many people don't want him to come back and are angry for him lying and the consequences of those lies. i don't know how this bastard can sleep at night knowing that so many were killed because of his lies and deceit. i know i feel bad for a white lie hurting someone's feelings, i could not imagine how i would feel if i were to lie and people were killed as a result.
this whole situation shows me that the cia and other intelligence agencies only reported to the politicians what they wanted to report. germans paid him a monthly stipend 5 years after knowing he lied. unbelievable.
Curveball deserves permanent exile for WMD lies, say Iraq politicians
Defector Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi's hope of a political career met by scorn following admission he lied about Saddam Hussein's weapons programme
Politicians in Iraq have called for the permanent exile of the Iraqi defector, codenamed Curveball by his US and German handlers, who admitted to the Guardian he lied about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction (WMD).
Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi said he invented stories about Saddam Hussein's non-existent bioweapons programme in order to "liberate" Iraq.
But if he thought that his mea culpa would make him a hero, it seems he was wrong. "He is a liar, he will not serve his country," one Iraqi politician said in response to Curveball's claim to want to build a political career in his motherland.
In his adopted home of Germany, politicians are demanding to know why the German secret service, the Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND), paid Curveball €3,000 (£2,500) a month for at least five years after they knew he had lied.
In the US, questions are being asked of the CIA's handling of Curveball, 43, and specifically why the then head of the intelligence agency, George Tenet, did not pass on warnings from the Germans about Curveball's reliability.
But the harshest criticism of Curveball is coming from Iraq.
Jamal Al Battikh, the country's minister for tribes' affairs, said: "Honestly, this man led Iraq to a catastrophe and a disaster. Iraqis paid a heavy price for his lies – the invasion of 2003 destroyed Iraqi basic infrastructure and after eight years we cannot fix electricity. Plus thousands of Iraqis have died.
"This man is not welcome back. In fact, Iraqis should complain against him and sue him for his lies."
Others poured scorn on Curveball's plan to return to Iraq and enter politics.
Intefadh Qanber, spokesman for the Iraqi National Congress (INC), led by Ahmed Chalabi, said: "He is a liar, he will not serve his country. He fabricated the story about WMD and that story gave the USA a suitable pretext to lead the 2003 invasion, which hurt Iraq. For most Iraqis, it was obvious that Saddam was a dictator, but they wanted to see him ousted on the basis of his crimes against human rights, not a fabricated story about weapons of mass destruction."
In the US, a pressure group representing veterans of the Iraq war demanded the justice department open an investigation into the INC's relationship to Curveball.
Chalabi, who was very close to the former US vice-president Dick Cheney in the decade leading up to the 2003 invasion, has often been accused of being the man behind Curveball. It has long been known that Chalabi provided the CIA with three other sources who lied about Saddam's WMD capability. But when asked by the Guardian, al-Janabi and Chalabi denied knowing each other.
A spokesman for Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW) said: "There must be accountability. Mr Janabi manipulated the United States government in a self-confessed effort to precipitate US military action in Iraq. IVAW calls for the justice department to investigate whether he acted alone or in concert with others who now occupy senior positions in the Iraqi government."
In Germany, politicians are demanding an open parliamentary inquiry into the BND's handling of the Curveball case.
Hans-Ulrich Sckerl, a Green MP in Baden-Württemberg, where Curveball now lives, said Germany's interior ministry had never given a satisfactory explanation for why the BND continued to support Curveball financially until 2008, when he was given a German passport.
He said: "We asked about this matter in the local parliament and the ministry of the interior gave us a very guarded response. They deny knowing anything about Curveball being given German citizenship – with the help of the BND – or being involved with it in any way. Still now, we don't quite believe it ... We will keep asking questions."
Another MP, Hans-Christian Ströbele, who represents the Green Party in the parliamentary control panel on the work of the intelligence services, has already said the Bundestag should investigate why the BND provided support payments to Curveball for so long.
On Wednesday, the BND answered "no comment" to all of the Guardian's questions about Curveball.
In the US, Lawrence Wilkerson, who was chief of staff to the US secretary of state Colin Powell in the build-up to the invasion, said Curveball's lies raised questions about how the CIA had briefed Powell ahead of his crucial speech to the UN security council presenting the case for war.
Tyler Drumheller, the head of the CIA's Europe division in the run-up to the 2003 invasion, said he welcomed Curveball's confession because he had always warned Tenet that Curveball may have been a fabricator.
On the streets of Baghdad today, some ordinary Iraqis said they were grateful for Curveball's lies.
Salem Ahmed, 55, a businessman, said: "I would welcome Rafid back. His lies helped Iraqis get rid of Saddam and now we can travel everywhere. On a personal level, my business has improved, too. I wish Iraqi politicians had lied earlier than 2003 so that we could have got a free country sooner."
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
I only read the first half......
so this is the guy that started a war,the war most of the people on here blamed bush for lieing and starting the war single handedly, please forgive me for getting a chuckle out of this.
such is war and politics I guess.
Godfather.
...
I don't know why you continue to find excuses for Bush's responsibilities as our President.
As our President, it is his JOB to find out whether this TAXI DRIVER is telling the truth or not. It is NOT his job to listen to only what he wants to hear. A little research and fact checking about this clown would have saved the live of a lot of people... including our service men and women.
"Maybe I was right, maybe I was not right," al-Janabi said in his exclusive interview with The Guardian newspaper. "They gave me this chance. I had the chance to fabricate something to topple the regime. I and my sons are proud of that and we are proud that we were the reason to give Iraq the margin of democracy."
A lot of American Soldiers died because of this decision to listen to this LIAR... who admits to lying in order for our soldiers to risk their lives (and spend YOU tax dollars) for his benefit. You cannot discount the lost lives of American Soldiers, in order to justify your belief... can you?
...
Bottom line... if you believe a lie... and you pass it on... you are either a liar or stupid.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
Either way, both the Bush Administration and the British intelligence services knew full well that Iraq had no WMD's, so this fella coming out and admitting he lied is kind of irrelevant. The governments of the U.S and the U.K both knew they were lying to us, and chose to any scrap they could get their hands on to justify the war that they'd decided upon at least a year in advance.
DAVID MANNING
From: Matthew Rycroft Date: 23 July 2002
S 195 02
cc: Defence Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Attorney-General, Sir Richard Wilson, John Scarlett, Francis Richards, CDS, C, Jonathan Powell, Sally Morgan, Alastair Campbell
IRAQ: PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING, 23 JULY
Copy addressees and you met the Prime Minister on 23 July to discuss Iraq.
This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents.
John Scarlett summarised the intelligence and latest JIC assessment. Saddam's regime was tough and based on extreme fear. The only way to overthrow it was likely to be by massive military action. Saddam was worried and expected an attack, probably by air and land, but he was not convinced that it would be immediate or overwhelming. His regime expected their neighbours to line up with the US. Saddam knew that regular army morale was poor. Real support for Saddam among the public was probably narrowly based.
C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.
CDS said that military planners would brief CENTCOM on 1-2 August, Rumsfeld on 3 August and Bush on 4 August.
The two broad US options were:
(a) Generated Start. A slow build-up of 250,000 US troops, a short (72 hour) air campaign, then a move up to Baghdad from the south. Lead time of 90 days (30 days preparation plus 60 days deployment to Kuwait).
(b) Running Start. Use forces already in theatre (3 x 6,000), continuous air campaign, initiated by an Iraqi casus belli. Total lead time of 60 days with the air campaign beginning even earlier. A hazardous option.
The US saw the UK (and Kuwait) as essential, with basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus critical for either option. Turkey and other Gulf states were also important, but less vital. The three main options for UK involvement were:
(i) Basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus, plus three SF squadrons.
(ii) As above, with maritime and air assets in addition.
(iii) As above, plus a land contribution of up to 40,000, perhaps with a discrete role in Northern Iraq entering from Turkey, tying down two Iraqi divisions.
The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.
The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.
The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.
The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors. Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD. There were different strategies for dealing with Libya and Iran. If the political context were right, people would support regime change. The two key issues were whether the military plan worked and whether we had the political strategy to give the military plan the space to work.
On the first, CDS said that we did not know yet if the US battleplan was workable. The military were continuing to ask lots of questions.
For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary.
The Foreign Secretary thought the US would not go ahead with a military plan unless convinced that it was a winning strategy. On this, US and UK interests converged. But on the political strategy, there could be US/UK differences. Despite US resistance, we should explore discreetly the ultimatum. Saddam would continue to play hard-ball with the UN.
John Scarlett assessed that Saddam would allow the inspectors back in only when he thought the threat of military action was real.
The Defence Secretary said that if the Prime Minister wanted UK military involvement, he would need to decide this early. He cautioned that many in the US did not think it worth going down the ultimatum route. It would be important for the Prime Minister to set out the political context to Bush.
Conclusions:
(a) We should work on the assumption that the UK would take part in any military action. But we needed a fuller picture of US planning before we could take any firm decisions. CDS should tell the US military that we were considering a range of options.
