Debunking the Liberals from WMD to Terrorism

[TheDude]

You know what? Who cares??? The Koran states that all non muslims should be killed or enslaved. So as far as I am concered, we should have just carpet bombed the middle east and been done with it. But nooooo we cant fight a war like we mean it any more can we? Oh Noooosss a "child" might die. Who cares? That "child" is just one more potential homicide bomber, and one more that I would rather be dead.

So you want to kill them (Muslims) all because of their religion AND you would rather see children dead because they may or may not grow up to be murderers... Hmmm, spoken like a true fanatical lunatic. Thanks for sharing your views and being honest on how you feel though.

 

[MonsterMark]

Sure, sure, technically BuSh didn't LIE,....

Sure, sure, technically BuSh didn't LIE,....

YaaaHoooWeeee!

 

[biglou71]

So you want to kill them (Muslims) all because of their religion AND you would rather see children dead because they may or may not grow up to be murderers... Hmmm, spoken like a true fanatical lunatic. Thanks for sharing your views and being honest on how you feel though.

NO problem. I feel that way about any "religion" that teaches murder and slavery of those who dont worhip the same god as they do.

Best part about being a conservative... I am honest. Unlike Communi, er liberals.

 

[fossten]

So you want to kill them (Muslims) all because of their religion AND you would rather see children dead because they may or may not grow up to be murderers... Hmmm, spoken like a true fanatical lunatic. Thanks for sharing your views and being honest on how you feel though.

And the lack of US History class not found in Deville's high school transcripts rears its ugly head...

He's obviously referencing WWII, where we actually fought war the way it's supposed to be fought, where you bomb everything in sight and squash the enemy. This is opposite the way we're fighting war now, by using surgical strikes and taking care not to injure any noncombatants or knock one brick out of a Muslim mosque.

Go read a history book and stop with the accusations. That was irresponsible and ignorant.

 

[TheDude]

And the lack of US History class not found in Deville's high school transcripts rears its ugly head...

He's obviously referencing WWII, where we actually fought war the way it's supposed to be fought, where you bomb everything in sight and squash the enemy. This is opposite the way we're fighting war now, by using surgical strikes and taking care not to injure any noncombatants or knock one brick out of a Muslim mosque.

Go read a history book and stop with the accusations. That was irresponsible and ignorant.

Did you actually read what he said or just knee-jerk at my post? I did not accuse him of anything he didn't already say himself, so our response to me was ignorant, irresponsible and typically mean spirited.

 

[biglou71]

Actually, Deville is right. But that is because I see this war for what it is. A war for the future of the world.

It is the Advance West vs Radical Islam.

You will be forced to choose a side eventually.

Islam is the problem, BUFF is the Cure.

And yes, I am a radical right winger. I believe in the preservation of America, and the eradication of her enemies. And Islam is an enemy of America.


Here is the list of terrorist attacks carried out by Mulims... TODAY

Date Country City Killed Injured Description
6/23/05 Iraq Fallujah 4 13 A senseless attack on a U.S. Marine mail convoy kills four, including three women.

6/23/05 Pakistan Karachi 2 1 Two Sunni clerics are assassinated in an attack that leaves a boy injured.

6/23/05 Pakistan South Waziristan 4 0 Probable al-Qaeda ambush on a delivery truck leaves four people dead.

6/23/05 Iraq Baghdad 17 60 Four more car bombs aimed at Shia civilians kill fifteen and injure over fifty in residential neighborhoods.

6/23/04 Afghanistan Spin Boldak 5 2 Taliban extremists shoot a rocket at an Afghan military vehicle on security patrol. Five killed, two injured.

6/23/04 Iraq Baghdad 3 2 A mother and her child are among three killed by a roadside bomb. Two other civilians are wounded in the blast.

6/23/04 Iraq Basra 2 0 As their father waited at home for their return, two Christian sisters are gunned down by Muslim extremists in a particularly heinous and senseless murder.

6/23/04 Ingushetia Nazran 35 58 Thirty-five more bodies are found from the attack on a town by Jihad terrorists. The number injured doubles to one-hundred nineteen.

6/23/03 India Sam Samad 1 0 A 20-year-old woman is abducted, sexually assaulted, and murdered by Mujahideen, who say that she was an informer.

6/23/03 India Lassipora 3 1 Terrorists invade the home of an 80-year old man and kill him along with his son and daughter-in-law.

