Tag: Saddam Hussein

  • Sunanda Shashi Tharoor Sonia IPL Money Laundering

    The alleged murder of Sunanda Pushkar, wife of Congress MP Shashi Tharoor, revealed by forensic study by AIMS, throws a lot of questions.

    At the time of the incident,information surfaced that two foreign nationals on forged passports traveled to Dubai on the night of the murder.

    Nothing more was heard of despite suspicions that the murder looked Mafia Style.

     

    Shashi Tharoor,Sunanda Pushkar .gif
    Shashi Tharoor,Sunanda Pushkar wedding.

    Now nearly after a year, with a change in the Government, the enquiry hotted up with suspicions about Tharoor’s alleged extra marital affair with a Pakistan journalist , Meher.

    The deposition of the Tharoor household that he heard Sunannda speaking to some one on the day of her murder that she would reveal everything to Media and Shashi Tharoor is finished.

    There is also the suspicion that, considering the Shashi Tharoor IPL connection might have been one of the reasons for the murder.

    Dr.Subramanian Swamy alleges that IPL was used to launder Oil for Food scam involving Iraq and Sunnanda was about to divulge the information linking Sonia Gandhi to IPL money laundering, Oil for scam.

    It may be noted that Natwar Singh, former Union Minister of the Congress also stated that Sonia Gandhi was involved in the Oil for Food fraud in which former UN Chief Kofi Annan’s son was indicted.

    ” Journalist Nalini Singh told TOI on Thursday that Shashi Tharoor’s wife, Sunanda Pushkar, had spoken to her about some IPL issue which she claims she could not comprehend. She said Sunanda had brought it up during the phone conversation the two had on the intervening night of January 16 and 17. Sunanda was found dead on January 17.

    “I don’t remember what exactly she said. I can recall she had said something like “look at this IPL mess also and that I also took on the IPL thing’,” Singh said.”

    Interestingly, Subramanian Swamy has been alleging that Sunanda was murdered as she wanted to expose the IPL muck and money laundering being carried out through it. He has even dragged a member of the Gandhi family into the controversy.

     

    “Dr. Subramaniam Swamy has said Congress lawmaker Dr. Shashi Tharoor must be thoroughly investigated in the murder of his wife Sunanda Puskhar Tharoor.

    “I am a 100 percent certain that Tharoor did not murder his wife, but I am a 100 percent sure that he was aware of it and facilitated it, ” he told The News Minute (TNM) in an interview conducted over the telephone. “This has been done because what Sunanda was to reveal points to Sonia Gandhi,” he added.

    Asked what was the nature of this evidence and he said there are two issues. “One is the money laundering through IPL which involves Robert Vadra and the other is the oil-for food stamps -Sonia Gandhi is the common link,” he said. The Indian Premier league (IPL) is a cricket tournament in India and the oil- for-food refers to the United Nations’ (UN) arrangement with Saddam Hussain’s Iraq to povide essential foods in exchange for oil. The UN provided food stamps, not cash, to Iraq as money to buy food for its people.”

    According to Swamy, Sunanda Pushkar had told friends that the food stamps distributed in Iraq and written in Arabic had Sonia Gandhi’s name on them. Sunanda Tharoor had told her friends that Tharoor had bragged that because of the evidence he had, he was untouchable.

    India and Iraq shared a close relationship at that time and Prime Minister Inder Kumar Gujral was among few world leaders who travelled to Baghdad to show his solidarity towards the Iraqi people. It maybe recalled that former foreign minister Natwar Singh resigned following the Volker committee report saying he had been made a scapegoat to protect other people. The oil-for-food also involved the family of the UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan whose son Kojo Annan was working for a Switzerland based company named Cotecna Inspection Services S.A which from 1998-2003 had a contract with the UN to monitor food arriving in Iraq under the oil-for-food programme. There was no direct evidence linking Kojo Annan to the payments, but he received money from Cotecna long after he had stopped working for them. Shashi Tharoor was Kofi Annan’s right hand man ever since the two met in Geneva in the early eighties.

    “She was not on Alprax. Medical reports say that. Tharoor is on Alprax and he will break down if he is interrogated – this is what the Congress Party is afraid of,” Dr. Swamy said. ..

    One of the earliest allegations of wrongdoing in the programme surfaced on 25 January 2004, when al Mada, a daily newspaper in Iraq, published a list of individuals and organizations alleged to have received oil sales contracts via the UN’s Oil-for-Food Programme. The list came from over 15,000 documents which were reportedly found in the state-owned Iraqi oil corporation, which had close links to the Iraqi Oil Ministry.

    Named in the list of beneficiaries were British MP George Galloway and his charity, the Mariam Fund; former French Interior Minister Charles Pasqua; and Shaker al-Kaffaji, an Iraqi-American businessman, India’s foreign minister, Natwar Singh, was removed from office because of his role in the scandal. Many prominent Russian firms and individuals were also included on the al Mada list. Even the Russian Orthodox Church was supposedly involved in illegal oil trading. The former assistant to the Vatican secretary of state, Reverend Jean-Marie Benjamin, is said to have received rights to sell 4.5 million barrels (720,000 m3). George Galloway subsequently won two libel actions against the Christian Science Monitor and Daily Telegraph, which reported the allegations.

    Citation.

    http://www.thenewsminute.com/politics/1252#at_pco=cfd-1.0&at_ab=per-1&at_pos=0&at_tot=15&at_si=54b548202a0c17a0

     

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil-for-Food_Programme#al_Mada_list

    http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Sunanda-Pushkar-mentioned-IPL-recalls-scribe-Nalini-Singh/articleshow/37728616.cms

  • Chemical Weapon Attack In Syria How True

    There have been reports that the Syrian Government used Chemical Weapons and people have been killed and as Washing Post reports that the ‘US is mulling unilateral action’, while Britain is against it.

    There was a report in the Christian Science Monitor that the earlier claims to this effect have been found to be untrue.

    The images flooded in only hours after the Aug. 21 chemical attack in Damascus’s eastern suburbs. And they soon reached the very highest rungs of the U.S. government: “As a father, I can’t get the image out of my head of a man who held up his dead child, wailing while chaos swirled around him,” said Secretary of State John Kerry in his impassioned Aug. 26 speech. “[T]he images of entire families dead in their beds without a drop of blood or even a visible wound; bodies contorting in spasms; human suffering that we can never ignore or forget.”

    Social media also forms a key part of the British intelligence assessment about the attack. As a result of the videos, “there is little serious dispute that chemical attacks causing mass casualties … took place” in Damascus, according to an open letter from the chairman of Britain’s Joint Intelligence Committee to Prime Minister David Cameron.

    The local activists who filmed these videos, then, have accomplished what years of hectoring from the official Syrian opposition have been unable to do — bring the world to the brink of military intervention against Bashar al-Assad‘s regime.(foreignpolicy.com)

    CSM’s earlier report on the Chemical attack>

    BEIRUT

    An alleged chemical weapons attack near Aleppo yesterday, for which the Syrian regime and the opposition traded accusations of responsibility, almost certainly did not feature a lethal agent proscribed under international convention, say chemical weapons experts after considering the available evidence.

    Video footage and eyewitness accounts suggest that if a chemical agent was used in a missile attack on Khan al-Aasal that reportedly killed 31 people and wounded more than 100, it was most likely a riot-control agent designed to cause irritation, which is not generally lethal.”

    Let’s look at some of the images of this attack.

    Chemical Attack in Syria.
    Chemical Attack in Syria.
    Man holds a child in hands after it was killed by chemical attack
    Man holds a child in hands after it was killed by chemical attack

    Meanwhile, news emerges that the US helped Saddam Hussein to Gas Iran.

    In 1988, during the waning days of Iraq’s war with Iran, the United States learned through satellite imagery that Iran was about to gain a major strategic advantage by exploiting a hole in Iraqi defenses. U.S. intelligence officials conveyed the location of the Iranian troops to Iraq, fully aware that Hussein’s military would attack with chemical weapons, including sarin, a lethal nerve agent.

