PhotoDude.com

Wed. May 26, 2004

The Corrupt, The Blind, and The Clueless

Hi, My name is Reid…

“Hi, Reid.”

It’s been seven days since I’ve written about Iraq, and I don’t think I can hold out any longer…

“No, no, don’t do it!”

But it was too late. They’d already been incensed.¹

I watched the President’s speech the other night, but was forced to wonder about its importance, beyond PR. I noticed several pundits who mentioned afterwards that they were busy with something else, and therefore didn’t see it. The Washington Post says “The speech, just over 30 minutes long, was semi-nationally televised. It was carried on cable news networks like Fox’s and NBC’s CNBC and MSNBC, but the four major broadcast networks decided not to air it.” But it wasn’t a liberal media conspiracy to stifle Bush … the White House didn’t ask them to air it, adding to the perception about its level of importance.

In the end, this was certainly no mid course correction. It was a fleshing out of the current plan, with a heaping dose of “stay the course.” By my count, this is the fourth major plan since April of 2003. Plans are great. But the plan’s got to work. It has to be executed with the same tenacity as the beliefs that engendered it. And I think that’s been Bush’s weakest point for three years running: the right words, followed by pitiful execution.

Want another example of “big talk”?

Arab governments, responding to a U.S. campaign for Arab democracy, have promised to carry out political and social reforms in an oil-rich region which includes some of the world’s most repressive rulers.

In documents read out at the end of a two-day Arab summit in Tunis on Sunday, the 22 Arab League members promised to promote democracy, expand popular participation in politics and public affairs, reinforce women’s rights and expand civil society.

Reuters: “Arab leaders promise democratic reforms”

Gosh, that all sounds great, doesn’t it? But in a region that currently contains one state that has anything approaching a free press, equal rights for women, and a representative government (that would be Israel), how well do you think this “vision” will be “executed”? That’s the only measure that matters. Especially to those living under dictatorships.

But the problem often goes deeper than a failure to execute. The vision itself has to be based on a solid foundation. And I’m beginning to wonder if anyone on this planet can even read the first line on an eye chart.

From the mid 90’s up to the Iraq War, our administration (Democratic and then Republican), our intelligence community, most of the world’s credible intelligence agencies, and the UN itself were all misinformed about Iraq’s WMD programs. The controversy was over how to disarm Iraq, because everyone was certain they were there, and likely substantial. A year ago, we were all confident that by now we’d have nearly the full story of Iraq’s WMD program, whatever that story might be. Instead, no one can find much proof of anything, other than one sarin shell.

To me, there’s a hint in the fact Saddam used chemical weapons against the Kurds. At the time, there was no uprising by the Kurds, nor did they present any real threat to Saddam. I think Saddam did it to send a message to the 60% of Iraq that is Shi’ite: “No matter how many rise up, I got something special for you, so think twice about a revolt.” It was much a bluff/threat as a reality. Furthermore, I believe that Saddam’s Deadly Circle of Lies fed the fire as well, with his underlings reporting WMD developments they knew would please Saddam … even if they weren’t quite truthful.

In the end, nearly no one knew the truth. Not us, our coalition allies, nations like France and Germany that opposed the war, the UN, or maybe even Saddam himself. One Big Blue Clueless Ball.

To this day. Because I see a similar situation with regards to Chalabi and the INC. You know how you can sometimes first meet a person, and from the moment you lay eyes on them, you get the gut feeling they are somehow … “wrong.” They seem somehow oily, too oily for even their own good, as their coveting eyes are so brazen and unhidden. Constantly looking about for situational advantage while hiding behind a practiced but forced smile.

Go to a used car lot, and it is highly likely you will encounter a person similar to this in less than 60 seconds. That’s the way Chalabi has always come across to me; a salesman of questionable goods. In this case, a salesman selling something he had not seen himself since he was 13, with an embezzlement conviction to boot.

Clearly, he sold a lot of folks, though. And not just in the government. The New York Times has a careful correction today, saying their coverage “was not as rigorous as it should have been.” They don’t mention details like the e-mail from reporter Judith Miller saying, “I’ve been covering Chalabi for about 10 years, and have done most of the stories about him for our paper … He has provided most of the front page exclusives on WMD to our paper.”

As it turns out, those “exclusives” may have come as much from Iran as Chalabi, and though she was “covering Chalabi for about 10 years,” Ms. Miller never noticed the relationship. But now people are noticing.

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.”

Guardian: “US intelligence fears Iran duped hawks into Iraq war”

Iran was (is) playing us. That neo-cons like Wolfowitz and Feith were drawn in is unfortunately unsurprising. But the New York Times, with a reporter with a decade of experience with the guy, was uniquely positioned to blow the cover off of this. And failed to perceive reality, along with everyone else.

It sure does bring up lots of questions, doesn’t it? Expect few answers, though. Especially to the core question; did Iran really pull off a historic intelligence ploy, or was everyone simply that gullible and stupid?

Because either answer carries ugly implications few will be willing to concede.

I’m beginning to think that the best third party Presidential candidate might be Fox Mulder, with a campaign slogan of “Trust No One.” Because in a world of failed intelligence both before and after 9/11, a UN Oil-For-Food scam showing corruption among our allies and within the UN, and being manipulated by foreign powers in the Middle East, “Trust No One” seems the most viable option.

¹Old lyrical reference: Ray Stevens, “The Streak”