Comments on: Defending Chalabi http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/defending_chalabi/ Online Journal of Politics and Foreign Affairs Thu, 26 Nov 2009 04:32:40 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: Hal http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/defending_chalabi/comment-page-1/#comment-17736 Hal Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000 /?p=6290#comment-17736 Again James, you're mischaracterizing the past. Regardless of that minor rewriting of history, there is still the very nasty issue with what flowed from the US to the Iranians. You may cast aside Iran playing us for fools with bogus WMD information, but it seems quite a bit harder to swat away the apparently rock solid evidence that <a href="http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/000750.html">our national security was damaged</a> by this little love affair with Chalabi. Now if you're going to tell me that<blockquote><i>It involves a piece or pieces of signals intelligence. Intelligence involving how the US listens to Iranian communications, who it taps, bugging, etc.</i></blockquote>isn't a very big deal, then I'm simply flabbergasted. Granted, we have to wait to find out if these things are true, but all the signs point to a big stinky pile of dung. And even if that doesn't get your blood boiling at the whole Chalabi affair, there's still the undeniable fact that this fraud was our <i>sole</i> plan for the occupation. An Iranian stooge. So, while perhaps one can swat away the WMD issue with a tangled argument about semantics, this still leaves the incredibly nasty issue of damaging our national security. And beyond that, there's the badly botched occupation. Hitchens is apologizing for treason. Wow, how low he has sunk. I thought apologizing for torture was low. I thought apologizing for a botched occupation was unthinkable. But this takes the cake. What's next? Again James, you're mischaracterizing the past. Regardless of that minor rewriting of history, there is still the very nasty issue with what flowed from the US to the Iranians. You may cast aside Iran playing us for fools with bogus WMD information, but it seems quite a bit harder to swat away the apparently rock solid evidence that our national security was damaged by this little love affair with Chalabi.

Now if you're going to tell me that

It involves a piece or pieces of signals intelligence. Intelligence involving how the US listens to Iranian communications, who it taps, bugging, etc.

isn't a very big deal, then I'm simply flabbergasted. Granted, we have to wait to find out if these things are true, but all the signs point to a big stinky pile of dung.

And even if that doesn't get your blood boiling at the whole Chalabi affair, there's still the undeniable fact that this fraud was our sole plan for the occupation. An Iranian stooge.

So, while perhaps one can swat away the WMD issue with a tangled argument about semantics, this still leaves the incredibly nasty issue of damaging our national security. And beyond that, there's the badly botched occupation.

Hitchens is apologizing for treason. Wow, how low he has sunk. I thought apologizing for torture was low. I thought apologizing for a botched occupation was unthinkable. But this takes the cake.

What's next?

]]> By: Boyd http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/defending_chalabi/comment-page-1/#comment-17737 Boyd Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000 /?p=6290#comment-17737 Hal, you erroneously perpetuate the same canard: Chalabi was <i>not</i> the only source of information that indicated the continued presence of of WMD in Iraq. Just because you keep repeating a falsehood doesn't make it true. Why won't you admit that <i>multiple</i> intelligence agencies believed that Hussein continue to possess WMD. You can keep repeating statements that are not true, but that effort doesn't eventually make them true. Hal, you erroneously perpetuate the same canard: Chalabi was not the only source of information that indicated the continued presence of of WMD in Iraq. Just because you keep repeating a falsehood doesn't make it true. Why won't you admit that multiple intelligence agencies believed that Hussein continue to possess WMD.

You can keep repeating statements that are not true, but that effort doesn't eventually make them true.

]]> By: Hal http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/defending_chalabi/comment-page-1/#comment-17738 Hal Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000 /?p=6290#comment-17738 Boyd, <a href="http://www.tjm.org/articles/msg00100.html">check your own facts</a><blockquote>An internal e-mail by Judith Miller, the paper's top reporter on bioterrorism, acknowledges that her main source for such articles has been Ahmad Chalabi, a controversial exile leader who is close to top Pentagon officials.I've got plenty more where that came from. Do you have any thing at all that shows I'm wrong?</blockquote> Boyd, check your own facts
An internal e-mail by Judith Miller, the paper's top reporter on bioterrorism, acknowledges that her main source for such articles has been Ahmad Chalabi, a controversial exile leader who is close to top Pentagon officials.I've got plenty more where that came from. Do you have any thing at all that shows I'm wrong?

]]> By: Hal http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/defending_chalabi/comment-page-1/#comment-17739 Hal Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000 /?p=6290#comment-17739 Ah, re-read your comment. Clever. Not the <i>only</i> source. Pray, tell. Where's the other sources? All the other foreign governments that were saying Saddam had WMDs were also getting spoon fed by Chalabi and his band of merry men. There was no other evidence. Only speculation, and speculation based on the ancient past. Hardly a "source" of information. Ah, re-read your comment. Clever. Not the only source. Pray, tell. Where's the other sources? All the other foreign governments that were saying Saddam had WMDs were also getting spoon fed by Chalabi and his band of merry men. There was no other evidence. Only speculation, and speculation based on the ancient past.

Hardly a "source" of information.

]]> By: Boyd http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/defending_chalabi/comment-page-1/#comment-17740 Boyd Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000 /?p=6290#comment-17740 That's not <i>my</i> fact, Hal, it's a non sequitur. A NYT reporter's source has <i>absolutely nothing</i> to do with this discussion. Focus, pardner, focus. --- That's not my fact, Hal, it's a non sequitur. A NYT reporter's source has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion.

Focus, pardner, focus.

---

]]>