(b) The Prime Minister would revert on the question of whether funds could be spent in preparation for this operation.
(c) CDS would send the Prime Minister full details of the proposed military campaign and possible UK contributions by the end of the week.
(d) The Foreign Secretary would send the Prime Minister the background on the UN inspectors, and discreetly work up the ultimatum to Saddam.
He would also send the Prime Minister advice on the positions of countries in the region especially Turkey, and of the key EU member states.
(e) John Scarlett would send the Prime Minister a full intelligence update.
(f) We must not ignore the legal issues: the Attorney-General would consider legal advice with FCO/MOD legal advisers.
(I have written separately to commission this follow-up work.)
MATTHEW RYCROFT
(Rycroft was a Downing Street foreign policy aide)
I only read the first half......
so this is the guy that started a war,the war most of the people on here blamed bush for lieing and starting the war single handedly, please forgive me for getting a chuckle out of this.
such is war and politics I guess.
Godfather.
...
I don't know why you continue to find excuses for Bush's responsibilities as our President.
As our President, it is his JOB to find out whether this TAXI DRIVER is telling the truth or not. It is NOT his job to listen to only what he wants to hear. A little research and fact checking about this clown would have saved the live of a lot of people... including our service men and women.
"Maybe I was right, maybe I was not right," al-Janabi said in his exclusive interview with The Guardian newspaper. "They gave me this chance. I had the chance to fabricate something to topple the regime. I and my sons are proud of that and we are proud that we were the reason to give Iraq the margin of democracy."
A lot of American Soldiers died because of this decision to listen to this LIAR... who admits to lying in order for our soldiers to risk their lives (and spend YOU tax dollars) for his benefit. You cannot discount the lost lives of American Soldiers, in order to justify your belief... can you?
...
Bottom line... if you believe a lie... and you pass it on... you are either a liar or stupid.
Cosmo there is no reason to start calling anybody stupid or a liar,as far as I'm concerned those titles can be given to many people on this board just for believing everything they read on some internet page.
I watched a show on history called "A Presidents book of secretes" and it made some good points, concerning all the conspiracies and what they're based on and why they may be hard to believe.
and as for that piece of shit that gave Bush bad info,well Bush trusted his sources much like you trust yours.
we here in the general public will never know the bottom line on most all this political crap we talk about on the train,there are many lies and secretes in the white house and most of which we will never know and every country's government has them,it's not just the US as people on here seem to believe.
I only read the first half......
so this is the guy that started a war,the war most of the people on here blamed bush for lieing and starting the war single handedly, please forgive me for getting a chuckle out of this.
such is war and politics I guess.
Godfather.
...
I don't know why you continue to find excuses for Bush's responsibilities as our President.
As our President, it is his JOB to find out whether this TAXI DRIVER is telling the truth or not. It is NOT his job to listen to only what he wants to hear. A little research and fact checking about this clown would have saved the live of a lot of people... including our service men and women.
"Maybe I was right, maybe I was not right," al-Janabi said in his exclusive interview with The Guardian newspaper. "They gave me this chance. I had the chance to fabricate something to topple the regime. I and my sons are proud of that and we are proud that we were the reason to give Iraq the margin of democracy."
A lot of American Soldiers died because of this decision to listen to this LIAR... who admits to lying in order for our soldiers to risk their lives (and spend YOU tax dollars) for his benefit. You cannot discount the lost lives of American Soldiers, in order to justify your belief... can you?
...
Bottom line... if you believe a lie... and you pass it on... you are either a liar or stupid.
Cosmo there is no reason to start calling anybody stupid or a liar,as far as I'm concerned those titles can be given to many people on this board just for believing everything they read on some internet page.
I watched a show on history called "A Presidents book of secretes" and it made some good points, concerning all the conspiracies and what they're based on and why they may be hard to believe.
and as for that piece of shit that gave Bush bad info,well Bush trusted his sources much like you trust yours.
we here in the general public will never know the bottom line on most all this political crap we talk about on the train,there are many lies and secretes in the white house and most of which we will never know and every country's government has them,it's not just the US as people on here seem to believe.
Godfather.
ok
you wanna call people here stupid and liars for believing what they read on the internet
and then you tell us to believe a tv show you watched
you also seem very upset with that "piece of shit" that gave bad info
do you really believe that we go to war based on info given by some guy?
you know about our military budget and the billions spent on intelligence,
but you want to cut bush some slack because he "trusted his sources"?
they wanted a war with iraq
not too hard to figure that one out
you do know war is a big business
it's capitalism, baby
and some of us on the 'train' DO understand that every government has lies and secrets
it's just that some of us will not ignore OUR governments corruption
solely based on the fact that we were born here
sounds like you do
and our founding fathers would be very disappointed about that
The whole world will be different soon... - EV
RED ROCKS 6-19-95
AUGUSTA 9-26-96
MANSFIELD 9-15-98
BOSTON 9-29-04
BOSTON 5-25-06
MANSFIELD 6-30-08
EV SOLO BOSTON 8-01-08
BOSTON 5-17-10
EV SOLO BOSTON 6-16-11
PJ20 9-3-11
PJ20 9-4-11
WRIGLEY 7-19-13
WORCESTER 10-15-13
WORCESTER 10-16-13
HARTFORD 10-25-13
Cosmo there is no reason to start calling anybody stupid or a liar,as far as I'm concerned those titles can be given to many people on this board just for believing everything they read on some internet page.
I watched a show on history called "A Presidents book of secretes" and it made some good points, concerning all the conspiracies and what they're based on and why they may be hard to believe.
and as for that piece of shit that gave Bush bad info,well Bush trusted his sources much like you trust yours.
we here in the general public will never know the bottom line on most all this political crap we talk about on the train,there are many lies and secretes in the white house and most of which we will never know and every country's government has them,it's not just the US as people on here seem to believe.
Godfather.
personally i think i would listen to people that are actively seeking the truth over some lying iraqi with an ax to grind. i would have listened to people looking in to things such as was saddam really trying to get yellow cake in niger. Joseph Wilson, husband of outed cia operative Valerie Plame Wilson, did just that and the administration did not listen to him, rather, they outed his wife (which it is treason to out a cia agent by the way) and exaggerated the threat that iraq posed and went to war anyway. how can you defend bush for choosing to ignore correct intelligence and take the word over a fucking liar instead of taking the word of someone who was actually there investigating the administrations claims? i am sorry, but if people continue to defend bush in this situation and give him a pass for committing one of the greatest crime of the new millenium, then they are the ones who are brainwashed by what they read on the internet....
Published on Sunday, July 6, 2003 by the New York Times What I Didn't Find in Africa
by Joseph C. Wilson 4th
Did the Bush administration manipulate intelligence about Saddam Hussein's weapons programs to justify an invasion of Iraq?
Based on my experience with the administration in the months leading up to the war, I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat.
For 23 years, from 1976 to 1998, I was a career foreign service officer and ambassador. In 1990, as charg� d'affaires in Baghdad, I was the last American diplomat to meet with Saddam Hussein. (I was also a forceful advocate for his removal from Kuwait.) After Iraq, I was President George H. W. Bush's ambassador to Gabon and S�o Tom� and Pr�ncipe; under President Bill Clinton, I helped direct Africa policy for the National Security Council.
It was my experience in Africa that led me to play a small role in the effort to verify information about Africa's suspected link to Iraq's nonconventional weapons programs. Those news stories about that unnamed former envoy who went to Niger? That's me.
In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report. While I never saw the report, I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake � a form of lightly processed ore � by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990's. The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office.
After consulting with the State Department's African Affairs Bureau (and through it with Barbro Owens-Kirkpatrick, the United States ambassador to Niger), I agreed to make the trip. The mission I undertook was discreet but by no means secret. While the C.I.A. paid my expenses (my time was offered pro bono), I made it abundantly clear to everyone I met that I was acting on behalf of the United States government.
In late February 2002, I arrived in Niger's capital, Niamey, where I had been a diplomat in the mid-70's and visited as a National Security Council official in the late 90's. The city was much as I remembered it. Seasonal winds had clogged the air with dust and sand. Through the haze, I could see camel caravans crossing the Niger River (over the John F. Kennedy bridge), the setting sun behind them. Most people had wrapped scarves around their faces to protect against the grit, leaving only their eyes visible.
The next morning, I met with Ambassador Owens-Kirkpatrick at the embassy. For reasons that are understandable, the embassy staff has always kept a close eye on Niger's uranium business. I was not surprised, then, when the ambassador told me that she knew about the allegations of uranium sales to Iraq � and that she felt she had already debunked them in her reports to Washington. Nevertheless, she and I agreed that my time would be best spent interviewing people who had been in government when the deal supposedly took place, which was before her arrival.
I spent the next eight days drinking sweet mint tea and meeting with dozens of people: current government officials, former government officials, people associated with the country's uranium business. It did not take long to conclude that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place.
Given the structure of the consortiums that operated the mines, it would be exceedingly difficult for Niger to transfer uranium to Iraq. Niger's uranium business consists of two mines, Somair and Cominak, which are run by French, Spanish, Japanese, German and Nigerian interests. If the government wanted to remove uranium from a mine, it would have to notify the consortium, which in turn is strictly monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Moreover, because the two mines are closely regulated, quasi-governmental entities, selling uranium would require the approval of the minister of mines, the prime minister and probably the president. In short, there's simply too much oversight over too small an industry for a sale to have transpired.
(As for the actual memorandum, I never saw it. But news accounts have pointed out that the documents had glaring errors � they were signed, for example, by officials who were no longer in government � and were probably forged. And then there's the fact that Niger formally denied the charges.)
Before I left Niger, I briefed the ambassador on my findings, which were consistent with her own. I also shared my conclusions with members of her staff. In early March, I arrived in Washington and promptly provided a detailed briefing to the C.I.A. I later shared my conclusions with the State Department African Affairs Bureau. There was nothing secret or earth-shattering in my report, just as there was nothing secret about my trip.
Though I did not file a written report, there should be at least four documents in United States government archives confirming my mission. The documents should include the ambassador's report of my debriefing in Niamey, a separate report written by the embassy staff, a C.I.A. report summing up my trip, and a specific answer from the agency to the office of the vice president (this may have been delivered orally). While I have not seen any of these reports, I have spent enough time in government to know that this is standard operating procedure.
I thought the Niger matter was settled and went back to my life. (I did take part in the Iraq debate, arguing that a strict containment regime backed by the threat of force was preferable to an invasion.) In September 2002, however, Niger re-emerged. The British government published a "white paper" asserting that Saddam Hussein and his unconventional arms posed an immediate danger. As evidence, the report cited Iraq's attempts to purchase uranium from an African country.
Then, in January, President Bush, citing the British dossier, repeated the charges about Iraqi efforts to buy uranium from Africa.
The next day, I reminded a friend at the State Department of my trip and suggested that if the president had been referring to Niger, then his conclusion was not borne out by the facts as I understood them. He replied that perhaps the president was speaking about one of the other three African countries that produce uranium: Gabon, South Africa or Namibia. At the time, I accepted the explanation. I didn't know that in December, a month before the president's address, the State Department had published a fact sheet that mentioned the Niger case.
Those are the facts surrounding my efforts. The vice president's office asked a serious question. I was asked to help formulate the answer. I did so, and I have every confidence that the answer I provided was circulated to the appropriate officials within our government.
The question now is how that answer was or was not used by our political leadership. If my information was deemed inaccurate, I understand (though I would be very interested to know why). If, however, the information was ignored because it did not fit certain preconceptions about Iraq, then a legitimate argument can be made that we went to war under false pretenses. (It's worth remembering that in his March "Meet the Press" appearance, Mr. Cheney said that Saddam Hussein was "trying once again to produce nuclear weapons.") At a minimum, Congress, which authorized the use of military force at the president's behest, should want to know if the assertions about Iraq were warranted.
I was convinced before the war that the threat of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Saddam Hussein required a vigorous and sustained international response to disarm him. Iraq possessed and had used chemical weapons; it had an active biological weapons program and quite possibly a nuclear research program � all of which were in violation of United Nations resolutions. Having encountered Mr. Hussein and his thugs in the run-up to the Persian Gulf war of 1991, I was only too aware of the dangers he posed.
But were these dangers the same ones the administration told us about? We have to find out. America's foreign policy depends on the sanctity of its information. For this reason, questioning the selective use of intelligence to justify the war in Iraq is neither idle sniping nor "revisionist history," as Mr. Bush has suggested. The act of war is the last option of a democracy, taken when there is a grave threat to our national security. More than 200 American soldiers have lost their lives in Iraq already. We have a duty to ensure that their sacrifice came for the right reasons.
Joseph C. Wilson 4th, United States ambassador to Gabon from 1992 to 1995, is an international business consultant.
Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
I only read the first half......
so this is the guy that started a war,the war most of the people on here blamed bush for lieing and starting the war single handedly, please forgive me for getting a chuckle out of this.
such is war and politics I guess.
Godfather.
...
I don't know why you continue to find excuses for Bush's responsibilities as our President.
As our President, it is his JOB to find out whether this TAXI DRIVER is telling the truth or not. It is NOT his job to listen to only what he wants to hear. A little research and fact checking about this clown would have saved the live of a lot of people... including our service men and women.
"Maybe I was right, maybe I was not right," al-Janabi said in his exclusive interview with The Guardian newspaper. "They gave me this chance. I had the chance to fabricate something to topple the regime. I and my sons are proud of that and we are proud that we were the reason to give Iraq the margin of democracy."
A lot of American Soldiers died because of this decision to listen to this LIAR... who admits to lying in order for our soldiers to risk their lives (and spend YOU tax dollars) for his benefit. You cannot discount the lost lives of American Soldiers, in order to justify your belief... can you?
...
Bottom line... if you believe a lie... and you pass it on... you are either a liar or stupid.
Cosmo there is no reason to start calling anybody stupid or a liar,as far as I'm concerned those titles can be given to many people on this board just for believing everything they read on some internet page.
I watched a show on history called "A Presidents book of secretes" and it made some good points, concerning all the conspiracies and what they're based on and why they may be hard to believe.
and as for that piece of shit that gave Bush bad info,well Bush trusted his sources much like you trust yours.
we here in the general public will never know the bottom line on most all this political crap we talk about on the train,there are many lies and secretes in the white house and most of which we will never know and every country's government has them,it's not just the US as people on here seem to believe.
Godfather.
No offense, but it sounds like you're just making excuses to fit your agenda.
The things Bush did were an embarrasment to the USA.
nice move Ed, I haven't called anybody stupid or liars that's just what you assume I meant, and I haven't ignored any corruption by our government but I will not condemn Bush or anybody else without proof positive evidence and thats my point NO BODY HERE HAS THAT 100% evidence to judge any president the only thing they have is a drummed up article from the Internet that in no way can be identified as 100% accurate, do you really think the white house is going to let ant damning evidence leak out ? and thats what the history show I told you about was getting across, if Bush is guilty then he should be punished but if you can't prove it beyond reasonable doubt then the people have turned to Lynch mob Justis and thats one of the very things most of you on this site disagree with right ? you can't have it both ways and if Bush is as evil and corrupt as you say he is just how do you or anybody else expect to prove it, he is smart enough to cover his tracks and has many others that will cover for him also because what ever you think he did you can bet someone knew or he didn't do it alone.
JP this site(moving train) is all about personal agendas, I'm just playing the game brother.
my whole point is nobody really knows shit and it's tiring to read all the Bush bashing....ya think he kidnapped the Lindbergh baby ?
it's all good man.
JP this site(moving train) is all about personal agendas, I'm just playing the game brother.
my whole point is nobody really knows shit and it's tiring to read all the Bush bashing....ya think he kidnapped the Lindbergh baby ?
it's all good man.
Godfather.
i have no agenda other than to try to spread truth and open a few eyes to a different way of seeing things. your agenda seems to be that of a bush apologist and to try to gloss over or forget what has happened in the past. i refuse to forget the past because that past has directly set us on the path to where we are today. and if we do not remember the past we are going to repeat it.... how much evidence do you need that this war was based on lies and that the bush administration knew it before the invasion? they knew, or at least were TOLD that curveball was full of shit and so did the germans and the brits. they even warned this administration that curveball's credibility was being questioned....joe wilson was there, he was in africa and he knew that saddam was not seeking yellow cake there. and instead of listening to him, they went after his wife and outed her committing treason in the process. the shame in all of this is people are giving bush a pass. like "oh well, it doesn't impact me so i don't care"....bush and co should have been tried and if our government was not going to try them then the least they could do is not protect them or work to have them have international immunity.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
Cosmo there is no reason to start calling anybody stupid or a liar,as far as I'm concerned those titles can be given to many people on this board just for believing everything they read on some internet page.
Would you be happy if we also relied on Fox news for our information?
nice move Ed, I haven't called anybody stupid or liars that's just what you assume I meant, and I haven't ignored any corruption by our government but I will not condemn Bush or anybody else without proof positive evidence and thats my point NO BODY HERE HAS THAT 100% evidence to judge any president the only thing they have is a drummed up article from the Internet that in no way can be identified as 100% accurate, do you really think the white house is going to let ant damning evidence leak out ? and thats what the history show I told you about was getting across, if Bush is guilty then he should be punished but if you can't prove it beyond reasonable doubt then the people have turned to Lynch mob Justis and thats one of the very things most of you on this site disagree with right ? you can't have it both ways and if Bush is as evil and corrupt as you say he is just how do you or anybody else expect to prove it, he is smart enough to cover his tracks and has many others that will cover for him also because what ever you think he did you can bet someone knew or he didn't do it alone.
