Chalabi is Iranian agent

[Chuck]

Achmed Chalabi, Bush administration favorite and high profile exile has had a run of bad luck for a couple of days. First, the Pentagon ends his $1100/day paychecks, then his home and offices are raided by US troops. Now:

The Defense Intelligence Agency has concluded that a U.S.-funded arm of Ahmed Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress has been used for years by Iranian intelligence to pass disinformation to the United States and to collect highly sensitive American secrets, according to intelligence sources.


http://www.nynewsday.com/news/nationworld/world/ny-uschal0522,0,4141685.story?coll=ny-worldnews-headlines

Bravo, my administration. Bravo. In addition to getting us into disastrous and intractable war, you paid an Iranian agent. Iran played you like a fiddle, Mr. President. Of course, I'm pretty sure you would have found someone else to "justify" the war if Mr. Chalabi had been unavailable.

By the way, just in case anyone has forgotten, let's go back in time...way back...4 months...

Special Guests of Mrs. Bush at the State of the Union
...
Dr. Ahmed Chalabi Iraqi Governing Council Member Dr. Chalabi is founder and head of the Iraqi National Congress (INC). He is also a mathematics professor and a businessman.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/01/20040120-5.html

[Shrubageddon]

So, what do you think the penalty for this is? Will he get the Rosenberg treatment? It is war, afterall.

[Mr. Superbad]

AHAHAHAHAHaaahahhaAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAaaaahahahahahahhha *gasp* *wheeze*

Hey, whose that behind the first lady?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/01/images/20040120-7_d012004-2-515h.jpg

Why, it's Chalabi!

I remember hearing warnings about what an untrustworthy sleazebag chalabi was, but of course, the Bush administration ignored them.

Good Job, Bush!

What do you think will be their response? "Chalabi who? Oh, he was a nobody."

[Dominus Paradoxum]

This is just too funny :D . I wonder when the major networks will report on this.

[reprise]

And US intelligence services didn't know this why? Hell, why the fuck wasn't Mossad aware of it? When Iraqi's themselves were polled a few months ago about whom they trusted most to lead them, Chalabi polled lower than Saddam.

Priceless.

[Shrubageddon]

This is just too funny :D . I wonder when the major networks will report on this.

As soon as Cheney gives them the go ahead.

[Mr. Superbad]

Prominent Neocon Richard Perle on Chalabi

One of the criticisms … is that so much time has been wasted in the run-up to the war over infighting between the State Department and the Defense Department particularly -- much of it over who to support. Chalabi or not Chalabi.

That's quite right. There's been a debilitating, and I think, wasteful and damaging quarrel over Ahmad Chalabi.

So why have you clung to Ahmad Chalabi? Why not just find somebody else that's acceptable to both sides?

No one else has been proposed who's acceptable to both sides. The arguments against Chalabi have been without substance. He is far and away the most effective individual that we could have hoped would emerge in Iraq. No one was proposing that he be anointed in some sense, but simply that his advice and counsel would be valuable to us, and if he emerged in a leadership position, that would be highly desirable, from the point of view of the future of Iraq. He's a very capable guy.

Describe him for me.

He's quite brilliant. He is a Ph.D. in mathematics, with a background at the University of Chicago and MIT. He's a Shi'a, committed to secular democracy. He led the Iraqi National Congress, continues to lead the Iraqi National Congress, which was an umbrella group of organizations opposed to Saddam Hussein. He worked tirelessly to achieve Saddam's removal, and is the kind of modern liberal leader that we would hope to see; not only in Iraq, but throughout the Arab world.
.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/truth/interviews/perle.html

Hahahahaaghahaha

[reprise]

Google Chalabli +Iran - it's already all over the mainstream press.

CBS television, quoting senior US officials, said Chalabi, a former Pentagon favourite, personally handed Iranian intelligence officers sensitive information that could "get Americans killed". (bolding mine)

US probe Chalabi, Iran link (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/05/22/1085176027335.html)

Shit, I think the Australian Wheat Board "kickback" scandal just died in the ass.

[beastmaster]

OMG, pure fucking genius. WTG, Iran, you hosed us.

He described it as "one of the most sophisticated and successful intelligence operations in history."Without a doubt.

