Phase II 911Report - Stuck On Chalabi

[kpete]

The first phase of the Intelligence Committee’s findings, which examined the intelligence community’s mistakes, had been delivered back in the summer of 2004. Now, more than two years after the release of Phase I, as observers from across the political spectrum acknowledge the grim catastrophe of the current situation in Iraq, the Senate Intelligence Committee’s partially completed Phase II report has taken on a historical quality, even in advance of its anticipated release. At this point, what’s surprising is that there’s anything that could be contained in it that anyone finds worthy of suppressing.

According to The Times, four Republicans voted against one of the newly completed sections of the Phase II report, the one investigating how intelligence provided by Ahmad Chalabi’s Iraqi National Congress influenced the administration’s decision to go to war. According to Senate sources, the four Republicans who voted against the Chalabi section findings are Senators Trent Lott, Orrin Hatch, Saxby Chambliss, and Kit Bond.

Is there anything in the section that we didn’t know already from news reports, I wondered? “Let me put it this way,” one committee staff source said. “What’s surprising is what the Committee agreed to conclude, not that anything so revolutionary was disclosed. What’s surprising is that these facts and conclusions were endorsed by a majority of the committee.”

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/2006/08/post_1042.html#005651

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

1. I'm kinda stuck on Chalabi too

I'm so happy you posted this. Yesterday(?) I posted about Chalabi and I got not one response. Nada! Anyway, below is the body of that post which ties right into yours.



The article below is from 2004. But now that long dead skeletons keep popping up inconveniently for the Bush administration and the neo-cons and the PNAC cabal - I would like to keep this skeleton among the living scandals. The game for winning this world back from the greed squad requires effective long term memory. This whole issue deserves a lot more investigation. How ironic, if, in the War On Terra, we were the tool and pidgeon of one of the charter members of the "Axis of Evil". This is a short article but it covers a lot of ground. Just remember who sat with Laura Bush in the honored seat at the State of the Union. I bet the Iranians were busting a gut laughing their heads off.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/justif...

Ahmad Chalabi and His Iranian Connection
Stratfor Weekly
February 18, 2004

Summary

The United States is struggling over the question of how U.S. intelligence was so deeply mistaken about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. One of the points that is consistently brought up is that much of the intelligence flowed through the Iraqi National Council, an opposition group led by Ahmad Chalabi. It is now well known that Chalabi's sources were not ideal. What is less well known is the close, long-term relationship that Chalabi, a favorite of Washington's, had with Iran. Chalabi, an Iraqi Shiite, was and remains in constant contact with Tehran. We have assumed he was a channel between Washington and Tehran. Given the erroneous intelligence he gave the United States, his relationship with Iran requires careful examination.

skip . . .

However, there would appear to us to be something more here. In particular, there is a complexity that is usually omitted: namely, the relationship between Chalabi and leading figures in Iran. Prior to the war, Chalabi, an Iraqi Shiite who lived in the West for decades, made several trips to Tehran to confer with Iranian officials on a number of issues. He has continued to travel to Iran since the end of the war. Not to put too fine a point on it, Chalabi has had and continues to have excellent relations with Iran, as well as with leading Shia in Iraq

skip

If we step back now, a different potential explanation emerges. First, Chalabi was extremely close to the Iranians prior to the war. Second, he provided much of Washington's prewar intelligence on Iraq. Third, no weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq. Fourth, the Iranians, along with the Iraqi Shia, are the main beneficiaries of the U.S. invasion. In that case, who Chalabi was and whose interests he actually was serving become the central questions.
This is not an argument against the invasion from a strategic point of view, nor an argument that it was a failure. In the real world, things are rarely so clear-cut. But it does raise a vital question: Who exactly is Ahmad Chalabi? He has been caricatured as an American stooge and used as a tool by the Defense Department. As we consider the intelligence failures in Iraq, Chalabi's role in those failures and his relationship with senior Iranian officials of all factions, a question needs to be raised: Who was whose stooge?

[kpete]

2. Thanks

Chalabi seems to be at the "bottom" of every dark pit...

[Turbineguy]

3. It sounds like Chalabi's motto is

"Never give a sucker an even break!"

He certainly gave the Bush Administration what they wanted.

[DemonFighterLives]

4. Chalabi- we hardly knew yee

He was at the state of the Union and helped get the war going- then dubby had to distance himself.
I'm waiting for Phase 16 when we get to the heart of the matter- 911

[DemonFighterLives]

5. News Flash

Pat Roberts finds his balls. What is up with him? He seemed like the head whitewasher. Could his conscience be bothering him?
:dem: