In a recent interview to the Guardian an Iraqi by the name of Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi admitted that he lied about Iraqi WMDs. This would not seem like such a big deal since people lie about things all the time, but the Guardian and others on the left would like to give him credit for starting the Iraq war. Al-Janabi is otherwise know as "Curveball," whose claims about Iraqi mobile weapons labs made it into U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell's 2003 speech to the U.N. Security Council that made the case for war.
The defector who convinced the White House that Iraq had a secret biological weapons programme has admitted for the first time that he lied about his story, then watched in shock as it was used to justify the war.
Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi, codenamed Curveball by German and American intelligence officials who dealt with his claims, has told the Guardian that he fabricated tales of mobile bioweapons trucks and clandestine factories in an attempt to bring down the Saddam Hussein regime, from which he had fled in 1995.
As it turned out there were no WMDs to speak of, beyond a few leftovers from earlier programs that we already knew about.
Hussein's uranium reaches Canada
July 06, 2008|From the Associated Press
MONTREAL — The last major remnant of Saddam Hussein's nuclear program -- a huge stockpile of concentrated natural uranium -- reached this Canadian port Saturday, completing a secret U.S. operation that included an airlift from Baghdad and a voyage across two oceans.
The removal of about 550 tons of "yellowcake" -- the seed material for high-grade nuclear enrichment -- was a significant step toward closing the books on Hussein's nuclear legacy. It also brought relief to U.S. and Iraqi authorities who had worried that the cache would fall into the hands of insurgents or Shiites hoping to advance Iran's alleged nuclear ambitions.
Well, maybe that particular leftover is something to speak of. But I digress. The Guardian is ready to give Curveball all the credit for starting the Iraq War and Curveball is ready to take it. In fact, he's rather proud of his accomplishment.
The Guardian quoted al-Janabi as saying: "I had the chance to fabricate something to topple the regime. I and my sons are proud of that."
[...]
Asked about his feeling's about the deaths and destruction during the war and in the years following, The Guardian said al-Janabi said there was no other way.
"I tell you something when I hear anybody not just in Iraq but in any war (is) killed, I am very sad. But give me another solution. Can you give me another solution?" the newspaper quoted him as saying.
"Saddam did not (allow) freedom in our land," the Iraqi said. "There are no other political parties. You have to believe what Saddam says, and do what Saddam wants. And I don't accept that. I have to do something for my country. So I did this and I am satisfied, because there is no dictator in Iraq any more."
And there's plenty of vindication to go around. The former European CIA chief Tyler Drumheller feels better about himself already.
The former CIA chief in Europe Tyler Drumheller describes Janabi's admission as "fascinating", and said the emergence of the truth "makes me feel better". "I think there are still a number of people who still thought there was something in that. Even now," said Drumheller.
It's all good. A win-win-win situation. Curveball is proud, the European CIA chief is vindicated, and the left can gloat and say "I told you so." But the best part is this: Saddam Hussein is not sitting back in Iraq with sanctions lifted, figuring out the highest and best use of his 550 metric tons of yellowcake. Works for me.
Update: John Sexton writing at Hot Air seems a little miffed at the news of Curveball's fibbing.
...we now know who the liar was and he wasn’t part of the administration. We also know why he lied, and it wasn’t to get rich off Iraqi oil, to finish what Bush 41 started or any of the other explanations the left has offered over the years. Curveball wanted to see Saddam toppled for the good of the Iraqi people.
Of course that doesn’t mean American soldiers and taxpayers should have had to go along for the ride. Conspiracies aside, there’s plenty to be upset about here. Numerous intelligence agencies failed, starting with the German BND which interviewed Curveball over a period of six months. British and American intelligence agencies failed to detect the fraud as well. The result is that we were led to war, in part, by a lie. Even if you believe the US is better off without Saddam in Iraq, you can’t be pleased about taking such a big swing on a curveball.
Well. Sorry if people are upset, but Saddam in power with sanctions off and 550 tons of yellowcake at his disposal are a not better option.
I think the most powerful Conservative argument to make to the American people is that the overwhelming majority of liberals in the House and Senate gave Bush a blank check on Iraq -- including our current Secretary of State.
At minimum, the Democrat Party is just as incompetent -- and actually quite a bit more.
The Democrats completely misunderstood the threat posed by the Soviet Union -- the most serious threat to the West in the past century.
Comparing all of the Middle East threats including Saddam Hussein to the Soviet Union is like comparing a mosquito to an elephant.
The democrats opposed funding of the Contras -- a policy we now know yielded positive results for us. They opposed Gulf War I -- an operation that restored stability.
Some of us would note, as I did above, that they gave Bush a blank check -- wrong again.
Some of us would argue, therefore, that the Democrats are at leas as incompetent, and actually more incompetent than Republicans.
It is a much more powerful argument than trying to claim Bush knew what he was doing ad nauseum.
He clearly did not.
Posted by: BNewYork | February 17, 2011 at 04:51 PM
Can't say I agree with all of your arguments. The fact is that Bush knew enough to realize that Saddam Hussein was a threat we would eventually have to deal with, and that it would be better to deal with him on our timetable rather than his. I would not argue that incompetence was what drove Democrats to switch from supporting the action to opposing it.
Democrats became quite comfortable with having America lose the war, since it appeared they would gain political advantage. It worked for them as long as they had Bush to vilify. But when Obama became president it became apparent that losing wars in either Iraq or Afghanistan would damage the Democrats politically. So they switched sides again, and we found them favoring a surge in Afghanistan after opposing a surge in Iraq. No. Incompetent is not the word that describes them.
Posted by: Tom Bowler | February 18, 2011 at 06:13 AM
A valid point on why they switched.
Having said that, I think incompetence describes Democrats on foreign affairs.
That certainly doesn't mean, as you point out, that they can't be opportunists as well.
And I think certain Republicans gave them far more opportunity than they deserved by making key mistakes on Iraq.
The left likes to use defeatist language. For example, if there are civil wars within Iraq's borders we "lose." This is nonsense. But a lot of Republicans seemed to play into their hands.
The United States did not "break" anything in Iraq because Iraq was never "fixed." It was artificially created after World War I. So if you remove the dictator holding it together, you are going to have conflict.
If Hussein had fallen after Gulf War I, we would not have gotten involved in internal matters. Food aid, ways to lessen conflict -- of course.
But thinking you can create nation states for other peoples is classic leftist thinking.
In addition, Bush and other leftists have always been totally oblivious in distinguishing Parliaments that represent property owners from Parliaments that do not. And so they have no understanding about the drastically different outcomes that result from elections in those two situations.
Posted by: BNewYork | February 18, 2011 at 12:58 PM