Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

OK, weird...I'm getting clobbered by my readers, so take this poll.

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
 
WilliamPitt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 10:13 PM
Original message
Poll question: OK, weird...I'm getting clobbered by my readers, so take this poll.
Edited on Tue May-25-04 10:30 PM by WilliamPitt
I published an essay tonight about the Chalabi/Iran scandal:

The Iranian Spy in the House of Bush
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/052604A.shtml

I'm getting creamed by my readers via email. A bunch of people apparently do not believe this whole thing is anything other than the Bushies setting Iran up for invasion. Examples of emails:

"oh please don't become a Judith Miller and spread false info for the Bush gang to invade Iran .... enough of this nonsense."

"William surely you don't believe the current Bush charade about Chalabi. The raid on his house and all of the talk about his dealings with Iran and betraying US trust is simply a ploy to bolster Chalabi's standing (and remove the taint of US collaboration) as they move towards the hand-over of "power" to the new interim government. The press has fallen for the charade hook, line and sinker. They are just positioning Chalabi to be the new "more credible" Shiite leader (read the new Saddam Hussein)."

This is, by the way, Julian Borger's take. I respect Borger immensely:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/052604C.shtml

So, the poll question:

Sorry, polls are turned off at Level 3.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
trumad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 10:16 PM
Response to Original message
1. Gullible Neo-Cons?
Edited on Tue May-25-04 10:21 PM by trumad
I don't think so.... The 1998 PNAC document tells it all.... They were searching high and low for a perfect ruse to attack Iraq and they allowed Chalabi to have his way. 9/11 and Chalabi... The perfect quinella!

BTW: Iran/Contra? How about Iran/PNAC... They did it once they certainly can do it again.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DrBB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 10:44 PM
Response to Reply #1
38. The neocons' relationship with Chalabi DATES from that period
Edited on Tue May-25-04 10:47 PM by DrBB
...and before. He was a Univ. of Chicago grad, as were many of the neocns, and though I can't quote chapter and verse off the top of my head, one of his professors introduced him to the neocon back in the 80s, IIRC--early enough to view the PNAC and it's "Let's start with Iraq!" scheme as having been influenced by Chalabian disinformation.

I really don't get this latest instance of DU pretzel logic. The neocons were eager for a certain kind of evidence; Chalabi was eager to supply it to 'em. We already knew that. And now it turns out that not only was a lot of it bogus shit of his own invention, some of it actually was calculated disinformation from Iran.

I can hardly imagine worse news for the Bush admin, if this pans out. Yet I keep reading various versions of the idea that the Chalabi-Iran connection is b.s. and is "really" a scheme to get the neocons off the hook by scapegoating Chalabi. In a word, Huh?

The idea is ridiculous. He was the neocons' darling, very publicly and demonstrably so. If it turns out that the whole time they were proclaiming him the Churchill of Iraq, he was funneling Iranian disinformation straight to Dick Cheney, who was slurping it down like lasagna and turning over the crown jewels of US secret info to Chalabi, who was taking it straight back to Iran, well, I don't think that gets 'em off any hooks. Impales 'em right squarely on a few, far as i can see. It shows 'em being played for chumps, displaying an incompetence verging on high treason in time of war. I can't for the life of me fathom how this is supposed to work to their benefit somehow.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trumad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 10:54 PM
Response to Reply #38
51. The Neo-Con Godfather, Leo Strauss
Edited on Tue May-25-04 10:58 PM by trumad
Leo Strauss was born in Germany in 1899. Since coming to the United States in 1938 he has been professor of political science and philosophy at the New School for Social Research and professor of political science at the University of Chicago. In 1954-55 he was visiting professor of philosophy and political science at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

Chalabi:
Chalabi is the scion of a prominent Shi'a family, one of the wealthy power elite of Baghdad, where he was born. Chalabi left Iraq with his family in 1956 or 1958 and mostly lived in the U.S. and United Kingdom. In 1969, he received a Ph.D. in mathematics from the University of Chicago (dissertation title: The Jacobson Radical of a Group Ring), after which he took a position in the mathematics department at the American University of Beirut.

http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Ahmed_Chalabi
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
REP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 11:58 PM
Response to Reply #51
87. Also See This Month's Harper's
Good article on Strauss and his disciples.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 11:08 PM
Response to Reply #38
62. Well Said, Doctor
Edited on Tue May-25-04 11:09 PM by The Magistrate
The rum fun in the confection is the charge that Chalabi passed on highly classified information himself to the Iranians, that he could only have gotten from his highest political patrons in the current regime. It is hard to say whether their giving it to him, or his stealing it from them, would be the more damning.

Chalabi has always struck me as a fellow with the potential for multiple employers, and there is no reason to believe he would not have seemed as apt a tool to the Iranians as to anyone else. They have, after all, their own reasons to have desired the destruction of Hussein, and their own potential benefits from destabilization and collapse of Iraq. One of the problems with the "pretzel logic" to which you refer is that it imagines there is only one actor in the world. But that is not the case. There are many, each with its own agenda and capabilities.

"There is the celebrated tale of the man who gave the powder to the bear. He mixed it with the greatest care, wrapped it in a spill he put to his lips at the mouth of the bear --- but the bear blew first...."

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
psychopomp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-04 04:24 AM
Response to Reply #62
117. And also you, Mr. M
You and the Doc sum it up quite well and a better-writ rejoinder is beyond my ability.
:toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoveTurnedHawk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-04 09:20 AM
Response to Reply #62
132. My View Matches That of DrBB and The Magistrate, Will
I feel that a good chunk of your readers -- and folks here -- are off base. But then that's not exactly a new feeling for me. ;-)

DTH
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
displacedvermoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 10:17 PM
Response to Original message
2. I'm not sure
but I have no problem believing it to be so. That is the frightening thing, we have no possible idea just how out of control things have become.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pale Blue Dot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 10:17 PM
Response to Original message
3. You left out "both"
Edited on Tue May-25-04 10:18 PM by Finnfan
I'm not sure that even this administration has any idea of what they're doing anymore.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Eye and Monkey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 10:26 PM
Response to Reply #3
14. I agree, it's both. They got suckered. It'll be recast as an opportunity.
It's a case of "give 'em enough rope, and they'll hang themselves - and the rest of the world while they're at it."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BurtWorm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 10:17 PM
Response to Original message
4. I think it's real, and I don't see how it leads to an invasion
of Iran. It exposes the Bushists as complete incompetent idiots. If anyone ever trusts them to lead us into another invasion, they're even dumber than the Bushists!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dookus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 10:19 PM
Response to Reply #4
8. I agree
If we wanted to invade Iran, we'd need to use boy scouts, Amway salesmen or Jehovah's witnesses to do it for us, cuz we sure don't have the troops or money to do it.

This whole thing is terrible for Bush - it doesn't give him ANY support to further his war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RobinA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-04 09:11 AM
Response to Reply #4
130. It's Real
This is pretty much my take, they are simply exposed, once again, as mind-bogglingly incompetent. Without taking away from the seriousness of the Chalabi revelations, I find them hysterically funny in a dark way.

Plus the fact that no way are we in any position to invade Iran. We're in Afghanistan, we are totally bogged down in Iraq, we couldn't invade Hawaii at this point, let along a country that might actually be able to fight back.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ewagner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 10:18 PM
Response to Original message
5. Too many moving parts
Edited on Tue May-25-04 10:19 PM by ewagner
at the moment.

Look at the number of players involved here:

Iran
Chalabai
CIA
DIA
PNAC
Rumsfeld, Feith, Wolfowitz: collectively AND individually.
Bush
Cheney
Ayatollah Sistanni

Each player has an agenda of their own. Each is capable of pulling off a charade.

Somebody has to tip their hand before we can get a good bead on the truth.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NV Whino Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 10:18 PM
Response to Original message
6. Yep
Dear Will, when this story first came out. I said exactly the same thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AntiCoup2K4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 10:18 PM
Response to Original message
7. I really hadn't considered the Iranian invasion angle before....
...but it's possible. What I was actually thinking was that this is PNAC's version of "reverse psychology" in which they pretend to go after Chalabi, he gains "street credibility" with Iraqis pissed off at the occupation. When the time for an election comes, Chalabi by a landslide. Which is what PNAC wanted anyway.

Let's put it this way, if the neocon shitbags really wanted to take Chalabi down, they would be calling in Jordan's help. I believe Chalabi's still a wanted felon there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Merlin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 10:21 PM
Response to Original message
9. Neither.
It's a trick to try to sheep dip Chalabi as a Shiite loyalist in hopes he will be accepted eventually as Iraqi President.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 10:22 PM
Response to Original message
10. Pure set up
Chalabi is a mutherfucker who loves only himself.
Bush pays him premium bucks and offers him security.
This whole affair is way too 'in the public eye' to be legit.
Worse than all star wrestling.
This is a set up.
Why can't you see that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BurtWorm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 10:24 PM
Response to Reply #10
13. Did you read Borger's article at the Guardian?
Did you read Andrew Cockburn's Saturday "exclusive" at Counterpunch? How about Robert Parry's at consortium.com? Read them all. They connect the dots!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WilliamPitt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 10:27 PM
Response to Reply #10
15. I don't buy it
1. Why would they make themselves out to be dupes of Iranian intelligence...and I mean dupes for YEARS? It doesn't scan. This is bigger than Aldrich Ames, and it was Rumsfeld who invited the vampire in.

2. I think Julian Borger is one of the three best investigative reporters (along with Hersch and Pincus) in the biz.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BurtWorm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 10:29 PM
Response to Reply #15
18. Have you read Parry and Andrew Cockburn yet?
Edited on Tue May-25-04 10:29 PM by BurtWorm
Your opinion will only be reinforced.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Merlin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 10:43 PM
Response to Reply #15
36. Borger, Hersh and Pincus are all mouthpieces for Intelligence insiders.
That doesn't mean they're not good. But they have for years served as conduits for various factions within the spook community and the pentagon.

Now to your point.

You are suggesting, as I get it, that Rummy would not allow himself to be tainted with the notion that his DOD has been duped by a double-dealing Chalabi. There is merit to that inference.

But it is also possible Rummy and his crowd will pin the blame on Tenet, an easy scapegoat almost certain to be jettisoned before the election. They can say Tenet vetted Chalabi and Tenet believed in WMDs and Tenet's got to take the fall for misleading the Shrubbies.

However, it does seem that Feith gets mud on himself out of this. But I believe Feith will be axed anyhow. Rummy needs to lop off a lobe or two to survive.

I believe that this is a desperation move to try to get Chalabi into the inner sanctum of the Shiite community.

The real test is this, imo: If Chalabi is truly a suspected double-agent, why the fuck hasn't he been arrested?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BurtWorm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 10:49 PM
Response to Reply #36
46. We seem to be witnessing a long-brooding civil war erupting
within the administration. All hell seems to be breaking loose.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-04 12:47 AM
Response to Reply #36
100. easy answer to your last question
he got the intel he passed on...from the connections through these folks. Take him down completely... and he takes others down with him.

I think there are a lot of knives out in a lot of corners for a lot of "each others" in this story. It is one of the stories, imo, that has the most potential to force a major implosion on the right. Think about this - there is no question that Chalabi duped the neocons with the prewar intel. They didn't care where he got it, they wanted it. But it is already known that this happened (Chalabi has admitted it months ago)... so the Iran connection adds a "yuck" and irony effect but not much more interms of overall public perception.

However, if, as is alleged, he has been passing intel back to Iran - and if it has been ongoing and recent... just what kind of intel would he be passing along. What would Iran want after Saddam goes down...let's see - getting the US out... so if, by extension, this story would lead to intelligence that has been used against US troops on the ground - or against other "assetts" or in other ways that have worked towards the defeat of the US in Iraq... the public reaction would make the public revulsion at Watergate look mild.

But whether that were to ever pass or not - following the bouncing ball on this story - is very interesting given how many players have reasons to have a dog in the hunt (the outcome and perceived outcome) and have serious grudges against other players. Think the claymation mtv death match's - with multiple players.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Merlin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-04 12:52 AM
Response to Reply #100
105. It's a truly wonderful thought!
Think the claymation mtv death match's - with multiple players

Let's see: Rummy vs. Chalabi vs. Tenet vs. Bush vs. Powell vs. Cheyney. Oh the heads that could roll!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RobinA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-04 09:17 AM
Response to Reply #15
131. They Wouldn't
A set up just doesn't wash. Chalabi makes the entire administration look like Grade A fools since way back, and in an election year. Not that this will affect the election, since it's too sophisticated for the average CNN viewer to pay attention too, but you don't set yourself up as an ass when you are up for reelection.

Not to mention the fact that no way are we invading Iran anytime soon, no matter how much they may want to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Momof1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 10:23 PM
Response to Original message
11. I'm not sure
If this was a Bush charade to invade Iran, we really won't know until around 9/11. Then they can run on invading Iran the way they did 2 yrs ago for Iraq.

Or is this a big black eye for the whole administration that they have been tricked.

I don't know.

I know that we can't trust this administration at all, and either answer right now is plausible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 10:23 PM
Response to Original message
12. Not sure
because I haven't done research. Thanks for your work though. I'll delve into it (study and research) when I get a good chance. You're usually pretty much on the money concerning things. I'm skeptical about everything though. These last few years have made me so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NMDemDist2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 10:27 PM
Response to Original message
16. will, don't worry, this story is gonna grow legs
and be Bushit's downfall. Not only did he give a convicted con man millions, he sent us to war on intelligence fed by Iran.

ugly ugly ugly and so incompetent the WH will fall

BTW you just tell the truth, let the naysayers and freakazoids fall where they may :D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 10:28 PM
Response to Original message
17. Or....some of them believed him. For real.
And now they just want to smash his face.

Not all of BushCo are completely cynical manipulators. Some are pathetically credulous ideologues. You know, the fools who thought we were going to establish Christian Western democracy with a US friendly puppet government in Iraq and get thanked for stealing the oil.

They thought Chalabi was a good darkie. He's turned out to be just a wiley untrustworthy foreigner and you know what they're like.

What looks like a clever plan could be nothing but a hissy fit.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NewYorkerfromMass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 10:29 PM
Response to Original message
19. Is this Jeopardy?
Kinda hard to pick an answer that's a question.
Anyway, we got hosed by Iran.
There's nothing tinfoily about it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WilliamPitt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 10:30 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. Good point
Doh.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Chicken George Donating Member (109 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 10:30 PM
Response to Original message
21. Too many angles with the Chalabi situation
It appears to be a struggle between CIA/State v DOD and CIA/State won this round. Chalabi had to be removed as an obstacle to an orderly transition and an ongoing embarrassment to Bushco hence the raid. One important issue to consider: If Chalabi or one of his henchmen has indeed passed on classified information to the Iranians why is he still roaming freely around Baghdad..??? all imho of course.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vetwife Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 10:32 PM
Response to Reply #21
24. Why is he not in jail instead of talk show hopping?
CIA in here somewhere. Gotta be !
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Chicken George Donating Member (109 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 10:45 PM
Response to Reply #24
40. Exactly...
In every one of the talking head shows he's been on he has stated his desire to come before Congress and testify under oath and has challenged Tenet to do the same. He has directly challenged Tenet by saying that he was set up by the CIA and wants Tenet to produce his evidence. I think he's asking for an "accidental plane crash"...(tinfoil firmly in place.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anarchy1999 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 10:31 PM
Response to Original message
22. Will, read back up on the PNAC'ers, this is all going according to plan.
All for the "Greater Israel". Look at the map. All there. Total de-stabilization of the entire mid-east region.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WilliamPitt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 10:31 PM
Response to Reply #22
23. See post 15
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anarchy1999 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 10:35 PM
Response to Reply #23
28. Sorry, you are on it. Should have known. Sorry again.
n/t
Don't leave out Palast.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spanone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 10:39 PM
Response to Reply #23
32. One might wonder why Chalabi would be a free man.
Fraud might be one charge.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BurtWorm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 10:34 PM
Response to Reply #22
27. You've got to read Robert Parry's article.
Edited on Tue May-25-04 10:35 PM by BurtWorm
Go to http://www.consortiumnews.com/2004/052504.html . The history begins in the 1970s when the neocons first arose and Likud first took power. It's a complicated history.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
punpirate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 10:33 PM
Response to Original message
25. One thing's for sure...
... if the US government (the currently working part of it, whatever that is) wanted Chalabi out of the way, it's easy. Just deposit him on the Jordanian border and hand him over. The dossier that the DIA said had the goods on him came from Jordan--they want him, and we could solve a problem easily, and have him a place where we could interrogate him any time.

But, instead, he's on all the talk shows, indignant as hell, and his intelligence assistant has disappeared.

I think this is a minor war between the military staff of the Pentagon (via the DIA), who want to upset the neo-cons applecart and make mileage for the intelligence community--who better to take the heat about WMDs than the guy who forged most of the evidence?, and the civilian neo-cons, who desperately want to maintain the fiction that there really are WMDs there--and want get Chalabi into the permanent government--because he's the guy ("the anti-Arab Arab") who's going to facilitate privatization of Iraq for them (and help them and their friends make a wad of cash).

Terribly cynical, I know. But plausible, given the last three years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robbedvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 10:33 PM
Response to Original message
26. A brilliant post I saved from Clark's blog on this:

(#206) (Rated5.00/3)
by fmsjp on 05/25/2004 02:53:07 PM EST

Duped isn't the right word---stupid is closer.
Clark said flatout Bush wanted a "campaign" to to "drain the swamp". It starts in Iraq and goes through Iran, Sudan, Syria, Libya, Lebanon and Somalia. Seven states over five years.
So, that Iran was giving them info to help "sell" this war to us, it just fits the mo here. That they were so stupid to destroy an enemy of our enemy (Islamic fundamentalists) just goes to prove the absolute arrogance of this entire administration. No matter what happens now, when the US pulls out of Iraq there will be a vaccum of power, and Iran knows it will fill it.
Iran has got to be nervous though. When they look to the east or the west they see american soldiers on their border.
Everything is destabilized now. And I do not believe there is any good solution.
Joe

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 10:53 PM
Response to Reply #26
50. Yep. Iran played * like a fiddle. We've been had.
The only winner will be Iran.

It's all so clear now. Iran used Chalabi to influence * to take out Saddam.

Remember Clarke saying that * cornered him and told him to find evidence that Saddam had his hand in 9/11? Obviously, * had doubts about Chalabi even then, but was still allowed to be led to doing the dirty deed for Iran.

Gen. Zinni on Charlie Rose right now: "We should not be in Iraq". Rose asks: "Rumsfeld should be fired or quit?"
Zinni: "Yes"

Zinni: "I can't support * unless Rummy quits or is fired"

Well, I'll be......
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Goldmund Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 10:36 PM
Response to Original message
29. Well, here's a question:
Why has he not been arrested?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WilliamPitt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 10:37 PM
Response to Reply #29
30. Because the CIA hasn't given its proof to the Justice Dept.?
Or, if they have, because Ashcroft doesn't want to arrest so visible a Bush creature?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Media_Lies_Daily Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 10:40 PM
Response to Reply #30
33. Come on, Will...the CIA wasn't involved in this one...it was the DIA,....
...remember?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WilliamPitt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 10:47 PM
Response to Reply #33
41. Um...
According to a US intelligence official, the CIA has hard evidence that Mr. Chalabi and his intelligence chief, Aras Karim Habib, passed US secrets to Tehran, and that Mr. Habib has been a paid Iranian agent for several years, involved in passing intelligence in both directions.

The CIA has asked the FBI to investigate Mr. Chalabi's contacts in the Pentagon to discover how the INC acquired sensitive information that ended up in Iranian hands.

The implications are far-reaching. Mr. Chalabi and Mr. Habib were the channels for much of the intelligence on Iraqi weapons on which Washington built its case for war.

"It's pretty clear that Iranians had us for breakfast, lunch and dinner," said an intelligence source in Washington yesterday. "Iranian intelligence has been manipulating the US for several years through Chalabi."

Larry Johnson, a former senior counter-terrorist official at the state department, said: "When the story ultimately comes out we'll see that Iran has run one of the most masterful intelligence operations in history. They persuaded the US and Britain to dispose of its greatest enemy."

Mr. Chalabi has vehemently rejected the allegations as "a lie, a fib and silly". He accused the CIA director, George Tenet, of a smear campaign against himself and Mr. Habib.

However, it is clear that the CIA - at loggerheads with Mr. Chalabi for more than eight years - believes it has caught him red-handed, and is sticking to its allegations.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/052604C.shtml
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
starroute Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-04 01:16 AM
Response to Reply #41
110. It's true that the CIA had it's own horse in the race
The CIA never supported the Iraqi National Congress. Their favorites were the Iraqi National Accord, a Shi'ite exile group heavy in former Baathists and military officers.

Iyad Alawi (or Ayad Allawi), the leader of this group, has been serving on the Provisional Council along with Chalabi. Googling his name just brought me to an interesting CounterPunch article from a couple of weeks ago.

"Now, this prospect was seriously threatened in the immediate prelude to the invasion: under State Department sponsorship, with CIA support, and with Saudi and Jordanian participation, attempts were made to reach a deal, whereby top circles of the Iraqi army would overthrow Saddam Hussein and seize power. One could guess that something along this line was going on, from the frenzy of Saudi diplomatic activity in January 2003 and a public statement by Colin Powell about granting amnesty to Iraqi generals who would rise up against the tyrant.

"We now know better, thanks to an investigation conducted by the New York Times: in the three months before the war, from late 2002, intensive contacts were held with high-ranking Iraqi military leaders, including the Defense Minister, General Sultan Hashem Ahmed al-Tai, who offered to collaborate in ensuring a smooth transition into a post-Hussein U.S.-friendly era under Iraqi Army control. An Iraqi exile rival of Ahmad Chalabi--Iyad Alawi, like him a Shiite member of the U.S.-appointed Governing Council--played a key role in the operation. Alawi heads the Iraqi National Accord, a London-based opposition group of former Iraqi army officers who staged, with CIA assistance, an unsuccessful coup d'tat against Saddam Hussein in 1996. He is quoted in the NYT report as saying: 'Our idea was to take off the upper crust and leave the rest of the regime intact.' "

http://www.counterpunch.org/achcar05052004.html


It seems likely that the CIA never wanted to invade Iraq and never supported the complete dismantling of the Baathist government and army. Those were the doing of Bush, the Neocons, and Chalabi -- and both actions have turned out disastrously. In going after Chalabi, the CIA may just be doing what it can to clean up the mess.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RobinA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-04 09:27 AM
Response to Reply #41
133. If This Was Well Planned
by Iran rather than something that just fell into their laps, they deserve a tip of the hat. I have to admire a masterfully played hand and true demonstration of "the vision thing" that we so sorely lack at this point in our history. Used to be us with the vision, tain't anymore.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Goldmund Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 10:44 PM
Response to Reply #30
37. But then...
...why stage such visible a raid? Also, we're assuming that they're so confident in their surveillance and movement limiting techniques that they're positive that more damage is not being done (no more info passed to Iran) and that Chalabi won't flee.

I think that your theory is totally valid, and I believe in it myself -- but I think there's more to it. There's some weird dynamics between the CIA and the administration at play here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WilliamPitt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 10:53 PM
Response to Reply #37
49. There is no doubt the CIA is gaming here
but perhaps they are gaming because they watched Bush sell the intelligence community down the river in favor of a hack like Chalabi and a bunch of rookies like the guys in OSP...and then they watched Bush blame CIA for his people's errors...and then they figured out that Chalabi was playing a double game. They've been hip to Chalabi's aide's Iranian connections since the 1990s.

The CIA is playing for power, no doubt. Hersch reported that Rumsfeld wanted to take intelligence power out of CIAs hands, som of course that is a part of all this. But that doesn't mean they're wrong about Chalabi...and I don't think the Bushies would allow this much egg on their faces as a means to legitimize Chalabi.

Even if they did, it failed. Chalabi is now fully de-legitimized across the planet, and as dupes of Iranian intelligence, the Bushies are likewise even more de-legitimized. How does a White House damaged like this get what it wants?

The CIA is gaming. That doesn't mean they're wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Goldmund Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 11:16 PM
Response to Reply #49
68. "I don't think the Bushies would allow this much egg on their faces...
...as a means to legitimize Chalabi."

I absolutely agree.

The reason I originally raised the question of why wasn't he arrested is that I think that it's a consequence of the present positioning of the CIA and the Administration. If he's an agent of Iran, and the Administration knows that, wouldn't the logical thing for them to do be to arrest him ASAP? What, or who, is holding them back? Well, the CIA is probably the only other player with enough leverage in what goes on in Iraq to prevent the US military from arresting him. Pure speculation at this point, as I don't have any facts that would shed light on this issue one way or the other -- but why would the CIA prevent the Administration from arresting Chalabi?

That boggles me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WilliamPitt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 11:27 PM
Response to Reply #68
73. Who has the authority to arrest him?
I think that's at the nub. If CIA can arrest him, you have raised a serious point. But if it is Justice who has the authority, that means FBI, and they work for Ashcroft. Go figure.

They have Chalabi's aide dead to rights, apparently. The guy worked for Chalabi for ten years. You think Chalabi wasn't in the game? Hell, he *was* the game. He's trying to gain support from the Shia? Iran is Shia.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gbwarming Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 11:36 PM
Response to Reply #73
76. Why even bother arresting him - just leave him hanging in Iraq
as a miserable, voiceless loser - distrusted now by Iraqis, Iran and the US.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Goldmund Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 11:42 PM
Response to Reply #76
80. Wouldn't they want to know what he knows, and wouldn't they...
...want to stop him from letting Iran know the rest of what he knows?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BurtWorm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 11:48 PM
Response to Reply #80
84. They know what he knows.
Or some of them do. It's the ones who knows what he knows who could be in deep shit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Goldmund Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 11:41 PM
Response to Reply #73
78. Isn't he in Iraq?
As I understand it, if Chalabi is an agent of Iran, it becomes a national security -- or, a military -- issue rather than a legal one. Couldn't a general order his arrest even without any higher authorization? People get arrested all over Iraq for a lot less. Of course, this is all theoretical, and there are bigger things in play; we all know that no military commander will order Chalabi arrested without the Administration's order.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NewYorkerfromMass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 10:45 PM
Response to Reply #30
39. or Chalabi is just as much a dupe as Bush. eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
billybob537 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 11:02 PM
Response to Reply #30
60. Humor me
Bush can't afford to fire anyone right now.Because they have a nasty habit of writing tell-all books. Chilabi has nothing to gain by turning over on Rummy. He will IMHO probably have a tragic accident soon. Or he may be turned over to Jordan. This would improve relations at a time of great need. Iraq has 2 choices 1.terrorist traing state. or 2.theocracy. If we work very hard we may be able to achieve the later. And as far as this being an excuse to invade Iran, If you believe that BS you should be the first one sent in.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WilliamPitt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 11:15 PM
Response to Reply #60
66. "If you believe that BS you should be the first one sent in."
:) :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BurtWorm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 10:48 PM
Response to Reply #29
42. Who has the authority to arrest him?
Edited on Tue May-25-04 11:05 PM by BurtWorm
I don't know. I don't think the CPA does. What would they charge him with? And I don't think the US is ready to charge him for the simple reason that the administration is divided between those who want him arrested and those who don't. The longer they wait, though, the harder it will be because he'll just pick up support from those Shiites who will see him as a scapegoat and martyr.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madrchsod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 10:39 PM
Response to Original message
31. i agree with you will
after reading about what has been going on with the cia in the last months it is clear they have been "thrown under the bus" . and as i posted earlier today the cia are bad guys and they deal with bad guys, now they have been compermised..it`s not just the plame affair now it`s the irainian affair. it`s treason and impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors..but nothing will ever happen to any of them....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VelmaD Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 10:41 PM
Response to Original message
34. hope vs. fear
I hope that it's the real deal because it makes the administration look like a bunch of gullible fools.

I fear that whether it's a set up or not it's going to be used as an excuse to do something suicidally stupid vis a vis Iran.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Steven_S Donating Member (810 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 10:42 PM
Response to Original message
35. One thing's for sure....
We're ALL gettin' hosed by this bunch.

For the time being though, I'd have to agree with you Will.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zydeco Donating Member (152 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 10:48 PM
Response to Original message
43. Could someone please help me with this?
Where would a wanted, foreign, felon, get information of any consequence to pass on to Iran? and why is that not being pursued?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BurtWorm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 10:51 PM
Response to Reply #43
48. *cough*Wolfowitz*coughcough*Perle*cough*
Excuse me!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bpilgrim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 10:49 PM
Response to Original message
44. through the looking glass
if the story is true (iranian spy) do u really think that the neoCONs didn't know his connections before they busted him out to beam him in?

we ALL know they KNEW that iraq wasn't a threat and they were goin in no matter WHAT.

we ALL know that IRAN is on the short list.

i think u owe it to your profession and your experiance to be sceptical at the very least... so i apreciate you bringing it to the DU think tank =)

me personally don't know what to make of it... wheels within wheels wrapped in a riddle surrounded by mystery.

:shrug:

peace
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sperk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 10:49 PM
Response to Original message
45. This Administration is constantly trying to convince us that they
are incompetent. That means the truth is worse. Give me a break, if our intelligence departments were fooled by a two bit crook, they all deserve to be fired! Just like they should all have been fired for 9/11!!!!! Damn, enough lies already!

I guess Chimpy's stupidity is contagious, is that what they're telling me?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Generic Other Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 10:50 PM
Response to Original message
47. I admit, I was wondering if you had started shilling for the neo-cons
I sure hope they aren't quoting your article as their justification when they re-direct the war on terror and march towards Tehran.

That would be a great plot for a nightmare, eh?

Wake up! Wake up, Will Pitt! Don't give those neo-cons ideas!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WilliamPitt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 10:55 PM
Response to Reply #47
52. With whose army will they wage this Iran war?
The troops in Iraq are stretched, we don't have many Reserves left, and we have spent hundreds of billions in Iraq and Afghanistan while achieving exactly nothing. Bush is 0-2. Do you think, with Iraq as bad as it is right now, Congress will authorize another war? Even if they do, with whose army will we fight this thing?

Don't say Israel. I don't buy that for a second.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bpilgrim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 10:59 PM
Response to Reply #52
57. good point...
and i agree i don't think it makes the neoCONs look good but they have done so many stupid things in the recent past i wouldn't put ANYTHING by them.

2. you must admit that iran is on their agenda.

so be sceptical and don't get gammed yourself.

peace
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beam Me Up Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 11:20 PM
Response to Reply #52
70. The army they intend to conscript and build . . .
as they militarize our society after the next predicted "terrorist attack."

Lets hope I'm only paranoid and not prophetic, as my belief that something like 9/11 was going to occur would suggest. However, it would seem to me that if, as seems the case, the neocon agenda is to go forward, reasonable objections be damned, then another "catalyzing event" -- 100 times 9/11, I would wager -- would be called for. Such an event is necessary to create the mythology of history necessary for the follow through to social mobilization and our militarization of earth orbit and defacto global domination.

In any case, the advise to be sceptical regarding ANY information coming from this administration is obviously warranted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Raster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-04 12:51 AM
Response to Reply #52
102. we're not going anywhere near Iran, we don't have the resources...
Arrogant, greedy, and now, stupid. cheney & co. were conned royally by chalabi.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bpilgrim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-04 01:08 AM
Response to Reply #102
109. doubt it
even us dead-peasants on DU KNEW... how could they not have?

i ain't buy'n it.

peace
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Betty The Younger Donating Member (63 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 10:55 PM
Response to Original message
53. Neither. Its to give the Bush* admin cover
Chalabi is damaged goods. Bush* has to distance himself from Chalabi before the summer gets here (and the political season heats up). This is just a preemptive strike to get distance between Bush* and trouble. That is all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dudeness Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 10:58 PM
Response to Reply #53
55. welcome to DU Betty
:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Betty The Younger Donating Member (63 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 11:09 PM
Response to Reply #55
64. Thank you Dudeness!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bpilgrim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 11:01 PM
Response to Reply #53
59. welcome to DU
would be a very shrewed move considering all that has happened and is going on and about to come out this summer - F'911 - and also play into their long term goals as well.

:hi:

peace
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Betty The Younger Donating Member (63 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 11:14 PM
Response to Reply #59
65. Thank you Bpilgrim!
The summer will be interesting. The Bush* administration is the most insidious vacuous bunch I have seen in my 30 + years of paying attention. I put nothing past them. Even stealing an election...again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dudeness Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 10:56 PM
Response to Original message
54. I agree with borg..
even so if chalabi gets his hands on the reins..he will not last long..he in no way serves irans purposes..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sporadicus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 10:58 PM
Response to Original message
56. At First I Suspected a Neocon Ploy
Edited on Tue May-25-04 11:00 PM by Labor_Ready
But after careful consideration I saw some problems with this scenario.

If portrayal of Chalabi as an Iranian agent is a ruse, it would give him some cachet with the Shi'ite population of Iraq, but the Sunnis don't want a leader who would expand Iranian influence in their country.

The CIA wouldn't go along with a ruse that ends up exposing their incompetence. More likely, the CIA has been aware of Chalabi's Iranian connections for years, and the neocons ignored the warnings. This fiasco gives the CIA the opportunity to save face, saying, 'I told you so.'

The neocons must come up with a better pretense for expanding the war than the passing of secret information. At best, this debacle merely gives them an opportunity to ratchet up the rhetoric. I don't pretend that some of the neocons aren't psychotic enough to advocate a head-on attack of Iran, but I would expect a better justification than Chalabi's spying for profit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beam Me Up Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 11:08 PM
Response to Reply #56
63. Could another "terrorist attack" provide the "better pretense"? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sporadicus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 11:17 PM
Response to Reply #63
69. That's a 'Better Pretense,' Yes
The one I've expected for some time now involves discovery of 'weapons of mass destruction' being smuggled into Iraq via Iran.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tinoire Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 11:00 PM
Response to Original message
58. All going along to PNAC, the DLC's & the PPI's plan...
Edited on Tue May-25-04 11:45 PM by Tinoire
- a Bush trick to invade Iran.

Of course it is, unless you prefer to believe the version of Will Marshall, advisor to DLC candidate John Kerry & the DLX/PPI/PNAC/AEI plan in general.

You can write a book about it in 6 months :) Call it "Ike Warned Us" & dedicate it to the DLC because they don't seem to have paid much attention to it.

But hey, it's all good. isn't it, as long as we use "elusive terrorism" as an excuse? The entire excuse doubles up as an excuse for that overbloaled Pentagon budget, our immoral appropriation of oil (and whatever other resource we need), economic sancions, war and targetted assassinations.


You're getting creamed by all those obsolete antiwar Leftists who aren't quite as enamoured with the DLC charade as you are.

==

|"Ike Warned Us



Public Papers of the Presidents, Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1960, p. 1035- 1040

My fellow Americans:

Three days from now, after half a century in the service of our country, I shall lay down the responsibilities of office as, in traditional and solemn ceremony, the authority of the Presidency is vested in my successor.

This evening I come to you with a message of leave-taking and farewell, and to share a few final thoughts with you, my countrymen.

Like every other citizen, I wish the new President, and all who will labor with him, Godspeed. I pray that the coming years will be blessed with peace and prosperity for all.

Our people expect their President and the Congress to find essential agreement on issues of great moment, the wise resolution of which will better shape the future of the Nation.

My own relations with the Congress, which began on a remote and tenuous basis when, long ago, a member of the Senate appointed me to West Point, have since ranged to the intimate during the war and immediate post-war period, and, finally, to the mutually interdependent during these past eight years.

In this final relationship, the Congress and the Administration have, on most vital issues, cooperated well, to serve the national good rather than mere partisanship, and so have assured that the business of the Nation should go forward. So, my official relationship with the Congress ends in a feeling, on my part, of gratitude that we have been able to do so much together.

II.

We now stand ten years past the midpoint of a century that has witnessed four major wars among great nations. Three of these involved our own country. Despite these holocausts America is today the strongest, the most influential and most productive nation in the world. Understandably proud of this pre-eminence, we yet realize that America's leadership and prestige depend, not merely upon our unmatched material progress, riches and military strength, but on how we use our power in the interests of world peace and human betterment.

III.

Throughout America's adventure in free government, our basic purposes have been to keep the peace; to foster progress in human achievement, and to enhance liberty, dignity and integrity among people and among nations. To strive for less would be unworthy of a free and religious people. Any failure traceable to arrogance, or our lack of comprehension or readiness to sacrifice would inflict upon us grievous hurt both at home and abroad.

Progress toward these noble goals is persistently threatened by the conflict now engulfing the world. It commands our whole attention, absorbs our very beings. We face a hostile ideology -- global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose, and insidious in method. Unhappily the danger is poses promises to be of indefinite duration. To meet it successfully, there is called for, not so much the emotional and transitory sacrifices of crisis, but rather those which enable us to carry forward steadily, surely, and without complaint the burdens of a prolonged and complex struggle -- with liberty the stake. Only thus shall we remain, despite every provocation, on our charted course toward permanent peace and human betterment.

Crises there will continue to be. In meeting them, whether foreign or domestic, great or small, there is a recurring temptation to feel that some spectacular and costly action could become the miraculous solution to all current difficulties. A huge increase in newer elements of our defense; development of unrealistic programs to cure every ill in agriculture; a dramatic expansion in basic and applied research -- these and many other possibilities, each possibly promising in itself, may be suggested as the only way to the road we wish to travel.

But each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs -- balance between the private and the public economy, balance between cost and hoped for advantage -- balance between the clearly necessary and the comfortably desirable; balance between our essential requirements as a nation and the duties imposed by the nation upon the individual; balance between actions of the moment and the national welfare of the future. Good judgment seeks balance and progress; lack of it eventually finds imbalance and frustration.

The record of many decades stands as proof that our people and their government have, in the main, understood these truths and have responded to them well, in the face of stress and threat. But threats, new in kind or degree, constantly arise. I mention two only.

IV.

A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.

Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex . The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.

In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientifictechnological elite.

It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system -- ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.

V.

Another factor in maintaining balance involves the element of time. As we peer into society's future, we -- you and I, and our government -- must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.

VI.

Down the long lane of the history yet to be written America knows that this world of ours, ever growing smaller, must avoid becoming a community of dreadful fear and hate, and be instead, a proud confederation of mutual trust and respect.

Such a confederation must be one of equals. The weakest must come to the conference table with the same confidence as do we, protected as we are by our moral, economic, and military strength. That table, though scarred by many past frustrations, cannot be abandoned for the certain agony of the battlefield.

Disarmament, with mutual honor and confidence, is a continuing imperative. Together we must learn how to compose differences, not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose. Because this need is so sharp and apparent I confess that I lay down my official responsibilities in this field with a definite sense of disappointment. As one who has witnessed the horror and the lingering sadness of war -- as one who knows that another war could utterly destroy this civilization which has been so slowly and painfully built over thousands of years -- I wish I could say tonight that a lasting peace is in sight.

Happily, I can say that war has been avoided. Steady progress toward our ultimate goal has been made. But, so much remains to be done. As a private citizen, I shall never cease to do what little I can to help the world advance along that road.

VII.

So -- in this my last good night to you as your President -- I thank you for the many opportunities you have given me for public service in war and peace. I trust that in that service you find some things worthy; as for the rest of it, I know you will find ways to improve performance in the future.

You and I -- my fellow citizens -- need to be strong in our faith that all nations, under God, will reach the goal of peace with justice. May we be ever unswerving in devotion to principle, confident but humble with power, diligent in pursuit of the Nation's great goals.

To all the peoples of the world, I once more give expression to America's prayerful and continuing aspiration:

We pray that peoples of all faiths, all races, all nations, may have their great human needs satisfied; that those now denied opportunity shall come to enjoy it to the full; that all who yearn for freedom may experience its spiritual blessings; that those who have freedom will understand, also, its heavy responsibilities; that all who are insensitive to the needs of others will learn charity; that the scourges of poverty, disease and ignorance will be made to disappear from the earth, and that, in the goodness of time, all peoples will come to live together in a peace guaranteed by the binding force of mutual respect and love.

http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/indust...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SnohoDem Donating Member (915 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 11:03 PM
Response to Original message
61. Things are changing too fast to keep up.
I would tend to trust Borger because you guys (leftist, aka honest, journalists) have tended to be way ahead of the shrubbites and the mainstream media.

I think (hope) invasion of Iran would lead to immediate impeachment and possibly trial for treason.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RUMMYisFROSTED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 11:15 PM
Response to Original message
67. Real deal.
Open yourself up for treason just to install a puppet? Puppets are a dime a dozen. Treason will have a dozen doing a dime (or worse).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kimber Scott Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 11:20 PM
Response to Original message
71. I'm not sure. Who gave Chalabi highly valuable information and why?
Seems weird for a foreign national, and convicted felon to have access to highly sensitive, classified, information. If he did, why? What would be the point of giving it to him? I don't get it. The whole thing is too far out there to be believable. I think somebody's got to take the fall for the lack of WMDs and he's the one who sold the Neocons on their existence. They're just trying to wash the blood from their hands, now and maybe, pick a fight with Iran at the same time. I don't know.

Oh, what a tangled web they've woven...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BurtWorm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 11:25 PM
Response to Reply #71
72. The neocons seem to be still behind him.
Wolfowitz and Perle seem stunned that anyone in the admin would want to harm their boy. I think Chalabi played them very well. Remember where he was sitting during the State of the Union? Right behind Laura Bush! Also remember that Prince Bandahar knew more about the preps for the Iraq war at one point than Powell did, reportedly. When the Bushists have a secret to keep from each other or their fellow Americans, they spill it to Prince Bandahar!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kimber Scott Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 11:42 PM
Response to Reply #72
79. Yes, I know some of them are still backing him.
That's also confusing. Didn't they get the memo? Things seem to be unravelling quite a bit lately.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WilliamPitt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 11:28 PM
Response to Reply #71
74. William Luti and Douglas Feith
who ran the Office of Special Plans, the conduit through which Chalabi's "data" was funneled to the NSC, DoD, Cheney and eventually Bush.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bpilgrim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 11:33 PM
Response to Reply #74
75. and so i wonder what they gave him
or do they just got him chatting with iranians?

who knows :shrug:

if you are itchin to write about him tell the known, UNKNOWN story of his recent past right up to him getting BUSTED OUT... by the time your done tell'n that story you will probably have a better handle on the current 'story' ;->

peace
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WilliamPitt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 11:40 PM
Response to Reply #75
77. The OSP operated out of the DoD branch that handled all the Mideast
What did he send them? Everything he saw that was lying fucking around would be enough.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kimber Scott Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-04 12:16 AM
Response to Reply #77
94. I can't imagine highly sensitive information would be lying around.
Well, in Rumsfeld's case, I can imagine a pretty high level of incompentence. But, they act as though this information that he passed to the Iranians was the Holy Grail of all US military information. I can't see that just lying around. If it was, things are even more out of control than we have ever imagined.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bpilgrim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-04 12:33 AM
Response to Reply #77
98. how often did he visit?
after they broke him out?

do you think they would just 'leave things lying around' with him?

:shrug:

peace
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WilliamPitt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-04 12:35 AM
Response to Reply #98
99. Dig it
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bpilgrim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-04 01:01 AM
Response to Reply #99
107. why would the neoCONs pick him knowing his ties?
a perfect patsy that not only helps pave the way for future hostilities but also serves as another distraction and rational as to why we are there to begin with...

i certainly wouldn't rule it out but do admit it sounds way to far sighted for this crew but you never can tell with this crew :crazy:

peace
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kimber Scott Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 11:45 PM
Response to Reply #75
83. Chalabi said on TV the other day he's had an ongoing relationship
with the Iranians and he has met with them often. He said this was public knowledge. Also, his Defense Minister, whoever that is, has met with them, as well. He said that is his job, the Defense Minister's, to meet with them.

My head is spinning.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-04 12:01 AM
Response to Reply #83
88. The person he met with recently - reportedly the head of Iranian Intel
covert operations (against the US).

The Chalabi associate who has fled to Iran, Habib? Ran the intelligence collection efforts for the iraqi national conference, allegedly under the direction (or in coordination) with the DIA - and two dia agents shared an office with Habib. Meanwhile - a NYT article from back around the very late 1990s indicates that Habib was suspected as working with Iranian intelligence.

The big thing - why it broke. Allegedly Jordan passed on via the King of Jordan's recent visit - "irrefutable evidence" of intel that was so highly classified that only a few in the US govt had access had been passed on to IRan via Chalabi (or Chalabi's organization... habib?)

There are a whole lot of threads in this story. Far too many to be a neo con con. But there does seem to be, as you indicate, a whole lot of players with their own interests doing a lot of posturing, some jabbing, but to this point no one yet has gone for the proverbial jugular.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kimber Scott Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-04 12:11 AM
Response to Reply #88
91. Since they shared an office, is this how he got the US information?
This is where I get hung up on the whole story. WHY would Chalabi, or anyone working for him, have US intelligence information that would be valuable to a foreign government. How did he get it? If someone GAVE it to him. WHY would they? I can't imagine, even Cheney, sitting down with the guy and giving him information that could be potentially deadly to American troops. How could that benefit Cheney, or any other NeoCon? It just doesn't make sense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-04 12:15 AM
Response to Reply #91
93. It isn't clear to me - that is one bit of speculatin (via
the office sharing) - but until we know (if we ever do) the nature of the intelligence it is hard to do anything but speculate. One clue was in that initial report that disclosed it was highly classified intel and that the evidence (of it coming through Chalabiinc to the Iranians) was "irrefutable" was also a statement suggesting that the information could put some individuals on the ground at risk. Does that mean troops and troop movements? Does it mean Iraqi appointed officials (think: recent assassination, and another (I believe) attempt)? Very cryptic but with very, very strong assertions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kimber Scott Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-04 12:28 AM
Response to Reply #93
96. I told my husband last year, "Wait. They're going to figure out this
Chalabi guy is the source of all this misinformation being put out by the White House and the Pentagon." I've never trusted him. But, this whole story has so many twists and turns, it's making me dizzy. If there is irrefutable evidence he passed such highly classified information that only a few high level American officials had access to it, it should be pretty easy to prove how he got it. This hasn't happened, nor has it even been alluded to - that I have seen. That's why this story is so shaky to me.

Here' my theory: Chalabi has the goods on somebody, perhaps everybody, in this administration about how and why this war was begotten. They were trying to find those goods before they toss him in the Tigris. It could be that's what he's given Iran, but unless he has pictures, nobody will believe him, or the Iranians. (It's the pictures that seem to get everybody's attention, you know.) They might believe the Jordanians, though. Hmmm...? It's a thought. Or, maybe, he was just getting a little too big for his breeches and they had to discredit him before he started talking. That seems to be the simplest explanation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-04 12:49 AM
Response to Reply #96
101. I think the lack of arrests (and the siezure of documents and computers)
fits your idea that Chalabi has stuff (if nothing else just their participation in his deception...) that prevents them from acting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BurtWorm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-04 12:18 AM
Response to Reply #91
95. Someone thought Chalabi was pal enough to be privvy to secrets.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-04 12:51 AM
Response to Reply #95
103. I missed one of those...
have to crash for the night but will print it up to read in the morning. Oh what a convoluted - trecherous trail and web appears to have been woven.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BurtWorm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-04 12:52 AM
Response to Reply #103
104. Check out Cockburn at the Guardian tomorrow, too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ConsAreLiars Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 11:43 PM
Response to Original message
81. Not sure, but look at the cast of characters and their options
Chalabi is an operator, a con man. He wheels and deals and swindles and plays everyone. He will scam the neocons to get into a position to loot not only a bank but a nation, and dealings of any sort with Iran are probably just one of the cards he plays. As for being an "agent" - not in his mind. He is loyal only to himself.

Did the neocons use him back? Of course.

Did Iran use him to increase the odds of a US invasion? Maybe, but I doubt it since a weak neighbor is preferable to having a hostile superpower's military on the border. Now maybe they were so sure that the PNACers would fail miserably and so goaded them on, but that is rather more of a gamble than seems likely.

Does this "outing" increase the chances for the the PNAC agenda. I don't think anyone there is so stupid as to think this is a real good time for that. Are they desperate enough to try something this insane? Maybe, but they wouldn't gain any credibility for these new crimes by claiming Iran duped them into Iraq.

More likely, Chalabi is trying to get Shia backing and trying to scam the Ayatollahs and they are giving him donkey-doo in fair exchange.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 11:43 PM
Response to Original message
82. A lot of it smells very fishy
On the Sunday interview rounds Chalabi couldn't get off the subject of what great friends he was with 'the Iraqi people'. * is in need of a desperate ploy and this just about fills the bill.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 11:50 PM
Response to Original message
85. Real - and very convoluted - take a read at Laura Rozen's
blog - pulling together all sorts of items - very tangled web. Way too tangled for a planted story. see www.warandpiece
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kaitykaity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 11:55 PM
Response to Original message
86. It's Brier Rabbit.
I think Chalabi is working for the CIA now, and the
CIA provoked the neocons into repudiated Chalabi, so
that Chalabi would be motiviated to tell everything
that he knows.

The CIA has a major bone on for the Bushies because
they're tired of taking it in the neck for the Bushie
stovepipe failures. (The Plame leak didn't help.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
starroute Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-04 12:02 AM
Response to Original message
89. One major question is how Israel fits into the Chalabi saga
Edited on Wed May-26-04 12:07 AM by starroute
Israel had more to benefit than any other country from the US overthrowing Saddam Hussein. (Iran, by contrast, benefits only if the US craps out in Iraq. Although that seems likely now, it wasn't at all obvious in the run-up to the war.)

Chalabi has ties to Israel -- for example, the partnership between his nephew Salem and right-wing Israeli settler Marc Zell.

The Neocons also have Israel's interests front and center. It's coming to seem that they incited the Iraq War more for Israel's sake than for any purposes of the US. Supposedly they counted on Chalabi to establish a pro-Israel tilt in Iraq and rebuild the oil pipelines to Israel. They're acting all betrayed now because he's sold them out.


So what's going on here? Was Chalabi selling not only the Neocons but Israel itself a bill of goods about the advantages of an Iraq War? Was he playing on their desire to see Saddam Hussein gone to covertly further the interests of Iran instead? The Neocons may have been that easily duped, but I can't see the Israelis buying in that readily -- or being willing to trust a sleezeball like Chalabi for one moment.

Also, if Chalabi can't just be dealing with "Iran" in the abstract -- he'd have to be connected with specific parties in Iran. But the ayatollahs seem to be backing various of the religious Shi'ites, the ones who were in exile in Iran for many years. They'd have no reason to want to see a secular Shi'ite like Chalabi in power. So unless Chalabi was just selling information for cash (which seems like a pretty weak motivation), he must have been expecting some backing in his bid for power in Iraq. And just where was he expecting that backing to come from?


There are some stories which become more coherent as you learn additional details, and others which increasingly make no sense at all. This Chalabi business seems to be in the latter category, which is why I'm positive there are some huge pieces that are either hidden or being radically misrepresented.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BurtWorm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-04 12:06 AM
Response to Reply #89
90. Robert Parry at consortiumnews.com connects some of those dots.
He says some elements in Iranian intelligence and Likud are closer than either would want anyone to think. Their common enemy: pan-Arabists.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
starroute Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-04 12:12 AM
Response to Reply #90
92. I've been wondering about that
I saw something a while back suggesting that as well as Israel and India having connections, and India making overtures to Iran, there might be some covert ties between Israel and Iran.

If Israel and Iran were working together through Chalabi, it could go a long way to explain the things that aren't adding up. I'll have to go have a look at the Parry piece.

(Of course, the new Indian government is supposedly trying to distance itself from Israel as part of its attempt to make peace with Pakistan over Kashmir. We'll have to see how that plays out.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
starroute Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-04 12:55 AM
Response to Reply #92
106. Iran is becoming more nationalistic and less Islam-minded
I try to keep up with the latest developments in archaeology through Archaeological News, and I've been seeing a lot of stories lately about Iran actively exploring its own history and even welcoming Western archaeologists.

This is significant because strongly Islamic governments tend to downplay the pre-Islamic history of their countries. (The Taliban blowing up the Buddhas is one particularly extreme example.) Active encouragement of archaeology tends to go along with both a more secular spirit and a strong sense of national pride. So these stories suggest a profound shift in the Iranian national mood, as well as a tacit acceptance of it by the ayatollahs.

It may also be significant that several of these recent articles have emphasized excavations which indicate that civilization developed in Iran as early as, and independent of, civilization in Sumeria. Stories of this sort, which fly under the radar, can reveal beliefs and aspirations that are not yet being expressed in overt political terms.

I think Iran is looking at India, looking to its own future, and positioning itself to become a modern nation with an active role on the world stage. I suspect they're also saying to themselves that with Iraq taken down a notch, Iran will be the only country between Israel and India with a claim to be the dominant regional power. The only thing that might stand in the way would be the U.S.


Here, by the way, is a typical article from today's Tehran Times:

"An international conference is set to take stock of the archeological findings in northwestern Iran in June, the secretary of the gathering announced.

<snip>

"Among domestic papers approved for presentation are the rock art in northwestern Iran, classification and typological analysis of the pottery of the Arsacid and Sassanid era in Mahneshan in Zanjan, a preliminary report on discovery of stone industries in Middle Paleolithic age near Maraqeh, explorations in the Zahhak castle in Hashtrud and a report on recovery of the Zarzar church.

<snip>

"Experts from Germany, Italy and U.S. are taking part in the forthcoming conference slated for June 19-21 in Urmia. The next international conference is expected to focus on archeology in northeastern Iran, covering central and southern Khorasan, parts of Semnan, Turkmenistan, Afghanistan and western Golestan."

http://www.tehrantimes.com/Description.asp?Da=5/25/2004...


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stephanie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-04 12:31 AM
Response to Original message
97. This story is the CIA and State taking down the neo-cons, and it is true
Edited on Wed May-26-04 12:31 AM by Stephanie


Wolfie or someone equally self-important and stupid shared U.S. top secrets with Chalabi. Chalabi is a crook. The career professionals and CIA and State can no longer sit idly by. They are going after the criminals in the WH and DOD while there's still time to save the country.

The whole neo-con worldview seems very cultish, doesn't it? Space wars? 50 years wars? American hegemony?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pachamama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-04 03:24 AM
Response to Reply #97
114. Yep, the Neocons may be crafty, but someone played them back...
...As much as I believe the Neocons like Perle and Wolfie would love to invade Iran, I think this is the real deal - the Persians f**ked the Bushies and Neocons and used them to do their dirty work...

Live by the sword, die by the sword? I think this is too messy for the Neo-cons to have benefited from such news and it really can't justify "invasion"...

Can one see it now? Someone in the Pentagon of the Neocon persuasion actually trying to persuade Congress and the US to "invade" Iran now? With what resources? What Military?

Actually if this is true, I have to congratulate the Iranians for masterfully screwing the A-holes in the Pentagon - the deserved it...

I think this will all be the downfall of the Bush administration....stay tuned for more details....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MUAD_DIB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-04 01:02 AM
Response to Original message
108. I believe it to be just another smokescreen for Prezdint Monkeynuts.
It is Blame the Iranians Time, and they're going to lay it on thick for the peasantry to suck up.

1. Blame Chalabi for giving intel to Iran

2. Say that the mess in Eye-wrack is all Iran's fault

3. Blame any LIHOP terrorist attack on Iran


4. Invasions galore....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CHIMO Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-04 02:02 AM
Response to Original message
111. Sensitive Information
What type of sensitive information could get people killed?
I suppose a lot. The only thing that comes to mind immediately are the names of agents. Iran isn't taking military action against anyone.

CIA hasn't liked Chalabi for quite awhile so the information that he forwarded to the US must have been to others not through the CIA.

If he knew what they wanted then he could feed this to them. This then brings up the question of how far would he go to give the neo-cons what they needed.

As far as invading Iran, how could it be achieved now with everything tied up on two fronts. They certainly could not get UN approval for an invasion on the basis of being dumb.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dogmudgeon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-04 02:11 AM
Response to Original message
112. The weird have turned pro. And suicidal.
(Pompous rant follows.)

I don't for a minute think that we're getting the whole story, or even enough of the story, to make any sense of it.

The only possible rationale I can think of is that this is the CIA's payback for Bush treating them with such thinly-veiled contempt for the past three years. They've been publically humiliated on several occasions, they saw Valerie Plame outed and a whole phalanx of field ops jeopardized in a fit of political pique aimed at her husband, and they were told to sit down and shut up when the plans were being made for the disemboweling of Iraq.

And to think, old man Bush was the CIA director at one point, a loyal player who helped build the agency into what it is today. Is it some kind of Oedipal play gone wrong, with George Sr. cast as Laius? Oedipus was lamed as a baby and blinded himself as an adult; Dubya seems to have blinded himself as a college man and will now lame himself with an Executive Footbullet.

The CIA probably has the best motivation to want Bush to be broken on the Silk Route's political wheel, but Team Bush could easily be reckless enough to destroy themselves in a hundred different ways.

Bush may just be god-struck enough to think that he can convene Armageddon and smite the enemy a mortal blow. Team Bush has a lot invested in its ideology, its war, its conceit of moral purity, its sense of invincibility, and its ego. Worse, it is cornered. And desperate people do unpredictable things.

But enough of my paranoid ranting. I'm no more informed than most of the people here, and maybe less so. Like too much in the world recently, there's a lot of history going on and we're not invited. It may just be too early for you, or Borger, or idiots like me to try to put it all together.

I wonder ...

If it all could be put together, do you think we'd be in this mess to begin with?

--bkl
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JSJ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-04 03:16 AM
Response to Reply #112
113. pitt taken in by...
Edited on Wed May-26-04 03:44 AM by JSJ
...neo-cons. 'Stripped naked and left in Ghraib' for a week. That is how badly the cons conned him.

Or did they?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
radfringe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-04 03:56 AM
Response to Original message
115. don't know who/what to believe
That Chalabi "duped" US intelligence -- not sure, more likely scenario is that info passed on by Chalabi was "cherry-picked" by Cheney and his cronies to justify invading Iraq. I believe bush* inc. had planned on invading Iraq long before September 11, all they needed was the marketing gimmicks to sell it to us. Septmber 11 provided the marketing theme

Iran denies getting info from Chalabi -- big "doh" there, wouldn't have expected that Iran would say "Yes, he gave us all the info we wanted and more..."

bush* inc. is looking for someone else to take the blame for Mess-o-potamia -- yep, I believe that. However, it seems to me to be glaring incompetence to invade a country on the basis of 1 source of intelligence.

bush* inc. blamed intelligence failures for September 11 -- so why weren't intelligence reports/briefings questioned more closely regarding related terractivity?

bush* inc. blames intelligence for being "duped" by Chalabi regarding WMDs, and now accuses Chalabi of being a double agent.

and now we have our Summer Terralert -- based on what? Based on intelligence. The same intelligence agencies that dropped the ball on September 11, the same intelligence agencies that were "fooled" by Chalabi?

guess it depends on who you believe
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fear Donating Member (745 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-04 03:58 AM
Response to Original message
116. why a poll?
So why post a poll here?, - to prove you're right? - that's utterly useless, the outcome tends more one way on a democratic board.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKNancy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-04 04:48 AM
Response to Original message
118. I'm positive that it is NOT to distance Chalabi from Bush
If this is a set-up to help Chalabi in the eyes of the Iraqi public, being tight with Iranians is not the way to do it. Iraqis still loathe the Iranians. They can't be that stupid. ( or can they)

Is it a ruse to attack Iran. Not that either. We aren't going to attack Iran. Not enough troops to do it, Iran is too strong, and they don't want to screw-up the "democracy" movement that is building. Under the present circumstances, Bush and Company could not get approval from Congress or the military to do such a wild-assed thing.

I think it is what it appears. Chalabi is a crook and he scammed the US so that he could gain power and wealth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ibegurpard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-04 04:57 AM
Response to Original message
119. Don't know
any of these scenarios is plausible to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
althecat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-04 04:57 AM
Original message
I think it is more about rewriting history and distancing the WH from Iran
.. than about invading Iran.

That said I also think it is completely self serving crap served up by the WH for its own reasons.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
althecat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-04 04:57 AM
Response to Original message
120. I think it is more about rewriting history and distancing the WH from Iran
.. than about invading Iran.

That said I also think it is completely self serving crap served up by the WH for its own reasons.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-04 05:18 AM
Response to Original message
121. It's about Bush administration infighting
Check out the following take, which makes mucho sense.

http://www.upsizethis.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12530&p...

We are witnessing an unprecedented civil war between the various divisions of the Federal Government. Leaks, of course, are part of the natural order of bureaucratic life in an era of 24/7 news -- but this goes far beyond the usual backbiting and catfighting among prickly egos in high places.

These guys are trying to destroy each other, with no fear whatsoever that the President will take action against anybody for creating dissension within the Administration. The rest of the world already dismisses Shrub as a mentally challenged freak in thrall to ideologues sponsored by war profiteers. But with this open breach between the CIA and the Pentagon focusing attention directly at our pathetic performance in the area of intelligence, our standing in the world is hitting rock bottom.

This is the most preposterous case of Presidential incompetence and irresponsibility in history. Fans and relatives of the late Warren G. Harding should be flipping handsprings now that George Walker Bush has supplanted him at the bottom of the list of American presidents.

After this fiasco, what country on earth would trust us with sensitive information? With open warfare breaking out within his own Administration, what country on earth would trust us to lead any international joint venture?

I assume that any similarity between the stories that these swine are telling off on each other and the truth is purely coincidental. The real story is not how true of any of this shit is. The real story is the chaos at the highest level of our national security apparatus.

These are the guys who are supposed to be so good at protecting us from another 9/11. Hell, they can't even protect themselves from each other.

Better buy some duct tape, friends.

If any of these lying jackals really believed we were at war, real war with the future of our country in mortal jeopardy as in World War II, none of this chickenshit political gamesmanship would be reaching the newspapers. The word "war" was a political gimmick from the start, and these guys are ALL slick manipulators who care only about fucking with each other and furthering their own careers.

Astride this collossus of folly is the biggest fool of all, George Walker Bush, the guy who has yet to break a sweat once in his entire lazy privileged slacker smartass life.

The arc of his disaster I think has passed its zenith, and this developing Insider scandal -- or one just like it -- will finally close the book on this piece of crap who should never have become the GOP nominee in the first place, let alone strut into the White House on the authority of winning a law suit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Disturbed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-04 05:33 AM
Response to Original message
122. CIA
Chalabi played all the sides. Neocons,Iran,Iraqi Shi'ites and Israel.He is adamn good con artist. The problem? He didn't count on the CIA using him to strike back at Bushco. My guess: The CIA will kill him making it look like Iraq insurgents did it.This won't inflict a heavy blow onto Bushco but it will send them a msg.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jacobin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-04 06:40 AM
Response to Original message
123. Slings and Arrows
Part of your job. Please keep it up. My impression is that those who were following this entire Mess O Potamia closely and felt knowledgable and decided it was a PNAC evil plan (that's what I thought) do not want to be wrong and somehow give Bushco an "out" as having been fooled.

I don't look at it that way at all. I think we need to keep our eyes open, take in all new information and get to the bottom of what really happened.

I voted "undecided" in your poll. I have no idea. The Iran/Chalabi thingy does seem to fit having an idiot as president who is easily manipulated, and it does not exclude the PNAC freaks who thought they would conquer the M.E.

We live in interesting times.

I love your work. :-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TomNickell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-04 07:25 AM
Response to Original message
124. Chill, Will. Think Earthquakes.
Will,
Most of these folks 'aren't sure' that Bush didn't cause the last earthquake in Iran. After blowing up the Space Shuttle and the UN compound in Iraq. Not to mention personally beheading that Berg guy.

Do a poll, you'll see.

Don't worry about them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cal04 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-04 07:27 AM
Response to Original message
125. Scott Ritter on Chalabi
Chalabi 'boasted of Iranian spy link'

Iraqi accused by CIA made claim in 1997, says former inspector
Ahmad Chalabi, the Iraqi leader accused by the CIA of passing US secrets to Tehran, claimed to have close links with Iranian intelligence seven years ago, according to a former UN weapons inspector.
Scott Ritter, who before the war insisted that Saddam Hussein did not have significant weapons stocks, made the claim to Andrew Cockburn, a Washington-based journalist and the author of a biography of the ousted Iraqi dictator.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1224916,00....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
in_cog_ni_to Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-04 07:32 AM
Response to Original message
126. When I heard about the leak of info to Iran,
my first thought was..... it was all a setup to attack Iran.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leesa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-04 08:00 AM
Response to Original message
127. I think it's just another in a long line of "blame him, not us"
Also, a way to further demonize Iran so we can invade the country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grl2watch Donating Member (560 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-04 08:21 AM
Response to Original message
128. "CIA Has Rock Solid Evidence"
Do you really believe that the CIA has evidence
of ANYTHING, even the time of day?

Do you really think, as stated in the Borger article,
that the CIA ASKED the FBI to investigate something?

We always hand-pick our dictators. Since Chalabi wasn't
killed, and since he's being allowed to talk, he has
a lot of protection.

If he did get info from the Iranians, he could well
have gotten it from the guy who's already been picked
to be our man in Tehran.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SmokingJacket Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-04 08:49 AM
Response to Original message
129. Invading Iran would be practically and politically insane...
of course, I thought that about Iraq and they did it anyway.

But really: we're stretched waffer-theen already. Americans won't buy that they're a threat, after all the crying Wolf.

I think you have it right, Pitt: though I voted "I don't know" because frankly this has all become hellishly slippery.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
troublemaker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-04 09:33 AM
Response to Original message
134. Don't falter Pitt. You are right. They are wrong.
Edited on Wed May-26-04 09:48 AM by troublemaker
The neocons don't need an internal excuse to go after Iran... agreed? They want to do it.

So we're talking about a ginned up casus belli offered for political consumption, right? (Like THE MAINE or WMD)

Thus we are talking about a propaganda story intended to make people eager to invade Iran. Well, if we claimed that Iranians were unplugging incubators in our hospitals and throwing the babies on the floor that might work. If we argued that Iran was planning huge terror attacks on us that might get people riled up.

But "they made the Bush administration look incompetent" is the dumbest proposed Casus belli in history. The more you think about it the funnier it gets...

Really. How the fuck is that supposed to work? The idea is that this story should evoke war fever in people who do not currently want to invade Iran. It's loony... most Americans are not looking for another large land war to punish a country for making Bush look like an idiot. (If that were the case we could pull out of Iraq and then invade it again, this time for making us look like fools by NOT having WMD)

I've seen this movie before. I know the response is always, "I'm not saying they are competent. It's a cover story that won't work, but still a cover story."

Whatever.

As for arguments that this is intended to make Chalabi more popular in Iraq... Please! The idea that it enhances the credibility of an Iraqi politician to be outed as an Iranian intelligence asset is deranged and relies upon a rather insulting notion that all Arabs are interchanagable.

Canada is about the least threatening country on Earth, yet if it came out tomorrow that John Kerry is a Canadian intelligence asset I doubt it would firm up his support.
___________________________

BTW Mad props to the majority on this poll for for giving the right answer. None of us can be *sure* on a story this fluid
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beetwasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-04 09:34 AM
Response to Original message
135. Not Sure BUT
Edited on Wed May-26-04 09:37 AM by Beetwasher
If this is a neocon trick, it's a crapshoot and big gamble. This is EXTREMELY embarrassing and damaging to the admin. They would be essentially gambling that the PR damage at home and the stigma of supreme incompetence in the eyes of the rest of the world is worth the SLIM chance that Chalabi will gain credence in Iraq. It's a shitty bet and I certainly wouldn't make or take it.

I lean towards the CIA payback angle. The CIA is either exposing this or setting Chalabi up to embarrass the admin.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Delano Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-04 09:38 AM
Response to Original message
136. Neither. It's to shift blame for the WMD problem "He Tricked Us"
Of course, they knew he was lying his azz off all along. They knew he was a con over a year ago - we all knew it. He's a perfect fall guy. I seriously doubt they would attempt an invasion of Iran or anyplace else this late in the game, especially when Iraq is working out so badly. Logistically it makes no sense, and it would probably spell the doom of Dumbya and the GOP majorities in COngress if they were to do so anytime soon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JHB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-04 09:40 AM
Response to Original message
137. I think that if it were an invade-Iran ploy...
...they would have done something that wouldn't make the whole administration look like colossal idiots.

Of course, the Bushies are so (wrongly) cocksure of themselves they might think that "nobody worth speaking of" will hold it against them, so anything's possible, but I would think they'd try something more along the lines of "al Queda mole leaking vital secrets to he co-evildoers in Iran".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dutchdemocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-04 09:44 AM
Response to Original message
138. Irony?
www.whois.net

Domain ID: D77145985-LROR
Domain Name:TRUTHOUT.ORG
Created On:10-Sep-2001 22:56:42 UTC

Funny, the freepers think there's something really wrong with the formation of www.truthout.org the day before 9-11.

I think Marc just was unlucky.

Tinfoil hat time....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rustydog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-04 09:45 AM
Response to Original message
139. I think that when the truth is known (whenever that may be)
Americans will find out that Iran played GW and Dick Cheny like a fiddle.
That is embarassing enough, but to also find out that America, (Cheny rumsfeld ?) passed on classified information to Chalabi who, in turn, gave it to Iran! Is that not treason?

Your readers may be off base. I think you hit the nail right on the head.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gasperc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-04 09:49 AM
Response to Original message
140. Cite "Against all Enemies" the almost war with IRAN
the whole chapter is important, but on pages 112-116, Clarke discusses Iranian involvement in the Kobar attack using the Shi'a muslims in Saudia Arabia, and so it seems, Iran has planned for awhile to drag the US into conflict and create a Shi'a controlled Iraq in the process.
I'm still reluctant to judge who's playing who until I finish American Dynasty by Phillips.

Did the military want war with Iran from the beginning? no
Is Iraq a stepping stone to invade Iran?looking more and more likely
Has the difficulty of stabilizing Iraq surprised the military?yes
Was it the Bush administration's intent to invade Iran all along, ie the PNAC plan? likely
Did the military "inadvertently" raid Chalabi, looking out for themselves and thier soldiers getting killed? yes, only to get bitch slapped by Bush Inc for arresting thier buddy but could this have happened with out WH ok?
Did Iran take advantage of US delusions of grandeur sucking us into a quagmire that would make it extremely difficult to fight a conventional war with Iran? ????likely, can this go nuclear? ???

the dimwits at Bush Inc. probably didn't take into consideration 2 of the angles let alone the thousands of possibilities of their actions!
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 Fri Oct 24th 2014, 09:44 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