Chalaby's Fall from Imperial Favor

Discussion in 'World Events' started by hypewaders, May 20, 2004.

  1. Undecided Banned Banned

    obviously an invasion is the last option out of the several ones, but they all start with a "regime change policy"

    It wasn't an option no where does it state that an American invasion can be allowed. This is a Bush policy imitative, not a Clinton era one. The Invasion of Iraq was rejected by Clinton in 1998 when both the UK and Israel were pushing for it after the UNSCOM fiasco. The furtherist the doc. goes is to say:


    (A) The President is authorized to direct the drawdown of defense articles from the stocks of the Department of Defense, defense services of the Department of Defense, and military education and training for such organizations.

    (B) The aggregate value (as defined in section 644(m) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961) of assistance provided under this paragraph may not exceed $97,000,000.

    Not much to go on, Chalabi helped mastermind it as well. So obviously there is a connection, the US looks like she may have been duped into doing the bidding of Iran. Also the US seems to be using 2(b) to fund Chalabi: Much of this money has never been accounted for, and the State Department eventually concludes that Chalabi has been raking off a percentage. Yet you will still make a stab at it won't ya? I suggest you learn about the man before you utter more nonsense oth. It's not very becoming of you...
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. otheadp Banned Banned

    military intervention was rejected at the time.
    but it was approved by the Congress later on with the Regime Change policy in mind.

    the new policy was a continuation - it was built on - the Regime Change policy.

    Yet reality repressor will still make a stab at it won't ya?
    do you have to be so arrogant to make your point?
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Undecided Banned Banned

    but it was approved by the Congress later on with the Regime Change policy in mind.

    But sadly this is not what you stated, you stated it was the Regime Change policy which is actually called the Iraq Liberation Act (the least you could oth is know the name of the thing). They had in mind that the US had taken a stand of wanting to change the regime in Iraq, but no where does it state that the US would do it. You tried to shift the onus of the Clinton administration; well it’s solely the Bush administration that did the bidding on this one (with some help from Tehran teehee, and "respected" Chalabi).

    do you have to be so arrogant to make your point?

    Sorry, I was being quite rude and crude.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Mr. G reality.sys Valued Senior Member

    Inbreeders, all.

    You're all no different than the Christers/Islamidroids for the sh*t you believe.

    Einstein was correct in his innate suspicion of the infinitude of group-think stupidity.
  8. hypewaders Save Changes Registered Senior Member

    Ay, Chalabi.

    I just wanted to say "Ay, Chilaby".

    Sorry, mang.
    Last edited: May 26, 2004
  9. DeeCee Valued Senior Member

    So what is it exactly that you think I believe G?

    I can tell you what I know.
    The accusations against Chalabi go back a long way and are widely known.,3604,938169,00.html

    He played a large part in pushing the US into the disaster that was the disbanding of the Iraqi army. feb 23 2003

    He has a personal army of 3000 US trained troops.,3604,876396,00.html

    The State department wanted to cut off his funding way back in 2002,3604,739411,00.html

    He has unusual friends.,3604,1057470,00.html

    Thats what I know. So tell me again G what is it you think I believe?
    Dee Cee
  10. MacZ Caroline Registered Senior Member

    Validity of Chalabi's conviction - Some links
    Apologies for not giving links yesterday. Here are a couple, with excerpts.

    Take note that the Arthur Anderson audit/report formed the basis of Jordanian charges against him - he wasn't "framed.",3604,936196,00.html
    Reports compiled at the time by investigators in London and Jordan, including investigations by the accountants Arthur Andersen, describe how millions of dollars of depositors' money was transferred to other parts of the Chalabi family empire in Switzerland, Lebanon and London, and not repaid...

    The report by Arthur Andersen subsequently found that the bank's assets had been overstated by $200m. In three main areas, there were huge bad debts (about $80m); "unsupported foreign currency balances at counter-party banks" (about $20m); and money purportedly due to the bank which could not be found (about $60m)…

    Many of the bank's bad loans were to Chalabi-linked companies. The Swiss and Lebanese firms, Mebco and Socofi, were subsequently put into liquidation too…

    It accused Mr Chalabi of being the man directly responsible for "fictitious deposits and entries to make the income ... appear larger; losses on shares and investments; bad debts ... to Abhara company and Al Rimal company"....

    The technical report contains 106 "chapters", each dealing with different specific irregularities or irregular activities. In most of these, Mr Chalabi is clearly named as the person on whose authority the irregular transactions were carried out….

    As Mr Chalabi was eventually tried in a military state security court, he cannot be extradited, though if he became Iraqi leader he would be unable to visit Jordan.
    Last week, the Guardian in London reported that it had reviewed documents on the Petra Bank collapse prepared by Arthur Andersen that revealed that the bank's assets had been overstated by $200 million as a result of bad debts, unsupported foreign currency balances and money owed the bank that was unaccounted for.
    The Arthur Andersen audit was commissioned after the Jordanian central bank, ignorant of the real and disastrous situation inside Petra, accepted full responsibility for the bank's debts and deposits. The accountants' confidential report, delivered in January 1990 and as thick as a phone directory, showed that Petra was rotten to the core in large part because of "transactions with parties related to the former management of the Bank (ie the Lebanese and Swiss banks managed by Chalabi's brothers, which had already gone broke.) Overall, instead of the $40 million or so net balance depicted in Chalabi's version of the books, Petra had a deficit of over $215 million, which the accountants indicated had "the potential" to grow to $350 million.
  11. hypewaders Save Changes Registered Senior Member

    ... but he helped Israel too, so you don't have to hover, not knowing to like the man or not, Pothead. Chalaby's mishpokha! Don't hesitate to claim him.

