How Ahmed Chalabi gamed the neocons and America

“US intelligence fears Iran duped hawks into Iraq war

· Inquiry into Tehran's role in starting conflict
· Top Pentagon ally Chalabi accused

Julian Borger in Washington
Tuesday May 25, 2004
The Guardian

An urgent investigation has been launched in Washington into whether Iran played a role in manipulating the US into the Iraq war by passing on bogus intelligence through Ahmad Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress, it emerged yesterday.
Some intelligence officials now believe that Iran used the hawks in the Pentagon and the White House to get rid of a hostile neighbour, and pave the way for a Shia-ruled Iraq.

According to a US intelligence official, the CIA has hard evidence that Mr Chalabi and his intelligence chief, Aras Karim Habib, passed US secrets to Tehran, and that Mr Habib has been a paid Iranian agent for several years, involved in passing intelligence in both directions.

The CIA has asked the FBI to investigate Mr Chalabi's contacts in the Pentagon to discover how the INC acquired sensitive information that ended up in Iranian hands.

The implications are far-reaching. Mr Chalabi and Mr Habib were the channels for much of the intelligence on Iraqi weapons on which Washington built its case for war.

"It's pretty clear that Iranians had us for breakfast, lunch and dinner," said an intelligence source in Washington yesterday. "Iranian intelligence has been manipulating the US for several years through Chalabi."

Larry Johnson, a former senior counter-terrorist official at the state department, said: "When the story ultimately comes out we'll see that Iran has run one of the most masterful intelligence operations in history. They persuaded the US and Britain to dispose of its greatest enemy."

Mr Chalabi has vehemently rejected the allegations as "a lie, a fib and silly". He accused the CIA director, George Tenet, of a smear campaign against himself and Mr Habib.

However, it is clear that the CIA - at loggerheads with Mr Chalabi for more than eight years - believes it has caught him red-handed, and is sticking to its allegations.

"The suggestion that Chalabi is a victim of a smear campaign is outrageous," a US intelligence official said. "It's utter nonsense. He passed very sensitive and classified information to the Iranians. We have rock solid information that he did that."

"As for Aras Karim [Habib] being a paid agent for Iranian intelligence, we have very good reason to believe that is the case," added the intelligence official, who did not want to be named. He said it was unclear how long this INC-Iranian collaboration had been going on, but pointed out that Mr Chalabi had had overt links with Tehran "for a long period of time".

An intelligence source in Washington said the CIA confirmed its long-held suspicions when it discovered that a piece of information from an electronic communications intercept by the National Security Agency had ended up in Iranian hands. The information was so sensitive that its circulation had been restricted to a handful of officials.

"This was 'sensitive compartmented information' - SCI - and it was tracked right back to the Iranians through Aras Habib," the intelligence source said.

Mr Habib, a Shia Kurd who is being sought by Iraqi police since a raid on INC headquarters last week, has been Mr Chalabi's righthand man for more than a decade. He ran a Pentagon-funded intelligence collection programme in the run-up to the invasion and put US officials in touch with Iraqi defectors who made claims about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.

Those claims helped make the case for war but have since proved groundless, and US intelligence agencies are now scrambling to determine whether false information was passed to the US with Iranian connivance.

INC representatives in Washington did not return calls seeking comment.

But Laurie Mylroie, a US Iraq analyst and one of the INC's most vocal backers in Washington, dismissed the allegations as the product of a grudge among CIA and state department officials driven by a pro-Sunni, anti-Shia bias.

She said that after the CIA raised questions about Mr Habib's Iranian links, the Pentagon's Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA) conducted a lie-detector test on him in 2002, which he passed with "flying colours".

The DIA is also reported to have launched its own inquiry into the INC-Iran link.

An intelligence source in Washington said the FBI investigation into the affair would begin with Mr Chalabi's "handlers" in the Pentagon, who include William Luti, the former head of the office of special plans, and his immediate superior, Douglas Feith, the under secretary of defence for policy.

There is no evidence that they were the source of the leaks. Other INC supporters at the Pentagon may have given away classified information in an attempt to give Mr Chalabi an advantage in the struggle for power surrounding the transfer of sovereignty to an Iraqi government on June 30.

The CIA allegations bring to a head a dispute between the CIA and the Pentagon officials instrumental in promoting Mr Chalabi and his intelligence in the run-up to the war. By calling for an FBI counter-intelligence investigation, the CIA is, in effect, threatening to disgrace senior neo-conservatives in the Pentagon.

"This is people who opposed the war with long knives drawn for people who supported the war," Ms Mylroie said.”

“"This is people who opposed the war with long knives drawn for people who supported the war," Ms Mylroie said."


That's a thoroughly distasteful way to put it.”

“There may be good reason that conspiracy theorist Laurie Mylroie is pushing back hard.”

“ya think?”

“"AND MY POINT IS THAT IT'S NO DIFFERENT THAN ALL OF YOU"
stratdewd
07:29:08 AM
05/25/04

Considering the round support for adding McCain to Kerry's cabinet, that assertion is obviously false. Care to grasp at any other straws?”

“If I remember correctly, Habib failed a second polygraph in May 2002. I wonder why Mylroie left that part out?”

“"There's an old saying in Tennessee—I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee—that says, fool me once, shame on—shame on you. Fool me—you can't get fooled again."

—George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002”

“I found a .wav file of that one that I use as my start-up tune, aero.”

“The title of this thread should be "How the Iranians gamed the neocons". Chalabi even looks Iranian, not Iraqi.”

“That settles it. I'm going as Chalabi for the next Halloween Party.”

“Smear Without Substance
Joel Mowbray
May 27, 2004

To appreciate the alternate universe populated by our federal government, consider the supposed matter of national security involving an Iraqi leader and now suggestions of a possible role played by his supporters in the Bush administration.

Last week, longtime U.S. ally and Saddam enemy Ahmed Chalabi was splashed across news headlines all over the country, accused of being a spy for “axis of evil” member Iran while serving on the Iraqi Governing Council. The public line was that there was “rock solid” evidence—as CBS News paraphrased “government officials”—that Chalabi had betrayed the U.S. in order to help the Iranian mullahs.

But much of what is being hurled at Chalabi can probably be explained away by old grudges, not just against him, but also against the strongest supporters for the Iraq war inside the administration.

Back in the mid-1990’s, Chalabi and his group, the Iraqi National Congress, were still on speaking terms with the Central Intelligence Agency. When a coup attempt was being cooked up against Saddam, Chalabi warned the CIA that it would fail. It did, and Chalabi was not bashful about defending his prediction-slash-warning.

He has been deemed an enemy of the CIA ever since.

The administration hawks are just as hated, though for different reasons (explained below). The New York Times on Monday ran a story, seemingly based solely on “intelligence officials,” with the headline: “U.S. Steps Up Hunt in Leaks to Iraqi Exile.”

The “news” in the Times piece was that “intelligence officials” (read: CIA) are investigating “a handful of officials in Washington and Iraq who dealt regularly with Mr. Chalabi.” Who are these potential traitors? Well, according to the Times, “Most of them are at the Pentagon.”

Also being publicly assailed on Monday—this time by the Washington Post—was Richard Perle, the former head of the Defense Policy Board and a leading advocate of the Iraq war. Buried in the hit piece was a brief mention that Perle had been cleared of ethics violations last fall.

Why all this animosity?

As many people with a passing knowledge of Washington affairs have noticed, there is a perceived schism between the positions of the Departments of State and Defense.

If only it were that easy.

There are two main worldviews: one that worships at the altar of stability, and the other holds that the U.S. should use force when necessary, but more often should employ tough diplomacy in order to push countries into reforming toward freedom.

The stability side is embodied by State Department diplomats, but it is almost as deeply held by “intelligence officials” (not just CIA, but also State), and even by many of the top brass in the uniformed military.

It is a view that is “safe,” inasmuch as it has been the American approach to foreign policy for decades and it remains the conventional wisdom among the “experts.”

It is also the view that helped shape the world before 9/11.

The relatively small number of Bush political appointees among the foreign policy team inside the administration—the overwhelming majority of whom are careerists, particularly at State and CIA—are perceived as a grave threat because their worldview is such an anathema to the established stability-above-all-else orthodoxy.

Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage has even led intimidation campaigns to scare his policy opponents into submission, threatening people with termination, among other tactics.

Now the bullying continues. With a well-orchestrated media campaign that most PR mavens could only hope to emulate, State and the CIA have already started sullying the good names of administration hawks with anonymous quotes.

Tellingly, though, none of the accusations leveled in the press against the administration hawks have been deemed important enough to bring to the attention of the White House.

The allegations against Chalabi have not been characterized even in the simplest terms, other than that he gave to Iran, in the words of the aforementioned New York Times article, a “wide array” of “highly classified” secrets. Yet why is there smear without substance? Why not even give the basics of his alleged wrongdoing?

But perhaps the most important question that must be asked is: why are ostensibly secretive “intelligence officials” waging such a high-profile public smear campaign?”

“Guilty until proven innocent. Ever since Dubya hijacked the country.”

“It would be more credible if CIA and DIA were detailing highly classified information to the press? What a moron.”

“I wonder if this has enough substance for the traitor coddling Mr. Mowbray and the Islamo-fascist running dog, stratdewd.



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.

<snip>
American officials said that about six weeks ago, Mr. Chalabi told the Baghdad station chief of Iran's Ministry of Intelligence and Security that the United States was reading the communications traffic of the Iranian spy service, one of the most sophisticated in the Middle East.

According to American officials, the Iranian official in Baghdad, possibly not believing Mr. Chalabi's account, sent a cable to Tehran detailing his conversation with Mr. Chalabi, using the broken code. That encrypted cable, intercepted and read by the United States, tipped off American officials to the fact that Mr. Chalabi had betrayed the code-breaking operation, the American officials said.

American officials reported that in the cable to Tehran, the Iranian official recounted how Mr. Chalabi had said that one of "them" — a reference to an American — had revealed the code-breaking operation, the officials said. The Iranian reported that Mr. Chalabi said the American was drunk.

The Iranians sent what American intelligence regarded as a test message, which mentioned a cache of weapons inside Iraq, believing that if the code had been broken, United States military forces would be quickly dispatched to the specified site. But there was no such action.

The account of Mr. Chalabi's actions has been confirmed by several senior American officials, who said the leak contributed to the White House decision to break with him.

<snip>
The F.B.I. has opened an espionage investigation seeking to determine exactly what information Mr. Chalabi turned over to the Iranians as well as who told Mr. Chalabi that the Iranian code had been broken, government officials said. The inquiry, still in an early phase, is focused on a very small number of people who were close to Mr. Chalabi and also had access to the highly restricted information about the Iran code.

Some of the people the F.B.I. expects to interview are civilians at the Pentagon who were among Mr. Chalabi's strongest supporters and served as his main point of contact with the government, the officials said. So far, no one has been accused of any wrongdoing.

<snip>
American officials said the leak about the Iranian codes was a serious loss because the Iranian intelligence service's highly encrypted cable traffic was a crucial source of information, supplying Washington with information about Iranian operations inside Iraq, where Tehran's agents have become increasingly active. It also helped the United States keep track of Iranian intelligence operations around the world.

<snip>”

“Let me see... who in Washington is close to Chalabi and has access to super-duper top secret intellegence information?

hmmmm....”

“Why haven't we locked this guy up yet or killed him? What's the hold up? Is he hiding in a spider hole? He just another insurgent in Iraq that needs to be taken out.”

“Sounds like one o' them thar illegal enemy combatant types to me... He should probably be on a ship in international waters suffering from sleep deprivation.”

“Yes, because sleep deprivation is such a cruel form of torture.”

“Lets not kill him until he pays me back all the money he owes me.”

“Yes.... I Demand a Refund!

(with interest -- just like the IRS)”

“Federal investigators have begun administering polygraph examinations to civilian employees at the Pentagon to determine who may have disclosed highly classified intelligence to Ahmad Chalabi, the Iraqi who authorities suspect turned the information over to Iran, government officials said Wednesday.

The polygraph examinations, which are being conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, are focused initially on a small number of Pentagon employees who had access to the information that was compromised.

NY Times”

“Well, there is the possibility that there never was a conversation between Chalabi and Iran about the code. Iran found out through different channels and wanted to drive a wedge between the US, Chalabi and his followers and get one last bit of usefullness out of a compromised tool plus it verifies the code compromise when the US press goes ape over it.

It's what I would do if I were them.”

“That certainly is possible, but the DIA has said its case is rock solid. I would guess they have more than a single intercept.

Newsweek is reporting that Chalabi was amassing what sounds like a blackmail file on US officials.”

“This is disheartening.”

“The Gov said its case on WMDs was rock solid too.

I dunno. I just make web software.”

“No - they said 'slam dunk' on that one.”

“Oh ok, huuuuuuge difference there.
lol”

“Jon Stewart said that the 'code' the CIA had cracked was the Arabic language.”

“Ha!”

“Chalabi looks like he wants to be Saddam part 2.”

“BAGHDAD, Iraq, Nov. 6 - With three months to go until Iraq's first democratic elections, established Shiite parties and powerful upstarts are feuding, prompting the leading Shiite cleric to try to pull them together to make sure that they clearly dominate the new government.

The cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, is determined to work out a power balance before the election and to keep rivalries from weakening the Shiites' position.

The two main religious Shiite parties in the interim Iraqi government have already banded together. But they face a formidable challenge to their prominence from an unlikely and possibly anti-American alliance that is looming between Ahmad Chalabi, the former exile and Pentagon favorite, and Moktada al-Sadr, the firebrand cleric who ignited two deadly uprisings against the Americans and the interim government.

After falling out with the Americans last spring, Mr. Chalabi has recast himself as a pious Shiite and is pursuing a coalition with Mr. Sadr, who has a zealous following. An anti-American platform would have widespread support.

continued...”

“BAGHDAD, April 28 (Reuters) - Iraq's parliament approved a cabinet of ministers on Thursday, forming Iraq's first democratically elected government in more than 50 years.

By an overwhelming majority, the 275-seat National Assembly approved the list of names put forward by Shi'ite Islamist Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari.

However, several of the 36 ministries will be occupied by acting ministers until final names are decided. Jaafari will be acting defence minister and Ahmad Chalabi will be acting oil minister, the parliamentary speaker said.

more...”

“Oilcan Harry??”

“Bush's hand-picked man.”

“Ahmad Chalabi never gamed anyone and particularly not the neocons and the Bush administration. He was their hired man to spoon feed the media and the congress lies about Iraq WMD etc. He did exactly what they wanted him to do and more. He is accused of giving the Iranians imformation to the effect that the US had broken their military codes. The fact that he is the Iraqi Oil Minister, for whatever length of time, probably means he was the only person in Iraq willing to sell Iraqi oil to the Israelis. That was one of the goals of the neocons and the Israelis since the Shan of Iran was overthrown. They're just getting their way again.
last edited: 4/28/05 12:40:27 PM”

“hah! I bookmarked that one Phaedrus! It's so him.”

“That geeky, Prince Charles smile is so becoming on him!”

“...I give you......Beavis!


Or is it Butthead?


”

“Ya know sol. I have to wonder if we didn't raid Chalabi's office and plant all those stories about him screwing us so the Iraqis would trust him.”

“


last edited: 4/28/05 1:43:34 PM”

“Damn, Phaeddy! That's close enought to be scary...”

“Yeah. cool. hehehehehhehhehheheheheh hehehheeh”