Posted on 05/21/2004 9:44:57 AM PDT by Anti-Bubba182
BAGHDAD, Iraq — U.S. officials believe they have "rock solid" evidence that Iraqi Governing Council member Ahmad Chalabi, once a darling of the American government, passed secrets to Iran, Fox News has learned.
"There is no need for an investigation because we're quite certain he did it," one senior Bush administration official said.
The official first described the evidence against Chalabi as "pretty solid" and then characterized it as "rock solid."
U.S. troops and Iraqi police on Thursday suddenly surrounded and raided Chalabi's house — and police also searched offices of his organization, the Iraqi National Congress.
CIA sources told Fox News there are reports that the INC passed information to Iran, but as far as what type of information, the sources said that isn't known for sure.
Defense officials also told Fox News there was speculation that INC members allegedly shared information with Iran (search) and misused funds and property belonging to the Iraqi Governing Council.
CBS News reported that the U.S. has evidence Chalabi has been passing highly classified U.S. intelligence to Iran, citing senior U.S. officials.
CBS said the "rock solid" evidence was said to show that Chalabi himself gave Iranian intelligence officers information so closely guarded that if revealed it could "get Americans killed."...."....< SNIP >
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
It's very strong because it includes Defense Department personnel among the critics of Chalabi.
It will be interesting to watch this story unfold. It feels like a Graham Greene novel.
Either that or it's a brilliant ploy to gain him popularity with the America hating Arabs, not likely but possible.
There is one way to have rock solid evidence, so they must have it. The US won't be able to do anything about the spy since he is a foreigner, and Iraq won't either since they are not incorporated.
The Iranian connection is interesting. If it's information that "could get Americans killed," it tells me that there was probably troop movement/operational information in what he passed along. Given that Sadr is clearly working for the Iranians and so, apparently, is Chalabi .... One wonders about the circumstances behind Sadr's "uprising."
I wonder what the punishment for the crime will be?
A pair of silk Victoria Secret panties placed on his head and his pic taken for Page One of the NYT?
It concerns me what other networks he has developed while here in the USA. Is he is US Citizen? Does he have family here in the US? If they are here on Visas, I say round 'em up and ship them back to the Middle East.
I am getting sick and tired of American's being tromped on by the MSM and the International Community of Know it Alls!
I want my Country back from the Politically Correct politicians on all sides. We are at War and there is evil in the world trying to ruin America!
Just a hunch but I feel this story is gonna get big!
The main thing that Chalabi wants from Iran is their influence with the Shia clerics in Iraq. Chalabi wants to be president of Iraq, but has an image problem. He traded US secrets for favor from Iranian-backed clerics in Iraq.
PING
This is not a "slam dunk" is it?
And again I ask why a guy like that would have such information? CIA and DOS didn't trust him. He obviously sold us self serving lies and is a fugitive from Jordan for bank fraud.
I hope it's a "hat trick", myself.
Does anyone know why U.S. taxpayers were paying him $430,000 per month ($3 million)?? We should ask for it to be returned to the Treasury.
uh-oh...
Take him down if true.
But, did'nt Tenent and the CIA also use the words "rock solid" in describing the WMD evidence to Bush?
The Arabs don't like the Iranians.
Hand him over to the the Baathists or Al qa'ida(whatever).
Good guess. You need to go one step further. Here's a clue.
Would he have been a viable Head of State for Iraq, if he could be called a puppet of the U.S. ?
Not Likely.
Can you say Charade....?
Get ready for attacks from the DEMS saying/asking "WHY WAS THE BUSH ADMINSTRATION PAYING THIS MAN?"
I know they're there -- I'm not ragging on Bush, but i get suspicious when public officials say things like this without seeing the evidence.
He probably has no friends right about now. Maybe Kofi Annan, who is everybody's friend provided they are Moslim.
Iranians aren't Arabs?
Penalties for this sort of indiscretion are exceedingly harsh for a reason (it's why Pollard is still in prison). There is a tendency for the custodians of such information to regard themselves as players and the people betrayed as pawns. The pawns, in this case at least, have guns.
Weren't they the ones that insisted on it?
Uh, no, they are Persians. They are far more closely related to the Aryans who invaded India than they are Arabs.
Iranians, by indigenous heritage, are PERSIAN. Part of the whole "Imams-stand-on-the-Iraninan-citizens'-neck" thing.
You are guessing - correct? But a very interesting guess.
If Bush ends up with someone who we say is an Iranian agent as the head of Iraq, it's a failure. Regime change meant that the new regime wouldn't require another change. I understand you're point-- paint him as our enemy even if he's not and he can be a secretly pro-US ruler of Iraq-- but that won't fly. Iraq has to elect leadership who are pro-US in public and Chalabi is stained.
but most of the iraqi shia clerics don't want the influence of Iran - Sistani and the rest want autonomy, and want Sadr out of the way.
My ignorance is abated. Thanks.
The idea I heard on Imus isn't half-bad-- let Saddam and Chalabi go at it in a steel cage, no hold's barred match and the last man standing gets the keys to Iraq. We need a hard-ass like Putin who is better than Stalin in relation to cooperation with the US, but will cause great pain to those who f' with him.
And what's that supposed to mean?
They have his computer which contained a bunch of emails addressed to mullahs@tehran.com
Well, Chalabi pushed ths doctor to escape but when he finally did, Chalabi hung him out to dry, endangering his family and breaking the promises he had made to the doctor. In the book, Chalabi comes across as very untrustworthy but on our payroll.
As I said in another reply. That's unworkable. Bush can't say he won the peace if Iraq elects a guy who we said betrayed us and put soldiers' lives at risk and stole money from us, etc. on behalf of a member of the Axis of Evil. That is not a victory. He'll have the public believing he won the war, but lost the peace. He can't have it both ways.
Sounds like Chalabi is more of a war profiter, and a person trying to gain control of Iraq. We need to take him out.
Apparently he was Bush's guest that the SOTU.
Damn. "at", not "that."
Some explainations please.
Actually, they're Aryans. And the Persian language is Indo-European.
That could be, but it would be the content of the e-mails that would count. After all, you could e-mail Fidel Castro and Mao The Tongue every day and just be exchanging apple pie recipes.
I wonder how long we have known and whether a large net was cast before going public... ie, who else can be implicated, like the Ruskies or the French...
No, his vanity license plate said: TR8R4IRAN
The reason the CIA hates Chalabi is that he knows where their own bodies are buried, policy wise. He was against Saddam from the 70s to now. We weren't. He knows all the deals that were in progress to fight Saddam that we backed out of, every sell out, every pragmatic compromise, every limitation of losses, every cynical play.
We were against Saddam when we were pro-Shah. We worked with him then. Then we sold out the Shah. We got Khomenei instead. Didn't like that, so we looked around for people to back against the Iranians. Saddam invaded Iran. We wanted both to lose for a while, but when the Iranians actually started winning we helped Saddam. Chalabi didn't. So he was not wanted.
Then in 1990 we wanted outside supporters over there and he was in again, after Saddam went ballistic. Except, then we didn't go to Baghdad because we didn't want the task we are performing now. But we told the Shia to rise - so they did. And Saddam's tanks crushed them. Chalabi denounced us for that, and our guys violently dislike him for it. Then through the 90s we got more and more unwilling to live with Saddam there. And Chalabi gradually came back into some favor. He lobbied for regime change as the objective, and got it. But not action.
Then in the latest round he was all for us every step, but also wanted an Iraqi government in exile to set up right away in the aftermath. Our guys nix that as unrepresentative. We wanted to cultivate the majority instead. We got in return the present situation - rate it however you like - in Iraqi politics and legitimacy for our operations there.
Now we are near the time for government handover. The polls continue to say the Iraqis don't want a religious ruler. There are other leading seculars but few with Chalabi's record or name recognition. There is a real prospect he might win an election. And it is one thing to use and have under your thumb a guy with the same enemies who knows where your bodies are buried. It is another for him to stand on his own feet and know where your bodies are buried.
Bogus corruption smears have been the typical answer. Not remotely enough. So instead we have this. OK. So, why is Chalabi given top secret US intel? Because he is an important Iraqi leader, say. OK. If an important leader of a foreign country has his own foreign policy, the surprise is what? The complaint would seem to be, we told Putin something in a meeting and he told Chirac. If you don't want him to tell it to people for his political ends, don't tell it to him. He is going to make his own political calculations, not yours. The article treats him as a US employee or citizen. He isn't.
Fine, but it isn't a friendly and allied action. Perhaps. Kind of depends on the missing facts, like what this intel was supposedly about. "It could get US soldiers killed" extends to 90% of the media coverage and doesn't say a blessed thing. "It was classified" extends to budgeting and safety procedures and doesn't say a blessed thing.
The most likely sort of item is that he told the Iranians something about the US approach to Sadr, or deals with Sistani, or whether US backing of Sunnis in Fallujah was bluff or serious. Why? To coordinate or to intimidate? We are not told, so we do not know. If Chalabi later runs Iraq, or is just part of a government that does, he will have to live next to the Iranians for a long time. Who knows what he thinks the right policy for Iraq will be, with respect to them?
His own experience of the US, on the other hand, is that we are fickle and unprincipled ruthless pragmatists who will sell him, or any Iraqi faction, or all of Iraq if necessary, down the river for a temporary geopolitical advantage. With a short attention span, ready able and willing to turn from V corps smashing the RG to standing aside while the RG slaughters 50,000 Shia, in the blink of an eye. "But Bush has been great for him". Sure. Will Kerry be? Can anybody tell Chalabi Kerry will lose?
Anybody operating under the delusion that we've always wisely picked the good guys in this region was asleep for the first four acts. Chalabi wasn't.
Iranians aren't Arabs.
The ruling class is Arab invaders.
Was the State Department suckered or the Pentagon ?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.