Cant be first...

Ha! Goal! GOOOAALLL!

Um, what are we talking about?

;)

Michael, it is far too early to make a judgement on whether or not Chalabi should be trusted. If he is an Iranian spy, then who knows how much damage he as done to US interests?

# 2 TS

A vitirol-filled rant, apparently ...

All of this is the inevitable result of the fundamental misunderstanding of the war against the terror masters. It is a regional war, not a war limited to a single country.

And that is undeniable. A few months ago I would not have said that this is a misunderstanding. That it was prepositioning the military for bigger and better things. Now I don't know.

Hey buckaroo:

Still at the office?

This is a little off topic, but did anyone catch the article in the Wall Street Journal on Wednesday about how the Kurds in Northern Iraq are taking advantage of our conquest to build a democracy? I couldn't believe the things I read weren't being touted by Bush #43 as proof at least some folks over there understand Liberty and self-determination. I guess the admin's PR guys don't want to offend the arabs. They should reinstate the pre-WWI borders and act like Iraq never existed!

#6 Cam

Gettin' ready to leave ...

annnd, in honor of it being an "Aloha Friday" (as they call it here) I've actually got --

Mt. Dew!
:-)

#9 Buckaroo:

Easy buddy. A couple of those and you know you come out swinging...

;-)

whoa--ledeen--usually right on--but you might have been conned by this dude and are too embarassed to admit it--if he gave actionable inteeligence to the iranian revolutionary guards or bremer's phone number so his calls could be monitored--then we should dropkick the putz to jordan for a twenty two year jail sentence--me thinks ledeen do protest too much--his screed is all rant and posture and no fact--but i am wierded out that kenan makiya a true non power hungry hero was living with the camel trader--just goes to show that arab and jewish intellectuals can be taken in by wily con men--watch for chalabi to spin like a top on "meet the press" sunday--the centrifugal force should be enough of a hurricane to attract our own weatherman abu ed from teijas

#10 Cam

I'm nursing it -- gotta drive, y'know!
:-)

#12 buckaroo:

LOL!

I, too, would rather Bremer fight al-Sadr with the initiative he has shown in going after Chalabi.

However, I must add, the word here in the corridors in Washington is that Chalabi passed along a particular piece of *very* sensitive information that could only have been passed to allow the Iranians to do us harm (in other words, not a general piece of intelligence that would be generally helpful, but a specific piece).

On the whole, however, from the outside looking in, I must agree with Ledeen. The three lessons I would draw from it were I an Iraqi are: 1) Being a US ally is not an asset, but a potential liability since I will be held to a higher standard than my compatriots and may end up on the shit list if I act as my compatriots are acting; 2) that our intelligence service is wholly and completely incompetent since we gave this guy $27 million dollars and he turns out to be against us; and 3) that we care more about legal issues than winning the war.

It is going badly for us, folks. No point pretending. The big question is, is it going so bad that we need a change of president?

Arrrgh. I think I've seen the white whale!

#14 KevinV,

It is going badly for us, folks. No point pretending. The big question is, is it going so bad that we need a change of president?

To what? You gonna write me in, holmes?

Kerry would be so much worse than Bush. Hell, I'm not sure Kerry knows what he really believes in, if he really believes in anything.

Kerry isn't a sane option. Electing Kerry is like playing Russian Roulette.

With three of six cylinders loaded.

Plus one more, just for fun.

I knew Chalabi was greasy years ago. The greatest lesson to draw from the Chalabi story is that not every "dissident" is a straight shooter. The old adage of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" is false. Unfortunately thats been our foreign policy for decades.

Ledeen correctly points out that this is a regional problem.

My view of the Middle East has changed recently. While in the US we typically think of sovereign nations as largely independent entities acting individually throughout the globe, this point of view on the Middle East is incorrect. More accurately now, I think of most of the Islamic world as a collection of fiefdoms within a loosely organized republic. The centralization of this entity is through the political philosophy/religion of Islam. Instead of a constitution, all member states adhere politically to Islamic law as the supreme legal theory. As the Koran dictates, so must the local rulers make it so.

Islamic jihadism, as an aspect of the whole of Islam spread over the Mideast, has to be approached from the regional perspective. The trick is to do it on our terms, in our own time.

#14 KevinV :

The real question is, would we do any better with a new president? The short answer is no. Although, had Lieberman won, I would have found it pretty amusing to see the ME seethe over a Jewish president.

"The US is secretly run by the Jews- oh wait, I guess it's not so secret..."

11

just goes to show that arab and jewish intellectuals can be taken in by wily con men--

your mask is coming loose...

I trust Rumsfeld.

If he says Chalabi is OK, then that's good enough for me until I have proof positive otherwise.

It seems like the CIA is fucked up.

It seems like the State Dept is fucked up.

This needs to be looked into and fixed, pronto.

This whole thing with Chalabi is just surreal and, frankly, I really don't know what to make of it except that, like baloney, no matter how you slice it, it just doesn't come out very good.

What I'm having a tough time with what kind of vetting went on here. How long-standing are Chalabi's ties to Iran, if there are such ties? If he goes way back with them, how the heck was he our handpicked successor? That's a monumental intelligence lapse! How do you miss something like that from the guy you're grooming to take over? Alternately, if these contacts are new (e.g., post-Saddam), how in the world did this guy tunnel to the Iranians right under our noses?

And that's all assuming the Iran-connection is, you'll pardon the expression, kosher. I'm not a conspiracy theorist by any means. But, geez, this is a clusterfudge.

#14 KevinV

There are exactly two choices. And if this year isn't a "pick your poison" year, then there's never been one.

On the other hand, I wonder if there isn't some merit in choosing the more dangerous of the two poisons in this case. After all, in triage, doctors take the worst case first. Might Kerry (completely unintentionally and unwittingly of course) actually be the catalyst that revives the West?

Almost certainly not. But it's an interesting theoretical proposition.

#4 Buckaroo

A vitirol-filled rant, apparently ...

I had a car that ran on vitriol once...a Toyota Hatelander. It would go for miles on a single New York Times...

Cam and Iron Fist -

Guys, believe me, I'm no Kerry fan. But here is my thinnking on this one:

Bush is now radioactive. You and I may understand that it's not his fault that no WMDs were found in Iraq, that the post-war occupation has gone badly, that we find ourselves in a precarious position in the world diplomatically, etc. etc.

But, right or wrong (well, wrong) Bush is perceived by most of the world to be a dangerous buffoon.

Why does this matter?

Here is why: Iran, North Korea and other rogue states are going to continue seeking WMD. For our sakes, they must not be allowed to get them, or, if they have them, we must be able to either talk them into disarming or have the capacity to destroy them. By crying wolf on the Iraqi WMD program, BUSH IS UNABLE TO CALL ANY OTHER COUNTRY ON THE CARPET ON THIS ISSUE. Our intelligence is no longer believed, not even by the Cousins. Half our population doesn't believe him. Certainly, the other members of the SecCouncil don't believe him.

Again: I do NOT agree with this. But this is the objective reality. And that objective reality, in the case of Iranian or NK weapons, has made us less safe in their regard, though obviously we don't have madman Hussein to worry about...

Given that fact, who is more able to rouse the US to action against NK if it gets out of hand? Bush or Kerry?

can't say I'm with Ledeen on this one. I think we can handle Chalabi AND al-Sadr at the same time, and we are. God only knows what Chalabi did or said...time will tell. NO ONE 'cept the G-men and C-dog himself, I guess. If they're throwing out the "rock-solid" BS, then something is there.

And as far as al-Sadr goes, as much as I'd love to see his head seperate from his body and it buried in a giant football, facing the north pole, going in for him would have been far, far worse in the short term. It'll happen folks...in due time.

Oh, and the Lakers in 5 games...:)

Every Iraqi I have spoken with dislikes and distrusts Chalabi. The good don't like him. The bad don't like him. He is an embezzler/thief and an outsider they all say.

Going after Chalabi and going after Sadr is about the same as going after Bluegill in a pay lake and Going after Marlin in the deep blue sea. Not even close to the same.

Trusting him was wrong. Supporting him was wrong. Good riddance.

#25 KV

nail. hammer. head. pretty much...

As much as it sucks, it's pretty much spot-on. As the weeks pass, I become more and more scared that Dubya won't be around come Jan. 05.

