Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (45353)	5/19/2004 11:12:04 AM
From: Mary Cluney	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793807

<<<I like to think this is not so immediately obvious -- is the administration admitting that there were no WMD?>>> It's like that old question, what is the sound of one hand clapping? Or, if a tree falls, and no one is there to hear it and or record it, does it make a sound? There is probably WMD in Iraq, but no one knows where it is hidden, includng Saddam Hussein himself. As David Kay said, there is no audit trail. So, if there is WMD in Iraq, but no one knows where it is, is there WMD in Iraq?

To: Ilaine who wrote (45353)	5/19/2004 10:52:14 PM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 793807

You missed the latest on Chalabi. We've dumped him. Not only that, but now we're saying that he was the source of at least some of the bogus WMD information. Interesting. I saw a headline the other day about a former Iraqi exile leader being accused of giving false information on WMD, but clicked right past it, as old news. If I’d known it was Chalabi I might have read the story. It’s still old news, though, really. The intel types were complaining well before the war that the administration and DOD were giving far too much credence to unverified reports from exiles with a clear vested interest in encouraging a US invasion. We discussed it on FADG, I recall. I wouldn’t really blame Chalabi and his people for exaggerating whatever they had. That’s to be expected. The blame goes on whoever took them at the word without considering the possibility – probability, under the circumstances – that vested interests were in play. We know Chalabi was Woolsey's client, and we know he was Perle's boy, which probably means he was Wolfie's boy, which probably means he was, willy-nilly, Rummy's boy, although who knows? I have a hard time believing he got past Rummy's nose, but then I am a fool for Rummy. We know Cheney vetted him, went to the mat for him, although we don't really know why - was Woolsey-Perle-Wolfowitz all it took? Maybe so . . . . He told them what they wanted to hear. Sounds too simple to ever work, but it usually does, especially with people who are absolutely convinced that they are right. I can’t help recalling our old curse Ferdinand Marcos, who wrapped a whole string of US administrations around his finger by doing exactly that. Chalabi is thrown to the wolves (no pun intended) and he's being dumped on as the source of bad info on WMD. Which, as I have been speculating using cui bono as Occam's Razor, makes a great deal of sense, the other obvious source being Mossad. Who, after all, could plausibly convince otherwise intelligent "intelligence agents" that they had actual living people who knew what Saddam was up to and lived to tell the tale? I would guess that bad info on WMD came from a number of self-interested sources, including Chalabi, other Iraqi exiles, and probably Mossad as well. All would have a clear vested interest in encouraging a US invasion, and no reason not to act on those interests. Debka was always very keen to play the WMD card, just as they were very keen to suggest that all the WMD had flown to Syria. Debka content has very little to do with reality, but it gives a pretty good idea of what Israeli intelligence would like us to think. Easy to throw Chalabi to the wolves now; he has no following in Iraq and is of no use to us. A bit churlish to accuse him on the WMD issue, since it’s as much the fault of those who believed the stories, in the face of obvious reasons to expect a con, as of those who told them, but so it goes. I don’t think it’s at all coincidental that the WMD evidence and Saddam’s relationship with AQ were systematically exaggerated, and that at the same time the obstacles to developing a stable government in Iraq were being systematically underestimated. Remember how they talked about “installing” democracy? Not hearing much of that now, are we. This is what happens when you base your development of evidence on decisions that have already been made, instead of basing decisions on evidence. I like to think this is not so immediately obvious -- is the administration admitting that there were no WMD? Hardly matters now. I’d like to hear less about whether there were WMD or not, and about how connected or disconnected Saddam was to AQ, and a good deal more about how the f*ck we plan to organize a functional government, create an army and a police force, and get out of there.