SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Orcastraiter who wrote (160008)4/1/2005 10:47:29 AM
From: GST  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
<The most secretive and closed adminstration this country has ever seen>

This in itself undermines democracy.



To: Orcastraiter who wrote (160008)4/1/2005 5:43:20 PM
From: Nadine Carroll  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
So what you are saying is that there were no legitimate transactions made under the oil for food program? That everyone involved was getting kickbacks?

Yup, Saddam made sure of that - his friends got kickbacks, and he got kickbacks. Read the Volcker report. I'm not going to run around and spoon-feed you every bit of information.

Saddam did not want his enemy, Iran to know that he did not have WMD, lest they perceive him as weak, which he was, and attack. So he led a disinformation campaign with that regard

So how do we know that? A: because we invaded. No invasion, no knowledge. Every intelligence agency would still be looking at the signs and saying: boy, Saddam is hiding his stuff well, but we know from his behavior that he has to have it.

Just as they did say before 2003. Go read the reports from the time, stop reinventing history in the light of hindsight. You're as bad as GST, who demands President ignore the information they get from the CIA if and only if it later turns out to be wrong.

Comparing the secrecy levels of the Bush administration to those of Stalinist police state is the height of absurdity. Next you'll be telling me that Bush is feeding his critics into chippers.



To: Orcastraiter who wrote (160008)4/1/2005 5:46:43 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
THE RUDE ONE: Of Fools and Curveballs:

So let's see if the Rude Pundit's got this straight: the U.S. went to war with Iraq because of some asshole named "Curveball"? Why the fuck would you trust someone named "Curveball"? The very nature of the curve ball is to trick the batter, to make the guy standing at the plate think the ball is coming straight across before veering inside or outside. A good curveball is an amazing deception. Trust someone with the super secret spy name "Curveball"? It'd be like investing all your money in a firm called, to be au courant, April Fool's Finance. It'd be like eating a meal at a restaurant named "Kentucky Fried Botulism." It'd be like fucking a hooker named "Syphilitic Sally." You know from the outset you're gonna get ripped off and/or diseased. But if you do it anyway, you're just a fuckin' idiot.

'Cause, really, and, c'mon, as the report of the Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction discusses in detail, Syphilitic Sally came to town with her friend Gonhorrea Greta and we were, indeed, infected. Quoth the Commission: "Virtually all of the Intelligence Community’s information on Iraq’s alleged mobile biological weapons facilities was supplied by a source, codenamed 'Curveball,' who was a fabricator." (Or, in the real world, a "liar" or a "con artist.")

Curveball was an Iraqi chemical engineer who was sent to American intelligence through a "foreign liaison." But, in a way that wouldn't be admissible in any court of law because we'd call it "hearsay," the U.S. didn't formally interview the obliging Curveball because, it seems, Mr. Ball wouldn't speak to Americans and, besides, it was claimed, Curveball didn't speak English. "That liaison service debriefed Curveball and then shared the debriefing results with the United States. The foreign liaison service would not, however, provide the United States with direct access to Curveball. Instead, information about Curveball was passed from the liaison service to DIA’s Defense HUMINT Service, which in turn disseminated information about Curveball throughout the Intelligence Community."

From January 2000 to September 2001, the U.S. got 100 reports from Curveball's keepers about the magical biological weapons labs in Iraq. Yes, the Commission says, Curveball's lies were incorporated into the National Intelligence Estimate, which goes to "senior policymakers," but that NIE, under Clinton, contained this caveat: "[w]e cannot confirm whether Iraq has produced . . . biological agents." Notice the way that works: the Intelligence people actually put in that they were unsure.

The Commission then says, "By 2001, however, the assessments became more assertive." Yup, with the rise of the Bush regime, they were pushin' that biological weapons story like so much coke to college students. The tone of the reports changed to more definite assessments, based solely on Curveball's tales, that Iraq was producing biological weapons from these roving labs. This change in tone was most clearly reflected when George Tenet said to Congressional committees, "We know Iraq has developed a redundant capability to produce biological warfare agents using mobile production units." All info courtesy of you-know-who.