Godfather.
You're right, I dont have personal proof, but I dont need it. I know enough to realize that his organization made very poor choices.
take a quick look at this and tell me it doesnt make you worried about what wthe USA has committed to: http://costofwar.com/en/
Cosmo there is no reason to start calling anybody stupid or a liar,as far as I'm concerned those titles can be given to many people on this board just for believing everything they read on some internet page.
Would you be happy if we also relied on Fox news for our information?
what's the difference ?...he said ..she said.FOX CNN CBS or any of the on line rags you choose to believe.
this site(moving train) is all about personal agendas
The thing is (and this may come as a shock to you), there is something called 'verifiable facts'. These are facts that can be corroborated and verified. Facts are based on evidence. So when people here on the board source these facts and post them on the Moving Train they are not relying on personal opinion. Personal opinion and a disregard for the facts, and ignorance of the historical record, is what Fox News does.
LOL, the rest of the world seems to be of the opinion that Bush and Blair - at the very least, stretched any semblence of truth to go to war with Iraq.
And for the record - seems silly to have to mention it - Iraq had nothing what so ever to do with 9-11, not a damn thing. That so many were so easliy fooled in both countries, speaks volumes about their populations ability to think criticley for themselves.
That no one in the offending American administration has ever had to pay the piper on it just further adds to the belief that once you amass a certain level of wealth, you are no longer held accountable to societies standards. Capitalism at it's very best, the top can do what they want, and the uninformed sheep at the bottom will scream and shout that it should stay that way so that "freedom" can be protected.
But then we still have people defending these murderers, and no amount of truth or facts will change that. These same people it should be noted have refered to their current president as "the worst ever".
What is being carried out in your name this very day will haunt generations of your country men / women, and your unabashed defense for this war criminal will ensure that the next generation of Jihadist's will have more than enough propaganda to work with.
But hey, this is sure to draw the usual drivel, and non-sensicle rantings of one person in particular. Not everyone reads or watches American media, hell some countries even produce their own - god forbid
'verifiable facts'.....ooookay.
then why is Bush still at home and collecting his presidential pension ?
Godfather.
holy crap! it is because obama chose to not pursue charges. i have already said that in 3 posts in this thread. and at this point he has immunity from prosecution in other countries. remember when rummy was wanted to be tried in germany? his lawyers scoffed at the charges and will make sure he doesn't go to germany so he can not be arrested. same with bush and i think it was sweden last month. he was going to travel there and was told there would be mass protests and he may be arrested, so he canceled the trip. and do you REALLY think that the US is going to extradite any of these bastards? no way on earth that will happen. people go to jail for weed, yet you start an illegal war and you walk free. what a shame.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
'verifiable facts'.....ooookay.
then why is Bush still at home and collecting his presidential pension ?
Godfather.
holy crap! it is because obama chose to not pursue charges. i have already said that in 3 posts in this thread. and at this point he has immunity from prosecution in other countries. remember when rummy was wanted to be tried in germany? his lawyers scoffed at the charges and will make sure he doesn't go to germany so he can not be arrested. same with bush and i think it was sweden last month. he was going to travel there and was told there would be mass protests and he may be arrested, so he canceled the trip. and do you REALLY think that the US is going to extradite any of these bastards? no way on earth that will happen. people go to jail for weed, yet you start an illegal war and you walk free. what a shame.
and thats why no president will ever go to prison,ever wonder why the president of the united states is called the most powerful man in the world ?
man brother my whole argument to this bush thing is that nobody will ever ...(well not in his life time) offer up 100% proof that Bush is wrong on the war..even if he is we'll never get that smoking gun,only small pieces
to tempt the conspiracy theorist and thats all it will ever be and our government will make sure of that.
I just get so tired of Bush this BUSH that, Obamas term ain't over yet so what kind of secretes is he and his staff keeping, it has been this way for every president in history just about. there is no such thing as clean politics in my opinion,not when the whole world is depending on the USA for one thing or another.
Cosmo there is no reason to start calling anybody stupid or a liar,as far as I'm concerned those titles can be given to many people on this board just for believing everything they read on some internet page.
I watched a show on history called "A Presidents book of secretes" and it made some good points, concerning all the conspiracies and what they're based on and why they may be hard to believe.
and as for that piece of shit that gave Bush bad info,well Bush trusted his sources much like you trust yours.
we here in the general public will never know the bottom line on most all this political crap we talk about on the train,there are many lies and secretes in the white house and most of which we will never know and every country's government has them,it's not just the US as people on here seem to believe.
Godfather.
...
Sorry if you mistook my meaning. It wasn't meant to you, personally... rather people in general and President Bush specifically.
I still stand by my comment. The person who believes anything some guy has to say is stupid. The President is tasked to investigate and VERIFY the validity of this information and the person who is delvering it. A basic check of this guy would have shown that he was not cataloged in the Husseing intelligence file and that German intelligence had already written him off as a nutcase.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
and thats why no president will ever go to prison,ever wonder why the president of the united states is called the most powerful man in the world ?
man brother my whole argument to this bush thing is that nobody will ever ...(well not in his life time) offer up 100% proof that Bush is wrong on the war..even if he is we'll never get that smoking gun,only small pieces
to tempt the conspiracy theorist and thats all it will ever be and our government will make sure of that.
I just get so tired of Bush this BUSH that, Obamas term ain't over yet so what kind of secretes is he and his staff keeping, it has been this way for every president in history just about. there is no such thing as clean politics in my opinion,not when the whole world is depending on the USA for one thing or another.
Godfather.
...
Bush WAS Wrong. You just keep making excuses for him.
There were no weapons of mass destruction that survived the weapons inspections of the George H.W. Bush era.
The intelligence was based on a Taxi Driver.... not a project manger of Iraqi Biological weapons program.
Soldiers and civilians died based on this false information because our predsident believed a liar and sold his war to the American people.
...
Those are facts that you CHOOSE not to believe. I don't think anything that is proven will ever change your view... frome the things you say, you appear to be a Bush faithful and will take that to your grave.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
and thats why no president will ever go to prison,ever wonder why the president of the united states is called the most powerful man in the world ?
man brother my whole argument to this bush thing is that nobody will ever ...(well not in his life time) offer up 100% proof that Bush is wrong on the war..even if he is we'll never get that smoking gun,only small pieces
to tempt the conspiracy theorist and thats all it will ever be and our government will make sure of that.
I just get so tired of Bush this BUSH that, Obamas term ain't over yet so what kind of secretes is he and his staff keeping, it has been this way for every president in history just about. there is no such thing as clean politics in my opinion,not when the whole world is depending on the USA for one thing or another.
Godfather.
...
Bush WAS Wrong. You just keep making excuses for him.
There were no weapons of mass destruction that survived the weapons inspections of the George H.W. Bush era.
The intelligence was based on a Taxi Driver.... not a project manger of Iraqi Biological weapons program.
Soldiers and civilians died based on this false information because our predsident believed a liar and sold his war to the American people.
...
Those are facts that you CHOOSE not to believe. I don't think anything that is proven will ever change your view... frome the things you say, you appear to be a Bush faithful and will take that to your grave.
no brother I'm not a bush faithful just hard headed....I'll admit that, and I may not always be right but it just irks me that every time something is brought up about the war it was Bush's fault and you guys are probably right about that but it's not over yet as promised by our new president.
and besides if I didn't stir the pot a little when Bush got brought up you guys would have no fun defending your points, I actually respect your views and the sources you guys bring to the table I just hate to be told I'm wrong and especially hate to see people bang on the USA.. yea I'm a hard headed proud American.
no brother I'm not a bush faithful just hard headed....I'll admit that, and I may not always be right but it just irks me that every time something is brought up about the war it was Bush's fault and you guys are probably right about that but it's not over yet as promised by our new president.
and besides if I didn't stir the pot a little when Bush got brought up you guys would have no fun defending your points, I actually respect your views and the sources you guys bring to the table I just hate to be told I'm wrong and especially hate to see people bang on the USA.. yea I'm a hard headed proud American.
Godfather.
...
That's good to know... but, there are some people who refuse to hold President Bush responsible for his decisions and will make excuses in his defense.
The same people who feel that people who make poor decisions in theer lives should take personal responsibility for their decisions/actions... yet, fail to hold President Bush responsible for his. Example, the woman who can't afford to take care of herself, gets pregnant and has a kid. People feel that it was her poor decisions and actions that lead to her situation... she needs to be responsible for her actions, right? Why doesn't that principle apply to our leaders? Why should you have to pay for this woman's mistake and take care of her kid, right? Why should President Obama be held responsible for Bush's kid (Iraq)?
