A Hanging Curveball in Iraq: Powell Fesses Up

[andyfox]

Colin Powell has for the first time directly criticized the intelligence comunity for giving him apparently flawed information that he used to justify the invasion of Iraq.

The "most dramatic" of Powell's allegations, that Saddam Hussein had mobile germ labs, was based on questionable U.S. intelligence. One source of discredited information was from an Iraqi defector codenamed "Curveball" that officials now suspect had been coached to supply false information.

Powell now says that "it appears not to be the case that it [the evidence] was solid." Curveball turns out to be the brother of a top aid of Ahmad Chalabi, now a member of the Iraqi Governing Council, and an exile who had long been pushing for a U.S. invasion and who had been flown in immediately following the invasion to look after our interests.

As recently as January, Vice President Cheney called the supposed germ warfare trucks "conclusive" proof that Iraq was producing WMDs. CIA director Tenet later told Congress that he had called Cheney to warn him that the evidence was in doubt.

So what do we have here? The Secretary of State of teh Untied States goes to the United Nations to make his case that Iraq needs to be stopped because it is a danger to the world. His "most dramatic" [Powell's description] evidence turns out to be false. It was supplied by someone who was coached to give false information who is the brother of a top aide to somebody who wants the invasion. The Vice President of the United States, despite being told by the director of the CIA that this dramatic evidence might be a crock, tells the American people that it is conclusive proof.

"It appears not to be the case that it was solid." Powell's tortured syntax is emblematic of the tortured case the administration still clings to.

[Chris Alger]

I don't believe in "conspiracy theories" as a mode of explanation but the fact remains that history does occasionally uncover them.

It is becoming apparent that the efforts of two small groups of people effectively shanghaied the country into this ridiculous war. Sometime during the early Clinton years, (convicted embezzler) Chalabi's royalist exiles teamed up with some neocon nuts and said, in effect: look, you want oil and greater hegemony over the Middle East, we want to run Iraq. If you give us Iraq, we'll give you all the phony "defector" intelligence you need to justify a war and, later, all the oil and military presence you want. Just put us in charge. Since the professionals at State, the Pentagon and the CIA weren't buying it, the trick was to get an impressionable, ignorant President guided by an "Office of Special Plans" to weave intelligence fantasies about imminent threats of nuclear war from a regime that couldn't even conquer its own country.

[ACPlayer]

I tend to believe Tenet etc that the intelligence community gave plenty of warning to the admin that there conclusions were based on insufficent evidence.

It is quite clear that the administration was "selling" a case that they had already made up their minds on.

I also tend to think that Carter had it right when he said in a recent interview that finishing what dad had started was Bushes objective. This desire was manipulated by the neo-cons for their own objectives (oil, middle east control etc). Bush is a weak pawn in the game.

Powell is setting the stage for his exit whether or not this admin is reelected.

[andyfox]

"It is quite clear that the administration was 'selling' a case that they had already made up their minds on."

Of course it was. All administrations do this when going to war, and then deny it, usually with "white papers," and all sorts of other official documents loaded with lies. SOP.

[Jimbo]

[ QUOTE ]
I also tend to think that Carter had it right.....

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't it sad that Carter never figured out how to "get it right" while he was in office? He was one of most ineffectual Presidents in my lifetime and yet you and Andy love to quote this useless puppet of the Democratic party. Can't you see how senile he is when in public? Personally I think Amy Carter has more on the ball. At least we are now taking action and not hunkering down in a corner somewhere.

I really cannot believe how focused you fellas are on the WMD's. You seem to have taken a very small portion of the justification for war and ignored the rest of the administrations message. Fortunalely the general populace is neither so biased not shortsighted.

FOUR MORE YEARS

Jimbo

[andyfox]

When did I last quote Jimmy Carter. He was a bad president, but he's a great ex-president. At least he wasn't senile while in office, as was his successor.

I haven't heard about Amy Carter in years, what do you know of her?

The WMDs and the danger posed by Hussein's possession of them was the major justification for going to war; it was the meat of Powell's UN presentation.

I really cannot believe you fellas can't accept that the administration stretched the truth. All administrations
do it when they're going to war. Even Democrats. Especially Democrats.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
The WMDs and the danger posed by Hussein's possession of them was the major justification for going to war; it was the meat of Powell's UN presentation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Going down the UN resolution road was Powell's dumb idea. The UN is as useless as .... really name five great things the UN has accomplished? The Oil-for-Food scandel is and will continue to be a major embarassment for the UN. Again statement after statement by pols on both sides of the aisle, by Clinton, by pols in other countries, and in UN resolutions indicated a belief that Iraq had WMDs. It's amazing how those opposed to Bush conviently seem to always leave this out. A legitimate question is should the US have relied on the UN inspection process. In hindsight perhaps but for me relying on the UN to provide for US security doesn't give me a warm fuzzy. It's worthwhile to review how and why the current administration made it's conclusions about the threat of WMD in Iraq but it's just as worthwhile to review how so many that don't necessarily support Bush policies reached the same conclusions regarding Iraqi WMD. A second legitimate question in my mind is whether or not Iraq participated as well as aid and abetted terrorism directed at the US and other countries. I know, Saddam was just your run of the mill murderous dictator who didn't seek to harm the US in anyway.