Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > 2-Faced Chalabi

2-Faced Chalabi
Thread Tools
angaq0k
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Over there...
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 20, 2004, 06:33 PM
 
The Truth About Ahmed Chalabi

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."
It seems to me that some associations sought for support by President Bush, including the totalitarian States assisting in the War on Terror, end up on the wrong side of the "right" stuff.

The article is a long one but covers very interesting aspects of Chalabi's relationship with power.

"He doesn't want colleagues, only employees," says one former INC associate sadly. "And he prefers to bring in outsiders who can't work independently of him." As example, this Iraqi opposition veteran cites INC official Zaab Sethna, an American of Pakistani origin, and Francis Brooke, Chalabi's Washington lobbyist. During last year's war, Brooke, a fundamentalist Christian, told Harper's Magazine that he would support the elimination of Saddam, "the human Satan," even if every single Iraqi were killed in the process.
"******* politics is for the ******* moment. ******** equations are for ******** Eternity." ******** Albert Einstein
     
freakboy2
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Oct 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 20, 2004, 06:35 PM
 
yeah its funny.. we go in hoping to make chalabi a puppet ruler of the place and it turns out that he lied to us about wmd and everything else.

its about time we ditched this guy. let iraq be for iraqis and not for ex-pats who got rich siphoning money from their banks.

fb
     
eklipse
Professional Poster
Join Date: May 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 20, 2004, 06:41 PM
 
Can't someone put a bullet in that guy already?
     
lil'babykitten
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Herzliya
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 20, 2004, 06:44 PM
 
Only now the US realised Chalabi was a complete asshole?!
     
BRussell
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 20, 2004, 07:49 PM
 
It's hard to understand what's going on. Maybe with the hits that the defense dept. has taken recently, Powell is exerting his influence.

I wonder what this will mean for the UN oil-for-food "scandal."



edit: (That's him above Laura.)
     
vmpaul
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: always on the sunny side
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 20, 2004, 09:37 PM
 
His home was raided but at least he'll get some severance pay:

NYTimes

WASHINGTON, May 17 � The United States government has decided to halt monthly $335,000 payments to the Iraqi National Congress, the group headed by Ahmad Chalabi, an official with the group said on Monday.

Mr. Chalabi, a longtime exile leader and now a member of the Iraqi Governing Council, played a crucial role in persuading the administration that Saddam Hussein had to be removed from power. But he has since become a lightning rod for critics of the Bush administration, who say the United States relied on him too heavily for prewar intelligence that has since proved faulty.

Mr. Chalabi's group has received at least $27 million in United States financing in the past four years, the Iraqi National Congress official said. This includes $335,000 a month as part of a classified program through the Defense Intelligence Agency, since the summer of 2002, to help gather intelligence in Iraq. The official said his group had been told that financing will cease June 30, when occupation authorities are scheduled to turn over sovereignty to Iraqis.

Nice work if you can get it, huh?
The only thing that I am reasonably sure of is that anybody who's got an ideology has stopped thinking. - Arthur Miller
     
OldManMac
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 21, 2004, 01:23 AM
 
Another example of King George's terrific expertise in foreign policy - NOT! Never ceases to amaze me.

Funny stuff!
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
     
angaq0k  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Over there...
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 21, 2004, 05:51 AM
 
America's 'Best Friend' A Spy?

Senior U.S. officials told 60 Minutes Correspondent Lesley Stahl that they have evidence Chalabi has been passing highly-classified U.S. intelligence to Iran.

The evidence shows that Chalabi personally gave Iranian intelligence officers information so sensitive that if revealed it could, quote, "get Americans killed." The evidence is said to be "rock solid."
Ahmad Chalabi and His Iranian Connection

02/19/04: (STRATFOR) 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._

Analysis_(...)
"******* politics is for the ******* moment. ******** equations are for ******** Eternity." ******** Albert Einstein
     
Millennium
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 21, 2004, 09:28 AM
 
Fascinating. Almost exactly the same things happened with Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden, way back in The Day.

Anyone else starting to see a pattern emerge here? With the June 30th deadline, I can see this playing out exactly like Afghanistan did back in the 1980s. We install a regime, but don't provide it with adequate security, so it is quickly overthrown by religious extremists. My guess is that a bunch of Taliban survivors will be in the bunch, and they'll just set up shop and keep going, different nation but same behavior.
You are in Soviet Russia. It is dark. Grue is likely to be eaten by YOU!
     
dcolton
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 21, 2004, 09:34 AM
 
Originally posted by Millennium:
Fascinating. Almost exactly the same things happened with Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden, way back in The Day.

Anyone else starting to see a pattern emerge here? With the June 30th deadline, I can see this playing out exactly like Afghanistan did back in the 1980s. We install a regime, but don't provide it with adequate security, so it is quickly overthrown by religious extremists. My guess is that a bunch of Taliban survivors will be in the bunch, and they'll just set up shop and keep going, different nation but same behavior.
That is why we will have troops in Iraq well after June 30th to provide security to the Iraqi people. Hopefully, these bases will be semi-permanent. But, if all of the good liberals vote for Kerry, the US will probably be out of Iraq by the end of 2005 and history will repeat itself.
     
Millennium
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 21, 2004, 09:43 AM
 
Originally posted by dcolton:
That is why we will have troops in Iraq well after June 30th to provide security to the Iraqi people.
Some, yes. It's rather unlikely, however, that it will be enough; they're operating on what amounts to a skeleton crew as it is, and they plan to pull most of it out once power is transferred.
But, if all of the good liberals vote for Kerry, the US will probably be out of Iraq by the end of 2005 and history will repeat itself.
Here, at least, you are probably correct. Kerry wants the troops out so that they won't get killed, but I'm not sure he understands the consequences of this for the people of Iraq. Hell, I'm not sure most of the people of Iraq understand the consequences, and I can't say I blame them for it; things are bad enough there right now that they cannot conceive of anything being worse (in this, they're rather like the Anybody-But-Bush crowd in the US).

But it can get worse. And I get the feeling that we're going to see that played out yet again. It's sad how so few people manage to learn anything from historical patterns...
You are in Soviet Russia. It is dark. Grue is likely to be eaten by YOU!
     
dcolton
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 21, 2004, 10:00 AM
 
Originally posted by Millennium:
Some, yes. It's rather unlikely, however, that it will be enough; they're operating on what amounts to a skeleton crew as it is, and they plan to pull most of it out once power is transferred.
I will look for a link, but I thought I heard that quite a few troops will remain in Iraq. The US will have a military presence in Iraq - it is in our best interest.
     
BRussell
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 21, 2004, 10:24 AM
 
Originally posted by Millennium:
Some, yes. It's rather unlikely, however, that it will be enough; they're operating on what amounts to a skeleton crew as it is, and they plan to pull most of it out once power is transferred.

Here, at least, you are probably correct. Kerry wants the troops out so that they won't get killed, but I'm not sure he understands the consequences of this for the people of Iraq. Hell, I'm not sure most of the people of Iraq understand the consequences, and I can't say I blame them for it; things are bad enough there right now that they cannot conceive of anything being worse (in this, they're rather like the Anybody-But-Bush crowd in the US).

But it can get worse. And I get the feeling that we're going to see that played out yet again. It's sad how so few people manage to learn anything from historical patterns...
No one, not Bush or Kerry, has said we're pulling troops out. Kerry has said we need more troops there.
     
Millennium
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 21, 2004, 10:59 AM
 
Originally posted by BRussell:
No one, not Bush or Kerry, has said we're pulling troops out. Kerry has said we need more troops there.
How recent was that? Honest question; I've heard nothing but the opposite from him.
You are in Soviet Russia. It is dark. Grue is likely to be eaten by YOU!
     
dcolton
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 21, 2004, 11:27 AM
 
Originally posted by Millennium:
How recent was that? Honest question; I've heard nothing but the opposite from him.
Last I heard, he planned to pull the troops out by the end of 2005
     
MacGorilla
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Retired
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 21, 2004, 11:59 AM
 
Chalabi..there is a winner. You know he is also a convicted felon and wanted in Jordan to bank fraud?
Power Macintosh Dual G4
SGI Indigo2 6.5.21f
     
BRussell
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 21, 2004, 12:00 PM
 
Millennium: Can you find where he's said we're going to pull our troops out? That was Kucinich, not Kerry. I don't even think Dean said that.

This is from Kerry's Saturday radio address a few weeks ago.

First, our leaders must level with the American people and be honest and upfront about the difficulties we face. The President may not want to admit to mistakes, but his choices in Iraq have so far produced a tragedy of errors.

Second, we must recognize that progress is not possible in Iraq if people lack the security to go about the business of daily life. We must supply our military commanders with the additional troops they have requested. But the military alone cannot win the peace in Iraq.

The use of force must be combined with a diplomatic strategy that will work. United Nations representatives have put forward a fair proposal for an interim government. It will allow Iraqis from all factions to participate. It�s a good starting point, but it leaves many hard questions unanswered.

That is why, for the long term, our third step we must remove the �Made in America� label from the Iraqi occupation.

We can do that by creating an international mission authorized by the United Nations.

[etc.]
This has always been one of the criticisms of Bush's Iraq approach, that they didn't use enough troops.
     
MacGorilla
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Retired
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 21, 2004, 12:05 PM
 
This has always been one of the criticisms of Bush's Iraq approach, that they didn't use enough troops.
We didn't use enough troops but thats a debate for another thread.
Power Macintosh Dual G4
SGI Indigo2 6.5.21f
     
vmpaul
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: always on the sunny side
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 21, 2004, 02:00 PM
 
Originally posted by Millennium:
Here, at least, you are probably correct. Kerry wants the troops out so that they won't get killed, but I'm not sure he understands the consequences of this for the people of Iraq. Hell, I'm not sure most of the people of Iraq understand the consequences, and I can't say I blame them for it; things are bad enough there right now that they cannot conceive of anything being worse (in this, they're rather like the Anybody-But-Bush crowd in the US).

That's lovely. First you mis-represent Kerry's position and then slam him because your 'not sure he understands the consequences'? Does that stand for logic where you come from? How about blaming the person responsible for the consequences the Iraqi's are now facing? I'm not even talking about going into Iraq in the first place (that's another debate), how about discussing the lack of planning and sheer incompetence shown since major combat was declared over? The reliance on Chalabi is just another example that this Administration doesn't know what it's doing. I've lost count of the screw-ups now.

Yeah, Kerry wants less american troops killed. I fail to see how that's a bad thing.


Originally posted by Millennium:
But it can get worse. And I get the feeling that we're going to see that played out yet again. It's sad how so few people manage to learn anything from historical patterns...
I actually agree with you on this one. Too bad George Bush never learned the lesson either:

BUSH OPPOSES NATION BUILDING... "If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road." [Gov. George W. Bush, 10/3/00]
The only thing that I am reasonably sure of is that anybody who's got an ideology has stopped thinking. - Arthur Miller
     
spacefreak
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NJ, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 21, 2004, 02:13 PM
 
Originally posted by vmpaul:
BUSH OPPOSES NATION BUILDING... "If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road." [Gov. George W. Bush, 10/3/00]
In the same session, he also stated that our military should be used to win wars.

The follow-up question should have been "If in the event you are forced to go to war, would you then support the nation-building of the defeated nation?"

Unfortunately for your cause, that follow-up was never asked, so all your doing is splicing a statement to use out of context to support your agenda.
     
Millennium
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 21, 2004, 02:56 PM
 
Originally posted by vmpaul:
That's lovely. First you mis-represent Kerry's position and then slam him because your 'not sure he understands the consequences'?
It is entirely possible that Kerry has changed his mind. I admit, my data is old, and simply because I have not heard about this does not mean it hasn't happened. You may know something I don't; please cite a source.

But everyone here does appear to agree that he wants the troops out by the end of 2005. 100,000 troops is a relatively small number in modern military terms, but it will still take a very long time to pull them out; if Kerry is to have them out that quickly, the process will have to begin soon after his inauguration.

I say he does not understand the larger consequences, because I am judging him by appearances. He appears to show some actual concern for the people of Iraq, something not shown by Bush, Hussein, Chirac, Annan, or any other world leader since this whole fiasco began, and so if it is true, then it would be a welcome change. But someone who truly cared about the people of Iraq would not abandon them to the Taliban. I am a strong believer in presumption of innocence, so I will not assume that Kerry is lying when he says he cares for the people of Iraq. Therefore, I can only assume that he does not understand what pulling troops out would mean as far as this would go. He would not be the first politician guilty of such shortsightedness.

Or maybe he doesn't care after all. I don't know. I've decided to give him the benefit of the doubt for the time being.
Yeah, Kerry wants less american troops killed. I fail to see how that's a bad thing.
There's nothing wrong with wanting fewer troops killed. I also want fewer troops killed.

But look for a moment at the cost that would come by. Another nation enslaved to the Taliban. Last I checked, our troops were supposed to be defending freedom, to the death if necessary. Our military is, at this point, strictly voluntarily, so every last soldier in Iraq knows and accepts the risk. Whether or not they were sent into Iraq to defend freedom is certainly a matter of debate, but either way they're doing it right now. Just not in the way anyone had originally hoped. If we pull out now, the Taliban takes over, a scenario far worse than a few hundred soldiers' deaths.
I actually agree with you on this one. Too bad George Bush never learned the lesson either:
Bush did not learn the lesson you describe, and I did not mean to imply that he had. But that is also a very different lesson than the one Kerry seems to have not learned. The one you describe is about going into war in the first place; the lesson I speak of is about what to do once the war is over.

Or, perhaps, one could take a different tack: that we are speaking of the same lesson. If this is the case, then Bush hadn't learned it then, but he's learned it now, and he learned it the hard way. In fact, this even goes so far as to explain the lack of planning on the Administration's part: they thought that pulling out would be quick and relatively painless. What they got was the real consequence of war: a nation in tatters, needing to be rebuilt; a process which takes many years and is inevitably met with severe resistance.

But by setting deadlines for the unpredictable, Kerry risks falling into exactly the same trap. He, too, desires a quick pullout for this; he seems to think that the hard part is almost over, when in fact it won't even start until June 30. He is inheriting one hell of a mess -no one is arguing otherwise- but he seems to have this idea that he can wave a metaphorical magic wand and make it all better. Truth be told, the only way Kerry is ever going to see the day when Iraq is ready to be left completely on its own is if he is elected twice; there is no way it will be stable enough in four years no matter who is elected. Bush gives no date for a troop pullout because if we are going to fulfill our responsibilities to the people of Iraq, that is a date which cannot be known right now.

And so that leaves us with the question: what do we do? Argue the morality of the invasion all you want, but either way, the deed is done. The past cannot be changed; all we have is the here and now. How will we face up to our current responsibilities? That is the question we should be asking. Whether or not the war was a mistake, Bush seems to have learned from it. It may be the only thing he's learned while in office, but this is a matter of giving the devil his due; he has learned that much. Anyone making promises of troop pullouts right now is either a heartless bastard or a colossal fool.
You are in Soviet Russia. It is dark. Grue is likely to be eaten by YOU!
     
BRussell
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 21, 2004, 03:43 PM
 
"Kerry has changed his mind."

Millennium, I asked you earlier to provide some evidence that Kerry has ever wanted the pull-out of troops before Bush. Can you cite something that shows that? I really don't believe Kerry has ever said that. Kucinich has. Anti-war hippies have. But I don't think Kerry ever has.

The only talk of troop pull-outs I've heard have come from the Bush and Blair administrations, when Powell said they would pull out after June 30 if asked by the Iraqi gov't, who would be in charge then. He then said they wouldn't ask that, which is probably true, but still.
     
Millennium
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 21, 2004, 04:18 PM
 
Originally posted by BRussell:
Millennium, I asked you earlier to provide some evidence that Kerry has ever wanted the pull-out of troops before Bush. Can you cite something that shows that? I really don't believe Kerry has ever said that. Kucinich has. Anti-war hippies have. But I don't think Kerry ever has.
I strongly believe that he did, at one point, advocate bringing the troops home immediately. However, after some research, it has become apparent that whether or not he did, he no longer does. Therefore, I concede that he does not currently wish to dithdraw the troops right now.

I am, however, going to continue seeking sources for what I believe was his earlier viewpoint.
You are in Soviet Russia. It is dark. Grue is likely to be eaten by YOU!
     
BlackGriffen
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Dis
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 21, 2004, 05:50 PM
 
Originally posted by Millennium:
I strongly believe that he did, at one point, advocate bringing the troops home immediately. However, after some research, it has become apparent that whether or not he did, he no longer does. Therefore, I concede that he does not currently wish to dithdraw the troops right now.

I am, however, going to continue seeking sources for what I believe was his earlier viewpoint.
I followed the primary process from last Aug till Feb or so. Kerry never advocated an early pullout. I don't know if he ever entertained a troop reduction, but never a full pullout.

Cukoo Kucinich wanted an immediate and full pullout.

Dean wanted an increase (though a reduction of U.S. troops, if possible, by internationalizing the effort).

Kerry's position is more akin to Dean's than Kucinich's.

BlackGriffen
     
vmpaul
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: always on the sunny side
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 21, 2004, 07:35 PM
 
Originally posted by spacefreak:
In the same session, he also stated that our military should be used to win wars.

The follow-up question should have been "If in the event you are forced to go to war, would you then support the nation-building of the defeated nation?"

Unfortunately for your cause, that follow-up was never asked, so all your doing is splicing a statement to use out of context to support your agenda.
Shoulda, woulda coulda...

That's his position.

Speaking of should of's ...You should be backing him for being consistent. I think you could make a good case that he still doesn't believe in nation-building based on the mess in Afghanistan and Iraq.
The only thing that I am reasonably sure of is that anybody who's got an ideology has stopped thinking. - Arthur Miller
     
vmpaul
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: always on the sunny side
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 21, 2004, 07:42 PM
 
Originally posted by Millennium:
But everyone here does appear to agree that he wants the troops out by the end of 2005. 100,000 troops is a relatively small number in modern military terms, but it will still take a very long time to pull them out; if Kerry is to have them out that quickly, the process will have to begin soon after his inauguration.

I say he does not understand the larger consequences, because I am judging him by appearances. He appears to show some actual concern for the people of Iraq, something not shown by Bush, Hussein, Chirac, Annan, or any other world leader since this whole fiasco began, and so if it is true, then it would be a welcome change. But someone who truly cared about the people of Iraq would not abandon them to the Taliban. I am a strong believer in presumption of innocence, so I will not assume that Kerry is lying when he says he cares for the people of Iraq. Therefore, I can only assume that he does not understand what pulling troops out would mean as far as this would go. He would not be the first politician guilty of such shortsightedness.

I haven't heard any specific dates of a pull out from anybody. It was only a couple of days ago that I heard that this administration has already handed out the contracts for 14 permanent bases (thread here, quote here). When the troops come home is still an open question. If they're building permanent bases then there's no point arguing about it. They are going to be there for decades. There is especially no point in making up positions by Kerry and then slamming him for it. It's your right to judge him in any way you want. Most reasonable people like to listen to what the candidate actually says before judging them.

BRussell has given you a source and a quote. I've never heard Kerry say anything differently. If you have a source that says different, by all means post it. I have my reservations about Kerry as well but I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt until he's in a position do be criticized for his moves in Iraq. Until then it's all on Bush and his boys.

Originally posted by Millennium:
Bush did not learn the lesson you describe, and I did not mean to imply that he had. But that is also a very different lesson than the one Kerry seems to have not learned. The one you describe is about going into war in the first place; the lesson I speak of is about what to do once the war is over.

Or, perhaps, one could take a different tack: that we are speaking of the same lesson. If this is the case, then Bush hadn't learned it then, but he's learned it now, and he learned it the hard way. In fact, this even goes so far as to explain the lack of planning on the Administration's part: they thought that pulling out would be quick and relatively painless. What they got was the real consequence of war: a nation in tatters, needing to be rebuilt; a process which takes many years and is inevitably met with severe resistance.

But by setting deadlines for the unpredictable, Kerry risks falling into exactly the same trap. He, too, desires a quick pullout for this; he seems to think that the hard part is almost over, when in fact it won't even start until June 30. He is inheriting one hell of a mess -no one is arguing otherwise- but he seems to have this idea that he can wave a metaphorical magic wand and make it all better. Truth be told, the only way Kerry is ever going to see the day when Iraq is ready to be left completely on its own is if he is elected twice; there is no way it will be stable enough in four years no matter who is elected. Bush gives no date for a troop pullout because if we are going to fulfill our responsibilities to the people of Iraq, that is a date which cannot be known right now.

I agree. Bush hasn't learned his lesson. Karzai is the president of Kabul and not much else. Imagine if there was a real democracy east of Iran(Afghanistan) and another to the west(Iraq)? Think of the pressure that would put on the failed theocracy of Iran. I've always been willing to give Bush the benefit of the doubt since I was in favor of military action (just not in the way he implemented it) in Iraq. But that's over now. The results are in, or should I say they are in enough to judge his actions? Jeez, he had to go to Congress yesterday because the Republicans are fighting among themselves now. Let's add it up - the warlords in Afghanistan are positioning for more fighting (the Taliban is making inroads again), the EU are at odds with each other over support for US policy, the factions in Iraq are blowing each other up, and the even Republicans are bickering with each other as well. Oh yeah, and Osama is still on the loose and an Al-Qaeda unit has formed in Iraq. Yesiree, Bush sure knows how to pull people together. That's just the short list. The only thing he's proven is his incompetence.

I don't see how you can say Kerry hasn't learned the lesson either. What is that based on? When has he been in a position to exercise the kind of power Bush has? And when has he stated that we should unilaterally leave Iraq to the mess Bush has created? I've never seen or heard it.

If you want to criticize deadline setting, criticize Bush. I think it's pretty convincing that the only thing he had in mind when he set June 30th is his re-election. He sure hasn't presented his plan to anyone yet. Who are we handing power over to? Jesus, there's only 5 weeks left. Are troops coming home or are more being sent to shore up the CPA?
The only thing that I am reasonably sure of is that anybody who's got an ideology has stopped thinking. - Arthur Miller
     
Saad
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Nashville
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 21, 2004, 07:52 PM
 
This is horrible PR. The man has been convicted of bank fraud, has been exiled since he was a child, and receives funding from the US government.

Here's a position paper from John Kerry:

To establish security and move forward with the transition to Iraqi sovereignty, the President must show true leadership in going to the major powers to secure their support of Lakhdar Brahimi�s mission, the establishment of a high commissioner for governance and reconstruction, and the creation of a NATO mission for Iraq. These steps are critical to creating a stable Iraq with a representative government and secure in its borders. Meeting this objective is in the interests of NATO member states, Iraq�s neighbors and all members of the international community. True leadership means sharing authority and responsibility for Iraq with others who have an interest in Iraq�s success. Sharing responsibility is the only way to gain new military and financial commitments, allowing America to truly share the burden and the risk.
http://johnkerry.com/issues/iraq/index.html
     
zigzag
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 21, 2004, 09:25 PM
 
Originally posted by vmpaul:
He sure hasn't presented his plan to anyone yet. Who are we handing power over to? Jesus, there's only 5 weeks left. Are troops coming home or are more being sent to shore up the CPA?
I recall asking well before the invasion: Who's going to govern Iraq? What's the plan? It was eerie - everyone was talking about an invasion but no one, not even the press, was talking about what was supposed to happen afterwards. My best guess was that, for security reasons, the administration didn't want to show any cards, but it now appears that if they had a plan at all, it was hopelessly inadequate. I guess we'll find out Monday what the latest plan is.

I know Nancy Pelosi is usually a partisan flamethrower but it's ironic that she's being vilified for saying essentially the same things that Bill Kristol, John McCain and Andrew Sullivan have been saying.
     
MacGorilla
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Retired
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 21, 2004, 09:36 PM
 
The Administration believed what Chalabi told them: After the invasion, Iraqis would welcome them with open arms, that piles of WMDs would be found and Iraq would quickly settle down. None of that happened.
Power Macintosh Dual G4
SGI Indigo2 6.5.21f
     
angaq0k  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Over there...
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 21, 2004, 09:38 PM
 
Originally posted by MacGorilla:
The Administration believed what Chalabi told them: After the invasion, Iraqis would welcome them with open arms, that piles of WMDs would be found and Iraq would quickly settle down. None of that happened.
Don't forget Chalabi's flowers...
"******* politics is for the ******* moment. ******** equations are for ******** Eternity." ******** Albert Einstein
     
vmpaul
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: always on the sunny side
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 21, 2004, 10:22 PM
 
Originally posted by zigzag:
I recall asking well before the invasion: Who's going to govern Iraq? What's the plan? It was eerie - everyone was talking about an invasion but no one, not even the press, was talking about what was supposed to happen afterwards. My best guess was that, for security reasons, the administration didn't want to show any cards, but it now appears that if they had a plan at all, it was hopelessly inadequate. I guess we'll find out Monday what the latest plan is.

I know Nancy Pelosi is usually a partisan flamethrower but it's ironic that she's being vilified for saying essentially the same things that Bill Kristol, John McCain and Andrew Sullivan have been saying.
You were asking but nobody consulted you. Just think of all those bucks that went to Chalabi that could've been yours.

I think it's like MacGorilla said. They expected to be greeted by flowers in the street. Think the liberation of Paris in WWII. It sounds hopelessly naive. I think it's pretty obvious now that these guys make decisions exclusively on ideology rather than facts on the ground.

Boy, Pelosi really let loose. It was pretty harsh and direct. I wonder what the fallout from that will be. It is interesting to hear conservatives starting to complain about Bush. Especially to hear Bill Kristol admit that Bush has driven us into a ditch.
The only thing that I am reasonably sure of is that anybody who's got an ideology has stopped thinking. - Arthur Miller
     
zigzag
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 21, 2004, 11:51 PM
 
Originally posted by MacGorilla:
The Administration believed what Chalabi told them: After the invasion, Iraqis would welcome them with open arms, that piles of WMDs would be found and Iraq would quickly settle down. None of that happened.
I figured as much, but there was still no explicit talk about how the government would be structured, much less who would run it. One would think that they had some sort of outline prepared, but I still don't know what it was. I was surprised that the press wasn't pursuing the question more. It's moot now, I suppose.
     
BRussell
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 22, 2004, 12:11 AM
 
Originally posted by zigzag:
I figured as much, but there was still no explicit talk about how the government would be structured, much less who would run it. One would think that they had some sort of outline prepared, but I still don't know what it was. I was surprised that the press wasn't pursuing the question more. It's moot now, I suppose.
It should be moot, but as far as I know, they still haven't figured out who we're turning Iraq over to in a month.
     
chalk_outline
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: sleep
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 22, 2004, 06:57 AM
 
Originally posted by BRussell:
It should be moot, but as far as I know, they still haven't figured out who we're turning Iraq over to in a month.

Bush sent me a e-male. I get Iraq. The oil is being made into lubricants. The gay population of Oregon gets to have slippery sex on the cheap thanks to the sacrifice of our brave men and women.
     
tie
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 22, 2004, 12:29 PM
 
Originally posted by KarlG:
Another example of King George's terrific expertise in foreign policy - NOT! Never ceases to amaze me.

Funny stuff!
To be fair, Bush reportedly wasn't aware of the raid on Chalabi's house (nor of anything else going on in Iraq).
     
MacGorilla
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Retired
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 22, 2004, 05:20 PM
 
Originally posted by tie:
To be fair, Bush reportedly wasn't aware of the raid on Chalabi's house (nor of anything else going on in Iraq).
Why doesn't that surprise me?
Power Macintosh Dual G4
SGI Indigo2 6.5.21f
     
Spliff
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Canaduh
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 2, 2004, 01:07 PM
 
From today's New York Times:

ASHINGTON, June 1 � Ahmad Chalabi, the Iraqi leader and former ally of the Bush administration, disclosed to an Iranian official that the United States had broken the secret communications code of Iran's intelligence service, betraying one of Washington's most valuable sources of information about Iran, according to United States intelligence officials.

The general charge that Mr. Chalabi provided Iran with critical American intelligence secrets was widely reported last month after the Bush administration cut off financial aid to Mr. Chalabi's organization, the Iraqi National Congress, and American and Iraqi security forces raided his Baghdad headquarters.
Chalabi told Iranian agents that a "drunk American" told him that the US had cracked Iran's intelligence code. The FBI has opened an investigation to find out who told Chalabi that the American's had broken the code.

http://nytimes.com/2004/06/02/politics/02CHAL.html?hp
     
dcolton
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 14, 2004, 12:13 AM
 
My name is Angq0k. I have nothing better to do than look for anti-American news and post it on MacNN so I can feel good about being a canuck
     
ThinkInsane
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Night's Plutonian shore...
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 14, 2004, 11:43 AM
 
dcolton, give it a rest. Enough already.
Nemo me impune lacesset
     
   
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:18 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,