Posted on 05/22/2004 1:28:37 AM PDT by kattracks
Edited on 05/26/2004 5:21:57 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
May 22, 2004 -- WASHINGTON - Jordan's King Abdullah fueled the U.S. move against Iraqi leader Ahmed Chalabi by providing bombshell intelligence that his group was spying for Iran, The Post has learned. An explosive dossier that the Jordanian monarch recently brought with him to White House sessions with President Bush detailed Mafia-style extortion rackets and secret information on U.S. military operations being passed to Iran, diplomats said.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Probably, that's because he's still up and around, and not under arrest. If he's arrested (not even convicted), his support probably will disappear quite suddenly (depending on what he is charged with doing). If he is not arrested, this stinks of political intimidation.
What's your suspicion? Why did President Bush pick Ambassador Bremer?
Why has the judas not been arrested??
Just damn! Totally believable, now my imagination will run wild...
Prairie
I look forward to it. And dang it all about Bremer siding up with the RATS. I'd been reading rumors about that and hoping it wasn't true.
Prairie
Bush knows.
King Abdullah is no liar. If he says Chalabi is a double, count on it! There is something about flyboys (King Abdullah is certified on many different jet fighters) that makes them more credible than extortionist like Chalabi. Chalabi's sons parading around Baghdad as if they are about to replace Qusay and Uday doesn't give one confidence in the Chalabi goons.
Good analogy...I'm hoping that you are correct and that the hand is a good one.
Rule #1...The House Always Wins.
I wouldn't rule out chalabi being a spy.
muslims have such strong loyalties to islam, that they invariably end up as double agents, passing our secrets to islamic countries and passing their disinformation to us.
Chalabi could be a spy who finally got caught. Or he could be a muslim punished by other arabs for siding with america against the islamic world.
The islamic world is so treacherous and the muslims so adept at lying, that it's very hard to ever know the truth.
The muslims will punish everyone who sides with america as a traitor, either themselves or by framing him and forcing people he was loyal to, to shove the knife.
You have to remember, that jordan's king hussein, the present ruler abdullah's dad, sided with saddam during the first gulf war. that is when they declared chalabi a criminal and sent a warrant for his arrest to please saddam.
Since islamic intelligence can never be trusted, i would rely on logic alone to decide matters about the islamic world.
Since both the US and iran wanted saddam out,we can't tell where chalabi's loyalties would lie on this issue.
However, his loyalties could be discovered with his stance towards iran.
Did he support or oppose a future US led invasion of iran.
The answer to this question would give us a definitive answer as to where his loyalties lay.
There is, on the other hand, ample evidence that foreign intelligence agencies, elements of our press, the international left, and important components of our own bureaucracies, are his determined enemies, and want to paint the entire Iraqi war as a mistake and unjustified. And pin it on a number of suspects, including Chalabi, administration "neo-cons", da joos - and W.
Every one of whom fully supports Bush and our actions in Iraq and wants them to succeed. Their targets, that is. Not the shooters. Jordan did not support us. Elements of state and CIA did not. The press did not.
Chalabi does not always support US policy toward Iraq. There is no reason why he should. US policy toward Iraq has been a moving target and transcendentally stupid at times (backing Saddam, leaving him in power after gulf I, etc).
As for Chalabi's past with Jordan, to understand it you need to know that Chalabi heads the successor to the Iraqi monarchist party. Chalabi entered politics to further Iraqi monarchists, attempting to restore the Iraqi throne. And the Iraqi throne was held by a Hashemite king - the same royal family as currently rules Jordan. Descended from a different son of the Sherif of Mecca, whose family was rewarded for backing the British in WW I with rule of much of the near east.
Chalabi shifted over time from wanting to restore the Iraqi monarchy, to just wanting to get rid of the Baathists and Saddam in particular. He acknowledged that the time of monarchy has past, and a post Baath Iraq would be a republic. But back in the 1970s, he was a full blown monarchic restorationist.
In exile. In Jordan. Now, in middle east politics, harboring an exile who publicly states his goal as overthrow of a neighboring state's government in order to put a man in charge of it from the same family, is not generally considered a peaceful and friendly thing. Jordan harboring Chalabi meant a foreign policy orientation of hostility toward Iraq. They were using him. He was their monarchist organizer.
But when they made their peace with Baathist Iraq and wanted good relations with Saddam, that meant Chalabi had to go. It meant the means used to finance him had to be repudiated. Chalabi's bank failed after the Jordanian state seized it and froze all of its assets. The charges against him amounted, in effect, to "you took our intelligence payments and now, later, we have no use for you, so that was stealing."
Chalabi, you see, has been sold out before. By experts. A dozen times. He is still around.
Our own state and CIA types hate him because he knows all the times they sold out the Iraqi people in some cynical deal or another. All the times we helped Saddam gas his enemies. All the times our navy helped protect his war finances. All the times we told people inside Iraq to fight against Saddam and then left them in the lurch.
Chalabi has been more consistently in favor of our present policy in Iraq than the United States government has been - let alone Saddam allies like the Jordanians. He has been urging us to oust Saddam for decades. Now, when we finally do, the forces that opposed it every step of the way want to blame him for getting us to finally do the right thing. A man surrounded by vipers, he is considered one simply because they smear him relentlessly. No one can actually say what he is supposed to have done wrong.
And make no mistake. The guys engineering this want Bush to lose. They want the whole Iraq war to have been a mistake. (If you doubt it, check out the latest Newsweek cover - the whole road to war is his fault). One they can blame on somebody else. Then they will get along fine with Kerry. Who will put the UN in charge. And turn the oil money back on.
Smashing friends like Chalabi is simply stupid. It is also about par for how wise our policies have typically been in the region. All those winking about secret in the know stuff are overlooking the elephant in the living room. Our oh so clever inside knowledge cyncial deals brought us from the fall of the Shah to the present state. In which about the only bright spot, the only time we've actually made any progress, has been when we fought Saddam just as Chalabi always urged.
Regardless of what happens to Chalabi now, in relations with us or in Iraqi politics, he will be remembered by history as one of the founding fathers of Iraqi freedom and independence. Simply for his leadership through the years of tyranny, and his steadfastness even against supposed allies who so often tried to sell out Iraqi freedom. When nobody can remember who Bremer or Tenet was, historians will look kindly on him, and consider the present period a disgrace and a mistake on our part.
One more in a very long series.
See also 131...
I agree with your analysis. It's another clumsy betrayal of the CiC - and American interests - by scumbag careerists in the State or the CIA or both.
Like the other attempts to subvert this noble quest, this too will fail.
. . . . o'reilly won't spit out the hook, either.
His loyalties lie with himself. That much is clear.
It is quite simple to understand that the U.S. needed to distance themselves from this man and his organization.
Chalabi may be able to distance himself from his organization, and he is welcome to try.
He is also welcome to continue to position himself to make a run at president of Iraq, if they allow him to.
At least it will not appear that he is connected in any way to the U.S.
All this negative intelligence is interesting, but the split was going to happen regardless. he just made it much easier to do so, over the objections of some power players in Washington.
Best of luck to him, and I would stay away from Jordanian airlines.
LOL! Why is Kofi Annan still running around...............Or Bill Clinton for that matter.
Thus far, all the accusations of merit have been against members of his organization. One is in custody and more may be arrested. My guess is that he will not be arrested, unless Jordan decides to retrieve him.
The idea was to dismantle his organization, to the extent that it was no longer meddling in Iraq's affairs or the coalition. His umbilical cord to the U.S. is severed.
He is likely free to do whatever, unless he does something stupid.
Well even the north koreans got the centrifuges from pakistan in return for north korean missiles to pakistan.
It's a close collaboration between the two. pakistan has the nukes, but needs the missiles, whereas north korea has the missiles and needs the nukes.
pakistano proliferation to iran and libya again was to create a pan islamic super bloc to confront america.
You have to realize that pakistan was the main backer of taliban and al qaeda and that most al qaeda operatives still find refuge in pakistan.
That the same people who were supporting al qaeda and the taliban, only 3 years back are still in govt in pakistan.
you can't really expect them to have undergone an ideological conversion in the aftermath of 911.
They're merely providing lip service to the war on terror to avoid an iraq like invasion of pakistan. they're apprehending the old al qaeda cadres and replacing them with new ones, people western intelligence wouldnt be able to identify.
it is a very treacherous nation. You'd find it behind most of the terror that you see in the world today. Chechen terrorists, al qaeda, indian terrorists, bosnians, taliban etc etc.
people spy for many reasons.
1- ideological reasons. They're opposed to a certain dogma, religion or way of life.
2- Hurt: They've been hurt or abused by people from a certain country, ideology, dogma or religion.
3- Common interests: Their world view coincides with yours, so they forge an alliance of common interests.
4- Purely selfish reasons: this could be money, sex, power, fame. love or all five.
if you look at all the incentives for spying, you'd see that people who have been hurt by a system would make the best spies. if they have been hurt bad enough, Vengeance would overshadow all other feelings.If the hurt has been broad enough, they'd stereotype and blame an entire group of people or an ideology for the hurt, and it would ultimately turn into an ideological struggle against a system, that they now considers evil enough to be taken apart.
These spies though can be hurt easily and alienated. they have a very low tolerance for injustice and hurt.
Since they have resisted an entire system in the past, they can be extremely stubborn to the point of self destruction.
Jewish people working against nazi germany could have been spies of this kind. Shiite persecuted by saddam and kurds would also fall into this category, but then the shiites would have stronger loyalties to another hostile power iran.
ideological spies, make good spies provided their convictions aren't superficial. They still can have national or regional loyalties. they might want to change the system, but their loyalties still might be to their country, race, or religion.
philby, burgess blunt and most MI5 spies were of this kind.
spies who work for a common interest, like the iranians and us who both wanted saddam gone, have loyalties only to that common interest. that common interest is because of their loylaties to another country, religion or race that is served by those interests.
As soon as that interest is served, their loyalties are gone.
This has been true for both the shiites in iran and islamists fighting the soviets in afghanistan.
These people invariably are double agents. They'd be passing your secrets to iran, pakistan or saudi arabia and their disinformation to you. They'd be just manipulating you against a common enemy. they might consider you a long term enemy as well.
Spies who spy to serve themselves only, invariably end up as double agents. Even if they're making millions from you, they'd still try to make a few extra grands by selling you to the other side. Now if they don't even have any ideological leanings towards your side, they'd most likely pass your secrets to your enemies and their disinformation to you.
Robert hansen and ames might bave been spies of this kind.
you have to realize that muslims have very strong loyalties to islam, loyalties strong enough to overcome almost all other incentives as a result they end up as double agents, passing you disinformation and passing your secrets onto the islamic world.
If you pay attention. The US had been successful against the germans and russians because american linguists were used to spy on them. We have been somewhat successful against cubans as wel, mostly for the same reasons.
we apprehended ames and hannsen, because the americans who had them undersurveillance didnt have oyalties to another
entity. We have failed miserably to catch islamic spies though, because muslims will not let another muslim down.
They will only frame people, who they consider a threat to islam and who refuse to be a part of their global pan islamic conspiracies.
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.