Invading Iraq was stupid, but according to Cheney, Bush and the rest of the White House mob, they did it because the intelligence at the time was faulty. Of course they demanded faulty intel from everyone and then twisted it further to build a sense of urgency to remove Saddam, but how did they get the idea that it would work? In 1991 Dick Cheney argued against invading Baghdad precisely to avoid the disasters now unfolding.
What made him think ten years later that US troops would be greeted as liberators, that a compliant and unified government would stabilize Iraq, grant lucrative oil contracts to US companies, allow permanent US military bases, and provide a foothold to "project American power in the mideast?"
This is a story that tells how that happened. It shows how weak Cheney's reputed "gravitas" really is, and how easily he was suckered into bulldozing American constitutional law and American values to squander our blood, treasure, credibility, security and our very futures, to acheive an impossible dream. What follows is a clear, concise and accurate narrative, historically and morally, of how we got into this mess, and a context for the litany of impeachable offenses commited by Dick Cheney and George Bush.
Some new verbiage is needed to impeach, and it's not there yet. There's a lot of convincing to do. The point that needs to be made is that everything and everyone that Cheney and the neocons have sacrificed and blown away has benefited Iran. Period. We'll get no oil, no bases, no foothold in the mideast. Nothing. All of which is entirely according to the plan that Chalabi accomplished by persuading Cheney and the neocons to ignore their better judgement back in 1991 and storm the Iraqi fortress, in total ignorance of the realities on the ground there.
That's the verbiage that will bring Cheney and Bush down, and even some of the Rethugs are starting to get it. It's like they broke into a house, killed the occupants to steal the jewels, but somebody else got the jewels first and they got trapped in the house by the neighbors, and now they'll be lucky to get out alive. This fuckup is so collossal it's no wonder it's hard to grasp.
I'd like to see a chronology of how Ahmed Chalabi became Dick Cheney's good buddy, after Chalabi systematically convinced and seduced intelligence agencies all over Europe, (and Cheney) through his Iraqi National Congress, and other proxies (like Curveball) and like-minded Iraqi exiles, to fan the flames of war.
The war could only have been started by Cheney's relentless determination and his disregard or contempt for all other branches of government, the CIA, the State Dept. or the American people, and Chalabi supplied the essential phoney intelligence
Cheney needed to feed to the media and congress to make it happen.
We need to look at Chalabi's Shiite background, his extensive ties to Iranian intelligence agencies and his family ties to Iran. And how Iran needed to destroy their mortal enemy, Saddam Hussein, and take power in Iraq, and how immediately after US troops marched into Bahgdad Iranian-trained teams took power throughout southern Iraq, and how Iranian currency and language are used today in most of Iraq, and how Iran and Iraq have signed military cooperation agreements over a year ago, and how Iran is sponsoring a shadow government ready to take power in Iraq.
And we need to look at the ways American military power, economic strength, diplomatic credibility, national security and sense of community have suffered as a result of our invasion of Iraq.
By connecting the dots, you would almost think Chalabi was working to further the interests of Iran the whole time, and Cheney was a gullible fool. That would make for some fascinating TV. It would probably end the war almost immediately, and get Cheney impeached within days.
It would have been a lot harder to sell the war without the organized sales campaign orchestrated by Chalabi for well over a decade. In 1991 Cheney warned against invading Bahgdad precisely because he predicted the results that we see now in Iraq. It took more than his lust for black gold and fabulous riches to convince him, against his better judgement, that controlling Iraq could be accomplished on the cheap and the riches could be his. We may never know how Chalabi may have charmed and seduced Cheney, but no doubt Chalabi knew exactly what the neocons were dreaming and how to promise them what they desired, and he certainly knew how to appeal to a megalomaniac like Cheney by shuddering in awe of his power and playing submissive, loyal, etc. Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress was indeed sponsored by the CIA, but that's not where it began. Chalabi and his clandestine conspiracy made themselves available to the CIA in the early 1990's, and the CIA caught on to them by 1995 and dropped their support of them, but Cheney had no respect for the CIA and Chalabi knew that and how to play him. Plus, Chalabi masterfully sent "informants" to various European intelligence agencies, all with different versions of the same bogus stories, resulting in these agencies corraborating each other's reports without revealing their sources. Of course Cheney had to know a lot of it was phoney, but when it comes from so many angles and is so mutually reinforcing it takes on the veneer of truth, to the point that people as diverse as Oprah, PBS's Frontline, Dan Rather and Colin Powell believed it.
Congress never would have passed the war resolution without Chalabi's systematically planted misinformation, and Cheney probably would not have gotten his war. He might have staged provocations like the Nazis did,(or like the Tonkin Gulf incident to start the Vietnam war), but that's riskier than having a host of "well-informed" exiles to rely on. Cheney and the other neocons may not have quite believed they could pull it off, for the reasons Cheney gave in 1991, without Chalabi's ever so persuasive ways of convincing them US troops would be greeted as liberators, a compliant puppet government would be set up, permanent US bases and occupation would be easy, and no-bid oil contracts for Cheney and his buddies would be guaranteed. The permanent Republican majority and the fascist executive would certainly have followed, plus ever more wars.
Now we see that instead, Iran is the clear winner of our invasion and has gained the power and stature they have wanted desperately for a millenium, and the war is currently causing the fall of the American empire (another major milestone). One might conclude that Chalabi pulled off a hoax of epic proportions. Plus, he got a seat 3 feet behind Laura Bush at the 2003 State of the Union address. Ya gotta admire his chutzpah.
It's important to understand that Chalabi conned the neocons invading Iraq, for two main reasons:
If we understand that Chalabi, working with Iranian interests, ushered Cheney and the other neocons into invading Iraq, we begin to see that Iran has been guiding developments all along. This realization is important for gaining insight into how events may play out after US troops leave, whether by planned withdrawal or by overwhelming insurgent force.
Iran no doubt has a plan to install a government of allies and consolidate power (US troops are now too decimated and exhausted to invade Iran). There may be genocidal ethnic cleansing of Sunnis and some friction with Kurds as well, but now the US has shuffled the deck and placed majority Shiites, friendly to Iran, in power, and they aren't likely to give it up, regardless of how they may use that power. The US became irrelevant to that process shortly after the invasion and for the past 3 or so years we've just been killing Sunnis on behalf of Shiites and Iran, however unwittingly, while they continued to play Bush and Cheney like a cheap fiddle. We might as well leave now, and Iran and other neighbors will clean up the mess and establish some kind of stability and enforceable agreements with Sunnis, Kurds. Point being: our departure will facilitate peace in Iraq.
The prevailing narrative about Cheney is that he's a wannabe brutal fascist dictator. While that is true, it leaves out the fact that Cheney and the rest of the neocons are also bungling, gullible fools and idiots. This not so subtle nuance is important because the image of the brutal dictator makes people afraid of Cheney, and not likely to criticize him or suggest he should be impeached, whereas the gullible fool image makes one want to scoff at him while removing him from any role in anything. Many people like having a big strong bully in charge, but not a complete idiot. It makes impeachment vastly easier. One needs only see through the fog of phoney gravitas.