Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Which is the Most Embarrassing Element of the Chalabi Situation?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
On the Road Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 04:44 PM
Original message
Poll question: Which is the Most Embarrassing Element of the Chalabi Situation?
Poll from Mark Kleiman's blog

Sorry, polls are turned off at Level 3.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
ewagner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 04:46 PM
Response to Original message
1. How 'bout
all of the above?

there isn't one thing about this that isn't humiliating!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NewYorkerfromMass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 04:48 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. it's certainly hard to choose
but the possible Iranian subterfuge really must dig deep.
The SOTU photo of Laura and Chalabi is pretty funny too.
Pathetic even.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 04:52 PM
Response to Reply #1
5. I think.. the prospect that they have continued to pass on intel
to the head of the Iranian covert operations against the US - is probably a pretty big deal. Coordinating attacks, anyone? The fools used the intel to go to war - but they wanted the intel... it was mutually beneficial (they could have just as easily cooked it up themselves - and they undoubtedly cooked some of it up themselves.)

But if the intel. has continued to go to the Iranians - and if as reported it is "irrefutable" - and the intel is so highly classified that only a few in the US govt had access - and if, as reported, the intel could endanger US assets (eg US folks in Iraq) ... ALL of which has been asserted in the media... then I would say this was the worst.

Granted getting us in was the worst in Magnitude - but I contend Bush was going in on whatever pretext he could find. So they didn't create it, just supplied convenient cover.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
On the Road Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 05:01 PM
Response to Reply #1
9. Well, the Original Poll Had Ten Options
Edited on Tue May-25-04 05:02 PM by ribofunk
so the DU poll feature was maxed out. Plus I wanted to post it in its original form. Hence, no "All of the Above".

But seriously, this is getting better and better. 2004 looks more and more like a watershed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
prodigal_green Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 04:47 PM
Response to Original message
2. that we knew all along
From the day his name was first mentioned re: Iraq my friends and family were talking about what a crook/liar this guy is, how he is completely untrustworthy and relying on him will lead us to no good.

The information was out there.

None of this should be a surprise.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
deepcover Donating Member (49 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 04:59 PM
Response to Reply #2
7. the info is out there
wolfowitz and chalabi both attended university of chicaco at the same time, both studied under same poly sci teach. famous for undemocratic thinking. very interesting alumni rolls.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
On the Road Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 04:51 PM
Response to Original message
4. According to Brad deLong:
The best answer is the last one:

"The most embarassing element of the Chalabi raid is that Secretary Rumsfeld denied any advance knowledge of it, apparently truthfully. As Thomas and Hosenball tell the story in Newsweek, the rage in the uniformed ranks against the DoD top civilian leadership is so profound that the commanders on the ground in Baghdad didn't bother to buck the decision up the line before going along with Paul Bremer's decision to conduct the raid.

---snip

There's only one saving possibility I can think of: perhaps Rumsfeld had signed off on the decision to crack down on Chalabi, but gave orders ensuring that he wouldn't literally know in advance about the details of the raid to preserve his own deniability in case the thing went wrong and needed to be blamed on Bremer (a lame duck in any case).

But leaving everyone vague about who the soldiers in Iraq report to seems like a very high price to pay for a little bit of political wiggle room."

http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/2004_arch...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BurtWorm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 05:05 PM
Response to Reply #4
10. Very interesting.
Chilling, in fact. :scared:

But the other options are pretty awful too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beetwasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 05:10 PM
Response to Reply #4
12. Or Better Yet, The Crackdown On Chalabi Was Done To Embarrass Rummy
by elements that are turning against the admin. This raid may have been done independently of him. The sources are all INTEL for the "rock solid" nature of Chalibi's ties to Iran and regarding the intel that was passed on. The intel agencies are fuming at the Admin. This could be more payback.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BurtWorm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 05:14 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. That occurred to me too.
Good call.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 05:17 PM
Response to Reply #12
15. what it looks like from here
just as it was intelligence itself which pushed the Plame story forward.

Read somewhere that it may have been Bush himself (via Rice who is in close contact with the primary on the ground contact with Chalabi) who got fed up with CHalabi's increasingly anti-american rhetoric (we know he HATES disloyalty) - who started the ball moving. My guess would be that intel folks started pushing it (ala leaking) when the window of opportunity presented itself. So why, now, does Jordan come forward with this "irrefutable" information? Perhaps some were taking advantage of a preplanned trip, Jordian hatred of Chalabi, and a suddenly receptive (to being anti Chalabi) Bush?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DinahMoeHum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 04:53 PM
Response to Original message
6. Tough choice here - I'd say all the above, they're equally bad.
Since a couple of years ago, when I read about him being a possible successor to Saddam Hussein, I learned that he was an embezzler - and that Jordan has a prior claim on his hide.

He is, in the Yiddish language, a goniff.


:evilfrown:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
On the Road Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 05:00 PM
Response to Original message
8. Here's Another Bombshell:
There's a rip-roaring discussion of this article on Brad deLong's blog, which is where I originally found it:

http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/2004_arch...

Now check out this comment:
Brad deLong still doesn't have a clue. Here's who Chala Baby really works for, straight from the horse's mouth. So Tel Aviv and Teheran colluded to topple Saddam using the US? So what's new since Iran-Contra?

IsraelBehindTheNews.com 6th May, 2003
Saddam's "Successor" Made Secret Visit to Israel
Smadar Peri
Intelligence Correspondent, Yediot Aharonot


For many years mystery shrouded the reasons the Americans regarded Chalabi so warmly. This was explained by his charisma, his ability to impress and links to powerful people, but the real reason was never made public, until today. Chalabi, so it transpires, was pushed into the Americans' arms by Israeli intelligence.
...
Maj. Gen. (reserves) Danny Rothschild, who headed the IDF Intelligence research branch, received Chalabi's telephone numbers in London in 1990 and went to meet him in secret. Only very rarely was IDF Intelligence able to make links to a senior Iraqi exile who displayed such great quantities of good will.
...
This did not prevent Israeli security officials from recommending Chalabi to the American administration and connecting him to senior advisers in the White House, the Pentagon and the CIA. As a result of the recommendations, James Woolsley, the former CIS director, gave him his patronage.

http://israelvisit.co.il/cgi-bin/friendly.pl?url=May-06...

Posted by: Schwartzkommando on May 25, 2004 03:31 AM

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
killbotfactory Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 05:10 PM
Response to Original message
11. What isn't embarrassing about the Chalabi Situation?
??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 05:17 PM
Response to Original message
14. how about the PNAC crowd and the neocon Pentagon wonks
..were so hot for a war that would expand Empire and get another country off Israel's backs that they were willing to slavishly follow whatever a convicted bank embezzler told them, even when UN inspectors on the ground told them that the info was bogus?

That is the worst part. These guys are so wedded to their silly ideology that they're willing to sell out every bit of sense an ordinary person would seem to possess and lap up lies from a two bit crook who tells them what they want to hear.

I want them charged, humiliated, tried, convicted and thrown into prison. All of them. Nothing else will do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lanparty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 05:35 PM
Response to Original message
16. Sacrificial lamb

Someone has to be held accountable for all the shit in Iraq. For Bush, Chalabi is an obvious solution. Chalabi first started getting aid under Clinton. Therefore, they can once again blame something on Clinton.

Deep down, I think that Chalabi IS a liar. But he may not be a spy. Remember, that these guys lie like rugs. Remember the two "traitors" down at gitmo. Well, here is the LATEST traitor.

It's simply designed to take press attention off the latest last months MASSIVE casualties and the Abu Ghraib fiasco.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 06:00 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. I think he was spying
how did he get access to such "good" intel inside of a country where he had not lived since 1959? I think the neocons knew where some of the info was coming - or knew but didn't know (as in - block it out - doesn't matter as long as we get the info we need). Plus in their arrogant hearts, they would always be able to out maneuver the Iranians - so who cares? Right?

I think the neocons have lost their ability to shape stories and propoganda - and that they were pretty sloppy at doing it two years ago, even when they were successful with the public. Remember how many stories were debunked - even if the media didn't hammer it home? They are so arrogant that they are not that good unless they have total discipline from below and within the Media. I think they have lost so much control of things (spinning out of control is how it appears) that they do not any longer have total control of message, of flow of information, or of the media. Folks are turning on one another.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BurtWorm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 07:26 PM
Response to Reply #18
20. Excellent
points.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
damnraddem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 05:56 PM
Response to Original message
17. None of them. I'm not embarrassed.
I'm enjoying the entire thing -- every one of the items listed and more.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
opihimoimoi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 06:26 PM
Response to Original message
19. All In
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 07:31 PM
Response to Original message
21. I'd like to know more about #7
the "prominent neocons"

that's the most interesting thing
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Nov 27th 2014, 09:29 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC