Althouse: "Defector admits to WMD lies that triggered Iraq war."

February 15, 2011

"Defector admits to WMD lies that triggered Iraq 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."

104 comments:

The Drill SGT said...: Tell me it isn't so.

I so want to believe that the Devil Cheney made it all when he was meeting in the Temple B'nai Israel with the rest of the Neocons :); 2/15/11, 9:59 PM
SteveR said...: I suspect he is not the main "trigger", undoubtably there were many. I glad he's got a good self esteem though.; 2/15/11, 10:03 PM
Paul said...: So he did this to bring down Saddam. He did, and alot more. First Algeria, now Egypt, and who knows, he may bring down every dictator in the Middle East.

Talk about unintended consequences!

And about Cheney, guys, when are you gonna understand they went with the intelligence they had, not the intelligence years later. Neither Bush nor Cheney nor Rumsfeld had a crystal ball. They had info that indicated Saddam had real weapons, just as Iran is trying real hard to get and North Korea has now.

Saddam faked a lot of his so-called WMD, just to scare his neighbors. Well he succeeded way beyond his wildest dreams. He scared them so bad they killed him.; 2/15/11, 10:07 PM
Anonymous said...: Mr. Jones asks his sixth grade science class what organ of the human body expands to ten times its usual size when stimulated. A student named Mary stands up all outraged and accuses Mr. Jones of acting in an improper manner, she says that she's going to tell her parents and that Mr. Jones will get fired.

Johnny, another student, raises his hand and says that the organ in question is the iris of the eye. Mr. Jones congratulates Johnny on his correct answer and addresses Mary: "Young lady, I have three things to say. One, you didn't do your homework. Two, you have a filthy mind. Three, someday soon you're going to be really disappointed."

Peter; 2/15/11, 10:12 PM
MadisonMan said...: Rumsfeld may not have had a crystal ball. But he was incredibly resistant to changing his ways once it became apparent that winning on the cheap wouldn't work. And Bush was foolish to stick with Rumsfeld.

Imagine! Someone lying about WMD!

The question becomes: Why was he believed?; 2/15/11, 10:24 PM
The Drill SGT said...: @Paul

FYI: Have a sense of humor. I agree with everything you said...; 2/15/11, 10:25 PM
The Drill SGT said...: MM said...The question becomes: Why was he believed?

Occam's Razor?

1. Saddam had WMD at one point and used them against bpth Iran and the Kurds
2. he kept a bluff up that he had them
3. he was a power mad dictator
4. nobody believed he destroyed them.....; 2/15/11, 10:29 PM
David said...: Well, he certainly fooled John Kerry and Hillary Clinton.; 2/15/11, 10:31 PM
Automatic_Wing said...: Confirmation bias.; 2/15/11, 10:32 PM
SteveR said...: me too Paul; 2/15/11, 10:33 PM
AST said...: What kind of WMD? There are several types that we know Saddam had or had the ability to manufacture. We really ought to be more specific, because nukes are WMD but not all WMD are nukes. Saddam used nerve gases against Iran and against civilian populations in the Kurdish areas of Iraq. There are also biological weapons, like Anthrax. These are not that hard to make, nor to dispose of nor resupply. a simple matter to ditch them in advance of UN inspectors.

So what if this guy lied? We shouldn't have believed him? That would have been irresponsible. The left is so fixated on this story that Bush lied, that it can't see that it doesn't even matter any more, or that Saddam was a mass murderer. Remember all the mass burials we uncovered or the towns that were gased? No matter, Bush is the Hitler, the mass murderer, yada, yada, yada.; 2/15/11, 10:37 PM
jr565 said...: Drill Sgt wrote:
1. Saddam had WMD at one point and used them against bpth Iran and the Kurds
2. he kept a bluff up that he had them
3. he was a power mad dictator
4. nobody believed he destroyed them.....

Plus he told his handler that he lied about having weapons to project strength to his enemies (according to him). Plus his scientists said that he tried to get weapons and they couldn't deliver so they lied to him.
So lets see. He was a power mad dicator who either had weapons and tried to hide them lying to inspectors, or he lied about having weapons which caused those sanctioning him to believe his lie. You can't tell a convincing lie and at the same time not cause people to believe it.; 2/15/11, 10:39 PM
Roux said...: I'm throwing the BS flag on this one.; 2/15/11, 11:04 PM
Anonymous said...: This man is a liar.

George Bush knowingly and willfully lied.

It is critically important that the right person be the liar.; 2/15/11, 11:05 PM
Anonymous said...: Bush was foolish to stick with Rumsfeld.

Absolutely. My analogy is a strange one. It's that Rumsfeld is a lot like Erwin Rommel. Rommel, of course, was brilliant at taking territory in great swathes. However, you'd be a fool to make Rommel your guy if you wanted to keep that territory.; 2/15/11, 11:09 PM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: A small point maybe but its just a piece of the puzzle.

Saddam was in violation of over a dozen UN resolutions.. There weren't any calling on Egypt's Mubarak to do anything.

In both situations you had people doing desperate things.

BTW - is he selling a book? Why come forward now?; 2/15/11, 11:18 PM
Anonymous said...: Bush made a tremendous mistake in selling the Iraq war based on UN resolutions and weapons of mass destruction. On the other hand, what else do you do when you the real reason to go to war is the vital necessity of establishing a large military presence in a region far away?

Obama would make a speech about it all with plenty of applause lines and first-person pronouns.; 2/15/11, 11:21 PM
PaulV said...: MadMan, the Sunni Awakening occurred while Rumsfeld was Sec/Def. It was aided by US military, but it won Iraq. AQ was beaten by fellow arabs. AQ killed and raped arabs and now is hated in that part of world. The Surge helped by it was more PR to let Sunnis know we were not going to cut and run. Patreus & Co, worked with Sunnis even before Rumsfeld left.; 2/15/11, 11:23 PM
SGT Ted said...: Yes, nevermind the 20 tons of yellowcake uranium we found there.; 2/15/11, 11:33 PM
Peter Friedman said...: Oh my goodness, we only now know Curveball was lying.

Except that it was plain to anyone looking at the intelligence in 2003 without having already prejudged the matter that Curveball was lying, and this "news" has been public for years.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB234/index.htm; 2/15/11, 11:49 PM
YoungHegelian said...: @Sgt Ted,

You are incorrect, sir.

It wasn't 20 metric tons. It was 500!

http://articles.cnn.com/2008-07-07/us/iraq.uranium_1_yellowcake-uranium-cameco?_s=PM:US

But, as to your general sentiment, you are absolutely correct. We shouldn't worry our pretty little heads where, how, and for what reason Saddam got 500 tons of yellow cake.; 2/15/11, 11:54 PM
jr565 said...: Peter Friedman wrote:
Except that it was plain to anyone looking at the intelligence in 2003 without having already prejudged the matter that Curveball was lying, and this "news" has been public for years.

Curveball was not the be all and end all of all intel that suggested that Iraq had WMD's. Were all 16 resolutions passed by the UN tied directly to Curveball and his lies? Were the sanctions and the no fly zones and the ILA all predicated on intel received directly from Curveball? If you remove Curveball completely you'd still have nearly a decades history of Sadaam Hussein defying both the US and the UN and the international community and all of the responses to show for it.
Even if Curveball were 100% lying, couldn't Sadaam have shown that Curveball was full of it by simply telling the truth and cooperating? in fact, considering Sadaam's modus operandi was to project the idea that he had weapons that Curveball actually became an ally in promoting the story that Sadaam wanted to tell.
It just sucks for Sadaam that he didn't quite the get the fact that if you project that you have weapons, and that you refuse to honor your agreements to disarm said weapons, that EVENTUALLY people will assume that you are telling the truth and grow tired of your lack of cooperation and do something about it.; 2/16/11, 12:03 AM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: But but didn't the ambassador to Gabon tell us that Niger did not sell any yellow cake to Saddam?

You mean to say the ambassador to Gabon lied?; 2/16/11, 12:04 AM
Methadras said...: SGT Ted said...

Yes, nevermind the 20 tons of yellowcake uranium we found there.

Oh, you mean at Al-Tawaitha? I've spoken about it here and elsewhere for years. All you get is lalalalalala. That complex is huge and underground.; 2/16/11, 12:15 AM
Methadras said...: Lem said...

But but didn't the ambassador to Gabon tell us that Niger did not sell any yellow cake to Saddam?

You mean to say the ambassador to Gabon lied?

Or Joe Wilson did? GASP!!! Shocking!!!; 2/16/11, 12:17 AM
Methadras said...: Peter Friedman said...

Oh my goodness, we only now know Curveball was lying.

Except that it was plain to anyone looking at the intelligence in 2003 without having already prejudged the matter that Curveball was lying, and this "news" has been public for years.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB234/index.htm

So who snookered six other countries with the same intelligence and got their respective leaders, legislators, and people behind such a thing? Damn, that Dennis Kucinich is just the lone voice in a cacophony of 'lies'.; 2/16/11, 12:19 AM
Lyle said...: Smart guy.; 2/16/11, 12:30 AM
Fred4Pres said...: But Dick Cheney made him lie? Or Rummy?; 2/16/11, 12:33 AM
Indigo Red said...: Nice try, but Saddam already admitted to lying about mobile bio-weapon units, chemical weapons manufacrue, and a fake nuke program long before Curveball pitched his slider. According to Saddam Hussein, the whole WMD deception was to keep the West and Iran off balance. Unfortunately, SH didn't tell his generals about the deceptions and they, along with the rest of the world, believed the programs and weapons to be real.; 2/16/11, 12:46 AM
Anonymous said...: Defector?

I lit out from Reno, I was trailed by twenty hounds
Didn't get to sleep last night 'till the morning came around.

Set out runnin' but I take my time
A friend of the devil is a friend of mine
If I get home before daylight, I just might get some sleep tonight.

Ran into the devil, babe, he loaned me twenty bills
I spent the night in Utah in a cave up in the hills.

Set out runnin' but I take my time, a friend of the devil is a friend of mine,
If I get home before daylight, I just might get some sleep tonight.

I ran down to the levee but the devil caught me there
He took my twenty dollar bill and vanished in the air.

Set out runnin' but I take my time
A friend of the devil is a friend of mine
If I get home before daylight, I just might get some sleep tonight.

Got two reasons why I cry away each lonely night,
The first one's named Sweet Anne Marie, and she's my hearts delight.
The second one is prison, babe, the sheriff's on my trail,
And if he catches up with me, I'll spend my life in jail.

Got a wife in Chino, babe, and one in Cherokee
The first one says she's got my child, but it don't look like me.

Set out runnin' but I take my time,
A friend of the devil is a friend of mine,
If I get home before daylight, I just might get some sleep tonight.; 2/16/11, 12:51 AM
Freder Frederson said...: Yes, nevermind the 20 tons of yellowcake uranium we found there.

We didn't "find" any yellowcake in Iraq. All the yellowcake that was in Iraq we knew about, the U.N. knew about and it was under U.N. seal (at least it was until we invaded and couldn't even be bothered to secure the site).

What we didn't find was the nuclear programs that Cheney assured us there was "no doubt" Saddam had reconstituted or the vast stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons which Rumsfeld assured us we knew "exactly" where they were.

For a bunch of people who usually don't believe anything, you sure are willing to put a lot of faith in one guy named "Curveball".; 2/16/11, 3:11 AM
Anonymous said...: The idea that this refugee "triggered" the war is complete and utter leftist revisionist bullshit.

Saddam Hussein triggered the war by refusing to abide by United Nations sanctions and an inspections regime imposed on him as part of his surrender following the first Gulf War, and by firing missiles at coalition aircraft patrolling the "no-fly" zone.

Indeed, weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq - so even if this person was lying, it doesn't really matter because we later found Saddam's stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction that this person may or may not have known about.

Water. Under. Bridge.

It's interesting that the left can't stop fighting the Iraq War ... but have no problem letting Barack Obama kill brown people in Afghanistan and Pakistan using robot aircraft.

Where are the anti-war protests against the war criminal and gulag operator Barack Obama?

Are you surprised that the anti-war left doesn't seem to mind when THEY are doing the killing?; 2/16/11, 3:48 AM
rhhardin said...: WMD wasn't a big contributor to the decision; just the one that Bush leaned on at the UN because noncooperation put Iraq in violation of multiple UN resolutions.

You go with the law you have.

The reasons for Iraq by den Beste, written in July 2003, stands up.; 2/16/11, 4:35 AM
Unknown said...: Before people like Alpha/Freder/Montaigne go running back to Kos yelling, "Mission Accomplished", it's important that we remind them of a couple of salient facts.

First, we still have that other paragon of Lefty virtue, Wikileaks, telling us there were WMDs in Iraq, something the Left likes to ignore.

Second, this is a story originated by the Guardian, one of the most Left wing papers in Britain. As your mother always told you, "Consider the source".

I'd advise both sides to await confirmation. Basically, the story rests on this guy's word and the veracity of the Guardian.; 2/16/11, 5:44 AM
Bartender Cabbie said...: Oh well. We may as well decimate Iran as long as we are in the neighborhood. It would be Un American not to,.; 2/16/11, 6:15 AM
SGT Ted said...: What the hell would the likes of Freder know about what was in Iraq, considering all he cites is left wing anti-Bush propaganda?

Were those mass graves my unit was responsible for guarding while forensics teams went through the remains a neo-con lie too Freder?

LIke, who cares about THAT? Booosh LIED!!!!%!3&e28

You are such a fucking idiot Freder.; 2/16/11, 6:17 AM
Michael said...: Rafid lied people died? It rhymes still so I guess there's that.; 2/16/11, 6:34 AM
Freder Frederson said...: What the hell would the likes of Freder know about what was in Iraq, considering all he cites is left wing anti-Bush propaganda?

I am perfectly happy citing the Iraq Survey Group Report (The Duelfer Report) for the basis of my evidence of Saddam's WND program. If you consider the official DoD study, signed off by the Bush White House as "left wing anti-Bush propaganda", so be it.

As for those mass graves. There is no doubt that Saddam committed mass murder during the Iraq-Iran war (around the same time Donald Rumsfeld was in Baghdad shaking Saddam's hand) and shortly after the First Gulf War. However, while stopping ongoing genocide is a justification for war, punishment for genocide that occurred ten or fifteen years ago, or my hypothetically occur in the future, is not.; 2/16/11, 6:41 AM
KCFleming said...: Strange.

"Curveball" was outed back in 2007.
Why the interview now?

I suppose it might be fun to have the same damn converstation we've had at Althouse a millionty-seven times already.

But maybe that's the point.
A "Squirrell!!" moment, mostly, seems to me.; 2/16/11, 6:56 AM
Michael said...: FF: "However, while stopping ongoing genocide is a justification for war, punishment for genocide that occurred ten or fifteen years ago, or my hypothetically occur in the future, is not."

Help me with the calculus involved here. If ten years is a cutoff for retribution is 9 years permissible? Two? Six months? Do mass graves of a certain age indicate that there has been a redemptive moment for the perpetrators? Or are you one of those liberals who wants to wait out the clock (Rwanda) before you flex your ample facial muscles with some rough talk? What is the half life of evil, of horror? What are you happy to live with?; 2/16/11, 6:57 AM
Stan said...: I know it really, really pisses off liberals that Libya gave up Saddam's nuke program to the US after we bagged Saddam. I, however, am happy that shutting down Saddam led to the discovery and ending of this nuke program. And I'm glad we shut down Pakistan's mad nuke scientist. And I'm glad that all the scientists and WMD programs that Saddam had plans for were stopped.

I'm glad that we were able to foster democracy in Iraq and inspire young people to demand more freedom in other Mideast nations, even if that pisses off liberals, too.; 2/16/11, 6:57 AM
Fen said...: while stopping ongoing genocide is a justification for war, punishment for genocide that might hypothetically occur in the future is not.

Don't put the dog down until he's killed another kid, eh?; 2/16/11, 6:57 AM
vet66 said...: Freder;

GW2 technically began in Late 2002 with invasion in 2003 based on then current intel. The Duelfer Report came out in 2004.

What is your point? Hindsight is 20/20?; 2/16/11, 7:09 AM
PaulV said...: CIA was wrong in 2007 when it said Iran was not developing nukes.

http://israelmatzav.blogspot.com/2011/02/new-national-intelligence-estimate-on.html

Is CIA incompetent or Bush Deranged?; 2/16/11, 7:39 AM
Bobby Dupea said...: Silly article. Intelligence is not gossip, and one person's story does not "trigger" wars. It's just puerile to suggest that it would.; 2/16/11, 7:43 AM
vet66 said...: Freder;
One other item of interest. An interview with border official in Sand Diego got around to the question of WMD smuggled into the U.S. at the San Diego Port facility. The obviously worried official nervously replied that there had been what he referred to as "Weapons of mass EFFECT" had been uncovered but not at San Diego. The PAO directed the ABC interviewer and interviewee to restrict the questions to to San DIego port only.

Makes one wonder how safe our borders with Canada are with most roads into the U.S. unprotected. How does that fit with your talking points?; 2/16/11, 7:44 AM
Lincolntf said...: Amazing that the WMD's in Iraq issue has become such a test of who knew what and who's lying. The woman who made the following quote was made Secretary of State by Barack Obama years after the invasion of Iraq had been completed and the WMD's had been found/not found (depending on definitions). If it was so stupid, why make her the most important person on our foreign policy team?

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members...

It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well, effects American security.

This is a very difficult vote, this is probably the hardest decision I've ever had to make. Any vote that might lead to war should be hard, but I cast it with conviction."

Senator Hillary Clinton (Democrat, New York)
Addressing the US Senate
October 10, 2002; 2/16/11, 7:47 AM
Automatic_Wing said...: Clearly the Smartest Woman in the World was duped by the moron Bush and his coterie of loutish frat-boy advisers.; 2/16/11, 7:50 AM
Unknown said...: Read Hitchens at Slate. he shows it was true that Saddam was buying yellow cake; 2/16/11, 7:58 AM
KCFleming said...: I suppose continuing to decry Bush is a hell of as lot easier than watching the Obama train derail.; 2/16/11, 8:03 AM
knox said...: he same damn converstation we've had at Althouse a millionty-seven times already.

LOL.

People believe Bush Lied because they want to. Nothing's going to change that.

And even though the war was ultimately successful, there will be people who will still grab on to every chance to criticize him. To hold him to an impossibly high standard, as if war is some neat, tidy operation.

People hate Bush because they want to. Nothing's going to change that.; 2/16/11, 8:06 AM
knox said...: Yeah, what the hell is the problem in Afghanistan, anyway? Why is Obama dragging his feet? He MUST have some ulterior motive!! OIL! or something.

I guess he's being advised by the wrong guy... The question becomes: Why was he believed?; 2/16/11, 8:08 AM
Fen said...: And why is it taking Obama so long to capture Osama Bin Laden?

Its been two years now. For eight, the Libtards whined and moaned about it, now they are silent.; 2/16/11, 8:26 AM
Fen said...: Must be the "messaging". Bad PR to have Obama and Osama in the same headline. That is what's driving our foreign policy...; 2/16/11, 8:28 AM
Fen said...: Plouffe: "Mr President, we have to pull out of Iraq NOW. Saddam Hussein, Barak Hussein. See how bad it looks?"; 2/16/11, 8:43 AM
roesch-voltaire said...: He didn't fool the inspectors in Iraq, and he didn't fool critics like Russ Feingold, the only folks he "fooled" were those who were already planning for an invasion of Iraq, and falsely promised that the war would be quick and pay for itself in oil revenues-- all BS claimed by Paul Wolfowitz and others.; 2/16/11, 8:44 AM
Clyde said...: Meh. Would any reasonable person choose to return the people of Iraq to the tender mercies of Saddam Hussein or his spawn Uday and Qusay if they could?

No? Then STFU.

If your answer was 'yes,' then buy yourself a new moral compass, because yours is busted.; 2/16/11, 8:46 AM
Lincolntf said...: R-V, Obama was obviously just as stupid (or dishonest) as you claim others were. He made one of the most vocal and high-profile proponents of the "WMD's in Iraq" scenario his Secretary of State. Might as well have given her a Peace Prize.; 2/16/11, 8:50 AM
Joe said...: (The Crypto Jew)

and falsely promised that the war would be quick and pay for itself in oil revenues-- all BS claimed by Paul Wolfowitz and others.
Funny I don’t remember that in the AUMF, or any POTUS speeches…and the war, at one level WAS quick…; 2/16/11, 8:51 AM
Fred4Pres said...: This story is just three or four years too late.; 2/16/11, 8:54 AM
SGT Ted said...: Wow Freder, not only are you an idiot, you are an apologist for genocide. Simply because you can't get over your BDS.

Well done. Bravo!

You are truly a scumbag. Thanks for outing yourself as a genocide apologist for Saddam Hussein.

My Iraqi friends in Karbala, near where the mass graves were discovered, always told me that they thought that the anti-war people over here were Saddam Hussein supporters because the anti-war people didn't support GEORGE BUSH's removal of Saddam from power. I guess they were right.

Scumbag.; 2/16/11, 8:57 AM
KCFleming said...: "This story is just three or four years too late."

Exactly.
So why now?

