Join 3,497 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Curveball
February 15, 2011 3:05 PM   Subscribe

Curveball: How the US was duped by an Iraqi fantasist looking to topple Saddam.
posted by homunculus (65 comments total) 15 users marked this as a favorite

 
Fools, all of them.
posted by Ironmouth at 3:07 PM on February 15, 2011 [1 favorite]


Wow, he sure fooled us, didn't he!
posted by dunkadunc at 3:08 PM on February 15, 2011


Hang on, hang on, I'm just digging out my surprised face. Damn, where is it? I'm sure it's in here somewhere.
posted by unSane at 3:08 PM on February 15, 2011 [5 favorites]


You don't say!
posted by tittergrrl at 3:08 PM on February 15, 2011 [1 favorite]


But... but, he pinky swore we would find WMDs!
posted by Ad hominem at 3:09 PM on February 15, 2011


The Bush administration let this guy sell them a load of horseshit to bolster their case, but calling it "duped" is not really accurate.
posted by Burhanistan at 3:09 PM on February 15, 2011 [22 favorites]


Allah, what an asshole.
posted by Joe Beese at 3:10 PM on February 15, 2011 [4 favorites]


Well, yeah, "duh" and all, but don't you think it was really just an excuse for Bush anyway? I mean he was just waiting for someone to make a claim like that, and eagerly took the first chance he got. And, in all fairness, Hussein really was a horrible, horrible dictator. I hope the new government doesn't collapse. If I believed in God, I'd pray that.
posted by Xezlec at 3:11 PM on February 15, 2011 [1 favorite]


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.

I mean yeah, I guess it took him this long to admit it, but weren't most intelligent people questioning his stories back in like, 2002 or 2003? I remember a Rolling Stone article about it... oh, here's a Guardian article from 2004.

I guess al-Janabi's plan is the same as the Bush Administration's - deny until you can't, then evade until you can't, then sheepishly ask for forgiveness.
posted by muddgirl at 3:12 PM on February 15, 2011 [1 favorite]


This is a very bad man.
posted by clavdivs at 3:13 PM on February 15, 2011 [2 favorites]


Yeah, this is just cover both ways.. It's just like the infamous 17 words in the SOTU, "the british have learned something". Here is your smoking gun right here!!!! .. Oh damn ! we were duped!!!
posted by Ad hominem at 3:13 PM on February 15, 2011


Surely...
posted by fleetmouse at 3:14 PM on February 15, 2011


don't you think it was really just an excuse for Bush anyway?

"General Powell, have we subjected this to the most rigorous possible scrutiny? Because only the highest standard of proof would justify the risk to American troops and the tragic loss of civilian life that would accompany the invasion of Iraq. I would not do that unless I had no other choice."
posted by Joe Beese at 3:15 PM on February 15, 2011


The US government was "duped" by this guy the same way some spikey haired Bridge-and-Tunnel collar-popper groping his way around some neon and blacklight nightclub is "duped" by a 17-year-old with a fake ID...
posted by hincandenza at 3:17 PM on February 15, 2011 [2 favorites]


Couple of obvious points.

1. "Duped"? Please.
2. "I was lying then, but I'm telling the truth now." Please.
posted by facetious at 3:19 PM on February 15, 2011 [1 favorite]


Colin Powell : Listen, I can't get involved. I've got work to do. It's not that I like the Empire; I hate it. But there's nothing I can do about it right now... It's all such a long way from here."

Alwan al-Janabi: "That's your uncle talking.”
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 3:21 PM on February 15, 2011 [1 favorite]


Metafilter: Source of groundbreaking news on how the Iraq war was a load of hogwash since 2003.

Srsly.

Srsly?
posted by dougrayrankin at 3:23 PM on February 15, 2011


What, no Chalabi?
posted by benzenedream at 3:26 PM on February 15, 2011


I know it's not 100% the same plot, but once again, I am reminded of The Tailor of Panama. Opportunistic sleaze makes a temporary alliance with another deceitful opportunist; shitstorm brews; "ladies and gentleman, a star is missing from our flag"; and scene.
posted by Sticherbeast at 3:29 PM on February 15, 2011 [1 favorite]


I was gonna post this one this morning. ... pretty fucking big scoop. Fascinating. No regrets!

"First of all, uranium; secondly, al-Qaida; and thirdly, my story."

Lies, lies ... and lies!

I'm sure that now we will see the indictments roll in.
posted by mrgrimm at 3:29 PM on February 15, 2011


Ah man, I was totally confusing Curveball and Chalabi.
posted by muddgirl at 3:29 PM on February 15, 2011


There was no doubt that these were lies and it was well known. Everyone who knew what was going on in Iraq told us; the weapons inspectors, the French, the Russians, the Germans. All of these groups had a presence in Iraq and knew what was happening and told us so.

So no excuses and no revisionist history, it was a conscious turn to the dark side and a war crime.
posted by shnarg at 3:30 PM on February 15, 2011 [4 favorites]


This is a very bad man.

No, this is the equivalent of a low ranking gang member busted by the cops and then making shit up about his boss so he doesn't get thrown in jail.

It's the cops--and their bosses and bosses' bosses--that used that as a plausible context to fuel their narrative at the time. It was the justification they needed, even though they knew it was bullshit.

In other words, don't blame the little guy for trying to save his own skin. Blame the CIA and the Bush administration for using it for their own ends.
posted by zardoz at 3:30 PM on February 15, 2011 [2 favorites]


How was this "duping?" The Bush administration spent a good six to twelve months looking for as many things as possible to justify invading Iraq; this guy was just opportunistic enough to have helped and right-wing media figures and officials were ready to accept it because they wanted it to be true. Case in point, the exactly none of them who faced any repercussions for it.

The destruction of at least three nations' infrastructure and the needless death of hundreds of thousands of people clearly dominating all else, the distant second worst part of all this was how painfully aware everyone from Cheney on down were that there would be no penalties whatsoever for getting whatever they wanted anyway. Once you got past those pay grades you just had online and on-air cheerleaders who just wanted to be part of the fun. This became a game of "fuck you, liberals" and guess what, everyone who was actually playing won.

If you think there was a shortage of people willing to say and see whatever they wanted to "be right" then you're incredibly naive. There's a large handful of willful idiot bloggers who in a just world would scream themselves to sleep every night for the rest of their lives. They aren't even considering apologizing for what stupid assholes they were. Many probably still think they were right all along.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 3:31 PM on February 15, 2011 [10 favorites]


In response to the common theme from the comments of this thread, I will note that the OP did not say that the government of the US was duped.
posted by Flunkie at 3:36 PM on February 15, 2011


It's been a while since I saw it, but isn't this in a lot of ways similar to the plot of Green Zone?
posted by quin at 3:38 PM on February 15, 2011


Metafilter: some spikey haired Bridge-and-Tunnel collar-popper groping his way around some neon and blacklight nightclub
posted by nevercalm at 3:40 PM on February 15, 2011


Metafilter: Source of groundbreaking news on how the Iraq war was a load of hogwash since 2003.

I didn't say this is "groundbreaking news," but I've been fascinated by the strange saga of Curveball for a long time, so I found this series about him and his bizarre place in history quite interesting.
posted by homunculus at 3:43 PM on February 15, 2011 [1 favorite]


It's news that he admitted it, bit everyone knew he was a liar at the time, including the people that were supposedly duped.

There is not a single justification for war with Iraq that has not proved to be a lie, except "saddam was a bad man".
posted by empath at 3:55 PM on February 15, 2011 [1 favorite]


The Iraq war was not a mistake, or a misunderstanding. It was a criminal undertaking.
posted by empath at 4:01 PM on February 15, 2011 [12 favorites]


It was obvious from the beginning that the Iraq war involved political and strategic objectives beyond the threat of WMD. The broader goals always included the war against Al Qaeda and the "Freedom Agenda".

That doesn't excuse the lies, the needless dead, and the bungled aftermath. But it also seems obvious that US Middle East policy over the past decade, including the Iraq war, has played a significant role in accelerating or causing the recent wave of uprisings all over the Middle East.
posted by eeeeeez at 4:03 PM on February 15, 2011


But it also seems obvious that US Middle East policy over the past decade, including the Iraq war, has played a significant role in accelerating or causing the recent wave of uprisings all over the Middle East.

So you're saying the U.S. has brought democracy to the Middle East?
posted by Kraftmatic Adjustable Cheese at 4:08 PM on February 15, 2011


But it also seems obvious that US Middle East policy over the past decade, including the Iraq war, has played a significant role in accelerating or causing the recent wave of uprisings all over the Middle East.

Can you elaborate on what you think the causal connection is?
posted by empath at 4:14 PM on February 15, 2011


I don't know, Kraftmatic. That's a very loaded thing to say. It means a lot of things and it also ignores a lot of things. So, no. I think the US reduced a complex situation to something the US is good at, namely war, and I think you could say they won (or are winning) that war.

The fact remains that there is a whole host of issues beyond this so-called "war", so it's up for grabs what this "victory" ultimately means.
posted by eeeeeez at 4:18 PM on February 15, 2011


60 Minutes broke this story years ago...
posted by stevenstevo at 4:36 PM on February 15, 2011


hi empath - thanks for engaging the argument. It's an interesting question and I don't have an answer. My feeling is that it weakened the sovereignty of the leaders throughout the region and that this allowed the opposition to grow in numbers and strength. I'll readily admit that that feeling is based on rememberings and interpretations that may be faulty or colored. I try to be somewhat informed on these things though and I welcome sources that I missed or that interpret things differently. How's that for a cop-out? :-)
posted by eeeeeez at 4:37 PM on February 15, 2011


I suppose, "Fool me once, shame on...shame on you. Fool me, can't get fooled again."

Pete Townshend wept.
posted by digitalprimate at 4:42 PM on February 15, 2011


Carne Ross, Curveball and the manufacture of a lie:
Now that the truth about this propaganda has been revealed, we can expect that those who constructed it – Tony Blair, Dick Cheney et al – will now amend their usual arguments to suggest that they were innocently misled by evidence such as Curveball's. After all, if a defector claimed that there was a substantial bio-weapons programme, as "Curveball" did, how could they know that he was lying? Again, we will be confronted with the "not my fault!" excuse from those who manufactured the case for an avoidable war.

But once again, they are trying to mislead. Here's why. ...

Given the complexity of the data, no single source could ever be taken as authoritative. And the least convincing sources – by their very nature – were defectors. We knew full well that, for very understandable reasons, defectors had a powerful incentive to exaggerate the nature of Iraq's development of WMD. They hated Saddam and wanted him gone. Long before Curveball, there were other defectors who made sometimes wild claims about Iraq's weapons programmes. I remember one report that suggested Iraq had armed its Scud missiles (none of which, in fact, existed, it later emerged) with nuclear warheads, ready to be launched at Israel and other targets. Defector intelligence was, therefore, lowest in the hierarchy of evidence; photographic or signals intercepts were, for obvious reasons, treated as more plausible.

Each piece of evidence, whatever its source, was first subjected to rigorous cross-checking before inclusion in overall analyses. All sources of intelligence suffered from particular deficits: Iraq knew that its signals were monitored and thus limited its communications traffic; it also hid any WMD activity under roofs in military and civilian sites, thereby limiting the value of overhead reconnaissance. So, all evidence had to be tested by the simple method of seeking corroboration from other sources. This method was used across Whitehall, and in the Ministry of Defence and the Cabinet Office in particular, and was the basis for the Joint Intelligence Committee assessments of the WMD threat, several of which I contributed to. In the years I worked on the subject (1997-2002), the picture produced by this method was very clear: there was no credible evidence of substantial stocks of WMD in Iraq.

And it was this method – clearly – that was abandoned in advance of the war. Instead of a careful cross-checking of evidence, reports that suited the story of an imminent Iraqi threat were picked out, polished and formed the basis of public claims like Colin Powell's presentation to the UN security council, or the No 10 dossier. This was exactly how a false case for war was constructed: not by the deliberate creation of a falsehood, but by willfully and secretly manipulating the evidence to exaggerate the importance of reports like Curveball's, and to ignore contradictory evidence. This was a subtle process, elaborated from report to report, in such a way that allowed officials themselves to believe that they were not deliberately lying – more editing, perhaps, or simplifying for public presentation.
posted by russilwvong at 4:46 PM on February 15, 2011 [3 favorites]


And in related news -- Donald Rumsfeld is out promoting his new memoir, Known and Unknown.

Many ask: Is Rumsfeld Trying to Rewrite History? [video | 8:50].

Many say yes, yes he is.

Rumsfeld on the Iraq War: “Nobody Lied” [video | 17:11]

Ah, memories, once again of 2005: “I Didn’t Advocate Invasion.”

Reviews:
Chicago Sun-Times : Rumsfeld's Book Shows How He Pulled Wool Over Our Eyes.

New York Times: Simply the Worst.

The Hill: In New Book, Rumsfeld Knows Best.
posted by ericb at 5:00 PM on February 15, 2011 [1 favorite]


For a refresher on how the Curveball evidence was used, see Seymour Hersh's article on the Office of Special Plans. Wikipedia.
posted by russilwvong at 5:02 PM on February 15, 2011


*Wearily walks up to Mefi microphone*

*Taps it a couple of times*

"Test. Test. 1. 2."

*Adjusts microphone stand."

*Clears throat*

"Surely, this..."

*Gives up and walks away*
posted by Joey Michaels at 5:03 PM on February 15, 2011 [3 favorites]


My feeling is that it weakened the sovereignty of the leaders throughout the region and that this allowed the opposition to grow in numbers and strength.

My personal feeling is that it did the exact opposite and that Obama's relaxation of pressure on foreign governments is what gave opposition movements space to breathe.
posted by empath at 5:16 PM on February 15, 2011 [1 favorite]


And, in all fairness, Hussein really was a horrible, horrible dictator.

When apologists say this, I ask them, "Can you list all the other murderous dictators in power at that time?" If they say, "No," I poke them in both eyes like Moe frequently did to Curly.
posted by Mental Wimp at 6:08 PM on February 15, 2011 [1 favorite]


And it turns out that gambling parlor was just a sham! They were reading out the race results from a back room!
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 6:13 PM on February 15, 2011 [2 favorites]


It seems counter intuitive to me that if a guy murders some thousands of his own people we should then proceed to kill some hundreds of thousands of his people in response. Because he was a bad man. Who killed an order of magnitude fewer people than we did. But he was bad. Or whatever.
posted by Justinian at 6:59 PM on February 15, 2011


its almost as if that wasn't the reason we did it.
posted by empath at 7:38 PM on February 15, 2011


thanks for the memories
posted by hortense at 7:38 PM on February 15, 2011 [1 favorite]


When apologists say this, I ask them, "Can you list all the other murderous dictators in power at that time?" If they say, "No," I poke them in both eyes like Moe frequently did to Curly.

Why's that? Listing other people makes a difference somehow? Or, putting all other issues aside, are you really denying that decrementing the number of murderous dictators by one is a bad thing in itself? I happen to think it's a legitimate positive that came out of the war (assuming it holds). It ought to be possible to hold a nuanced view of a subject without being labelled "one of those people."

My personal feeling is that it did the exact opposite and that Obama's relaxation of pressure on foreign governments is what gave opposition movements space to breathe.

Did Clinton not give them "space to breathe"? Was that really all they needed? And would Iraq have fixed itself too? And Afghanistan? This all sounds tenuous to me. I don't think we can say yet which policy worked better, or whether either one even had any net moral effect at all. Would X years under Hussein have been better than the human cost of the war? How an we know that when we don't even know X? It's all just a big guessing game.

It seems just as likely to me that these new revolutions are all the result of harsh conditions created by the economic crisis. If that's true, then we have Clinton to thank, I suppose, for dismantling the regulatory framework that had held things somewhat in check for a while. If that's true, does the good of that ultimately outweigh the damage done by the crash? Who knows? I don't.
posted by Xezlec at 7:48 PM on February 15, 2011


Well, of course the USA expected to find Chemical Weapons in Iraq, seeing as how they were supplied to Iraq for the Iran-Iraq War... is this common knowledge?
posted by ovvl at 8:05 PM on February 15, 2011


I've been wrong on issues of character before. But as best as I can tell, the duping...well, it seems obvious to anyone looking at the data rationally.

Not to derail, but it's like Andrew Wakefield and the MMR/autism issue. He made credible sounding arguments to people who were ready to lap them up. Over time, as people inspected the data and attempted to verify his findings, what looked like overzealous lab work began to look like very poor lab work. Then fraud. Only then were the gatekeepers convinced, and Wakefield thoroughly and publicly discredited. But there are still believers out there.

People like al-Janabi were simply telling the U.S. leadership what they desperately wanted to hear. They desperately wanted to "restore America's honor" and be the good guys who saved the world. They desperately wanted a quick, clean and easy victory, perhaps sensing that one was not going to happen in Afghanistan. Or perhaps - and more likely - they calculated Afghanistan as already a success, a deal signed sealed and almost delivered. They desperately wanted to make the move while they had the power to realize their vision. Some of them desperately wanted the joy of bounty at the unlocked coffers of the U.S. Treasury, make no mistake about that.

To this day those former leaders will believe they were right. And, when pointed out they were wrong, terribly wrong, factually wrong, they will deny it. They embrace the shreds of fantasy that define their world, that are the wisps of the very air they breathe. They will never give that up. They are like addicts - deny, rationalize, equivocate, and always, always, remind everyone that they are under attack by those who do not love America, Democracy, and Freedom as much as they do.
posted by Xoebe at 10:03 PM on February 15, 2011 [1 favorite]


...are you really denying that decrementing the number of murderous dictators by one is a bad thing in itself?

Personally, I think that sort of talk sounds naive. We have a long history of working with dictators. From what can easily be gathered, working with dictators is the preferred method of handling a wide variety of foreign relation issues. Pol Pot? Pinochet? Mubarak? These guys were not exactly champions of human rights, and we worked with them just fine. I mean, Rumsfeld personally worked with Hussein.

Seems pretty clear: his being a dictator must have been pretty far down the list of reasons Rumsfeld and his fellow ass-clowns had for invading Iraq, if even on the list at all.

And the Iraq war was such a criminal disaster based on such egregious lies that defending it in any way just seems wrong. Just my opinion. Not trying to speak for Mental Wimp.
posted by fartknocker at 12:00 AM on February 16, 2011


Did Clinton not give them "space to breathe"? Was that really all they needed? And would Iraq have fixed itself too? «snip»

Would X years under Hussein have been better than the human cost of the war? How an we know that when we don't even know X? It's all just a big guessing game.

Except for the uncounted tens of thousands (probably hundreds of thousands) of people who died during the war. Not much need to guess there, Hussein was not killing people that quickly.

Guess what was, though - the UN sanctions against Iraq, and not at all unexpectedly. (Note that the date on the latter link is 1992, the year after the sanctions began.) How delinquent on Iraq's part to not "fix itself". Clearly it needed more "help".
posted by XMLicious at 2:24 AM on February 16, 2011


George H. W. Bush in a February 1991 speech during the Gulf War that was also broadcast over Voice of America:¹
...there is another way for the bloodshed to stop, and that is for the Iraqi military and the Iraqi people to take matters into their own hands, to force Saddam Hussein, the dictator, to step aside and to comply with the UN resolutions.
So that's what they tried to do, and the U.S. felt a little too uncomfortable about helping them despite it being our idea in the first place, so they got cut to ribbons.

Yeah, the first time we got hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed was probably the time to stop "helping".
posted by XMLicious at 2:54 AM on February 16, 2011


...are you really denying that decrementing the number of murderous dictators by one is a bad thing in itself?

What? You want to pretend there was a weighing of that in the decision, when we propped up people like Mubarak, Musharraf, etc., etc., etc. with the same machinery we used to take down Saddam? And that things are now better in Iraq because of it? Caucasian, please.
posted by Mental Wimp at 6:41 AM on February 16, 2011


Or, putting all other issues aside, are you really denying that decrementing the number of murderous dictators by one is a bad thing in itself?

Er, yes. In itself, it's a bad thing. I suppose it might be done properly. It might be done by democratic processes, as an example. But invading a foreign country and deposing its leader, in the meanwhile destroying he necessary infrastructure and killing tens or even hundreds of thousands of civilians, leaving others to starve or die for lack of access to medical treatment? Or encouraging a violent coup that leads to civil war? And creating a power vacuum that history has shown is likely to be filled by warlords or puppet dictators?

Yes, this is a bad thing. The toppling of governments is not something that should be done lightly, and we are not some extralegal force that gets to be judge, jury, and executioner for tyrants we don't like. And, even if we did, the US has an extraordinarily bad track record in these sorts of affairs -- the rise of oppressive fundamentalism in the Middle East is directly linked with, and a direct product of, the U.S. meddling in the region.

If you would like to revise your reductivist understanding of how world change occurs, you are welcome to. But, otherwise, I would ask that, instead of throwing out loaded questions that we're all supposed to just agree with, you actually do your homework. If you can make your case that, by and large, the US decrementing the number of murderous dictators has been a good thing has been a good thing, rather than a force of mass death and chaos, I would welcome that evidence. And you ended with "by one" -- please explain to me how the estimated 100,000 Iraqi dead that resulted from our "decrementing" was an improvement over Saddam.
posted by Astro Zombie at 7:17 AM on February 16, 2011 [1 favorite]


...are you really denying that decrementing the number of murderous dictators by one is a bad thing in itself?

It wasn't a thing in itself. I that me having a million dollars to give away to homeless people would be a good thing, but I'm not about to rob a bank to get the money.
posted by empath at 7:19 AM on February 16, 2011 [1 favorite]


(i think that)
posted by empath at 7:19 AM on February 16, 2011


But it also seems obvious that US Middle East policy over the past decade, including the Iraq war, has played a significant role in accelerating or causing the recent wave of uprisings all over the Middle East.

Can you elaborate on what you think the causal connection is?


Seconding the need for elaboration, since this strikes me as utterly nonsensical revisionist claptrap. How exactly does one explain away the fact that Mubarak's dictatorship, for instance, was given full and vigorous support by the United States for 30 years?
posted by The Emperor of Ice Cream at 9:02 AM on February 16, 2011


I notice a common thread in these responses. It is not the result that matters, but only the intention, and more importantly, the political identity of the person talking. Apparently, trying to have a nuanced conversation on Metafilter has once again proven impossible. Every word spoken is allowed serve no purpose other than advertising one's political ideology. (And I'm the one who's being reductive, for suggesting that there is complexity here and there might be an upside? You don't understand what that word means.)

Well fine, if all you want is for me to declare my ideological affiliation (yet again) and make some glib, one-dimensional comment about a complicated situation, then I'm out of this thread. I don't feel like doing that again. I did more than enough simplistic Bush-bashing for 8 long years and I'm embarrassed to have spent that long avoiding any serious discussion of the subject. I had thought, now that he's gone, it would be OK for us to delve into the details a little, but clearly it still isn't.

I hate this political atmosphere so, so, so much.
posted by Xezlec at 10:50 AM on February 16, 2011


It is not the result that matters, but only the intention, and more importantly, the political identity of the person talking.

Really? I think this is quite a mischaracterization. It seems terribly wrong to reduce the Iraq war to one single result (Hussein was beheaded) and ignore, evade, or deny all the other consequences of the war.

We do not live in some video game where success or failure depends on whether or not the Big Boss was killed in the end.
posted by muddgirl at 10:55 AM on February 16, 2011


It is not the result that matters, but only the intention, and more importantly, the political identity of the person talking.

The result is the deaths of 100s of thousands of people, not simply the removal of a dictator. If we had just assassinated the guy, I doubt nearly as many people would have objected.
posted by empath at 11:03 AM on February 16, 2011


I notice a common thread in these responses. It is not the result that matters, but only the intention, and more importantly, the political identity of the person talking. Apparently, trying to have a nuanced conversation on Metafilter has once again proven impossible. Every word spoken is allowed serve no purpose other than advertising one's political ideology.

I'm curious what specifically in this thread has triggered this blanket condemnation of MetaFilter's "political atmosphere" and its supposed "lack of nuance." If you agree with dougrayrankin that MeFites are axe-grinders hung up on simplistic Bush-bashing, then that's you view, but it would help me understand that view if you had specific comments to refer to in the thread (rather than just referring to tone). I genuinely don't know what you're referring to here.

There is a small bit of irony also, in that Bush himself often spoke against nuance, and tried to simplify ("evildoers," etc.) the very countries (Iraq and Afghanistan) he sought to invade.
posted by The Emperor of Ice Cream at 11:09 AM on February 16, 2011


I hate this political atmosphere so, so, so much.

This is not an honest response, and you're not engaging in honest argument here. My response to your comment was in earnest, but now I see that you just want to spit out opinions without researching them, and if anybody calls you on this, you claim the political climate here is oppressive and how dare we.

You made a claim. I offered a counter, based on facts, and asked you to provide some facts of your own. Now you're kicking, crying crocodile tears, and taking your conversational ball and going home. This is not how you discuss things.
posted by Astro Zombie at 11:26 AM on February 16, 2011


Colin Powell demands answers over Curveball's WMD lies
posted by homunculus at 4:41 PM on February 17, 2011


Curveball on 60 Minutes
posted by homunculus at 12:20 PM on March 14, 2011


« Older One Day in the life of Ivan Denisovich Part 1 of 1...  |  An Open Letter To Stephen Fry... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments