The Guardian published a piece yesterday (2/15/11) based on an interview with “Curveball,” the Iraqi exile whose fraudulent claims about Iraq’s WMDs helped the Bush administration sell the Iraq War. “I had the chance to fabricate something to topple the regime,” he explained.
The piece is pretty revealing–as Curveball watched Colin Powell’s UN address in February 2003,theGuardian reports that “he had not met a U.S. official, let alone been interviewed by one.”
One “flight of fantasy” Curveball deliveredwas the claim that Iraq was manufacturing mobile bio-weapons labs. These did not exist. But if you were watching U.S. television news during the war, you got to see them discovered by at least two networks:
ABC:
On April 26, ABC‘s World News Tonight led with a major scoop. Anchor Claire Shipman announced at the top of the broadcast, “U.S. troops discover chemical agents, missiles, and what could be a mobile laboratory in Iraq. An ABC News exclusive.” But ABC‘s “exclusive,” as it turns out, appears to be false.
And on NBC (5/11/03):
May 11, 2003
â┚¬”ÂNBC anchor John Seigenthaler introduces a story about trailers found in Iraq that some U.S. officials say are mobile biological warfare labs: “There is new evidence tonight that Saddam Hussein’s regime was capable of building weapons of mass destruction.” Reporter Jim Avila concludes the report by declaring that the findings present “a set of circumstances military sources contend is very close to that elusive smoking gun.”
May 12, 2003
â┚¬”ÂIn a follow-up report, NBC Nightly News correspondent Jim Avila declares that two trailers found by the U.S. military in northern Iraq “may be the most significant WMD findings of the war.” Former U.N. nuclear inspector David Kay performs an impromptu inspectionâ┚¬”Âarmed with a pointer, he rattles off the trailer’s parts: “This is a compressor. You want to keep the fermentation process under pressure so it goes faster. This vessel is the fermenter….” Avila expresses little doubt about the discovery: “A mobile lab capable of manufacturing anthrax or botulism from the back of a truck, with equipment manufactured as late as 2003.”
And on the VERY SAME DAY, new reports were telling us about U.S. “intelligence” on the issue of alleged Iranian nuclear weapons, no doubt based on Curveball’s Iranian cousin:
http://lefti.blogspot.com/2011/02/iranian-curveball.html
Oh Horrors! Who can we believe?…if you don’t believe what’s in the papers, or on TV?…what is REAL?
Just head for the Himalayas and find yourself a guru in a cave.
So, Donr, you want to buy a bridge to Brooklyn? Hearst’s New York Journal-American calls it a “Real Steal.” And Fox News touts it as a great investment to support the American economy in our quest to “make the world safe for our kind of democracy.” I’ll be happy to take your down payment.
WEll at least it put the theories of a conspiracy that George Bush made up this part of the information to avenge his father ,and launch the war to bed.It was Bad intel. Heads should roll so this never happens to Obama or any other president
No-one lost their job, Two Trillion $$ ( later, or 4000+ Americam soldiers dead, 35000 injured, 100000+ iraq’s dead, 150000 iraq’s, some of them( the cause agent) travel around promoting their books of cover/lies. no-one goes to jail…. steal a loaf of bread to feed yourself/ family you be in jail… ahhhh, its sad.
shoot everybody whom delivers true info to the people or even better “put your finger in the nose while the hang up party of Assange” renews our good old spirit of Klux-Klux-Clan but dont you ever dare scratching on media or polititians or you are marked a terrorist. ABC, NBC, CNN, FOX, etc all money driven slaves of the same delivering a show since bad news are declared the only news to be told. (Fear – control managment)Bush, 9/11, Irak, Middle East, there is plenty of dirt still open while Obama pushes the game into demencia instead of resolving, revealing and leading for real.
There were many who were exposing the Bush lies about Iraq at the time & nobody listened. No mention at all – even now – about Cheney’s Office of Special Plans, where mostly all the lies were hatched. Not one interview with Karen Kwiatkowski, an Air Force Lt. Colonel, who worked there as an analyst. And the Pentagon before that. She wrote a series of anonymous articles, “Insider Notes from the Pentagon”, that appeared on the website of retired Col. David Hackworth (SOLDIERS FOR THE TRUTH). She told it all in her Salon article on March 10, 2004, “The New Pentagon Papers.”
Now the great General Colon Powell comes out and says he was duped. Give me a break, there are no more decent Generals left. They are all “perfumed princes” as “Hack” used to call them.
There are so few reliable news sources in this country. It’s a shame the American people are so gullible and ignorant of how they are being “played” by the elitists. It make’s me want to throw up.
worth repeating: the bush administration lied to the american people about the cia’s intelligence assessments
Mark Mazzetti | LA Times Staff Writer
In a classified National Intelligence Estimate prepared before the Iraq war, the CIA hedged its judgments about Saddam Hussein and weapons of mass destruction, pointing up the limits of its knowledge.
But in the unclassified version of the NIE — the so-called white paper cited by the Bush administration in making its case for war — those carefully qualified conclusions were turned into blunt assertions of fact, according to the Senate Intelligence Committee’s report on prewar intelligence.
http://articles.latimes.com/2004/jul/10/nation/na-nie10
The majority of us knew this (just remember all the people who demonstrated against the attack) but could do nothing about it because the “powers that be” had decided to attack Iraq already in 1996. It is sad that our current President unfortunately does not think that criminals of such magnitude should be investigated and tried.
If anyone wants to understand why the war started you may of had to live through it. Everyone here monday morning quarterbacking is kind of funny ,but irrelevant.Woodward says the CIA did not see a cause for war.THAT is completely incorrect.
Lets take Saddam’s words on his deathbed as true.His view of his right to rearm in all manner, is a certainty that war was coming.He had no intention of following his surrender accord.No intention of following UN dictates. Period.He had all ready broken most of his agreements, any one of which should, and could- of resulted in a resumption of the war.We have been over this a million times.You libs believe Bush, and later Obama should of simply turned tail and followed the libs mantra of defeat ,retreat, and surrender. You act as children in a very dangerous world. You are angry at Obama for not trying Bush and Cheney on war crimes ,and cant believe it when he says that there is nothing that points to this as being valid.
Obama believed showing weakness will make people like us- or some such rot.Showing weakness is danger.But slowly, like a glacier melting- even he realizes how wrong he was ..Saddam is gone and the world a better place for it. Bush received bad intel and this proves that a lot of your conspiracy ideas are crap. Tough lesson.The whole world at the time thought it the right call.Sorry that is how it happened.
If anyone wants to know why the US really went to war, they should consider the ”findings” of the Cheney-led Energy Task Force as a good first approximation. Their report pushed for political and economic maneuvering by the United States to secure control of the production of petroleum, including pushing Saudi Arabia to increase its quota, aggressive lobbying of other countries in the region, and a continued search for oil outlets throughout the world. Invading Iraq and jacking up its oil production (which has so far not happened, largely because of the bungling and incompetence of the administration, partly because of non-violent resistance of Iraqi workers and trade unions, and partly because of the insurgency) was intended to give the United States a safety valve in the event of hostilities emanating from OPEC and non-compliance from the Saudis.
WMD were an afterthought. In a sense, they were relevant: the mere possibility that Saddam might rearm was a genuine threat to US national security (suitably defined) because these weapons would have posed a deterrent to American aggression. Hence, it was imperative that Saddam be taken out before he could rebuild such a fearsome capability and thus block strategic plans for an entrenchment of US power in the region. The war in Iraq is an extension of the Carter Doctrine. There’s really nothing mysterious or even particularly conspiratorial about it. It’s true that the Bush Jnr clique was more brazen than the rest of the establishment would have liked, and that they tried to siphon off a portion of the spoils for themselves and their cronies, but the strategic logic of the war is a continuation of long-standing US policy.
”Obama believed showing weakness will make people like us- or some such rot.”
Though the implicit alternative – attacking people so that they will like you – does not seem to qualify as ‘rot’, even in spite of a) the high a priori plausibility of the notion being rot, and b) the empirical finding that it is. You employ some truly bizarre logic. Presumably what you mean by ”showing weakness” is ”not bombing Iran”. Extending the Afghan war and being even more aggressive than Bush in Pakistan don’t suffice to ward off the charge of ”weak”, apparently. However, capitulating to Israel, I suspect, won’t register as weak. The truth is that the United States will NEVER truly be able to control the Middle East because its interests are fundamentally juxtaposed to those of the people in the region.
Luis
I don’t disagree that the oil bloodline is always an important part of any geopolitical consideration. And at the heart of our involvement in the middle east. More reasons to develop our own,as fast as we can(drill baby drill)And build build build refineries.
Bush like an idiot did in effect sign away iraqi oil to prove we were not there for that ,and to show this was not in his motive for the invasion. Stupid stupid move. Iraq is coming back on line but selling little to us. Great deal you wangled there George.
Obama believes wrongly that detachment /disengagement from Americas influence in far flung regions would result in good feelings for this country.He in effect thought the world would love him and buy his rhetoric as this country did.He has shown only a weak ineffectual president, who is more than willing to turn his back on proven allies, while he barters with our enemies. That is weakness.And that is dangerous.There is an old proverb there “the lamb dies quietly as he presents his neck to the slaughter.”It is sad but only strength is respected in many dangerous parts of the world
“Woodward says the CIA did not see a cause for war.THAT is completely incorrect.”
no, that’s not what i wrote, i wrote “the CIA hedged its judgments about Saddam Hussein and weapons of mass destruction, pointing up the limits of its knowledge.” they couldn’t prove the existance of wmds.
the bush administration changed, in the words of the Senate Intelligence Committee, “those carefully qualified conclusions into blunt assertions of fact.”
that’s not “conspiracy ideas,” that’s what was done.
”More reasons to develop our own,as fast as we can(drill baby drill)And build build build refineries.”