And we are winding down in Iraq. It is easier to invade a country, than it is to withdraw. Proof? You need not look any further than Viet Nam.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
Capitalism at it's very best, the top can do what they want, and the uninformed sheep at the bottom will scream and shout that it should stay that way so that "freedom" can be protected.
no brother I'm not a bush faithful just hard headed....I'll admit that, and I may not always be right but it just irks me that every time something is brought up about the war it was Bush's fault and you guys are probably right about that but it's not over yet as promised by our new president.
and besides if I didn't stir the pot a little when Bush got brought up you guys would have no fun defending your points, I actually respect your views and the sources you guys bring to the table I just hate to be told I'm wrong and especially hate to see people bang on the USA.. yea I'm a hard headed proud American.
Godfather.
...
That's good to know... but, there are some people who refuse to hold President Bush responsible for his decisions and will make excuses in his defense.
The same people who feel that people who make poor decisions in theer lives should take personal responsibility for their decisions/actions... yet, fail to hold President Bush responsible for his. Example, the woman who can't afford to take care of herself, gets pregnant and has a kid. People feel that it was her poor decisions and actions that lead to her situation... she needs to be responsible for her actions, right? Why doesn't that principle apply to our leaders? Why should you have to pay for this woman's mistake and take care of her kid, right? Why should President Obama be held responsible for Bush's kid (Iraq)?
And we are winding down in Iraq. It is easier to invade a country, than it is to withdraw. Proof? You need not look any further than Viet Nam.
I hold them all responsible, Bush and his crew and Obama and his, I don't like this war shit anymore that you guys but banging on the US and continuing to blame Bush is pointless,we have a new curve ball in office who promised to end this war and so far it has just changed locations, what ever bush may have done is past history and the new guy campaigned for the job and made promices....just like Bush did :shock: to bring about "CHANGE" and it's changing no doubt but not so good is it ?
the guy that's comes after Obama will find a mess to try and fix just like Obama did.
just my honest thought on the whole mess.
I hold them all responsible, Bush and his crew and Obama and his, I don't like this war shit anymore that you guys but banging on the US and continuing to blame Bush is pointless,we have a new curve ball in office who promised to end this war and so far it has just changed locations, what ever bush may have done is past history and the new guy campaigned for the job and made promices....just like Bush did :shock: to bring about "CHANGE" and it's changing no doubt but not so good is it ?
the guy that's comes after Obama will find a mess to try and fix just like Obama did.
just my honest thought on the whole mess.
Godfather.
dude i do not think you grasp the point in all of this. not the point of my posts at least...what exactly are you holding obama responsible for? he did not start the wars based on lies. he has continued them to some extent, he has withdrawn troops from iraq, escalated in afghanistan, and increased the drone attacks on the pakistan/afghanistan border. it is taking so long to draw down in iraq because it is much easier to put troops into a war zone than it is to withdraw them, and he is escalating in afghanistan because that is where the war should have been all along. many people would not disagree with bush starting a war in afghanistan, but tha is not the point of the thread. the point of the thread is a dude codenamed curveball by several intelligence agencies lied us into a war in IRAQ. bush is wholly to blame because he chose to believe this asshole when others were telling him that curveball was not credible. i am starting to think that you are not reading my posts. and why are you calling obama "a curve ball" when "curveball" was the codename for the liar that got us into this mess?? you are still giving bush a pass when he is the one that started all of this shit in iraq.
by blaming obama the same as bush, or giving bush a free pass, what you are doing is if a child is born with fetal alcohol syndrome you are blaming the child for it's situation when it was the mother's drinking during pregnancy that caused the situation.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
I hold them all responsible, Bush and his crew and Obama and his, I don't like this war shit anymore that you guys but banging on the US and continuing to blame Bush is pointless,we have a new curve ball in office who promised to end this war and so far it has just changed locations, what ever bush may have done is past history and the new guy campaigned for the job and made promices....just like Bush did :shock: to bring about "CHANGE" and it's changing no doubt but not so good is it ?
the guy that's comes after Obama will find a mess to try and fix just like Obama did.
just my honest thought on the whole mess.
Godfather.
dude i do not think you grasp the point in all of this. not the point of my posts at least...what exactly are you holding obama responsible for? he did not start the wars based on lies. he has continued them to some extent, he has withdrawn troops from iraq, escalated in afghanistan, and increased the drone attacks on the pakistan/afghanistan border. it is taking so long to draw down in iraq because it is much easier to put troops into a war zone than it is to withdraw them, and he is escalating in afghanistan because that is where the war should have been all along. many people would not disagree with bush starting a war in afghanistan, but tha is not the point of the thread. the point of the thread is a dude codenamed curveball by several intelligence agencies lied us into a war in IRAQ. bush is wholly to blame because he chose to believe this asshole when others were telling him that curveball was not credible. i am starting to think that you are not reading my posts. and why are you calling obama "a curve ball" when "curveball" was the codename for the liar that got us into this mess?? you are still giving bush a pass when he is the one that started all of this shit in iraq.
by blaming obama the same as bush, or giving bush a free pass, what you are doing is if a child is born with fetal alcohol syndrome you are blaming the child for it's situation when it was the mother's drinking during pregnancy that caused the situation.
gimme
the only way this dude can bash bush is by bashing obama in the same sentence
typical
and regarding obama,
i wish he were doing better
he has thrown a few bones to the slaves of this nation
but until someone takes away the power from big business and wall st.
and gives it to the people
we are all fucked
btw- i'm neither (R) or (D)
regarding curveball
i feel the bush regime would have started that war with or without him
The whole world will be different soon... - EV
RED ROCKS 6-19-95
AUGUSTA 9-26-96
MANSFIELD 9-15-98
BOSTON 9-29-04
BOSTON 5-25-06
MANSFIELD 6-30-08
EV SOLO BOSTON 8-01-08
BOSTON 5-17-10
EV SOLO BOSTON 6-16-11
PJ20 9-3-11
PJ20 9-4-11
WRIGLEY 7-19-13
WORCESTER 10-15-13
WORCESTER 10-16-13
HARTFORD 10-25-13
it's time to move forward guy's, it's broke and needs to be fixed no matter who broke it, that's my point
and if Obama can't fix hopefully the next liar in office will.
lets use the "root cause analysis method"...so now we know it's broke and why it broke and according to you all we know who broke it but at this point who gives a fuck who broke it,lets get the damn thing fixed and worry about who broke it later, do you hunt for the arsonist before you put out the fire ? with all the inter-workings of the government and dirty deals that go on to this day busting bush would only be the beginning of it all..why do you think he's probably laughing at people like you guys,everybody from the bottom up could very well be involved in what started the war,do you really think they would shake up Washington just to throw a sacrificial lamb to the peasants ?..sorry guys I ain't buying it.
just saying it probably goes alot deeper than just Bush, stuff the public don't know.
and Ed you are the epitome of typical buddy, I can count on you like the time.
it's time to move forward guy's, it's broke and needs to be fixed no matter who broke it, that's my point
and if Obama can't fix hopefully the next liar in office will.
lets use the "root cause analysis method"...so now we know it's broke and why it broke and according to you all we know who broke it but at this point who gives a fuck who broke it,lets get the damn thing fixed and worry about who broke it later, do you hunt for the arsonist before you put out the fire ? with all the inter-workings of the government and dirty deals that go on to this day busting bush would only be the beginning of it all..why do you think he's probably laughing at people like you guys,everybody from the bottom up could very well be involved in what started the war,do you really think they would shake up Washington just to throw a sacrificial lamb to the peasants ?..sorry guys I ain't buying it.
just saying it probably goes alot deeper than just Bush, stuff the public don't know.
and Ed you are the epitome of typical buddy, I can count on you like the time.
Godfather.
g
"do you hunt for the arsonist before you put out the fire?"
no, but eventually you have to arrest the arsonist,
but you don't want to do that because some other polititians are also committing crimes
he and cheney killed many innocent people
The whole world will be different soon... - EV
RED ROCKS 6-19-95
AUGUSTA 9-26-96
MANSFIELD 9-15-98
BOSTON 9-29-04
BOSTON 5-25-06
MANSFIELD 6-30-08
EV SOLO BOSTON 8-01-08
BOSTON 5-17-10
EV SOLO BOSTON 6-16-11
PJ20 9-3-11
PJ20 9-4-11
WRIGLEY 7-19-13
WORCESTER 10-15-13
WORCESTER 10-16-13
HARTFORD 10-25-13
it's time to move forward guy's, it's broke and needs to be fixed no matter who broke it, that's my point
and if Obama can't fix hopefully the next liar in office will.
lets use the "root cause analysis method"...so now we know it's broke and why it broke and according to you all we know who broke it but at this point who gives a fuck who broke it,lets get the damn thing fixed and worry about who broke it later, do you hunt for the arsonist before you put out the fire ? with all the inter-workings of the government and dirty deals that go on to this day busting bush would only be the beginning of it all..why do you think he's probably laughing at people like you guys,everybody from the bottom up could very well be involved in what started the war,do you really think they would shake up Washington just to throw a sacrificial lamb to the peasants ?..sorry guys I ain't buying it.
just saying it probably goes alot deeper than just Bush, stuff the public don't know.
and Ed you are the epitome of typical buddy, I can count on you like the time.
