Posted on 02/20/2005 6:45:19 PM PST by Lessismore
Controversial Iraqi politician Ahmed Chalabi says he believes he has the votes to become the war-torn country's new prime minister.
Mr Chalabi, once supported by the United States only to fall from favour, is part of the Shiite United Iraqi Alliance (UIA) list that won 140 seats of the 275-member national assembly in the January 30 elections.
"I believe I have a majority of the [UIA] votes on my side right now" to become the new government's prime minister, Mr Chalabi told United States ABC television.
However, the former exile remained cautious, saying the choice of premier "will be decided by the parliamentary bloc", which he did not want to "second guess".
On Tuesday, sources in the Shiite coalition said it had chosen interim vice president and Dawa party leader Ibrahim Jaafari as its candidate for prime minister.
Mr Chalabi said he was ready to cooperate if he were not picked to lead the government.
"We want to change the way Iraq is governed," he said.
"It will no longer be the government of a leader with everybody else not counting very much.
"We want to have a cabinet form of executive authority in Iraq and I am perfectly willing to cooperate, as indeed are my other friends and colleagues who are competing for the job of prime minister, with any prime minister that will come out for the service of ... the country."
I saw that, too. The way they put it was that it appears as if Chalabi was "talked into" withdrawing his candidacy.
Veeeeeerry interesting. Chalabi must have been made an offer he couldn't refuse.
There are only two ways to take that. Time will tell.
bttt
You're welcome.
You are most kind. I enhance my knowledge every day here on FRee Republic on a wide variety of subjects.
FRee Republic is my home page - I love it here.
That is, if the initial reports are accurate, and he really has stepped back.
Who's vying for defense or head of Iraqi intelligence?
We actually get our information from spy novels. :-)
Those teams must not have been working too hard if they were sitting still for over a week:
After being airlifted from northern Iraq by the American military, he and 600 fighters of his Free Iraqi Forces were stuck for 10 days outside Nasiriya in a flea-ridden, bombed-out airbase awaiting American approval to travel to Baghdad.
I'm open minded on him either way but if people want to trash the guy they have to do better than say they heard from some snakeaters that he's a snake.
As I've pointed out, for a 'snake' he has all the same enemies as we do. There has to be a reason for that.
Me too, heh heh. I recently stumbled across 'Harlot's Ghost' by Norman Mailer, a novel about the CIA in the late 50's and early 60's up through Bay of Pigs and JFK assassination. Pretty interesting stuff.
I don't know, but Chalabi ain't going away if HE has anything to say about it. :)
What!! - That is perhaps the dumbest comment I have ever read on Freerepublic (or maybe anywhere) -
Do you not know about the fighting that took place near Nasiriya?? - Do you not know that what the A-teams in the area where doing? - Do you not understand that most of US SOF where not advancing on to Baghdad....but where security city's / areas that other forces had already moved passed.
Do you not understand the amount of fighting that went out for weeks (WEEKS!!!) in Nasiriya (yet you so oddly and foolishly suggest these SOF members must not have been working to hard to secure the city!).
No, they only provided all the Intel on the city BEFORE the marines arrived....they only helped clear the main bridge during the invasion of the city...they only developed Intel on possible insurgents and helped put in place a local Gov't....The list could go on and on....
And oh, they also helped train Chalabi's men during this time frame....
It is clear you don't have a clue about what you are speaking of! So wise up and stop running your mouth about subjects you haven't a clue.
It seems like you have a habit of talking that way to people who disagree with you, newbie:
One cannot be more ignorant than with that statement of yours.
Give me a break - Some of the most ugly comments I've ever seen on FR
So, is every comment that disagrees with your omniscience a candidate for the dumbest/most clueless/ugliest on FR, or are you just incapable of expressing your ideas (to use the term generously) without overblown rhetoric?
To get back to the issue, since you're so much more knowledgeable than everyone else on Chalabi--you've posted the same claims about SF regarding him as a "snake" on several threads--would you care to share the source of the information you keep repeating without substantiation?
Also, I'm curious, as I see on a few threads you've alleged that Putin has no designs in Iran and that it would be impossible for Bin Laden to be there as well--how do your views on Iran relate to your anti-Chalabi views?
First off what a straw man argument to use - suggesting that I think "everyone" and "anyone" that disagrees with me is dumb - My posts in total on FR speak 100% against that! - And all can go read the three examples you listed as proof to when I choose to use those type words.
The classic being you using my "some of the most ugly comments I've seen on FR" - Yeah, someone suggesting that parents going out to a night club and dying in fire....is in some odd way getting one they deserved....because they shouldn't even have been going out to begin with....they should sacrificed those $$ for their children (that they spent going out) - Those are ugly comments. Period. And there is nothing wrong with saying so!
And the fact is the person above suggesting that the SOF that were on the ground in Nasiriya early on in the war....were "not doing much" because they were there for several weeks (actually they were there for months...but what do facts matter).......My comments of them not having a clue....is 100% accurate.
As for my thoughts that Putin has no plans on Iran, nor is UBL in Iran....they have nothing to do with Mr. Chalabi. All three are completely separate situations. Having nothing to do with one another.
It's a straw man argument to quote your own posts as examples of your posts?
As for my thoughts that Putin has no plans on Iran, nor is UBL in Iran....they have nothing to do with Mr. Chalabi. All three are completely separate situations. Having nothing to do with one another.
So the fact you keep echoing the same talking points about Iran, Iraq, and Pakistan on different threads is just a fortuitous coincidence? And I see you ducked my question about what your views on Iran are.
In regards to your PM, citing anonymous sources to support controversial claims carries no weight in a public forum. If you have a claim to make, name a source and include a link.
Hmm? - The fact that I keep my thoughts consistent when replying to subjects regarding either Iran, UBL or Pakistan within different threads you find a coincidence - No, there is no coincidence.....I am usually consistent with my logic and thoughts on a given subject - They don't change just with every new thread dealing with the same subject. (perhaps you aren't consistent with your views? I'm not sure, but I can surly tell you it is not just a coincidence that you see my positions staying the same within different threads. That is by design.)
As for ducking your question on Iran? Huh - You didn't have any question on Iran (outside of was I basing my feelings on Iran out of some type of relationship with my thoughts on UBL not being in Iran, or Mr Chalabi ...and I answered that clearly for you).
As for the PM....That was meant to stay there for certain reasons. Got it.
think this guy is as squirrelly and back stabbing as they come.....
Ideally suited for the job. OTOH, he may just be full of it.
This guy is also the one who maintained that the WMD were there, and more than ever???? Much of the War was based on his intelligence of what and where were the WMDs. When it became obvious that he had dragged the US and others to Iraq on false pretenses, he got into trouble. It wasn't only GW he convinced about WMD, also Clintoon, and UN. I don't believe him anymore.
Well, if he doesn't get it, maybe he can install himself in the Washington State Governor's Mansion.
I kept the contents of your PM private as a courtesy. I only posted my own reply here as it bears on a problem with your public posts to this and other threads: you have consistently repeated a vague allegation against Chalabi without naming any sources or giving any details to substantiate your allegation. If you have a case to make against Chalabi, base it on the evidence of specific witnesses and details, not rumors and namecalling.
I said nothing of the sort, as you would know if you could comprehend sarcasm. Go back and read it again. There is no comment by me as regards their efforts to "secure the city." The comment was to your assertion that people you know worked with Chalabi and think he's a snake and my challenge to you was to produce supporting information, because according to the article it looks like Chalabi was sitting on his ass for 10 days waiting for the US to give him a go to proceed. Presumably if he became frustrated enough to move on his own after days, he did so because he wasn't getting his work done as he desired, which essentially means people working 'with him' weren't getting anything of that work done, either. It takes two to tango.
Do you not understand the concept of sarcasm?
Now back to the topic of the thread, which is Chalabi and not your straw man argument about what you thought I said.
No one here and certainly not yours truly is contesting the military's fine efforts, as you are trying to imply, perhaps in order to make yourself feel a little more self-righteous after getting caught for putting out what amounts to nothing but gossip. The post was directed at you- at your effort persuade people by claiming special insight from sources known only to you- in other words, by using your scuttlebutt, whether accurate or not, as an argument.
You posted that scuttlebutt on the thread, and then later you felt compelled to privately email me not to hone your claims further but merely to repeat the same scuttlebutt concerning your opinion of Chalabi to me, as if somehow the act of repeating scuttlebutt in private makes it more persuasive. It doesn't, by the way. Perhaps you should have used ALL CAPS.
***Incoming sarcasm***
<sarcasm>When you are in Europe, are you the type who used louder and slower English so people can better understand you?</sarcasm>
***all clear, at ease***
My challenge to you is only to provide some support for your allegations against the individual from some better source than a personal anecdote. We all have personal anecdotes which are partly responsible for our opinions, but these just don't make honest tools in trying to persuade others because others cannot judge the integrity of an such source, which is why so many of us object to them. Only hwen the person citing them has a long-established reputation for integrity do such anecdotes carry any weight at all, though perhaps even then they shouldn't. There's just not a whole lot of information to be garnered from some stranger's claim that he "heard from a friend of a friend who really knows his stuff that this guy was a snake."
Go back and read the resolution on the use of force at the outset of this war and you will discover why we are in Iraq and here's a hint: It's not because of Chalabi.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.