Even if those refineries were brought online, they wouldn’t satiate the US economy (or, at least, what the architects of the war projected for America’s economy in the coming few decades. Needless to say, they did this with no consultation with the American people, though on the plus side, narrow sectors of power were well represented, so it’s by definition in ”the national interest”). Furthermore, the Iraq war was part and parcel of a strategy of pushing governments to increase their production. Iraq was utterly about oil: not just control of the country’s oil, but as a region-wide ”shock and awe” campaign to intimidate the region’s rulers to fall into line; to build new military bases to consolidate American control of the region and keep a lid on any trouble; and to showcase a neoliberal economic makeover for the Middle East. The latter experiment was actually attempted in Iraq, with Bremer and his economic fundamentalist ethos wreaking havoc on Iraqi economic life. This was actually one of the major driving factors behind the insurgency, and is one of the reasons that it became too strong for the occupiers to suppress.
”Obama believes wrongly that detachment /disengagement from Americas influence in far flung regions would result in good feelings for this country.He in effect thought the world would love him and buy his rhetoric as this country did.”
No, what happened was that after the disaster that was 8 years of Bush, the US government turned to a more conciliatory line, as it was pretty much obligated to do. Under Bush, the US managed to alienate even close allies. Furthermore, Obama hasn’t ”disengaged” from far flung regions; like I said (correctly), he has ramped up the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and under his auspices the US is militarising Latin America. In some ways he is even more aggressive than Bush. And what is the effect of this? Hatred directed at the US. Just like in Iraq, where the population was broiling with discontent at the occupation. Just like in Afghanistan now, and in Pakistan. It’s true that in Iraq, he is winding down overt military operations — something which would have happened eventually anyway, as the cost in American lives became too great, and as the anger of the Iraqi population grew and grew. So you’re effectively lamenting Obama’s ”weakness”, for doing what Bush managed to do so well (getting everyone to despise America) but doing so with less loss to American life. So we have war and unilateral action under Bush, with hatred at the US, plus lots of US troops killed or wounded while the government fails in its objectives. And under Obama, ”weakness’, with (you claim) people looking down at America, plus failure for the US to reach its objective, but without the loss of tonnes and tonnes of money and lives — except, this doesn’t even have the merit of being true. American social infrastructure is decaying as it groans under the weight of the military and ”security” budget. It doesn’t take a genius to realise that launching a war on Iran is a stupid idea. The US Army can barely contain the Afghan insurgency.
I think that something else is motivating your laments about Obama.
It’s a dangerous world, but I’m somewhat mystified as to why you think that the US should commit itself to not only participating as an active agent of danger (illegal wars, extrajudicial assassinations, torture, and propping up dictators), but also to expose itself so slavishly as the victim of this danger when it chooses to engage in these games of empire. After all, what obligation do people in ”far flung parts of the world” have to respect America more than, say, Luxembourg or Spain? Launching war on people so that they’ll ”respect” you is a pretty daft way of winning friends. So not only is your general thesis not true, it’s the exact opposite of the truth.
”It is sad but only strength is respected in many dangerous parts of the world”
That, if anything, is a justification for Iraqi WMDs: to protect themselves from precisely that danger. It’s the justification used by every dictator to justify his suppression of dissent. Imperialist ideologues seem incapable of understanding that danger can emanate from quarters uncomfortably close to home.
“WEll at least it put the theories of a conspiracy that George Bush made up this part of the information to avenge his father ,and launch the war to bed.It was Bad intel.”
Meanwhile, in the real world…
Curveball was supplied by the Iraqi National Congress, which specialized in supplying phony “defectors”–just like Curveball–who offered bullshit stories that a) rationalized an invasion policy, but b) never checked out, not once. The UN and every intel agency in the world had stopped talking to the INC before the Bush administration. The State Department had cut off the INC after the org was unable to account for millions it had been provided by State–it almost certainly went into the Swiss bank accounts of Achmed Chalabi and his cronies. Chalabi was head of the INC, and an international fugitive. He and his “defectors” were brought in from the cold by the Bush administration precisely because they shoveled the kind of bullshit Bush and co. wanted people to hear. Curveball, himself, was the brother of one of Chalabi’s top aides. His handlers in German intelligence flatly told the U.S. IC they didn’t believe anything he said. The only U.S. intel official to actually meet with Curveball–a Defense Department bio-weapons specialists detailed to the CIA–largely agreed with the Germans’ assessment, and vigorously protested the use of Curveball’s claims, but the war-hawks had badly browbeaten the U.S. intelligence community. In February, 2003, as Colin Powell was preparing to use the Curveball claims in his UN presentation, the fellow who had met with Curveball fired off a protest to the deputy director of the CIA’s Iraq WMD task force. The reply?
“…let’s keep in mind the fact that this war’s going to happen regardless of what Curveball said or didn’t say, and the powers that be probably aren’t terribly interested in whether Curveball knows what he’s talking about.”
…because, of course, the actual intelligence didn’t matter to the Bush administration.
