Curveball

[ddstory.livejournal.com]

You know who/what's Curveball? That's the coded pseudonym of the Iraqi chemistry engineer who leaked information to the German intelligence and practically brought down Saddam. Except his info was pure bullshit.

Nowadays, Curveball is convinced that he had been treated unfairly by the German intelligence BND. The former Iraqi chemistry engineer (real name: Rafid al Janabi) gave a large amount of secret intel from Iraq to the Germans, just before the beginning of the Iraq War v.2.0 in 2003. In response, the intelligence started paying him via a fictitious company, the monthly "salary" being 3000 euros. But in 2008 the German intelligence decided to stop the payments. Meanwhile, Al Janabi who was already living in Karlsruhe and had obtained German citizenship, had to return the Mercedes he had been lended.

Al Janabi never gave up though, so he turned to court, using the fact that the fictitious company for which he had been working, was issuing written invoices for the payments. In order to cover it up, he was officially hired at the marketing department as an "assistent in innovative advertisement" (LOL). What's more, the firm gave him a permit for a 15 year working contract that he could use at the Karlsruhe bank. And it's exactly this permit that he's now using at the Munich court that's supposed to settle labor cases. Because this is being viewed as a mere argument between employer and employee. Yeah, Germany is weird like that...

So basically a former informer is suing the intelligence services. No wonder that the judges are seeing so much potential danger in this situation that the whole court case is being held behind closed doors, no journalists allowed. Eventually the sides reached an agreement, and Al Janabi got a one-time compensation of 5000 euros. Wow, that was pretty cheap. So that should have settled it, you'd think? Um, actually no.

The thing is, the whole story is breaking out just now, and some curious details are coming up to the public. Details with much deeper implications about the Iraq War (although they might not be telling us anything that we don't already know or suspect, but now it's being officially confirmed).

The whole episode is a wacky epilogue to one of the biggest spying scandals in modern history. Al Janabi's "intel" about Saddam's regime turned out to be pure fiction. But that didn't stop the Americans from using that "data" to explain their invasion of Iraq. Since no WMDs ever turned up in the process, the US tried several times to make it look as if the whole blame was on Al Janabi's faked info and the Germans' naive belief in it. Like anyone is buying that.

Now for the first time the German intelligence has expressed some opinion on the matter. The former BND chief August Hanning himself said, "Washington misused our intel to justify the Iraq war". His words, verbatim. At the Welt am Sonntag, he said the US government had presented Curveball's intel as hard truth, despite the fact BND had warned them multiple times about their doubts in the veracity of his fantasies.

Hanning also added that Bush had planned the war right after 9-11. Just two weeks after the terrorist attacks the German intelligence received a letter from CIA, asking for all the information they got on Iraq. CIA was particularly interested in Curveball's testimony. He had been living in Germany since 1999 under political asylum and he instantly drew the attention with his statements that he had worked in Saddam's chemical labs. Only later he admitted that he had lied about this.

Several top-ranking members of the German intelligence are confirming that CIA had been warned several times and through several separate channels that Curveball's intel was untested and untrustable. The BND chief Hanning had even written to then CIA chief George Tenet. But despite everything, Bush's administration decided to use the fake informer's made up info as a keystone in their attempt to sell the war on Iraq. They simply created a narrative to justify their adventure in the Gulf, and they found the perfect story-teller to do it for them.

A few days ago Al Janabi gave his first interview for a German media. He told Welt am Sonntag that he had lied many times. He did it in order to increase the pressure on Saddam Hussein. He also told the newspaper how, for years after the Iraq war the German intelligence still wanted to send him under cover and keep a low profile for him, because in 2007 the NYT had uncovered his true identity.

BND recommended that Al Janabi should change his looks through plastic surgery. That could happen in Italy or Greece. But he refused. He's convinced that BND shares some of the guilt too for compromising his identity. He thinks the Germans had given that info to CIA, from where it probably became accessible to the public via the press. We all know how leaky CIA is these days. For Al Janabi this was the latest reason to start asking himself whether he shouldn't sue the intelligence once more. And for that part of the public who are interested in something more beyond the spicy superficial sensationalism, the whole story puts some uncomfortable questions about the war in Iraq, as well as the credibility of the intelligence community.