/shudder

And believe you me...I'm doing all I can in MY little community to keep that from happening without looking like a nut-case. Is anyone else here doing the same? Seriously. Copy/Paste/Print some of this stuff. You'd be surprised how a blank stare from the uninformed can turn into "Wow...I didn't know that? Where do you find this stuff and is it really true...we're at war? Golly!

hup-too, my fellow lizards!

Kevin:

Yes I do see your point. However, I must rebut it. I don't believe that, for instance, Libya would have voluntarily stopped its WMD program had Bush not put the fear of God into them by his actions in Afghanistan and Iraq.

But I will concede you have a valid point. I dislike pretty much all of the president's domestic policy. That said, I'm sure glad that he had his finger on the button on September 11th, and not Al gore's. I feel the same way about Kerry. I believe that three days after a Kerry victory, Libya would ramp their WMD program back up.

#14 KevinV :

Chalabi passed along a particular piece of *very* sensitive information that could only have been passed to allow the Iranians to do us harm

My guess: how, when, and where to plant bombs to assassinate Iraqi Governing Council members (his only chance at rulig Iraq--since he was obviously passed over for a lead role several months ago--would have been to eliminate the competition and emerge as a "reasonable" replacement).

#14 Kevin

Bush is lame, Kerry is legless. That's the sorry state of things, it seems to me.

I just don't understand why the hell we keep mincing around about this.

Have been reading a fascinating biography of two Victorian explorers who were in the Sudan in the 1850s. They describe the following practices by the Arab slavers:

--To humiliate a slave [and ALL slaves were African or Christian, they would never enslave fellow [bigoted word]s], they would cut off his nose, ears, tongue, hands and balls.

--One man bragged about beating his black concubine 600 strokes, and she "couldn't walk for months," he guffawed.

--In Khartoum, the capitol (the Turks nominally ruled the region, barely), it was customary to put prisoners in solitary confinement for several days at a stretch, so they could be incessantly sodomized by the Abyssinians, who were "said to like that sort of thing."

--Travel through the Sudan was so dangerous that at a minimum, you had to attach yourself (via much baksheesh) to one of the slavers' armies. These usually ran to 200-300 men.

--Decapitation was commonplace, as was every sort of butchery. Casual savagery was the rule, not the exception.

Sam Baker, the explorer, angrily wrote that "these Arabs are the most lying, perfidious, mean, dirty scoundrels on God's earth. They are all alike, therefore it is no use kicking the posterior of an individual."

And "Great doctors are the Arabs--dogs are treated for distemper by being thrown from the top of the house to the ground." To immunize the dogs from rabies, Baker discovered that the Arabs had taken all the dogs of a village and thrown them into a hut that was then set on fire.

He also wrote angrily that the brutal way the Arabs examined the women and children before buying them "made him want to pitch into them left and right."

On a lighter note, he describes the Arabs of Khartoum thus: they have "a combination of courtesy and extreme haughtiness one would only see in England on the stage..."

It does seem that the savage and barbarous characteristics in these people is cultural, and all the BS about Western colonialism "causing" them to go mad is a load of horse manure.

Don't it? I mean really.

The book, which is fascinating, is Lovers on the Nile.

#30 noble vision:

An interesting take, re: taking out the rest of the council. I hadn't considered that.

somebody should ask Viceroy Bremer why he massed so much firepower to break into Chalabi’s house and Kanan Makiya’s house, and the offices of the INC

KANAN MAKIYA?! When did they raid Kanan Makiya's home? I didn't see that in any of the articles...

If there's one man I've trusted throughout all this INC controversy beginning in 2002, it's him. Balanced analysis about Iraqi Freedom is shallow at best without reading The Republic of Fear and Cruelty and Silence.

Of course at this point, they're just investigating, but it does seem heavy handed if they only suspect wrong-doing.
Yikes.

When thinking ofChalabi,IMHO, one must take into account:

1-he's still an arab

2-like most arabs he has no allegiance

3-he would double and backstab

4-he cant be trusted

Cam -

I totally agree. Bush put the fear of whatever it is Gaddafi worships in him.

(If you're interested in the inside story of how this actually occurred, check out the interview of Italian PM Burlesconi by Boris Johnson, the Conservative MP, in the Spectator from around Christmas time.)

So, Iraq and Libya have been dealt with. Score 2 for W.

But, politics is a "what have you done for me lately" game. The big question in my book is why is Iran getting away with developing WMD pretty much in the open right now?