“the bush administration changed, in the words of the Senate Intelligence Committee, ‘those carefully qualified conclusions into blunt assertions of fact.’ that’s not ‘conspiracy ideas,’ that’s what was done.”
That white paper should have become a scandal, as well, but, as usual with Bush wrongdoing, the press decided to ignore it. The paper has always been presented as a “summary” of the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, the one compiled in late Sept./early Oct. 2002. Turns out, it predates it.
Some background: An NIE is supposed to represent an intelligence community consensus on a given subject. The Bush administration never even requested an NIE on Iraq, which, in itself, is a scandal, and conclusively deflates any claim that intelligence was driving the Bush policy–if the administration’s publicly-stated concerns had been actual concerns, the creation of an NIE would have been the administration’s first step. As it turned out, Bush only asked for one at the last minute, and only because a shocked congress, learning that one had never been done, insisted on it.
As it turns out, the white paper “summary” of the NIE was actually first drafted months BEFORE the NIE. The number of months it predates the compilation of the NIE is unknown, but a draft of it from has surfaced from July 2002, and is basically the same as the final version, except–with no new information having been developed in the interim–the final version strengthens the charges against Iraq, sharpening existing ones in some cases and, in others, adding new claims (that’s an interesting story in and of itself–the changes seem to reflect the pernicious influence of Douglas Feith’s group in the Pentagon, established for the purpose of undermining the legitimate IC).
The obvious implication is that this paper was the blueprint for the NIE, rather than a summary of it. In other words, the charges that justified the war came first, and the intelligence was, in the words of the Downing Street memo, fixed around the policy.
Why did the Bush administration invade Iraq?
After it became apparent that the Bush administration was preparing to attack Iraq,
We decided to research the hawks promoting the invasion of Iraq. At this point we were
interested in uncovering the motivation since it was obvious that any threat that
Saddam Hussein’s Iraq posed to the United States was clearly exaggerated
to the point of deception. In 1981 Israeli destroyed Saddam Hussein’s nuclear plant
at Osiraq and the Americans again obliterated the site in 1991. In 1998, the IAEA
concluded: “There were no indications that there remains in Iraq any physical capability
for the production of amounts of weapons-usable nuclear material of any practical significance.”
http://www.iaea.org/worldatom/Programmes/ActionTeam/nwp2.html#weapon
In researching the hawks promoting the invasion of Iraq, we found a policy paper written
by Richard Perle et al for the state of Israel in 1996: (A Clean Break: A New Strategy for
Securing the Realm): http://www.israeleconomy.org/strat1.htm
“This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq â┚¬”Â
an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right â┚¬”Â
as a means of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions.”
And in 1998 Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, and notably Donald Rumsfeld (and
others) wrote a letter to then President Bill Clinton calling on him to remove
“…. Saddam Hussein’s regime from power.”
http://newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm
What is especially significant is the fact that the people who signed this letter back in 1998
entered the Bush administration after the presidential election of 2000.
After the terror and confusion of 9/11 in 2001 (which had nothing to do with Iraq),
they were able to implement their planned invasion of Iraq using the deception of
WMD’s and non-existent links between Iraq and al-Qa’ida.
And in the last past 5 years since 9/11, the evidence, the facts, all support the conclusion
that Jane’s Intelligence Digest hints at in the following report:
http://www.janes.com/regional_news/africa_middle_east/news/fr/fr030416_1_n.shtml
“All of this lends weight to the theory that Bush’s war is part of a
master plan to reshape the Middle East to serve Israel’s interests.”
The truth is that if any…i repeat if ANY of the beliefs the above bloggers believe are true about Bush- were true…. that he would be a war criminal. Changing secure data to fill his own dreams of conquest?
And furthermore that Obama would be forced to bring charges against Bush and his top people moments after his first complete briefings on the matter.Yet what do we see?Obama accepting most of The Bush war findings ,and in fact picking up the ball and moving it along down the field.And of course no charges are being offered.No illegalities mentioned by any Obama team members only too willing to inflict damage on Bush.So what does this mean?Only two possibilities.Obama is also a war criminal.Or…..your wrong.But I do not believe that many people(on these blogs) would change their minds even if Obama took them in hand and briefed them .In one ear and out the next.When Obama went in you thought AH NOW WE HAVE THAT DASTARDLY BUSH!After awhile Obama came out and said…”Nothing to see here ,and you all freaked out.
Luis
WE need to develop all natural resources and refineries as fast as we can .Period.
As far as how the world views us ,it is simple.Our allies(England,Israel etc)were far more in step with Bush than Obama.Europe sees America as economically insane now and militarily passive.Our enemies hate Bush, and Obama, and this country. Nothing will change that.They respected and feared Bush.They see Obama as a paper tiger.Before Obamas election terrorist factions were contacted in a loose poll to see their views on Obama and Bush.(97% favored Obama)The same poll was recently done again -with similar results.Want to know the most common view?THey saw Bush as more of a danger for their cause!Bush aside ,Obama is a foreign policy nightmare.A Complete flatline.Im hard pressed to find anything here or abroad he has accomplished that is good for this country.I will admit for a short period the world thought his winning smile would be a break from Bushes hard stare.But that was over quicker than even I thought.
Classical liberal 2
You made a big mistake on the Germans.They proffered the information as reliable,and in fact are taking a lot of the heat now.You seem to be saying that what the whole world believed at the time(including Iran)was due to what Bush doctored and offered.THat is nonsense.SAddam told his jailers that he hid his hand because of fear of Iran.And furthermore that he claimed the right to re-arm at any time in any way.He was the liar at the center.All sprang from that, and his breaking all caveats of his surrender terms reminiscent of Hitler and Chamberlain.Bush meant to bring him to heel after 911.And Saddam on his deathbed made it clear that would not happen.All the world thought him armed and dangerous.War against iraq was planned as far back as Clinton.Clinton said in his book that”as Iraq continues to break all surrender terms war will become inevitable”.He of course believed this would involve the UN.HA!!!
Look your beliefs that Obama would smile and the sea levals would change was bunk.It is a dangerous world and we had better be ready.
“You made a big mistake on the Germans.They proffered the information as reliable,and in fact are taking a lot of the heat now.”
Meanwhile, in the real world (courtesy of the L.A. Times, 20 Nov., 2005)…
The senior BND [German Federal Intelligence Service] officer who supervised Curveball’s case said he was aghast when he watched [Colin] Powell misstate Curveball’s claims as a justification for war.
“We were shocked,” the official said. “Mein Gott! We had always told them it was not proven…. It was not hard intelligence.”
—
The Germans went on the record about this years ago. From that same Times article:
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.
—
Later in the article, we read that Tyler Drumheller, then head of CIA covert operations in Europe, had a meeting on the subject with the BND station chief in Sept. 2002, and was told by him that Curveball was, in his words, “crazy,” and had suffered a mental breakdown. Drumheller:
“He said, first off, ‘They won’t let you see him. Second, there are a lot of problems. Principally, we think he’s probably a fabricator.'”
This is the play the Germans are now trying.Our intelligence people are not buying it.They have taken a trip to the woodshed for this one.Powell is not blaming Bush.He is squarely blaming the intelligence apparatus.He(curveball) was considered reliable.In fact it is counter intuitive to believe the Germans said “hey we have this info from a lying madman we would like to hand off to you”So this info did come from the Germans.It was presented to Bush and Powell ,in an analysis package that this was how things were.The president does not receive six scenarios, some of which are red herrings from his briefers and gets to pick which one he likes.This is a complete misreading of how things work.This information is confirmed BEFORE the president ever sees it.If you are saying there was another cog along the way i would buy that. But The cog was not Bush or Powell.And this new development is more proof of that.
And by the way….i just saw curveball in an interview where he said “he did tell german intel that he saw chemical weapons made, And participated himself.”And yet you say the Germans disagree with that account……Basically all i am seeing in all this is intel people running for high ground trying to duck their skrew ups.Not gonna fly.
”Only two possibilities.Obama is also a war criminal.Orâ┚¬Ã‚¦..your wrong.”
A third possibility presents itself – that Obama isn’t as committed to Change as he wanted people to think, part of his mantra of ”working with” everyone and ”not labeling folks”.
”WE need to develop all natural resources and refineries as fast as we can .Period.”
The Cheney report agreed with this. Hence the need to secure the largest reserves in the world (in Saudi Arabia, which was waning in its commitment to American energy needs, and Iraq, which was thought to provide an opportunity for reorienting the region and opening the floodgates). The problem was that it laid much more emphasis on refineries than on developing other types of energy sources. In fact, little emphasis was laid on alternatives at all. There was certainly no commitment to reorganize the US economy in such a way that it would be compelled to use alternatives before sucking all that black gold out of the ground.
”As far as how the world views us ,it is simple.Our allies(England,Israel etc)were far more in step with Bush than Obama.”
That would be a credit to Obama. Americans, whether in office or otherwise, have no moral obligation to slavishly follow what the Dear Leader says.
”Our enemies hate Bush, and Obama, and this country. Nothing will change that.They respected and feared Bush.They see Obama as a paper tiger.”
”Respect” isn’t the word I’d use, and I doubt whether they would. If anything, they also saw Bush as a paper tiger, whose super advanced and superbly trained army was bogged down by rag-tag insurgents. It’s more likely that they see Bush as a psychotic warlord rather than being in awe of him. In any case, whatever they ”see” in either leader, the facts on the ground point to the failure of Bush’s strategy, so the subjective perception that terrorists and other enemies have is rather beside the point. The Iraq war delivered a boon to the extremists, as the CIA predicted it would. It’s hard to imagine what would make these elements desist from seeing Obama as a paper tiger, when even hawkish right-wingers have little but praise for Obama’s intensification of special operations and other programs that are being expanded beyond what even Bush attempted. If Obama is a paper tiger in the sense you’re alluding to, it’s that he acquiesces to the right-wing on a whole host of issues. When Obama fails, one can always fall back on the mantra that he is ”soft on our enemies”, given that it’s reached the status of axiomatic truth among his detractors, so therefore it must be true.
