Curveball: Fraud that Helped Start a War

Anyone can be convinced of anything, if they are first predisposed to believe it. The USA’s most “credible” source on the development of Iraqi chemical weapons was revealed and it turned out this source was anything but credible. He lied about everything and we based a large part of our reasoning for invading Iraq on his information. Never before in modern history has one amature fraudster been able to fool so many smart people in high places. It’s a revelation we all wish had never happened, but it did and we ought to know how and why.

by Paul Tinder

The Iraqi defector codenamed “Curveball” who lied to several governments and convinced America’s top spies that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq recently spoke out on the CBS program 60 Minutes.

4327-rafid-ahmed-alwan-al-jana-007-thumb-250x150-4326.jpg

Rafid Alwan (shown left) was interviewed in an undisclosed location in Europe. According to Alwan, he had planned the deceit that would act as a cornerstone to the reason for a war against Iraq for many years, CBS News reports.

In November 1999, as Alwan attempted to travel to England, he was picked up by police in Germany where he began his story. He told German intelligence officers that he had been a director at a biological weapons site outside of Baghdad called Djerf al Nadaf, which Iraqis claimed was a seed purification plant.

The Germans hid Alwan in a hotel in the town of Erlangen. He was then given his code name and interrogated extensively throughout the year 2000. Reports of the interrogations were sent to U.S. intelligence.

“When you look at the written reports, and there about 100 of them, you get a sense of someone who is there, it’s convincing,” Charles Duelfer, a leader of U.N. inspections during the 1990s said, according to CBS News. “The CIA would have been at fault to not take it very seriously.”

Saddam Hussein has previously produced biological weapons until he was caught by U.N. inspectors after the first Gulf War. In December 1998, Saddam kicked out U.N. weapons inspectors, which left the inspectors blind to anything going on in the country. When Curve Ball’s reports came of biological weapon manufacturing, it was at a time when there were many worries of just such an occurrence.

One report of an accident at Djerf al Nadaf that killed 12 people and blackened their skin was used by Colin Powell in a speech to the U.N. This report was completely fabricated by Alwan, according to the 60 Minutes report.

By the time the United States had taken Curve Ball’s stories to heart, he had stopped talking with the German officials and started working at a local Burger King. He and his family now have German passports and live in the southern part of Germany.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

20 Responses to Curveball: Fraud that Helped Start a War

  1. Tina says:

    Mr. Tinder doesn’t offer any evidence or information that these revelations mean that Colin Powell, the rest of the Bush administration, or the intelligence services of major Western countries were duped. He merely points out that in hindsight things can look much different than they do in the moment.

    Big whoop.

  2. Toby says:

    What is your point? Is your point the world would be better off if we had not gone into Iraq? Is your point that you take 60 min’s at face value? Does 60 min’s say anything about the multiple convoys of trucks that headed into Syria before the war started? Maybe your point is we should not listen to what one of our closest allies tell us?
    I think the past performance of Iraq and it use of WMD on its own people well justified the war.
    Hell, at the pace Post Scripts is going by 2012 you will be endorsing Obama, Go Team!

  3. Quentin Colgan says:

    Who knew?
    Oh wait, I knew!
    I told anyone who would listen there was no credible proof of WMDs in Iraq.
    I was called a traitor.
    I was told it was treason to second guess the Commander-in-Chief.
    When I said that French Intelligence had no proof, I was ridiculed along with them–remember ‘freedom fries?’
    Us stinkin’, no good, socialist, Nazi, communist, pinko LIBERALS knew there was nothing in Iraq. Yet, the neoconned who have now come to be known as the TEA Party–and yeah, it’s the same group of dummies–told us we hated our country!
    No, we loved the 50,000 soldiers killed or maimed and did not want that to happen to them. We also had basic human compassion for the half-MILLION Iraqis slaughtered.
    Every single fool that advocated for intervention in Iraq is guilty of crimes against humanity.

    I don’t suppose there will be any apologies.

  4. Tina says:

    He who has not a single ounce of humility doesn’t need apologies, he haas is reward. That smug, superior feeling should suffice, Q.

    Meanwhile, Toby has a point worth considering.

    It’s not like this Hussein guy was some innocent bystander who never harmed a fly…his people did choose to hang him once given the chance. The Kurds certainly have a story to tell. I’d say these people know more than Q about the man that played a game of chicken with the world using WMD as a tool.

  5. Pie Guevara says:

    Regarding Quentin Colgan’s latest outburst: When you don’t like the news, make up some of your own.

    At least we now, at long last, know what this horrid person is, a “no good, socialist, Nazi, communist, pinko LIBERAL”. Straight from the horse’s mouth. (Or the other end, decide for yourself.)

    Whew, at least that issue has been finally cleared up. We can now move on.

  6. Post Scripts says:

    Curveball wouldn’t talk directly to the American intel agents (big red flag) because, as it turns out, he was afraid the US might catch him in a lie. So he used the Germans as a go-between and as a buffer. He was obviously very convincing, but that’s no excuse for our gullibility.

    We failed to discover a huge, huge fraud and we need to look at the reasons how it could have happened. After all, much of what he was saying was translated into policy.

    This one informant didn’t drag us into a war all alone, we had plenty of other reasons and without him we might have done the very same thing. Does that take us off the hook and relieve us of accountability? I don’t think so. Better we examine in detail exactly what went wrong and THEN learn from it. Too many highly placed people were duped by an amature who just made stuff up. Un-be-lievable.

  7. Pie Guevara says:

    I think some folks here are forgetting that intelligence suggesting that Iraq had WMD were multiply sourced and manifold. And from completely different and independent organizations. They were all wrong? Could be. (Well, duh!)

    If WMD were actually transported to Syria, that is likely something we may never know.

    In any case, there was no “rush” to war as so many like to propagandize and WMD was not the only reason that we intervened. Anyone who takes the time to actually read the joint resolution would know that. (And also know that this was not some subversive neo-con plot like some hapless idiots like to spew.)

    Here is a link to the text, if you are not too busy to actually read what Congress passed:

    http://www.usembassy.it/file2002_10/alia/a2101002.htm

    While Iraq, under the brutal dictatorship of Saddam Hussein, may have not actually had WMD at the time, they were doing everything possible to make it appear as if they had.

  8. Quentin Colgan says:

    This is a new low even for you, Tina!
    That smug feeling of satisfaction?
    Please explain to me how some twenty year old kid with both legs, his balls, and his left arm blown off at the elbow is going to go about feeling smug and self satisfied.
    Please ask the family of of Lieutenant Benjamin Colgan what it’s like feeling superior all the time. Ask them just who they feel superior to.
    You’re a gutless jackass.
    Pie Guevara is just gutless.

  9. Tina says:

    I agree with you completely Jack. I would hope we could learn from this error. But It’s not like its the first time in history that a clever person managed to fool the powers that be. Whatever Curveball made up it did have a measure of truth in it or it wouldn’t have been believed. This is what makes intel such a difficult job.

    Saddam had the whole world dancing a jig over WMD. Clinton played leader during years of rediculous UN inspections. Bill, Hillary, and most prominent Dems made all kinds of statements about Saddams WMD capabilities during the nineteen nineties because Saddam had used WMD on the Kurds. Bush made a decision; he did what he thought was right under very compelling and difficult circumstances. When the going got really tough he persevered and achieved what might have been a fairly decent outcome had there been consistant follow through. What was gained through war as well as diplomacy in Iraq had a chance of survival, albeit a chancy one. It has largely been squandered since his departure. We are perceived as weak; our resolve once again cannot be counted upon.

    Lying and deception are a big part of this war. Are we to condemn Bush and the rest of the world for buying into a conceivable lie on the one hand and then on the other be expected to think deception doesn’t continue to play a part among those who aim to defeat us from within? Apparently so according to many on the left who cry bigotry when it is suggested that we be cautious about the MB and others in America.

    Strange world indeed…and dangerous too. I guess that’s why Q’s smugness makes me so angry.

  10. Tina says:

    Q: Please explain to me how some twenty year old kid with both legs, his balls, and his left arm blown off at the elbow is going to go about feeling smug and self satisfied. ** Please ask the family of of Lieutenant Benjamin Colgan what it’s like feeling superior all the time. Ask them just who they feel superior to.”

    First of all I didn’t ask Benjamin Colgan or his family to feel smug. I accused you of acting smug about WMD.

