Talk:Ahmed Chalabi

Initial comments

I made no change to the content; I only broke one paragraph into two and moved one sentence from a paragraph to its own paragraph (as it wasn't close enough to the subject of the paragraph it was in.) In effect, I guess I broke onew long paragraph into three shorter paragraphs.

I'm concerned that the section I worked on seems a little unprofessional. First it discusses misleading claims by the INC/Chalabi in strong language, and then offers as an example what to a reader probably seems a minor error in detail.

That is, the significance of the Salman Pak claims was that Iraq was purportedly training terrorists to hijack planes there, not what sort of plane they were using in their training. The error in plane model seems a trivial "gotcha" which is outweighed by the text's apparent confirmation that Iraq was training terrorists to hijack planes there.

To most people, this is like arguing about what color their uniforms were when they were being trained to hijack planes.

I have little doubt that some better example of a false claim by Chalabi can be offered. The one offered here is not impressive.

The ironic thing is, if the claim was simply made here that Chalabi and the INC made misleading and false claims, without offering any example in the text, I would have no beef with that. M. E. Smith

Rei, while the government and media's various claims about Chalabi deserve as much attention from the article as you or anyone else is willing to give them, it is also necessary that the article not state disputed and controversial views as plain fact. Everyking 18:11, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... I'm not sure exactly what you're saying is contested. Are you saying the fact that he provided information to the OSP is contested? Or that the words "major portion" are contested? Or that the categories that the information covered are contested? And if so, by whom? I mean, if you can show a fairly legitimate source contesting this, I would be happy to use your wording. I haven't seen an official admission of this, but I haven't seen anyone contest it either, and there have been many unofficial admissions. If things are only uncontested when there is an official admission of it, then (for example) the addictiveness of tobacco would have been "contested" until the 90s. Rei 19:27, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

An official (or unofficial, depending on what game they happen to be playing) "admission" is not enough to say the matter in question is finally settled. We do not accept the claims of the government or the media as simple fact as a matter of blind faith, unless it is something that is not seriously contested, or we have no reason to think it is contested. You stated as fact that Chalabi provided the info, and more importantly, that US intelligence relied on the info. I think that is a spurious claim that ought to be qualified by directly attributing it to those who claim it. Everyking 19:41, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

...Which is why I added references. And, as I mentioned, I'll gladly get you as many as you want. Rei 19:58, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Rei, providing references does not turn a falsehood into truth. Did you read anything I wrote? This sentence: "In the lead-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, under his guidance the INC provided a major portion of the information on which U.S. Intelligence based its condemnation of Saddam Hussein, including reports of weapons of mass destruction and ties to al-Qaeda." states as fact something that I believe is false. You can add a hundred references; if it ain't true, they won't help. That's why I suggest either using my wording, or directly attribute some of these claims using your references. For example: "According to so-and-so, under his guidance the INC provided..." instead of a simple assertion of fact, as it is presently phrased. Everyking 20:09, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, given that, I would have to say, "According to multiple members of the Office Of Special Plans interviewed by multiple sources on multiple occasions...". I'd prefer the current version better, but if you like that better, go for it. You say you believe it is false. Can you provide any evidence for such a view? If you cannot, then it isn't "contested". Heck, even Chalabi's people have talked about the evidence they provided. One of his men, code-named "curveball", has been all over the press recently. Surely you're familiar with this. With what do you contest it? I'm quite curious. Rei 21:28, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't black and white. Philisophically speaking, the only way I know Chalabi even exists is because of "reports" -- and on the other hand, there are loony "reports" that the Israelis flew the planes in 9/11. It isn't obvious when a statement crosses the line to where we can confidently state something without a "reports" weasel-word. In this case, I think it's really borderline. We have multiple, independent varifications, and I can't imagine it's not true, but I think some people might try to dispute it. So I think either wording -- that he gave the info, or that there are reports that he gave the info -- is acceptable. Quadell (talk) 21:12, May 20, 2004 (UTC)

I think that was my doing. I thought it had been officially recognized that much of the bad info received by the Office for Special Planning had come from Chalabi. When I re-read "The Lie Factory", from Mother Jones, it looks like it has been confirmed by numerous off-the-record sources, but not officially admitted per se. So my bad. Quadell (talk) 18:42, May 20, 2004 (UTC)

To add to the confusion on this issue, note the following from a Washington Post article:

"The vast majority of reports of his proximity to and influence on administration policy have been greatly exaggerated," said a senior administration official involved in Iraq policy who knows Chalabi. "The reality is that he was among a wide variety of Iraqi figures who made the case to an array of American officials over a period of time for the liberation of the Iraqi people."

Yet no Iraqi leader has had more to do with the U.S. intervention in Iraq than Chalabi, from charming Congress into authorizing almost $100 million to back his fledgling Iraqi National Congress in the late 1990s and convincing Washington about Hussein's weapons of mass destruction in 2002 to pressing for war last year, say both his supporters and critics.

So an administration official denies that he was the primary source for bad info, but the Post has no problem stating as fact that he was.

Then note this caption in a CNN article:

Ahmed Chalabi is thought to have been a source of intelligence about Iraq's alleged WMD.

Talk about weasel words! I don't think there's a consensus as to whether we can call it a fact yet or not, that he provided most of the bad info that led us into war. He clearly did. I just don't know if we can say it yet. Quadell (talk) 14:19, May 21, 2004 (UTC)

We need to have more rigorous standards than "He clearly did...but we can't call it a fact." A vast web of lies has been spun about this war, but we are working on an encyclopedia; we must approach all the claims that are put forward with caution. What if we had just claimed before the war that it was plain fact that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, because the government and media made such a forceful case that it did? We'd look pretty silly now, wouldn't we? Everyking 14:47, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between saying that he himself was a major source, and that the INC was. It is true that Chalabi's personal involvement has been overblown, and I have made several modifications to the article to point out that it was his organization, not he himself, who was providing this information. But it is essentially undeniable that the INC was a major source of these stories, and I can provide reference after reference (again, just name your number). I'd like to ask again: does anyone have anything that says that the *INC* (which was led by Chalabi) didn't play a major role in pushing these allegations?

Just as a side note - before the war, I was debating against people who claimed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, and provided tons of references (just like I'm offering to do here), so that was probably a bad example that you picked. :) Not everyone fell for the government's transparent yarn, hook line and sinker. You just had to read documents from the IAEA and UNSCOM/UNMOVIC, read articles from places like the Biosecurity Journal and the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, trace back the claims to individuals (for example, I found that a number of the claims about some of the horrors of Saddam Hussein and his WMDs were being pushed by the same INC member who had claimed that not only did Iraq have nuclear weapons, but had already tested them - which is physically impossible, since we monitor rival states for electromagnetic evidence of nuclear explosions)... it just all fell apart when you looked into it. And about half of the reports traced back to the INC. Rei 16:03, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

You are right that the myth of WMDs could be easily dismissed before the war, but the myth of Ahmed Chalabi can also be dismissed. I dismissed both before the war, as I dismiss both now. But my point was that the government/media was pushing the WMD line on Americans in early 2003, and it has been pushing the Chalabi myth, too, yet you think you can take the media's word for it when they explain this myth now, in 2004. Anybody could have provided "references" to back up the allegations of WMDs in early 2003, and plenty of people were. You cannot just pick some references to cite and say the matter is settled. That contradicts the whole spirit of NPOV. We are not here to determine finally what the truth is; we are simply here to present things objectively, without making judgements to be imposed upon our readers. Everyking 17:10, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I also want to a) question the bias of this article, but b) throw forward this quote from The Huffington Post of Friday, September 16, 2005 (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nora-ephron/hooked-on-anonymity_b_7355.html), from columnist Nora Ephron. When speaking on the New York Times' over-use of anonymous sources she quoted Ahmed Chalabi, who should have said, "I’m talking to you on condition of anonymity because I hope to plant false information about weapons of mass destruction in your very powerful newspaper in order to con the United States government into going to war against Saddam Hussein so I can return to Iraq and become part of the new government and steal a whole bunch more money than I already have." Someone should work that quote into the article. And yes, this article is biased against Mr. Chalabi, who, while I believe that he lied about WMDs etc. to get power, until that's proven we can't state that as unquestionable fact. Meaning, as long as there are reasonable people who disagree, such people need to be acknowledged. Mrcolj 14:27, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Many supposedly held him up as a main hope for democracy in Iraq,

Many did hold him up. Why say supposedly? Could we rephrase this please? Some such thing as

Chalabi had many supporters in the United States who held him up as a chmapion of democracy in Iraq.

I would also like to see explicit mention in this article of OpEd writers unwavering support for this man, particularly Jim Hoagland of the Washington Post who came out repeatedly in his defense. I'll do it myself if no one cares to bite. CSTAR 15:42, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

There's also Christopher Hitchens, who defended Chalabi in Slate. I look forward to your additonal work, Cstar

Could we break this up into sections? CSTAR 21:37, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

the term neoconservative

I take issue with the use of the term neoconservative as used in this document. I understand this to be a factual base, and we all know neocon is a derogative term, and there for its a political term. You are essentially labeling the people in the pentagon without further at least backing up the use of the term. Couldnt that simply be changed to "prominent people in the pentagon?" Or at least, those "neocons" should be listed. Jviehe 14:21, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chalabi on TV

The Journal Report November 13, 2005 "The Chalabi Comeback" Episode #232. Ahmed Chalabi, deputy prime minister of Iraq, visits Washington, D.C.; Republican candidates.

Chalabi says Rob Silverman report page 108 says he had little influence on (american foreign policy??) Chalabi says his organization only provided three people. The first one was taken by the US never to be seen again.

Chalabi say american troops can leave by 2006.

Chalabi is an "Escrow"?

I don't understand the last sentence of the introduction. It says that Chalabi is an "escrow," which the American Heritage online dictionary defines as "Money, property, a deed, or a bond put into the custody of a third party for delivery to a grantee only after the fulfillment of the conditions specified." The Wikipedia definition provided by the link echoes this definition, but neither seems to provide any circumstance under which the word might be used to describe a person. (Unless the article means "escrow agent", but it's not clear how Chalabi fills that role.) The linked CNN article doesn't use the term at all.

Could someone provide some clarification / excise the term? Thanks.

opinion

i think the author meant the french word escroc, which is a crook.