”Before Obamas election terrorist factions were contacted in a loose poll to see their views on Obama and Bush.(97% favored Obama)”
The key word there is ”before”. Before the election, many Americans had high hopes for Obama. Obama has failed not because he pushed through policies that were contra to the mean-spirited norm, but because he didn’t push these measures through. He has achieved tepid reforms and adjustments, while leaving the key institutions and structures that have hollowed America out largely intact. The United States is a devastated society which has lost virtually all credibility. You subscribe to the strange notion that an intensification of everything wrong with US foreign policy will mend things, somehow. It’s only a matter of time before the rest of the world grows tired of American pronouncements about its role in managing global affairs and of its responsibility to ensure stability, democracy or some other flavour of the day, as its empire crumbles for all to see. Increasingly, its leaders are losing all touch with reality, and their ramblings, whether from the Democrat or the Republican wing of the business party, will sound like the hallucinations of a man on his deathbed.
”Im hard pressed to find anything here or abroad he has accomplished that is good for this country”
True. He has largely continued to in the Bush vein, and has in some cases been even more collusive with big business than Bush was. He continues to blindly pursue Bush’s foreign policy nightmares, paving the way for Chinese super power status as the United States bleeds itself of money, resources and young service people.
Luis.
Of course I see your views as skewed, and slanted in thought process, against this country,and her leaders.Bush you percieve- as he was painted by Libs in a concerted effort to discredit everything he did.Danial Carvil admits as much.He states that minutes after Bush was elected “they”had formed their war room.Its primary job was to spend the next 4 years using their ownership of the press to bring Bush down.He even states that after 911 that became hard….but they “persevered”(sic)Hilary commenting on that statement said during her run that the disinformation campaign was so effective it may damage every president.So you bought it, and I never did.I worked for Clinton and Nader ,and grew up in a political family.The footprints were easy for me to see.
More interesting is your take on Obama.More than two years ago i wrote”When Obama’s unreality based beliefs come tumbling down,and we are lost in a morass of high unemployment,stagnant economy,and deteriorating foreign policy problems;and the life line of blaming Bush has grown too distant to be of much use ,but one thing will be left to true believers.He was not liberal enough!”
Louis this country is still the most amazing country in the world.We will rebound under the left or the right.My belief is it will be a thousand times harder under people like Obama who cant even inspire people like you who want to believe let alone folks like me who see him as an anchor dragging down the explosive spirit of this country.
Michale E
You need to find a life
Ray I have a fantastic life, and i hope you do as well.Im always open to new and amazing people, places,and things.I will accept your statement toward me as your fervent wish for me to live, and find even more blessings than those I now enjoy. Thankyou
”Of course I see your views as skewed”
All views are skewed. The point is to acknowledge it.
”and slanted in thought process, against this country,and her leaders”
”This country” is a meaningless category, because the United States isn’t a homogeneous entity in which all the people in it have the same basic interests, as though the janitor and the CEO of Goldman Sachs are in it together. What part of the country are you referring to? Everyone not to the establishment’s liking is ”against this country” (that’s standard, from the most democratic country to someplace like Libya). Thus, the people in the Civil Rights movement were against America. So were the worker’s and union movements. As were those in the women’s rights movement. As are the gay and lesbian movement now, or the freethinkers and rationalists. You’re merely expressing a totalitarian reflex, one that automatically equivocates the interests of authoritarian institutions (the military, the executive and private power) as the interests of some abstract thing called ”the country”. If this isn’t what you mean, then could you please be more specific as to what you’re implying when you say that my thought processes are slanted against the country?
As for the leadership, I judge it by the same standards I do any other powerful state: that it is responsible for its actions. Invoking danger as a justification for every depredation is a standard technique used by everyone to absolve their favoured state of responsibility.
”Bush you percieve- as he was painted by Libs in a concerted effort to discredit everything he did”
No, I perceive him on the basis of what he did, just as I perceive Obama on the basis of what he did. It’s revealing that you don’t seem to notice your own lapse: that your perception of Obama is ”painted” by Conservatives (i.e. reactionary statists and radical nationalists) who have engaged in an effort to discredit everything he does, using the same rhetorical devices and demonstrably false claims.
””When Obama’s unreality based beliefs come tumbling down,and we are lost in a morass of high unemployment,stagnant economy,and deteriorating foreign policy problems;and the life line of blaming Bush has grown too distant to be of much use ,but one thing will be left to true believers.He was not liberal enough!””
So on that basis, you’d have to agree that the disaster under Bush was due to his not being ”conservative enough”. It’s true that Obama will oversea another disaster, largely of his own making. And we can see exactly where that disaster originates: an intensification, across the board, of what Bush did: corporate collusion on a massive scale, with continuing transfer of wealth from the bottom to the tiny top, an extension of civil liberties intrusions, inflaming the situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and pathetic acquiescence to Israel. But then there will be those true believers who think that disaster occurred because he didn’t initiate a nuclear strike on Iran, or something. Maybe the United States should attack the whole world in order to avert disaster, since by definition it’s the world that’s out of step.
”My belief is it will be a thousand times harder under people like Obama who cant even inspire people like you who want to believe let alone folks like me who see him as an anchor dragging down the explosive spirit of this country.”
I agree: he is an anchor dragging down the explosive spirit of the country, but in favour of the same people that Bush served, namely concentrated sectors of private power. I wasn’t inspired by Obama because I didn’t believe his rhetoric, which turned out to be wise. Also, I should note that I’m not an American and have never lived in the United States. I love much about the United States. I respect and admire its scientists, social activists, teachers, investigative journalists, medical workers, and others who contribute to human well being and enrichment. I certainly don’t admire its plutocracy, who have robbed and cheated the working class blind. They’re the real dead weight on the country (by which I mean its working people). If they went the same way as the Arab dictators are now, I’d sleep very peacefully. I’m sorry to say, but I wouldn’t lose sleep over the fact that the Republican Party would be out of a job. As for the Democrats, they could then jump on the popular bandwagon, or get the hell out of the way.
Well Luis you have said you are not an American, and have never lived here,so i understand a little better your moral equivalency.I fear you don’t really accept,believe or understand the wonders of our system that you view as a plutocracy. You see America as a power that robs the poor of the world to fill its coffers. Never do you mention America is the most charitable country on the face of the earth. When a disaster happens even in North Korea who responds?C-54s flew in bringing logistic aid within 72 hours. American blood saved Europe(your home?)American resolve won the cold war and kept the world safe from war and tyrants . America has given more to the world than just about everyone else combined.It is not DNA.It is simple freedoms. People free and unleashed. Creating their dreams.A janitor and a CEO ARE the same person here Louis… Just years apart. Want to see what Sam, as in Sam Walmart did as a young man?Or Bill Gates ?Few of our super rich were handed an inheritance.They took a dream ….and lived it ,and changed the world. The next generation is waiting. But I need not defend America.
As far as Bush and his failings. Bush failed every time he did not act in a conservative manner.He was a weak conservative leader.Obama was a strong liberal, and failed every time he acted as one. The best he did was when he did….. nothing.
I grew up as a Dem.Worked with Clinton and Nader.I know the muck from the inside out.Im under few illusions of the left.I learned that conservatism works….. at the hands of liberal leaders.I learned that the Dem party had primarily changed.What was good, has been totally eclipsed. Kennedy today would not even understand the liberals in the democratic party. Republicans also lost their way of course. Conservatism and tea party patriots are helping them back. The left has no such counter balance.No such re boot capability. Like any entitlement ,they create a one way street. They then gain strength from inciting class warfare. Weakening people and feeding off of a nanny state mentality. Always it is the same. Though they refuse to use the word it is plainly- the debilitating socialism bug biting away.I wonder what country you hail from. What system you believe in.
You say all views are skewed. True. But it does not mean both ways are equal. And for me and my views ,the best thing about this country is it works best when government is kept small and out of peoples lives.We need only governance.We detest rulers.
”Well Luis you have said you are not an American, and have never lived here,so i understand a little better your moral equivalency.”
Moral equivalence is just a term that means ”we judge ourselves by the same standards we judge others”; clearly an unthinkable prospect.
”I fear you don’t really accept,believe or understand the wonders of our system that you view as a plutocracy.”
Evidently.
”You see America as a power that robs the poor of the world to fill its coffers. Never do you mention America is the most charitable country on the face of the earth. When a disaster happens even in North Korea who responds?C-54s flew in bringing logistic aid within 72 hours. American blood saved Europe(your home?)American resolve won the cold war and kept the world safe from war and tyrants.”
The United States has supported numerous tyrants, before, during and after the Cold War (I can list some of them for you). As for keeping it safe from war, I wonder whether you might be living in a parallel universe to make such a comical claim. I doubt I could find such levels of exaltation for a favoured state in the Stalinist literature.
”America has given more to the world than just about everyone else combined.”
No, it really hasn’t.
”It is not DNA.It is simple freedoms. People free and unleashed.”
Yes, and the domestic configurations of power more often than not fought bitterly against these freedoms you talk about. Workers and union rights? Women’s rights? Universal suffrage? The civil rights movement? Gay and lesbian rights? These are won through hard struggle, sometimes violence or the threat of it, not as gifts from above.
”Creating their dreams.A janitor and a CEO ARE the same person here Louisâ┚¬Ã‚¦ Just years apart.”
Well, I guess that settles it then. I’m sure that the millions of poor and homeless, as well as those with no proper health insurance, food security or a regular pay check coming in to ensure that they will not be evicted, will be relieved to hear this good news.
Sorry, but no matter how you choose to sugar coat it, 400 people having more assets than the bottom 50 percent of the population doesn’t approximate in any way, shape or form to them being ”the same person, just years apart.” Again, the level of state worship displayed here is pathological. This is symptomatic of totalitarian societies.
