« More Sale on Chalabi | Main | Chalabi and the Israelis »

15 May 2007


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Clifford Kiracofe

DH, many good points. To get a handle on Neocon-Chalabi influenced US policy, attention to the US Congress is helpful.

Chalabi's influence on the US Congress (Democrats and Republicans) cannot be underestimated and should be examined as it helped lay the basis for the present war.

You point to the "Clean Break" paper and there was a suite of papers during the Clinton Administration in 1996 produced by IASPS.

By 1998, during the Clinton Administration, the Neocon network and their political patrons and allies got the "Iraq Liberation Act" passed in Congress. Chalabi's role was a key factor lobbying Senators and Congressmen. http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/Legislation/ILA.htm

US Senator Brownback of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 2000, during the Clinton Administration, per the liberation effort:

Now consider the situation in Washington as of October 2002, during the Bush 43 Administration, just prior to the authorization for war by Congress:


To me, the essential issue is the foreign penetration and manipulation of the US legislative process and foreign policy process. The Neocons and Chalabi played an important and critical role but they were not alone.

With respect to Congress, the appropriate committees have access to intelligence, including counterintelligence, members can be briefed, and committees can go into Executive Session to discuss relevant issues and questions.

W. Patrick Lang

Just to clarify one point, Pat, I never said Chalabi wasn't working for Iran. On that point, up until 2004, I was agnostic. And his personal agenda and work for Iran were (and are) not at all mutually exclusive. Far from it.

In fact, when finally spurned by his erstwhile friends in the USG back in 2004, he clearly established some sort of a relationship with Tehran in an effort to secure another powerful sponsor. Before 2004, however, his relationship with Iran seemed unclear--at least to us in INR. That said, I personally tried to ramp up collection on Chalabi in 2004 because of his seemingly sleazy financial dealings in Iraq, the misbehavior of the small private army he brought with him, and, yes, other possible activities like dealings with Iran. Unfortunately, I was told that collection was stretched to the limit, and covering Chalabi would not receive a high priority.
Richard has, however, apparently cleared up much of the speculation regarding the nature and extent of Chalabi's relations with Iran, which, again, back in 2003-2005, remained unclear to many of us in the Intelligence Community.

Hope this helps. Wayne White.

Chris Marlowe

I had a discussion a few days ago about what would have happened if China had invaded Iraq because of WMD or some other trumped-up reasons, and the whole exercise had degenerated into the same debacle the Bush administration and the US now finds itself in.

Since in China, the leader of the country can do no wrong, he must have been terribly deceived by his advisors who advocated an invasion. I believe that the advocates of the policy would have been quietly dispatched. Eventually the facts would be leaked out, and the people would celebrate the execution of the conspirators. (Remember the Gang of Four in 1976?) The Chinese leader would apologize to the Iraqis, saying that he had been grievously deceived, but that now the evildoers and their families were dead, and were burning in hell as their eternal punishment. The Chinese would then build bridges, schools and hospitals in Iraq, naming them after some of the Iraqi victims of the invasion, with Chinese ministers flying to the country to cut ribbons at dedication ceremonies.

Of course, if George W. Bush were even slightly smart, this is what he would do with Rove, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Tenet, Bremer, Franks, Wolfowitz and Perle. Dead men don't talk, and don't get MM dollar book contracts to write their version of the events.

Bush could write his own history, and tell how he had been so grievously deceived, but now the record was set straight. I think his popularity in the polls would go up.

But Bush doesn't believe in polls, does he? Funny that he fought so hard over the results of the 2000 elections, isn't it?


There's a good quote (Wellington?) that, "A Great Empire and little minds go ill together."


I don't get it:

if as Richard Sale says :

According to more than half a dozen CIA operatives, including former clandestine DO officials, "Agency people became aware that Chalabi had probably been a long-time agent for Iran," in the words of one. These sources, including Whitley Bruner, say that Chalabi was long ago working for Iran in Lebanon, even before the agency recruited him in 1991 and stuck him in as head of the INC. Bruner said of Chalabi: "He never gave the agency any intel on Iran, never submitted to being debriefed.' adding, "He was Iran’s guy."

then how is it that wayne white says:

Richard has, however, apparently cleared up much of the speculation regarding the nature and extent of Chalabi's relations with Iran, which, again, back in 2003-2005, remained unclear to many of us in the Intelligence Community.?

Which one is it?

Did we know and not care? Or where we in the dark?


One more thing Iran got from Chalabi - knowledge that the US had cracked the Iranian crypto.


re Iranian crypto:
why did Chalabi do it?
One plausible explanation is that Chalabi was frightened that the Iranians would disclose (inadvertently) to the Administration just how weak Chalabi was in Iraq.

Babak Makkinejad

David Habbakuk:

"Clean Break" and other such policies are fantasies only to the extent that their costs are minimized.

Surely, if the United States goes onto a war footing with 12 Million men under arms, she will be able to achieve much.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

September 2020

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30      
Blog powered by Typepad