Thought I'd post some of the spin I've been seeing from neo-con pundits and the right-wing
hoi polloi at various sites, and some suggested responses.
Some themes I've seen (really!):
- Clinton was the one who first brought Chalabi on-board
- This just shows how incompetent the CIA is, since it's their job to prevent intelligence disasters like this
- This is just a CIA-backed smear campaign
- The INC wouldn't have had to turn to the Iranians if only the US had supported them enough.
- But Colin Powell and the State Dept are dealing with the Iranians, too!
My responses below.
1. Clinton was the one who first brought Chalabi on-board
Response: Talk about chutzpah! Yes, we first started paying Chalabi under Clinton, in the mid 1990s, but the Clinton Admin very quickly decided that Chalabi was not a guy we wanted to work with and tried to dump him. It was the out-of-power neocons who were pushing Chalabi at the admin, and it was the GOP Congress that passed the Iraq Liberation Act that directed us to give $$$ to the INC. They were bitching all through the late 1990s that Clinton wouldn't hand over the cash.
I've mostly seen this at discussion boards like FreeRepublic, LGF, CommandPost, etc. Few in those crowds ever gave Chalabi much credence -- "About time we dumped him!" is a common reaction. But "Clinton hired him" is a way of avoiding the notion that their respected leaders screwed so badly.
2. This just shows how incompetent the CIA is, since it's their job to prevent intelligence disasters like this. Tenent should be fired!
Response: So much chutzpah I'm spitting up my coffee. See above. It was the CIA that ditched Chalabi, and that has doubted him all along.
3. This is just a CIA-backed smear campaign
This is the party line from the hardcore neocons who are stickin', like Perle, Leeden, Myrolie, etc. (a small crowd now; even Frum is backing away)
Response: Does kinda conflict with argument #2, but no matter. The latest stories say it is the DEFENSE Intelligence Agency (DIA) that has the goods on these accusations. DIA reports to Rumsfeld and that has been much less skeptical of Chalabi than the CIA. This is not the special little group that Rummy set up in the Secretary's office, however. That's the "Office of Special Plans", the DIA is the official intelligence shop in the Pentagon.
Plus, the order for the recent raid came straight from Bush, who apparently had some very frank conversations about Chalabi with King Abdullah recently.
So, it's a couple of dozen neo-con pundits vs the CIA, DIA, CPA, State Dept., the military, and President Bush himself. But of course, we're all wrong and they're right. It's a shame America as a nation is just not worthy of their insights and leadership.
If Bush is so blind or unable to control those feckless America haters in our government, then how is he such a strong, wise leader?
And, why do the neo-cons trust an Iranian-backed Iraqi with a criminal record more than they trust the U.S. government? More than they trust George Bush himself.
4. The INC wouldn't have had to turn to the Iranians if only the US had supported them enough.
Michael Leeden is actually arguing this.
Response: Even if true, why in God's name does that mean we should still back Chalabi? That argument suggests that you're not backing Chalabi because he'd be best for America, but simply because you back Chalabi -- more than you back America.
"I support Jones for D.A., because he will take on the Mafia. It's true that since he had trouble raising money, he had to take secret bribes from the Mafia to let mobsters out of jail. I'm just sad the people are too stupid to see that Jones is our only hope for fighting crime."
5. But the Colin Powell and the State Dept are dealing with the Iranians, too!?
Response: Talking to, yes. Talking to in their capacity as diplomats, dealing with the government of a sovereign nation (however noxious), yes.
Handing over top-secret military information without authorization? No. Taking secret, personal payoffs from Tehran? No. Actively and knowingly feeding us disinformation from Tehran? No.
The two cases are identical only if you think that Dwight Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan are identical to Alger Hiss and Aldridge Ames. "Talking to" is the same as "spying for", after all. Some neocons would go almost that far -- they were quite critical of Reagan in the late 1980s -- but fortunately most Americans can see the difference.
Plus, this response reflects the neocons' obsession with fighting the State Dept and the CIA, while ignoring the broader political context.
If the infighting between agencies has gotten this bad, or if both Powell and Rumsfeld are getting the US mixed up with Tehran, then how about we just say a pox on all their houses and elect John Kerry instead?