• Register
  • Help
Page 1 of 7 1234 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 64

Topic: The Man Who Sold the War...

  1. #1

    Exclamation The Man Who Sold the War...

    sponsored links

    The Man Who Sold The War

    Quote Originally Posted by Excerpt
    On December 17th, 2001, in a small room within the sound of the crashing tide, a CIA officer attached metal electrodes to the ring and index fingers of a man sitting pensively in a padded chair. The officer then stretched a black rubber tube, pleated like an accordion, around the man's chest and another across his abdomen. Finally, he slipped a thick cuff over the man's brachial artery, on the inside of his upper arm.

    Strapped to the polygraph machine was Adnan Ihsan Saeed al-Haideri, a forty-three-year-old Iraqi who had fled his homeland in Kurdistan and was now determined to bring down Saddam Hussein. For hours, as thin mechanical styluses traced black lines on rolling graph paper, al-Haideri laid out an explosive tale. Answering yes and no to a series of questions, he insisted repeatedly that he was a civil engineer who had helped Saddam's men to secretly bury tons of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons. The illegal arms, according to al-Haideri, were buried in subterranean wells, hidden in private villas, even stashed beneath the Saddam Hussein Hospital, the largest medical facility in Baghdad.

    It was damning stuff -- just the kind of evidence the Bush administration was looking for. If the charges were true, they would offer the White House a compelling reason to invade Iraq and depose Saddam. That's why the Pentagon had flown a CIA polygraph expert to Pattaya: to question al-Haideri and confirm, once and for all, that Saddam was secretly stockpiling weapons of mass destruction.

    There was only one problem: It was all a lie. After a review of the sharp peaks and deep valleys on the polygraph chart, the intelligence officer concluded that al-Haideri had made up the entire story, apparently in the hopes of securing a visa.

    The fabrication might have ended there, the tale of another political refugee trying to scheme his way to a better life. But just because the story wasn't true didn't mean it couldn't be put to good use. Al-Haideri, in fact, was the product of a clandestine operation -- part espionage, part PR campaign -- that had been set up and funded by the CIA and the Pentagon for the express purpose of selling the world a war. And the man who had long been in charge of the marketing was a secretive and mysterious creature of the Washington establishment named John Rendon.
    Another long, damning article... read it and weep.
    Houston Haynes - Titan Line Music

  2. #2

    Re: The Man Who Sold the War...

    But yet again were not getting the whole story.

    Cant hate if I don't completly know the whole truth
    "I am the genius of me"

  3. #3

    Re: The Man Who Sold the War...

    Quote Originally Posted by Dirk Pitt
    But yet again were not getting the whole story.

    Cant hate if I don't completly know the whole truth
    This is wrong-headed. You *don't* need to see the whole truth - it is a fool's errand to think that's even possible. The point is that a very specific picture is emerging that the story was purposely skewed to serve two purposes, and both of them amount - whether from hubris, incompetence, greed, or outright malignant intent - to a series of betrayals that our country, the middle east, and the planet will be living with for decades if not centuries - if we last that long.
    Houston Haynes - Titan Line Music

  4. #4

    Re: The Man Who Sold the War...

    this is our very same "curveball". disscussion in other thread.

  5. #5

    Re: The Man Who Sold the War...

    No - this is about the man who singlehandedly created the entire apparatus the allowed Curveball to exist.

    It's called root cause analysis. You might want to check it out sometime.
    Houston Haynes - Titan Line Music

  6. #6

    Re: The Man Who Sold the War...

    Ah yes, James Bamford.

    For any of you who are so inclined, I highly recommend his book "A Pretext for War".

    It's an eye opener. (Well for some of us anyway )
    - Layne

  7. #7

    Re: The Man Who Sold the War...

    Quote Originally Posted by Ernstinen

    You just baffle me. Are you a Christian!? (WWJD?) Unitarian? Atheist?

    If you're not a spiritual person, how do you explain your attitude toward mankind? I can't understand. Sorry --- I don't get your non-spiritual politics. It's really insulting to those of us that view ALL people as connected to God and love freedom as well --- Universalists, that believe that all mankind are under the shield of our creator.
    Be careful Ern, this sounds exactly like the "you don't agree with our politics, so you're not a (insert religion here)" that Bush's people say. Just an observation.
    "They get what they vote for." PaulR

  8. #8

    Re: The Man Who Sold the War...

    Yeah Ern, I'm also a little lost. I don't agree with dcornutt's argument that we had to invade Iraq because it posed a threat to our security, but I don't follow what you mean about his religion or lack thereof. All he says is that the guy in this story is Curveball, and he's probably right that it's old news (I don't know because I hadn't heard the story).

    I personally believe in a connection between everything - it seems pretty hard to deny, in fact - but there are also obvious ways in which we're all independent. Hopelessness breeds terrorism (even though there are middle-class terrorists). No spiritual awakening will ever reduce it, because spirituality on its own is not a substitute for having a life.

  9. #9

    Re: The Man Who Sold the War...

    I'm ignoring the religious context placed on this.

    Starting on page 165 or so of the PDF of the Intel report...even though it is heavily redacted, documents 4, four, main HUMIT sources of which curveball was "one". Only one of those sources was a person brought to them by Chalabi's group and it wasn't curveball. The one source that they hint was interviewed in Asia..was not curveball. But, another source who "passed" his lie detector test, but was deemed unreliable or suspect later because of "inconsistencies" that cropped up later. They surmised that the interviewer who gave the polygraph, did not go into enough detail to turn it up initially. The email sent by the detailee expressing concerns...was written 4 days "after" the final intelligence estimate was distributed. The analysts..never saw it. Tenent never saw it. And it was never taken into consideration in producing the intelligence products that were used.

