A Man With Very Little Skill and Knowledge

by Eric Martin

Below is an excerpted Al-Hayat interview with Ahmed Chalabi, the man who the neoconservative braintrust (oxymoron?) promoted, during the run-up to the invasion, as the next leader of Iraq.  The same man whose word was bond in the Bush administration, and whose organization was funded with a monthly six-figure stipend in order to produce useful, if almost always spectacularly erroneous, intelligence. 

It is likely the case that there were some neocons and/or Bush administration officials that were using Chalabi, cynically, to further their own ends.  But it is also likely the case that some were sincerely duped by the Iraqi snake oil salesman.  Here's the thing, though: regardless of the underlying credulity, they were all being taken for a ride.  From Matt Duss:

[Al-Hayat]: If you want to describe George Bush, then how would you describe him?

[Chalabi]: A man with very little skill and knowledge.

[Al-Hayat]: He did Iran a great service by toppling Saddam?

[Chalabi]: Iran benefited from toppling Saddam. Bush didn’t mean to do it a favor but it was clear that Iran would benefit from Saddam’s fall. I am convinced that Saddam would not have fallen except for an implicit agreement between America and Iran.

[Al-Hayat]: This happened?

[Chalabi]: Yes, of course it did.

[Al-Hayat]: Through whom?

[Chalabi]: We worked on this and so did the Supreme Council and Jalal Talbani.

The idea that Iran has been the main beneficiary of the Iraq war isn’t particularly controversial any more — except, of course, among the war’s neoconservative advocates, who continue to insist that removing Iran’s greatest enemy and empowering Iraqi factions with longstanding close ties to Iran was a huge defeat for Iran. Incidentally, many of these people — Sen. John McCain and his adviser Randy Scheunemann among them — were also Chalabi’s biggest boosters.

Like Ricks, I’d be very interested to hear more about the “implicit agreement” that Chalabi asserts between the U.S. and Iran. Given what’s known now about Chalabi’s cooperation with Iran’s intelligence services, though, it’s pretty chilling to consider how close some of Chalabi’s marks came to taking the White House last November. Unfortunately, as shown by the continuing prominence of McCain, Bill Kristol, Robert Kagan and other neocon fantasists, inadvertently aiding America’s enemies is no barrier to influence in American foreign policy, as long as one is always careful to err on the side of war, and meticulous in dressing one’s belligerent strategic stupidity in patriotic drag.

From Tehran's perspective, with enemies like us, who needs ultra-powerful military proxies to do their bidding?  The ruling regime was no doubt crestfallen when Obama was elected, as opposed to McCain.  Now Obama's gone and made life harder for them. 

For a change.

Comments

[d'd'd'dave]

"Ahmed Chalabi, the man who [provided] ... useful, if almost always spectacularly erroneous, intelligence" now says George Bush is "A man with very little skill and knowledge."

So, is Chalabi a liar or not?

[Eric Martin]

So, is Chalabi a liar or not?

Although it's painfully obvious to point out, alas I must: even liars aren't lying all the time dave.

Chalabi clearly lied to the Bush team to get what he and Iran wanted. Is he lying by pointing that out now?

Unlikely, but possible.

What's the evidence to counter this?

[d'd'd'dave]

"Unlikely, but possible."

Yes. That's enough to discredit his testimony. His testimony appears to be the basis of your story. How much weight then should we place on your story?

[brent]

So, is Chalabi a liar or not?

Yes, he is a liar. What does this have to do with him stating an opinion on George Bush's intelligence. Do you mean to suggest that he is lying about his opinion? That he thinks George Bush is very skillful and knowledgable but would like us to believe otherwise? That would be awfully odd but not out of the realm of possibilities I suppose.

[Elemenope]

When a person is possibly lying, look for a motive to lie.

Before, the motive was clear and the lie was thus likely.

This time, do you see a reason for him to lie?

[d'd'd'dave]

"Do you mean to suggest that he is lying about his opinion? "

Many of the 'intelligence' morsels he provided to the administration were relied on because his reputed close associations gave credence to his opinion. His 'expert' opinion gave cover to his lies. Now, are we to believe opinion is not a lie?

"That he thinks George Bush is very skillful and knowledgable but would like us to believe otherwise? That would be awfully odd but not out of the realm of possibilities I suppose."

I think that Chalabi has shown he is adept at telling his listeners what he thinks they want to hear so that they will empower him. Who can empower him now that Bush is out of power? Oh look, it's people who want to hear that Bush lacks sill and knowledge. Suddenly Chalabi doesn't lie anymore?

Please.

[Elemenope]

Yes, the path to power is calling Bush the Lesser an idiot.

What?

[Donald Johnson]

Do we really need Chalabi's insights to know that Bush is an idiot? As usual, d'd'd'dave zeroes in on trivialities.

The more interesting claim is that there was an "implicit agreement" between the US and Iran. I have no idea what Chalabi means by that, and no particular reason to treat this claim as believable. When he says Bush didn't mean to do Iran a favor, but there was an implicit agreement, it seems a little contradictory to me.

[Eric Martin]

Do we really need Chalabi's insights to know that Bush is an idiot? As usual, d'd'd'dave zeroes in on trivialities.

Exactly!

I wasn't relying on Chalabi saying that as evidence of the assertion. That's just res ipsa loquitur.

But I don't see how it helps ingratiate Chalabi to the current admin by pointing out how the US just blew trillions of dollars and thousands of lives for the benefit of Iran.

[dmbeaster]

d'd'd'dave -- the point is that the guy given so much credence by Bush neocons has now stated his opinion that Bush was a moron. Is he being truthful? Not the point (though its funny to see him say it). The point is that the con man has just explained why his target was such an easy mark.

Just remember this the next time things don't go well because you opted to put your faith in a serial liar who thought you were a moron.

[russell]

Who can empower him now that Bush is out of power? Oh look, it's people who want to hear that Bush lacks sill and knowledge. Suddenly Chalabi doesn't lie anymore?

Yes, Chalabi realized he could flatter those bush-haters on the liberal blogs and harness their awesome political might to further his nefarious ends.

So, in an interview with Arab language newspaper Al Hayat, he called Bush a man of little skill and knowledge.

This, in spite of his awareness of Bush's acute and penetrating intellect and political adroitness.

He's a clever one, that Chalabi.

[Eric Martin]

What Russel and dmbeaster said.

[Woody]

I think there's an excellent--well, better than average-- chance that Chalabi becomes the next Iraqi strongman, if he lives...

[Hartmut]

And he has a son walking in his footsteps iirc.

[Cal Gal]

Chalabi is, has been, and always will be a con man.

He tells the mark what they want to hear.

Not that W wasn't an man of no skill and little knowledge -- he's shown that nearly every moment of his adult life, starting with Arbusto and ending with whatever he did on his last day in the White House.

But whether or not there was an "implicit agreement with Iran" there WAS a pretty much EXPLICIT agreement with Haliburton and the military industrial complex. Watch Farenheit 911 again.

Chalabi was just one factor in the neocons' plan to go to war in Iraq. It was convenient for them to believe him, and it was convenient for him to mislead them.

But Chalabi had no real power base in Iraq and still doesn't. Iran, perhaps. And it sure looks like that's where he's trying to get to the top now.

[Gary Farber]

"Watch Farenheit 911 again."

Well, that's a pretty terrible cite.