U.S. Troops Surround Chalabi's House

[adios]

I found this story rather interesting. It's clear to me that the US relied quite a bit on Chalabi's (or perhaps his advice is what officials wanted to hear) advice prior to the Iraqi incursion. Much of his advice has been proven to poor IMO. I did find the comment about lack of a search warrant interesting. Are Iraqi courts operative to the point where there are judges making such decisions? What about the oil fields in Iraq anyway?

Middle East - AP
U.S. Troops Surround Chalabi's House

15 minutes ago


By HAMZA HENDAWI, Associated Press Writer

BAGHDAD, Iraq - U.S. soldiers and Iraqi police surrounded the residence of Iraqi politician Ahmad Chalabi on Thursday, and an aide said the troops raided the house ostensibly to search for fugitives.

The aide, Haidar Musawi, accused the Americans of trying to pressure Chalabi, who was a longtime Pentagon (news - web sites) favorite now openly critical of U.S. plans for how much power to transfer to the Iraqis on June 30.

He said the Americans also raided offices of Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress.

"The aim is to put political pressure," Musawi told The Associated Press. "Why is this happening at a time when the government is being formed?"

There was no comment from the U.S. military press office. Police sealed off the residence in the city's fashionable Mansour district and would not allow reporters to approach. At least two Humvees could be seen, with a dozen U.S. troops milling about.

U.S. officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, have accused Chalabi of trying to interfere with an investigation into alleged corruption of the U.N.-run oil-for-food program, in which Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)'s government was allowed to sell oil despite international sanctions to buy food and humanitarian supplies.

Critics allege that former regime officials, in collusion with U.N. figures, skimmed a fortune off the revenues.

Several armed Westerners were also seen, wearing flak vests and using SUVs without license tags — vehicles associated here with U.S. security.

Some people could be seen loading boxes into vehicles, and neighbors said some members of Chalabi's entourage were taken away.

Salem Chalabi, nephew of Ahmad Chalabi and head of the Iraqi war crimes tribunal, said his uncle told him by telephone that Iraqi and American authorities "entered his home and put the guns to his head in a very humiliating way that reminds everyone of the conduct of the former regime."

The younger Chalabi said the reason for the raid was unclear but "they must be afraid of his political movement."

"They came this morning, entered the office of Dr. Ahmad Chalabi and said that they were looking for people," said Abdul Kareem Abbas, an INC official. He said they wanted to make arrests.

The police took personal documents belonging to Chalabi and his computer.

"At the beginning, we tried to resist. But we couldn't because they came with U.S. troops," Abbas said.

Another official, Qaisar Wotwot, said the operation was linked to Chalabi's recent comments demanding full Iraqi control of oil revenues and security after the June 30 transfer of power.

"It's a provocative operation, designed to force Dr. Chalabi to change his political stance," he said.

Another INC official, who refused to give his name, said the raiding party "didn't tell us what they were looking for and they did not show us a search warrant."

No one was arrested, he said.

Musawi said the U.S.-Iraqi force surrounded the compound about 10:30 a.m., while Chalabi, a member of the Iraqi Governing Council, was inside. They told Chalabi's aides that they wanted to search the house for Iraqi National Congress officials wanted by the authorities.

The aides agreed to let one unarmed Iraqi policeman inside to look around.

"The Iraqi police were very embarrassed and said that they (the Americans) ordered them to come and that they didn't know it was Chalabi's house," Musawi said. "The INC is ready to have any impartial and judicial body investigate any accusation against it. There are American parties who have a list of Iraqi personalities that they want arrested to put pressure on the Iraqi political force."

Musawi said the Americans also seized computers from INC offices.

For years, Chalabi's INC had received hundreds of thousands of dollars every month from the Pentagon, in part for intelligence passed along by exiles about Saddam's purported weapons of mass destruction.

Chalabi has come under criticism since large stockpiles of such weapons were never found. Chalabi, a former banker and longtime Iraqi exile, was convicted of fraud in absentia in Jordan in 1992 in a banking scandal and sentenced to 22 years in jail. He has repeatedly denied the charges.

Chalabi has complained recently about U.S. plans to retain control of Iraqi security forces and maintain widespread influence over political institutions after power is transferred from the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority to an Iraqi interim administration at the end of June.

Musawi said Chalabi "had been clear on rejecting incomplete sovereignty....and against having the security portfolio remain in the hands of those who have proved their failure."

[andyfox]

Interesting indeed. I hadn't realize Chalabi was making waves about the incomplete transfer of sovereignty. I don't understand why he would object, though, to an invetigation of fraud during the Hussein regime, unless perhaps some of his current allies had a finger (or hand) in it.

"Salem Chalabi, nephew of Ahmad Chalabi and head of the Iraqi war crimes tribunal, said his uncle told him by telephone that Iraqi and American authorities 'entered his home and put the guns to his head in a very humiliating way that reminds everyone of the conduct of the former regime.'"

I wouldn't be worried about humiliation when there's a gun to my head, but that's just me. Also, I don't know how careful the Chalabi's are about choosing their words, but if they are, the comparison of the U.S. to the Hussein regime would seem to be designed to itself inflict humiliation.

Only a Gore-like miserable campaign can keep Kerry from the oval office. Not that it's beyond him.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand why he would object, though, to an invetigation of fraud during the Hussein regime, unless perhaps some of his current allies had a finger (or hand) in it.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is my understanding. The Iraqis including Chalabi wanted KPMG, from my understanding a top forensic accounting firm, to assist the investigation. Furthermore the Iraqis including Chalabi wanted $5 million to fund the investigation. The US told Chalabi and the Iraqis to pound sand and that the US would conduct the investigation and hire Ernst and Young as the accounting firm to assist the investigation.

My impression is the definition that the US has of complete sovereignty on June 30 is far different than the definition that Iraqis have for complete sovereignty. For one thing it appears that the US does not want to cede total control of the oil fields to Iraq at this time. It's a sticky issue because the proximity of the oil fields in the north to the Kurds and the proximity of the oil fields in the south to the Shiites led by Sistani. Is the US pissing off ALL Iraqi factions now?

Kerry hasn't articulated an exit strategy in Iraq that I know of. Of course neither has Bush.

[andyfox]

"The Pentagon recently ended a program in which it funneled millions of dollars over the years to Chalabi's political organization. The $340,000 monthly payments were partly for intelligence passed along by fellow exiles about Saddam's purported weapons of mass destruction - the Bush administration's stated rationale for the war.

Chalabi has come under criticism because large stockpiles of these weapons were never found. The CIA has long been suspicious of information provided by his organization."

[From an updated AP report]

$340,000 a month for the crap he gave us. Maybe he can deny his first embezzlement conviction, but this embezzlement seems clear.

Where do we come up with friends like these?

[Cyrus]

John Kerry in office (and I quote the news) will do at most a 20 degrees' correction in the course of foreign policy. Don't look for any quick exits from the Iraq quagmire is Kerry inherits it a quagmire. The man is being far from the "raving liberal" that conservatives make him out to be. (And neither, by the way, was Mike Dukakis. Bush is on record as saying so himself, during the presidential campaign no less.)

In other words, the next President of the United States will not know how to fold 'em. (Did anyone?)

[nicky g]

Why do either side care which accountancy firm gets the contract?

[jdl22]

It was pretty funny on Hardball Chris Matthews was interviewing Rumsfeld and asked him about these payments. As usual Rumsfeld got caught up in the use of one word in the question and used his favorite technique to dodge it.

Matthews said something like 'doesn't it look bad that we're hiring this guy before the war and then after he gets a lot of power over there' and Rumsfeld gives the same look he gives when anybody dares to question him and says "come on Chris, hired? you know better than that." Matthews then said something like "well that's how it's going to be perceived in the world" and Rumsfeld never answered the question.

