NationStates Jolt Archive

And used it anyway. From today's LA Times (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-curveball20nov20,0,1753730.story?page=1&coll=la-home-headlines):
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.

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.
So, when the people handling a source tell you that intel is unreliable and you run with it anyway with no other backup and make claims that you have solid, irrefutable evidence, and it turns out the intel is unreliable, is it fair to call you a liar?

It is in my book, but hey, I'm a member of the reality based community.

There's a lot more to this article as well--13 pages in total. I'll let you all know a little more as I work through it. I just wanted to give everyone a heads up.

Hmmm..... ask yourself why this is a big deal now and a headline story NOW . When if it was a headline story and a big story THEN it may have been of some use . Fucking bunch of dickheads running around calling themselves " intelligence agencys " all over the world were saying that saddam was a threat to use wmds and develope a nuke capability.. and now the scumbag , asshole covering morons , are comming out of the wood work
to try to say ..I told you so . Fuck all of them .

Hmmm..... ask yourself why this is a big deal now and a headline story NOW . When if it was a headline story and a big story THEN it may have been of some use . Fucking bunch of dickheads running around calling themselves " intelligence agencys " all over the world were saying that saddam was a threat to use wmds and develope a nuke capability.. and now the scumbag , asshole covering morons , are comming out of the wood work
to try to say ..I told you so . Fuck all of them .

Eh, consider the source.

Hmmm..... ask yourself why this is a big deal now and a headline story NOW . When if it was a headline story and a big story THEN it may have been of some use . Fucking bunch of dickheads running around calling themselves " intelligence agencys " all over the world were saying that saddam was a threat to use wmds and develope a nuke capability.. and now the scumbag , asshole covering morons , are comming out of the wood work
to try to say ..I told you so . Fuck all of them .
I wonder why any other intel agencies haven't said anything to either corroborate or to deny this claim.

I also wonder whether there was intel from alternate sources that backed up this primary source that are too sensitive to be leaked by responsible intel agencies.

One claim doesn't make it true.

I agree this isn't news. Anyone that had their eyes and ears open at the start could see there was "cherry picking" going on. Anyone who brought up anything against war was rejected. Inspectors were pulled out so they couldn't argue with what was the invented truth.

Who cares if its true ? Where the fuck were they before the war , when for years the debate was going on , about weapons and who had them ? Why is this NOW a fucking story intead of THEN when it was actually important ?
Did anyone bother to ask this fundemental question ? You had so called intelligence agencys from around the world SAYING THE SAME THING . For years not minutes weeks or months . You would think if this info was SO FUCKING GROUNDBREAKING it would have been a BIG FUCKING STORY at the time .

Colin Powell on TV before the world at the UN ...you and your government are AGAINST THE WAR . This info never is revealed .

And Martian lesbian peguins with rubber suits clean my kitchen along with the Ice follies going on in my freezer .

You're swearing a lot today, aren't you, B&G?

Anyways, I'm not entirely sure what the whole situation was at the time. Apparently the BND thought this particular source was not useful, and apparently they told the CIA.
We know by now that (intentionally or not) some sort of groupthink afflicted the circles of the CIA and the government, and that things were probably selectively picked.

For whatever reason, the German government didn't do so, and remained sceptical. Everyone seems to assert that other governments believed these stories and didn't go to war for other reasons.

But French, German, Russian etc leaders simply said (often enough surely for the message to sink in) that they were not convinced. During the Cuban Missile Crisis, the evidence was there. Clearly presented, and no one doubted it.
This time the guilt was not established, and so the call was for inspections to continue until it could be.

So just to reiterate: The BND did tell the CIA at the time - and no one would listen. They did not believe this witness themselves - and no one listened.
And now the Times went and interviewed them, and they told them what happened then.

Simple enough story that simply underlines that the CIA failed on a huge scale here.

My brother tried to kill himself so I may be a bit cranky . Plus the assholes in congress are frosting my balls . not to mention that the whole WMD situation is one of the most collosal blunders and failures of inteligence of all time and it will huant every American President in the future ...but its all being lost in partisan dick swinging moron orgys by our esteemed assholes in congress and the partys that are supposed to represent us .
Instead of finding out what went wrong and why and fucking fixing it .

I am quite frankly sick of the entire bunch of them .

More claims US was warned about faulty intel before Iraq Warthat is like "More claims Elvis is alive and working on his comeback tour"

You're swearing a lot today, aren't you, B&G?

Anyways, I'm not entirely sure what the whole situation was at the time. Apparently the BND thought this particular source was not useful, and apparently they told the CIA.
We know by now that (intentionally or not) some sort of groupthink afflicted the circles of the CIA and the government, and that things were probably selectively picked.

For whatever reason, the German government didn't do so, and remained sceptical. Everyone seems to assert that other governments believed these stories and didn't go to war for other reasons.

But French, German, Russian etc leaders simply said (often enough surely for the message to sink in) that they were not convinced. During the Cuban Missile Crisis, the evidence was there. Clearly presented, and no one doubted it.
This time the guilt was not established, and so the call was for inspections to continue until it could be.

So just to reiterate: The BND did tell the CIA at the time - and no one would listen. They did not believe this witness themselves - and no one listened.
And now the Times went and interviewed them, and they told them what happened then.

Simple enough story that simply underlines that the CIA failed on a huge scale here.

Not for anything but you can have a discussion on WMD intel and have twenty people say yes its true and five say I dont believe it . When you are done your agency adopts the stance that its true...after the fact the few that said its not true come out of the wood work and say .." I told them but they didnt listen " they turn out to be right in hindsight .
WTF does that have to do with accepting in good faith the reccomendations from experts ...a multitude of frickin experts ? Why does the fact that a few didnt fall for the intell or maybe just might not have believed it for other reasons , would now appear to say " I TOLD YOU SO " .
All it does is create a smoke screen . And an oppurtunity to screw around with it politically for a party without a hope or a clue or a plan .
FIX IT . It should not have happened and better never happen again .


Simple enough story that simply underlines that the CIA failed on a huge scale here.

Worse than anyone can imagine .

Why does the fact that a few didnt fall for the intell or maybe just might not have believed it for other reasons , would now appear to say " I TOLD YOU SO " .
Well, your problem should then be with the newspaper, not with the BND.
It's highly unlikely that BND officials would actively go and seek interviews with a newspaper on the other side of the world.

It was just obvious that there was no "smoking gun" evidence like the pictures during the Cuban missles. It was obvious that the longer the inspectors could stay in the more info could be gained. If Saddam threw them out, then you had an excuse for war. It was obvious that the evidence would not pass muster of "beyond a reasonable doubt".

The election was coming---we had to win before the election---we had to have a "mission acomplished" sign before the election--we couldn't wait for inspectors---war is victory for the party---war will keep us in power---war is a winning stratigy!!!

But in a time like that Congress had never denied a president. Even though the evidence was weak, the president is assumed to have more information than anyone else. So he received the vote out of obligation.

The problem is--What about next time? Will any president ever be trusted by anyone? We tell our children that a good reputation is hard to get, easy to lose and impossible to recover.

So, when the people handling a source tell you that intel is unreliable and you run with it anyway with no other backup and make claims that you have solid, irrefutable evidence, and it turns out the intel is unreliable, is it fair to call you a liar?

Yes, because in said scenario you claimed to have solid evidence but knew that you didn't. That's lying.

btw it was also lying when Rumsfeld said "We know where the weapons of mass destruction are." I think that's a bigger lie.

Who cares if its true ? Where the fuck were they before the war , when for years the debate was going on , about weapons and who had them ? Why is this NOW a fucking story intead of THEN when it was actually important ?
Did anyone bother to ask this fundemental question ? You had so called intelligence agencys from around the world SAYING THE SAME THING . For years not minutes weeks or months . You would think if this info was SO FUCKING GROUNDBREAKING it would have been a BIG FUCKING STORY at the time .

Colin Powell on TV before the world at the UN ...you and your government are AGAINST THE WAR . This info never is revealed .

And Martian lesbian peguins with rubber suits clean my kitchen along with the Ice follies going on in my freezer .


See, the problem with your point is that there had been no inspectors in Iraq for years. So how could anyone have had any idea about the state of Iraq's weapons programs? The consensus was that Saddam with a nuke would be bad. Other than that there was nothing to agree on.

That's what the inspectors were for, to inspect Saddam's weapons stockpiles for the UN and report back with their findings. If you recall, they were still looking and had not found anything yet when the US, against the wishes of the international body, decided it didn't want to know whether Saddam actually had weapons and invaded anyways.

We were all around way back then in 2003 B&G, and not all of us have selective memories on this.




PS. Sorry to hear about your brother. When times are rough it tends to look like life was always bad and always will be bad, but in most cases things gets better if you ride it out.

Who cares? The point is most people know the left was right, with the exception of the right who wouldn't care if we slapped the truth in their face like twelve inch cock...

http://static.flickr.com/27/48730132_105dc74956_o.jpg

http://static.flickr.com/27/48730132_105dc74956_o.jpg

That's ironic. See, that photo has been around for so long that it invokes its own catchphrase.

Hmmm..... ask yourself why this is a big deal now and a headline story NOW . When if it was a headline story and a big story THEN it may have been of some use . Fucking bunch of dickheads running around calling themselves " intelligence agencys " all over the world were saying that saddam was a threat to use wmds and develope a nuke capability.. and now the scumbag , asshole covering morons , are comming out of the wood work
to try to say ..I told you so . Fuck all of them .

So you are getting mad at the OP for posting news about what the administration was screwing up on back then, but you have no problems with news about what the democrats were doing back then?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9940637&postcount=183

Nice double standard. Seems you only have a problem revisiting what happened before when its showing a fault of democrats.

So you are getting mad at the OP for posting news about what the administration was screwing up on back then, but you have no problems with news about what the democrats were doing back then?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9940637&postcount=183

Nice double standard. Seems you only have a problem revisiting what happened before when its showing a fault of democrats.

Checkmate.

Of course you know the Reps are about to kick off a massive TV Democrate Bashing commercials you know so expect the people to brainlessly follow bush again because he'll say that some how it was all the Dems fault.

So you are getting mad at the OP for posting news about what the administration was screwing up on back then, but you have no problems with news about what the democrats were doing back then?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9940637&postcount=183

Nice double standard. Seems you only have a problem revisiting what happened before when its showing a fault of democrats.


Only when the Democrats pull the type of shit that implies they did not say what they did , for purely political and posturing reasons . So how is it a double standard again , genius ?

Not to mention you also miss the part about finding out how they screwed up and fixing it...something I mentioned ....oh about ten times or so ?
Not to mention you seem to miss the whole friggin point of the thread period .
But that doesnt suprise me so much. After all it is you doing the attempted comprehending .

Only when the Democrats pull the type of shit that implies they did not say what they did , for purely political and posturing reasons . So how is it a double standard again , genius ?

Because you fail to fault the Republicans for implying that they didn't say what they did. Also, the more information that comes out that shows that intel was cherry-picked, the more the Repuiblicans' case faulters, especially about the insane assertion that Congress saw the same intel that the Whitehouse did...which the Republicans even said was true...when the intel was first disseminated.

Because you fail to fault the Republicans for implying that they didn't say what they did. Also, the more information that comes out that shows that intel was cherry-picked, the more the Repuiblicans' case faulters, especially about the insane assertion that Congress saw the same intel that the Whitehouse did...which the Republicans even said was true...when the intel was first disseminated.

I lived through the build up for the war and was HEAVILY involved in the debate . I know bullshit when I see it . MY memory also seems to work .
NOTHING will change the fact that the vast majority of intelligence and intelligence services in the WORLD all said the same thing for YEARS .
No matter how the idiots try to change history or pander to brain dead idiots , or try the old "I'll keep saying it until its percieved as true " gambit .
The only thing that really matters is finding out how not to screw up and make the mistakes again . The rest is all highly enriched bullshit . It amounts to having them pissing down your neck and tellinging you its raining .

Only when the Democrats pull the type of shit that implies they did not say what they did , for purely political and posturing reasons . So how is it a double standard again , genius ?

Its a double standard because the administration is saying they were given faulty information, when in fact, they chose to accept data the germans had told our intelligence wasn't to be trusted.

So, when the people handling a source tell you that intel is unreliable and you run with it anyway with no other backup and make claims that you have solid, irrefutable evidence, and it turns out the intel is unreliable, is it fair to call you a liar?

Oompa! Loompa! Doompity-doo!
I've got a perfect puzzle for you!
Oompa! Loompa! Doompa-da-dee!
If you are wise, you'll listen to me!

What do you get with a prez who tells lies?
Plausible denial lurking in shirts and ties?
What does it take to play a fair game?
Hard work or the old family name?

(How he makes his father cringe)

Oompa! Loompa! Doompa-da-dee!
If you are wise, you'll listen to me!
Oompa! Loompa! Doompity-doo!
You will live in happiness too!

Like the! Oompa! Loompa!
Oompa! Loompa! Doompity-doo!

I lived through the build up for the war and was HEAVILY involved in the debate . I know bullshit when I see it . MY memory also seems to work .
NOTHING will change the fact that the vast majority of intelligence and intelligence services in the WORLD all said the same thing for YEARS .
No matter how the idiots try to change history or pander to brain dead idiots , or try the old "I'll keep saying it until its percieved as true " gambit .
The only thing that really matters is finding out how not to screw up and make the mistakes again . The rest is all highly enriched bullshit . It amounts to having them pissing down your neck and tellinging you its raining .
I lived through it too, and was heavily involved in debate on it as well, and I know bullshit when I see it--and you're full of it, because you refuse to acknowledge the release of new information, information which was hidden from public view in order to be able to sell a bill of goods to the American public. I saw through it early, not because I'm particularly smarter, but because I didn't trust these fucks. But why anyone, you included, continues to believe a goddamn word anyone in this administration says, after all the shit that has come out, after all the times they've been busted for lying, after all the times they've changed their goddamn story is beyond me.