”Want to see what Sam, as in Sam Walmart did as a young man?Or Bill Gates ?Few of our super rich were handed an inheritance.They took a dream â┚¬Ã‚¦.and lived it ,and changed the world.”
Yes, an exceedingly tiny minority do make it to the plutocracy. They are then largely free to constrain and constrict other people’s dreams, dictating the conditions of economic life, running gigantic private tyrannies whose instability has profoundly negative consequences for the lives of millions, and splitting one sector of the working class against another. I suppose that by this logic, people in Brazil during the slave days there should have run out into the streets to sing praises to their system, since it was possible for a slave to eventually own property and be a slave owner himself. Or for those living in Communist states to sign praises to the system, because many of the members of the Politburo were once poor (”Yes, you may be poor, but if you work hard and follow your dreams of changing the world, you too can one day be a Politburo member”). Sure, there are opportunities for material enrichment. And to have that, one needs structures in place that, overall, are alienating, authoritarian and dehumanising. Thus, most workers must operate within this system so that everyone can have the virtually zero chance of being mega rich. Or, if they managed to rise above the poisonous propaganda, they could reorient the system in their own interests so that it ensures justice, solidarity, creativity and security for all, but that would interfere with the most important human right of all: being an industrial baron.
”As far as Bush and his failings. Bush failed every time he did not act in a conservative manner. He was a weak conservative leader.Obama was a strong liberal, and failed every time he acted as one.”
There must be something profoundly retarded about America then, because when liberals in other Western countries have acted strongly as such, they have largely succeeded, making their societies freer, more prosperous and more dynamic. Conservatism has been a force of stagnation, both moral and material. The United States, thanks to conservatism, is well behind a host of social indexes compared to other Western countries, in spite of its unparalleled combination of natural resources and talent.
The best he did was when he didâ┚¬Ã‚¦.. nothing.
So basically keeping the working class passive and the banks happy, screwing his voters by not pushing through more strongly on health care reform, and allowing the already monstrously bloated military budget to continue as it is. Yes, this is surely a great success if you judge success by how well the population is regimented and cheated, while a tiny elite are enriched and further empowered. Otherwise, it’s a disaster.
”I grew up as a Dem.Worked with Clinton and Nader.I know the muck from the inside out.Im under few illusions of the left.I learned that conservatism worksâ┚¬Ã‚¦.. at the hands of liberal leaders.I learned that the Dem party had primarily changed.What was good, has been totally eclipsed. Kennedy today would not even understand the liberals in the democratic party. Republicans also lost their way of course. Conservatism and tea party patriots are helping them back.”
The Tea Party? Okay. This doesn’t require any further comment.
”The left has no such counter balance.No such re boot capability. Like any entitlement ,they create a one way street. They then gain strength from inciting class warfare.”
i.e. tepid incursions against extreme wealth disparity (often at the behest of important sectors of capital, who fear that the costs of grinding down the working class are becoming too great). In other words, ”inciting” class warfare and not actually carrying it out. Unlike the mega rich routinely cheating and hurting the poor and working (which apparently doesn’t qualify in your eyes as class warfare, because as long as everyone has the right to be Bill Gates, everything is hunky-dory). Class warfare is apparently something that only emanates from the bottom. Gotcha.
”Weakening people and feeding off of a nanny state mentality.”
Yes, the Democrats have been notorious for providing a teat for businesses that are Too Big To Fail, and in the process weakening working families.
”Always it is the same. Though they refuse to use the word it is plainly- the debilitating socialism bug biting away.”
Ahh, the S-word. Of which you clearly have no conception whatsoever.
”I wonder what country you hail from. What system you believe in.”
Australia.
”We need only governance.We detest rulers.”
If you did, you’d be honest about the fact that concentrated sectors of wealth and power, like the CEO that you so pathetically imagine has the same interests as the janitor, seek more wealth and power (as any rational person would immediately acknowledge, rather than wallowing in the stupid notion that the society is one big happy family. I guess everyone got together someday and decided that millions of homeless and poor is an ideal situation).
The perpetually confused Michael e’s claim that Danial Carvil [he means James Carville] stated that “minutes after Bush was elected “they”had formed their war room.Its primary job was to spend the next 4 years using their ownership of the press to bring Bush down,” is made up.
This is at least the second time he’s posted this fiction here at FAIR.
Other important thing to remember about Curveball is that the Germans never let any American see him, let along interview him. That really should have set off alarm bells.
And those within the CIA most convinced that Curveball was credible had never interrogated anyone.
And when Powell asked if the chemical lab info had been corroborated via multiple sources, he was assured by the CIA that they were.
The perpetually confused Mikey e writes : “.i just saw curveball in an interview where he said “he did tell german intel that he saw chemical weapons made, And participated himself.”And yet you say the Germans disagree with that account, ” right after classicliberal2 posted “a senior German intelligence official said, “We made clear we could not verify the things he said.”
Reading for comprehension…..”It’s hard!”