Thursday, June 24, 2004


Yes, Mr. Wolfowitz, we're all a bit puzzled

An AP story reports that Paul Wolfowitz finds Ahmed Chalabi's recent behavior "puzzling."
Chalabi has blamed the CIA for his problems and denied wrongdoing. The CIA and Chalabi have been at odds for years.

"I am surprised that he seems to be the target, for many years, of particular animus from some parts of this government," Wolfowitz said. "But on the other hand, there are aspects of his recent behavior that are puzzling to me." He did not elaborate on what those activities were.
Yes, a bit puzzling. Wolfowitz obviously still thinks that Chalabi is a stand up guy. So it's understandable that Chalabi's recent behavior would puzzle somebody who does not grasp the larger picture, that of a con man who has cashed in and skipped town. Also in the story:
Chalabi's star has fallen in recent months because much of the intelligence his group supplied on Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction programs failed to pan out. Last month, U.S. soldiers and Iraqi police raided his residence and office. Allegations then surfaced that he supplied Iran with classified U.S. intelligence on American monitoring of Iranian communications.

"There's a mixed picture there," he said. "We know from our commanders that some of the intelligence that his organization has provided us has saved American lives and enabled us to capture some key enemy targets."
Saved American lives? Providing false claims of WMD that led us into war has cost almost 875 US service members their lives. Saved American lives. Please, Mr. Wolfowitz, I'd rather not hear about Ahmed Chalabi saving American lives from you, if you don't mind. Wolfowitz then went on to talk about the Iraq-Al Qaeda connection.
"I don't need proof of involvement in September 11th to be concerned that Saddam Hussein is providing mutual support to Al Qaida," he said. "It seems to me it's like saying if someone breeds Rottweilers and leaves the gate open but doesn't tell the dog who to attack that he's not operationally involved in the thing."
Let me get this straight- we're talking about attack dogs here? Like the kind they used to scare the piss out of prisoners (literally)at, say, Abu Ghraib prison? And you don't need a direct connection to prove that if a dog attacks somebody, there is a larger responsiblity for the dog breeder. This dog breeder can't, for example, chalk it up to "a few bad apples" amongst the dog's he's bred and claim that he was not operationally involved in the thing. Thanks for the clarification, Mr. Wolfowitz. Very enlightening.

[I must credit my fantastic Aunt Deb for passing this AP story along to me]

Comments: Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?