6/23/03 India Pulwama 2 33 Muslim militants explode a bomb near a crowded bus, killing two civilians and injuring thirty-three others.

6/23/03 Israel Gaza 4 4 Four are killed, four others injured when a bomb carried by the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade explodes prematurely

 

[fossten]

Gee, Deville, you suppose the terrorists could have made the "degraded" WMDs into IEDs? Of course they could have. The reference to the weapons being unusable was only limited to their current form, as in a shell that could be fired from a cannon. The materials inside are still lethal. Get over it.

 

[TheDude]

Gee, Deville, you suppose the terrorists could have made the "degraded" WMDs into IEDs? Of course they could have. The reference to the weapons being unusable was only limited to their current form, as in a shell that could be fired from a cannon. The materials inside are still lethal. Get over it.

If you say so Mr. Chemical Ali, but personally I do not know, I am not a chemical weapons expert nor am I trained in home explosives. All I can go by is what your article states and that's what I am replying to.

1) They were non-op
2) Not the weapons we are at war over.

 

[stang99x]

America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof, the smoking gun that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.
-George W. Bush

Um, can you read. Let me help you with a little something;

Per dictionary.com

1. Used to indicate ability or permission in the past
2. Used with hypothetical or conditional force: If we could help, we would.
3. Used to indicate tentativeness or politeness: I could be wrong. Could you come over here?

Therefore, we can presume the meaning of could to mean a possibility;

Again, per dictionary.com

Possible:
1. Capable of happening, existing, or being true without contradicting proven facts, laws, or circumstances.
2. Capable of occurring or being done without offense to character, nature, or custom.
3. Capable of favorable development; potential: a possible site for the new capital.
4. Of uncertain likelihood

Now, based on the definitions of the words YOU used, we can come to the determination that Bush didn't say WOULD but he did say COULD and that means its possible but not ABSOLUTE.

"are not the WMDs this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had, and not the WMDs for which this country went to war."

That's an f'ing conservative saying that in reference to the weapons found.
June 23rd, 2006 12:19 PM

Did I ever say that there weren't retarded conservatives just as well as retarded liberals? Sure, most liberals are retard idiots, and yes, some conservatives are as well. But then there are some democrats that are not retarded idiots as well.

So you want to kill them (Muslims) all because of their religion AND you would rather see children dead because they may or may not grow up to be murderers... Hmmm, spoken like a true fanatical lunatic. Thanks for sharing your views and being honest on how you feel though.

An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, and a nail for a nail buddy. If they start the fight, we have the right.

If you say so Mr. Chemical Ali, but personally I do not know, I am not a chemical weapons expert nor am I trained in home explosives. All I can go by is what your article states and that's what I am replying to.

1) They were non-op
2) Not the weapons we are at war over.

Again, we are at war over WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. THere was no fine print that said only weapons manufactured after xx/xx/xxxx. Does the weapon take prejudice only against people when it is withing its expiration? I think not. SHould we drop off some expired mustard gas in your front yard so you can test it out for us and tell us if its not any good anymore. What don't you get? Your Useless N told him to get rid of them, he lied and said he did. For what reason do you keep Sarin and the others around, beyond a future plan to attack and kill people? Or maybe he just wanted to encase it in glass and display it for public viewing:Bang
There is no such thing as an inoperable chemical weapon. Just because tylenol is expired doesn't mean it doesn't work does it? Get a grip [edit]*owned*

 

[TheDude]

Stang99x, I'm going off what the article states, I did not post it nor did I have anything to do with what it contains. If you can't handle that it does not support what you want to believe, you're the one that needs to 'get a grip'.

 

[stang99x]

Ok, so you say

1) They were non-op

And the article says

He added that the report warns about the hazards that the chemical weapons could still pose to coalition troops in Iraq.

I call you on it and you still can't grip it?

You also said

2) Not the weapons we are at war over.

We went to war over WMD's. The article says

"We have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq

Perhaps you need some stick'um to aid you in attaining a grip?:shifty:

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

Um, can you read. Let me help you with a little something;

Per dictionary.com

1. Used to indicate ability or permission in the past
2. Used with hypothetical or conditional force: If we could help, we would.
3. Used to indicate tentativeness or politeness: I could be wrong. Could you come over here?

Therefore, we can presume the meaning of could to mean a possibility;

Again, per dictionary.com

Possible:
1. Capable of happening, existing, or being true without contradicting proven facts, laws, or circumstances.
2. Capable of occurring or being done without offense to character, nature, or custom.
3. Capable of favorable development; potential: a possible site for the new capital.
4. Of uncertain likelihood

Now, based on the definitions of the words YOU used, we can come to the determination that Bush didn't say WOULD but he did say COULD and that means its possible but not ABSOLUTE.

Can YOU read?

Sure, sure, technically BuSh didn't LIE..........

Even Bryan picked this up.

Nonetheless, C/BW were NOT the only "WMD"s that the BuSh administration trotted across the immenent threat stage to scare the American people into backing his invasion of Iraq.........

The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.
- Condoleezza Rice 9/8/02

They have weaponized chemical weapons, we know that. They've had an active program to develop nuclear weapons.
- Donald Rumsfeld 6/11/02

If the Iraqi regime is able to produce, buy or steal an amount of highly enriched uranium a little larger than a single softball, he could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year.
- George W. Bush 10/7/02

The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.
- George W. Bush SOTU 1/28/03

He remains determined to acquire nuclear weapons. … He is so determined that has made repeated covert attempts to acquire high-specification aluminum tubes from 11 different countries.
- Collin Powell 2/5/03

For you RWWs here to convieniently forget all of this fear mongering perpetuated by the BuSh administration, and to feebly equate C/BW with Nukes WRT their potential for physical DESTRUCTION and death is lame and inexcusable.

NOBODY has disputed that Saddam posed some amount of threat to the US, and that Iraq will (eventually) be better off without him.

What IS disputed here, is that Saddam DID NOT pose the GREATEST threat to the safety of US soil. There are (were) MUCH bigger fish to fry than Saddam and Iraq. Iran and North Korea are obvious examples. WHY did GW BuSh decide to pick-off the sitting duck FIRST? To hang Saddam's head on his mantle so he at least has something to brag to his hunting buddies about after he's done in DC since he doesn't have the balls to go after the REAL big game??

Lets not forget this gem.........

We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th.
- George W. Bush, White House briefing, Sept. 17, 2003

 

[TheDude]

Ok, so you say


And the article says


I call you on it and you still can't grip it?

You also said


We went to war over WMD's. The article says


Perhaps you need some stick'um to aid you in attaining a grip?:shifty:

My only adive to you; read the article again and have an objective attitude when doing so. It clearly states these were not the threat we went into Iraq for, not sure how you can miss that.

 

[fossten]

Can YOU read?

For you RWWs here to convieniently forget all of this fear mongering perpetuated by the BuSh administration, and to feebly equate C/BW with Nukes WRT their potential for physical DESTRUCTION and death is lame and inexcusable.

This tired, old argument won't hold molasses, let alone water. Give it a rest.

Good old Johnny, heavy on the rhetoric, light on the facts.

Hey, look, Johnny, I can do it too:

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy (the Burglar) Berger, Feb 18, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"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, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. 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 affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002

"Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction." -- Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002

"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002

"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration’s policy towards Iraq, I don’t think there can be any question about Saddam’s conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002

*owned*

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

This tired, old argument won't hold molasses, let alone water. Give it a rest.

Good old Johnny, heavy on the rhetoric, light on the facts.

Hey, look, Johnny, I can do it too:

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air (snip)

And the number of your sources who are answerable to the man in the oval office?? Yep, your tired counter-argument is moot and irrelevant. Or are you insinuating that BuSh obtains his "intellegence" from these people rather than from the usual intel sources?? Here's some rope, place it around your neck................ you won't feel a thing.

Posted on Mon, Jun. 26, 2006

CIA was tipped to shaky bioweapons claims

By Joby Warrick
Washington Post

Associated Press

WASHINGTON – In late January 2003, as then-Secretary of State Colin Powell prepared to argue the Bush administration’s case against Iraq at the United Nations, veteran CIA officer Tyler Drumheller sat down with a classified draft of Powell’s speech to look for errors. He found a whopper: a claim about mobile biological labs built by Iraq for germ warfare.

Drumheller instantly recognized the source, an Iraqi defector suspected of being mentally unstable and a liar. The CIA officer took his pen, he recounted in an interview, and crossed out the whole paragraph.

A few days later, the lines were back in the speech. Powell stood before the U.N. Security Council on Feb. 5 and said: “We have first-hand descriptions of biological weapons factories on wheels and on rails.”

The sentence took Drumheller completely by surprise.

“We thought we had taken care of the problem,” said the man who was the CIA’s European operations chief before retiring last year, “but I turn on the television and there it was, again.”

While the administration has repeatedly acknowledged intelligence failures over Iraqi weapons claims that led to war, new accounts by former insiders such as Drumheller shed light on one of the most spectacular failures of all: How U.S. intelligence agencies were eagerly drawn in by a troubled defector’s stories of secret germ factories in the Iraqi desert. The mobile labs were never found.

Drumheller, writing a book about his experiences, described in extensive interviews repeated attempts to alert top CIA officials to problems with the defector, code-named “Curveball,” in the days before the Powell speech. Other warnings came prior to President Bush’s State of the Union address on Jan. 28, 2003. In the same speech that contained the now famous “16 words” on Iraqi attempts to acquire uranium, Bush spoke in far greater detail about mobile labs “designed to produce germ warfare agents.”

The warnings triggered debates within the CIA but ultimately made no visible effect at the top, current and former intelligence officials said. In briefing Powell before his U.N. speech, then-CIA Director George Tenet personally vouched for the accuracy of the mobile-lab claim, according to participants in the briefing. Tenet now says he did not learn of the problems with Curveball until much later and that he received no warnings from Drumheller or anyone else.

“No one mentioned Drumheller, or Curveball,” Lawrence Wilkerson, Powell’s chief of staff at the time, said in an interview. “I didn’t know the name ‘Curveball’ until months afterward.”

Curveball’s role in shaping U.S. beliefs about Iraqi bioweapons capabilities was first described in a series of reports in the Los Angeles Times, and later in a March 2005 report by a presidential commission on U.S. intelligence failures regarding allegations of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. But Drumheller’s first-hand accounts add new detail about the CIA’s embrace of a source whose credibility eventually unraveled.

More than a year after Powell’s speech, after an investigation that extended to three continents, the CIA acknowledged that Curveball was a con artist who drove a taxi in Iraq and spun his engineering knowledge into a fantastic but plausible tale about secret bioweapons factories on wheels.

But in the fall of 2002, Curveball was living the life of an important spy. A Baghdad native whose real name has never been released, he was residing in a safe house in Germany, where he had requested asylum three years earlier. In return for immigration permits for himself and his family, the Iraqi supplied Germany’s foreign intelligence service with what appeared to be a rare insider’s account of one of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein’s long-rumored weapons of mass destruction programs.

Curveball described himself as a chemical engineer who had worked inside an unusual kind of laboratory, one that was built on a trailer bed and produced weapons for germ warfare. He furnished detailed, technically complex descriptions of mobile labs and even described an industrial accident that he said killed a dozen people.

The German spy agency BND faithfully passed Curveball’s stories to the Americans. Over time, the informant generated more than 100 intelligence reports on secret Iraqi weapons programs – the only such reports from an informant claiming to have visited and worked in mobile labs. Other informants, also later discredited, had claimed indirect knowledge of mobile labs.

In late 2002, the Bush administration began scouring intelligence files for reports of Iraqi weapons threats. Drumheller was asked to press a counterpart from a European intelligence agency for direct access to Curveball. Other officials confirmed that it was the German intelligence service.

The German official declined but then offered a startlingly candid assessment, Drumheller recalled. “He said, ‘I think the guy is a fabricator,’ ” Drumheller said, recounting the conversation with the official, whom he declined to name. “He said, ‘We also think he has psychological problems. We could never validate his reports.’ ”

When Drumheller relayed the warning to his superiors in October 2002, it sparked what he described as “a series of the most contentious meetings I’ve ever seen” in three decades of government work. Although no American had ever interviewed Curveball, analysts with the CIA’s Center for Weapons Intelligence, Nonproliferation and Arms Control believed the informant’s technical descriptions were too detailed to be fabrications.

“People were cursing. These guys were absolutely, violently committed to it,” Drumheller said. “They would say to us, ‘You’re not scientists, you don’t understand.’ ”

In January 2003, Drumheller received a new request from CIA headquarters to contact the German intelligence service about Curveball. This time, Drumheller recalled, the U.S. spy agency had three questions:

Could a U.S. official refer to Curveball’s mobile lab accounts in an upcoming political speech?

Could the Germans guarantee that Curveball would stand by his account?

Could the BND verify Curveball’s claims?

The reply from Berlin, as Drumheller recalls it, was less than encouraging: There were no guarantees.

“They said: ‘We have never been able to verify his claims,’ ” Drumheller recalled. “And that was all sent up to Tenet’s office.”

When Drumheller listened to Bush’s speech, he was astonished to hear the mobile labs described in detail.

“Boom, there it was,” he said.

A few days later, Drumheller was handed a draft of another key speech on Iraq: Powell’s remarks to the U.N. Security Council accusing Hussein of reconstituting his weapons of mass destruction programs. This time, the speech included an obvious reference to Curveball – an unnamed “chemical engineer” who worked in one of the labs – as well as detailed drawings of mobile labs inspired by Curveball’s descriptions.

Drumheller said he called the office of John McLaughlin, then the CIA’s deputy director and was told to come there immediately. Drumheller said he sat across from McLaughlin and an aide in a small conference room and spelled out his concerns.

McLaughlin responded with alarm and said Curveball was “the only tangible source” for the mobile lab story, Drumheller recalled, adding that the deputy director promised to quickly investigate.

Portions of Drumheller’s story appear in the final report of the Silberman-Robb Commission, which was appointed by Bush to investigate prewar U.S. intelligence failures on Iraq’s weapons programs. The report cites e-mails and interviews with other CIA officials who were aware of the meetings.

In responding to questions about Drumheller, McLaughlin provided The Post with a copy of the statement he gave in response to the commission’s report. The statement said he had no memories of the meeting with Drumheller and had no written documentation that the meeting took place.

“If someone had made these doubts clear to me, I would not have permitted the reporting to be used in Secretary Powell’s speech,” McLaughlin said in the statement.

In their briefings to Powell later that week, Tenet and McLaughlin expressed nothing but confidence in the mobile-lab story, according to Wilkerson, the Powell chief of staff who was present during the briefings.

“Powell and I were both suspicious because there were no pictures of the mobile labs,” Wilkerson said. The drawings were constructed from Curveball’s accounts.

But the CIA officials were persuasive. Wilkerson said the two men described the evidence on the mobile labs as exceptionally strong, based on multiple sources whose stories were independently corroborated.

“They said, ‘This is it, Mr. Secretary. You can’t doubt this one,’ ” Wilkerson said.

On the eve of the U.N. meeting, Drumheller received a late-night phone call from Tenet, who said he was checking final details of the speech. Drumheller said he brought up the mobile labs.

“I said, ‘Hey, boss, you’re not going to use that stuff in the speech …? There are real problems with that,’ ” Drumheller said, recalling the phone conversation. Drumheller recalled that Tenet seemed distracted and tired and told him not to worry.

The following day, Tenet was seated directly behind Powell at the U.N. Security Council as the secretary of state presented a detailed lecture and slide show about an Iraqi mobile biological weapons program.

Tenet, responding to questions about Drumheller’s accounts, provided to The Post a statement he had given in response to the WMD commission report in which he said he didn’t learn of the problems with Curveball until much later. He did not recall talking to Drumheller about Curveball and said it was “simply wrong” for anyone to imply that he knew about the problems with Curveball’s credibility.

“Nobody came forward to say there is a serious problem with Curveball or that we have been told by the foreign representative of the service handling him that there are worries that he is a ‘fabricator,’ ” Tenet said in his statement.

Bottom line, the BuSh administration purpously ignored warnings that the intellegence of Iraq's WMDs was flawed then turned around and trotted it out in front of the public on stage as if it was fact. I don't care what YOU call it, it IS a LIE.

*owned*

 

[Calabrio]

Bottom line, the BuSh administration purpously ignored warnings that the intellegence of Iraq's WMDs was flawed then turned around and trotted it out in front of the public on stage as if it was fact. I don't care what YOU call it, it IS a LIE.

*owned*

No, they never "ignored warnings" - those warnings were overshadowed by the overwhelming evidence that indicated that Hussein either had them, was seeking to acquire them, and developing them.

That's not a lie, that's call a risk assessment.

 

[fossten]

Johnny, you're a sucker...

(From this same thread)

Can YOU read?


Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyBz00LS
Sure, sure, technically BuSh didn't LIE..........

You just *owned* yourself.

Bottom line, the BuSh administration purpously ignored warnings that the intellegence of Iraq's WMDs was flawed then turned around and trotted it out in front of the public on stage as if it was fact. I don't care what YOU call it, it IS a LIE.