    Secondly, I know a little bit about such things. I could tell the family of Leiutenant Benjamin Colgan something about the kind of sorrow, pain and loss that goes along with a family member that faces such an ordeal. But then what I know wasn’t a result of war but some stupid senseless accident instead. Still, I can assure you the sorrow and the pain are just as real and just as heart wrenching and shocking. The continuing problems and the constant adjustments that must be made are just as problematic for such a young life and for each family member.

    Eventually I began to learn that life holds no promises and is filled with great risks and sorrows. I learned that the only thing anyone can do is make the best of his life with whatever circumstances befall him. I learned the hard lesson that although plenty of people go through years and years of driving cars without ever receiving a scratch, my family member just doesn’t happen to be one of them. I realized that there are many things to be thankful for even under horrific conditions. I learned that as bad as my family member had it a lot of other people have it far worse. I learned to be thankful for what my family member has. I discovered after all that we are not our bodies and it is what is within that really matters. I learned that if we are to survive this world at all we best be getting about the business of living by being humbled by these experiences. My beautiful daughter surprises and amazes me daily because of her courage, her fortitude and her incredible patience. It has been over twenty years and we are all still learning from the experience.

    I ask Gods blessing on your family and particularly Leiutenant Benjamin Colgan. It is not without understanding, compassion or regret that I consider the losses he experiences as well as all of our brave men and women in uniform. It is because of this that I will not sully their service by trashing the mission.

    The decision to go to war was not made lightly. Whatever errors were made, whatever lies helped to persuade the decision, do not change the mission. There are always forces at work beyond our knowledge. There are always conditions beyond our ability to see. No man will ever make the perfect decision every single time and expectations that any man can are born of arrogance or ignorance.

    I have a problem with people who think, as you seem to, that they could stand in GWB’s shoes and make the perfect decision every time. I just don’t buy it. God knows where we’d be now had we not gone into Iraq…and only God knows. This enemy is still there, still lying and using deception, and still very dangerous.

  11. Post Scripts says:

    Tina I had this reply for you and I talked about Q and his Iraq conspiracy stuff…and then it timed out on me and I lost the whole dang thing…I’m bummed. Maybe I’l try it later. But, for now I liked what you said and we agree.

  12. Quentin Colgan says:

    I read this on another blog and edited it for this blog:
    And, no, I don’t mind that Tina, has become an enabler of sorts by putting this disgusting and vile attack upon my person through in her blog.

  13. Quentin Colgan says:

    The decision to go to war was not made lightly. Whatever errors were made, whatever lies helped to persuade the decision, do not change the mission.

    What was the mission?
    What was the constitutionally authorized mission?

  14. Quentin Colgan says:

    You kill me, Tina!
    You were wrong.
    Just flat out wrong.
    there is no other word for it.
    You’re practically drowning in excuses, “oh, we shoulda taken him out anyway, he was BAD!”
    “he shipped the WMDs to Syria”–which would mean we didn’t need to go to Iraq to get ’em, huh?
    “AFTERWARDS, his followers changed their minds, so , it was good.” (Thank you, Machiavelli!)
    Y’know, WWI happened becuase no one had the balls to admit they were wrong and it was time to back off.
    You baggerz helped KILL and maim 50,000 of America’s finest–for NOTHING!
    You owe AMERICA an apology!!!
    You advocated the death of half-a-million people who did NOTHING to you! AND you STILL try to justify it!
    You owe HUMANITY an apology!
    Save your prayers, child.
    God doesn’t listen to you, Tina. He has examined your fruits. He doesn’t know you!

  15. Tina says:

    Q: What was the mission? What was the constitutionally authorized mission?

    The mission was and is to defeat terrorists and their state sponsors wherever they exist. This isnt a conventional war Q, in case you hadnt noticed. Weve never been here before. Americans would have a better handle on this FACT were it not for the leftist press that fails to fully report on all issues pertaining to this country, decisions made by presidents and the truth about the enemy. They report based on political bias.