"The October 2002 NIE reflected the shift from the late-1990s assessments that Iraq could have biological weapons to the definitive conclusion that Iraq 'has' biological weapons, and that its BW program was larger and more advanced than before the Gulf War," says the Commission. And the emphasis on "could" is the Commission's. It continues, "For this conclusion, the NIE relied primarily on reporting from Curveball." CB hit the big time when Colin Powell used CB's info in his big ol' pack o' lies he shat in front of the U.N. General Assembly in February 2003.

But, alas, sweet Curveball was not what he seemed. He was not straight and down the middle. He . . . how shall this be put . . . curved. The Defense Department sent a "detailee" to meet with Monsieur Ball way back in May 2000 to see if Le Ball was telling le truth about being in a biological weapons accident. Oh, let's let the Commission speak for itself here:

"First, the detailee observed that Curveball spoke excellent English during their meeting.286 This was significant to the detailee because the foreign service had, on several earlier occasions, told U.S. intelligence officials that one reason a meeting with Curveball was impossible was that Curveball did not speak English. Second, the detailee was concerned by Curveball’s apparent 'hangover' during their meeting. The detailee conveyed these impressions of Curveball informally to CIA officials, and WINPAC [the Center for Weapons, Intelligence, Non-Proliferation and Arms Control] BW analysts told Commission staff that they were aware that the detailee was concerned that Curveball might be an alcoholic."

Said the poor detailee in a hurried e-mail sent to the CIA Directorate of Operations, "I do have a concern with the validity of the information based on Curveball having a terrible hangover the morning of [the meeting]. I agree, it was only a one time interaction, however, he knew he was to have a [meeting] on that particular morning but tied one on anyway. What underlying issues could this be a problem with and how in depth has he been vetted by the [foreign liaison service]?" When was this sent? The night before Colin Powell's presentation to the U.N. In 2003.

On and on this sad, sordid tale continues, with its unraveling of Curveball's stories when they were actually checked. When the weapons inspectors did their jobs after the invasion. All Curveball's words unverified. All "fabrications," all lies. But still, because intelligence officials "believed" (or were told to believe) that Iraq had to have weapons, they clung to Curveball like a wet rat clings to the debris of a sinking ocean liner. It became a farce, really: Former co-workers said he had been fired before the times he claimed he had been involved in any programs. "By January 2004, however, when CIA obtained travel records confirming that Curveball had been out of Iraq during the time he claimed to have been working on the mobile BW program, most analysts became convinced that Curveball had fabricated his reporting."

In March 2004, the CIA finally met Curvey and, indeed, quickly discovered he had punked them. Tenet didn't want to admit "error," and, indeed, "Only in May 2004, more than a year after the commencement of Operation Iraqi Freedom, did CIA formally deem Curveball’s reporting fabricated and recall it."

And there's your April Fool's joke for the day. The real question is who gets the credit for the joke? Just poor drunken Curveball? Just the miserable Intelligence community who, strangely, were able to offer caveats in their reports prior to Bush coming to office? Or perhaps those who needed Curveball desperately to be right and did not want to know otherwise until they were forced to know? Or, most ominously, those who knew it was all lies and wouldn't let the rest of us in?

See? That's how pranks are played. No, it's not "ha-ha" funny. It's more like "bang-bang-you're-dead-soldier" funny.

// posted by Rude One @ 10:17 AM

rudepundit.blogspot.com



To: Orcastraiter who wrote (160008)4/1/2005 6:07:49 PM
From: Nadine Carroll  Respond to of 281500
 
Ali Fadhil comments on the effect of a UN system dealing with dictators who have billions of dollars to spend in bribes, and what might be done about it:

There's nothing surprising about the extent of corruption inside the UN to me and most Iraqis. We saw those shining names in Saddam's days dining with his thugs in his palaces. The same big hot shots that attacked Saddam's regime fiercely and then dramatically changing their attitude once they get to meet him and get a grip of the reality on the ground in Iraq. I was shocked at first when I saw Hans von Sponeck defend Saddam's regime after his resignation and attacking the US and the UK while in the beginning he was blaming both the allies and Saddam's regime on the poor performance of the food for oil program. Only money, and HUGE amount of money could explain such a change in such a short duration.

However I was not that shocked after hearing that Koffi Anan was getting bribes from Saddam. Oh sorry, meant his son. But that's not what I want to talk about today. Instead I want to share an idea about how to fix this problem that will surely recur again and again.

To try and find solutions for the UN problems is an important issue for all of us and although I'm not naive enough to think that it can be fixed that easily or that I can actually find part of a solution, but it won't hurt to discuss the issue, as in the end we, the people are just as concerned as politicians about it and also we, Iraqis were victims of such flaws in the UN.

Before trying to answer any problem we have to consider the elements. The human greed is something we cannot control and we should never expect those at high positions to be saints. The UN internal system is something I don't know much about and I also think it's not even a major element although some reforms there would surely help. But the most important element that cause such corruption in my mind is the presence of exceptionally large amounts of money and other resources in the hands of individuals whom their fate depend on the UN inspection teams' reports i.e. dictators and tyrannical regimes in general.

Regimes like Saddam's in the past, Kadaffi's, Asad's and the Iranian regime now and in the future have been and will always be capable of and willing to spend millions and millions of their people's money to gain the approval and support of the UN through bribing certain influential staff members who would be sent to seek the truth about a certain violation in their countries. How are we going to guarantee that honest respectable people who were chosen by the international committee for such missions won't weaken to the sight of a 6 digit check? There's no guarantee.

Yet there might be a way to avoid such a problem. First I think we should re-identify the problem. It's not that the UN is a week or corrupt organization. It's that we are dealing with two entirely different sets of regimes using one standard. One set of laws to deal with democratic and authoritarian states. That doesn't sound right.

So the answer may lie in finding two different set of rules, two different organizations to deal with those different states. But that might divide the world so we will have to decide which set of states is more reliable to depend on in solving common global problems. Who's "we" is not that important and it does not mean control of the strong over the weak. Lets think of something similar to the EU. The democratic free nations whether poor or rich, strong or weak should gather and form a mass governed by a set of rules that can get a consensus from all the involved parties. The tyrannical regimes should be kept outside, isolated until they meet a certain requirements set by the new organization.

So when dealing with a problem in Japan for example, the organization can send a convoy to Japan to seek facts from there combined with talks with Japanese representatives in the organization. While when dealing with a problem in Libya for example, a dictatorship that actually refuses to join the global organization of democratic countries (by its actions) but might present a danger to one or all of its members, the organization do not send anyone, or it can send a convoy but once its job is hindered it should be withdrawn immediately with no possibility of a return. It asks the Libyan government to clarify the situation, prove its innocence in that particular problem and without offering it a seat inside the organization. If the Libyan government fails to do so then the organization would take actions based on its members interests and consensus and according to how serious the threat is.

Such system should not be looked at as isolating poor or "developing countries" or that such an attitude means taking the side of the strong parties. First, because the organization would include all democratic countries, not just advanced countries. Besides, we should be more worried about the UN or similar organizations taking the wrong side than them taking the strong side. And also what's most important is that such system would only weaken the regimes not the people.

Can anyone tell me what good the UN was for the Iraqi people? What did I gain from that seat that was given to one of Saddam's thugs to sit and babble like he's the equal of those sitting next to him; men and women who truly represented their nations? I'll tell you what I gained from that. More years for Saddam and his gang in power, more years of torture and fear, more years of death to my friends and relatives, more years of desperation and miserable life. All this while those elegant respectable figures in the UN were filling their stomachs with the Iraqi people's flesh and blood. Do we need to repeat that?

People won't lose that seat but dictators will, as it was never a seat for the people. I'd say that on the contrary, people living in authoritarian states would gain from such a 'loss', as it would isolate their rulers politically, will take their legitimacy away and would weaken them with time until they find themselves either forced to make the reforms (as the free world is concerned and entitled to look after the human rights everywhere) that allows them to get the legitimacy or face the united free world. Just an idea.
iraqilibe.blogspot.com