Does it have anything to do with the loss of power, influence and prestige of the US in world affairs at this moment?

And, if so, would Richard Holbrooke (who undoubtedly would be SecState under any Kerry administration) be able to undo that damage?

I think the answers to those questions are, as much as I hate to admit it, yes and yes. Holbrooke is insufferable, and wrong much of the time, but he is no pansy when it comes to protectiing core American interests.

#14 Kevin V

It is going badly for us, folks. No point pretending. The big question is, is it going so bad that we need a change of president?

I think Rumsfeld is the one who's really in trouble now. Chalabi was his boy from the start and this, coming so close on the heels of Abu Ghraib is going to make things tough on him.

Put yourself in the place of a Republican congressman or Senator (or candidate). Fairly or unfairly, you just took one for the team on Abu Ghraib and stuck up for Bush and Rumsfeld. You burned some political capital there.

So now its "fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me" time. If you do nothing, the Democrats eat you alive on this. If the GOP is going to reclaim the offensive there, they're going to have to demand some changes. You can't dump the President and you don't get political traction talking about the details of how the CIA dropped the ball. I'm not sure I want Rumsfeld to go right now, but I think he may have to be the one to take the fall.

#18 Noble vision

Exactly. They're still tribal in the extreme.

All this makes me think that the British imperialists were right about bringing light to Those Who Sit in Darkness.

Not about cuisine, peut-etre [s], but definitely about civil and gov't institutions, individual liberty, enlightened intellectual life, etc.

KevinV

Here's a question for you: Which candidate, after winning the election, will make the ME/Arab Street/sleeper cells jump up and down with joy?

Still thinking?

(Reminder: You must answer in the form of a question.)

#25 Kevin

I agree with you, up to a point, which is this--in order to fight the Islamobozos effectively, Kerry will need the full weight of his party behind him.

And he won't have it. Clinton, greasy tho he is, is a finely tuned political animal, and he knew the Dim contingent of the Democrats would never let him let slip the dogs of war. Thus the ineffectual, limp gestures of bombing empty tents (and whomping that camel in the butt).

He wouldn't be able to get the country on a more martial footing (barring another catastrophic attack) by cobbling together a war coalition like Blair; we're much less parliamentary than the Limeys are.

monsoor ijaz on fox says the dia has been tracking chalabi for along time in his dealings as an iranian double agent--he probably gave them bremer's phone number--and someone shot his picture because they were so pissed at what he'd done by giving the iranians mucho actionable intelligence while giving us small potatoes and misleading bullshit--he was perle and wolfowitz's boy not rumsfeld's--there's a great article on this scumbag at spit-spit--counterpunch where that demented stalinist alexander cockburn nails chalabi cold--even a stopped clock is right twice a day--kanan makiya was bunking with him at his house--he's a member of the inc--but no intell on his double dealing--on that i would be surprised and start to reread "alice in wonderland"--ps--monsour thinks they'll arrest chalibi in a day or two--last time he skipped out of jordan in a car trunk--eruridite arab scumbag lowlife cocksucker--ledeen--grow up--you've been had!!

# 38 a noble vision

Who is John F. Kerry?

I know, I know. You're right, of course.
Then again, the Arab Street has never been known for its wisdom, has it?

# 39 Lady of Shalott

Good point. But since the Reps. are equally unable to lead the country to war again anytime soon (Can we agree that the President is politically unable to lead us into another war in the next 4 years?), we lose nothing by enhancing the diplomatic card through Kerry.

In my humble opinion, of course.

OT - Fabulous lighting storm over our beautiful capital tonight, folks. That, plus the eerie sound of the cicadas make this a strange night...

Skippy #36

I think Rumsfeld is the one who's really in trouble now. Chalabi was his boy from the start and this, coming so close on the heels of Abu Ghraib is going to make things tough on him.

I disagree with you (and Robert Novak) on this subject. I think Rumsfeld is quite secure, and rightfully so.

Put yourself in the place of a Republican congressman or Senator (or candidate). Fairly or unfairly, you just took one for the team on Abu Ghraib and stuck up for Bush and Rumsfeld. You burned some political capital there.

