Full Release - IRmep

War and Piece: June 2004 Archives ~L INFOrotA.TION CONTAUJED ~
! l"" Hr IS UNCLASSIFIED 0
: '-- 0'1-29-2010 BY 60324 uc baw/sab/
l:1une 02, 2004
Page 1ofl
Can we expect to see Richard Perle start to def~nd Chalabi's leaks ofthe most sensitive US intelligence to the Iranian .
terror masters?·Ledeen? Harold Rhode? Michael·Rubin? I hear Larry Franklil) isn't defending Chalabi any more.
There are only two defenses I can see: it's not true (seems the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of, it's true). Or, it's
okay that Chalabi did it.
Or, there's a third. How about, WE WERE WRONG. We were fQ.QJs, and dupes. But none. of these people seem to have the
moral capacity to admit they were wrong. What kind of blindness,. what kind of pathological arrogance, prevents these
people from ever admitting they are wrong?
MORE: A friend says Chalabi supporters may also use the defense, ChaJabl was framed by Iranians who wanted him to
be politically neutralized In Iraq. [As if he even needed to b,e neutralized by outside forces!] That the two Iranians who
were detected in an intercept to be discussing what Chalabi ~upposedly gave them ~o~ld have been trying to frame him.
I find this deeply unconvincing. [Remember how each shred of bogus intel about ties between al Qaeda and Saddam
.
these very same neocons clung to as the holy grail? This Is that In reverse].
A question. Is Chalabi simply believed to have conversationally told'an Iranian source that the US had broken XYZ
communications code? Or is he actually believed to have had physical access to some sort. of code breaking technology
itself? Why does this matter? Because the. number of US officials who might have known the formerls certainly greater
than the latter. Even a civilian Pentagon official known to be very close to Chalabi and who believes himself a huge
expert on Iran and the Middle East might have heard the_latter and"passed it on to Chalabi.
Posted by Laura at 10:56 AM