WAIT A MINUTE! Is Chalabi revelation PART of the plan??? Invade Iran?

[homelandpunk]

Invading the second country on the axis of evil. The Chalabi thing was too apparent....as in the appearance that Chalabi double crossed us, when it might be that Chalabi is part of a ruse that he is an agent for Iran, as part of a reason to invade Iran.
I would like to flesh this out, but it just crossed my mind, because I know they want to invade Iran, and with the newest "musings" from Moron that he sees a WW2 scenario in the middle east, I would have to say Iran would have to be drawn in or invaded to get the WW2 style conflagration Bush is alluding to.
Anyway, I think Chalabi is part of a propaganda effort to sway the american public to whip up hatred of Iran.
It is not a story about a double crossed US administration. It is about a triple crossed american public. Chalabi a counter-counter mole for the shadow government.
Any thoughts?

[ChompySnack]

1. Unlikely

As a reason to start a war "we got conned so we gots to get them back" would be laughable. Besides, with what troops?

[homelandpunk]

8. The Pentagon denies draft is coming. Aaaaaaand you? believe? them?

No. Really. Do you think the draft is unlikely? I don't.

[VolcanoJen]

2. Get OUT! Shut UP!!! Shhhhh!!!

It's all a part of defining the "Axis of Evil." But we're supposed to look the other way when it comes to propaganda, and identify with the concept of Chalabi as "Bad Cop," Bush as "Good Cop."

Didn't you get the email?

/tart

[Jacobin]

3. Why people attribute such

astute planning and clever manipulation to this gang of incompetent thieves in the WH is beyond me.

[jjmalonejr]

5. Amen!

I'm so tired of people who believe that the Bush cabal really has that much control over events. The may be corrupt MF's, but they clearly aren't as effective as legend has it.

[Kahuna]

19. Bushco no longer have the element of surprise. Before, no could..

have dreamed up the stuff they come up with. Now it's old hat.

[Trajan]

6. Im with you on this one ....

Chalabi is a fallen angel, careening into the abyss already occupied by his more prominent AEI friends ...

Chalabi is an egotistical opportunist: there is no way he would fall on his sword to benefit those who blew up his gravy train ...

More than likely this is grandiose bumbling ....

[homelandpunk]

7. Did I say those in the WH?

I think the incompetence of the shadow government is that it can NEVER play out as planned, but they will never stop planning. Bush is an outer circle ruse, not even a player. Do I think Bush has a clue to who Chalabi is? Hell no.
Btw, the CIA is investigating this Chalabi thing. Rrrrriiiight. Good thing we have transparency.

[Jacobin]

9. So, it would be whom? The Martians?

[homelandpunk]

11. Right. I said the shadow gov is Martians.

Your dormant, untapped paranoia beckons you. C'mon. Give it a try.
At least you used "whom" and not "who". Points for that.

[Jacobin]

15. Which shadow do they hide in?

Sorry, but my tinfoil is wearing thin. I don't dismiss all conspiracy thoughts by any stretch.

I just have trouble believing that the ship of fools in this country has a fucking clue as to ANTHING they are doing.

Names? Positions? Any other information you can share?

Appears to me that the government is in total disarray and that State, Pentagon, WH, CIA are all warring amongst themselves trying to point the blamee for the mega-fuckups at each other.

That, to me, reflects no cunning. Simply massive corruption and incompetence.

[homelandpunk]

16. My credulity foil is wearing thin.

They did not know about Chalabi till....Now. Rrrrrriiiight.
<Names? Positions?> That irrelevant little group called PNAC is a good start.
Arrogant, large scale, world-altering plans will cause disarray in the larger government overall....what's important for the cabal is that "the center holds". You don't see Rumsfeld dumped. The cry for his resignation is already over. As far as they are concerned, they are on track.

[Jacobin]

18. Lemme get this straight....

Ya think the fucking PNACers, those fricking idjits that manipulated MonkeyMan into this foolhardy mess are behind this "clever" thing?

They used Chalabi for their ends. Chalabi used PNACers for his, he thought he would be the next Saddam.

Its ALL blown up in their faces and they are about to ALL be booted out of power in shame. See 2004 election.

I give up.

I'll agree to respectfully disagree with you.

[Fleshdancer]

4. This was my first thought

I even asked this on a thread discussing the Chalabi leak to Iran. It doesn't make sense to me that this admin would truly trust Chalabi...and the fact that Iran was flagged as one of the countries involved in the "axis of evil" makes this much more interesting. What would this guy, Chalabi, gain from the rising tension from these two countries??? I wonder if this story does 2 things...finally get rid of Chalabi for good and further inflame the relations between the US and Iran which is neccessary to take over the Middle East.

Then again, our armed forces is stretched enough as it is...seems premature to set the seeds for a war with Iran before the draft is finalized.

[AlCzervik]

10. i don't see how

a pre-emptive war with Iran could be done right now. It would of course be a unilateral move and we don't have the troops strength or the will of the American people to take on such a thing. The other big factor is that there are way more people in Iran and the country is much larger. Not gonna happen IMHO.

[Eurobabe]

12. I was wondering about this too, after reading

some of the stories today, it's all too convenient, boo-hoo now we have no code to know what's happening over there.

[truthspeaker]

13. objective: find someone else to blame

They need a new scapegoat every couple weeks or so. After they blame a bunch of stuff (faulty WMD intelligence, faulty resistance predictions) on Chalabi they'll need 11 more scapegoats between now and November.

[LEW]

14. You must be reading my mind

I had the same thought. Isn't sad that the first thing we think of is this must be another shrub grand scheme to go to war. Shrub is right he is the "war president", and we all believe it...

[homelandpunk]

17. Never thought of it that way.

Yup!! He IS the war pResident...

[Malikshah]

20. Well, that or Syria

Hey, why not make it the trifecta * is so giddy about.

The funny thing is-- when folks accuse of being tinfoilers...all we need do is point out...Iraq....9/11....Enron...

Looks like the tinfoilers have been pretty damn accurate.

[WilliamPitt]

21. See my sig link

[homelandpunk]

22. You have better facts than I. Yet, you raised a question in your article:

<< Is this Chalabi story a calculated ruse by the Bush administration to create an environment where war against Iran would be acceptable?>>

You were ahead of me in raising the question. Obviously it occured to you as well. But what follows in your article after you raised the question never fully puts the question to rest:

<< Clearly, they would like this conflict to become a reality. But reality, in this matter, interferes. Consider a call for war in Iran. The immediate questions would be:

With whose army? Our troops in Iraq are badly stretched, and there aren't many Reserves left. The UN won't have anything to do with another invasion. It is difficult to believe that we would dare use Israel as a proxy force, because we'd lose every other country in the region overnight, including Pakistan, which actually has nuclear weapons.
With whose vote? Congresspeople have constituents, and the constituents are badly disturbed by Iraq already. The war is a mess, and Congress has more than enough political cover to say 'no' this time around. It isn't 2002 anymore.
With what money? Bush has spent hundreds of billions on Afghanistan and Iraq, and has failed (quietly on the first and spectacularly on the second). Because of Iraq, Congress can, and almost certainly will, say no to Iran spending.
With which Pentagon? If you believe Sid Blumenthal's report that the officer corps in the Pentagon is on the edge of revolt because of what has taken place already, it is difficult to imagine a scenario in which they would sit still for yet another military action.>>

I think your research is great, and I see an iceberg where I used to just see the tip. But the idea of the ruse being a correct interpretation is not addressed here. After admitting of the possibility of such a ruse to perpetrate an Iran crisis/conflict, you say "Clearly, they would like this conflict to become a reality."
And then you list why that no longer can work. The central question of this being a ruse they had calculated and hatched - albeit now untenable, and unimplementable - the question of that ruse being part of their working plan they were going with, is not answered. Not that you or any journalist could at this point, know for sure.
But is it your contention that, having raised the idea of such a conspiracy, that the more likely scenario is that the Chalabi affair is part of a CIA foiling the administration, and NOT the playing out of a PNAC plot for war with Iran? Right now I feel 50/50 on those two scenarios. Is there a third I am missing, because Chalabi's identity seems like it must have been known by this admin from the get-go. His true identity was established with the CIA back in '94 wans't it?
Thank you for your time and efforts.