    The intelligence included imagery and maps about Iranian troop movements, as well as the locations of Iranian logistics facilities and details about Iranian air defenses. The Iraqis used mustard gas and sarin prior to four major offensives in early 1988 that relied on U.S. satellite imagery, maps, and other intelligence. These attacks helped to tilt the war in Iraq‘s favor and bring Iran to the negotiating table, and they ensured that the Reagan administration’s long-standing policy of securing an Iraqi victory would succeed. But they were also the last in a series of chemical strikes stretching back several years that the Reagan administration knew about and didn’t disclose.

    U.S. officials have long denied acquiescing to Iraqi chemical attacks, insisting that Hussein’s government never announced he was going to use the weapons. But retired Air Force Col. Rick Francona, who was a military attaché in Baghdad during the 1988 strikes, paints a different picture>

    So the new script is being played out, to invade Syria.

    http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/08/25/secret_cia_files_prove_america_helped_saddam_as_he_gassed_iran

  • What is a Terrorist ,Dad, Thought Provoking .

    iraq
    iraq (Photo credit: The U.S. Army)

    I received this forward from  Zehera Kassam,Awareness.

    I checked the source and am reproducing the article by David Campbell.

    Are we Right?

    Story:

    Surely even a child can understand the difference between good and evil.

    Dad … what’s a terrorist?

    Well, according to the Oxford dictionary a terrorist is “a person who uses violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims”. Which means that terrorists are very bad men and women who frighten ordinary people like us, and sometimes even kill them.

    Why do they kill them?

    Because they hate them or their country. It’s hard to explain … it’s just the way things are. For many different reasons a lot of people in our world are full of hate.

    Like the ones in Iraq who are capturing people and saying that they’ll kill them if all the soldiers don’t leave?

    Exactly! That’s an evil thing called “blackmail”. Those innocent people are hostages, and the terrorists are saying that if governments don’t do what they want the hostages will be killed.

    So was it blackmail when we said we’d attack Iraq and kill innocent people unless they told us where all their weapons were?

    AdvertisementAdvertisement

    No! Well … yes, I suppose. In a way. But that was an “ultimatum” … call it “good blackmail.

    Good blackmail? What’s that?

    That’s when it’s done for good reasons. Those weapons were very dangerous and could have hurt a lot of people all over the world. It was very important to find them and destroy them.

    But Dad … there weren’t any weapons.

    True. We know that now. But we didn’t at the time. We thought there were.

    So was killing all those innocent people in Iraq a mistake?

    No. It was a tragedy, but we also saved a lot of lives. You see, we had to stop a very cruel man called Saddam Hussein from killing a great many ordinary Iraqi people. Saddam Hussein stayed in power by giving orders that meant thousands of people died or were horribly injured. Mothers and fathers. Even children.

    Like that boy I saw on TV? The one who had his arms blown off by a bomb?

    Yes … just like him.

    But we did that. Does that mean our leaders are terrorists?

    Good heavens, no! Whatever gave you that idea? That was just an accident. Unfortunately, innocent people get hurt in a war. You can’t expect anything else when you drop bombs on cities. Nobody wants it to happen … it’s just the way things are.

    So in a war only soldiers are supposed to get killed?

    Well, soldiers are trained to fight for their country. It’s their job, and they’re very brave. They know that war is dangerous and that they might be killed. As soon as they put on a uniform they become a target.

    What uniforms do terrorists wear?

    That’s just the problem … they don’t! We can’t tell them apart from the civilians. We don’t know who we’re fighting. And that’s why so many innocent people are getting killed … the terrorists don’t follow the rules of war.

    War has rules?

    Oh, yes. Soldiers must wear uniforms. And you can’t just suddenly attack someone unless they do something to you first. Then you can defend yourself.

    So that’s why we attacked Iraq? Because Iraq attacked us first and we were just defending ourselves?

    Not exactly. Iraq didn’t attack us … but it might have. We decided to get in first. Just in case Iraq used those weapons we were talking about.

    The ones they didn’t have? So we broke the rules of war?

    Technically speaking, yes. But …

    So if we broke the rules first, why isn’t it OK for those people in Iraq who aren’t wearing uniforms to break the rules?

    Well, that’s different. We were doing the right thing when we broke the rules.

    But Dad … how do we know we were doing the right thing?

    Our leaders … Bush and Blair and Howard … they told us it was the right thing. And if they don’t know, who does? They say that something had to be done to make Iraq a better place.

    Is it a better place?

    I suppose so, but I don’t know for sure. Innocent people are still being killed and these kidnappings are terrible things. I feel very sorry for the families of those poor hostages, but we simply can’t give in to terrorists. We must stand firm.

    Would you say that if I was captured by terrorists?

    Uh … yes … no … I mean, it’s very difficult …

    So you’d let me be killed? Don’t you love me?

    Of course! I love you very much. It’s just that it’s a very complicated issue and I don’t know what I’d do …

    Well, if somebody attacked us and bombed our house and killed you and Mum and Jamie I know what I’d do.

    What?

    I’d find out who did it and kill them. Any way I could. I’d hate them for ever and ever. And then I’d get in a plane and bomb their cities.

    But … but … you’d kill a lot of innocent people.

    I know. But it’s war, Dad. And that’s just the way things are. Remember?

    http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/04/22/1082616260498.html

     

  • Transparency and Governanace.WikiLeaks

    Logo used by Wikileaks
    Image via Wikipedia

     

     WikiLeaks has embarrassed the Governments the world over by its exposure of Foreign Relations details of  many a country.

    As has been pointed out ,there has been wilful wrong doing,outright lying,dressing up of information , deals within deals  by Nations.

    Also there has been special interest groups for whom there was a specific agenda to be carried out and the leaders have done their bidding.

    It also exposed the crassly crude descriptions of world leaders by those in authority.

    Does this mean one should ensure all documents relating to foreign relations be in the Public Domain?

    Answer is Yes and No.

    Those details the exposure of which might be a National Security Threat may be with held.

    (this begs the question.who decides on what National Security is ?

    This can be addressed separately.)

    Other than this, all documents must be in the Public Realm,especially relating to natural Resources sharing, Exports, Duty cut backs Corporates)

      In a Democracy such as India, the Opposition Parties have a Duty to perform in eliciting the information on the Floor of the Parliament .

    Unfortunately they don’, for they know they have to face same fate when they come to power and they also have things to hide.

    Take Bofors issue,Musharraf failing to sign the Agreement,bringing into the open Black Money stashed abroad.

    Finally it all comes to Leaders of Integrity and Honesty, which, now  ,is at a premium.

    WikiLeaks is neither the Russian Bolshevik party nor the American Democratic party. Nevertheless WikiLeaks is readdressing the issue which was left open at the end of the First World War: is diplomatic secret in the people’s interest? Both Trotsky and Wilson moved their agenda forward to some limited extent: the Soviet Union soon became a harsh dictatorship and transparency was so despised under Stalin that even the map of the Moscow underground was a classified document. The practice of publicity had better luck in the United States and in other Western countries. Transparency and accountability started to be common sense in consolidated democratic regimes although state secret still exists and diplomacy is still covered by the seven veils of classified documents. Even in the most democratic countries, secrecy in international affairs continues to be justified by the need to protect the state’s integrity and to guarantee citizens’ security and these aims prevail over the need to guarantee transparency and freedom of expression.

    Through WikiLeaks world public opinion was informed of numerous violations of humanitarian law in Afghanistan, of false reports on the legitimacy of the military intervention in Iraq, of the exaggeration of the weapons of mass destruction held by Saddam Hussein. This core information has been peppered with hundreds and hundreds of more exciting but less relevant gossip about political celebrities. Not surprisingly, those holding the secrets have reacted furiously against the leaks, have made what efforts they can to prevent further leaks and threatened retaliation against those who provided the information, those who published it and even those who dared to read it. The prize for the most furious reaction goes to Congressman Peter King, who wanted WikiLeaks to be declared a foreign terrorist organization. These reactions are certainly comprehensible but not justified. If there is the need to fight a war, the citizens, the taxpayers and even more the conscripted should clearly know the reasons for spilling blood on the battleground. Otherwise, as Noam Chomsky correctly pointed out, “government secrecy is to protect the government from its own population”.

    Until now WikLleaks’ revelations have not provoked major damage to intelligence mechanisms, either in Afghanistan or anywhere else. It may always be that such revelations can harm and identify specific persons, making their actions and their information services known to malicious people. Excessive transparency can in principle be dangerous for a few individuals, and it should be balanced with the need to protect the privacy of individuals. At the expense of violating the privacy of many individuals, WikiLeaks has allowed public opinion to know that public offices have been used for private purposes, that false information has been released with the explicit aim of diverting public attention, that crimes have been committed without liability. Looking at the outcomes so far produced, it can be argued that the violation of privacy has been minimal compared to the relevance of the information provided to public opinion.

    An instrument like WikiLeaks has proven to be helpful not only in making governments and their officials more accountable. It has also proved very useful to check and control the business sector. We have already seen that WikiLeaks has started eating into banking secrecy, with the publication of the greatest tax dodgers’ lists by a banker that worked in Cayman Islands on behalf of the Swiss bank Julius Baer. In this case, it would be difficult to claim that confidentiality on tax evasion and money laundering should be protected in deference of privacy. It is somehow surprising that some Courts, rather than using the occasion to prosecute financial crimes, have preferred to be on the side of the banks and requested that leaked documents should be removed from the public domain.

    WikiLeaks raises a more general point that needs to be addressed: is there any effective filter between the load of information leaked out and what is actually published? WikilLeaks today has been a pioneer and it is carrying out an important public function, but it is probably inappropriate that an unaccountable private organization holds so much power. The opportunity to publish classified document has traditionally been a prerogative of all media, but there is no media, to date, that is solely devoted to releasing classified documents. This puts WikiLeakes in a league by its own.

    The responsibility to monitor the transparency of geopolitical relations, of financial flows and of other sensitive information should be put in the hands of organizations that are themselves fully transparent and accountable. The empirical research carried out by One World Trust on the accountability of inter-governmental organizations, non-governmental organizations and of business corporations has often provided counter-intuitive results, indicating that institutions such as the World Bank are more transparent than institutions such as the WWF International.# Paradoxically, WikiLeaks risks being an organization more secretive than those whose documents it publishes. “Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?” said Juvenal and today we can wonder: “Who will assure the transparency of those who generate transparency?”

    http://www.opendemocracy.net/daniele-archibugi-marina-chiarugi/wilson-trotsky-assange-lessons-from-history-of-diplomatic-transpar?utm_source=feedblitz&utm_medium=FeedBlitzEmail&utm_content=201210&utm_campaign=0

  • Saddam’s WMD is a lie admits ‘Curveball’ US source.

    It is one thing to wish for a change of Government in one’s country;totally different when you are in touch with/in the hands of a Foreign Power.

    Curveball‘ may delude himself into thinking he has served his country;in fact he sold out.

    US, notorious for interfering in other Nation’s affairs, had tried toppling games many a times and leave the Nation concerned, with the chaos as its aftermath(Vietnam,Korea,Bay of Pigs).

    What US perceives as its interests turn out to be a nightmare for US later.

    Witness Pakistan,Taliban,ISI,Osama!

    Those who want to change their governments must know that if they want to change the Government they have to change it by themselves, not with outside help;otherwise they will head for Anarchy.

    Now that the cat is out of the bag, what does US propose to do?

    Pump in Dollars  as an act of mollification and find the Nation(Iraq) hating US even more.

     

    In a small flat in the German town of Erlangen in February 2003, an out-of-work Iraqi sat down with his wife to watch one of the world’s most powerful men deliver the speech of his career on live TV.

    As US secretary of state, Colin Powell gathered his notes in front of the United Nations security council, the man watching — Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi, known to the west’s intelligence services as “Curveball” — had more than an inkling of what was to come. He was, after all, Powell’s main source, a man his German handlers had feted as a new “Deep throat” — an agent so pivotal that he could bring down a government.

    As Curveball watched Powell make the US case to invade Iraq, he was hiding an admission that he has not made until now: that nearly every word he had told his interrogators from Germany‘s secret service, the BND, was a lie.

    Everything he had said about the inner workings of Saddam Hussein’s biological weapons programme was a flight of fantasy – one that, he now claims was aimed at ousting the Iraqi dictator. Janabi, a chemical engineering graduate who had worked in the Iraqi industry, says he looked on in shock as Powell’s presentation revealed that the Bush administration’s hawkish decisionmakers had swallowed the lot. Something else left him even more amazed; until that point he had not met a US official, let alone been interviewed by one.

    “I had the chance to fabricate something to topple the regime,” he told the Guardian in a series of interviews carried out in his native Arabic and German. “I and my sons are proud of that, and we are proud that we were the reason to give Iraq the margin of democracy.”

    His interviews with the Guardian, which took place over two days, appeared to be partly a purge of conscience, partly an attempt to justify what he did. It also seems to be a bid to resurrect his own reputation, which might help him start again in Iraq — a country that eight years later is still reeling from more than 100,000 civilian deaths and the aftermath of a savage sectarian war.

    The man who pulled off one of the greatest confidence tricks in the history of modern intelligence was not easy to pin down. He arrived at a hotel in his adopted home town of Karlsruhe, looking haggard after a sleepless night spent emailing. Heavy set, with plaintive eyes, smelling strongly of cigarettes, and shuffling with nervous energy, he slunk into a chair to begin answering questions, a process he seemed very familiar with.

    “Colin Powell didn’ t say I was the only reason for this war,” he said. “He talked about three things. First of all, uranium; secondly, al-Qaida; and thirdly, my story.

    “I don’t know why the other sources, for the uranium and al-Qaida, remained hidden and my name got out. I accept it, though, because I did something for my country and for me that was enough.”

    Since the fall of Baghdad, Curveball’s identity had been sought throughout Iraq and Europe. He was finally outed in late 2007 as the main source for Powell’s speech, but has tried to keep a low profile ever since, refusing — under the orders of the BND — the approaches of the few reporters who had tracked him downto Karlsruhe.

    The only other time Curveball has agreed to be interviewed was in late 2007, when he told CNN that he had been set up as a fall guy by the BND and had never breathed a word to them about WMD. Last year, he called the police on a Danish documentary crew who came knocking.

    Curveball claims he was granted asylum by the German government on 13 March 2000, less than six months after arriving in Germany and before he had even been asked a question about biological weapons. He emphasises this point, aware that he could be seen as a simple opportunist. “The story about the biochemical weapons had nothing to do with my asylum claim. The German state — well, the BND, or someone from Germany, have said that I told them about the chemicals, because I wanted to claim asylum. That’s not true.”

    He says that around three weeks after he was granted asylum, a German official, whom he identified as Dr Paul, came to see him. On his application, he had said he had worked as a chemical engineer, a fact that attracted extra attention.

    “He told me he needed some information about my life. He said it was very important, that Iraq had a dictator and I needed to help.”

    At this point, according to Curveball, he decided to let his imagination run wild. For the next six months, he sat with Paul — the BND’s resident expert on weapons of mass destruction – and calling upon his knowledge of chemical engineering from university and from his work in Baghdad, he manufactured a tale of dread.

    This period was the genesis of Powell’s fateful speech; what Curveball told Paul became the key pillar of Powell’s UN presentation — the diagrams he displayed of mobile weapons trucks that could dispense biotoxins into the wind.

    “We have first-hand descriptions of biological weapons factories on wheels,” Powell said. “The source was an eyewitness — an Iraqi chemical engineer who supervised one of these facilities. He was present during biological agent production runs. He was also at the site when an accident occurred in 1998. Twelve technicians died.”

    The effect at the UN was dramatic. Here was a detailed first-hand account from an insider of the sinister and deceptive inner workings of Saddam’s regime. It was tangible evidence; far more compelling than the other two elements of Powell’s case for war, which seemed scant in detail and unlikely to persuade the invasion’s naysayers.

    Even now, Curveball seems bemused that his lies got as far as they did. He says he thought the game was up by the end of 2000. By that point, the BND had flown to Dubai to interview his former boss at Iraq’s military industrial complex, Dr Basil Latif, who had told them that his former underling was a liar.

    Several British intelligence officers were present at the meeting with Latif. Their German counterparts left Dubai seeing their prized source in a new light.