Godfather.
g
"do you hunt for the arsonist before you put out the fire?"
no, but eventually you have to arrest the arsonist,
but you don't want to do that because some other polititians are also committing crimes
he and cheney killed many innocent people
I said it will never happen Ed and I'll bet you it don't.
if you bust a president over this stuff you'd be opening a huge can of worms(maybe that's what we need)
but I can tell you now it won't happen. just for the heck of it look at all the people that were charged with war crimes in Germany after Hitler died and it took an American and Alied invasions to make that happen.
it's time to move forward guy's, it's broke and needs to be fixed no matter who broke it, that's my point
and if Obama can't fix hopefully the next liar in office will.
lets use the "root cause analysis method"...so now we know it's broke and why it broke and according to you all we know who broke it but at this point who gives a fuck who broke it,lets get the damn thing fixed and worry about who broke it later, do you hunt for the arsonist before you put out the fire ?
Godfather.
...
Some of us believe in personal responsibility and accountability.
So, by your viewpoint... we really shouldn't care about the Banker/Brokers that fucked up the economy and quit bitching about the bail out money we had to pay them to keep us from completely collapsing, right? Who cares who's responsible, right? Just put out the money to fix the problem, right?
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
Comments
this whole situation shows me that the cia and other intelligence agencies only reported to the politicians what they wanted to report. germans paid him a monthly stipend 5 years after knowing he lied. unbelievable.
Curveball deserves permanent exile for WMD lies, say Iraq politicians
Defector Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi's hope of a political career met by scorn following admission he lied about Saddam Hussein's weapons programme
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/fe ... oliticians
Politicians in Iraq have called for the permanent exile of the Iraqi defector, codenamed Curveball by his US and German handlers, who admitted to the Guardian he lied about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction (WMD).
Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi said he invented stories about Saddam Hussein's non-existent bioweapons programme in order to "liberate" Iraq.
But if he thought that his mea culpa would make him a hero, it seems he was wrong. "He is a liar, he will not serve his country," one Iraqi politician said in response to Curveball's claim to want to build a political career in his motherland.
In his adopted home of Germany, politicians are demanding to know why the German secret service, the Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND), paid Curveball €3,000 (£2,500) a month for at least five years after they knew he had lied.
In the US, questions are being asked of the CIA's handling of Curveball, 43, and specifically why the then head of the intelligence agency, George Tenet, did not pass on warnings from the Germans about Curveball's reliability.
But the harshest criticism of Curveball is coming from Iraq.
Jamal Al Battikh, the country's minister for tribes' affairs, said: "Honestly, this man led Iraq to a catastrophe and a disaster. Iraqis paid a heavy price for his lies – the invasion of 2003 destroyed Iraqi basic infrastructure and after eight years we cannot fix electricity. Plus thousands of Iraqis have died.
"This man is not welcome back. In fact, Iraqis should complain against him and sue him for his lies."
Others poured scorn on Curveball's plan to return to Iraq and enter politics.
Intefadh Qanber, spokesman for the Iraqi National Congress (INC), led by Ahmed Chalabi, said: "He is a liar, he will not serve his country. He fabricated the story about WMD and that story gave the USA a suitable pretext to lead the 2003 invasion, which hurt Iraq. For most Iraqis, it was obvious that Saddam was a dictator, but they wanted to see him ousted on the basis of his crimes against human rights, not a fabricated story about weapons of mass destruction."
In the US, a pressure group representing veterans of the Iraq war demanded the justice department open an investigation into the INC's relationship to Curveball.
Chalabi, who was very close to the former US vice-president Dick Cheney in the decade leading up to the 2003 invasion, has often been accused of being the man behind Curveball. It has long been known that Chalabi provided the CIA with three other sources who lied about Saddam's WMD capability. But when asked by the Guardian, al-Janabi and Chalabi denied knowing each other.
A spokesman for Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW) said: "There must be accountability. Mr Janabi manipulated the United States government in a self-confessed effort to precipitate US military action in Iraq. IVAW calls for the justice department to investigate whether he acted alone or in concert with others who now occupy senior positions in the Iraqi government."
In Germany, politicians are demanding an open parliamentary inquiry into the BND's handling of the Curveball case.
Hans-Ulrich Sckerl, a Green MP in Baden-Württemberg, where Curveball now lives, said Germany's interior ministry had never given a satisfactory explanation for why the BND continued to support Curveball financially until 2008, when he was given a German passport.
He said: "We asked about this matter in the local parliament and the ministry of the interior gave us a very guarded response. They deny knowing anything about Curveball being given German citizenship – with the help of the BND – or being involved with it in any way. Still now, we don't quite believe it ... We will keep asking questions."
Another MP, Hans-Christian Ströbele, who represents the Green Party in the parliamentary control panel on the work of the intelligence services, has already said the Bundestag should investigate why the BND provided support payments to Curveball for so long.
On Wednesday, the BND answered "no comment" to all of the Guardian's questions about Curveball.
In the US, Lawrence Wilkerson, who was chief of staff to the US secretary of state Colin Powell in the build-up to the invasion, said Curveball's lies raised questions about how the CIA had briefed Powell ahead of his crucial speech to the UN security council presenting the case for war.
Tyler Drumheller, the head of the CIA's Europe division in the run-up to the 2003 invasion, said he welcomed Curveball's confession because he had always warned Tenet that Curveball may have been a fabricator.
On the streets of Baghdad today, some ordinary Iraqis said they were grateful for Curveball's lies.
Salem Ahmed, 55, a businessman, said: "I would welcome Rafid back. His lies helped Iraqis get rid of Saddam and now we can travel everywhere. On a personal level, my business has improved, too. I wish Iraqi politicians had lied earlier than 2003 so that we could have got a free country sooner."
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
I don't know why you continue to find excuses for Bush's responsibilities as our President.
As our President, it is his JOB to find out whether this TAXI DRIVER is telling the truth or not. It is NOT his job to listen to only what he wants to hear. A little research and fact checking about this clown would have saved the live of a lot of people... including our service men and women.
"Maybe I was right, maybe I was not right," al-Janabi said in his exclusive interview with The Guardian newspaper. "They gave me this chance. I had the chance to fabricate something to topple the regime. I and my sons are proud of that and we are proud that we were the reason to give Iraq the margin of democracy."
A lot of American Soldiers died because of this decision to listen to this LIAR... who admits to lying in order for our soldiers to risk their lives (and spend YOU tax dollars) for his benefit. You cannot discount the lost lives of American Soldiers, in order to justify your belief... can you?
...
Bottom line... if you believe a lie... and you pass it on... you are either a liar or stupid.
Hail, Hail!!!
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/u ... 387374.ece
May 1, 2005
The secret Downing Street memo
SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL - UK EYES ONLY
DAVID MANNING
From: Matthew Rycroft
Date: 23 July 2002
S 195 02
cc: Defence Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Attorney-General, Sir Richard Wilson, John Scarlett, Francis Richards, CDS, C, Jonathan Powell, Sally Morgan, Alastair Campbell
IRAQ: PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING, 23 JULY
Copy addressees and you met the Prime Minister on 23 July to discuss Iraq.
This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents.
John Scarlett summarised the intelligence and latest JIC assessment. Saddam's regime was tough and based on extreme fear. The only way to overthrow it was likely to be by massive military action. Saddam was worried and expected an attack, probably by air and land, but he was not convinced that it would be immediate or overwhelming. His regime expected their neighbours to line up with the US. Saddam knew that regular army morale was poor. Real support for Saddam among the public was probably narrowly based.
C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.
CDS said that military planners would brief CENTCOM on 1-2 August, Rumsfeld on 3 August and Bush on 4 August.
The two broad US options were:
(a) Generated Start. A slow build-up of 250,000 US troops, a short (72 hour) air campaign, then a move up to Baghdad from the south. Lead time of 90 days (30 days preparation plus 60 days deployment to Kuwait).
(b) Running Start. Use forces already in theatre (3 x 6,000), continuous air campaign, initiated by an Iraqi casus belli. Total lead time of 60 days with the air campaign beginning even earlier. A hazardous option.
The US saw the UK (and Kuwait) as essential, with basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus critical for either option. Turkey and other Gulf states were also important, but less vital. The three main options for UK involvement were:
(i) Basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus, plus three SF squadrons.
(ii) As above, with maritime and air assets in addition.
(iii) As above, plus a land contribution of up to 40,000, perhaps with a discrete role in Northern Iraq entering from Turkey, tying down two Iraqi divisions.
The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.
The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.
The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.
The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors. Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD. There were different strategies for dealing with Libya and Iran. If the political context were right, people would support regime change. The two key issues were whether the military plan worked and whether we had the political strategy to give the military plan the space to work.
On the first, CDS said that we did not know yet if the US battleplan was workable. The military were continuing to ask lots of questions.
For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary.
The Foreign Secretary thought the US would not go ahead with a military plan unless convinced that it was a winning strategy. On this, US and UK interests converged. But on the political strategy, there could be US/UK differences. Despite US resistance, we should explore discreetly the ultimatum. Saddam would continue to play hard-ball with the UN.
John Scarlett assessed that Saddam would allow the inspectors back in only when he thought the threat of military action was real.
The Defence Secretary said that if the Prime Minister wanted UK military involvement, he would need to decide this early. He cautioned that many in the US did not think it worth going down the ultimatum route. It would be important for the Prime Minister to set out the political context to Bush.
Conclusions:
(a) We should work on the assumption that the UK would take part in any military action. But we needed a fuller picture of US planning before we could take any firm decisions. CDS should tell the US military that we were considering a range of options.
(b) The Prime Minister would revert on the question of whether funds could be spent in preparation for this operation.
(c) CDS would send the Prime Minister full details of the proposed military campaign and possible UK contributions by the end of the week.
(d) The Foreign Secretary would send the Prime Minister the background on the UN inspectors, and discreetly work up the ultimatum to Saddam.
He would also send the Prime Minister advice on the positions of countries in the region especially Turkey, and of the key EU member states.
(e) John Scarlett would send the Prime Minister a full intelligence update.
(f) We must not ignore the legal issues: the Attorney-General would consider legal advice with FCO/MOD legal advisers.
(I have written separately to commission this follow-up work.)
MATTHEW RYCROFT
(Rycroft was a Downing Street foreign policy aide)
Cosmo there is no reason to start calling anybody stupid or a liar,as far as I'm concerned those titles can be given to many people on this board just for believing everything they read on some internet page.
I watched a show on history called "A Presidents book of secretes" and it made some good points, concerning all the conspiracies and what they're based on and why they may be hard to believe.
and as for that piece of shit that gave Bush bad info,well Bush trusted his sources much like you trust yours.
we here in the general public will never know the bottom line on most all this political crap we talk about on the train,there are many lies and secretes in the white house and most of which we will never know and every country's government has them,it's not just the US as people on here seem to believe.
Godfather.
ok
you wanna call people here stupid and liars for believing what they read on the internet
and then you tell us to believe a tv show you watched
you also seem very upset with that "piece of shit" that gave bad info
do you really believe that we go to war based on info given by some guy?
you know about our military budget and the billions spent on intelligence,
but you want to cut bush some slack because he "trusted his sources"?
they wanted a war with iraq
not too hard to figure that one out
you do know war is a big business
it's capitalism, baby
and some of us on the 'train' DO understand that every government has lies and secrets
it's just that some of us will not ignore OUR governments corruption
solely based on the fact that we were born here
sounds like you do
and our founding fathers would be very disappointed about that
RED ROCKS 6-19-95
AUGUSTA 9-26-96
MANSFIELD 9-15-98
BOSTON 9-29-04
BOSTON 5-25-06
MANSFIELD 6-30-08
EV SOLO BOSTON 8-01-08
BOSTON 5-17-10
EV SOLO BOSTON 6-16-11
PJ20 9-3-11
PJ20 9-4-11
WRIGLEY 7-19-13
WORCESTER 10-15-13
WORCESTER 10-16-13
HARTFORD 10-25-13
Published on Sunday, July 6, 2003 by the New York Times
What I Didn't Find in Africa
by Joseph C. Wilson 4th
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0706-02.htm
Did the Bush administration manipulate intelligence about Saddam Hussein's weapons programs to justify an invasion of Iraq?
Based on my experience with the administration in the months leading up to the war, I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat.
For 23 years, from 1976 to 1998, I was a career foreign service officer and ambassador. In 1990, as charg� d'affaires in Baghdad, I was the last American diplomat to meet with Saddam Hussein. (I was also a forceful advocate for his removal from Kuwait.) After Iraq, I was President George H. W. Bush's ambassador to Gabon and S�o Tom� and Pr�ncipe; under President Bill Clinton, I helped direct Africa policy for the National Security Council.
It was my experience in Africa that led me to play a small role in the effort to verify information about Africa's suspected link to Iraq's nonconventional weapons programs. Those news stories about that unnamed former envoy who went to Niger? That's me.
In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report. While I never saw the report, I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake � a form of lightly processed ore � by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990's. The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office.
After consulting with the State Department's African Affairs Bureau (and through it with Barbro Owens-Kirkpatrick, the United States ambassador to Niger), I agreed to make the trip. The mission I undertook was discreet but by no means secret. While the C.I.A. paid my expenses (my time was offered pro bono), I made it abundantly clear to everyone I met that I was acting on behalf of the United States government.
In late February 2002, I arrived in Niger's capital, Niamey, where I had been a diplomat in the mid-70's and visited as a National Security Council official in the late 90's. The city was much as I remembered it. Seasonal winds had clogged the air with dust and sand. Through the haze, I could see camel caravans crossing the Niger River (over the John F. Kennedy bridge), the setting sun behind them. Most people had wrapped scarves around their faces to protect against the grit, leaving only their eyes visible.
The next morning, I met with Ambassador Owens-Kirkpatrick at the embassy. For reasons that are understandable, the embassy staff has always kept a close eye on Niger's uranium business. I was not surprised, then, when the ambassador told me that she knew about the allegations of uranium sales to Iraq � and that she felt she had already debunked them in her reports to Washington. Nevertheless, she and I agreed that my time would be best spent interviewing people who had been in government when the deal supposedly took place, which was before her arrival.
I spent the next eight days drinking sweet mint tea and meeting with dozens of people: current government officials, former government officials, people associated with the country's uranium business. It did not take long to conclude that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place.
Given the structure of the consortiums that operated the mines, it would be exceedingly difficult for Niger to transfer uranium to Iraq. Niger's uranium business consists of two mines, Somair and Cominak, which are run by French, Spanish, Japanese, German and Nigerian interests. If the government wanted to remove uranium from a mine, it would have to notify the consortium, which in turn is strictly monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Moreover, because the two mines are closely regulated, quasi-governmental entities, selling uranium would require the approval of the minister of mines, the prime minister and probably the president. In short, there's simply too much oversight over too small an industry for a sale to have transpired.
(As for the actual memorandum, I never saw it. But news accounts have pointed out that the documents had glaring errors � they were signed, for example, by officials who were no longer in government � and were probably forged. And then there's the fact that Niger formally denied the charges.)
Before I left Niger, I briefed the ambassador on my findings, which were consistent with her own. I also shared my conclusions with members of her staff. In early March, I arrived in Washington and promptly provided a detailed briefing to the C.I.A. I later shared my conclusions with the State Department African Affairs Bureau. There was nothing secret or earth-shattering in my report, just as there was nothing secret about my trip.
Though I did not file a written report, there should be at least four documents in United States government archives confirming my mission. The documents should include the ambassador's report of my debriefing in Niamey, a separate report written by the embassy staff, a C.I.A. report summing up my trip, and a specific answer from the agency to the office of the vice president (this may have been delivered orally). While I have not seen any of these reports, I have spent enough time in government to know that this is standard operating procedure.
I thought the Niger matter was settled and went back to my life. (I did take part in the Iraq debate, arguing that a strict containment regime backed by the threat of force was preferable to an invasion.) In September 2002, however, Niger re-emerged. The British government published a "white paper" asserting that Saddam Hussein and his unconventional arms posed an immediate danger. As evidence, the report cited Iraq's attempts to purchase uranium from an African country.
Then, in January, President Bush, citing the British dossier, repeated the charges about Iraqi efforts to buy uranium from Africa.
The next day, I reminded a friend at the State Department of my trip and suggested that if the president had been referring to Niger, then his conclusion was not borne out by the facts as I understood them. He replied that perhaps the president was speaking about one of the other three African countries that produce uranium: Gabon, South Africa or Namibia. At the time, I accepted the explanation. I didn't know that in December, a month before the president's address, the State Department had published a fact sheet that mentioned the Niger case.
Those are the facts surrounding my efforts. The vice president's office asked a serious question. I was asked to help formulate the answer. I did so, and I have every confidence that the answer I provided was circulated to the appropriate officials within our government.
The question now is how that answer was or was not used by our political leadership. If my information was deemed inaccurate, I understand (though I would be very interested to know why). If, however, the information was ignored because it did not fit certain preconceptions about Iraq, then a legitimate argument can be made that we went to war under false pretenses. (It's worth remembering that in his March "Meet the Press" appearance, Mr. Cheney said that Saddam Hussein was "trying once again to produce nuclear weapons.") At a minimum, Congress, which authorized the use of military force at the president's behest, should want to know if the assertions about Iraq were warranted.
I was convinced before the war that the threat of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Saddam Hussein required a vigorous and sustained international response to disarm him. Iraq possessed and had used chemical weapons; it had an active biological weapons program and quite possibly a nuclear research program � all of which were in violation of United Nations resolutions. Having encountered Mr. Hussein and his thugs in the run-up to the Persian Gulf war of 1991, I was only too aware of the dangers he posed.