Again, bucking conventional wisdom, I don't think much political capital was burt. Funny, the one poll I haven'y seen is how the public views the Abu Ghraib pictures. (Hard to beleive the subject hasn't been polled.) I suspect the reason why is that the media doesn't like the answers such polls might (or already have?) given: namely that most Americans realize that war is ugly and about killing, and that they pay their military to conquer others, and that furthermore most Americans probably do not equate panties-on-heads with the "torture" moniker thrown around by the Fifth Column press. Can me an idealist, I just think people are smarter than that.

And he won't have it. Clinton, greasy tho he is, is a finely tuned political animal, and he knew the Dim contingent of the Democrats would never let him let slip the dogs of war. Thus the ineffectual, limp gestures of bombing empty tents (and whomping that camel in the butt).

The reason Clinton couldn't take any effective action in 1998/99 was because Limbaugh and cohorts would have screamed 'wag-the-dog', and that he was trying to divert attention from zipper-gate.

#40 HULUGU

he was perle and wolfowitz's boy not rumsfeld's

Probably so, but I'm not sure, despite their poistions as arch-fiends in the Pantheon of Neoconism (sarcasm), that throwing one them to the lions is really going to say "change."

Bottom line, as I see it, is that the GOP's very powerful rap on Kerry is "Flip-Flop." Fair enough. But the administration is flip-flopping on our handpicked successor to Saddam. Like it or not (and I don't)...we voted for Chalabi before we voted against him.

Unless you do something to cut bait fast, this undermines one of your key issues.

#43 Flanders:

The reason Clinton couldn't take any effective action in 1998/99 was because Limbaugh and cohorts would have screamed 'wag-the-dog', and that he was trying to divert attention from zipper-gate

The reaon Clinton didn't take any action was because he honestly believed that these psychos could be reasoned with and talked into agreeing with his "We are all one family" schtik.

We screwed up big-time in Fallujah. We are now probably going to lose the war.

We don't have the guts to defend democracy from death. We should all watch MTV instead. Al-Jazeera will seem almost like it by the time all this is over.

Welcome to your worst nightmare. It is happening right now. Somewhere between The Greatest Generation and now, we lost our will to defend our land, our liberty, our ideals.

Instead we embarrass ouselves with criminal acts apparently either overlooked or ignored and/or sanctioned by their superiors.

We can't decide who we are supposed to fight, because people blowing us up and shooting at are isn't a nuanced enough situation for us to respond, with great overpowering force.

Fuck it. I'm not going to say any more. I just spent 20 minutes composing a post the got rejected for being too long, leaving me back a ground zero.

Just like 9/11. I can't decide whether I should stock up on explosives to take as many with me as I can, or just prepare to get it over with when the inevitable happens.

The jihadis on our shore added to the propaganda of the world press and the corruption of Europe and the fascist states of the world apparently is too much for us to overcome.

Last I checked Russia lost over 50 million citizens to war against the Nazis in World War II. We are about to surrender with one thousand dead in 14 months.

We make me sick. Thanks, America. Thanks for showing those who slaughtered three thousands of us in New York that we don't have what it takes to defend our families from certain doom. Who wants to protect their children and other loved ones from harm, when we can just cut and run as a result of some of us (possibly including our President, surely including our State Department, surely including Langley - who got us here in the first place) acting like complete idiots in time of war.

Friday night and I should be drinking coctails. All I can think of right now is how soon thousands of us will be giving drain cleaner a try.

Somebody, anybody cheer me up. Lie to me even.

#44 Skippy

#40 HULUGU

he was perle and wolfowitz's boy not rumsfeld's [...] but I'm not sure, [...] that throwing one them to the lions is really going to say "change."

Agreed. Prediction: no neocon will be fired from the administration for the following reason. Giving up a sacrificial lamb would be equivalent at this time to telling Dems what their moonbat minds want to hear: that the whole strategy of the Project for a New American Century is wrong, and GWB was wrong, and Cheney was wrong, and dammit, we're sorry and we want to go home now, will you take our places Mr Kerry? Please. Self-doubt is not what W is about, its what Kerry/Carter/dems/pacifists are about. Wrong paradigm, guys.

Speaking as a non-resident, non-US citizen, an outsider, I assert the time has come to dump all this nonsense about democracy and the sanctity of the US constitution. If Western Civ is to survive in any form at all, then Americans must be brave enough to deep-six their accursed constitution and appoint a true leader, a man with dictator's iced blood in his veins. Only one person fits the job description: citizens of the Western World must remove the whole USA from leadership of this war and appoint Vladimir Putin to the world dictatorship.