    According to them, Curveball had claimed that Latif’s son, who was then at school in Britain, was a procurer of WMD. That information was easily proven wrong by the British spooks.

    The BND then returned to Germany and sent an officer to confront their source. “He says ‘there (are) no trucks’ and I say, ok, when (Dr Basil says) there are no trucks then (there are none),” Curveball recalled in broken English. “I did not speak to them again until (the) end of May 2002.”

    By the time the BND came calling again, Curveball says he had fended for himself for almost 18 months. He had been paid a monthly stipend by his handler, but had not been asked to do anything for the state.

    “When he come back to me, he don’t ask me (the same questions),” he says of the 2002 meetings. “He ask me, for example, the name of signs, the name of establishment, do you know this person.” He admitted continuing to lie to his interrogators throughout the year.

    Curveball suggests that the BND implied that his then-pregnant wife, who was at that point trying to get to Germany from Spain, would not be able to join him unless he co-operated. “He says, you work with us or your wife and child go to Morocco.”

    According to his account, there were at least a dozen meetings in 2002. He says none of the new round of questions dealt with a birdseed purification plant, in Djerf al-Nadaf in south-east Baghdad, that he had claimed was where Saddam’s bioweapons programme was based.

    This was supposed to be where the mobile trucks were loaded up. “The BND did not ask me about this project, because they knew I was not right.”

    But in January 2003, several weeks before Powell’s speech, the interrogation returned to trucks and birdseed. “That was the first time they had talked to me about this since 2000.” Curveball says it was clear to him that the drums of war were beating ever louder, but he maintains that he still thought his story about the mobile trucks had been discounted.

    Then came the UN speech. He says the BND had told him that everything he had told them would stay in Germany and that he was shocked to see Powell holding up diagrams that he knew had been prepared from his fraudulent descriptions.

    “So I call the person that is responsible for me. I tell him that I see what Colin says, and he says ‘ok, this ist ein klein’, a small problem. You come … tomorrow, and you speak with me. (He said) you must go now from this home because this flat is very dangerous for you and for your family. From 9 April you can return.”

    For the next two months, Curveball claims he was in virtual lockdown, prevented by the BND from watching TV and having limited contact with anyone outside his hotel. He said he knew the war had begun from snatched conversations with strangers.

    Asked about how he felt as the bodycount among of countrymen mounted and Iraq descended into chaos, Curveball shifted uncomfortably in his chair, then said: “I tell you something when I hear anybody – not just in Iraq but in any war – (is) killed, I am very sad. But give me another solution. Can you give me another solution?

    “Believe me, there was no other way to bring about freedom to Iraq. There were no other possibilities.”

    “Saddam did not [allow] freedom in our land. There are no other political parties. You have to believe what Saddam says, and do what Saddam wants. And I don’t accept that. I have to do something for my country. So I did this and I am satisfied, because there is no dictator in Iraq any more.”

    Curveball’s reinvention as a liberator and patriot is a tough sell to many in the CIA, the BND and in the Bush administration, whose careers were terminally wounded as mystery surrounding the whereabouts of the missing bioweapons in the post-invasion months turned into the reality that there were none.

    His critics — who are many and powerful — say the cost of his deception is too difficult to estimate, even now. As the US scales back its presence in Iraq it is leaving behind an unstable country, whose allegiance — after eight years of blood and treasure — may not be to the US and its allies after all. For Curveball though, it’s time to reinvent himself. He has returned twice to Iraq and started a political party, winning a modest 1,700-odd votes in the general election last March. He has also written a manuscript about his past 10 years and is looking for a publisher.

    In the meantime, things seem to be turning increasingly sour with the BND. The spooks helped him, his wife and two children get German citizenship in 2008. At the same time they cut off his stipend of €3,000 (£2,500) per month and told him to fend for himself.

    That has proved difficult around Karlsruhe, a medium-sized university town near the French/German border where his reputation as a fantasist travels ahead of him. On the first day of our interviews, an official at the town hall told him he and his family are forbidden from leaving the country.

    He now spends his days in a rented flat on the outskirts of town with a doting wife — who says she only learned of her husband’s exploits three years ago — and two young children. He no longer has the Mercedes Benz that the BND had supplied him with. And he is well aware that the secret service — and his new homeland – seems to be fast tiring of him.

    “I will be honest with you. I now have a lot of problems because the BND have taken away my flat, taken my mobile phone: I’m in a bad position. But if I could go back to 2000, if someone asked me, I would say the same thing because I wouldn’t want that regime to continue in our country.”

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/15/curveball-iraqi-fantasist-cia-saddam

    Related:

    REPORT ON U.S. INTELLIGENCE GATHERING
    Intelligence Analysts Whiffed on a ‘Curveball’
    * Report says one Iraqi defector singlehandedly corrupted prewar weapons estimates.

    By Greg Miller and Bob Drogin, Times Staff Writers

    WASHINGTON — Prewar claims by the United States that Iraq was producing biological weapons were based almost entirely on accounts from a defector who was described as “crazy” by his intelligence handlers and a “congenital liar” by his friends.

    The defector, code-named “Curveball,” spoke with alarming specificity about Iraq’s alleged biological weapons programs and fleet of mobile labs. But postwar investigations showed that he wasn’t even in the country at times when he claimed to have taken part in illicit weapons work.

    Despite persistent doubts about his credibility,Curveball’s claims were included in the Bush administration’s case for war without so much as a caveat. And when CIA analysts argued after the war that the agency needed to admit it had been duped, they were forced out of their jobs.

    The disclosures about Curveball and the extensive role he played in corrupting U.S. intelligence estimates on Iraq were included in a devastating report released Thursday by a commission established by President Bush to evaluate U.S. intelligence on weapons of mass destruction.

    The 601-page document is a sweeping assessment of U.S. intelligence failures that identifies breakdowns in dozens of cases involving multiple countries and terrorist organizations.

    But in many ways,Curveball’s story is the centerpiece of the report, a cautionary tale told in excruciating detail to highlight failures that plagued U.S. spy agencies at almost every step in the intelligence process — from collection to analysis to presentation to policymakers.

    U.S. intelligence agencies’ reliance on Curveball and their failure to scrutinize his claims are described in the report as the “primary reason” that the CIA and other spy agencies “fundamentally misjudged the status of Iraq’s [biological weapons] programs.” No other episode is explored in as much detail, or recounted with as much evident dismay.

    “Worse than having no human sources,” the commission said, “is being seduced by a human source who is telling lies.”

    Curveball even influenced assessments in areas where he claimed no inside knowledge, the commission said. One analyst told the panel thatCurveball’s descriptions of biological weapons activity in Iraq “pushed” chemical weapons experts to be more aggressive in their judgments. “Much of the CW confidence was built on the BW confidence,” the analyst said.

    Curveball’s identity has never been publicly revealed. His code name and the role he played in leading U.S. spy agencies to assess that Iraq possessed biological weapons was first described in an article in the Los Angeles Times in March 2004. The commission’s report describes Curveball as an Iraqi chemical engineer who defected at a time when U.S. and other spy agencies were desperate for new sources on Iraq’s weapons programs, after U.N. inspectors had left the country in 1998. The CIA never had access to Curveball. Instead, he was controlled by Germany’s intelligence service, which passed along the information it collected to the United States through the Defense Intelligence Agency, a Pentagon spy agency that handled information from Iraqi defectors.

    Between January 2000 and September 2001, the report said, the DIA disseminated “almost 100 reports” from Curveball, who was seen as a valuable new source. Among his most alarming claims was that Iraq had assembled a fleet of mobile labs to manufacture biological weapons and evade detection.

    The reports triggered a flurry of escalating U.S. intelligence assessments on Iraq, even though the DIA “did not even attempt to determineCurveball’s veracity,” according to the report.Curveball’s claims gained new currency after the Sept. 11 attacks, as the Bush administration adopted a policy of preempting international threats and turned its focus to Iraq.

    Curveball’s claims were crucial to the case for war. An October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate that concluded Iraq “has” biological weapons was “based almost exclusively on information obtained” from Curveball, according to the report.

    http://www.curveballbook.com/lat_1apr05.html