominance in Asia, central and eastern Asia, but if we consider that along with criminal US foreign policies in Africa, Latin and South America, and other parts of this world, then it's easy to see that the plan is global dominance. Iraq is important for its oil reserves and geostrategic location. And war and militarism clearly are extremely profitable for the MIC. Many parties profit big time from wars even if the oil industry corporations would, or might, profit more from natural resources if wars were not used. The US military is the biggest oil, petroleum consumer in the world though.
And there's the psychology factor in all of this. When people have to dominate over others, then there's definitely a psychology factor of problem, sick sort involved, but I'm not a psychologist and will let competent psychologists who are honest explain.
This requires in-depth analysis, not claims based only on appearances, no matter how shocking or strong the appearances seem to be. And maybe this in-depth analysis can be thought of a little along the "deep politics" view of Professor Peter Dale Scott, who has explained this about Washington politics. AIPAC is at the surface, but Washington politics go [deep]; and top tier criminals, leaders, deciders don't make themselves public figures, not in terms of their criminality anyway.
i do not disagree at all with Mike's brilliant and in depth assessment of the Upper Tier... /CFR/Tri-lateral Comm/DLC/Neo-cons/ Kings or King Makers it almost doesn't matter does it? when you're on top of the world.
Peace at the Top, visualize the Gawds/CFR/Upper Tier throwing down lighting bolts at the Palestinians and the Working Class of America, or the Drug wars around the world at the Bottom...
i don't think that these Wars, this constant turmoil and struggle would exist if your premises is %100 true. It goes against the grain of simplicity. That is to say these f'ng Kings or King Makers of CFR are either inherently evil or not as powerful as they think they are and a 3rd possibility is they are stupid. Or a 4th occurs to me, The US Constitution is worthless. We are living in world of organized Anarchy (Oligarchy) chaos is profitable.
i would say that the head and the tail of this beast are hard to distinguish at times. Even to themselves visualize: the CFR holding AIPAC by the Tail - sometimes even indistinguishable from each other.
But the counter-intuitive is, where's the simplicity? - the illegal invasions are clearly costly even thou the Capitalists make big profits off killing devices.
If you were a King and the money is flowing in why allow 9/11, invade Iraq, or short circuit all the Health and Welfare regulations, or visibly approve of the Genocide in Palestine... These problems enter in your analysis Upper Tier/superpower/King'n court of the World...somewhere between the lines...it doesn't add up.
These Upper Tier scumbags are not going to get bloody no matter but it would seem unless we are really dealing with a Darth Vader that No Wars would be more Economical and less headaches...
i'm just say'n
Well, the most economical wars are wars that don't happen. The most profitable wars depends on which profiteers (and losers) are referred to.
The US, Washington, is controlled by an oligarchy. I mentioned the CFR, but it's certainly not alone. There's also the Trilateral Commission and some other groups or organizations, which people can learn about by doing a Google of globalresearch.ca using CFR, "Trilateral Commission", and "Rockefeller Foundation", f.e., for search terms. The Gates or Bill & Melinda Gates, whatever, Foundation is another, though I think possibly less powerfully influential than these other ones and the Carnegie Foundation, which've been around for a very long time. I believe there's also a Clinton Foundation now, if recalling correctly. There's the Soros ops too.
They use public fronts, facades to try to appear good to the uninformed public. It's "perception management".
And the US commanding a war because of the foreign policies of these imperialist elites doesn't mean that all in the oligarchy are going to profit or that they will all equally profit.
They can play "scratch my back this time and I'll scratch yours next time".
"War is a Racket" -- Smedley Butler. And we're talking about major racket, the most powerful bunch of racketeers in the world, they work as an oligarchy, and there'll be variations.
I guess it's the main ones who are (secretly, though obviously for anyone with sufficient reading from good writers or analysts) pushing for achieving global dominance, but probably all of them support and want globalization, business-wise.
Wars are a racket, for stealing and controlling, profitably, other people's natural resources, as well as for profiting from co-opting their governments for military purposes. Those are proxy governments and military forces for Washington.
It's about empire and it's run by an oligarchy of rich and powerful elites who don't necessarily all have the same set of "interests".
It's who the US military works for. Again, "War is a Racket", by Smedley Butler. It's who the CIA operationally works for. See John Perkins, f.e.
Israel profits, but the above is not for Israel as main reason. Israel is a strategic military power, sort of like proxy, for Washington, but this strategically requires keeping Israeli leadership "happy" in their psychopathic ways.
There's criminal psychology, criminology with special focus on the psychology, in all of this, but I'm no psychologist and will have to defer to competent and honest ones for further or in-depth explanations.
Sane people don't make wars, they don't try to dominate others, except when it's for stopping violence, f.e., they don't try to do business by stealing what belongs to other people, et cetera. They work on peaceful relations, real justice, fair business, and so on.
The oligarchy behind US foreign policies, as well as many national policies, are criminals; elite ones. They're white collar, but they have the co-opted military forces, CIA ops, "law" enforcement forces, and so on to do the "dirty work".
It's quite a web that they've weaved; it isn't "black & white" simple. It's complex and vast. Their "tentacles" span the planet and reach into space. It doesn't mean that there won't be or isn't resistance against their ways and plans, but resistors, so far, have a tremendous way to go before being able to come close to defeating these global order elites. And it seems that it's more likely that they'll defeat themselves, first.
They're rich and influentially powerful, while the governments that they influentiall control to great extents make them really powerful. But their ways are NOT indefinitely sustainable. Eventually, the way they operate in this world, they will come to meet self-defeat. They apparently are too sociopathic to be able to see this. But, that is also something that competent and honest psychologists, f.e., would be better to refer to; because I lack the knowledge needed to be able to state in-depth explanations.
My view is based on more-or-less being only a layman, some common sense, and some readings; not advanced study. Smedley Butler and John Perkins, John Stockwell, Phil Agee, Ralph McGehee, Robert Stinnett, and other "whistleblowers", as well as John Pilger and other very knowledgeable people, have provided a lot for us to learn from and we don't have to be of higher education background to be able to understand what these people say and have said. They use commonly understandable language, which is how the kind of information they provide and provided should be communicated.
I'd like to say the same thing about your post, but it's written in mostly nonsensical manner.
Those lies were the primary public "justification" used by the Bush administration for commanding this war, but Curveball didn't fool Washington, and the UN weapons inspections strongly proved that Washington was full of sh*t before the war machine was launched.
Colin Powell knew it was bs. From what I recall having read, he initially disagreed with the idea or plan for war on Iraq, but as happened a number of times in the then-past, he was "brought back into the fold" of White House administration plans. It is not credible that he would not have known that he was lying when he made his obviously bogus presentation about WMD-production trailers in some desert area of Iraq at the UNGA in Feb. 2003. He had to have known that what he was saying was bullshit. He could see as well as we could that the satelite images of the trailers did not show anything at all about WMD. He isn't blind and isn't some naive little kid or junior-experienced political and military man.
And when he spoke of some Iraqi WMD lab or labs and that there was an explosion at one in 1998, where was the [proof]? Where was the proof that this lab really existed and that there was an explosion there because of the WMD work that was supposedly being done there? Where was the proof that it existed? Where as the proof that it was for producing WMD, and that's only if there is proof that the lab or facility existed?
Powell knew there was NO proof of WMD-anything, well, except Iraq having once had WMD, historically.
One person's word does not constitute proof of anything other than the person stating whatever he or she is stating or has stated. And liars and idiots are "a dime a dozen".
The CIA analysts initially working for Rumsfeld told him that they did not have proof of Iraqi WMD, but he was adamant about having a team of "analysts" who'd do as ordered, so he replaced the initial and disobedient analysts with yesmen. There's plenty about this White House and Pentagon roguishness in the article further below by Tex MacRae.
Scott Ritter, a very important figure from UN weapons inspections in Iraq during the 1990s, communicated plenty of times in 2002 about the Iraqi WMD claim being bullshit. He clearly and strongly denounced the bullshit that was coming out of the White House.
Curveball's lies did not trigger the war and he was a character that some European intelligence agency had warned Washington about NOT being credible. That agency said that Curveball, probably referring to him by his real name I guess, was a nutjob or nutcase, that is, that he was definitely not credible; iow, the man either definitely was a liar, or he was a blatant idiot believing fiction was non-fiction even after he made it up.
The thing is, Washington knew! The Bush administration knew. AND the war on Iraq was being planned as of January 2001, though Bush, before being appointed President apparently had said that he intended to take war to Iraq; like to finish the job his father left uncompleted, say. And even the Clinton administration had given serious thought to taking war to Iraq.
Curveball is a sick person and joke, but what Washington did in using his bs claims is far from a joke. It's not his fault that Washington did this, for that's Washington's and only Washington's fault.
Point 2:
The Guardian video says Germany was also convinced by Curveball's claim of Iraqi WMD, but articles of several years ago basically say the opposite about what Germany believed and told Washington.
"Looking back: “Curveball” and the WMD Lie Factory"
by Tex MacRae, April 01, 2005
www.antiwar.com/blog/2005/04/01/looking-back-curveball-and-the-wmd-lie-f...
The part about Germany is cited from the following article, or the paragraph by Tex MacRae and immediately preceding this part of his article is certainly linked to the following one anyway.
"Germans accuse US over Iraq weapons claim"
by Luke Harding in Berlin, April 2, 2004
www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/apr/02/iraq.germany
Today, the Guardian wants us to believe that either Germany had never warned Washington prior to the launch of the war on Iraq that Curveball was not credible, or that Germany has changed its claim to the polar-opposite of what it had said in early 2003 or earlier. The two paragraphs, above, illustrate grotesque inconsistency on the part of the Guardian; between what it published several years ago and what it says today. And the Guardian owes readers an explanation for this drastic change.
Re. the German intelligence agency's "warning was ignored": There's nothing new about that. Washington did the very same thing with the many warnings it had received from intelligence agencies in Europe, apparently also from Israel according to Ray McGovern, regarding attacks being planned against and in the US and which ended up with "9/11".
The Guardian is consistent with respect to what Luke Harding next said in the above article, even if it's wrong now as it was in April 2004.
The defector's testimony did NOT lead the Bush administration to claim anything. The defector is like Tex MacRae says, a scapegoat, and though the Administration used what the defector and traitor said, the Bush administration still warred on Iraq even when the UN weapons inspections had proven that the Bush administration was either dead or extremely wrong, or lying, about Iraq having WMD. And the Bush administration tried to use the non-existent Saddam Hussein-Al Qaeda link and Saddam supposedly having been complicitly responsible for the 9/11 attacks, extremely non-credible bullshit.
The Bush administration knew that it was using and fabricating LIES. They planned this war on Iraq as a [definite] course that they were not going to turn away or back from for any reason. Cheney made that clear in very explicit terms more than once, too. And he continued to repeat the lie about Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda just a couple of years ago, if not also last year, after the many years that such a link had been proven to be false, a lie.
Tex MacRae is right. Curveball is just a scapegoat. And anyone who supports that bullshit, that is, using him as a scapegoat, as if that's an okay thing to do, is someone wittingly, or not, aiding and abetting the war makers of the US; imo!
Washington knew! Washington used these lies that Washington knew to be lies. They were used only to try to deceive the American population into supporting the war on Iraq. It was all deliberately done. The Bush administration evidently realized that Americans would support the war only if they were deceived into doing so, and this is extremely high treason.
And John Pilger's been right about UK news media, and he included the Guardian UK as one that does produce propaganda, distortions, perhaps also blatant lies. It publishes some acceptable articles, but it does get plenty wrong as well. And the following piece is a new example. It has a video, but I haven't viewed it yet, so can't comment on it. It's apparently an interview with the so-called Islamic jihadi who served as a sort of informant or agent for the US.
"Jihadi who helped train 7/7 bomber freed by US after just five years
Exclusive: Release prompts claim Islamist was US informant while assisting London terrorist"
by Shiv Malik, Feb. 13, 2011
www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/feb/13/jihadi-train-7-7-bomber-freed
This so-called Islamic jihadist who's been supposedly freed, while we probably don't have any real proof that he truly was imprisoned, is Mohammed Junaid Babar.
Read the article and then search www.julyseventh.co.uk, the best or certainly among the very best Web sites on the July 7, 2005 London bombings. Search it for articles about Babar.
I only used "Babar" for search term to quickly check if there was any content about him and there apparently are several or more articles; depending on how many different people with the same family name are mentioned in articles at this July Seventh Web site. One I did read, however, is a PDF and it tells readers about this guy being someone used for fabrication of bs stories, as the above Guardian piece illustrates.
The above Guardian article about him, what he says about what he did in Al Qaeda and about the so-called organization since is another defector story to support Washington's bs again.
The Guardian hasn't seen to its responsibility to carefully study up on everything that's known about the 7/7 London bombings. The Guardian is journalistically derelict. It publishes stories without performing necessary verifications of what's been published.
The Guardian has also provided some lousy, at best, reporting on some diplomatic cables released by Wikileaks.
It's not unusual. It happens too often; not constantly, not with every article published by the Guardian, but definitely too often. It, like many other news media, is too journalistically unprofessional, or unethical; if not both. They're [careless].
About the Guardian interview with Curveball:
The man's a war criminal and homocidal idiot. He has no regrets about this war that has killed over a million Iraqis, internally and externally displaced millions of other Iraqis into extremely poor conditions and the externally displaced apparently are mostly in countries where they don't have equal rights with citizens and immigrants of those countries. The war did all of that and destroyed Iraq, poisoned the country, and a non-democratic government was and remains installed.
The man is a blatant idiot, at best. He sounds sincere, but that'd mean that he's an extreme idiot, a recklessly homicidal one, too.
He doesn't know poverty, doesn't know real suffering, but very many Iraqis who had initially supported the ouster of Saddam Hussein came to publicly state regretting having given this support, at first; and it didn't take them long to have these regrets. That change of view is easy to understand, given the extremely deadly, destructive, violent war brought to Iraq. But Curveball is such an extreme and heartless idiot that he doesn't care about publicly making himself a figure that ALL Iraqis, Sunni, Shia, Christian and Jew anyway, but also many Kurds, will have reason to hate, despise and be disgusted by for the rest of their lives.
Well, it's one thing that he knows and tells the truth about; his extremely or totally heartless self.
He's a war criminal and merits being prosecuted and receiving some sentence for his crime(s); but what he had told Washington is not what triggered this war, which the Bush administration was [determined] to commit the US to one way or another. He is scapegoat for supreme criminal Washington.
And "War is a Racket" -- USMC Major General Smedley Butler.