[adios]

Well my take may be wrong /images/graemlins/smile.gif. It's probably a turf war of some sort, however, my understanding is that KPMG is THE number one forensic accounting firm. It's the firm that the Iraqis want so why does the US all of a sudden not want to acquiesce and use Ernst and Young instead? I'll let others propose possible conspiracy theorys regarding the US support of the UN's Brahimi who doesn't want any part of Chalibi and Chalibi and friends opposition to Brahimi. The conspiracy theorists might opine that the US might be making a deal with the UN to sweep the Oil-for-Food scandel under the rug in return for UN support in Iraq thus hiring their (US backed) chosen accountants, Ernst and Young, to facilitate a whitewash.

[nicky g]

Ah I see. Well at least it's not Andersen.

[adios]

Editorial sharply critical of Bush's handling of Chalibi in the WSJ this morning. The rats are leaving the ship /images/graemlins/smile.gif. Here's an article from today's WSJ quoting Chalabi. Apparently an Iraqi judge issued some sort of search warrant. I wasn't aware that Iraq had this kind of legal system in place. Interesting.

Chalabi Suspected
By U.S. of Passing
Secrets to Iran

Intelligence Claims Against
Member of Iraqi Council
Come Amid Mounting Probes
By DAVID S. CLOUD, GARY FIELDS and FARNAZ FASSIHI
Staff Reporters of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
May 21, 2004; Page A6

U.S. intelligence agencies believe Ahmad Chalabi, the former Iraqi exile once strongly backed by some Bush administration officials, may have passed classified information on the American occupation of Iraq to the government of Iran, officials said.

Recent intelligence, including communications intercepts, suggest Mr. Chalabi, who serves on the U.S.-appointed Iraqi Governing Council, provided contacts in Tehran with details of U.S. security operations and political plans, the officials said.

The claims appear to be part of a mushrooming number of investigations of Mr. Chalabi and his political party, the Iraqi National Congress. Senior coalition officials said Thursday that an Iraqi judge had issued an arrest warrant for seven of Mr. Chalabi's employees on charges of corruption, kidnapping, torture, car theft and misuse of government property for personal purposes. Iraqi police Thursday joined by personnel from the Central Intelligence Agency and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, raided Mr. Chalabi's Baghdad house and political party headquarters.


"Is there reason to think he provided sensitive information to Iran?" a U.S. official said. "That's absolutely true."

Mr. Chalabi couldn't be reached to comment Thursday night, but CBS News quoted an aide to Mr. Chalabi, who has long had uneasy relations with the CIA and State Department, calling the allegations "nonsense." The allegations were disclosed on May 2 by Newsweek magazine and were raised again Thursday night in a CBS News broadcast.

At a news conference Thursday before the CBS broadcast, Mr. Chalabi said the raid was politically motivated and prompted by the investigation he is leading into corruption in the United Nations oil-for-food program.

Mr. Chalabi declared, "My relationship with the coalition provisional authority is nonexistent," and called for the U.S. to "let my people be free. It is time for the Iraqi people to run their affairs."

In Washington, meanwhile, President Bush ventured to Capitol Hill to discuss Iraq as part of a White House effort to inject momentum into the transfer of power scheduled for June 30. Meeting with Republican lawmakers for an hour, Mr. Bush stressed that violence in Iraq will continue, but promised to stick to the deadline and move forward at the U.N. to gain recognition for the new interim government.

Mr. Bush plans to deliver a speech Monday at the U.S. Army War College in Carlisle, Pa., as part of a stepped-up effort to convey U.S. goals and plans for Iraq. In the first of several speeches over the next six weeks, he will indicate that the pace of the U.S.-led reconstruction is picking up, with more dollars being pumped into the effort.

It wasn't clear last night whether the U.S. had launched a criminal investigation into the allegations or even the extent to which Mr. Chalabi is covered by U.S. laws prohibiting disclosure of classified information. The FBI appeared to be examining how Mr. Chalabi got access to classified information.

"The FBI's interest is not in Chalabi," said an FBI official. "Our interest is in how he got the information" that he allegedly gave to Iran. A second federal law-enforcement official said the big question for the U.S. government and the coalition is where the information came from. "He wasn't privy to information about our operatives and I don't think we'd trust the guy with the kind of secrets that would get our people killed," he said.


Pres. Bush poses with members of the Iraqi Governing Council (L-R) Mowaffar Al Robaie, Raja Habib Rhjzai, Jalal Talabani and Ahmad Chalabi during a surprise Thanksgiving day visit with U.S. troops in Baghdad in November 2003.


Mr. Chalabi still has supporters in the Pentagon, where some officials once saw him as a possible leader for a post-Saddam Hussein Iraq. But the evidence suggesting he aided Iran may have played a role in the Pentagon this month terminating a contract that paid his organization $340,000 a month for intelligence, officials said.

U.S. officials noted that, while close to Iran even prior to the U.S. invasion, Mr. Chalabi had been drawing closer to Tehran, as it became clear that few Iraqis supported the former exile and even the Bush administration had lost confidence in him. He has become more vocal about criticizing the occupation.

Mr. Chalabi, a member of the Iraqi Governing Council, lived in exile for more than 40 years and returned to Iraq with political backing and hefty financial aid from Washington immediately after the war. Before the war, his organization served as a clearinghouse for Iraqi dissidents, and he won plaudits from many hawks as a capable and trustworthy friend.

Since his return, he hasn't enjoyed popularity among Iraqis, who recalled him as fleeing Iraq at a troubled time and being convicted in absentia by a Jordanian court of bank fraud in 1992 for his role in a bank failure. Mr. Chalabi maintains the charges were politically motivated and without merit.

A secular Shiite Moslem, Mr. Chalabi had recently aligned himself with the influential Shiite clerical establishment, taking the side of Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani on his call for elections and a constitution written by Iraqis.

The raids yesterday were ordered by an Iraqi Judge, Hussain Al-Moathin, after a corruption investigation linked seven questionable characters to Mr. Chalabi's party. On the list was one of his closest aides and chief of intelligence, Aras Habib. No one was arrested yesterday, according to Mr. Chalabi, who defended his employees and contends they are victims of animosity between him and Iraqi police officials, whom he characterized as resurrected "high-level Baath Party officials."

Also an interesting possibly article on the Oil-for-Food scandel:

Volcker's Oil-for-Food Probe
Will Target U.N. Staff

By JESS BRAVIN and JONATHAN WEIL
Staff Reporters of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
May 21, 2004; Page A6

UNITED NATIONS -- The head of a United Nations probe into the Iraq oil-for-food program said his first target was alleged misconduct by agency staff, but that a full accounting of the program's operation might take a year or more.

Paul Volcker, the former Federal Reserve chairman chosen by U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, told a news conference that his inquiry would be the "central, authoritative investigation" into allegations that the Saddam Hussein regime skimmed billions of dollars from the program, that contractors overcharged or never delivered promised goods and services, and that U.N. employees took kickbacks. The program director, Benon Sevan, has denied wrongdoing.

The U.N. Security Council established the oil-for-food program in 1996 as a compromise between countries such as France that proposed lifting sanctions on the Hussein regime and the U.S. and Britain, which favored maintaining them. The program allowed Iraq to sell oil to pay for food and humanitarian supplies; the U.N. said it provided a lifeline for most of Iraq's population. The program was shut in November and its functions transferred to the U.S. occupation government in Iraq.

The U.N.'s own probe is far from the only one, and Mr. Volcker acknowledged yesterday that a "tug of war" exists over access to records.

The U.S.-appointed Iraqi Governing Council last month selected London accounting firm KPMG LLP, the British affiliate of KPMG International, to perform investigative work on the program, following competitive bidding. KPMG had been working on the investigation for about two months at the time of its appointment by the Iraqi council, interviewing witnesses and reviewing documents.

