You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Chalabi: False intel okay because it brought down Saddam
2004-02-20
An Iraqi leader accused of feeding faulty prewar intelligence to Washington said his information about Saddam Hussein’s weapons — even if discredited — achieved the aim of persuading the United States to topple the dictator. Ahmed Chalabi and his London-based exile group, the Iraqi National Congress, for years provided a conduit for Iraqi defectors who were debriefed by U.S. intelligence agents. But many American officials now blame Mr. Chalabi for providing what turned out to be false or wildly exaggerated intelligence about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. During an interview, Mr. Chalabi, by far the most effective anti-Saddam lobbyist in Washington, shrugged off charges that he had deliberately misled U.S. intelligence. "We are heroes in error," he said in Baghdad on Wednesday. "As far as we’re concerned, we’ve been entirely successful. "Our objective has been achieved. That tyrant Saddam is gone, and the Americans are in Baghdad. What was said before is not important."
Actually it is, since we're going to eventually go into Iran, and probably Syria before the terror ediface collapses. Screwing around with the mechanism for Iraq may have put a serious crimp on the mechanisms for subsequent operations.
Mr. Chalabi added: "The Bush administration is looking for a scapegoat. We’re ready to fall on our swords if [President Bush] wants." His comments are likely to inflame the debate on both sides of the Atlantic over the quality of prewar intelligence, and over the way it was presented by Mr. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair as they argued for military action. U.S. officials said last week that one of the most celebrated pieces of false intelligence, the claim that Saddam had mobile biological-weapons laboratories, had come from a major in the Iraqi intelligence service made available by the INC. U.S. officials at first found the information credible, and the defector passed a lie-detector test. But in later interviews it became apparent that he was stretching the truth and had been "coached by the INC." He failed a second polygraph test, and intelligence agencies were warned that the information was unreliable in May 2002. But analysts missed the warning, and the mobile-lab story remained firmly established in the catalog of purported Iraqi violations until months after the overthrow of Saddam. The United States at one point claimed to have found two mobile labs, but the trucks were later reported to have held equipment to make hydrogen for weather balloons. Last week, State Department officials conceded that much of the firsthand testimony they had received was "shaky."

"What the INC told us formed one part of the intelligence picture," said a senior official in Baghdad. "But what Chalabi told us, we accepted in good faith. Now there are going to be a lot of question marks over his motives." Mr. Chalabi remains an influential member of the Iraqi Governing Council, though he has failed to develop the popular following in Iraq that his most enthusiastic sponsors once expected.
Those were US lives lost there. I am not happy about this.
Posted by:rkb

#19  excuse me... saddam wanted people to believe it...saddam has no responsiblity in this...really?...and saddam wanted people to believe he had this to keep the sanctions up...i see alot of real us dollars coming out of iraq and it isn't fake...wow...but i guess that doesn't matter
Posted by: ravin   2004-3-9 11:58:09 AM  

#18  I know what you mean Ship. Aris waxes. BTW Aris you make a good case. But Ship has issues. And these issue are in front of us not behind.
Posted by: Lucky   2004-2-21 12:10:06 AM  

#17  Ship - Lol! You troll!
Posted by: .com   2004-2-20 7:17:56 PM  

#16  Shipman> Do you even care to make sense any more? What does this thread, or Chalabi, or my post have to do with the Olympics?
Posted by: Aris Katsaris   2004-2-20 7:07:35 PM  

#15  I refuse to suck this up. And no one else should either. There are so many holes here, that you can't even call it Swiss cheese.

I don't even know where to begin...
Posted by: B   2004-2-20 6:10:46 PM  

#14  And Aris... what would you consider to be an acceptable body count for the games? I say 10 or less is outstanding.
Posted by: Shipman   2004-2-20 5:25:07 PM  

#13  Agree with you to an extent Aris. I hope it all works out well in the Athens games If it dosen't I'll be right here to tell you what went wrong. I've been learning from 'ya!
Posted by: Shipman   2004-2-20 5:24:07 PM  

#12  sorry - i read the SF article, didnt read all your comments (or at least didnt read carefully enough)
Posted by: liberalhawk   2004-2-20 4:42:42 PM  

#11   liberalhawk:

I didn't agree with the whole thing and on my blog I even took issue with their characterization of Sistani. I simply noted the possibility because right now, we do need to be asking these kinds of questions.
Posted by: Dan Darling   2004-2-20 3:24:58 PM  

#10  Those were US lives lost there

Which are no more valuable than the Iraqi civilian lives that were also lost there. But you supposedly considered the outcome well worth the lives lost, didn't you? Did anything change in the meantime?

Even if Chalabi outright *lied* about the WMDs (something nowhere stated), what kind of obligation did he have not to deceive the United States if that was needed in order to free his nation? His primary obligation is supposedly to his own nation, ain't it? How would that make him a scumbag, even if he outright lied and manipulated the US?

Chalabi is not an American citizen. Even if he deceived a foreign nation into helping him free his people, then that may make him untrustworthy for future relations, but it doesn't make him a scumbag. It makes him a quite clever patriot.
Posted by: Aris Katsaris   2004-2-20 2:08:18 PM  

#9  btw - dan, Stratfor does NOT say that Chalabi is an Iranian plant - they DO say "That Chalabi had close relations with Iran is not in itself startling. He is a Shiite who was deeply opposed to Saddam Hussein; he took friends where he could get them. It is somewhat more surprising that his extensive dealings with Iran were not regarded as a hindrance to a U.S. relationship with him prior to the war. He was in rather deep with the Iranians. After the war ended and the guerrilla campaign began, Chalabi was clearly useful in negotiating Iraqi Shiite cooperation with Tehran. The postwar relationship was visible and reasonable" They then go on to imply that Chalabi was responsible for the WMD information, and thus for the current reevaluation of the war. Which makes no sense, as the US had its own resources to evaluate Iraqi defectors, and further many defectors came NOT from Chalabis INC, but from Allawi's INA. Note that the CIA informed Cheney of the incriminating (yet per Stratfor, reasonable) Iranian ties. Who is CIA's favorite Iraqi? - none other than Mr. Allawi - who seems to be getting a free pass as far as unreliable defectors is concerned.

Note also that Stratfor implies that Chalabi is somehow responsible (hint, hint, hes an Iranian plant) for US reliance on the Shia - despite the fact that the INC includes Sunni as well as Shia. The Shia make up 60% of the population of Iraq - they would be dominant in ANY conceivable democratic circumstances (but who said the CIA was committed to democratic circumstances - for years theyve wanted Saddam overthrown through a coup by Baathist officers which would leave in place a UNDEMOCRATIC Sunni led regime - which would be friendly to Saudi and a "bulwark" against Iran) Furthermore the widespread Sunni opposition to the liberation (surely not Chalabis fault) further emphasizes the role of the Shia -with Kurds firmly pro-US, and Sunnis largely anti-US, the Shia would be the natural holders of the balance even if their numbers were lower.

Stratfor does state that a Shia dominated Iraq means an Iranian dominated Iraq - despite abundant evidence that Sistani and others are not interested in an Iranian dominated Iraq, and that Sadr is alone in pushing for that - you have to have an elaborate good cop - bad cop routine to make sense of that, and for now at least that calls for a nice shave from Mr. Occam.

I wouldnt put that much faith in Stratfor. Its a good read, with a definite sense of grand strategy, and more reliable than Debka I suppose, but theyve been wrong about major things. In particular their pessimistic take on Afghanistan ultimately proved wrong.
Posted by: liberalhawk   2004-2-20 1:24:20 PM  

#8  where in the above does it show that Chalabi deliberately misled US intel??? It shows that some of the defectors he passed on were unreliable - but was it Chalabi's job to vette them? It shows that he doesnt particularly care that the info was wrong - since it freed his people - well who the hell can blame him for that??? Damn, id feel the same way. Hell, Im not even Iraqi and I DO feel the same way.

He's self-serving - sure - hes a POLITICIAN - thats what makes democracy tick.

Is he a swindler - he was convicted by the Jordanians, at a time when Jordan was in bed with Saddam. He disputes the conviction to this day.
Posted by: liberalhawk   2004-2-20 1:07:25 PM  

#7  5-10 years down the pike we will probably look like we did the right thing for the wrong reasons, no thanks to that scumbag Chalabi.

The joke will be on Chalabi though if the administration is putting Operation Desert Weasel into play and is creeping away from our Iraqi commitment.

At that point, Ahmed's only choice will be between hemp, nylon, or wire.

Posted by: Hiryu   2004-2-20 12:50:41 PM  

#6  It didn't matter. The only thing that could have saved saddam was his turning over what the had or what they did with WMD. saddam was a brinkmanship player. His ego wouldn't let him do what Bush demanded. Bush knew this. Thats why the build up to war was unstoppable. And I'm glad for that.

That Iraq will prolly be in a state of conflict for a long time is for the Iraqi's to handle. There isn't alot we can do. Other than pick a side and ensure victory for that side.

We do not need to clean up Iraq's dirty carpet.
Posted by: Lucky   2004-2-20 12:00:23 PM  

#5   Chalabi may in fact be an Iranian plant, according to the STRATFOR analysis that I posted on my blog.

I don't think that this affects the rationale for going to war, but it does raise some interesting questions that need to be answered as far as Chalabi's allegiances go.
Posted by: Dan Darling   2004-2-20 11:57:54 AM  

#4  Chalabi is a self-serving scumbag. He doesn't care what happens as long as he has control. For more, see this op/ed from Ralph Peters.
Posted by: growler   2004-2-20 11:46:49 AM  

#3  What happened to the WMD is a separate issue ... I'm pissed that Chalabi is so cavalier about deliberately manipulating us into a war.
Posted by: rkb   2004-2-20 11:11:59 AM  

#2  I'm sure the Kurds will be pleased to know they were not, in fact, attacked with chemical weapons.

And, of course, this ignores the dozens of OTHER reasons for removing Saddam.
Posted by: Robert Crawford   2004-2-20 10:51:34 AM  

#1  So how did Chalabi convince the Germans the Brits, etc. that Saddam had WMDs.

For that matter, how did Chalabi convince the Clinton Admin.
Posted by: mhw   2004-2-20 10:34:32 AM  

00:00