So much for political freedom

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by skunk, May 20, 2004.

  1. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #1
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3731819.stm

    It seems extraordinary that the Administration is now shutting down Chalabi. Even their own stooge politicians are too much opposition. The incompetence is breathtaking.
     
  2. poopyhead macrumors 6502a

    poopyhead

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2004
    Location:
    in the toe-jam of greatness (Fort Worth)
    #2
    There has been pressure on Mr Chalabi for quite some time and not because he does not agree with the US plan, or lack thereof, for Iraq, but because he was one of the prime sources for disinformation which led to the entire Iraq debacle. He had previously led a shadow government for Iraq in the US (not for the US) and had long had plans to assert himself in a position of power after saddam died or left the country. Chalabi for several years pressured the bushy I, Clinton, and bushy II governments to invade Iraq, busy II was the only president stupid enough to go through with the plans of this dictator in waiting.
     
  3. skunk thread starter macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #3
    I'm aware of his history: it is just extraordinary timing to be busting him now. Is this what is going to happen to all politicians the US thinks it doesn't like? Some democracy!
     
  4. poopyhead macrumors 6502a

    poopyhead

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2004
    Location:
    in the toe-jam of greatness (Fort Worth)
    #4
    silly rabbit
    a democratic republic is for americans
    not
    a mass of brown heathens living in the cradle of civilization

    as the British proposed for several hundred hears, well into the 20th century, democracy is only for those countries which have advanced far enough to be able to govern themselves. i.e. anglos only

    I think bushy II has picked up on ~30 old UK logic to justify his new american imperialism
     
  5. skunk thread starter macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #5
    Funny, I was just thinking how very dated this exercise is.
     
  6. poopyhead macrumors 6502a

    poopyhead

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2004
    Location:
    in the toe-jam of greatness (Fort Worth)
    #6
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5016031/site/newsweek/

    Why the Pentagon cut off funding to the Iraqi National Congress
    Newsweek
    Updated: 7:03 p.m.*ET May*19, 2004

    May 19 - Pentagon officials say* the decision by Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz to cut off funding this week for the Iraqi National Congress was made because U.S. financial backing of an Iraqi political party had become “inappropriate” in light of efforts to set up a new Iraqi government on June 30. But the funding decision follows disclosures that INC leader Ahmad Chalabi and some of his aides supplied sensitive information about U.S. security operations in Baghdad to the Iranian government, according to U.S. intelligence sources.

    The decision also coincides with the launch, by Coalition authorities in Iraq, of a wide-ranging investigation into allegation that INC leaders engaged in extortion and other corrupt activities inside Iraq. An INC spokesman said that the group and its leader had not been informed about a corruption investigation or been contacted about it by Coalition authorities. The spokesman also denied that anyone from the group had supplied sensitive information to Iran.

    Pentagon officials have claimed that the INC’s intelligence program was extremely valuable in helping U.S. forces in postwar Iraq track down and arrest high-ranking members of the former Iraqi regime. INC supporters in Washington, including top officials in the Defense Department, have repeatedly insisted that information supplied by the INC has “saved American lives” in Iraq.

    INC representatives have denied the group misused U.S. government funds, though they have acknowledged that some State Department funds may have been used to pay expenses of Iraqi “defectors” with stories to tell about Saddam’s WMD and alleged terror links who the INC made available to media outlets, most prominently Vanity Fair and The New York Times. Some U.S. intelligence officials say that when the same defectors were interviewed by intelligence professionals, it was determined that they had fabricated information or were coached by the INC. Information from two defectors with alleged INC connections constituted the foundation for prewar claims to the United Nations by Secretary of State Colin Powell that Saddam had built a fleet of mobile weapons labs and factories. Powell acknowledged on TV last week that these claims were probably based on poorly sourced information. Intelligence officials have acknowledged that at least one of the sources for Powell’s claim, an INC defector, had been determined by the DIA to be a “fabricator” more than six months before Powell’s U.N. address.

    Provisions of the INC’s written agreement with the DIA included clauses apparently designed to ensure that the INC could not misuse U.S. government funding or coach potential intelligence sources. The agreement says that “DIA and the INC will conduct initial joint debriefings of sources.” It also says that DIA “shall … polygraph INC members who are involved in the debriefing of sources identified by the INC” and “polygraph sources surfaced by the INC.” A former senior U.S. intelligence official says, however, that these conditions were not always followed by U.S. forces and the INC in postwar Iraq.

    The INC agreement with DIA also says that INC must “NOT [sic] publicize or communicate in any way with anyone any of its information collection operations … without prior written authorization from DIA.” But in a “60 Minutes” interview in early March, Chalabi flashed on TV a purported Iraqi Intelligence Service document which listed Osama bin Laden as an Iraqi intelligence contact in the early l990s (a fact well known to U.S. intelligence). Intelligence sources say this document was one of the more valuable items supplied to the DIA by the INC’s intelligence program. Asked in late March whether Chalabi had obtained prior written permission from DIA before publicizing the document on America’s most popular TV newsmagazine, a Chalabi spokesman told NEWSWEEK: “Ahmad Chalabi does not need permission from anyone.” A Defense Department spokesman said the Pentagon had no immediate response to questions about whether the INC and Chalabi complied with the provisions of its* deal with the DIA.
     

Share This Page