    Even though it seems, he's been around the baggage carousel a few too many times, like the Bush Administration will be, as deceivers always do- going round and round, in the Baggage Claims.

    Have we got some big bags, America? Dripping Red white, and Blue all over (but mostly red)? Nobody else is going to claim the "Hyperpower Special" which is designed to reshuffle geopolitics quite proufoundly & they're gonna bring it on home 2U:C.O.D. through our pores if they must.

    You trust, that if we take it to the limit, we get Another Time but we don't,see, got rone worlds to live thru, & ain't gonna copy u, so Let it Be, Jude. Relax. Don't Do It, when you got the Bomb.

    BTW I am diligently keeping, as ordered by my pissed-off inner Buddha, the little book with Bushevik identities, the Anarchist Cookbook, and stocking up on Instant Karma. Jai'shiva shankar.
    Last edited: May 29, 2004
  12. bandwidthbandit Registered Senior Member

    While he is a con man, I think the administration always knew of his faults and he is being set up as an escape goat for all of the administrations failures in Iraq.
  13. hypewaders Save Changes Registered Senior Member

  14. DeeCee Valued Senior Member

    At least this potential dictator went bad before we installed him.
    That, at least, makes a refreshing change.
    Dee Cee
  15. hypewaders Save Changes Registered Senior Member

    That's very true! A more adept US leadership would have had Chalaby firmly in power faster than you could say "Aw, P'Shah", and the regime would not have blown up in our faces for many years. History will not be kind to the Rumsfeldmarshal, who shared a grand vision for empire, but who failed to comprehend that because the Age of Empires is over, its vain echos require even more foot soldiers and ruthlessness than ever.
  16. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Chalabi Goose Chase
    Definitely the name of my yacht if I ever own one

    It has a nice ring to it: "The Chalabi Goose Chase arrived at Quartermaster Harbor after a brief tour of the islands . . . ."

    Or maybe a racehorse: "And at the wire it's Chalabi Goose Chase by a nose!" Dreams of a Triple Crown dance like proverbial sugar-plum faeries. Faeries that wear boots. For stomping sugar-plums into wine. Because drunk is a great way to go about playing spectator to the Iraqi Bush Adventures. I mean, normally, when a nation is neck deep in bush, that's supposed to be a good thing.

    In other words, I'm aware that nobody really cares about the sad tale of Dr. Chalabi, and certes I don't feel much sympathy. Lie with--or to--the dogs, and fleas will be the least of your worries. Dr. Chalabi gets what he asked for much in the same fashion that interesting times are a curse.

    Nonetheless, perhaps it's time to take a scandal count. I mean, polygraphs in the alleged Chalabi espionage; there's an investigation into the Plame disclosure. And ... here's an issue that's been gnawing at me only a little, but has been gnawing nonetheless: In the wake of Abu Ghraib, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld moved to ban the possession and use of camera-phones at US military installations. It seriously took a human rights scandal the kind to blacken America's eye and kick her in the unspeakable before the issue of camera-phones occurred to anyone?

    Wartime being what it is ... and all other things aside ... what's up with the Bush administration and protecting American secrets?

    The principles motivating the Iraq war aside; the apparent lack of foresight in the Iraq occupation aside; the yet-unknown relationship between the administration and one of the largest financial scandals to hit the country in a while aside; the blithering and dithering on human rights aside; the rape of the US Constitution and the backhanding of the Geneva Conventions aside; the sheer emotional hollowness of this administration aside . . . .

    Is it just jealousy in the wake of Teflon Willie that compels the Bush League to behave under the brazen influence of denial? I'm aware that compared to the rest, this is small beans for the Bush administration, but where and when isn't this administration flat-out dangerous to the people and institutions of the United States.

    Of course, since the media that has bent over backwards to accommodate the administration is so obviously conspiratorially liberal, I would invite anyone to help me out here. What's up with the leaky ship of state?

    • Johnston, David and James Risen. "Polygraph Testing Starts at Pentagon in Chalabi Inquiry." New York Times, June 3, 2004. See
  17. hypewaders Save Changes Registered Senior Member

    "What's up with the leaky ship of state?"

    -Corruption and obsolescence. The presently most powerful barons in the US are very worried about the survival of their concept of American identity, power and hegemony. As a result, they are in an outwardly (somewhat) poised but innerly frantic "Damn the Torpedoes" mode. All Constitutional, legal, fiscal, and security issues are secondary to a reckless grab at the New American Century while there is still time. They have already completely lost the support or even friendship of the world, and are losing the same domestically. But from their lofty positions, it's hard to see clearly, and there will remain in crises ahead the powerful temptation to unleash even more fear and death. But "bombing the rubble", and killing tens of thousands more can not preserve them, nor their interests. Surreally, they refuse to understand that a major and assymetrical global upheaval will impart much greater negative effects on highly developed nations than on developing ones. Yet the campaign rolls onward.

Share This Page