When the news first broke of the raid on Chalabi's home, there was speculation that he had documents related to the investigation into the UN Oil for Food (Castles) scandal. Different speculations had him trying to both cover-up and expose facts in that investigation. Has anyone heard any more on that angle?

#42 a noble vision

most Americans probably do not equate panties-on-heads with the "torture" moniker thrown around by the Fifth Column press. Can me an idealist, I just think people are smarter than that.

You have a point. The American people are, rightly, giving the President - and Rumsfeld - a pass on Abu Ghraib. But that doesn't mean it has gone away and Rumsfeld has already said that there's more bad news to come about it.

Look, if there was no Chalabi fiasco, then all those endless reports simply reinforce people's minds. Those that hate the war would still hate it. Those that have some perspective would still have some perspective. People who were giving the President the benefit of the doubt may re-evaluate future problems and not give the same leeway that they did. Bush doesn't have a big lead to fritter away.

There's blood in the water and, yes, as much as cutting Rumsfeld loose is going to create a frenzy, at least you create it now, well before either the Democratic or Republican conventions or - heaven forfend - the election. It gives you the room to blame future black eyes on Rumsfeld. I think that sucks, but that's hardball politics.

The DoD is better for having Rumsfeld in it. I'm against cannibalizing our war effort. But I'd rather do either of those than have Secretary of State Hillary Clinton dealing with this in January.

#46 really grumpy big dog Johnson:

I hear you buddy. There is a phrase that at the same time is the most hope-filled and depressing in the world:

"This too shall pass"

This shall pass. We are going to win. Stick it out, you're one of the good ones.

BTW, when this shit gets me down, I find hockey and beer seem to bring me around.

;-)

woccam:

the Western World must remove the whole USA from leadership of this war and appoint Vladimir Putin to the world dictatorship.

Thank you. That made me laugh.

#48 woccam

I could do a better job than Putin. After all, I respresent the sensible side of those that made him a middling world leader, rather than dictator of the world.

If anyone wants to know what my philosophy of war is, it is to tell everyone exactly what I am going to do and why I am going to do it.

And then do it. No matter what it takes. The Arabs think they know courage and decisive action. They haven't met my men in time of war.

And #51 cam.

Thanks. I think I got the shudders there just a bit. I'm working on the beer thing as a write this...

i never said we should dump perle or wolfowitz because they were wrong on chalibi--who turned big time when he saw he was going to be marginalized--state and cia always never trusted him--bfd--people have different opinions--bush is not clinton and these guys are not lani guinere--perle is a private citizen anyhow--maybe general washington should've been cashiered by the continental congress because he trusted benedict arnold who turned on him--read some history moonbats

#48 woccam

Question:

Were you born brain dead, or are you the product of a self-administered hemispherectomy?

#50 Skippy

There's blood in the water and, yes, as much as cutting Rumsfeld loose is going to create a frenzy, at least you create it now, well before either the Democratic or Republican conventions or - heaven forfend - the election. It gives you the room to blame future black eyes on Rumsfeld. I think that sucks, but that's hardball politics.

The thrust of my argument against cutting Rummy for political reasons is that conceeding anything to the democrats will not win GWB any votes in November; in fact, it may cost him.

Don't underestimate how non-Democrats feel about Rumsfeld. He's seen as a strong, no-nonsense sonovabitch who isn't going to let our enemies give us shit.

And that doesn't convice you, read this.

#56 a noble vision

Don't underestimate how non-Democrats feel about Rumsfeld. He's seen as a strong, no-nonsense sonovabitch who isn't going to let our enemies give us shit

Hey, I hope you're right, I really do. I like Rumsfeld; I want him around; and I truly hope I'm wrong about his being unsalvageable at this point.

#48, that was so funny. Do it again.

There is now a story claiming that the DIA - not the CIA, but the DIA, the Pentagon's own intelligence agency - has concluded that the INC's intelligence branch was working for Iran.

The only source named in the article is Patrick Lang, the former head of the DIA's Middle East branch. Bizarrely, he is listed by the DOJ as a "foreign agent" of Fouad Makhzoumi, a Lebanese businessman. I owe this intelligence to a recent article by Chalabi supporter Michael Rubin (written *before* the raid on Chalabi's house).