*owned*

Apparently you're undecided. You assert opposite positions, albeit with equal venom.

You're a JOKE. :bowrofl:

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

Do you know the difference between "Bush" and "The Bush Administration"??

Apparently not. You are irrelevant.

 

[fossten]

Do you know the difference between "Bush" and "The Bush Administration"??

Apparently not. You are irrelevant.

Look who's trying to split Bush from his administration? LOL hilarious! That's your best defense? :lol: That's like saying guns kill people!

Don't even try it. You've been caught contradicting yourself and you know it. I could bring up post after post and article after article pasted by you lefties making no such distinction.

What a joke you are.

But at least you've got a friend (Deville) on

View attachment 19290

 

[TheDude]

But at least you've got a friend (Deville) on

 

[fossten]

LOL that was funny...

 

[stang99x]

WHY did GW BuSh decide to pick-off the sitting duck FIRST?

Thats easy. If a group of guys jump you (9/11), and you shoot the first bastard that you see and he happened to have been disarmed, what do you think the rest of them will do? Run and hide. Cower in the corner and pray you don't start blasting on them. We took out the easier target and got the attention of everyone else. Then you panty waisted pussees start causing a political ruckus and embolden them and they are starting to come back out of the woodwork. Here's to NK and Iran in 2008:Beer

 

[stang99x]

Quote:
The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.
- Condoleezza Rice 9/8/02

They have weaponized chemical weapons, we know that. They've had an active program to develop nuclear weapons.
- Donald Rumsfeld 6/11/02

If the Iraqi regime is able to produce, buy or steal an amount of highly enriched uranium a little larger than a single softball, he could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year.
- George W. Bush 10/7/02

The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.
- George W. Bush SOTU 1/28/03

He remains determined to acquire nuclear weapons. … He is so determined that has made repeated covert attempts to acquire high-specification aluminum tubes from 11 different countries.
- Collin Powell 2/5/03

[Edited: Personal Attack].... Nothing there says IRAQ HAS NUKES. It all leads to the fact that they are trying without end to attain the materials necassary to build one. I helped yyou out by highlighting in red the words that pertain to COULD BE, MIGHT, WANTS, and so forth

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

Thats easy. If a group of guys jump you (9/11), and you shoot the first bastard that you see and he happened to have been disarmed, what do you think the rest of them will do? Run and hide. Cower in the corner and pray you don't start blasting on them. We took out the easier target and got the attention of everyone else. Then you panty waisted pussees start causing a political ruckus and embolden them and they are starting to come back out of the woodwork. Here's to NK and Iran in 2008:Beer

Your argument is fatally flawed. Saddam was NOT one of the "guys that jumped us" on 9/11. Even GW BuSh admits that (see earlier post w/ his quote).

*owned*

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

You idiot. Nothing there says IRAQ HAS NUKES. It all leads to the fact that they are trying without end to attain the materials necassary to build one. I helped yyou out by highlighting in red the words that pertain to COULD BE, MIGHT, WANTS, and so forth

Gee, just like fossten, you resort to personal attacks when you lose a debate. Don't follow his example or else you'll be lumped into the same right-winged-whacko, childish-kicker/screamer-when-he-can't-win sewer that hes in.

Did I ever claim that the BuSh administration said that IRAQ HAS NUKES?? NO. THIS is what I said in reference to those quotes:

Nonetheless, C/BW were NOT the only "WMD"s that the BuSh administration trotted across the immenent threat stage to scare the American people into backing his invasion of Iraq.........

With regard to those supposed attempts to "attain the materials necassary to build" a nuke, what happened to those "high-specification aluminum tubes from 11 different countries" that were "suitable for nuclear weapons production"?? That was debunked a long time ago, those tubes could never be used in a centrifuge for creating weapons-grade material, they were exactly the kind of tubes used for conventional weapons. The FACT REMAINS that the BUSH ADMINISTRATION, all the way up TO George W. Bush himself was aware of this "flawed inteligence" PRIOR to the '03 SOTU address, yet he went on record in front of the entire country stating that un-truth.

But you RWWs here continue to exploit the findings of decade-old C/BWs in Iraq (which we KNEW was already there) as vindication of GW BuSh's invasion of Iraq for "WMD"s when you know damn well that Americans in general are 1000 times more "scared" of Nukes than from C/BWs. Who's living in bizzarro world now??

*owned*