DIA says Iran used INC to get US in Iraq?

[Philosopher]

SimonX:

Depends on how you mean that sentence.

I mean it’s another bit of bullshit information that some intelligence agency has floated to provide a fig leaf for something else. That it has absolutely no relation to anything even remotely resembling the truth. That and the fact you had put a lot of effort into providing us the various news reports was what I was trying to say.

Actually, if you’ll note, nobody’s saying anything remotely of that sort. The CIA at one point thought that Mr. Habib was so dangerous that even his cousin represented a threat to the US. The CIA determined that Chalabi was a snake oil salesman. The State Department said that the INC was untrustable. The DIA labelled one of the defectors provided by the INC’s ICP a ‘fabricator’, yet almost two years later the Bush Admin was still using info provided by that ‘fabricator.’ Colin Powell flat out said that some of what the INC was selling was ‘deliberately misleading.’

When did he say this?
Alright, if we are to say that all those agencies said all those things about the INC as vociferiously as they are now claiming, then I’d venture to guess that several members of the Bush administration are probably in some sort of legal trouble. But I don’t recall any of those agencies saying anything of this nature prior to the war. Why not?
If they were so certain of the fact the Chalabi is well connected with public enemy number 2, why on earth didn’t Tenet and Powell resign their posts after failing to convince Bush that he’s basing his decision on lies?

Nobody’s saying that the various intel agencies were duped.

Well then this whole ordeal doesn’t make any sense at all. The various intel agencies weren’t duped. So then, they knew. If they knew, either they didn’t tell Bush, or Bush didn’t listen. I highly doubt they didn’t tell him (based on the various reports that have shown the president had been briefed all along).
If Bush did know that he was acting on “wishful thinking” intel, then why would he let Tenet and the rest of the intelligence community come out and expose this now?
The raid on Chalabi’s home is what’s brought all of this to light, right? There’s no way Bush and Rumsfeld weren’t made aware of that raid before it happened (considering there was U.S. Marine presense). Why would they allow such a high profile “shock and awe” campaign when it would lead to their own hand being exposed?

The only part that you’re wuestioning ishwether or not the WH was ‘duped.’

Actually, I don’t think anybody was duped. I think they would now love to pretend they were.

Capacitor

Iran has proven to be a surprisingly strong intrigue player and a thorn to many a presidents. The worst scandals recently involving presidents, other than Clinton’s, was about dealings with Iran.

Oh please. That’s not because of the mullahs’ wily cunningness. That’s because every U.S. president since Iranian revolution has tried to play footsie with Iran in one way or another and it always comes back to haunt them.
And I don’t recall Bush the Elder having any scandals regarding Iran during his term as president.

[PatriotX]

@Philosopher

When did he say this?

May 16, 2004 (10:30 a.m. EDT)

From here
Powell recently referred to some ICP provided information as ‘inaccurate,’ ‘wrong’ ‘deliberately misleading’.

@Philosopher

Alright, if we are to say that all those agencies said all those things about the INC as vociferiously as they are now claiming, then I’d venture to guess that several members of the Bush administration are probably in some sort of legal trouble.

That’s the same guess that I’ve ventured actually.

@Philosopher

But I don’t recall any of those agencies saying anything of this nature prior to the war. Why not?

I’d guess that you weren’t exposed to the information. That State and the CIA haven’t trusted the INC’s been a matter of public record for some time though. I’ve previously provided citations to pre-war items to that effect.
Here’s a december, (may he r.i.p.), thread about Chalabi (Celebi)

@Philosopher

If they were so certain of the fact the Chalabi is well connected with public enemy number 2, why on earth didn’t Tenet and Powell resign their posts after failing to convince Bush that he’s basing his decision on lies? Well then this whole ordeal doesn’t make any sense at all. The various intel agencies weren’t duped. So then, they knew. If they knew, either they didn’t tell Bush, or Bush didn’t listen. I highly doubt they didn’t tell him (based on the various reports that have shown the president had been briefed all along).
If Bush did know that he was acting on “wishful thinking” intel, then why would he let Tenet and the rest of the intelligence community come out and expose this now?

Ask 'em why they did what they did. I’m sure they tell in a few years soon enough.
I provided links to public information showing that the INC’s chief of intel, the fella who was in charge of the Information Collection Program, was known to be on the payroll of Iran. So, it’s not a matter of anyone keeping the guy’s ties a secret from someone else.
The infinitely better connected Dr. Josh speculates that there’s been a tectonic shift in the power structures in DC lately. He maintains that this shift has allowed this sort of stuff to make it to light.

@Philosopher

The raid on Chalabi’s home is what’s brought all of this to light, right?

Depends on what you mean by ‘brought to light.’
As noted here, on May 02, eighteen days before the well know raid on Chalabi’s places, Newsweek had an article in their upcoming May 10th edition about the reports of the INC passing secrets to Iran. So it was ‘out there’ before the raid. The Chalabi raid’s just gotten the ball really rolling

@Philosopher

There’s no way Bush and Rumsfeld weren’t made aware of that raid before it happened (considering there was U.S. Marine presense). Why would they allow such a high profile “shock and awe” campaign when it would lead to their own hand being exposed?

While I can see why reasonable people would assume that. However, IIRC, Rumsfeld maintains that he was unaware of it. Mendacity or incompetence?

@Philosopher

Actually, I don’t think anybody was duped. I think they would now love to pretend they were.

I suspect that they were invited to belive what they wanted to believe. It was just yet another political marriage of convenince.

@rjung

Sure is, but notice that the media reports are playing up the “Chalabi is a double-crossing spy” while ignoring the “Administration officials kept trusting him even after the intelligence agencies said he was untrustworthy” angle. It’s a classic case of misdirection.

Well, the FBI’s being sorta tight lipped right now. It’s not hard at all to find mention in the mainstream media’s news reports of the fact that the intel allegedly passed to Iran came from someone in the USG. One source uses the phrase ‘senior officials.’

I don’t think that there’s a WH Big Media cover-up conspiracy going on over this. Everyone’s just waiting for the other shoe to fall.

[Philosopher]

SimonX:

Thanks for the links (how do you find the time to research all of this??).
So based on what you said we have:

I’d guess that you weren’t exposed to the information. That State and the CIA haven’t trusted the INC’s been a matter of public record for some time though. I’ve previously provided citations to pre-war items to that effect.

Actually, I was well aware of their concerns and that they were public, but I’d hardly call them anywhere near this…

Powell recently referred to some ICP provided information as “‘inaccurate, ‘wrong’ ‘deliberately misleading’”

So my point is, did they come to find out how badly they underestimated Chalabi (Celebi) just now? I don’t think so, and that begs the question why were their criticisms so muted in comparison prior to the war? And that’s why I think this Iran spy thing is pure bullshit. It’s a way for them to take heat off of themselves by blaming Chalabi as well as one of the international pin cushions for blame.
They knew of the connections prior to the war. If they are a big deal now, then they should have been a bigger deal then. Since their criticisms were that slight prior to the war, that tells me the connections are about as important and meaningful as those between “high level Baathists and Al Qaeda leadership” (ie pure fertilizer material).

The infinitely better connected Dr. Josh speculates that there’s been a tectonic shift in the power structures in DC lately. He maintains that this shift has allowed this sort of stuff to make it to light.

Perhaps. I think it’s the U.S. intelligence community getting tired of getting screwed over by a bunch of neocon-artists.

However, IIRC, Rumsfeld maintains that he was unaware of it. Mendacity or incompetence?

I think a nice blend of both. With just a touch of sheer fucking arrogance.

[sinical_brit]

Once again SimonX - an interesting thread and thanks for the research.
I may have missed this so-far in the thread, apols if this has been mentioned.

Imagine… we have the siuation where part of US gov is saying “dont trust the info you get from these shysters” - meaning IRC/Chabali, but the WH is trying to find reasons to go to war in Iraq. The existing intel doesnt quite go far enough.

So the WH creates a special intelligence group to “re-examine the intelligence” - what was it called - Special Iraq Intel Group or something - someone here will remind me.

Anyway this group is formed and filled with neo-cons who now take the dodgy intel from IRC FULLY into account. A report is published from this group, Powell presents the “new” intel to the UN, the group is disbanded immediatly and off we all go to war.

Fits like a glove from over here.

However i am still not convinced that this whole situation has not been created in order to provide a handy…

“it was them who lied - not us.
I was nowhere near the shed at the time - not that there was a shed.
US good - US try to save people.
Arabs bad - Arabs trick US to go to war”
Sin

[PatriotX]

While I don’t think it’s impossible that this is part of a WH sponsored disinfo campaign, and I don’t find a WH disinfo project any more improbable than Iran spurring the INC, I just don’t think it’s the case.
Mostly because, were the WH to admit that it was duped is tantamount to declaring that they have no idea what’s going on in tWoT. This sort of an admission is just as bad, if not worse, than the charge that the screw-ups in Iraq are the result of their policy decisions. It’s Scyulla and Charybdis again. Except, it’s more like Charybdis and Charybdis.
Either they screwed the pooch of their own volition, or they were fucked by a member of the Axis of Evil. There’s more deniability in the former. People’re still denying that the pooch has ever gotten any from the WH. To say that they got fucked by the Axis of Evil means that they are not competent enough to wage tWoT.
If the Admin were to openly admit that they were incapable of prosecuting tWoT, what do they have left? This is the same as admitting that they cannot protect America. If they say that they cannot protect the US… There’s no way that they can go that route.

[rjung]

@SimonX

If the Admin were to openly admit that they were incapable of prosecuting tWoT, what do they have left? This is the same as admitting that they cannot protect America. If they say that they cannot protect the US… There’s no way that they can go that route.

Personally, I thought the claim that this Administration hasn’t a clue on how to deal with terrorism was already made when we learned that the “Bin Laden Determined To Attack Inside United States” PDB was dismissed as “historical information”, and no precautions were taken. :eek: Yet people still rate Bush highly in fighting terrorism. :smack:

If the populace is unswayed by such an example of gross incompetence, they’ll readily accept “We were snookered by Chalabi!” and let Bush off the hook…

[jshore]

In a related vein, [url=http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/26/international/middleeast/26FTE_NOTE.html ]here is an interesting letter from the editors of the New York Times in which they admit that their reporting leading up to the war in Iraq was faulty in relying excessively on Chalabi and friends and sources inside the U.S. government:

The problematic articles varied in authorship and subject matter, but many shared a common feature. They depended at least in part on information from a circle of Iraqi informants, defectors and exiles bent on “regime change” in Iraq, people whose credibility has come under increasing public debate in recent weeks. (The most prominent of the anti-Saddam campaigners, Ahmad Chalabi, has been named as an occasional source in Times articles since at least 1991, and has introduced reporters to other exiles. He became a favorite of hard-liners within the Bush administration and a paid broker of information from Iraqi exiles, until his payments were cut off last week.) Complicating matters for journalists, the accounts of these exiles were often eagerly confirmed by United States officials convinced of the need to intervene in Iraq. Administration officials now acknowledge that they sometimes fell for misinformation from these exile sources. So did many news organizations — in particular, this one.

The whole thing is interesting and definitely worth a read!

[capacitor]

@Philosopher

Oh please. That’s not because of the mullahs’ wily cunningness. That’s because every U.S. president since Iranian revolution has tried to play footsie with Iran in one way or another and it always comes back to haunt them.
And I don’t recall Bush the Elder having any scandals regarding Iran during his term as president.

That was because he was ‘Out of the Loop’. From former head of the CIA to ‘Out of the Loop’. Really now?

[PatriotX]

An ‘interesting’ April 2003 article about how the invasion of Iraq and Iran’s sphere of influence:

FICKLE 'VICTORY’

In his interview with Al Safir, a newspaper published in Lebanon, Assad uttered nothing even remotely resembling what would amount to a public death wish. The Syrian President merely stated what is obvious to every expert on the region outside the JINSA-American Likudnik orbit:

“No doubt that the U.S. is a super-power capable of conquering a relatively small country, but is it able to control it? The U.S. and Britain are incapable of controlling all of Iraq.”

In view of Iran’s growing sphere of influence in Iraq, it seems rather disingenuous to destroy the Sunni minority government run by the Ba’ath Party and then deny any responsibility for the Shi’ite-y outcome. The U.S. has made a gift of Iraq to Teheran, reigniting the religious passions that overthrew the U.S.-backed Shah Reza Pahlavi of Iran and propelled Khomeini to power.