The firm stopped performing work on the project last week after the ruling Coalition Provisional Authority, led by U.S. administrator L. Paul Bremer, selected the New York accounting firm Ernst & Young LLP to handle the job, following a separate bidding process that began in early April. Ernst & Young hasn't yet begun its work. A spokesman for the firm said it still is working with the Authority and the Iraqi Board of Supreme Audit "to agree upon the terms of the engagement," such as the scope of work to be performed.

Last month, the U.S. General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, reported that the Hussein regime had skimmed $10.1 billion from the program from 1997 to 2002. House and Senate committees held hearings in April on the allegations and, according to a U.N. diplomat, last week the U.S. Mission asked the U.N. to turn over all documents related to oil for food.

U.N. officials, however, say they plan to cooperate only with the Volcker panel, which also includes former U.N. war crimes prosecutor Richard Goldstone of South Africa and Swiss criminologist Mark Pieth. U.N. officials say they have given relevant records to the Volcker panel, and it will be up to them whether to share evidence with outside probes. "It may be appropriate to release those documents at some point, but not before we have a chance to look at them and evaluate their significance to our investigation," Mr. Volcker said.

The U.N. has refused to release its own internal audits of the program, but one was posted this week on an independent Web site, www.mineweb.com. (http://www.mineweb.com.) The April 8, 2003, audit found that a Swiss contractor, Cotecna Inspection SA, found that the U.N. had overpaid for services and that many goods that were supposed to be delivered could not be accounted for. The company issued a statement saying it acted "in full compliance with contract requirements, with its own strict code of ethical conduct, and according to the best practices in the industry."

[adios]

Heehee. Arthur Anderson is kaput /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

[jdl22]

Wow you can't like that much if you're a Bush supporter. The WSJ is the most widely distributed conservative newspaper in the country (world?).

Although thinking about it a bit I don't think it matters because Bush is pretty solid with his base and articles like this are unlikely to shake that.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
Wow you can't like that much if you're a Bush supporter. The WSJ is the most widely distributed conservative newspaper in the country (world?).

[/ QUOTE ]

Editorial page yes regarding being conservative, columnists mostly although Albert Hunt is certainly not conservative, reporting no.

[ QUOTE ]
Although thinking about it a bit I don't think it matters because Bush is pretty solid with his base and articles like this are unlikely to shake that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Albert Hunt had a good column yesterday about the election and basically it was inline with this observation. As has been stated in many other places the 10-15% of the swing voters will decide the election. Bush's main problem with his base is that he doesn't appear to have a grip on events in transitioning Iraq to soveirgnty. Chalibi is complaining that the US is putting Baathists in positions of power in managing security. I read an artilce yesterday that stated Fallujah is now the safest city in Iraq.

[jdl22]

I think it's like the New York Times. The editorial page there is quite liberal and the reporting for the most part is ok (although they do make some stories up /images/graemlins/tongue.gif ) but still conservatives actively dismiss any negative stories there as being from the "liberal NYT."

In the case of the WSJ I think that liberals will tend to dismiss the reported stories that are in favor of the president in the same manner. Both conservatives and liberals are overreacting imo. However, while a negative story in the NYT can be quickly dismissed by conservatives one in the WSJ cannot.

FWIW we agree on the election. I think it'll come down to the midwest. Bush can't win without Ohio and Kerry can't win without Pennsylvania and Michigan. All are somewhat close and a few swing voters in a few states will decide the election. I also agree with those that say the campaign won't really come down to Bush v Kerry but will be whether people think Bush has been a good president or not.
That is unless Kerry is completely worthless which could be the case. If he's mediocre then it'll all come down to Bush.

Where was the article about Fallujah? Also, for whom is it the safest city?

I'm not sure if you mispelled sovereignty on purpose as a subtle joke at Bush but either way it was funny.