What are everyone's motives in L'AFFAIRE CHALABI?

[troublemaker]

There seem to be two main first-blush impressions of recent revelations and insinuations about Chalabi; that the stories are what they say they are or that the stories are disinformation in support of a well organized but hidden government agenda. (Some even reflexively roll out another yard of tinfoil and see this story as a pretext for war with Iran, demonstrating an almost metaphysical misunderstanding of both American politics and international affairs.)

The disinformation and/or spin-control theories merit examination, but fail on their merits, IMO. I am in the "credulous dupe" camp--that these stories mean what they say they mean-- because I believe our executive branch has largely ceased to function. The knives are out and everyone is leaking everything in self defense or to settle scores. Each leaker has an agenda but since everybody's leaking the net result is approaching something like accidental open government. Between everything Powell wants leaked and the CIA wants leaked and Rumsfeld and Rove and Bremer and the uniformed military... eventually all those self-interested but contrary leaks reach a critical mass of stuff we're not supposed to know being thrust into the public domain.

I recognize a "too good to be true" quality to the recent Newsday revelations but the general story that Chalabi is an Iranian spy is hardly limited to Newsday.

NEWSDAY Story: http://www.nynewsday.com/news/nationworld/world/ny-uschal0522,0,4141685.story?coll=ny-worldnews-headlines
Washington Post story: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A46417-2004May21?language=printer

The notion that Iran manipulated US intelligence to provoke a US invasion of Iraq is a story so cosmically damaging that it could get Bush's support down to 20%. It's almost a caricature of everyone's worst fears about Bush. But I was in Washington reading the Washington Post every day when the Watergate burglary happened, and I've seen how every now and then stories 'too good to be true' pan out.

I'm pretty paranoid, but I have limits. Why would such damaging revelations be the centerpiece of a sanctioned administration disinformation campaign? We are talking about a cover story that's more destructive than whatever lies or corruption it could be covering. Americans accept being lied to and tolerate a certain level of corruption but will not tolerate rank incompetence in matters of war and peace.

I think I've observed a smoking gun in support of my view that these Chalabi revelations are NOT an orchestrated administration effort, but rather the genuinely damaging, even fatal, blows to the Bush administration. There is no mention of these stories on the DRUDGE REPORT. l'Affaire Chalabi is following the same Drudge path as Abu Ghraib... eerie silence for as long as possible.

[SoDesuKa]

1. Talking Trash Against Chalabi

I've had the feeling that lowering Chalabi's image in the U.S. press elevates his image among Iraqis, thereby making it possible to install him as our puppet. Chalabi has been Bush's boy for a long time, but as we approach the June 30th deadline, Chalabi gets knocked around a bit. It sounds a bit convenient to me.

[Sinistrous]

4. BINGO!

Given that 80% to 90% of Iraqis hate our guts, who better to install as the putative leader than somone who has the reputation of being seriously on the outs with the US, but who is, in reality, "Our boy".

[troublemaker]

8. Makes no sense

Sorry, but outing someone as an Iranian intelligence asset does not enhance his street credibility in Iraq. The theories that we are building him up rely on a view of Arabs as all being interchangeable.

[Darranar]

10. Why would the Iraqis believe the Administration?

The hope, I think, is that the Iraqis will believe that the US is trying to smear Chalabi in every way possible, therefore building his credibility by his opposition to the US.

This plan is not going to work; most Iraqis don't trust Chalabi and probably never will. That changes nothing; this Administration is not known for its competence.

[troublemaker]

13. This reminds me of subliminal advertising studies

(or 'subliminable' for the lurkers) They found that subliminal messages encouraging people to buy a Coke had some effect, but not nearly as much effect as just saying, "hey, you! Go buy a Coke."

Iraqis aren't all stupid. They (mostly) regard Chalabi as comical and corrupt. When they see us going after Chalabi they won't say, "gee, he must have been a good guy after all." They will say, "I guess that crooked little bastard stole something from the Americans. What a dope."

When you pick up the paper and see that Jimmy the Weasel was whacked by the mob your reaction isn't, "Gee, the mob is evil, so if the mob whacked him then Jimmy the Weasel must have been a good guy after all."

[Darranar]

16. When did I say that the plan would work?

As I mentioned above, this administration isn't known for its competence.

The thing is, the US has never cared about corruption, or any such things. Chalabi is well-known to be a thug; I'm not going to assume that the government is quite stupid enough to have missed this. They didn't care until now; why did they start?

[troublemaker]

21. Fair enough

But the plan is damaging to Bush on its face, not just in its incompetent execution. I don't see even these clods thinking it would be helpful to Bush to out Chalabi as an Iranian spy

[Darranar]

23. There are still questions that need to be answered, certainly...

there isn't enough information to really be sure about anything, IMO.

There may have been a real breakup - I just don't think it was over what the official story says it was.

[killbotfactory]

25. Rummy said he didn't know about the Chalabi raid...

So the people behind the scenes might be trying to screw the Bush administration.

[troublemaker]

26. Bremer's not a Chalabi fan, as far as I know

Leaving aside whether Rummy is lying (even if just for practice)...

The Iraqi Governing Council does nothing without the CPA's okay, but with Rummy weakened and Bremer out the the country in a month either way we may see Bremer giving less and less of a fuck about what his bosses want.

[earthside]

12. Touche

Exactly.

[Sinistrous]

15. It does when you consider that religion is the dynamic in the region.

And the Sunni's are in the majority.

[troublemaker]

22. Not in Iran or Iraq they aint!

Perhaps you meant Shia.

[Sinistrous]

27. Yes. A senior moment, etc.

The dynamic holds.

[Darranar]

6. I think so too...

though the administration is foolish to think that Chalabi will ever be admired in Iraq, at least any time soon, "break-up" or not.

[AntiCoup2K4]

2. Well, to sum it up in one sentence...

Apparently the Likud double agents in the Bush Administration took all their justifications from a war they were determined to start anyway, from an Iranian agent.

Or in other words, treason all around. What the fuck has happenned to this country? :puke:

[cease_fire]

3. Dear Senator - Please copy and send to your own...

This is a letter that I sent to my Senator. If it works for you, please feel free to copy it and send it to your own. You might need to make some changes...


Dear Senator Lautenberg,

First, please accept my thanks for carrying our concerns about this current administrations blatant disregard for honesty and integrity directly to the lawmakers during your now famous “Chicken Hawk” speech.

Unfortunately, I believe it’s time once again for you to carry the torch on behalf of your constituency.

Recent reports coming from The Defense Intelligence Agency have 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.

Do you mean to tell me that our DOD, a department that gets nearly half of every tax dollar generated by our citizens, would not have carefully vetted Ahmed Chalabi’s political associations? Is this government now asking me to believe that after spending years closely associating with their Heir-Apparent to Iraq that he has been a “Double Agent?” all along?

Are we to believe that our intelligence failed so badly that we allowed an Iranian spy to direct our policy decisions in Iraq?

Can it be possible that we empowered this man with tens of millions of dollars and only NOW, after he has spoken out against the Coalitional Provisional Authority, we are able to glean his collusion with Iran?

Can it be possible that the Iranians wanted a US occupied and controlled state directly adjacent to their country?

Senator, this stinks of character assassination; the Bush Administrations CYA technique that is employed when they are faced with (now as a matter of routine), their own policy failure and poor judgment.

Senator, I believe that there are 2 possibilities here – one worse than the other.

The first – The US military and intelligence apparatus has become so inept that it can no longer be trusted to provide any actionable intelligence to this country’s leaders.

This is a distinct possibility. We were not greeted with flowers and thanks, and have resorted to bombing wedding parties in order to provide border security.

The second, however, has a precedent. Again, witness the Standard Operating Procedure of the Bush Administration for dealing with Whistleblowers.

How many great men and women of our government have quickly found themselves marked for character assassination once they fail to “Stay on Message”? What have we seen, CONSISTENLY, every time a former, or even current official, elected or otherwise, takes a stand in opposition to Bush’s policies?

Paul O’Neil, Joe Wilson, Richard Clark, John McCain, Nancy Pelosi, Tommy Franks, CIA translators, etc. have all been on the receiving end of “You’re either with us, or against us” – we’ve watched it happen.

Chalabi didn’t have a chance. As an Iraqi, wanted by Jordan, flip-flopping on the US, and now the star suspect that mis-lead us to war over WMD’s – Ahmed Chalabi will be destroyed on prime time television to save our administration from yet another mistake in a long list of Pleosian incompetence.

The White House has become master of the White Wash. But their White Wash is finally becoming transparent, and weathered with age and overuse.

If our intelligence is so bad as to let an Iranian Spy dictate policies… If the judgment of our Executive Branch is so bad as to associate with an Iranian Spy…

What then Senator, is the definition of National Security? Where, exactly, are my significant tax dollars going, if not to our DOD? One after another – how can these failure happen?

Frankly, I’m tired of being of being condescended to. I’m tired of the “Deny-Deny, make counter accusations” tactic in order to gain absolution and justification.

I live near McGuire Air force base – friends are dead and gone. Family members are overseas, bereft of their husbands, wives, and children.

The buck must stop – in the US Government. If one man, one international criminal and now “confirmed spy”, can send 800 soldiers and ten thousand civilians to their deaths - what could be next? What will happen when a second 25 year old artillery shell with inert US manufactured Sarin gas is found? What will happen when Israel attacks an Iranian nuclear facility in the name of self-defense?

Please Senator, please. Hold every nefarious accusation, judgment, and petulant act up to scrutiny. Make them MAKE THEIR CASE.

Our country has been reduced to a culture of “Exposing the Truth”. That’s backwards. We shouldn’t have to expose truth.

It should be policy.

[troublemaker]

5. Praise for letter writing

I appreciate anyone who takes the initiative shown here, but I am disturbed by one element of your letter. I hope we (Democrats, progressives, whatever) are not going to hang ourselves by assuming Chalabi's a good guy now because the administration has turned on him.

He was a bad guy when everyone here at DU said so, long before the Iraq war even started. We were right. The administration was wrong. Just because the administration can no longer deny what we always knew is no reason for us to now embrace Chalabi. The enemy of our enemy is NOT always our friend.

[cease_fire]

14. I agree troublemaker...

I hope that I didn't come across as a Chalabi praiser. In fact, as you said, it's been clear from the beginning that our realtionship with his group was one of conveinence.

Having said that, my intention was to point out the duplicity of this administration...

One day, he's the answer, the next - he's spy for the Iranians.

He'll never be the good guy, and he never was, IMHO. I'm just awed by the consistent "He's great! - No, he's bad - Wait, he's so bad that we need to go to war with someone else" mindset.

Thanks for the nice words about the letter. I hope it finds it's way to someone at Senator Lautenberg's office.

[janx]

7. Chalabi told Rummy's Office of Special Plans what they

wanted to hear as they cherry-picked intelligence to support the invasion of Iraq. Chalabi had been a side-kick of the neocons for a long time, but little did they know that as they were promising him riches and a prominent place in the new Iraqi government, he was also reaping benefits from Iran. So as they were duping the people, Chalabi was duping them--although I don't know that they cared; they were after convenient intelligence, anything that would justify invading Iraq.

The CIA and the State Dept. were skeptical of him from the start, but they were left out of the loop as much as possible. This is what happens when certain branches and specific divisions of our government gain too much power.

[killbotfactory]

9. If Chalabi is/was a spy, he should be arrested

Not making talk show rounds.

Something's not right.

But having a prominent figure of the pro-war neocon crowd, and the BushCheneyRummy ignoring CIA and State department advice by using intelligence from and giving $300,000 a month to a group that's a front for Iran sounds way to damaging to the Bush Admin than it would be worth, so I doubt they would make up this story to make Chalabi gain credibility to the Iraqi's.

[earthside]

11. I'm With You

Indeed, don't over analyize.

This story is what it is. There is nothing to be gained for the Bush regime by somehow putting the screws to Chalabi. The photograph of Ahmed standing behind Laura at the State of the Union ties the two together forever.

It makes more sense to believe that if Bush could protect Chalabi, he would. The occupation authority could have forbid a raid on Chalabi's house ... Bremer has that power. Likewise, the administration could have insisted on keeping the money flowing to the Iraqi National Congress as a show of "resolve".

So, clearly there are larger forces in play here. I think that the Defense Intelligence Agency is getting pay back for Rumsfeld's and Wolfowitz's Office of Special Operations that insulted and froze-out the DIA from their essential function. Likewise the professional elements of the CIA.

I also tend to agree that it looks like the Bush White House is seriously losing control over the executive branch and the military. Just think how career service officers must feel about the shame and embarressment that is coming out of the torture scandal ... All because the civilian leadership was so arrogant and incompetent that they subverted the Geneva Conventions. This must be a terrible blow for the professional military in the Pentagon ... they surely will be seeking their own pay back against Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz.

All in all, being willing dupes of the "axis of evil" Iranians is a terrible scandal. And this isn't some sudden revelation about Chalabi either. Many, many people have been pointing out what kind of guy Chalabi was ... So Bush and Cheney and richard Perle are really stuck ... like super glue to Chalabi.

Finally, you can also be sure that this is a devastating blow against Bush BECAUSE Drudge is not touching it yet. Nevertheless, I've sent him the Newsday link in his "Tip" box. Give the story time to percolate in Washington for 24 hours or so and I think we'll see it start emerging. After all, with Bush's speech Monday, this is going to highlight the question of why things have gone so wrong in Iraq.

[seventhson]

17. As an aside...

I posted this on another thread. Diversions are everywhere in this scenario and theater of war.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1639286

take a look

[Waverley_Hills_Hiker]

18. I dont see it as Chalabi manipulating the adminstration...

While Iran and Chalabi had their motives, I think Cheney/Rumsfeld/the Neocons had their motives too, for invading Iraq....so, Chalabis misinformation dovetailed into what the admin wanted to do anyway....

They where using each other.

[troublemaker]

20. Their *perceived* interests

PNAC wanted to invade Iraq

Iran wanted PNAC to invade Iraq

Same tactical action, but different perceptions of the outcome.

Only one of the two had a clear understanding of the consequences. Guess who? (Consider the odds of an Iraqi Shiite theocracy friendly to Iran as of two years ago. Now consider the odds today...)

[Monkey see Monkey Do]

19. Chalabi has some past form

from Robert (ex-CIA) Baer's "See No Evil":

"In 1997, British authorities were furious when they discovered my old Iraqi friend Ahmad Chalabi had rented his studio on Barlby Road in London to a Saudi dissident, Dr Sa'd Al-Faqih, one of Osama bin Laden's soul mates." (p 351)

[killbotfactory]

24. Talking Points Memo has more on this...

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_05_16.php#002992

This does not look good for the Bush Admin.