Well, it looks like Iraq’s gonna try again to arrest joint US-Iran favorite, Ahmad Chalabi (well, perhaps former US favorite, although, he’s got the snapshots [via Kos] to prove he was once very, very, very, welcome by some of the GOP’s biggest names).
Last time around, a U.S.-appointed Iraqi judge issued a warrant for Chalabi’s arrest on charges of counterfeiting money, but the charges were dropped in September 2004.
This time, the charge seems less serious, but there’s a lot of money involved, so if Chalabi doesn’t have a few more aces up his sleeve he may be going down:
[Iraq’s interim defense minister Hazim al-Shaalan] told London-based newspaper Asharq al-Awsat in remarks published on Friday he would [after the holy holiday Eid al-Adha] order the arrest after Chalabi accused the defense minister in an interview of stealing $500 million from the ministry and posted documents on a Web site accusing Shaalan of links to Saddam Hussein’s government.
The charge is "maligning" the Defense Minister. What’s that get ya? A slap on the wrist and a severe tickling?
The money thing promises to get much more interesting. MSNBC (link above) says it’s $500 million. The New York Times is reporting $300 million:
Earlier this month, according to Iraqi officials, $300 million in American bills was taken out of Iraq’s Central Bank, put into boxes and quietly put on a charter jet bound for Lebanon.
The money was to be used to buy tanks and other weapons from international arms dealers, the officials say, as part of an accelerated effort to assemble an armored division for the fledgling Iraqi Army. But exactly where the money went, and to whom, and for precisely what, remains a mystery, at least to Iraqis who say they have been trying to find out.
The $300 million deal appears to have been arranged outside the American-designed financial controls intended to help Iraq – which defaulted on its external debt in the 1990’s – legally import goods. By most accounts here, there was no public bidding for the arms contracts, nor was the deal approved by the entire 33-member Iraqi cabinet.
And then there’s this very encouraging assessment:
The $300 million flight has been the talk of Iraq’s political class, and fueled the impression among many Iraqis and Western officials that the interim Iraqi government, set up after the American occupation formally ended in June, is awash in corruption. It is not clear whether the money came from Iraqi or American sources, or both.
"I am sorry to say that the corruption here is worse now than in the Saddam Hussein era," said Mowaffak al-Rubaie, the Iraqi national security adviser, who said he had not been informed of the details of the flight or the arms deal. (emphasis mine)
Knowing that Chalabi is hoping to be elected Prime Minister, my guess is he’s concluded there’s no better way to soil the reputation of his staunchest opponent (Allawi) than broadcast how corrupt the interim government has been under his watch (OK, so there are probably plenty of other, very true, things one could said about Allawi, but we’re talking about ones that Chalabi isn’t also guilty of).
What about the new Iraq, exactly, is supposed to spark reform in surrounding countries? Oh, yeah, the chance to line their pockets with the hundreds of millions of US$ there for the taking.
Edward, Edward, Edward. It’s not money that will reform the Middle East; it’s the transformative power of freedom.
Apparently you haven’t read the most recent iteration of Fafblog, hilzoy. Our Dear Leader — Giblets, may he reign over the Pax Gibletsiana forever — has declared he was in fact referring to a dessert topping. We apologize for the inconvenience this may have caused.
hilzoy,
yawn
what is that link about Stan? I’m too lazy to do the heavy lifting…
Edward, I think he’s saying the Iraqi war and, by extension, the GWoT, is actually a police action.
heet,
lol!
Or, maybe Stan is saying law inforcement and its techniques and implements under the occupation force is something that needs to be moved Stateside.
The angle I’ve heard on this is that they are threatening to deport Chalabi on the Jordanian conviction. Google brings up this
If Stan can’t be bothered to explain himself, who cares what he meant?
I don’t see anyone requesting an explanation for Hilzoy’s post.
Stan, hilzoy is left of center and you ain’t, holding others to the same measure doesn’t work around here. Just saying
I don’t think anyone had trouble understanding Hilzoy’s post. Much as I enjoy being accused of hypocrisy, I don’t really think it applies, here.
Hey Timmy:
How about responding to the substance of the post, which is that we have created a regime as willing to defraud us as Chalabi was in selling the Bush administration on the WMD, greet you with roses stories.