In a similar vein: at the end of the CounterPunch article, "The Truth About Ahmed Chalabi", I read that the author "wishes to acknowledge the generous support of the Graydon Carter Foundation in the preparation of this article." If Google is to be believed, supporting that article is the only thing that the Graydon Carter Foundation has ever done. And who is Graydon Carter? He's the editor of *Vanity Fair*, and apparently specializes in anti-Bush editorials.

I posted here about some of the reasons why Chalabi's time might be up. But there's a whole other factor, and that is the likelihood that Iraq was behind 9/11, Al Qaeda, and the anthrax letters. By now there is a large pile of public evidence for that proposition, none of which was used in the official "case against Iraq", and some of which was rubbished in the same anonymous-official-speaking-on-background fashion now being used to attack Chalabi as an Iranian agent.

Entertain for a moment the hypothesis that the Bush administration has made a conscious decision to publicly deny Iraqi sponsorship of 9/11 - or at least to say that they don't know, that the issue is ambiguous. How does the pursuit of Chalabi look in that light? Well, the man who they are actually trying to arrest in Iraq is the INC's chief of intelligence...

#43

that, too.

We are Gullivered.

#48 woccam cut the cheese!

What everyone--from Kevin V to Really Grumpy--are leaving out of their calculations is the one element of American society that can make all the difference: the US military.

You all assume that the military will stand by and let the country go to hell.

Don't.

We've seen how lame the entire civilian "leadership" of this country is in the face of low-level violence. Don't apply that to the armed forces. It hasn't happened before, but then, this country hasn't faced an existential threat in how many centuries?

I fail to see a distinction between a manipulative scum ball and the truly vile Sadr.

If you see either one of them, please pass along to me their coordinates, I have something that I want to drop in on them.

According to this morning's NY Post:

Jordan tip exposed Chalabi as Iran "spy"

Jordan's King Abdullah fueled the U.S. move against Iraqi leader Ahmed Chalabi by providing bombshell intelligence that his group was spying for Iran, The Post has learned.

If this is true, I can't believe how stupid we are. I really don't believe anything that comes from Jordan. If Sistani killed an American with his own hands I don't believe we would have the nerve to touch his personal house. But we invade the house of a guy who has been advocating for a secular, democratic Middle East his whole life on a tip from Jordan! General Meyers has said Chalabi has saved American lives. That's enough info for me that we shouldn't be attacking him in this way.

You can see where this is going:
Agency: Chalabi group was front for Iran

"Iranian intelligence has been manipulating the United States through Chalabi by furnishing through his Information Collection Program information to provoke the United States into getting rid of Saddam Hussein," said an intelligence source Friday who was briefed on the Defense Intelligence Agency's conclusions, which were based on a review of thousands of internal documents.

These sources are Democrats a la Richard Clarke. Next the Dems will be saying we attacked Iraq for Iran. The Bush admin really set themselves up for this one.

I guess we have had a preview of how things will go after Iraqi leadership is installed. If you screw up someone will be coming to see you.

Agency: Chalabi group was front for Iran

[Link: www.newsday.com...]

WASHINGTON -- 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.

"Iranian intelligence has been manipulating the United States through Chalabi by furnishing through his Information Collection Program information to provoke the United States into getting rid of Saddam Hussein," said an intelligence source Friday who was briefed on the Defense Intelligence Agency's conclusions, which were based on a review of thousands of internal documents...Patrick Lang, former director of the intelligence agency's Middle East branch, said he had been told by colleagues in the intelligence community that Chalabi's U.S.-funded program to provide information about weapons of mass destruction and insurgents was effectively an Iranian intelligence operation. "They [the Iranians] knew exactly what we were up to," he said.

He described it as "one of the most sophisticated and successful intelligence operations in history."

"I'm a spook. I appreciate good work. This was good work," he said.

This is all bullshit.

The new plan is probably to put a 'strong man' in charge, and anyone advocating a secular, representative government had to go.

Watch as the State Dept takes over and things spiral into absolute chaos.

So we're back to supporting dictators.

The American people don't want this, in spite of what our Ivy league 'betters' say to the contrary. I'm ashamed of this anyway.

woccam:
Putin is an interesting character. No freedom lover, but no fool either.
1) Iran is at least as big a threat (mid/long term) to Russia as to US.
2) Putin is HELPING Iran finish its nuclear plant.
3) Hmmm. Recall 'problems' with embassy construction in Moscow some time back? At the very least, the Russian assistance on the nuclear plant means they'll know a lot more about it. And just maybe it will have some stuff built-in that will provide updates on how it gets used in the future.

I trust nothing from any mainstream media source. I want to hear from our ground pounders, the young men in desert pattern BDUs with Kevlar on their heads, nine clips for their weapons and trigger instincts like Carlos Hathcock. Reports from these 18, 19 and 20 year olds are the reports I trust. At this juncture, I dare any of you to 100% confirm there is a man named Chalabi (when he was a "Jordaniaan" he was known as Shalabi, but hey...). For all I know this is another sleeper from Berkley whose real name is Gyorgy Schwartz. Wait a second, there already is a Gyorgy, and that would be George, as in Soros.

Since the information flow to me and thee is obviously - obviously - buggered beyond all sensibility and meaningful recognition, what My Inquiring Mind Wants To Know is - why do they bother telling us anything???

Seriously. Voting does little to no good. Expressing our opinions to legislators has zero impact. The world marches steadily towards a Madonna-like German '39 beer hall cabaret culture no matter how we howl, so...what I don't get is why bother telling us anything?

Seriously. Me and thee have no idea whatsoever if there is a Chalabi, if his real identity is Chalabi, or a GRU sleeper. We know nothing about his background, personality, habits, education and character other than what we're told and what we're told is so frequently revealed later as total fabrication and spin, I repeat...why do they bother telling us anything? Hell, Chalabi - if this be his real identity - is the proud pappa of a string of vast banking failures in Jordan identical to BCCI, Banco d'Ambrosia. Lavoro, etc.

Hmmm. Patterns, patterns.

Shoot the bastard. Let's see what rats run out of the hive afterwards.

Works for me.

There is much more to this story than what is being presented in the media. I have a sinking feeling that Chalabi's fall from grace has more to do with the June 30th deadline and getting the U.N. involved then with contacts with the Tehran. I find it hard to believe the the CIA and other intelligence agencies are now just 'discovering' Chalabi's passing of information to Tehran.

I think that the problem with the early backing of Chalabi by the U.S. was that Chalabi is seen as an "outsider" by most Iraqis. He wasn't in Iraq during a much of Saddam's regime. He didn't live through the oppression. How could he be a leader to the Iraqi people when he had shared so little of their experiences? Why would they trust him?

My favorite line from Ledeen's article is:

somebody should ask Viceroy Bremer why he massed so much firepower to break into Chalabi's house and Kanan Makiya's house, and the offices of the INC, instead of doing the same to Moqtada, who at last account was still free to mobilize the masses of his faithful to kill us.

#70: I still can't believe it.

As Zakaria wrote:

In his wrenching book on Saddam Hussein's Iraq, the dissident writer Kanan Makiya explained that the most powerful force keeping the cruel regime in power--more important than brute strength--was "an all-embracing atmosphere of fear." Aptly, Makiya titled his book "Republic of Fear." Saddam inculcated fear at every level, explaining, for example, that he would often deal with traitors pre-emptively because "I know a person will betray me before they know it themselves." Well, he apparently didn't know this time. The Iraqi who gave the final tip that led to Saddam's capture was only one of the hundreds of Iraqis who have begun cooperating with American troops. They might not love the Americans, but they hate the Baathists, and increasingly they are not scared.

You know, after doing a bit of digging, I think Ledeen is not saying they DID break into Makiya's house. The only other article that mentions him is from the anti-common sense Counterpunch. Is this artistic lecense, or does Ledeen know something we don't??

Chalabi is the newest fall guy. HE was set BEFORE the invasion of Iraq. There is so many levels and complexities to this scenario it would take a life time or two to unravel all the lies, lying lies and lied lying lies that have been put forth.
There is more to the invasion of Iraq that has not been revealed to the American public. And it would probably scare the shit for life out of all of us if we knew.
You have only to look at Bush since the beginning of 2003 to see the effect of this burden has had on him.

very nice site!
SMS, Logo, Dzwonki