Boredom?
Distraction?
Hide the bad Obama news?
Re-live the anti-Bush glory days because right now pretty much sucks for lefties?; 2/16/11, 8:58 AM
SGT Ted said...: I think you are spot on, Pogo.; 2/16/11, 9:07 AM
Hoosier Daddy said...: Funny I don’t remember that in the AUMF, or any POTUS speeches

You obviously didn't have the antennae on your tin foil hat tuned to the correct frequency.; 2/16/11, 9:17 AM
roesch-voltaire said...: Lin, I think the war machine is always a bit dishonest in its reasons for war and in its estimations of what it can accomplish.,therefore I remain skeptical of most of its claims whether it be from Clinton, Bush or Obama.; 2/16/11, 9:19 AM
Lincolntf said...: The "war machine", eh? Oh boy.; 2/16/11, 9:25 AM
jr565 said...: Freder Frederson wrote:
I am perfectly happy citing the Iraq Survey Group Report (The Duelfer Report) for the basis of my evidence of Saddam's WND program. If you consider the official DoD study, signed off by the Bush White House as "left wing anti-Bush propaganda", so be it.
<br.
If you are going to cite the Duelfler report then note that it states that Sadaam had the intent to rearm himself AND the means to rearm shortly (and since it was in his interest to do so) because he maintained his programs if not his stockpiles. And was simply waiting for containment to collapse, undermining it from within using the Oil for Food Program. I think he described containment as "in free fall". So I don't think you're reading the same Duelfler report that others are reading. Maybe your'e reading the lefty expurgated version.; 2/16/11, 9:39 AM
roesch-voltaire said...: Lin to understand the term "The War Machine," I would suggest reading "The Making of the Atomic Bomb," by Richard Rhodes, which is where I picked up the term.; 2/16/11, 9:59 AM
PaulV said...: r-v, did you fail to link your source to:
"and falsely promised that the war would be quick and pay for itself in oil revenues-- all BS claimed by Paul Wolfowitz and others"
beauce you lie?
What he said was that Iraq could pay for its own reconstruction with the oil revenue it would ahve after end of UN sanctions. Which they are doing. Have you no shame?; 2/16/11, 10:00 AM
Joe said...: The Crypto Jew)

Lin to understand the term "The War Machine," I would suggest reading "The Making of the Atomic Bomb," by Richard Rhodes, which is where I picked up the term.
That would be the “War machine” made up of Physicists, Chemists, and Mathematicians, that came together to develop a weapon to drop on the White German Nazi’s, right? THAT “War Machine?”; 2/16/11, 10:03 AM
Lincolntf said...: R-V, I can assure you that I'm very familiar with the term. And the people who use it.; 2/16/11, 10:03 AM
knox said...: therefore I remain skeptical of most of its claims whether it be from Clinton, Bush or Obama.

backpedal much?; 2/16/11, 10:10 AM
Cedarford said...: SGT Ted said...
Yes, nevermind the 20 tons of yellowcake uranium we found there
================
We didn't "find it". We knew, the UN knew from IAEA declarations Iraq made how much was there, and where it was.
If by "finding the yellowcake" you mean the hero troops went to the warehouse where the IAEA had verified the material, cut the IAEA seals on the storage lockers and looked in and said "Yep, yellowcake..." - we found it.; 2/16/11, 10:12 AM
SGT Ted said...: Whatever, Mr bigot anti-semite. You weren't there either.; 2/16/11, 10:20 AM
Freder Frederson said...: Wow Freder, not only are you an idiot, you are an apologist for genocide. Simply because you can't get over your BDS.

Unlike Ann's good friend Glenn Reynolds, who is on the record as being an apologist for genocide, I don't know how anyone can read my statement as an justifying or apologizing for Saddam's genocide.

As horrible as it was, it was not a justification for the war because it was not ongoing. In fact most of the genocide occurred during the Iran-Iraq war when the U.S. government (the Reagan administration) turned a blind eye toward it and was actually helping Saddam with his chemical weapons program.

Spare me your false outrage. You are just pissed I didn't deny Saddam's crimes.; 2/16/11, 10:21 AM
Unknown said...: As a matter of fact, we did find the uranium. It wasn't widely reported by the Establishment Media (surprise!), but it was flown out of Iraq in a series of low-visibility operations to Utah about 4 years after the invasion.

PS Somebody ask Freder/Alpha/Montaigne what the statute of limitations is on genocide. The Armenians are still trying to get some redress for 1916, the Chinese and Koreans for atrocities committed by Japan, and Cedar, of all people, knows what those Joos are doing about the last of the Nazis.; 2/16/11, 10:22 AM
Cedarford said...: Maybe the funniest thing about "Curveball", besides him being paid by the Germans and Americans for his fantasy tales....was that we also know "the noble Iraqi freedom-loving refugee" was the single and only source. For Bush/Cheney/Powell/and Condi-Skeeza's WMD are "everywhere" in Iraq declarations.

Single source. What the neocons call "unacceptable" when journalists indulge in it.
And they never told the American public that they ONLY had one single source.

A royal messup. Most expensive hoax in history if you consider the 1.8 - 2 trillion (principal plus interest to our Chinese and Saudi lenders) blown on the noble Iraqi freedom-lovers.; 2/16/11, 10:24 AM
SGT Ted said...: No, you don't deny the crimes, you excuse them by blaming people who had nothing to do with them, simply becvause you oppse them politically. Tell me were the Rwanda massacres because of Bill Clinton?

The mass graves I am talking about were Iraqi Shiites who were massacred over a period of 10 years in the Karbala province. But keep dancing Freder, the music hasn't stopped.

Scumbag genocide apologist. Why should anyone listen to you? You should write for Stormfront.; 2/16/11, 10:31 AM
Lincolntf said...: Funnily enough, the other day someone over at AoSHQ was comparing some random troll with someone they used to see named "Cedarford". I asked, and it turns out that yes, he meant this guy. Apparently "Cedarford" has been posting the same nonsensical anti-semitic babble for a half-dozen years or more. The guy even had a link to a mimi-blog mocking Cedarford for being such a one-trick shitstain.; 2/16/11, 10:37 AM
Freder Frederson said...: What he said was that Iraq could pay for its own reconstruction with the oil revenue it would ahve after end of UN sanctions. Which they are doing. Have you no shame?

Why didn't you source your claim? Apparently you even have less shame because you accuse r-v of misquoting Wolfowitz and then misquote him yourself.

Why--because you are a liar!

For the record--here is the actual quote (notice I am brave enough to use quotation marks to indicate these are not my paraphrase of the quote and give a reference):

"There's a lot of money to pay for this. It doesn't have to be U.S. taxpayer money. We are dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon."
Congressional Testimony, March 27, 2003

Now, you may be able to claim that by "relatively soon" he meant years not months or that of course he knew that the U.S. would end up investing hundreds of billions dollars in the reconstruction of Iraq, but that argument is weakened by another famous quote of his:

"I can't imagine anyone here wanting to spend another $30 billion to be there for another 12 years."
House subcommittee on Iraq testimony (February 28, 2003)

Obviously, he thought the whole adventure would cost the U.S. taxpayer less than $30 billion.; 2/16/11, 10:38 AM
Carol said...: I really hated the use of the catch-all term "WMD" at the time. They insisted on that term, repeating it over and over. It needed to parsed; what exactly did they mean? It had nuclear overtones but happened to include biological. That's bad but doesn't rise to the level of the other.

And we always assume the worst, don't we? Whatever horrible weapon is possible, the enemy must be all over it. We never assume bluffing or incompetency or lack of interest.; 2/16/11, 10:42 AM
Freder Frederson said...: No, you don't deny the crimes, you excuse them by blaming people who had nothing to do with them, simply becvause you oppse them politically. Tell me were the Rwanda massacres because of Bill Clinton?

What on earth are you on about? Who did I blame other than Saddam? It may be uncomfortable to you that we were supporting Saddam at the time he was carrying out his most vicious crimes, but it is the truth. That doesn't make the Reagan administration responsible for his crimes, but it does mean that the situation is much more complex than your black and white world.; 2/16/11, 10:44 AM
Cedarford said...: SGT Ted said...
Whatever, Mr bigot anti-semite. You weren't there either.

==============
My first loyalty is to America, my country's interests 1st. Try it sometime, SGT Ted.

The point, no matter how obtuse you are, should be obvious. The IAEA reports from 1995, 1998 and 2002 document the quantity and location of Iraq's raw uranium supply.

Which, BTW, is no threat of being a weapon by itself. Less toxic than common lead oxide, low radioactivity.; 2/16/11, 10:47 AM
Freder Frederson said...: Somebody ask Freder/Alpha/Montaigne what the statute of limitations is on genocide.

All I said, which happens to be a indisputable fact, is that past genocide, is not a justification for war.

What the hell is your problem with the statement?

If you want to change the rules we have operated under (and we created) for the last 65 years, take it up with someone else besides me.; 2/16/11, 10:48 AM
woof said...: Prevention of Genocide Act of 1988 - Reagan threatened to veto it.

Prevention of Genocide Act of 1988

As long as Iraq served as a foil to Iran and a large market of US agricultural products, we turned a blind eye to the gassing of the Kurds.; 2/16/11, 10:54 AM
Unknown said...: Freder Frederson said...

Somebody ask Freder/Alpha/Montaigne what the statute of limitations is on genocide.

All I said, which happens to be a indisputable fact, is that past genocide, is not a justification for war.

Indisputable according to whom? Wars have started on a lot less. In any case, Saddam was still murdering people up to the invasion, but Freder/Alpha/Montaigne will always try to set "rules" which only work as long as he/they need them to and then he/they'll change them as needed.; 2/16/11, 10:56 AM
jr565 said...: Isn't the fact that Sadaam himself supposedly lied with the intent to fool his enemies into the thinking he had WMD's game set and match to the argument that he was a threat that needed to be addressed. Who ultimataly cares if Curve Ball wasn't 100% forthcoming. the only liar that really has any relevance is Sadaam himself.
He could have ignored any and all intrusion into his country simply by cooperating with inspectors and the UN. And why is that? Perhaps some of the lefties can answer that? Not just during the Bush days but during the Clinton days.
Clearly, as even he tells his handler, it was in his interest to have people think he had weapons for whatever reason. And as Duelfler states even if he didn't have the stockpiles he had the programs that could be reconstituted in many cases in months as soon as the sanctions were lifted, which he wsa trying to undermine through the corrupt oil for food program.
There would never be any scenario where it wouldn't be in sadaam's interest to not have weapons or not project that he had weapons. So no lefty could ever argue that he didn't have intent, nor that so long that sanctions were in place that he wouldn't constantly seek to undermine them.
If it was his intent to get weapons and even if he couldn't get them it was his intent to pretend he had weapons and he acts on these motivations to procure wewapons, maintain programs, or lie about them, then he can't (and lefties can't) also argue that Bush lied about Sadaam's intent or that Sadaam was telling the truth and wasn't trying to get weapons.
that would make Sadaam a liar when he told his handler that he pretended to have weapons to appear strong to his enemies. Only a schizophrenic would try to maintain both positions at once, and I guess sadaam was that foolish.; 2/16/11, 11:17 AM
shiloh said...: Fen said...

And why is it taking Obama so long to capture Osama Bin Laden?

Its been two years now. For eight, the Libtards whined and moaned about it, now they are silent.
~~~~~

For your amusement, here's what Bush has said about bin Laden at various points in time, depending on how he was trying to spin things:

"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him."
~ G.W. Bush, 9/13/01

"I want justice...There's an old poster out West, as I recall, that said, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive,'"
~ G.W. Bush, 9/17/01, UPI

"...Secondly, he is not escaping us. This is a guy, who, three months ago, was in control of a country. Now he's maybe in control of a cave. He's on the run. Listen, a while ago I said to the American people, our objective is more than bin Laden. But one of the things for certain is we're going to get him running and keep him running, and bring him to justice. And that's what's happening. He's on the run, if he's running at all. So we don't know whether he's in cave with the door shut, or a cave with the door open -- we just don't know...."
- Bush, in remarks in a Press Availability with the Press Travel Pool, The Prairie Chapel Ranch, Crawford TX, 12/28/01, as reported on official White House site

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority." ~ G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

"I am truly not that concerned about him." ~ G.W. Bush, responding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts, 3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02)
~~~~~

dubya has spoken ~ so it shall be written, so it shall be done ...

take care, blessings; 2/16/11, 11:56 AM
Ankur said...: Seven Machos said.." However, you'd be a fool to make Rommel your guy if you wanted to keep that territory."

This.

This is a critically important lesson in warcraft.; 2/16/11, 12:04 PM
Martin L. Shoemaker said...: SGT Ted,

I don't know when. I don't know where. I don't know how. But some day, I'm buying you a beer, and I'll keep buying all night long.

It's all I can stomach to even look at the photos of the mass graves. For you to have duty guarding there... You're a better, stronger man than me.; 2/16/11, 12:13 PM
jr565 said...: Shiloh wrote:
"I am truly not that concerned about him." ~ G.W. Bush, responding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts, 3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02)

If Osama has been driven into a cave and operational leadership is instead being done by Zawahiri, then it's less important to get the figurehead leader. It doesn't mean that you still shouldn't go after him, only that Al Qaeda will still be operational whether OBL is there or not, so that is the higher priority.
That simply points to changing directives and priotiy as situations progress.
The only reason it's even an issue is becasue the libs have been using the facxt that we hadn't found obl as an indictment of Bush.
Obama even said that Mccain would follow obl to the gates of hell but he wouldn't even follow him into the caves of Pakistan. (implying that HE would and that Mccain was lying). So shouldn't we hold Obama to the same standard that we held Bush? You mean to tell us that Obama won't even go to the caves in Pakistan to look for the guy? I have yet to even hear him mention looking for OBL once in the last year. Are there even troops out looking for him?
For such snarky a holes, I figure you guys would be on top of holding him accountable for not seeking out OBL. I get it, you were just making Bush live up to his rules (alinsky 101). So now we're going to hold Obama accountable for your rules.; 2/16/11, 12:50 PM
Michael said...: jr565: Do you actually believe that OBL is still alive? I think he was killed in the original assaults on Tora Bora and has been kept "alive" to confound the AQ bunch and compel them to continue to invent directives from the corpse. We will recall that OBL was very fond of the video camera in his day and post 2001 has gone to radio. Unusual transition.; 2/16/11, 1:06 PM
jr565 said...: Michael wrote:
Do you actually believe that OBL is still alive? I think he was killed in the original assaults on Tora Bora and has been kept "alive" to confound the AQ bunch and compel them to continue to invent directives from the corpse.

He's becoming a DB Cooper type. At this point who knows? I thought he had made some tapes recently that suggested that he was still alive (as they referenced current events) but I don't know how verifiable those tapes actually are (it could be a psyops from either us or from Al Qaeda)
If he is dead, it wouldn't surprise me in the least, but its still possible that he is alive.; 2/16/11, 1:16 PM
roesch-voltaire said...: Freder thank for finding the quote which I was pulling from my memory of 2003 when I saw Wolfowritz on C-Span spouting this nonsense, which of course later he tried to back peddle. \LIn On page 102 Rhodes ends the chapter about WW1 with it new uses of mechanical destruction with this description: "Each interlocking system was logical in itself and each system could be rationalized by those who worked it and moved through it." My point is that I distrust the rationalizations of those so willing to go to war.; 2/16/11, 1:59 PM
shiloh said...: @jr565

So shouldn't we hold Obama to the same standard that we held Bush?

You mean to tell us

For such snarky a holes
~~~~~

9/11 happened under cheney/bush ie they were caught w/their pants down!

Not tellin' you anything other than quoting Bush and dubya says bin Laden is not that important even though he was the mastermind behind the murder of 3k innocent victims. And as a USN veteran, how embarrassing for the U.S. military that terrorists flew a commercial airliner into the Pentagon ~ repeating, terrorists flew a frickin' aircraft into the Pentagon !@#$%^&*

But, but, but cheney/bush says no biggie, eh.

>

and the irony alert must be at (((condition red))) for a conservative at Althouse to mention snarky a holes.

pot/kettle would just be redundant!

>

Speaking of irony, 9/11 helped cheney/bush get re-elected as no wartime incumbent has ever lost.

The opposite of "no good deed goes unpunished!" Oh the humanity ...

>

To answer your rhetorical question, indeed our military is still looking for bin Laden as al Queda is still in existence ie the bad guys, plus one assumes the Joint Chiefs are still kinda pissed re: 9/11 ie (125) deaths at the Pentagon ...

take care, blessings; 2/16/11, 5:20 PM
pavlova8 said...: Steve you're channelling W - the word is undoubtedly.
Saddam faked a lot of his so-called WMD, just to scare his neighbors.
Hilarious thought - the mouse that roared gets squashed - but ultimately a terrible and tragic set of events for everyone.
I'd like to see the crystal balls Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld have now - tee hee
He says he is proud that he and his sons were the reason to give Iraq the margin of democracy - I'd be equally keen to see the fabled margin of democracy. It'll be somewhere buried under the rubble of where that country's schools, hospitals, museums, houses used to be, I guess!!1; 2/16/11, 5:23 PM
jr565 said...: Shiloh wrote:
9/11 happened under cheney/bush ie they were caught w/their pants down!

Not tellin' you anything other than quoting Bush and dubya says bin Laden is not that important even though he was the mastermind behind the murder of 3k innocent victims. And as a USN veteran, how embarrassing for the U.S. military that terrorists flew a commercial airliner into the Pentagon ~ repeating, terrorists flew a frickin' aircraft into the Pentagon !@#$%^&*

But, but, but cheney/bush says no biggie, eh

Just remember what the majority of you lefties said - THERE IS NO TERRORIST THREAT. Its not an existential threat. BUsh is merely hyping the threat to spread fear, You're more likely to die in a car acident then be a victim of a terrorist attack. Any enhancement of security to prevent further attacks is an implementation of a police state, not seen since the days of Nazi Germany. Oh, and we had obama already and were going to bring him out for an october surprise.
Don't tell us that all of a sudden the dems think that Al Qaeda is suddenly a threat again. You had 8 years to get with the program and instead for 8 years used all your ammo trying to suggest that Bush was the biggest terrorist.
And you're lying. Bush is not saying that going after Al Qaeda is no biggie, he's saying going after Al Qaeda (WHOEVER is in charge) is more important than one guy who is mostl likely dead or hidden in a cave, no longer calling the operational shots.
And should finding OBL stop because Bush is no longer in charge? Why aren't you holding Obama to account, since he too hasn't found OBL and doesn't appear to be looking for all intents and purposes.; 2/16/11, 5:36 PM
shiloh said...: jr565

You're not very good at deflectin' ~ just sayin'

Re: your incoherent red herring ~ less is more, Nazi Germany notwithstanding ...

And at least you didn't try to apologize for cheney/bush which seems to be the main 24/7 obsession/ritual for wingers at Althouse.

take care, blessings; 2/16/11, 5:47 PM
jr565 said...: Shiloh wrote:
You're not very good at deflectin' ~ just sayin'

Re: your incoherent red herring ~ less is more, Nazi Germany notwithstanding ...

?

And at least you didn't try to apologize for cheney/bush which seems to be the main 24/7 obsession/ritual for wingers at Althouse.

I don't even know what I should have to apologize for Bush about. Seems to me like you want to ping Bush because he dind't do enough to stop the attack. And let me guess - he KNEW the attack was coming becuase there was a memo that said Al Qaeda determined to attack us right? Or should I have to apologize for Bush overreacting to the nonexistent threat and implementing Nazi Germany on this country.
There is no terrorist threat, unless it can be used to zing Bush. And then it's the worlds worst threat EVER (just ask Richard Clarke). Only any escalation of the terror threat is FEAR MONGERING since again there is no real threat. You guys are inchoerent assholes.
Take care, blessings.; 2/16/11, 6:04 PM
shiloh said...: That's better jr565 ;) as you now meekly attempt to apologize/rationalize cheney/bush's 9/11 utter incompetence ~ continual irrelevant Nazi Germany red herrings notwithstanding ...

All is well at Althouse! lol

btw, your ad nauseam, kindergarten ad hominems are indeed impressive ie always a good way to win a political discussion, eh.

ciao; 2/16/11, 6:20 PM
jr565 said...: shiloh wrote:
That's better jr565 ;) as you now meekly attempt to apologize/rationalize cheney/bush's 9/11 utter incompetence ~ continual irrelevant Nazi Germany red herrings notwithstanding ...

I'm not apologizing for anything, meekly or otherwise. I'm simply saying you guys spent 8 years channeling michael moore saying there was no real threat. It was only when Richard Clarke could be used as a cudgel against Bush that you guys said Al Qaeda was the most important threat we faced. But you know that if Richard Clarke had said the same things a a month later he would be yet another scare monger trying to spread fear to get Bush elected.
Before you guys start going after the conservatives you should perhaps get your stories straight. If in fact you do believe that Al Qaeda was such a strong threat, you should then explain why the left was so uncooperative in applying any measures that would actually make it tougher to deal with the threat, not to mention call it a lie every single time the threat levels were raised.
And please describe the incompetence that Bush is responsible for. I bet it's the memo that says Al Qaeda is determined to attack us. Right? Can you find any actionable intel in that memo, stuff like dates or times or locations?Or is there simply the intent of Al Qaeda to harm us. Since they declared a fatwah against us in 1998, is that somehow not known?; 2/16/11, 7:11 PM
Fen said...: I really hated the use of the catch-all term "WMD" at the time. They insisted on that term, repeating it over and over. It needed to parsed; what exactly did they mean?

Nuclear. Biological. Chemical. (NBC)

It had nuclear overtones but happened to include biological. That's bad but doesn't rise to the level of the other.

Uhmm... reverse that. An example of a bio WMD is a SuperFlu that kills 90+%. Think "The Stand" by Steven King.; 2/16/11, 10:51 PM
Fen said...: Libtard: It'll be somewhere buried under the rubble of where that country's schools, hospitals, museums, houses used to be, I guess!!

Guess away, revel in your ignorance.

Hint: try googling "Marines build schools, hospitals, houses"

228,000 results.

Idiot.; 2/16/11, 10:54 PM
SGT Ted said...: Wow someone stupider than Freder showed up to make moronic fact free statements.

Like she even gives a shit about the Iraqis.; 2/16/11, 11:29 PM