Chalabi charges Bush with conspiring with Iran

[sabra]

Source: ForeignPolicy.com - Tom Ricks

Ahmed Chalabi, the Iraqi politician and onetime neo-con heartthrob, has always struck me as smooth as silk but also kind of nutty, especially in his glib assertions of the improbable. His latest ploy may play better in the Arab world than here in the U.S.: He is asserting a bit murkily that President Bush somehow was in cahoots against Iraq with the axis-of-evil ayatollahs:

(Al-Hayat): If you want to describe George Bush, then how would you describe him?

(Chalabi): A man with very little skill and knowledge.

(Al-Hayat): He did Iran a great service by toppling Saddam?

(Chalabi): Iran benefited from toppling Saddam. Bush didn't mean to do it a favor but it was clear that Iran would benefit from Saddam's fall. I am convinced that Saddam would not have fallen except for an implicit agreement between America and Iran.

(Al-Hayat): This happened?

(Chalabi): Yes, of course it did."


Read more: http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/04/14/chalabi_charges_bush_with_conspiring_with_iran

[Captain Hilts]

1. Ricks must have just loved writing this. NONE of it makes any sense. nt

[Tangerine LaBamba]

2. I like the photo -

Just in case we ever forget that that lying hustler took the US and our intelligence community for millions and millions, not to mention thousands of lives, while Chimpy Fucknuts and his thugs used Chalabi as a real "authority."

He was on the CIA payroll for a long, long time before the Iraq invasion. He must be laughing his sorry ass off right now at all that's happened to us since then....................

[Baby Snooks]

9. The Real Axis of Evil...,

Most rational people at this point realize that our country has had a shadow government for some time and it is kept in place in great part by the CIA which operates like the Mafia around the world.

There was probably also a CIA operative in Paris making a deal with Khomeini while another CIA operative was feeding Jimmy Carter the "the Shah must go, we must allow Khomeini to return" propaganda and of course the best indication of that reality is Iran-Contra which was set up long before Reagan was elected. All part of the plan as they say.

Ahmad Chalabi is a double-dealer but then so are the Bushes and there may be some truth to what he is saying. Once again, it seems, the Bushes find the promises of a Shi'ite ayatollah more "amenable to the agenda" than the "democracy" we are told is being established by ayatollahs as we saw in Iran and are seeing in Iraq.

Khomeini wanted Iran. We wanted the oil. Iran wants Iraq. We want the oil. Get the picture? Thems that's got the oil makes the rules. And usually of late makes fools of those who think differently.

Just like the Shah the reality of Saddam Hussein is he was oil company friendly. Just not Bush-friendly. We were told both were evil despots ripping off their people. In fact much of the oil revenue went to improve the lives of their people. The people were happy. The Bushes were not. Of late when I read "insurgent" I think of "CIA operative." Most of the "student protests" against the Shah were actually orchestrated by the CIA. All around the world.

Does anyone really believe the Iranians are better off today without the Shah?

Does anyone really believe the Iraqis will be better off without Saddam Hussein?

History tends to repeat itself. Iran may get Iraq. We of course will never get the oil. Never trust a Shi'ite ayatollah. They apparently are smarter and more devious than the CIA. They are definitely smarter and more devious than the Bushes.

The Bushes are proof positive that evil doesn't necessarily indicate intelligence.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

10. A brilliant exposition ..............

Kudos to you for being so well-informed and articulate. I agree with everything you've written. How can any sentient American disavow all that has happened when the evidence is placed before them. Chalabi is telling, no doubt, a certain truth, but it would take an earthmover to dig it out and establish it. But, he was the CIA's tool forever.

This stuff isn't limited to the CIA, don't forget. Domestically, we have COINTELPRO in our fairly recent history, and no reason to believe that the FBI - now armed even better with that fucking Patriot Act - overseeing domestic everything. Whatever they want, they can do.

I know a few Persians (they do not identify themselves as "Iranian," not in today's world) and they loathe the whole Bush family. They would agree with you about the CIA's role in establishing the Ayatollah. Without question. They've been saying this for the past thirty-five years.

And I know some Iraqis who laugh at what that country will become when the US pulls out. A new leader, just like Saddam Hussein, will emerge, and order, bloody thought it may be, will ultimately be restored. Everything was better under Saddam - universities thrived, women were enfranchised and encouraged to get a good, solid education, people weren't hungry, and, yes, the violence was there, but that is a part of the Middle Eastern culture that Westerners will never understand.

The spooks exploited our ignorance, the Carlyle Group thrived, and they're not about to let anything interfere with their earnings................

[DJ13]

3. Chalabi is probably one of the few people less believable than Bush

[spag68]

4. Chalabi and bush

Speaking of unbelievable, where is Bagdad Bob? Now there was a guy who could have made it in hannitys time slot.

[Lasher]

5. Isn't that asshole wanted somewhere for embezzling?

Maybe Obama should encourage Chalabi's extradition.

[gratuitous]

6. "Ahmed who?"

That was Bush's response just a few short months after Chalabi sat in an honored position right behind First Lady Laura Bush at the State of the Union address. Thankfully, nobody in the popular media thought Bush's sudden onset of amnesia about Mr. Chalabi was anything worth reporting, seeing as how we were all busy fightin' a war on terror and stuff.

[acmavm]

7. If this country ever had reason to gin up some serious charges against

someone and then slam them in a secret prison somewhere, then this is the guy who ought to be extraordinarily renditioned.

[bemildred]

8. Humbug.

Lots of people predicted that invading Iraq would be a boon to Iran. It was one of the main arguments made against the invasion.

You gotta remember the PNAC-ers considered Iraq only the first step. They thought they were masters of the universe. They were going to "bring democracy" to the whole Middle East, to the whole world.

He says " Bush didn't mean to do it a favor" but then he says "except for an implicit agreement between America and Iran". Well, which is it? If he means to say that Iran suckered the Bushites, he ought to say that, and he ought to consider that perhaps the Bushites, being fools, needed no encouragement.

[UTUSN]

11. But will O'LOOFAH threaten to boycott him as with Spain?!1 n/t