[Shrubageddon]

And US intelligence services didn't know this why? Hell, why the fuck wasn't Mossad aware of it? When Iraqi's themselves were polled a few months ago about whom they trusted most to lead them, Chalabi polled lower than Saddam.

Priceless.

No kidding!! I wonder if his numerous family members, who hold various positions within the provisional government, are part of the spy network?

This whole mess is like a metastasizing cancer. It is spreading to every major organ and tissue.

[reprise]

And people wonder why "US intelligence" hasn't found Osama yet...

[Mr. Superbad]

Rumsfeld's own intelligence agency declared Chalabi credible in spite of the CIA saying he wasn't.

More damaging was the dependence on defectors. Different agencies all but competed with each over their intelligence without realising that much of it came from the same source, Ahmad Chalabi, the leader of the Iraqi National Congress, a former exile group that is now competing for power in Baghdad.

While the CIA was wary of Mr Chalabi, the Pentagon's Defence Intelligence Agency decided he was reliable.

"And because they came out with such a volume of [intelligence], just as bad currency drives out good currency, it became an acceptable source of information." Dr Kay says he had no evidence that hawks politicised the intelligence, as some Democrats contend. But without naming names he is scathing about Washington's apparent failure to appreciate that America's competing agencies and the West's agencies all effectively had a single - and he believes flawed - source. "There was no adult leadership at the top forcing a realistic assessment.

Oops!

[ex-idaho]

Refresh my memory someone, does Chalabi or the INC have any connection to the Clinton administration? The reason I ask is I don't want this to be blamed on the previous admin. I want this to be the torpedo that sends Bush to the bottom.

[beastmaster]

Very Karl Rove-like for this news to break on a late Friday afternoon.

[reprise]

The kicker - of course - is that it was Chalabi who supplied the US with much of its pre-war intelligence...

[Mr. Superbad]

This article (http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=5210888) has more info on Chalabi.
U.S. officials this week said the Pentagon stopped funding the INC -- it had been giving roughly $340,000 a month -- with the final payment in May. On Thursday, U.S. troops and Iraqi police raided Chalabi's home in Baghdad and the INC offices.

The GAO report chronicles the complex and difficult relationship from March 2000 to September 2003 between the INC and State, which like the CIA, has been deeply skeptical of Chalabi and his intentions.

Hehehehe... (http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?031124fa_fact1_d)

To this day, key policymakers maintain their faith in the Pentagon’s original plan. According to a senior Administration official, not long ago in Washington, Cheney approached Powell, stuck a finger in his chest, and said, “If you hadn’t opposed the I.N.C. and Chalabi, we wouldn’t be in this mess.�

Dick Cheney: Friend of Iranian spies!

[FoE]

So are you guys going to war with Iran now or what?

[Chuck]

So I just got Photoshop...

http://www.unc.edu/~cdietch/bushphoto2.jpg

[reprise]

Oddly enough, this story hasn't even broken on other US messageboards yet. Is it the middle of the night over there or something?

[Chuck]

Oddly enough, this story hasn't even broken on other US messageboards yet. Is it the middle of the night over there or something?

Nah, I think we have a higher proportion of media junkies like me here. *taps vein* I need my news.google.com fix now.

[Dominus Paradoxum]

Oddly enough, this story hasn't even broken on other US messageboards yet. Is it the middle of the night over there or something?


Here on the West Coast, it's 6:53.

[pistonhips]

Fuck...yanks sure must sleep well at night...

[rlogan]

Do note that this comes on the heels of Chalabi telling the U.S. to get out of Iraq. He's a terrorist by definition now since he opposes Bush.

Interesting that the administration seems to be framing this as if Iran were a combatant. As if he was passing the information on to Iraqi insurgents.


Regardless, it's just another example. Sending "freedom fighter" Osama Bin Laden and Co. hundreds of millions one day, and next day he's public enemy number one.

Saddam. Bin Laden. Noriega. Castro. Marcos. Bush (oops!)

And whoever we pick next too...

[unrealist42]

Project for the New American Century put Chalabi up. Their open letter to Clinton in 1998, along with serious pressure from republican leaders in congress got Chalabi $98million towards the overthrow of Iraq. It also got him out of an international arrest warrant issued by Jordan having to do with some $200million he embezzeled from a bank he was running there.

Once Bush was elected, PNAC members Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Perle took over. Despite objections from the CIA and State dept they pushed everything Chalabi told them as factual pretext for war. Bush bought it.

After the invasion they realized that Chalabi had sold them a bill of goods and turned on him. When Chalabi figured out his chance of being the next ruler of Iraq had slipped away he started denouncing the US policy.

Now they are blaming the Iranians???

Blaming Clinton would have more credibility but nobody is buying that anymore.

[ex-idaho]

'Rock Solid' Evidence Chalabi Spied for Iran (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120535,00.html)

It seems Fox News is first to run the headline but beyond the headline there isn't one bit of info regarding his possible spying for Iran. Furthermore we don't find out if he has been arrested or detained by US forces or if he will be in the future.

[ex-idaho]

Project for the New American Century put Chalabi up. Their open letter to Clinton in 1998, along with serious pressure from republican leaders in congress got Chalabi $98million towards the overthrow of Iraq.

Do you happen to know if these funds were allocated at the request of the Republican Congress under Clinton or if Clinton personally approved of this financial arrangement?

[Chuck]

'Rock Solid' Evidence Chalabi Spied for Iran (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120535,00.html)

It seems Fox News is first to run the headline but beyond the headline there isn't one bit of info regarding his possible spying for Iran. Furthermore we don't find out if he has been arrested or detained by US forces or if he will be in the future.

:eek:

"There is no need for an investigation because we're quite certain he did it," one senior Bush administration official said.

How about an investigation into why we didn't see this coming?

[reprise]

Oddly, al-Jazeera hasn't picked up the story yet.

[ex-idaho]

The reports said the US administration has started a high-level inquiry to determine who could have given the information to Chalabi.

Chalabi handed US secrets over to Iran: report (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20040521/wl_afp/us_iraq_chalabi_040521191814)

Anyone want to speculate on what the documents were and who may have handed them to Chalabi?

If this is a US attempt to discredit Chalabi as he is asserting it certainly dosen't paint a pretty picture of the current administration.

[unrealist42]

Do you happen to know if these funds were allocated at the request of the Republican Congress under Clinton or if Clinton personally approved of this financial arrangement?

I don't know for sure but I would guess that Congress attached it to some appropriations bill that Clinton signed. I can't imagine Clinton asking for it.

[beastmaster]

Oddly, al-Jazeera hasn't picked up the story yet.Here's the al-Jazeera story (http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/conspiracy_theory/fullstory.asp?id=110). (The headline doesn't mention the Iran connection but the body text does).

[reprise]

Chalabi handed US secrets over to Iran: report (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20040521/wl_afp/us_iraq_chalabi_040521191814)

Anyone want to speculate on what the documents were and who may have handed them to Chalabi?

If this is a US attempt to discredit Chalabi as he is asserting it certainly dosen't paint a pretty picture of the current administration.

All the reports I've seen to date talk about secrets known only to "a few senior officials" and which will only be discussed in closed hearings...

[Chuck]

I don't know for sure but I would guess that Congress attached it to some appropriations bill that Clinton signed. I can't imagine Clinton asking for it.

It was a stand alone act (you can read the bill in PDF format here) (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=105_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ338.105.pdf), introduced by a Republican. It passed both Senate and House with lots of bipartisan support, and Clinton signed it. It would have been stupid to veto, since they had more than 2/3.

[Artemus]

Once Bush was elected, PNAC members Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Perle took over. Despite objections from the CIA and State dept they pushed everything Chalabi told them as factual pretext for war. Bush bought it.

So how many of those listed does everyone thing actually believed the lines Chalabi fed them despite the warning of the CIA, and how many do you think were just using it as an excuse to start a war? I'm sure Bush believed it, if only because he is not the brighest bulb out there. Could the others have been equally intellectually challenged?

[unrealist42]

Chalabi was the straw man for the PNAC. They owned him and he gave them what they wanted. These people were pissed off that Bush sr did not occupy Iraq. But then again, dad knew what a mess that would be.

These are typical arrogant political intellectuals who believe they are the smartest people on the planet and know what to do. They ran a hugely successful propoganda campaign after 9/11 gave them the opening they needed. Unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately, reality is somehow divergent from their perspective.

You should check out their web site www.newamericancentury.org

[Mr. Superbad]

Bush took out Iran's enemy, used our money and blood to do it, and used the shitty intelligence provided by an Iranian spy to plan inadequately for war, got us stuck in a quagmire guerrilla war with no end in site, while Iran gets to sit on the sidelines and use it's influence with the Shi'ia to help take power in Iraq, and they don't even have to fire a shot.

I think Iran just made us their bitches.

[ex-idaho]

Bush took out Iran's enemy, used our money and blood to do it, and used the shitty intelligence provided by an Iranian spy to plan inadequately for war, got us stuck in a quagmire guerrilla war with no end in site, while Iran gets to sit on the sidelines and use it's influence with the Shi'ia to help take power in Iraq, and they don't even have to fire a shot.

I think Iran just made us their bitches.

I think you nailed it. If this turn of events dosen't get a few neo-Cons strung up then our country is more seriously screwed than I could have ever imagined.

[unrealist42]

I think Iran just made us their bitches.

Yeah well, who's fault is that?
Who didn't listen to the CIA?
Who sidelined the State Dept?

I don't think it was Clinton.

[Mr. Superbad]

There ain't no one to blame but Bush. The crazy idiot helped Iran and screwed America.

[SLD]

All I can say is Nancy Pelosi is too polite in her assessment of Bush. Incompetent. Shit. Fucking moron is more like it.

SLD

[ex-idaho]

I was just watching Fox News and a they were commenting on this development. Fred Barnes, the right wing hack actually said that he couldn't understand why we were wasting out time raiding Chalabi's home and "spreading these stories". I guess in some circles the delusion will die a painful death.

[halcyon_daze]

This situation has gotten completely ridiculous. The Bush administration has proven itself so totally fucking stupid that it's almost incomprehensible.

[Artemus]

If this is a US attempt to discredit Chalabi as he is asserting it certainly dosen't paint a pretty picture of the current administration.

I highly doubt that it is, seeing how politically damaging it is to have your intelligence source upon which you based a case for war (and whom you named to the ruling council and wanted as post-war leader) labeled as a spy.

[Chuck]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46417-2004May21_3.html

Brooke said Habib, the INC's longtime intelligence chief, was the primary target of the investigation. A U.S. official in Washington said Habib was being investigated on suspicion of being a paid agent of the Iranian intelligence service and that the allegations stemmed from current activity with foreign governments.

Wait for the kicker:


In October 2002, the Defense Intelligence Agency took over a State Department program that paid the INC $335,000 a month to gather intelligence. To qualify, Habib and other INC figures were required to take polygraph tests that focused almost entirely on his connections with foreign intelligence agencies.

"He passed," said Brooke. He said Habib acknowledged during the screening he had connections with intelligence services in Syria, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Iran.

(My emphasis added)

[S2Focus]

OMG, pure fucking genius. WTG, Iran, you hosed us.

Without a doubt.

And the Israelis too! Those clever Iranians just scored a twofer!

So what does that make Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Co? Neo-suckers???

It would be funny if it weren't for all the lives lost.

[Vorkosigan]

I highly doubt that it is, seeing how politically damaging it is to have your intelligence source upon which you based a case for war (and whom you named to the ruling council and wanted as post-war leader) labeled as a spy.

It won't have any effect. For the anti-Bush crowd, he's always been a complete idiot. For the pro-Bush crowd Bush is like Creationism. No amount of evidence can prevent them from thinking that Bush=God. Besides, most Americans are so out of it they have no idea who Chalabi is.

Vorkosigan

[Krieger]

My response to no one in particular...

1. This story first appeared on CBS Friday morning. Here is the news article. (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/20/iraq/main618637.shtml)

2. Don't be naive enough to believe that Chalabi was the reason that the United States invaded Iraq. Washington simply used "information" that his group provided to justify the invasion of Iraq. His "information" was obviously lies anyway, wake up... There are still 120 billion barrels full of reasons why Washington invaded and now occupies the country.

3. Iran does NOT benefit from Washington occupying Iraq. Get out a map. Washington currently occupies countries on TWO sides of Iran. It does not matter that both Iraq and Afghanistan had been enemies of Iran in the past. The United States has always been committed to destroying the Islamic Republic of Iran (because of its largely nationalized economy), and Washington is a much greater threat than (previously) economically sanctioned Iraq or stone-age-Taliban Afghanistan was. Now, Washington might very well try to use this as an excuse to invade Iran in the near future (although, at the moment they do not have enough soldiers to invade another country).

4. Recall that the occupation of Iraq is failing, with massive armed uprisings occurring all around the country in April. Recall the recent poll where 88% of Iraqis say they view US soldiers as occupiers, and 32% of Iraqis strongly support Moqtada al-Sadr, while another 36% support him somewhat. (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/3E8363A1-EC9E-4D48-A94B-EF95E2CFB0F9.htm) Clearly, the attempt at occupying the country is in deep shit.

5. Thus, it is not a coincidence that the prison abuse story and now Chalabi being a spy surfaced during this period of failure for the White House's plan at occupying Iraq. However, there is still a possibility that the occupation could be salvaged, before it turns into another Vietnam, and that is reason why all these damaging stories (to the White House) are surfacing currently.

6. So - the conclusion is obvious - there is a growing section of the American ruling class that wants Bush and the "neo-cons" out in November. They want John Kerry in, because he will do whatever is necessary to bring in 40,000 (or more) US troops (and possibly try to get the French and Germans to send troops as well). While the "neo-con" plan had always been occupy Iraq with as few US troops as possible, which is clearly failing.

[Heurismus]

More Bushite bullshit. That fucker's political party is ducking and diving anyway it can to get its neck out of the noose. I say hang the damned lot of them, or at least kick them out of office until they understand what caring conservatism actually is. Just another effing lie. Next they'll be saying Queen Elizabeth the Second is really the reincarnation Karl Marx and should be beheaded so that President Tony Blair can sit on the throne instead! With a friend like America, who needs enemies!!?

(Third anti Republican rant of the morning- I suppose I'll have to shut up now, before the CIA start knocking on this incredibly moderate person's door.)

Chelabi an Iranian spy? Yeah, Elvis is alive and well too! :rolleyes:

[Chuck]

My response to no one in particular...

2. Don't be naive enough to believe that Chalabi was the reason that the United States invaded Iraq. Washington simply used "information" that his group provided to justify the invasion of Iraq. His "information" was obviously lies anyway, wake up... There are still 120 billion barrels full of reasons why Washington invaded and now occupies the country.

I completely agree. However, Chalabi's "information," while it was clearly lies, was used as the public justification for going to war. And he did attend the State of the Union as a special guest of Mrs. Bush. This is highly embarassing for the administration.

3. Iran does NOT benefit from Washington occupying Iraq. Get out a map. Washington currently occupies countries on TWO sides of Iran. It does not matter that both Iraq and Afghanistan had been enemies of Iran in the past. The United States has always been committed to destroying the Islamic Republic of Iran (because of its largely nationalized economy), and Washington is a much greater threat than (previously) economically sanctioned Iraq or stone-age-Taliban Afghanistan was. Now, Washington might very well try to use this as an excuse to invade Iran in the near future (although, at the moment they do not have enough soldiers to invade another country).

I'm not so sure about this one. Your last point is the most important, as the US cannot effectively launch any military operation against Iran, or indeed any other country. Iran, working through Chalabi, has destabilized Iraq, gotten the US into a quagmire from which we won't escape for a very long time, and gathered intelligence all the while. Afghanistan, in the meantime, is back to the status quo ante with a handful of American troops in Kabul. The US does not threaten Iran from the east or the west.

A politically unstable Iraq is an advantage for Iran, however. The power vacuum is now open to Iran-friendly governments, and Iraq can become an extension of Tehran's policy. If Iran can install an Islamic fundamentalist régime next door, and pull the strings, this is a HUGE intelligence and foreign policy coup. Iraq is now the hot potato; the US will have to leave sooner or later, and whatever government they install will be weak and unpopular. And easy to replace.

4. Recall that the occupation of Iraq is failing, with massive armed uprisings occurring all around the country in April. Recall the recent poll where 88% of Iraqis say they view US soldiers as occupiers, and 32% of Iraqis strongly support Moqtada al-Sadr, while another 36% support him somewhat. (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/3E8363A1-EC9E-4D48-A94B-EF95E2CFB0F9.htm) Clearly, the attempt at occupying the country is in deep shit.

As a member of the choir, I say "Preach on, brother."

5. Thus, it is not a coincidence that the prison abuse story and now Chalabi being a spy surfaced during this period of failure for the White House's plan at occupying Iraq. However, there is still a possibility that the occupation could be salvaged, before it turns into another Vietnam, and that is reason why all these damaging stories (to the White House) are surfacing currently.

Please elaborate on this point - I don't see how the current spate of negative press for the White House is an attempt to salvage the occupation, which is, I think, doomed. I'm not saying that you're wrong, I just don't understand this point.

6. So - the conclusion is obvious - there is a growing section of the American ruling class that wants Bush and the "neo-cons" out in November. They want John Kerry in, because he will do whatever is necessary to bring in 40,000 (or more) US troops (and possibly try to get the French and Germans to send troops as well). While the "neo-con" plan had always been occupy Iraq with as few US troops as possible, which is clearly failing.

I agree.

[Chuck]

More Bushite bullshit. That fucker's political party is ducking and diving anyway it can to get its neck out of the noose.
...
Chelabi an Iranian spy? Yeah, Elvis is alive and well too! :rolleyes:

The relevation that Ahmed Chalabi is an Iranian spy will not get their head out of the noose.

[Kalkin]

Refresh my memory someone, does Chalabi or the INC have any connection to the Clinton administration? The reason I ask is I don't want this to be blamed on the previous admin. I want this to be the torpedo that sends Bush to the bottom.

He did for a while in the early nineties, but Clinton dumped him for other Iraqi expatriates. Bush brought him back into influence in US foreign policy.

edit: more complicated than this, he gained and lost power, but he basically never was too popular with most of the Clinton administration after getting involved in a bank fraud scandal in, IIRC, 1996.

[Kalkin]

My response to no one in particular...

3. Iran does NOT benefit from Washington occupying Iraq. Get out a map. Washington currently occupies countries on TWO sides of Iran. It does not matter that both Iraq and Afghanistan had been enemies of Iran in the past. The United States has always been committed to destroying the Islamic Republic of Iran (because of its largely nationalized economy), and Washington is a much greater threat than (previously) economically sanctioned Iraq or stone-age-Taliban Afghanistan was. Now, Washington might very well try to use this as an excuse to invade Iran in the near future (although, at the moment they do not have enough soldiers to invade another country).

4. Recall that the occupation of Iraq is failing, with massive armed uprisings occurring all around the country in April. Recall the recent poll where 88% of Iraqis say they view US soldiers as occupiers, and 32% of Iraqis strongly support Moqtada al-Sadr, while another 36% support him somewhat. (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/3E8363A1-EC9E-4D48-A94B-EF95E2CFB0F9.htm) Clearly, the attempt at occupying the country is in deep shit.


I think Iran does benefit from the US invasion. They get rid of Saddam, who was something of a threat even with sanctions, they humiliate the US, and in Saddam's place they get, probably, some kind of Shiite-dominated government.

As you say, the US occupation is failing. The US simply can't invade Iran, it doesn't have the troops and Congress wouldn't allow it. So the end result of this invasion will be a government comprised largely of people who don't like the US much. Whether they end up being more like Sistani or Sadr, Iran benefits.

Though of course I agree with you that Iranian intelligence operations are at most a very small part of why we went to war.

[Johann_Kaspar]

I think Iran does benefit from the US invasion. They get rid of Saddam, who was something of a threat even with sanctions, they humiliate the US, and in Saddam's place they get, probably, some kind of Shiite-dominated government.

As you say, the US occupation is failing. The US simply can't invade Iran, it doesn't have the troops and Congress wouldn't allow it. So the end result of this invasion will be a government comprised largely of people who don't like the US much. Whether they end up being more like Sistani or Sadr, Iran benefits.

Though of course I agree with you that Iranian intelligence operations are at most a very small part of why we went to war.Yep. Iran can make a profit if the Shiites will come to power. Now USA are completely discredited as well as their ideology. They are losing much more than just a war.

The idea of invading another country is ludicrous.

[reprise]

Yep. Iran can make a profit if the Shiites will come to power. Now USA are completely discredited as well as their ideology. They are losing much more than just a war.

The idea of invading another country is ludicrous.


Juan Cole (http://www.juancole.com/) has some interesting comments on the extent to which US action have angered the Shiite world - even in those nations which are nominal allies.

[reprise]

The plot thickens.

An explosive dossier that the Jordanian monarch recently brought with him to White House sessions with President Bush detailed Mafia-style extortion rackets and secret information on U.S. military operations being passed to Iran, diplomats said.

Jordan tip exposed Chalabi as Iran spy (http://www.nypost.com/news/worldnews/21412.htm)

So given the fact that Chalabi's fraud in Jordan was known to the whole world years ago, why did the US decide to start taking notice of Jordan now?

I'm coming across a lot of media reports indicating that it was Bush personally who ordered the raid on Chalabi - I wonder if that's a sign that the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld lovefest is over.

[reprise]

Interesting Salon.com article on Chalabi.

How Ahmed Chalabi conned the neocons (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/05/04/chalabi/index_np.html)

[Chuck]

Scott Simon interviewed Chalabi on NPR today. He said he would be willing to come before Congress in open session and answer whatever questions they have. If this is all a lie executed by the administration to find a way out, then Chalabi just called his bluff. Another congressional hearing on Iraq would be very bad news for Bush.

He's also saying that WMD are still in Iraq :rolleyes:

http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=1906553

Other than that, he denies pretty much everything.

[halcyon_daze]

This is fucking insane.

[reprise]

It will be very interesting to hear what Habib has to say when he's picked up...

[sakrilege]

Chalabi fallout continues (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/05/23/wirq223.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/05/23/ixnewstop.html) ... They relied on Chalabi for predictions on post-war Iraq. They backed the funding of him. Now he's been discarded and discredited. Senior people in the Department of Defence took all sorts of risks and they haven't paid off."

The judgements are harsh, but these are febrile days in the capital. Infighting over Iraq within the Bush administration and on Capitol Hill has reached such a pitch and ferocity that, according to one official within the Coalition Provisional Authority, Washington DC is now referred to as "Sunni Triangle, West".

[JLK]

Interesting Salon.com article on Chalabi.

How Ahmed Chalabi conned the neocons (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/05/04/chalabi/index_np.html)

From the long article, the bottom line:
"The Iranians have proven to be absolutely brilliant in all of this," says a well-connected Jordanian. "They're showing that they're going to be the ones to win this one, and they'll do it with American money and lives."

This Chalabi/Iranian affair reminds me of lines from someone experienced in colonial adventures in south asia, Rudyard Kipling, who wrote this bit in The Naulahka
Now it is not good for the Christian's health to hustle the Asian brown,
For the Christian riles, and the Asian smiles and he weareth the Christian down;
And the end of the fight is a tombstone white with the name of the late deceased,
And the epitaph drear: "A Fool lies here who tried to hustle the East."

[halcyon_daze]

That would be very interesting I think, but he better be under oath.

Ahmad Chalabi, a longtime Iraqi ally of the U.S., said the Central Intelligence Agency drummed up accusations that he passed secrets to Iran, and he asked the U.S. Congress to let him present his side of the story.

"I am ready to come to Congress, lay all my files, lay all the facts,'' Chalabi said from Baghdad in an interview on the "Fox News Sunday'' program. "We have no secrets from the United States Congress.''

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=a3PJDAzcD16M&refer=home

[reprise]

That would be very interesting I think, but he better be under oath.

Of course the two stories aren't mutually exclusive. It's perfectly possible that Chalabi was passing intelligence to the Iranians and that he was about to go public with proof on the food-for-oil corruption. The strangest thing about this is that both US and UK intelligence services were open about their distrust of Chalabi well before the US invaded Iraq and that the Bush administration ignored those warnings. Hell, the cloud over Chalabi's financial dealings of a decade ago should have been reason enough to exclude him from any high level position or access to any classified or sensitive information.

[sakrilege]

... the Bush administration ignored those warnings. This is because Chalabi was telling them what they wanted to hear, therefore he must have been a good guy. :banghead:

[reprise]

This is because Chalabi was telling them what they wanted to hear, therefore he must have been a good guy. :banghead:

I suspect that they never really believed Chalabi, but that it was convenient to pretend that they did because his fictions gave them a "justification" for the actions which they were already planning.