The New York Times (Feb 13): Chalabi Sees His Prospects on Rise Again

[Jack Rabbit]

From The New York Times
Dated Sunday February 13

Iraqi Exile Sees His Prospects on Rise Again
By Dexter Filkins

BAGHDAD, Iraq, Feb. 12 - Nine months ago, American soldiers pulled up to Ahmad Chalabi's compound here to help raid and ransack the place, marking a dramatic break between the Bush administration and the Iraqi exile who, more than anyone else outside the American government, helped make the case for the invasion of Iraq.

Earlier this week, as dusk settled on the capital, a line of Humvees and American trucks returned, this time bearing one of the American Embassy's most important diplomats, Robert Ford. The purpose of Mr. Ford's visit was to assess what the next Iraqi government, perhaps with Mr. Chalabi in a senior post, was planning for the future.

After two hours of discussion, Mr. Ford and his retinue of armed guards and armored cars departed. Mr. Chalabi could barely contain his delight.

"At least there is dialogue," he said with a small smile.

An American official here described the meeting with Mr. Chalabi as "routine," the latest of several, and similar to many that the Americans are holding with influential Iraqi leaders as the results of the Jan. 30 elections come into focus.

Read more.

I post this as a companion to the thread on Mr. Allaw`s attempts to manipulate his way back into power after being clearly repudiated by Iraqi voters.

[proud patriot]

1. Chalibi sold U.S. secrets to Iran

He had better get arrested :mad:

[baby_bear]

2. How does Judith Miller fit into this?

There's gotta be something.

[Jack Rabbit]

3. Well, as a matter of fact

From Slate
Dated Monday January 31

Together, Again: Judith Miller and Ahmad Chalabi
By Jack Shafer

How did The New York Times botch the weapons of mass destruction story so magnificently? According to the editors' mini culpa of May 26, 2004, many of the stories the Times published during in the run-up to the war

… 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. 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 most prominent of those exiles was Ahmad Chalabi, "an occasional source in Times articles since at least 1991," who "introduced reporters to other exiles" and "became a favorite of hard-liners within the Bush administration and a paid broker of information from Iraqi exiles." And one of the most prolific chroniclers of Chalabi's views and those of his Iraqi National Congress camp was Times reporter Judith Miller, who wrote or co-wrote at least nine of the "problematic" stories the Times cited in its mini culpa.


Miller was detailed to the oil-for-food scandal by the Times after its self-examination, but she emerged from the woodshed yesterday (Jan. 30) to appear on Hardball with stunning news that, if true, belongs in The New York Times, not on cable TV as talk show filler.

Citing unnamed "sources," Miller claimed that the Bush administration had recently made "belated and sudden outreaches" to Ahmad Chalabi, "to offer him expressions of cooperation and support." She continued, "And according to one report, he was even offered a chance to be an interior minister in the new government. But I think one effect of this vote is going to be that the Iraqis themselves will decide who will hold."

Read more.

[baby_bear]

4. Are Miller and Chalabi of the same cloth?

What I mean is, are they both simply and only self-serving? I think so. But are they on the "same side"? Do they have similar objectives as far as Iraq goes, or does it all begin and end with each one's self-aggrandizement?

They both seem like something i would want to scrape off my shoe.

b_b

[VegasWolf]

5. If true, it's revenge time for Chabli against bushie. This election is

looking better and better all the time!

[muriel_volestrangler]

6. What the hell is going on here?

One Iraqi who may hold the key to Mr. Chalabi's future is Moktada al-Sadr, the young cleric who led a series of armed uprisings against the American military last year. According to aides for both men, Mr. Sadr has promised to back Mr. Chalabi in his bid to become prime minister. Despite his outlaw status - he is under indictment for murder and has been in hiding for months - Mr. Sadr fielded several candidates in the election. Together, his allies appear likely to emerge as the largest single block inside the Shiite alliance, with as many as 21 seats.

Though the others deny that al-Sadr has said he's supporting anyone.

I think Juan Cole is as likely to call this correctly as anyone:

The system is set up so that a two-thirds majority is necessary to form a government. The United Iraqi Alliance needs to pick up 18 percent or about 50 seats to go forward. The easy place to get those 50 seats is from the Kurds, who have 70 or so. This step will require that substantial concessions be made to the Kurds, who want the presidency, a redrawing of the provincial map of Iraq to creat a united Kurdistan province, and substantial provincial autonomy or "states rights."
...
Although a two-thirds majority is required to form the government, it is not clear that it is required for anything else in ordinary parliamentary life. Most measures can probably be passed with 51 percent. The only other situations for which the interim constitution specifies that more than a majority is needed are in over-ruling a presidential veto and in removing and replacing the president. This stipulation would mean that on some laws and other measures, the United Iraqi Alliance could have its way in parliament by just picking up 3 percent of the seats via an alliance with smaller parties such as the Sadrists. So although they need the Kurds at first, they may not always need them subsequently.
...
The Sadrists are important in several provincial governments and will represent a small swing vote in parliament. To the extent that they vote with the UIA, they could well help give the latter a majority in parliament on some votes. But their center of power remains the festering slums of the south, representing a well of bio-power that could yet be deployed for extra-parliamentary political purposes if the new government continues to disappoint Iraqi expectations on security and economic issues. The Sadrists are divided on how closely to support the son of the founder of their movement, Muqtada al-Sadr, but they are united in wanting an Islamic government.

I just saw Ahmad Chalabi on CNN declaring his candidacy for prime minister. It is hard for me to see how he could get the post, since the big winners in the election are the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq and the Dawa Party, and they would have prior claim on the post. Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress only has ten seats in parliament. The only way Chalabi could become PM is if all the members of parliament were heavily bribed (by Iran?). Even then, it is hard to see how SCIRI and Dawa could be mollified over the loss of a post they believe to be rightfully theirs. Chalabi is an operator, and may get a cabinet post or a committee chairmanship. I doubt he will get more than that.

http://www.juancole.com/2005/02/shiites-kurds-win-big-bush-loses.html

Oops - update: due to the oddities of the 'proportional' representation used (which I still haven't fully understood), the UIA seems to have ended up with either 140 or 141 seats - ie an absolute majority in the assembly (see Juan Cole update. So for their day-to-day votes, the UIA don't need to ally with anyone.

[saigon68]

7. OUR MAN IN BAGHDAD

[Supersedeas]

8. he knows who butters his bread

[saigon68]

12. The Bush Criminals---That's who

And the U.S. Taxpayer who has paid this Thug and his minions for years now.

[leesa]

9. I guess Bush doesn't care that he sold secret information to Iran

Of course, why else would he have given it to Chalabi in the first place if he didn't want Iran to have it?

[Mark E. Smith]

10. Total Fantasy

The Timorous Times is still pushing the pipe dream that a so-called democracy is going to take hold in Iraq. The issue they and so many other news sources ignore is that the winners of the vote in Iraq are anti-US and pro-Iranian fundamentalist theocrats whose number one campaign promise to their similarly minded constituents was that they would get American troops out of their country as quickly as possible. And once they live up to that campaign promise the help of Iranian forces in their struggle with the Sunni insurgency will be a certainty.

The only role the treacherous and untrustworthy Mr. Chalabi is going to get in the new Iraqi govt is target.


Bush was here.

[Jack Rabbit]

11. A few notes

As noted in the root thread, this was posted as a companion to another thread discussing Dr. Allawi's attempt to remain in power after a poor showing by his slate. The latest post-election report from the BBC speaks of the United Iraqi Alliance and the Kurdish parties forming a coalition. The piece only mentions Dr. Allawi as the leader of the slate the finished a distant third; he is more likely to be swept into the dust bin of history and will be remembered there as little more than the Bushies' water boy.

The main features of a coalition of the Shias and Kurds will be a Kurdish president and a Prime Minister from the UIA. However, we should bear in mind the UIA was a very broad group itself. It really stood for nothing more than placing Iraq in control of the Shias, who are now a majority of the population (they weren't at the time Saddam took power). It is the sort of party one might see in the nation-building phase of a country's history, but soon falls apart into different factions as soon as the Constitution is established; think of how in our history President Washington's cabinet represented a broad-based new America, but Hamilton and Jefferson, both members of that cabinet, soon formed new independent parties in opposition to each other.

So, if the elections decided anything, it is that the Shias will have more to say about Iraq's future than anybody else. But which Shias? Some Shias want to make Iraq into Iran-lite. These are the ones about whom we read most, being that their religious leaders are of this mind. Others are more urbane.

There are other factions with whom the transitional government must concern itself. The Shias make up about 60% of the population, but it must respect the needs and desires of the various groups that make up the other 40%, including the Sunnis, who largely abstained from the electoral process.

Unfortunately, one of the factions wielding influence over Iraqi affairs isn't Iraqi; it is the Bush administration. The Bushies invaded Iraq two years for various stated reasons, such as a desire to rid Iraq of Saddam and a biochemical arsenal and his alliance with terrorists and to bring democracy to Iraq. All of these stated reasons were false. Even these elections would not have been held except that Ayatollah Sistani demanded them and was ready to send Iraq's Shias out in mass demonstrations to back up that demand. The neoconservatives in Washington have no desire to bring democracy to Iraq, only a desire to impose a neoliberal economic structure on the country with all the attendant ills that neoliberalism has brought elsewhere. The invasion was gunboat diplomacy with cruise missiles.

The stated goals of the United Iraqi Alliance fly in the face of Iraq's colonial rulers in Washington. Planks in the UIA program call for the US to set a timetable for the withdrawal of troops and for keeping Iraqi resources in Iraqi hands to be used for the benefit of Iraqis. As said by Naomi Klein, a severe critic of neoliberalism, the Iraqi people gave the neocons the purple finger. There can be no doubt that most Iraqis want the transitional government to follow through on this part of the UIA program. Iraqis voted for a slate and a program, not individual candidates. For security concerns, the names of the candidates were often withheld, but the UIA platform was made known to the people who meet in Iraq's Shiite Mosques.

That the Iraqi people don't want a continuation of American colonialism is made obvious by the failure of the Iraqi List, headed by Iyad Allawi, a visible symbol of American colonialism, to garner even 14% of the vote. Through his failure, the occupation was repudiated.

However, the Bushies will still attempt to subvert the will of the Iraqi people through subterfuge. As pointed out, the UIA is broad based. One cannot assume that each member of the slate is lock step with its printed program. It is possible that some of the most prominent members of the UIA have no intention of following through on the UIA's program. For example, it is worth mentioning that Dr. Chalabi ran on the UIA slate. Ms. Klein warns that another such member of the UIA is Adel Abd al-Mahdi, who may become Iraq's Prime Minister when the bargaining is done.

Events should be watched carefully in the coming weeks.