But were these dangers the same ones the administration told us about? We have to find out. America's foreign policy depends on the sanctity of its information. For this reason, questioning the selective use of intelligence to justify the war in Iraq is neither idle sniping nor "revisionist history," as Mr. Bush has suggested. The act of war is the last option of a democracy, taken when there is a grave threat to our national security. More than 200 American soldiers have lost their lives in Iraq already. We have a duty to ensure that their sacrifice came for the right reasons.
Joseph C. Wilson 4th, United States ambassador to Gabon from 1992 to 1995, is an international business consultant.
Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
No offense, but it sounds like you're just making excuses to fit your agenda.
The things Bush did were an embarrasment to the USA.
Godfather.
my whole point is nobody really knows shit and it's tiring to read all the Bush bashing....ya think he kidnapped the Lindbergh baby ?
it's all good man.
Godfather.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Would you be happy if we also relied on Fox news for our information?
You're right, I dont have personal proof, but I dont need it. I know enough to realize that his organization made very poor choices.
take a quick look at this and tell me it doesnt make you worried about what wthe USA has committed to:
http://costofwar.com/en/
what's the difference ?...he said ..she said.FOX CNN CBS or any of the on line rags you choose to believe.
Godfather.
The thing is (and this may come as a shock to you), there is something called 'verifiable facts'. These are facts that can be corroborated and verified. Facts are based on evidence. So when people here on the board source these facts and post them on the Moving Train they are not relying on personal opinion. Personal opinion and a disregard for the facts, and ignorance of the historical record, is what Fox News does.
then why is Bush still at home and collecting his presidential pension ?
Godfather.
And for the record - seems silly to have to mention it - Iraq had nothing what so ever to do with 9-11, not a damn thing. That so many were so easliy fooled in both countries, speaks volumes about their populations ability to think criticley for themselves.
That no one in the offending American administration has ever had to pay the piper on it just further adds to the belief that once you amass a certain level of wealth, you are no longer held accountable to societies standards. Capitalism at it's very best, the top can do what they want, and the uninformed sheep at the bottom will scream and shout that it should stay that way so that "freedom" can be protected.
But then we still have people defending these murderers, and no amount of truth or facts will change that. These same people it should be noted have refered to their current president as "the worst ever".
What is being carried out in your name this very day will haunt generations of your country men / women, and your unabashed defense for this war criminal will ensure that the next generation of Jihadist's will have more than enough propaganda to work with.
But hey, this is sure to draw the usual drivel, and non-sensicle rantings of one person in particular. Not everyone reads or watches American media, hell some countries even produce their own - god forbid
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
and thats why no president will ever go to prison,ever wonder why the president of the united states is called the most powerful man in the world ?
man brother my whole argument to this bush thing is that nobody will ever ...(well not in his life time) offer up 100% proof that Bush is wrong on the war..even if he is we'll never get that smoking gun,only small pieces
to tempt the conspiracy theorist and thats all it will ever be and our government will make sure of that.
I just get so tired of Bush this BUSH that, Obamas term ain't over yet so what kind of secretes is he and his staff keeping, it has been this way for every president in history just about. there is no such thing as clean politics in my opinion,not when the whole world is depending on the USA for one thing or another.
Godfather.
Sorry if you mistook my meaning. It wasn't meant to you, personally... rather people in general and President Bush specifically.
I still stand by my comment. The person who believes anything some guy has to say is stupid. The President is tasked to investigate and VERIFY the validity of this information and the person who is delvering it. A basic check of this guy would have shown that he was not cataloged in the Husseing intelligence file and that German intelligence had already written him off as a nutcase.
Hail, Hail!!!
Bush WAS Wrong. You just keep making excuses for him.
There were no weapons of mass destruction that survived the weapons inspections of the George H.W. Bush era.
The intelligence was based on a Taxi Driver.... not a project manger of Iraqi Biological weapons program.
Soldiers and civilians died based on this false information because our predsident believed a liar and sold his war to the American people.
...
Those are facts that you CHOOSE not to believe. I don't think anything that is proven will ever change your view... frome the things you say, you appear to be a Bush faithful and will take that to your grave.
Hail, Hail!!!
no brother I'm not a bush faithful just hard headed....I'll admit that, and I may not always be right but it just irks me that every time something is brought up about the war it was Bush's fault and you guys are probably right about that but it's not over yet as promised by our new president.
and besides if I didn't stir the pot a little when Bush got brought up you guys would have no fun defending your points, I actually respect your views and the sources you guys bring to the table I just hate to be told I'm wrong
Godfather.
That's good to know... but, there are some people who refuse to hold President Bush responsible for his decisions and will make excuses in his defense.
The same people who feel that people who make poor decisions in theer lives should take personal responsibility for their decisions/actions... yet, fail to hold President Bush responsible for his. Example, the woman who can't afford to take care of herself, gets pregnant and has a kid. People feel that it was her poor decisions and actions that lead to her situation... she needs to be responsible for her actions, right? Why doesn't that principle apply to our leaders? Why should you have to pay for this woman's mistake and take care of her kid, right? Why should President Obama be held responsible for Bush's kid (Iraq)?
And we are winding down in Iraq. It is easier to invade a country, than it is to withdraw. Proof? You need not look any further than Viet Nam.
Hail, Hail!!!
I hold them all responsible, Bush and his crew and Obama and his, I don't like this war shit anymore that you guys but banging on the US and continuing to blame Bush is pointless,we have a new curve ball in office who promised to end this war and so far it has just changed locations, what ever bush may have done is past history and the new guy campaigned for the job and made promices....just like Bush did :shock: to bring about "CHANGE" and it's changing no doubt but not so good is it ?
the guy that's comes after Obama will find a mess to try and fix just like Obama did.
just my honest thought on the whole mess.
Godfather.
by blaming obama the same as bush, or giving bush a free pass, what you are doing is if a child is born with fetal alcohol syndrome you are blaming the child for it's situation when it was the mother's drinking during pregnancy that caused the situation.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
gimme
the only way this dude can bash bush is by bashing obama in the same sentence
typical
and regarding obama,
i wish he were doing better
he has thrown a few bones to the slaves of this nation
but until someone takes away the power from big business and wall st.
and gives it to the people
we are all fucked
btw- i'm neither (R) or (D)
regarding curveball
i feel the bush regime would have started that war with or without him
RED ROCKS 6-19-95
AUGUSTA 9-26-96
MANSFIELD 9-15-98
BOSTON 9-29-04
BOSTON 5-25-06
MANSFIELD 6-30-08
EV SOLO BOSTON 8-01-08
BOSTON 5-17-10
EV SOLO BOSTON 6-16-11
PJ20 9-3-11
PJ20 9-4-11
WRIGLEY 7-19-13
WORCESTER 10-15-13
WORCESTER 10-16-13
HARTFORD 10-25-13
and if Obama can't fix hopefully the next liar in office will.
lets use the "root cause analysis method"...so now we know it's broke and why it broke and according to you all we know who broke it but at this point who gives a fuck who broke it,lets get the damn thing fixed and worry about who broke it later, do you hunt for the arsonist before you put out the fire ? with all the inter-workings of the government and dirty deals that go on to this day busting bush would only be the beginning of it all..why do you think he's probably laughing at people like you guys,everybody from the bottom up could very well be involved in what started the war,do you really think they would shake up Washington just to throw a sacrificial lamb to the peasants ?..sorry guys I ain't buying it.
just saying it probably goes alot deeper than just Bush, stuff the public don't know.
and Ed you are the epitome of typical buddy, I can count on you like the time.
Godfather.
g
"do you hunt for the arsonist before you put out the fire?"
no, but eventually you have to arrest the arsonist,
but you don't want to do that because some other polititians are also committing crimes
he and cheney killed many innocent people
RED ROCKS 6-19-95
AUGUSTA 9-26-96
MANSFIELD 9-15-98
BOSTON 9-29-04
BOSTON 5-25-06
MANSFIELD 6-30-08
EV SOLO BOSTON 8-01-08
BOSTON 5-17-10
EV SOLO BOSTON 6-16-11
PJ20 9-3-11
PJ20 9-4-11
WRIGLEY 7-19-13
WORCESTER 10-15-13
WORCESTER 10-16-13
HARTFORD 10-25-13
I said it will never happen Ed and I'll bet you it don't.
if you bust a president over this stuff you'd be opening a huge can of worms(maybe that's what we need)
but I can tell you now it won't happen. just for the heck of it look at all the people that were charged with war crimes in Germany after Hitler died and it took an American and Alied invasions to make that happen.
Godfather.
Some of us believe in personal responsibility and accountability.
So, by your viewpoint... we really shouldn't care about the Banker/Brokers that fucked up the economy and quit bitching about the bail out money we had to pay them to keep us from completely collapsing, right? Who cares who's responsible, right? Just put out the money to fix the problem, right?
Hail, Hail!!!