Comments

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Al Janabi's "intel" about Saddam's regime turned out to be pure fiction. But that didn't stop the Americans from using that "data" to explain their invasion of Iraq.

Here's the problem - we know this *now*, which doesn't tell us much about *then*. And while Curveball was a big part of the intel, it's not the ONLY part.

Since no WMDs ever turned up in the process, the US tried several times to make it look as if the whole blame was on Al Janabi's faked info and the Germans' naive belief in it. Like anyone is buying that.

This I haven't seen. Obviously, the bad intelligence (which Curveball was part of) was the key driver, but I'm not aware of any "full blame" on Curveball.

They simply created a narrative to justify their adventure in the Gulf, and they found the perfect story-teller to do it for them.

Heading into the danger zone here. The "narrative," as it were, was supported by large amounts of evidence, not just Curveball. That's why British intelligence supported things like the yellowcake assertion, that the support for the beliefs behind the intelligence was so overwhelming - remember, the issue was never "is Iraq hiding something," but more "is this the best way to deal with it?"

And for that part of the public who are interested in something more beyond the spicy superficial sensationalism, the whole story puts some uncomfortable questions about the war in Iraq, as well as the credibility of the intelligence community.

To be fair, the sourcing on the expansion of this story is coming almost exclusively from the Guardian, which absolutely has a stake in this. Critical sourcing on this issue is key.

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

The problem with this answer is that "lots of evidence" only makes sense if you forget that it took almost 2 years of stretching to come up with any sort of evidence at all, which was accepted by the CIA analysts as any sort of credible.

Of course, Cheney just hired his own intelligence appointees and made them comb through the recycled DoD and CIA intel. By "lots of evidence" we really mean, "crap the CIA/DoD threw out".

[ddstory.livejournal.com]

Just because I picked up a few Guardian sources (among others), that doesn't make the story a fake. Does Welt am Sonntag also qualify as "someone with a stake in this"? Which media are credible enough to your standards?

BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7075501.stm)? NSA (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB234/index.htm)? CBS (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/01/60minutes/main3440577.shtml)? LA Times (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1120-01.htm)? Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/24/AR2006062401081_pf.html)? Sydney Morning Herald (http://www.smh.com.au/world/iraqi-hit-by-curveball-in-10000-scam-20101202-18ib5.html)? Which? Name your conditions so that we don't keep shooting at constantly shifting targets and so we could go on from there and move on to the real issue.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

I never said the story was a fake. Curveball's lack of credibility, as you've noted, is not news. The issue is that much of the broader speculation is coming from one area.

If you had pulled your head out of the sand...

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

A great deal of information had been released to the public record on the Curveball debacle quite some time ago. Here are some citations:

Bob Drogin wrote a book on the topic called Curveball: spies, lies, and the con man who caused a war (http://books.google.com/books?id=pudbVuHaCaIC&lpg=PA20&dq=Curveball&pg=PA20#v=onepage&q&f=false).

Tyler Drumheller recount his efforts to correct the record with respect to Colin Powell's use of Curveball fabrications at the UN: One the Brink: an insider's account of how the White House compromised American (http://books.google.com/books?id=f9SGAAAAMAAJ&q=Drumheller+Curveball&dq=Drumheller+Curveball&hl=en&ei=qv5jTtr1DsfZiAKOxJm_Cg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CEwQ6AEwBjgK).

Of course, there is also Joseph Wilson's article in the NYT on the fabricated evidence for nuclear weapons. Other insiders, including George Tenet, have come out about the process of cooking the books on WMD.

Re: If you had pulled your head out of the sand...

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

A great deal of information had been released to the public record on the Curveball debacle quite some time ago.

I'm quite familiar with all of it, actually, including Wilson's fabrications on the fabrications. The issue is the continued attempts to spin Curveball from a contributor to the bad intel to the entire reason for the war. It's kind of ridiculous straw-grasping by those who are intent of continuing to assert that the Bush administration somehow lied us into war.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

After eight years of war against Iran, our first defeat of Saddam and Clinton's three bombing raids without any real challenge, who the fuck would have seriously thought of *that* as a foreign policy threat? The majority of the American people did in 2003, but how the fuck were we that stupid?

