ShortNews
+ + + 3 BRANDNEW NewsTickers for your Website! + + + easy configurable in less than 1 Minute + + + GET'EM NOW! + + +

   Home | Join | Submit News | MyShortNews | HighScores | FAQ'S | Forums Chat | 0 Users Online   
   
                 04/21/2014 02:23 AM  
  ShortNews Search
search all Channels
RSS feeds
   Top News Politics
Putin: Obama Would Save Me From Drowning
Louisiana Upholds Ban on Oral Sex
Tea Party Primary Challenger Says John Boehner Has "Electile Dysfunction"
Russia Wants to Take Over the Moon
more News
out of this Channel...
  ShortNews User Poll
Do you think marriages between same-sex couples should be legally recognized?
  Latest Events
04/20/2014 07:16 PM
Lurker receives 20 Points for Comment about 'Hustler Magazine Sent to Every Congressional Office Since 1983'
04/20/2014 02:56 PM
coronado receives 20 Points for very good Assessment of 'Hustler Magazine Sent to Every Congressional Office Since 1983'
04/20/2014 02:56 PM
captainJane receives 20 Points for Comment about 'Hustler Magazine Sent to Every Congressional Office Since 1983'
  3.454 Visits   5 Assessments  Show users who Rated this:
Quality:Very Good
Back to Overview  
02/20/2011 12:19 AM ID: 87999 Permalink   

"Curveball" Confesses Lies that Led to Iraq War

 

Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi, codenamed "Curveball" by intelligence forces, has for the first time admitted that he told lies about the regime of Saddam Hussein that led to the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq. He says he´s proud that he did it.

"They [intelligence officials] gave me this chance," he said. "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," he said.

Then-US Sec. of State Colin Powell delivered a speech consisting mostly of al-Janabi´s lies to the UN eight years ago. Al-Janabi admits his claims had been discredited well before Powell´s speech. Donald Rumsfeld has also admitted there were no WMDs.

 
  Source: www.guardian.co.uk  
    WebReporter: Ben_Reilly Show Calling Card      
  Recommendation:  
ASSESS this news: BLOCK this news. Reason:
   
  16 Comments
  
  Oops  
 
Last line should be Rumsfeld admitted there were *no* WMDs.
 
  by: Ben_Reilly     02/20/2011 12:20 AM     
  So?  
 
Is Iraq better now than in 2002?
 
  by: H. W. Hutchins   02/20/2011 02:57 AM     
  In one word..  
 
NO!
 
  by: captainJane     02/20/2011 05:34 AM     
  Finally  
 
I worked in one of the major intelligence bodies during the Iraq war and ´the anthrax´ speech made me spit out my coffee. Anyone with even a passing knowledge of the middle east´s (and specifically Iraq´s) capability to produce and deliver WMD was either laughing or crying at these claims. It´s not this dude´s fault, the regime had the ´reliable source´ it needed to go to war, and they ran with it.

The sad part is, 99% of the populace will never see this story.
 
  by: japh   02/20/2011 06:06 PM     
  This is called "Snow Job"  
 
This is called "Snow Job" .. passing the buck, it´s obvious .. duh LOLOL .. you´d have to be a moron to believe otherwise ;)
 
  by: Key2000     02/20/2011 08:29 PM     
  @the war  
 
@H.W.
Let’s ask the 3 million Iraqis who are no longer with us. O WAIT THEY HAVE BEEN LIQUADATED umm LIBERATED by our so loving troops.
Do we just call this as causalities of war? Didn’t the Nazi start the war of Annihilation and the Jewish People were then just causalities of there war. The killing of any individual is wrong and all burden of blame falls on the aggressor. We supported this we are no better then the murderers who committed or ordered these heinous crimes

@japh
Didn´t our government created special task force to search and hunt down WMD in Iraq.
Didn’t we spend 100 of million if not billions to prove the so called ´reliable source´ to be true? I guess it is easy to hide behind “99% of the populace will never see this story” Then to be a laughing-stock of the world community.
Wonder who history will define as evil regime in the near future.
 
  by: justus4all   02/20/2011 10:50 PM     
  ah...  
 
Remember a good old time, when Saddam was put into power by the CIA.

Really though, it´s unfortunate that we´ll probably never have the people that propagated the invasion put behind bars/tried for war crimes.

Saddam, while being strict,merciless, sometimes downright evil, did some good. He kept Iraq stable. By dissolving their entire government AND military, we basically screwed Iraq. When we pull out, Iran is going to come knocking. (they´re still better about that 8 year long war a couple decades ago).

No other country really has the authority to forcfully enter another just to change regimes, unless it´s people (en masse,a majority of) beg for help. It should be the people who cry out for help, not another company forcing help on them.