    Find one legal opinion regarding the various controversies under Bush at the following webpage; it includes a pointed quote from the Federalists:

    http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/warandtreaty.htm

    “The Founders well understood the difficult tradeoff between safety and freedom. “Safety from external danger,” Hamilton declared, “is the most powerful director of national conduct. Even the ardent love of liberty will, after a time, give way to its dictates. The violent destruction of life and property incident to war; the continual effort and alarm attendant on a state of continual danger, will compel nations the most attached to liberty, to resort for repose and security to institutions which have a tendency to destroy their civil and political rights. To be more safe, they, at length, become willing to run the risk of being less free.” The Federalist No. 8, p. 33.

    The founders knew that the Constitution had to be strong enough to withstand the proclivities and opinions of its citizens as well as the dangers that might intrude upon our liberties.

    The powers of the president under the Constitution to wage war are clearly defined. They were well considered when decisions were being made.

    War authority – President George W. Bush (See Department of Justice memoranda) here:

    http://www.justice.gov/olc/warpowers925.htm

    You have asked for our opinion as to the scope of the President’s authority to take military action in response to the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001. We conclude that the President has broad constitutional power to use military force. Congress has acknowledged this inherent executive power in both the War Powers Resolution, Pub. L. No. 93-148, 87 Stat. 555 (1973), codified at 50 U.S.C. 1541-1548 (the “WPR”), and in the Joint Resolution passed by Congress on September 14, 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-40, 115 Stat. 224 (2001). Further, the President has the constitutional power not only to retaliate against any person, organization, or State suspected of involvement in terrorist attacks on the United States, but also against foreign States suspected of harboring or supporting such organizations. Finally, the President may deploy military force preemptively against terrorist organizations or the States that harbor or support them, whether or not they can be linked to the specific terrorist incidents of September 11.

    The following portion of the memoranda might be of particular interest to some readers:

    The terrorist incidents of September 11, 2001, were surely far graver a threat to the national security of the United States than the 1998 attacks on our embassies (however appalling those events were). The President’s power to respond militarily to the later attacks must be correspondingly broader. Nonetheless, President Clinton’s action in 1998 illustrates some of the breadth of the President’s power to act in the present circumstances.

    First, President Clinton justified the targeting of particular groups on the basis of what he characterized as “convincing” evidence of their involvement in the embassy attacks. While that is not a standard of proof appropriate for a criminal trial, it is entirely appropriate for military and political decisionmaking. Second, the President targeted not merely one particular group or leader, but a network of affiliated groups. Moreover, he ordered the action, not only because of particular attacks on United States embassies, but because of a pattern of terrorist activity, aimed at both Americans and non-Americans, that had unfolded over several years. Third, the President explained that the military action was designed to deter future terrorist incidents, not only to punish past ones. Fourth, the President specifically justified military action on the territory of two foreign states because their governments had “harbor[ed]” and “support[ed]” terrorist groups for years, despite warnings from the United States.

    (B) On June 26, 1993, President Clinton ordered a Tomahawk cruise missile strike on Iraqi Intelligence Service (the “IIS”) headquarters in Baghdad. The IIS had planned an unsuccessful attempt to assassinate former President Bush in Kuwait in April, 1993. Two United States Navy surface ships launched a total of 23 missiles against the IIS center.

    In a Letter to Congressional Leaders on the Strike on Iraqi Intelligence Headquarters, 1 Pub. Papers of William J. Clinton 940 (1993), the President referred to the failed assassination attempt and stated that “[t]he evidence of the Government of Iraq’s violence and terrorism demonstrates that Iraq poses a continuing threat to United States nationals.” He based his authority to order a strike against the Iraqi government’s intelligence command center on “my constitutional authority with respect to the conduct of foreign relations and as Commander in Chief,” as well as on the Nation’s inherent right of self-defense. Id. (emphasis mine)

    Per our friend Pie find the authorization for war against Iraq here:

    http://www.usembassy.it/file2002_10/alia/a2101002.htm

    The arguments that our friend Quentin make are not without merit and no doubt spring, at least in part, from the position articulated by Ron Paul prior to our going into Iraq:

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul57.html

    I respect Ron Pauls opinion. I also respect the opinions of many others that advised President Bush. I acknowledge the legal agreements and precedents in place when Bush took office. His decision was not made quickly, nor was it made recklessly, as has been asserted.

    The fact that our country may have veered off course Constitutionally in the last sixty years or has gotten entangled with associations and treaties that have sidestepped or undermined the Constitution is an issue that should be addressed. These questions cannot be answered or addressed quickly, however. They certainly couldnt be addressed prior to Bushs making decisions about this ongoing conflict.

    Presidents get to lead as things are now not as things were sixty years ago. Presidents get to deal with realities on the ground today not wishes about how they would like things to be.

    Grow up Quentin and try to think in terms other than your hatred and resentment…be careful that these have not become your personal god.

  16. Quentin Colgan says:

    “Presidents get to lead as things are now not as things were sixty years ago”
    Ah!
    So, what I am hearing you say, is that The Constitution is a “living document!” Y’know, under the heart of every neoconned idiot–
    is an idiot!
    Sorry, ma’am, The Constitution is NOT a living document.
    Under every failed argument is soemone ELSE’S opinions.
    Ha!
    Tina?
    I don’t give a flying fig WHAT the lawyers at the justice department think! They didn’t write The Constitution.
    Isn’t it amazing that such a strong proponent of The Constitution–like you sometimes are, when it suits your purpose–folds like origami before a memo from the Justice Depratment!
    All Hail the supreme court of Tina’s justice!!! Who needs the Supremes?
    We got Tina!
    The evils that inhabit men’s minds are no different than they have been for millennia–as you so aptly demonstrate every day with your posts.
    Things are EXACTLY the same as they were sixty years, or sixty decades ago.

    All of your verbiage begged the question:
    WHAT is a terrorist?
    And please. Give us a definition that doen’t include the acts of the United States!
    You baggerz shout “9/11!” as your excuse for everything–including the destruction of The Constitution, but that dog don’t hunt in my field. NONE of you has yet to define terrorism.

  17. Harriet says:

    Why are we supposed to believe “Curve Ball” now?
    I recalled several quotes from teh Clinton Administration regarding WMD, had to find them to post here.
    I also remember one of Saddam’s Officers saying the WMD were shipped to Syria as they had 8 months or so while GWB,Congress and UN were in discussions.All from Clintons Admin. seemed positive he had them.

    http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

  18. Post Scripts says:

    Harriet I guess we’re supposed to believe him now because we’re in Iraq. Before were not and we couldn’t verify what he was telling us. Now we have access to everyone who might possibly be a witness or involved in WMD’s.

    Our government concluded that Curveball was lying before he admitted he was lying. But, we’re never supposed to believe anything anyone says, we just take it under investigation and see what the story leads us.

  19. Tina says:

    Quentin: “So, what I am hearing you say, is that The Constitution is a “living document!”

    Well thatr shows your skills are lacking. I have never thought the Constitution is a “living document”.

    Well you are right about that, they didn’t write the Constitution. Nor did you or I. So unless you have a law degree your opinion about this war is worth less to me than theirs is, particularly since most of your comments are nothing more than knee jerk, name calling rants.

    “Isn’t it amazing that such a strong proponent of The Constitution–like you sometimes are, when it suits your purpose–folds like origami before a memo from the Justice Depratment!”

    The argument, since you missed it, was that the person who actually got elected (twice) and therefore was charged with making the decision based his decision on information, legal opinion and the circumstances of the moment. I KNOW you don’t like it. I know you disagree with it. TOO BAD.

    “Things are EXACTLY the same as they were sixty years, or sixty decades ago.”

    No Quentin, they are not! Sixty years ago the cease fire with Iraq didn’t exist. That too is a legal document that also must be considered by a sitting president.

    “All of your verbiage begged the question:
    WHAT is a terrorist?”

    Does it really? I guess for people like you that could be true; people still living in that 1960’s love is the answer bubble. Anyone the courage to say so knows who and what our enemy is and what they hope to accomplish. The enemy is the radical Islamists that seek to destroy the West and Israel and establish a caliphate either by violent or peaceful means. This is a war that must be fought in many ways and on many frontssound familiar? It should. It was uttered by a man who knew what he was talking about on that score.

    As for future decision making it would be wonderful if America could sanp our collective fingers and make the world go away, isolating ourselves in a safe secure bubble. I’d like to know how you or anyone else, including Ron Paul, would accomplish that. I’m all ears Mr. Smartypants, have at it.

  20. Tina says:

    Harriet: “Why are we supposed to believe “Curve Ball” now?”

    Excellent question!

Comments are closed.