[foreverbeach.livejournal.com]

Who's the girl in your user icon? Kind of looks like Dina Meyer in Starship Troopers.

[ddstory.livejournal.com]

I made me a new icon. I must've been kinda pissed when I made the shot... (blushes)

[foreverbeach.livejournal.com]

That's you? Wow.

[foreverbeach.livejournal.com]

Oh, you guys live north of us. We're down in Palermo.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

I'd swear they are sisters ;)

[foreverbeach.livejournal.com]

Well in the first user icon I saw of DD, I thought for sure that's who it was a pic of. incredible likeness.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Wow, that is fairly uncanny.

[allhatnocattle.livejournal.com]

Question authority but question everything. No matter if it's the Guardian or German Intel or your President, critically think about the info, the source as well as things well known to be true.

USA had little support going into the Iraq War because the intel was analyzed. Few nations believed Iraq had WMD stockpiled or being made. Only four countries joined the coalition of the willing. Traditional allies opposed the invasion, including Germany.

Let's get one thing straight; Colin Powell went before the UN pleading the Iraq was hiding the manufacture and stockpile of WMDs. Powell wasn`t asking for the best way to deal with it, he was asking the UN to believe the evidence he presented! I mean you can read the transcript of his speech for yourself (http://articles.cnn.com/2003-02-05/us/sprj.irq.powell.transcript_1_genuine-acceptance-iraq-one-last-chance-disarmament-obligations?_s=PM:US). Just as Bush had said before him, Powell insisted that patience for UN weapons inspectors had run out. The next step was to Invade Iraq unless Iraq give full compliance (which Scott Ritter said they had).

No amount of Iraqi complience would satisfy the USA, unless Iraq gave up their soveriegnty, which is exactly what the invasion succeeded in doing.

Yes there was a lot of "evidence" that Powell did not make public during his speech, like the bullshit of Mr "Curveball", who was a third party source (not in direct communication with Americans). But it is just as likely it was because German intell had already found holes in Curveball's story, as much as it was because it was being kept top secret.

Remember, German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder had vocally opposed the invasion of Iraq numberous times (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/aug/06/iraq.johnhooper) possibly only for political reasons, but just as likely for valid moral ones. Hans Blix, Scott Ritter, and UN inspectors had found no evidence of WMD's and Schroder believed them over American insistence to the contrary.

[allhatnocattle.livejournal.com]

Sorry this was meant to be a reply to badlydrawnjeff

[ddstory.livejournal.com]

Elsewhere where I'm having a similar conversation, I've been hearing the following sentiment: "Even if the reasons for that war were fake, I'd still go there since my comrades were there". There's also this: "The world would've been a better place without Saddam anyway, so we did the right thing overall, even if for the wrong reasons". Slippery slope, no less.

There's also this sentiment: "Our western tradition of the fighting man tells us not to choose when our master unleashes us, but we always pray for the day when he does". For the glory of freedom and democracy, of course.

Well, then. What do I respond to that? It even goes much deeper than that. It goes to a level where very few people would like to dig, because they could encounter some ghosts there. Like: how free are we, who claim to be so free? Since we crave for the day when our master will unleash us to do his bidding, to give our blood and life at his whims? And do we deserve freedom to the extent we so loudly proclaim to want it, if we sell our souls and bodies so easily to tricky slimy lying politicians who don't give a fuck about us? And to what lengths would we later go, to justify our naivety in public conversations, while secretly beating ourselves on the head and/or deluding ourselves that we've done this or that "for the greater good", "for my brothers who are out there", or for some other made up reason?

All tricky questions that I'm not sure many people are prepared to face.

As for the reasons for the formation of the coalition of the willing, most of them had their political and strategic reasons to do that. Again, it had nothing to do with the stated reasons for war (WMDs that were nowhere to be found). Some had their economic reasons, others were hoping for gaining more diplomatic weight in an ever changing world, and others, well, UK is just the US's obedient puppy.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Elsewhere where I'm having a similar conversation, I've been hearing the following sentiment: "Even if the reasons for that war were fake, I'd still go there since my comrades were there". There's also this: "The world would've been a better place without Saddam anyway, so we did the right thing overall, even if for the wrong reasons". Slippery slope, no less.

"Right war, wrong rationale" is entirely valid. I supported the war - and continue to do so - for humanitarian reasons. That the evidence for the WMD program was so overwhelming that it was the best route to get it done a) made sense at the time and b) ended up being quite the tactical error in retrospect is what it is.

[allhatnocattle.livejournal.com]

This is why I support arts/humanities to be taught in our schools. Philosophy, Morality and Critical thinking are sorely missing in a large part of society. Governments, institutions and business would prefer obedience and compliance over second thought.

A King sends his men to do battle. Upon victory they rape and pillage. Not just Vikings but Americans in Viet Nam and later Abu Ghraib. They do not see victims as men and women, they see enemies. They do not critically ask the important questions like "why?" when given orders. They believe that they did the right thing for the wrong reasons in Iraq because authorities re-explained it to them that way.

I mean this goes beyond the warzones to a place where FannieMae/FreddieMac were bailed out to create financial stability are now able to sue the banks creating a whole new air of market instability! Even though they can bring these lawsuits, moral leaders would resist this bullshit in pursuit of profit.

I'm a high school drop-out but I learned a few things that always colour my perceptions of the world.
#1 Question Authority.
#2 Curiousity is a good thing.
#3 Never compromise yourself or your emotions.

I don't blame Jeff or your other critics for being... "conservative" but I do wish they thought about it a bit deeper.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

USA had little support going into the Iraq War because the intel was analyzed.

The US had significant support internationally.

Only four countries joined the coalition of the willing.

Actually, well over 40 countries were part of the coalition. Four assisted directly with the invasion.

Just as Bush had said before him, Powell insisted that patience for UN weapons inspectors had run out. The next step was to Invade Iraq unless Iraq give full compliance (which Scott Ritter said they had).

No amount of Iraqi complience would satisfy the USA, unless Iraq gave up their soveriegnty, which is exactly what the invasion succeeded in doing.

Ritter, in fact, said the opposite in 2002 or 2003, if I recall - that they were not in compliance. Iraq complying could have avoided it, yes, but you and I both know they had no interest in doing so.

Yes there was a lot of "evidence" that Powell did not make public during his speech, like the bullshit of Mr "Curveball", who was a third party source (not in direct communication with Americans). But it is just as likely it was because German intell had already found holes in Curveball's story, as much as it was because it was being kept top secret.

That's a bit of a conspiracy theory on your part.

Remember, German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder had vocally opposed the invasion of Iraq numberous times possibly only for political reasons, but just as likely for valid moral ones. Hans Blix, Scott Ritter, and UN inspectors had found no evidence of WMD's and Schroder believed them over American insistence to the contrary.

As was their choice and right.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

It makes you wonder why defeating them once and Desert Strike, Desert Fox, and the other Clinton raid wasn't enough. Too, if they had military-grade WMDs they would have used them on the Turks. Either GWB was that good at propaganda, or the US military and political leaders have slipped into Roman-style megalomania.

[kardashev.livejournal.com]

The whole episode is a wacky epilogue to one of the biggest spying scandals in modern history. Al Janabi's "intel" about Saddam's regime turned out to be pure fiction. But that didn't stop the Americans from using that "data" to explain their invasion of Iraq. Since no WMDs ever turned up in the process, the US tried several times to make it look as if the whole blame was on Al Janabi's faked info and the Germans' naive belief in it. Like anyone is buying that.

Oh, I could think of a few jingoists who would probably still buy that. Try cross-posting this in conservatism and see what happens(assuming this entry even makes it past the moderation queue).

[ddstory.livejournal.com]

You want me to... to go... there? Horror! (Insert scared kitten icon)

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

The one question I didn't really understand the more I looked into it was how after eight years of the longest conventional war of the 20th Century, GHWB's curbstomp, then a decade of regular bombing whenever the Clinton Administration needed a distraction Iraq was considered a threat to the United States. If after all that we were suckered in by this SOB that much, then the USA's political and military elite has officially forfeited being entered in the ranks of rational great powers and has gone to Cloudcuckooland.

[oportet.livejournal.com]

If I was an undercover spy, doing deep cover dangerous shit, I better be getting more than 50k a year, or my information probably wouldn't be too reliable either.