A lot of iraqis were happy when saddam was ousted, because they were given freedom. However, now that they can be blown the hell up just walking outside (talking more about foreign terrorists planting IEDs, randomly killing people, killing families and taking over their home to set up a base of operations) they aren´t so happy.

We could have influenced Saddam to give his people more freedom without toasting the stability of Iraq.

Unfortunately that wasn´t the purpose of going into Iraq in the first place (nor were "wmds" that was obviously just a veiled reasoning for the invasion). We´ll never truly know what the reasons were, as that little secret is bound and gagged in a place that won´t be revieled in our lifetimes.

I´d be betting on the good ol´ "war brings money to the economy rule. However for that to have been affective, we would have needed to go in, and get out quick. Instead we spent too much money maintaining a presence and have now been "at war" for 7 years. So that can´t have been the reason. (anyone who studies war to economy effects knows in order for it to work, you need to get in and get out, not overstay and settle down).

Oil isn´t even really a good enough reason, hell we have more oil in alaska than Iraq has. Plus we´re not seeing a discount in oil prices even though we´re got companies now pumping iraqs oil. Not to mention the cost of the war outweighs the potential gains from the oil Iraq has.

So what´s the reason? we will never know.
 
  by: tizubythefizo   02/21/2011 02:41 AM     
  curveballs lies didn´t lead to the iraq war  
 
Two things led to the iraq war:
1. a regime in washington that WANTED the war - no matter what
2. an intelligence community which failed to fact-check curveballs claims because, well, what he said was exactly what washington wanted to hear.

Unless those responsible are taken to an international court, international forces have been removed from the country the US destroyed and Iraq has been granted reparations, neither justice nor freedom will exist for Iraq.
 
  by: scrut999   02/21/2011 09:39 AM     
  The Problem isn´t with Curveball  
 
It is with us. Curveball´s lies were just a convenient excuse.

We should have a conversation in the US about fighting wars, but we won´t.

The flag wavers are the problem. Easy to spot with their "Support our troops" ribbon bedecked SUVs.
 
  by: Jim8   02/21/2011 05:23 PM     
  @Jim8  
 
Look guy, there´s a difference between supporting our troops and supporting the war.

I am a veteran, having been deployed to Iraq in ´07. I didn´t(and still don´t) believe we should have been in Iraq, but I had to man up and do my duty despite my opinion.

A lot of troops don´t want to be there, but they go, and do their jobs, because they have to.

Soldiers don´t have a choice. If we try to back out, we go to prison or worse, get a dishonorable discharge (worse than prison, getting a dishonorable discharge from the military is worse than being a felon,it´s an automatic fail to any background check).

I take pride in serving my country, regardless of how I feel about the war.

You don´t have to agree with the war, but to not support the soldiers who die defending each other makes you a prick.

Supporting our troops is not equal to supporting the war. I can´t tell you how many times I´ve been thanked for my service from people who support us, but not the war.

 
  by: tizubythefizo   02/21/2011 08:10 PM     
  @tizubythefizo  
 
So, i guess what you?re saying is that the best way to support the troops is to prevent them from going to needlessly dangerous situations. You are also saying that to a great degree it would be more honorable to serve the country in a justified fight than to be only fighting for your fellow soldier (though serving one man with your life is no less heroic than serving many).

I agree - and 100% spport any man that is willing to risk his life to serve and defend his fellow man, yea, even with my life. If he can accomplish this honorably under the worst of political circumstances makes him a true patriot.
On the other hand...
Any man that takes advantage of another?s duty to his fellow man for political and financial gain - is a scumbag and a weasel!

[ edited by mexicanrevolution ]
 
  by: mexicanrevolution   02/21/2011 10:59 PM     
  PNAC  
 
got us into the war in Iraq. They tried every thing they could to get Clinton to invade Iraq and he wouldn´t. When they got dimwitted Bush and his cronies elected the war was inevitable.
 
  by: Lurker     02/21/2011 11:46 PM     
  @mexicanrevolution  
 
Yes, more or less. Though the honor of the soldier is never questioned when they serve (unless they´re actively committing crimes).

Those that started the war (certain politicians) are the scumbags. The soldiers can´t be blamed for following legal orders (legal orders does not mean what YOU think is legal, it means what the government determines is legal at the time, please no comments like "i think the whole war is illegal and anyone taking part is a war criminal, that´s not the definition of of following/not following a legal order. Look at WWII, not every German soldier was committed of war crimes, only those that did such crimes without being ordered, and the hierarchy were were tried as war criminals)

The war had already been on for 2 years when I joined the army. I take pride in my time in service. While there, whatever the reasons for US troops being there, we WERE helping people(my unit was actively protecting Iraqi citizens). Once Saddam was removed, the countries stability went to shit.

That all happened prior to my going, when I was there, My mission was to protect the Iraqi civilians and to root out and capture active terrorists (keep in mind, Al qeada frequently would slaughter an entire family just to take over their house to use as a base of operations, then rig the house to explode when they were done with it, so that if anyone went inside, boom.)

I take pride in knowing that I not only defended my fellow soldiers, but protected Iraqi citizens.

When I got to Iraq the damage had been done,stability was gone. What caused it was irrelevant to me at the time. I could only do everything in my power to save lives and defend their, and our freedoms.

(also keep in mind that the foreign terrorists, that is those not from Iraq DO WANT to kill Americans, all Americans. Most of the terrorists in Iraq are not from Iraq, it´s where they are congregating because Americans are nearby, and it´s much easier to kill Americans in Iraq than to get into this country and go postal).
 
  by: tizubythefizo   02/22/2011 02:04 AM     
  @scrut  
 
Please don´t mention the supposed ´failures´ of the intelligence community. The reality of the situation is that you, and the general public have no idea what the intelligence community is, how it gets its facts, or even what agency would have been responsible for the ´fact checking´ you mentioned.

Sadly, decision-makers were going by (at best) faulty information from a TINY number of CIA while ignoring the opinion of the IC at large, or (at worst, and far more likely) they didn´t really give a shit about the intelligence or lack thereof to the effect they wanted. ´Intelligence failures´ are easy to blame on the ´intelligence community´, but in this case, neither had anything to do with the Iraq war.

Let´s say you´re an intelligence analyst who found something glaringly wrong and deplorable. Here´s your options:
1) Discuss it with your chain of command, who won´t give a shit.
1a) If they give a shit, the people above them won´t.
1b) Even if the people above them give a shit, the people at the top already have their agenda in mind.
2) Attempt to contact a political representative, who also won´t give a shit. Also, run the risk of being jailed for unauthorized release of information.
3) Attempt to speak out publicly on news outlets, get arrested and thrown in solitary.
4) Attempt to shout it from the rooftops/start a grassroots campaign, get thrown in jail and sodomized by convicts.
5) Attempt to clandestinely leak information to an outlet like wikileaks, get thrown in jail and sodomized by convicts.

Not to mention any of the above would be compromising your personal integrity and going against what you agreed to in your security clearance ´contract´

Choose wisely! Even if every man, woman, and child knew the war was on false pretenses (as they do today, since oh, basically everyone has admitted there were never WMD), it´s much easier to blame the omniscient ´intelligence community´ rather than the people who actually made this happen.
 
  by: japh   02/22/2011 03:53 PM     
  @tizubythefizo  
 
The honor of every man should be measured individually by their actions. Whether a german during wwii (as in the case of Anton Schmid) or american (as in the case of Hugh Thompson) during the vietnam war. Both soldiers but both men knew what honor was.

War is an ugly place that only unbinds what each of us really is. Some, honorable men who serve even without recognition, and others brutal men who know no honor and wield their power mercilessly.

That said, i don´t think you correctly define combatants in the iraq war. "Terrorists" clouds the fact that they are fighting an organized and deliberate war against the west and its interests. They are fighting for a reason though their hatred is easily seen. Their´s is a religious war, with all its blinding devotion. Sharia for the world and the end of the secular state and therefore the end of the nation-state. Sure there are guys here and there fighting for some cash and some bread... but the core principle is sharia; terrorism is method of choice for a lesser armed but determined foe, specially one who is doing it for the cause of "God" and who´s life can be bought for a handful of bread.


[ edited by mexicanrevolution ]
 
  by: mexicanrevolution   02/22/2011 06:49 PM     
  @japh  
 
I agree and my first blame goes to those policy makers that decided they wanted the war.

As several documents prove, those policy makers then ordered the CIA to provide the "facts" to back up the decision to go to war.

But the sad thing is: the intelligence community didn´t object. Quote "intelligence was fixed around policy".

And I do stand by my claim that this is the part where every analyst who didn´t object can be blamed.

Back after WWII America did the same with Nazi troops who all claimed to just have been following orders: the USA sentenced them to death anyways because they said "yes, you followed orders - but you are guilty because you didnt say no" But again: the policy makers are the ones responsible and every person supporting them or their decisions have the blood of innocent iraqis and american soldiers on their hands. And unless those responsible have not been punished and unless Iraq has not received reparations, Iraq has not seen justice nor freedom.

[ edited by scrut999 ]
 
  by: scrut999   02/23/2011 01:55 PM     
 
 
Copyright ©2014 ShortNews GmbH & Co. KG, Contact: info@shortnews.com