Full Version: Ahmed Chalabi
I've dealt with a few low level con men in my life so I know the type but this fellow Chalabi takes the cake. Apparently after playing the pied piper to get us into occupying Iraq he is preparing to assume leadership of the Shiite opposition to the US as his next maneuver to seize power. What a history! What a caste of characters! What a buddy! Even some of the neocons have finally begun to wise up on this guy - perhaps too late.
My question is: Do you think the US would have invaded and occupied Iraq without the influence of Chalabi and his Iraqi National Congress? If no what does this say about this administration's ability to judge character and sort out fact from fiction?
Ahmed Chalabi, the ultimate con man
My question is: Do you think the US would have invaded and occupied Iraq without the influence of Chalabi and his Iraqi National Congress? If no what does this say about this administration's ability to judge character and sort out fact from fiction?
Ahmed Chalabi, the ultimate con man
QUOTE
Counterpunch
May 20, 2004
By ANDREW COCKBURN
In dawn raids today, American troops surrounded Ahmed Chalabi's headquarters and home in Baghdad, put a gun to his head, arrested two of his aides, and seized documents. Only five months ago, Chalabi was a guest of honor sitting right behind Laura Bush at the State of the Union. What brought about this astonishing fall from grace of the man who helped provide the faked intelligence that justified last year's war?
The answer lies in Chalabi's reaction to his gradual loss of US support in recent months and the realisation that he will be excluded from the post June 30 Iraqi "government" being crafted by UN envoy Lakhdar Brahimi.
Lashing out against his exclusion from power, he has in effect been laying the groundwork for a coup, assembling a Shia political coalition with the express aim of destabilising the "Brahimi" government even before it takes office. "He has been mobilising forces to make sure the UN initiative fails," one well connected Iraqi political observer, who knows Chalabi well, told me today. "He has been tellling these people that Brahimi is part of a Sunni conspiracy against the Shia."
This scheme is by no means wholly outlandish. Chalabi has recruited significant Shia support, including Ayatollah Mohammed Bahr al Uloom, a leading member of the Governing Council and two other lesser known Council members. Significantly, his support also includes a faction of the Dawa Party that has been excluded from the political process by the occupation authority and which also supports rebel cleric Moqtada al-Sadr. Other recently recruited allies include Iraqi Hezbollah. All are joined in a Chalabi dominated Supreme Shia Council, similar to a sectarian Lebanese model. "Sooner rather than later," the Iraqi observer, a close student of Shia politics, points out, "Moqtada al Sadr is going to be killed. That willl leave tens, hundreds of thousands of his supporters looking for a new leader. If Ahmed plays the role of victim, he can take on that role. His dream has always been to be a sectarian Shia leader."
---------------------------
Distrust him as they may however, Iraqis suspect that Chalabi will be a looming presence in Iraq for years to come. Since he returned to Baghdad just over a year ago he has succeeded in building a financial powerbase both in business and key sectors of the fledgling Iraqi administration. His prescient seizure of Saddam's intelligence files a year ago has equipped him with a useful tool to intimidate opponents. In politics, despite his apparent lack of general appeal, he has been carving out a role as the Ian Paisley of the Iraqi Shia, fomenting sectarian assertiveness and brokering deals. At the same time, he has maintained his foreign alliances, not merely with the neo-conservatives in the Pentagon and right wing Washington think tanks, who are still insisting that he should have been installed in power in Baghdad by the US a year ago, but also in Tehran. Chalabi's connections to the most hardline elements in Iran, particularly the intelligence officers of the Revolutionary Guards, are longstanding and still flourish today.
May 20, 2004
By ANDREW COCKBURN
In dawn raids today, American troops surrounded Ahmed Chalabi's headquarters and home in Baghdad, put a gun to his head, arrested two of his aides, and seized documents. Only five months ago, Chalabi was a guest of honor sitting right behind Laura Bush at the State of the Union. What brought about this astonishing fall from grace of the man who helped provide the faked intelligence that justified last year's war?
The answer lies in Chalabi's reaction to his gradual loss of US support in recent months and the realisation that he will be excluded from the post June 30 Iraqi "government" being crafted by UN envoy Lakhdar Brahimi.
Lashing out against his exclusion from power, he has in effect been laying the groundwork for a coup, assembling a Shia political coalition with the express aim of destabilising the "Brahimi" government even before it takes office. "He has been mobilising forces to make sure the UN initiative fails," one well connected Iraqi political observer, who knows Chalabi well, told me today. "He has been tellling these people that Brahimi is part of a Sunni conspiracy against the Shia."
This scheme is by no means wholly outlandish. Chalabi has recruited significant Shia support, including Ayatollah Mohammed Bahr al Uloom, a leading member of the Governing Council and two other lesser known Council members. Significantly, his support also includes a faction of the Dawa Party that has been excluded from the political process by the occupation authority and which also supports rebel cleric Moqtada al-Sadr. Other recently recruited allies include Iraqi Hezbollah. All are joined in a Chalabi dominated Supreme Shia Council, similar to a sectarian Lebanese model. "Sooner rather than later," the Iraqi observer, a close student of Shia politics, points out, "Moqtada al Sadr is going to be killed. That willl leave tens, hundreds of thousands of his supporters looking for a new leader. If Ahmed plays the role of victim, he can take on that role. His dream has always been to be a sectarian Shia leader."
---------------------------
Distrust him as they may however, Iraqis suspect that Chalabi will be a looming presence in Iraq for years to come. Since he returned to Baghdad just over a year ago he has succeeded in building a financial powerbase both in business and key sectors of the fledgling Iraqi administration. His prescient seizure of Saddam's intelligence files a year ago has equipped him with a useful tool to intimidate opponents. In politics, despite his apparent lack of general appeal, he has been carving out a role as the Ian Paisley of the Iraqi Shia, fomenting sectarian assertiveness and brokering deals. At the same time, he has maintained his foreign alliances, not merely with the neo-conservatives in the Pentagon and right wing Washington think tanks, who are still insisting that he should have been installed in power in Baghdad by the US a year ago, but also in Tehran. Chalabi's connections to the most hardline elements in Iran, particularly the intelligence officers of the Revolutionary Guards, are longstanding and still flourish today.
I heard on the news today from the white houses press corispondent that the raid was spearhead by Iraq police officials. 
Which would be a ironic since Chalabi had such a dramatic impact on US liberation of Iraq, that they (Iraq's, and or American forces) would raid his home as if he were some sort of criminal. Which who knows, maybe we'll find out that he is, and then hurray for our intelligence now, but like you say Dingo, where was our intelligence before we walked into this sand pit? I think Chalabi had quite a bit to do with the intelligence we used to enter Iraq with. And maybe thats why his home was raided, to try and find information on wheter he fed us false information. But the US had satellite photos of weapons warhouses and stockpiles, and torture prisons, so I'm not sure if would have cancelled out the x factor of US involvement. On to the administration's ability to judge character, it doesn't seem anyone has very good skills at that. Look at what type of person Bill Clinton was 
. But hindsight is always 20/20 I guess. It definatley sends a message that will bring about serious questioning and doutbt the next time one of these conflicts like that of Iraq comes about. Hopefully it will help our administration better determine the authenticity of the threat(s) but on the other hand we will be fools if we let it cost more innocent lives.
Which would be a ironic since Chalabi had such a dramatic impact on US liberation of Iraq, that they (Iraq's, and or American forces) would raid his home as if he were some sort of criminal. Which who knows, maybe we'll find out that he is, and then hurray for our intelligence now, but like you say Dingo, where was our intelligence before we walked into this sand pit? I think Chalabi had quite a bit to do with the intelligence we used to enter Iraq with. And maybe thats why his home was raided, to try and find information on wheter he fed us false information. But the US had satellite photos of weapons warhouses and stockpiles, and torture prisons, so I'm not sure if would have cancelled out the x factor of US involvement. On to the administration's ability to judge character, it doesn't seem anyone has very good skills at that. Look at what type of person Bill Clinton was . But hindsight is always 20/20 I guess. It definatley sends a message that will bring about serious questioning and doutbt the next time one of these conflicts like that of Iraq comes about. Hopefully it will help our administration better determine the authenticity of the threat(s) but on the other hand we will be fools if we let it cost more innocent lives.
Chalabi family up til 1958 was the riches family in Iraq, involved in finance and banking. In the 1970's Chalabi started the Pertol Bank in Jordan, which was pretty successful. Chalabi then began giving out large bank loans to friends with no security. In 1989 the bank went bust
Chalabi was then wanted in Jordan for bank fraud and escaped out of Jordan in the trunk of a car after he was convicted in a Jordanian court of corruption and fraud and sentenced to 22 years in prison.
Then the CIA picked him up and placed him in charge of the Iraqi National Congress just after the first gulf war. His INC received over 27 million dollars in tax payer money to lobby, and supply mostly bogus information, to get the Invasion of Iraq started. Only five months ago he was the guest of honor behind Laura Bush at the state of the union address.
In gratitude the Bush clan appointed him to the Iraqi ruling council. Chalabi then fell from grace when he began takeing a pro-shia stance, and began speaking out on the US occupation, denounce the UN in its involvement in the "Oil for Food" Scandal, and
started becoming a general thorn in the side of the Washington. The reason for this is suggested that he wanted to gain credibility with the Iraqi people as to gain power, and not seem like a stooge for Washington.
US officials say the Iraqi police arrested him and denied direct involvement; however, Iraqi officials claim the US directed the raid.
Chalabi is being charged with handing over documents to Iran about the US occupation. This is nothing new to Chalabi, he has been working all sides for years maneuvering for the benefit of himself. Duping Jordan, Iraq, Iran, and the US.
Chalabi was then wanted in Jordan for bank fraud and escaped out of Jordan in the trunk of a car after he was convicted in a Jordanian court of corruption and fraud and sentenced to 22 years in prison.
Then the CIA picked him up and placed him in charge of the Iraqi National Congress just after the first gulf war. His INC received over 27 million dollars in tax payer money to lobby, and supply mostly bogus information, to get the Invasion of Iraq started. Only five months ago he was the guest of honor behind Laura Bush at the state of the union address.
In gratitude the Bush clan appointed him to the Iraqi ruling council. Chalabi then fell from grace when he began takeing a pro-shia stance, and began speaking out on the US occupation, denounce the UN in its involvement in the "Oil for Food" Scandal, and
started becoming a general thorn in the side of the Washington. The reason for this is suggested that he wanted to gain credibility with the Iraqi people as to gain power, and not seem like a stooge for Washington.
US officials say the Iraqi police arrested him and denied direct involvement; however, Iraqi officials claim the US directed the raid.
Chalabi is being charged with handing over documents to Iran about the US occupation. This is nothing new to Chalabi, he has been working all sides for years maneuvering for the benefit of himself. Duping Jordan, Iraq, Iran, and the US.
Chalabi is just another footnote in the long list of excuses to invade Iraq. Chalabi fed the Bush adminstration enough lies that satisfied their excuse to invade. Now that Chalabi has embarrassed Bush he is cut loose.
My question is: Who used who.
The Bush adminstration used Chalabi(his lies about wmds,etc.) to justify their actions. Now that he is not needed and the heat is too much,bye bye Chalabi.
As far a I am concerned "birds of a feather flock together". I am so disgusted about this whole affair in Iraq, that nothing would surprise me anymore.
My question is: Who used who.
The Bush adminstration used Chalabi(his lies about wmds,etc.) to justify their actions. Now that he is not needed and the heat is too much,bye bye Chalabi.
As far a I am concerned "birds of a feather flock together". I am so disgusted about this whole affair in Iraq, that nothing would surprise me anymore.
Does anyone know exactly what and how much intelligence Chalabi gave to the US? The reason I ask is, the only thing I could find was that Chalibi had provided intelligence about mobile biological warfare research laboratories, which was a small but relevant portion of the US case against Iraq.
Do you think the US would have invaded and occupied Iraq without the influence of Chalabi and his Iraqi National Congress? If no what does this say about this administration's ability to judge character and sort out fact from fiction?
Yes, I do. There was much more intelligence than what Chalabi provided, if in fact the only information he provided was regarding the mobile labs. I refer you back to what we knew before and what we found after we invaded Iraq:
http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...pic=6133&st=45#
Now, does this mean I trust Chalabi? Not as far as I can throw him. I have always suspected him of having an agenda.
Do you think the US would have invaded and occupied Iraq without the influence of Chalabi and his Iraqi National Congress? If no what does this say about this administration's ability to judge character and sort out fact from fiction?
Yes, I do. There was much more intelligence than what Chalabi provided, if in fact the only information he provided was regarding the mobile labs. I refer you back to what we knew before and what we found after we invaded Iraq:
http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...pic=6133&st=45#
Now, does this mean I trust Chalabi? Not as far as I can throw him. I have always suspected him of having an agenda.
Of course the US would have invaded without Calabi's information. This adminstration was cherry-picking intelligence and would have found some other dishonest Iraqi dissident to supply them with the needed disinformation.
It's really quite difficult to say at this point just what in the world Chalabi was/is up to. Today's Los Angeles Times (may require registration) lays out an interesting story of a possible campaign of deception, not only of US intelligence services, but other western ones as well.
From this article......
Based on some of the things I've learned recently about the Middle East, it would appear that their oil supply is only eclipsed by their supply of intrigue.
Chalabi appeared on both Meet the Press and CNN's morning shows this morning and is basically blaming all of this on George Tenet and the CIA. But, he's a pretty shady character himself I think, I wouldn't buy a used car from him. Anyway, on to the questions......
Do you think the US would have invaded and occupied Iraq without the influence of Chalabi and his Iraqi National Congress? If no what does this say about this administration's ability to judge character and sort out fact from fiction?
Hard to say whether or not we would have eventually invaded Iraq. It was pretty clear that the only way to really get rid of Saddam Hussein was that way. I doubt we would have chosen the time table we did for the invasion though, might have let Hans Blix wander around aimlessly in the desert for awhile longer, but I think eventually, we would have gone in.
I wouldn't lay this to a particular administration, after all Clinton called for "regime change" back in 1998. I'm not sure how much he was influenced by Chalabi, but I think this is indicative of a problem that we are all recognizing now with our intelligence - the lack of good Human Intelligence. This is a cultural problem within our intelligence community dating back to the 1970's when for various reasons we decided we didn't want to do business with "shady characters" anymore. It's going to take a very long time to rebuild the HUMINT side of things I think.
From this article......
QUOTE
It is not clear whether Iran had any role in the alleged use of the INC to provide disinformation to the West. U.S. officials say the INC may have been acting on its own when it sent out a steady stream of defectors from 1998 to 2003 with apparently coordinated claims about Baghdad's purported weapons of mass destruction.
Because even friendly spy services rarely share the identities of their informants or let outsiders meet or debrief their sources, it has only in recent months become clear that Chalabi's group sent defectors with inaccurate or misleading information to Denmark, England, Italy, France, Germany, Spain and Sweden, as well as to the United States, the officials said.
As a result, the officials said, U.S. intelligence analysts in some cases used information from now-discredited "foreign intelligence sources" to corroborate their own assessments of Hussein's suspected chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs. Few of the CIA's prewar judgments have been proved accurate so far.
Because even friendly spy services rarely share the identities of their informants or let outsiders meet or debrief their sources, it has only in recent months become clear that Chalabi's group sent defectors with inaccurate or misleading information to Denmark, England, Italy, France, Germany, Spain and Sweden, as well as to the United States, the officials said.
As a result, the officials said, U.S. intelligence analysts in some cases used information from now-discredited "foreign intelligence sources" to corroborate their own assessments of Hussein's suspected chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs. Few of the CIA's prewar judgments have been proved accurate so far.
Based on some of the things I've learned recently about the Middle East, it would appear that their oil supply is only eclipsed by their supply of intrigue.
Chalabi appeared on both Meet the Press and CNN's morning shows this morning and is basically blaming all of this on George Tenet and the CIA. But, he's a pretty shady character himself I think, I wouldn't buy a used car from him. Anyway, on to the questions......Do you think the US would have invaded and occupied Iraq without the influence of Chalabi and his Iraqi National Congress? If no what does this say about this administration's ability to judge character and sort out fact from fiction?
Hard to say whether or not we would have eventually invaded Iraq. It was pretty clear that the only way to really get rid of Saddam Hussein was that way. I doubt we would have chosen the time table we did for the invasion though, might have let Hans Blix wander around aimlessly in the desert for awhile longer, but I think eventually, we would have gone in.
I wouldn't lay this to a particular administration, after all Clinton called for "regime change" back in 1998. I'm not sure how much he was influenced by Chalabi, but I think this is indicative of a problem that we are all recognizing now with our intelligence - the lack of good Human Intelligence. This is a cultural problem within our intelligence community dating back to the 1970's when for various reasons we decided we didn't want to do business with "shady characters" anymore. It's going to take a very long time to rebuild the HUMINT side of things I think.
You are quite correct Aquilla about Clinton signing a Iraq regime change bill, but the problem is as even Bush Senior has said going in this way was the wrong way to do it.
Reasons Not to Invade Iraq, by George Bush Sr.
But now back to Chalaby recently I found a recent article from Salon.com on Chalaby's whole life history that is very important to especially the recent history to figure this guy out.
How Ahmed Chalabi Conned the Neocons
Luckily the adminstration learned there lesson even if it was long overdue in stopping our money being payed to him in the sum of $340,000 a month to him and his organization. Which has been reported to be about $20 million if not more already.
Do you think the US would have invaded and occupied Iraq without the influence of Chalabi and his Iraqi National Congress? If no what does this say about this administration's ability to judge character and sort out fact from fiction?
I would also say like Aquilla has said out it being hard to say whether we would or would not invade Iraq, but for other reasons. Even with out Chalaby I believe that the neocon's or you can call them radicals within the adminstration might have found a way to do this because of there vision of changing the middle east. Which I have seen some respected journalist, writers, politcal experts and foreign experts all have agreed were flawed.
edited to add a little extra information
Reasons Not to Invade Iraq, by George Bush Sr.
QUOTE
While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome.
But now back to Chalaby recently I found a recent article from Salon.com on Chalaby's whole life history that is very important to especially the recent history to figure this guy out.
How Ahmed Chalabi Conned the Neocons
Article excerpt removed. Please note that the item in the Rules relating to excerpting limits:
Prohibited Item: Posting full or partial texts of copyrighted materials, regardless of ownership. Our excerpting limit is no more than two consecutive paragraphs, and no more than six paragraphs per article.
Prohibited Item: Posting full or partial texts of copyrighted materials, regardless of ownership. Our excerpting limit is no more than two consecutive paragraphs, and no more than six paragraphs per article.
Luckily the adminstration learned there lesson even if it was long overdue in stopping our money being payed to him in the sum of $340,000 a month to him and his organization. Which has been reported to be about $20 million if not more already.
Do you think the US would have invaded and occupied Iraq without the influence of Chalabi and his Iraqi National Congress? If no what does this say about this administration's ability to judge character and sort out fact from fiction?
I would also say like Aquilla has said out it being hard to say whether we would or would not invade Iraq, but for other reasons. Even with out Chalaby I believe that the neocon's or you can call them radicals within the adminstration might have found a way to do this because of there vision of changing the middle east. Which I have seen some respected journalist, writers, politcal experts and foreign experts all have agreed were flawed.
edited to add a little extra information
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.