Just saying
Chalabi’s been around for more than one administration. He was not of unknown quantity or quality. I would imagine that we used him, then sent his sorry butt a pack’n.
I would imagine that we used him, then sent his sorry butt a pack’n.
Why does this song come to mind?
Blogbudsman: I would imagine that we used him, then sent his sorry butt a pack’n.
That’s entirely possible, though it’s a far more cynical (and realistic) view of the Bush administration that I’ve come to expect from you. You think the Bush administration knew that Chalabi was lying to them, and didn’t care because his lies provided them with the excuse they wanted to invade Iraq?
It’s possible that the Bush administration knew Chalabi was a con artist and used him as a catspaw to take the blame for their fatal mistakes in planning the invasion and occupation of Iraq. That would suggest that they planned for this current catastrophic situation, intending long-term disaster in Iraq. I admit it’s sometimes easier to believe that malice led the Bush administration to do this, rather than stupidity, but I still don’t see how they (or anyone) benefits from it.
Still, it’s a theory.
I think I can interpret Stan’s post for y’all: “Look! Over there! Something irrelevant that you’re all supposed to pretend changes the circumstances, implications or nature of that thing that the other person was talking about!!” Special note: You can tag that onto most of his posts. In any case, I’m glad he’s so glib about the value of human life that he can respond to either his own link or hilzoy’s with a resounding “Yawn.” Why do I suspect Stan is anti-abortion?
Oh, well. I’m sure The Usual Suspects will be crowing about investigating this as loudly as they did Oil For Food. Yep. Any minute now.
Phil
Silence is a far better treatment. Anything else just increases the noise in relation to the signal.
Jes quoted this:
“Even as it prepares for war against Iraq, the Pentagon is already engaged on a second front: its war against the Central Intelligence Agency.
Well, at least the Pentagon can say it won that war
Of course, as they say, la plus ça change
(explication for those who don’t understand humor from the left. The assumption we make here is that the Pentagon is losing the war in Iraq, so I am ironically noting that it is ‘winning’ the war against the CIA. The phrase ‘la plus ça change’ is French for ‘the more things change [the more they stay the same]’ and the story is about the relatively weak qualifications of the person who is supposed to head up the Defense Intelligence Agency’s Strategic Support Branch, suggesting that there this sort of behavior is not new and I am linking it to Chalabi’s role. I hope that is sufficiently detailed for those of you who don’t understand this kind of droll, ironic presentation)
Phil: incivility to other posters is a violation of the posting rules. Don’t do it.
dmbeaster,
How about responding to the substance of the post,
Is that what hilzoy’s post was about? Hypocrisy, indeed!
I think I can interpret Stan’s post for y’all: “Look! Over there! Something irrelevant that you’re all supposed to pretend changes the circumstances, implications or nature of that thing that the other person was talking about!!”
Eh? My post was as much as on topic as Hilzoy’s.
In any case, I’m glad he’s so glib about the value of human life that he can respond to either his own link or hilzoy’s with a resounding “Yawn.” Why do I suspect Stan is anti-abortion?
My “yawn” was at the irrelevancy of Hilzoy’s post. But you already knew that. Nice try, nevertheless.
“Corruption.” Yawn! “Embezzlement.” Yawn! “Feeding the US phony intel to sell us a war.” Yawn! “Spying for Iran.” Yawn! “Blood-spattered children.” Yawn!
Dude, this war is SO last year. Let’s check out Iran – that’s TOTALLY where all the action is.
cmas,
I thought this thread was about Chalabi? I am not even going to hold my breath for Phil reply to you with:
“Look! Over there! Something irrelevant that you’re all supposed to pretend changes the circumstances, implications or nature of that thing that the other person was talking about!!” Special note: You can tag that onto most of his posts.
Stan,
I was serious. I didn’t understand the significance of your link.
I went to that link and it’s a list of US citizens killed by law enforcement agents. Is that to suggest that what happened in Iraq is nothing out of the ordinary and so folks should just move on?
You could make parallel arguments for each and every human tragedy anywhere, anytime. What’s your overarching point?
Edward,
It was an accident, was it not? What was the relevancy of hilzoy’s comment on this particular thread?
hilzoy can best explain her intent, Stan, but I took it to mean that whereas we argue we’re delivering “freedom” to the Middle East, what the folks living there are currently seeing is something far less idealistic than that abstract notion.
In other words, all the fancy uptopian rhetoric in the world isn’t as powerful as a single image of a child splashed with her parent’s blood.
I’ll connect the dots for you, Stan.
Maybe – just maybe – if our government hadn’t been so eager to listen to the lies of a corrupt, embezzling Iranian spy to sell a war, that kid wouldn’t be wearing a blood-spattered dress.
In other words, all the fancy uptopian rhetoric in the world isn’t as powerful as a single image of a child splashed with her parent’s blood.
But that’s a given in any war and under any President, is it not? A rather cheap shot by hilzoy.
But that’s a given in any war and under any President, is it not?
Not every war is retroactively justified on abstract, utopian grounds. When we were going to war, this war was sold as a war of defense – the US preventively cutting off the “grave and gathering threat” of Iraqi WMDs. Now that that rationale has evaporated, the administration has fallen back on a lot of flowery abstract talk about a “war against tyranny.”
Well, all evidence indicates that the tyranny we’re replacing Saddam with isn’t much better than Hussein himself. In just under two years we’ve outstripped nearly the last decade of Baathist rule in terms of body count. The interim government is full of corrupt power-hungry thieves, and it looks to be replaced by religious fundamentalists and civil war after the elections.
So if this really was a war for “freedom,” it’s been a pathetic failure so far, and if it was a war for defense, there’s no sign that we had anything in Iraq to defend ourselves against (although the war may have created several threats we didn’t have before). None of this has been worth the incredible loss of life.
Amehd Chalabi has been saying things the USA, accross party lines and through two adminisrations, has desparately wanted to hear. His line is that there is substantial support for a secular democratic Iraq lying in a dormant, but easily awakened state.
The problem with Chalabi is two fold…first, does he really know what he’s talking about, and second is he a patriotic Iraqi working towards the next phase of Iraq, or just a venal Iraqi (they exist in all nations), who seeks only to build his own wealth and power.
Chalabi was accused of bank fraud in Jordan. Many of the big losers in the collapse of his Petra bank were members of the Jordanian royal family. Now one might have some legitimate concerns about the independence of the judicial process in Jordan, especially in a case where the aggreived parties have the ear of the monarch. Chalabi certainly had fears at least very similar to those, and he fled the country.
Now preaching his message of Iraq to the USA Chalabi finds many sympathetic ears. Since Clinton is President, and Clinton trusts the processes and institutions of the US government, he entrusts management of Chalabi to the state department. The state department works with Chalabi for a while, but becomes disenchanted with the financial accounting inside Chalabi’s organization (apparently the state department has had enough experience with exiles who are grifters to have strict financial accounting standards, auditors, and the like). State becomes disenchanted enough that they balk at the close cooperation the national polity (the bi-partisan aim of getting rid of Saddam) demands, and he becomes the darling of the CIA. With the CIA’s independent resources and Chalabi’s help, the US aids a 1996 coup attempt in Iraq. It fails so spectacularly that CIA wags call it the Bay of Goats. Some CIA types think that Chalabi himself betrayed the coup plotters since Chalabi was not slated to take to top spot in the new Iraq.
At this point Chalabi has pretty much burned his bridges within the Clinton administration, but his message still has wide support on both sides of the aisle among those he has not yet disappointed.
Under the Bush administration, there is less faith in the processes and institutions of the US government. The experiences of the State Department and the CIA with Chalabi carry less weight, and Chalabi finds a sympathetic ear in the various ad hoc organizations that the new administration creates to perform many of the same tasks once the exclusive domains of state and CIA.
Now, Chalabi’s message, true or false, is almost perfectly crafted to tell the powers that be in the US what they want to hear, no matter what party they belong to. Unfortunately for the Bush administration, they are of a party that has spent the last 30 years (i’m going back to the “team b” over-estimates of the Soviet threat in the Ford administration) seeing goverment agencies as half-empty glasses, too enamored of process and paperwork to actually do useful work. Of course, the counter arguement is that the glass is half full, and that the process and paperwork were created in noble efforts to avoid mistakes, fraud, and corruption. In this case, the glass half-empty view leads them to discount the experiences of government agencies working with Chalabi during the Clinton administration, and leads to Chalabi being prominently seated in the gallarie for the 2003 SOTU address, among other things.
Silence is a far better treatment. Anything else just increases the noise in relation to the signal.
Someone please staple that to my forehead. Both on offense and on defense.
Jes, you and I would probably attach different motives to the use of Chalabi’s ambitions, but I essentially agree with your premise. I do think many underestimated the depths of the fear engrained common Iraqi citizen and the paralysis it created regarding standing up against the Baathist’s; and the support the Baathist’s would receive from Iran et al. Part of the equation must always be the doubt in American resolve recognizing the desperate battle for the power inherent in supporting the majority party. The clock is ticking.
Blogbuds: but I essentially agree with your premise.
Good grief – you’ve finally joined the “Bush & co knowingly lied the US into invading Iraq” school of thought?
Or do you mean something else?
With Ahmed Chalabi, given his history, Bush & Co were either the victims of a con artist, or went along with his lies knowing he was a con artist. You seem to go for the second course – Bush & Co knew he was lying, knew he was a con artist, but chose to present his lies to the world because they were a good excuse for what they wanted to do.
But I don’t believe you’ve ever
Blogbuds, continued:
But I am reluctant to foist an opinion on you that (I think) you’ve disagreed with vehemently in the past: that Bush & Co lied the US into invading Iraq, that the whole basis of the invasion was dishonest.
Is that really what you think? If so, we are in agreement.
Alas, fair detractor, to believe that would seem to contradict the many opinions shared here regarding the Administration’s competence. I’ve always believed successful con-artists and blatant liars are not only evil, but in possession of a level of cleverness that has so far escaped me. I cannot let you proclaim the Administration is capable of diabolical genius and at the same time gross incompetence whenever your argument needs tricked up a bit.
Blogbudsman: I cannot let you proclaim the Administration is capable of diabolical genius and at the same time gross incompetence whenever your argument needs tricked up a bit.
Actually, I was trying to figure out what you meant. AFAIK, you’ve never before acknowledged openly what you seemed to be acknowledging in your January 23, 2005 07:07 AM – the Bush administration lied to get the US to invade Iraq.
(And, FWIW, I wouldn’t describe an administration that lets itself be used by Chalabi (or any known con man), in the full knowledge that the ‘facts’ he’s giving out are lies, as “capable of diabolical genius”. Rather I’d say it’s an administration that has made several of the classic Evil Overlord mistakes.)
An AH HA! to you, it’s seems, is a chin rubbing chess move to me. They had to know that a relationship with Chalabi was wrought with horrors, but given his experience and contacts in the region, ill gotten or not, brought some value to the table. Especially where there was so little human intel, no insiders, almost no nothing. I realize my arguments require the presence of a little teflon, but that’s my story and I’m sticking to it. (‘teflon’ and ‘sticking to it’ in the same sentence – I’ll pay for that one)
but if they knew he was potentially really bad news, bbm, why did the pose for all those photo ops?
Blogbudsman: They had to know that a relationship with Chalabi was wrought with horrors, but given his experience and contacts in the region, ill gotten or not, brought some value to the table.
Negative value, as the Clinton administration, the State department, and the CIA could have told them, and presumably did. Yet the Bush administration ignored this.
Especially where there was so little human intel, no insiders, almost no nothing.
So why go for someone who was a proven liar, and ignore all the good and expert advice from people who were actually familiar with the situation? The Bush administration had access to many people whose information and advice was far more reliable than Ahmed Chalabi’s: they ignored all of it, and paid attention only to Chalabi, who was telling them what they wanted to hear.
You suggested that this was deliberate: they knew Chalabi was spinning a good story, so they used him as a favored con artist. I think this was a dumb thing to do, but may well be close to the truth.
I realize my arguments require the presence of a little teflon, but that’s my story and I’m sticking to it.
Well, yes – same old same old. “Whatever the Bush administration does is right, even when it’s wrong.”
Jes, if I truly thought you believed that and all it entails, I’d snap at the bait and argue some more. But I don’t…
Blogbuds: if I truly thought you believed that and all it entails, I’d snap at the bait and argue some more. But I don’t…
I really do believe that you have a hard time admitting that the Bush administration has done wrong, yes.