Blaming Ahmad

Ahmad Chalabi has blurted out to London?s Daily Telegraph that it really doesn't matter whether his Iraqi National Congress was right or wrong on the information it fed the U.S. government on Saddam Hussein?s alleged WMD.

As he put it: ?As far as we?re concerned we?ve been entirely successful. That tyrant Saddam is gone and the Americans are in Baghdad. What was said before is not important. The Bush administration is looking for a scapegoat. We?re ready to fall on our swords if he wants.?

That might sound outrageous, briefly, but in the end can anyone blame Chalabi for helping lead the U.S. into the Iraq war? Far more asinine is this statement by a senior American official in Baghdad: ?What the INC told us formed one part of the intelligence picture. But what Chalabi told us we accepted in good faith. Now there is going to be a lot of question marks over his motives.?

Two things come to mind: Chalabi?s motives were always very clear, so question marks are really unnecessary; and since when is high policy, particularly war, based on accepting anything in ?good faith??

Comments

[dhex]

sure.

but can you imagine people who are in charge of a military machine so far beyond the imagining of KGIII that he would have crapped his guts out several times over saying that they were fooled?

thankfully, you will not have to imagine it, since it's actually happening. wriggle little piggies, wriggle!

[ned]

that quote should read "what the INC told us seemed like as good an excuse for invading Iraq as any, so we used it. Now that he says he made stuff up for our benefit, we can blame him for 'fooling' us."

[Warren]

It was IOTTMCO that Iraq possessed no WMD after SOS Powell gave his "heard it from a friend, who heard it from a friend, who heard it from another" testimony to the UN. Shame on everyone who believed the big lie after that. As to Bush and his cronies that told the lie, it's too bad we can't line them up against a wall. We'll have to settle for voting them out of power.

[DanNAlabama]

Ahmad Chalabi was convicted in absentia of embezzling hundreds of millions of dollars from the Petra Bank in Jordan.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/081903J.shtml
He fits right in with all the other convicted felons who have found a home in the Bush Administration.

[Vic the Appraiser]

Dan -

Chalabi is not "in the administration", and I'm not aware of "all the other felons in the administration." Who are they? Poindexter? Anybody else?

That said, the CIA knew all along what Chalabi was up to so NOBODY should be surprised that they were gamed by him.

[mike]

Convicted in abstentia by a Jordanian court, eh? That bastion of the rule of law? Oh yeah, that PROVES he is a liar and a crook.

Anyone who believes that Chalabi was the reason the US believed in Iraq's WMD program is an idiot. This is a convenient excuse to smear Chalabi who for some reason is the darling of certain powers in the Pentagon and the devil of certain powers in State.

And all you BUSH LIED folks have some explaining to do: What about the UN inspection farces? What about the Clinton administration's repeated pronouncements of the threat of Iraqi WMDs? What about the FACT that Libya had a WMD program, with a fraction of the wealth and infrastructure of Iraq? But Iraq wasn't pursuing such a program? Right. Because Sadam was a nicer, more reliable, trustworthy guy. What about the FACT that Pakistan was dishing out nuclear weapons technology to any malign, anti-western comers, including such devout muslim states as North Korea?

Get your heads out your asses.

[Andrew]

If 75 years of mis-reading the Soviet Union hadn't already taught us, then the more recent blunders in over-estimating Iraq's WMD-- off-set by UNDER-ESTIMATING Libya, Iran and Pakistan (and with a BIG question mark over Korea)-- SHOULD have taught us...

...NOT that Intel is "incompetant", in the sense that it might reasonably have been expected to be better, but that we will NEVER have reliable Intel on closed societies: not in Korea, not in Syria, and not really in Russia even today.

Which is a damn good reason to proceed as rapidly as possible to a world of OPEN societies. We don't have generations to wait.

[Gadfly]

BUSH LIED.

Inspections worked.
Clinton (and W's daddy), having the same information W had, knew it didn't warrant an invasion.
Khadafy hasn't done shit since Reagan bombed him.
We've known Pakistan was dealing nukes for years. Bush made them our buddy.

Fuck you.

[Jean Bart]

Andrew,

There will always be closed societies; get used to it.

And the whole under-estimating Libya statement is a canard; they never had a properly functioning nuclear weapons program, and what they did have was in such a poor state of being that "giving it up" was costless for the Libyans.

As to Iran, againt it was U.K., German and French efforts that opened that country up to inspections; the U.S. sat on the sidelines with its thumb up its ass and whined and moaned about the troika's efforts.

[Rich Reilly]

Post 911 reality, attempted assassination of a US prez, gratuitous slaughter of his people, the games he played with the world and the payoffs he used to get heads to turn the other way etc...all are reason enough to remove him. Should have had more countries on board but..that's a negative reflection on those willing to shuffle paper indefinitely. But I can't be comfortable with this joker Chalabi spouting off. In the process of volunteering to "fall on" his sword, he stabs America in the back. He should not be allowed any say in the new Iraq after such a showing of hand.

[Yehudit]

"Clinton (and W's daddy), having the same information W had, knew it didn't warrant an invasion."

Actually the Clinton and Bush I admins had rough plans for an invasion at some point - none of them thought they could just leave Iraq alone forever. But they didn't have a casus belli. After 9-11, knowing that all sorts of terrorists (including Al Queda) were going in and out of Iraq and that Iraq was working on WMDs (which they were - we have found plenty of components, just not stockpiles of ready-to-go weapons), Bush II could make a case for ending the Saddam regime once and for all.

Agree Chalabi is a joker. But they had plenty of sources of information besides him.

[Steve in CA]

Jean Bart,

I don't know why I should accept that there will "always" be closed societies. As a liberal (in the classical sense), I think we should all do everything we can to reduce the number of closed societies.

A few hundred years ago, there were *only* closed societies. The great liberals of the past 400 or so years didn't "get used to it." They changed it.

[Gadfly]

Bush's daddy had his chance, casus belli and all, and passed. Too risky.

[Warren]

Iraq was working on WMDs (which they were - we have found plenty of components, just not stockpiles of ready-to-go weapons)

That's a lie, we have found no evidence of a functioning WMD program. NONE

[Andrew]

JB

You are assuming Iran is disarming...something even the inspectors are backing off of. Libya had hardware intel sources didn't know about. The Russians themselves evidently don't know the status of THEIR nukes, no one (including Blix) was confident Iraq didn't have WMD, and the CIA will tell you they are unsure of the status in NK, Pakistan's proliferation activities are a surprise (as is the involvment of Malaysia), and activities by Saudi Arabia are starting to surface. Oh, and you told me the French "force" has been re-targeted toward Syria because of their WMD (but who knows what kind or how much?)...

but, everything is going to be OK without changing ANY of these players?

[Mark Anderson]

"that's a negative reflection on those willing to shuffle paper indefinitely."

Whether France, Germany, Russia, etc. were right not to go along with Bush does not make a bit of difference. The point this book seems to be making is that we can kick anyone's ass (not really) by ourselves but we can't pick up the pieces by ourselves. Especially in a region like the Middle East. So calling the aformentioned a bunch of pussies does not help with the current situation. The world's involvement should have been factored into the decision of whether to go to war or not.

[Andrew]

Did I forget to mention China?

[mike]

Hindsight is perfect.
Foresight is vague.
When trying to foresee an attack, it is better to be safe than dead.
The pit in Manhattan shows what you get when you demand crystal-clear proof of a threat before acting.
We have destroyed a substantial level of threat against us by destroying Saddam's regime. Not that that threat could not revive if we (with help of recalcitrant Europeans, Democrats, NGOs, and UN) bungle the rebuilding.

[Ron]

Yes, we have found Iraq working on WMDs. Not that the fact is necessary to justify the war. What I can't understand is why people keep repeating anti-war nonsense and can't even grudgingly accept anything positive has happened. (One possible good effect of the war is that inspections elsewhere may actually be worthwhile for a change.)

Over the past fifteen years, we know that our intelligence people underestimated the threat of Libya, North Korea, Afghanistan, Iran and, yes, Iraq. Anti-war people want to blithely go on making the same mistake, but thank goodness the present administration isn't that stupid.

[Rich Reilly]

"we can't pick up the pieces by ourselves."
The book isn't finished. We'll see if a net gain is the result. The stakes are higher these days regarding that formerly distant land. And maybe in the end we will need help from our "allies". Yes, the one at the front kicking the door down paves the way. Shuffling papers is no substitute for leadership. And yes, it DOES make a difference whether our "allies" are being bought by the opposition...especially when we don't find this out until we kick the door down. I guess some of them weren't brought up properly..to paraphrase mssr ChIraq.

[Kevin Carson]

"There will always be closed societies; get used to it." --Jean Bart

Yeah. And if those closed societies toe the Washington line, and are friendly to American corporations, they're considered part of the "Free World." It's only when they stop taking orders that the U.S. government suddenly "discovers" all the terrible, horrible, worse than Hitler, things they've been doing. If Saddam had kept playing ball, instead of acting like a loose cannon in 1990, he'd still have those rape rooms and people shredders. And you know what? Rumsfeld would still be shaking hands with him, and Ahmed Chalabi would still be hanging out in European discos.

Bush may be giving arms and military advisers to Satan. Who knows? But if Satan ever becomes a liability, Scott MacClellan will be up there at his podium telling the WH Press Corps, in shocked tones, about all the atrocities "we" just found out were going on in hell. And then, of course, a twenty-year-old photo will surface of Rummy shaking hands with the Devil.

[Rich Reilly]

In the case of supporting Iraq, it was one of those lesser evils/strategic gambits. But, Kevin, Bush is the first prez in my memory to directly address the turn the other way strategies of the past. You/we should be glad about this and hold his feet to the fire. And do vote for him..Kerry strikes me as the consummate finger in the wind "leader" at best. At worst, well....it has been reported that his campaign has already sent a disturbing "preemptive" assurance to Iran. Ah yes..I can see his "steady hand at the helm" easing at the wrist.

[joe]

Some people accuse the administration of having no plan for post-war Iraq, but to them I say: Ahmed Chalabi. Step 1, invade Iraq. Step 2, insert Ahmed Chalabi. Step 3, Iraqis throw flowers. Step 4, Miller Time.

Would you direct deposit your paycheck to Ahmed Chalabi's bank? Nice suits.

[joe]

Andrew, you'd have us lopping off the heads of the hydra, and we don't seem to have the torches to stuff in the holes. Does Iraq look like an open, peaceful, liberty loving, stable society to you since this war? Does anything you've read about what's happened there in the past year suggest to you that it's becoming such a society?

Oh, look, the head is different.

[Sparky]

What a jerk. Can you imagine lying to get rid of Saddam Hussein, or King George III?

[Jean Bart]

Andrew,

"You are assuming Iran is disarming...something even the inspectors are backing off of."

Well, with IAEA inspectors in the country, and far greater scrutiny to what they import, one is capable of monitoring and stopping such.

"Libya had hardware intel sources didn't know about."

Despite this, their program was at best marginally successful; indeed, what it has proven is that one can have a great deal of money, yet be unable to create such a program. Put your tradecraft techniques to work and dispute that.

"...no one (including Blix) was confident Iraq didn't have WMD..."

Well, yes, because you are asking him to prove a negative; one of the more blatantly illogical ploys we saw used in the run-up to the war.

"...and the CIA will tell you they are unsure of the status in NK, Pakistan's proliferation activities are a surprise (as is the involvment of Malaysia), and activities by Saudi Arabia are starting to surface."

The CIA is lying; at least with regard to Pakistan. 🙂 The fact is there is no country on this planet that has not made some effort at building nuclear weapons. So saying that an effort has been made is (a) not surprising, and (b) not really telling me anything.

"Oh, and you told me the French 'force' has been re-targeted toward Syria because of their WMD (but who knows what kind or how much?)..."

Are you claiming that France has the U.S. targetted or something? To be blunt, your statement makes no sense. Actually, I stated that French nuclear weapons had largely been re-targeted to states that they suspect have WMD programs or know they have actual WMDs - this includes Russia, China, Syria, Iran, etc. Which only makes sense; France's nuclear arsenal was largerly targeted at Eastern Europe at one point; it makes no sense to target Warsaw or Bucharest at this point in other words.

[Andrew]

Joe

That is where we must aim-- an Arab-speaking Turkey...with the advantage that, wheras Turkey is-- and for some time yet-- necessarily must be a fairly poor country, Iraq can be prosperous (by absolute standards) very quickly.

[Rick Barton]

"If post-Saddam Iraq is as "good" as Turkey under the latest version of Islamist-Lite...Joe, how can that NOT be great?"

Not great, because it's not worth the cost 500 American lives that have been lost so far under, what we now know was, the false pretext of "American security". Not to mention, the number American permanent injuries, 10,000 Iraqi deaths and how ever many billions of dollars tax dollars spent. 500 American lives... by comparison, there were 180 deaths in the 9/11 attack on the Pentagon.

American security is the only sufficient reason for launching a war. That this is a generally accepted principle is why those who have been pushing for an Iraq war for so long had to engage in such wild duplicity to make Iraq look like they were a real threat to the US when they were not. 9/11 gave them their opening to convince the president.

[Rick Barton]

Yehudit:

"After 9-11, knowing that all sorts of terrorists (including Al Queda) were going in and out of Iraq and that Iraq was working on WMDs (which they were"

There is no evidence of the Iraqi Regime being involved in 9/11 or with Al Queda. The last government WMD claim is less then "working on WMDs". It is now, "WMD activity". That could be as benign as checking out a book about WMD.

In 1998, a group of neos including Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, Kristol and four others who wound up on the Bush team wrote a letter to Clinton urging him to take out Saddam.

Incredibly, right after 9/11, Wolfowitz argued that Afghanistan be put on the back burner and Iraq be attacked instead!

[Rick Barton]

BTW, Raimondo has a great current column on Perle's blame game:

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/

[Andrew]

Joe

I want to SEE how this one works out as, after all, there is still a game to be played there. What I don't want is to deliberately fuck things up, just to satisfy someone's "I told you so" agenda.

In the Army they used to tell us "ANY plan-- even a bad one-- has a good chance of success...provided it is executed vigorously."

In the case of Iraq (OR Afghanistan) I can't see the down-side going THAT far down. Oh you can imagine night-mare scenarios to yourself...but do you regard any of them as all that likely?

Iraq may yet not even be as "bad" as Karzai's Afghanistan-- a state which (taken by itself) poses no more of a threat to the security of the US than the Congo.

If post-Saddam Iraq is as "good" as Turkey under the latest version of Islamist-Lite...Joe, how can that NOT be great?

[joe]

I don't agree with Rick's absolutist position. Sometimes, the expansion of democracy and the defeat of massive evil are appropriate reasons to go to war, such as the Kosovo war. But only when a severe cost/benefit calculation has been done, an analysis that has to assign a risk premium based on the likelihood of success. We had a high likelihood of sucess in the Balkans, but a very low one in Iraq. When you send the firefighters into a fully involved building with bad floors, you'd better be damn sure they can actually save the people.

This poorly planned, poorly executed, pie in the sky, ideological, guilt-driven Republican hobby horse never had a prayer of producing an Arab Turkey in Mesopotamia. Whenever the administration had a choice of doing things that might improve the chances of a good outcome (like getting the UN on board), the purposely took the other path. War ravaged countries with active resistance movements supported by outside "benefactors" are not the best soil for growing liberal democracies.

I'm all for aiming at a liberal democratic Arab state, Andrew. But what we have done to Iraq hasn't brought us one step closer to that goal, and has wasted economic, military, intelligence, and diplomatic resources that could have been put to good use.

[Rich Reilly]

"I'm all for aiming at a liberal democratic Arab state, Andrew. But what we have done to Iraq hasn't brought us one step closer to that goal,"
Wow,
If you can't see it now, revisit your statement down the road. You want to run a stop watch on a lengthy process.

[Andrew]

Fair enough Joe

We can leave it at that.

One thing though...we haven't established a stable democracy in Kosovo-- haven't established a stable democracy in Serbia-- which wasn't the immediate war aim in Kosovo, anyway (and the fall of Milozevich wasn't the immediate resut)-- and haven't established a stable society of any kind in Bosnia, that I can see...

...and bringing in the UN and EU types has EVERYTHING to do with all that, I think.

[joe]

They had elections in Bosnia and Kosovo. They also don't have the guerilla problems that Iraq has.

Rich is right about it being early. Heck, we could still lose this war.

[Rich Reilly]

"Heck, we could still lose this war"
Nice. Just keep hoping...

[dogface]

"In the Army they used to tell us "ANY plan-- even a bad one-- has a good chance of success...provided it is executed vigorously."

- "Lieutenant, what in hell were you thinking when you ordered your men to take aim at their feet and fire?"

- "Well, sir, I admit the plan had some flaws, but we executed it with great vigor."

[Andrew]

Haven't had guerilla problems?

Depends on when you are dating from I suppose. Prior to American involvement the UN troops got locked up a couple of times by the Serb guerillas in Bosnia. Got pushed around constantly...most of the mass-murders occured under the noses of NATO.

Joe, what do you really expect the UN to contribute in Iraq, that they don't already?

[joe]

Not hoping, Rich. Worried. The whole thing puts knots in my stomach.

Andrew, you're not asking the write question. Just so we're clear, I'm not saying some Bulgarian engineers can fly into Faluja and all our problems go away. No, we're stuck in this one good.

It's not about grafting UN help onto American-created crises. What would have been nice is the discipine, interest, and competance to make the non-proliferation and human rights goals this country has into genuine global movements, backed up by force with global legitimacy. Had this pursuit been followed, we wouldn't be in the mess we find ourselves in.

But this was never about non-proliferation or human rights, and it certainly wasn't about drawing bright lines against rogue states that threatened the peace. It was about the great glory our country would get by publicly knocking around an Arab country that's been a thorn in our side. The great victory parade through liberated Iraq was going to set off a glorious new Pax Americana, as craven European bureaucrats hung their heads in shame and Arab populations recreated their nations as pacifist tax shelters. Remember?

[joe]

Iraq becoming Turkey is hopelessly optimistic.

[Rick Barton]

Joe:

"Sometimes,...the defeat of massive evil (is an appropriate reason) to go to war, such as the Kosovo war."

I'm leaving out your "expanding democracy" in my critique because I think that, that excuse for war is much more easily assailed than; "the defeat of massive evil" for reasons, including the fact that democracies can turn out to be murderously oppressive, and also the case for asking Americans to kill, die, and finance death for the sake of the demise of a non-massively evil, yet non-democratic regime is an anemic one anyway.

Arguments from principle (fairness):

The most fundamental notion of a free society is that when possible, choices should be left to individuals and there are things in any free society are indeed left to individual choice. Some of these are consistent with the notion that "you should not legislate morality". The government extracts no greater sacrifice than demanding its citizens to kill, die and finance death. So, how can it be fair for government to demand the citizens to do this against their will if it is not for their own defense?

You might answer; that an exception may be made to defeat massive evil, but which regimes are "massively evil" is a subjective matter. Note the differences of opinion concerning the Kosovo war example that you give. Even, if the target is generally thought to be massively evil, or thought to be that way by the most influential people, to force people to participate is to force them to conform to other peoples point of view on a war not for their own defense.

Also, there are other ways that a massively evil regime may be dealt with. For the government to force people to participate in war is to force this one solution on them, and war often negates other possible solutions. So forcing a war not only coerces people to participate in a grave action they disagree with, it takes other peaceful choices away from them. If you and I want to take up violent action against a massively evil regime that is not a threat to us, we may conspire to do so but it is not fair for us to force anyone else to help us via government coercion.

I think it is these types of considerations, which motivated the founders of our republic to council against non-defensive wars. This council has lived on to be embraced by various liberal, and conservative schools of thought and is bedrock for a libertarian foreign policy.

Argument from practicality:

Wars spend other people's money. People profit from wars. If wars may be fought just to defeat massive evil we will have people who may profit from the wars working to exaggerate just how "massively evil" a regime is.

Look at the lies and nonsense that went on to justify the Iraq war. Of course that was to make Iraq look like they were a real threat and a large part of the motivation for the lies was ideological.

Lastly, two questions for you; if our government had conscription; would you agree with my position? Do you, as I do, oppose conscription?

[Rich Reilly]

You can frame it(like Kerry does) as a diplomatic failure that we couldn't get France, Germany and Russia to give the action "global legitimacy". But France basically guaranteed vetoing any actual action. And I don't view it coincidental that a number of these countries appear to have been on the take via Saddam's oil or feud arrangements. That's in addition to the known/overt financial ties these countries had to Iraq. Then again, teh assurances Saddam had bought may have made him blind to the danger he was actually in. In any case, waiting for the world to join hands in this circumstance was pointless. And I doubt the Bush administration would go into this based on it being so politically expedient. Bush Sr. demonstrated how unreliable that notion is.

[Rick Barton]

joe:

"I'm all for aiming at a liberal democratic Arab state, Andrew. But what we have done to Iraq hasn't brought us one step closer to that goal and has wasted economic, military, intelligence, and diplomatic resources"

Indeed, and many aspects of US government foreign policy in the Mid-east, even pre Iraq war, especially support for the Israeli occupation, suppresses liberal sentiments in the Arab world and Iran while strengthening its despots. This is a tragedy for the people in those states as they desperately need their governments to adapt freer ways.

Also, these US policies helped bring on the 9/11 attacks. One of the ways those resources could have been put to better use, instead of attacking Iraq, would have been to employ them to hunt down and kill al Qaeda members so they can't do it again.

BTW; incredibly, right after 9/11, Wolfowitz argued for skipping Afghanistan and attacking Iraq. But, perhaps not so incredible since that was the objective of the neocon gang that lied us into this war.

[DanInAlabama]

Vic

Convicted Felons in the Bush Administration:
John Poindexter, pardoned felon.

Elliot Abrams, pardoned felon:
In 1992, Former President Bush pardoned one of the better known of the returning officials, Elliot Abrams. He had pled guilty to misleading Congress about the Iran-contra affair. ?I just find it passing strange that perjury or lying to Congress can become a qualification for public office,? said former ambassador to El Salvador, Robert E. White.
Source: New York Times, ?Bush?s Latin America Nominations Reopen Wounds? http://www.nytimes.com/auth/login?URI=http://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/01/international/americas/01CENT.html&OQ=exQ3D997686961Q26eiQ3D1Q26enQ3Dc8d7f8fdb3c451b6

Otto Riech and John Negroponte, while not convicted felons should be.

Are two proven criminals just right, not enough, or too many to have in high level positions?

When I said ?He (Ahmad Chalabi) fits right in with all (poor word choice, my bad) the other convicted felons who have found a home in the Bush Administration.? I never dreamed anyone would assume I meant Ahmad Chalabi was ?in? the Administration.

[Rick Barton]

joe,

Or, even if it is argued that we might be one or two steps closer since Saddam is inoperative; it's been at a terrible cost and the war never would have been supported by the American people for only that end.

It's clear that one of the most naturally just things to come out of this tragedy would be for the Kurds to have their own country. Will our government ever allow this in view of the Turkish government's opposition? Where is the justice? It's more like street gangs carving up turf.

[Rich Reilly]

It was only the CREDIBLE threat of force that made Saddam even acknowledge the UN again..though he remained in material breach. But yes, there are always those willing to argue for more "process"..especially if it continues lining one's pockets and boosting their domestic prospects.

[joe]

"But France basically guaranteed vetoing any actual action."

France made the pronouncement after quite a few months of process, as you may recall. Perhaps a better process would have brought about a better result.

But even if it didn't, a more able, engaged foreign policy could have resulted in widespread security countil support, with France (and maybe Russia) put in the position of imperiously using their veto to thwart the will of the rest of the council. Then we would have been the defenders of the global peace, and our power and presitige would have both been enhanced.

Instead, we cut ourselves off from the UN, and France is now posing the role we could have had.

[Kohn Amy]

EMAIL: [e-mail]
IP: 80.58.5.109
URL: http://preteen-sex.info
DATE: 05/20/2004 06:20:07
Suits and religions rupture if you force them on.