    Rollingstone mag would not be my first choice...for seeking out information on this. But, the article there, is making a collaborative assumption between things...and appears to be making a concerted effort at directing things that way. This guy, worked for every president since Carter. He also did a lot of work for the DNC. He's a media/analyst. And while he would have had access to intelligence reports...there would have been the same problem with them....that this information from detailees who questioned the sourcing..didn't get to the analysts ..who did the reporting and therefore was not part of the intelligence products produced. If G Tenent didn't know it, and the analysts within the CIA didnt' know at the time they wrote the intelligence estimate in 2002...how this would supposedly have been common knoweldge and part of the intelligence reporting in 2001 is beyond me. (given it was missing from those reports)

    The problem with a lot of these stories...as interesting and intriquing as they all are, is that they simply don't jive with the timeline, etc..nor in details..of what "is" known at this point. They basically expect you to start with Bush and a corrupt WH lied...then...this is the "new" story of what outrageous thing "really" happened instead.

    Again, I will suggest you read the Senate hearing report PDF. It's heavily redacted...but..at least you might have some starting point..to weigh such allegations against. I'm not suggesting that by somehow reading it..you are going to change your mind about the war..or how we got into it or that it clearly disproves or proves some allegation that's floating around. There are plenty of unanswered questions in it...but at least it points out where they are..and more importantly..."who" they imminated from.

  10. #10

    Re: The Man Who Sold the War...

    Ern, I'll answer your question.
    I'm not "religious" in the sense of organized religion, nor do I regularly attend church. But, I believe in a "creator". I've read the gnostic gospels, familar with Mary Magdaleen attributed texts, and have studied eastern philosophy to varying levels. I have a lot of friends of very diverse backrounds. (including from Pakistan, Iraq, Kuwait and India). The parties I go to aren't blacktie...but informal backyard gatherings..where one might find say...a former federal judge or even...one of Hans Blix's lawyers

    I'm a registered democrat. Didn't always vote, but started to get more actively invovled (at least in terms of voting starting in late 90s).

    I voted for Gore, in 2000. I voted for Bush in 2004.

    Your problem, is in trying to pigeonhole people into neat little categories.
    It just doesn't work. Like many southern born democrats...I've always been very hawkish on our miltiary, security and defense issues. The DNC pretty much left me in 2000. I didn't agree with what happened to Clinton. I supported Clinton, when he chose not to really go after Alqueda, etc..and took the course of limited strikes. It seemed prudent at the time. But, by the 3rd strike (Cole) directly on our miltiary ship, and no response, I really started having my doubts...and began to wonder..if anybody in the democratic part actually had the will to recognize what was staring us in the face.

    Then Sept 11th came. And as you probably know, I was there that day, standing in WTC plaza when the first plane hit. That changed everybody. But, it has been after that mainly...that I began hearing the same arguments..that we should not respond militarily..etc..etc. The same basic policy that we had in the 90s. And I disagreed with that. I looked to my party for leadership. And we just grew apart.

    I would guess, that I should at this point change my party affiliation. But, I don't agree with everythign the RNC stands for either. But, if I'm conservative, in some way...or old fashioned..or naive..or whatever you'd like to call it...I have a great respect for our nation. And I reject the projected motivations that are heaped upon us. In that way, I'm conservative. Not religiously. I could care less who believes in God and who doesn't. I could care less if 2 guys want to marry each other.

    But, I have "always" supported our presidents. I supported Jimmy Carter. Seriously...if you think Bush's numbers are bad....you should of seen Jimah's...when people were waiting in line 2 hours to get gas. Our Spec Ops were laying burned on the desert in Iran. Our embassy personel...hostage for over a year. All the talk in the world..doesn't fix those things. And it wasn't that he was a bad guy...he was a good guy but he was dealing with some very bad people. He was good at talking, negociating..etc. But, he was a completley ineffective at "doing anything" and a time when things needed to get done. I guess if I had to say there was one thing profoundly different between me and some of you here, as I understand you through what you've expressed, is that I "do" believe there comes a point in time when YOU may be willing to talk, but your adversary is not. Or that he may not be able to make deals and is him/herself a hostage to and underlying current that needs to be dealt with. And I think recognizing that point..is key. But, more importantly, it's about recognizing where those points should be. And I don't necessarily believe that you have to wait until they gut you and your wife and children before that line gets crossed. I know everybody has a different take on that. (where that line is). But, I've lived a few years, and I believe, fundamentally, that when somebodies jerking your chain...you call it like you see it. And if it's something you can walk away from..then fine..you walk away recognizing it for what it is. But, if it's not..you do something about it..in a way that recognizes the situation as it is.

    Those kinds of things don't just "go away"..nor are they things you can keep in a locked box. They just mutate..or fester or eventually...lash out.
    Clinton, was at least more assertive than that. But, after his 3rd or 4th.."bombing" expidition after eloquent speeches outlining the vast dangers in the world....it was starting to become obvious..that he just wasn't really prepared to face down what was really underlying all this.

    You can often find international leaders, world bodies..etc...talking about US responsiblity to deal with some issue or another and taking the lead in it. Becuase they expect it of us. That's always been who we "are". They expect that kind of leadership from the US..and demand it from us on all kinds of issues and levels. I've always held a keen interest and appreciation for that.

Go Back to forum
Page 1 of 7 1234 ... LastLast


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts