Talk:Curveball (informant)/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] One source

To hell with how reliable he is, shoudn't there be a mention of (if it is true) how ridiculous it is to have one (unsubstantiated) source influence so much intelligence? Does anyone have a citation as to the 100 papers part?

According to the Presidential Commission, it is true. No one in the government - not the President, not the CIA - has come out to say it is untrue.
In regards to your question about "the 100 papers part," I am unsure what you mean. Could you restate the question differently? Kingturtle 07:39, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I wasn't denying that it was true, I just thought there should be some ephasis on how ridiculous it is, I don't know; perhaps not NPOV. As far as the 100 goverement papers, I was just looking for a source, perhaps have any of the papers themselves been declassified? --Freshraisin 10:52, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Was Curveball the intended scapegoat from the beginning?

Actually looking at the article now, its a lot better. What sticks out to me most though, is that the argument now seems to be that they were "not aware of doubts about curveball's veracity," but this skirts completely the ridiculousness of the whole situation; assuming this information is correct, the administration based the Iraq war on a source of information with whom they had no direct contact and no one questioned this? No one looked into doubts about this source's veracity? Thats just utter absurdity, if it were true it would be beyond incompetence. The only rational conclusion I see here is that this person was the intended scapegoat from the beginning.. curveball indeed. It seems the last quote hints at this, but I don't know.

Of course I don't know wether or how this should go into the article. But those were my own thoughts when I first read about it. I'll try to read up a little more, see if I can find some sources. --Freshraisin 11:05, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)


Actually looking at the article now, its a lot better. What sticks out to me most though, is that the administration argument now seems to be that they were not aware of doubts about curveball's veracity, but this skirts completely the ridiculousness of the whole situation; if we assume that this was the pivotal guy, the administration based the Iraq war on a source of information with whom they had no direct contact and no one questioned this? No one looked into doubts about this source's veracity? WHAT?? Thats just utter absurdity, if it were true it would be beyond incompetence, the intelligence community would just be crazy. The only rational conclusion I see here is that this person was the intended scapegoat from the beginning.. curveball indeed. It seems the last quote hints at this, but I don't know.

Of course I don't know wether or how this should go into the article. But those were my own thoughts when I first read about it. I'll try to read up a little more, see if I can find some sources. --Freshraisin 11:08, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Link doesn't work

Broken link

[edit] CIA had evidence that Curveball was a shameless fabricator

Ok, found this:

“ The CIA had evidence that Curveball was a shameless fabricator months before Secretary of State Colin Powell cited the Iraqi's reports before the United Nations. But in the Feb. 4, 2003, e-mail—written a day before Powell's U.N. appearance—the senior CIA official sharply rebuked one of those skeptical analysts. "Keep in mind the fact that this war's going to happen regardless of what Curve Ball said or didn't say and that the Powers That Be probably aren't terribly interested in whether Curve Ball knows what he's talking about," the CIA official wrote.MSNBC newsweek ”

--Freshraisin 11:37, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)