![]() ![]() |
![]() |
| |
|
Dinner With AhmedPosted on Mar 17, 2008
By Scott Ritter (Page 2) I was scheduled to fly down to Washington to meet with the CIA about ongoing intelligence support programs then underway. In my desk I had a business card for Randy Scheunemann, the national security adviser to Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., who was at that time the Senate majority leader. Scheunemann had been part of a congressional staff delegation that had visited the United Nations earlier in 1998, and had met with Butler and some of the UNSCOM inspectors to discuss the situation in Iraq. I dialed the number listed and told Scheunemann I would like to meet with him while I was in Washington to discuss some new developments. He agreed to the meeting and threw in a twist of his own: Would I mind meeting with Ahmed Chalabi, an Iraqi expatriate who headed an opposition group called the Iraqi National Congress, or INC? Chalabi maintained offices in London and Georgetown, Va., and he shuttled back and forth between the two carrying out his various political intrigues. He was, at the time, in residence in Georgetown, and Scheunemann thought that Chalabi might be of assistance in any matter regarding Iraq.
I landed at National Airport early in the morning. In the terminal I spotted a man in a black suit holding a sign with my name on it. I assumed he was a driver of a car sent to take me to the Senate offices of Scheunemann. I was partly right. The driver was for me, but my destination was not Capitol Hill. “Mr. Chalabi sends his greetings,” the driver said as he ushered me to an awaiting town car. “I will take you to meet Mr. Chalabi now.” Ahmed Chalabi’s Washington headquarters was in a posh red-brick Georgetown town house. Chalabi himself was there to greet me. I was ushered into Chalabi’s home, where he set out an ambitious program, including briefings to senators and their staffs. The meeting went on well into the next day. I had an open return air ticket but had not planned on spending the night, and as such had not made any hotel arrangements. “Not to worry,” Chalabi said. “You are welcome to stay with me as my guest. We’ll have dinner here tonight, and you can sleep in one of my guest rooms.” Chalabi’s driver, who turned out to be a Shiite refugee from southern Iraq, drove me to the State Department, where my meeting with the CIA was held. Afterward, I took a cab to Capitol Hill and then made my way to the Senate office building where Randy Scheunemann had his office, right across from Sen. Lott’s. Once there, I got down to business. I handed Scheunemann a copy of the Aberdeen lab report and explained the background of the document. He immediately grasped the importance of what he was holding in his hand. “What would you like me to do with this information?” he asked. I explained the desire to get this data into the public eye, which meant bypassing both Richard Butler and the White House because I and the inspectors I had met with believed that both were seeking to suppress the data. “If it could find its way into the press in a way that removed any UNSCOM fingerprints, this would be ideal. That way the data remains uncompromised, and yet politically Butler and the White House can’t ignore it.” Scheunemann was smiling. “I think we can manage that.” I thought my mission complete, but Scheunemann picked up the phone, speaking in hushed tones to someone on the other end. Hanging up the receiver, he rose. “Please follow me. Sen. Lott would like to have a chance to speak with you.” We made our way across the hall and into the Senate majority leader’s suite. Lott was meeting with constituents but broke away and ushered me into a side conference room, where we sat around a large wooden table. Scheunemann briefed Lott on the nature of the information I had provided, but withheld any suggestion of leaking it to the press. Lott thanked me for my “service.” “I understand you will be in town for a little while, and that you’re staying at the home of a mutual friend.” Neither Scheunemann nor I had mentioned my arrangements with Chalabi to the senator. “I hope you take some time to talk with him, and some other interesting people I think you will be meeting with. Exchange ideas. See if you can help him in any way. We’re all on the same side here, and we have to start finding ways to break down some barriers others have constructed between us.” I told the senator that I had met with Chalabi previously and saw no reason why we couldn’t engage in an exchange of ideas. Scheunemann and I left Lott’s office, and I took a cab back to Chalabi’s town house in Georgetown. Chalabi was out when I arrived, but I was met at the door by Francis Brooke, an American from Atlanta who was Chalabi’s principle adviser. Brooke was also a guest at Chalabi’s apartment. I changed out of my suit and made my way downstairs to relax while I waited for dinner. No sooner had I sat down than the doorbell rang. Brooke answered it, and in walked Dr. Max Singer, a noted independent consultant on public policy and a senior fellow at the conservative Hudson Institute who specialized in what was known as “political warfare.” Singer was a busy man, but he had been asked by Scheunemann to prepare a paper titled “The Chalabi Factor,” which outlined the importance and viability of Chalabi and the INC as a realistic opposition to the rule of Saddam Hussein. “Ahmed asked me to drop this off for you to look at,” Singer said, handing me the document. “I will be interested in what you think of it.” Singer left and I sat down with his paper. The document outlined a political scenario that had Chalabi and the INC exploiting the weakness of the regime of Saddam in northern Iraq (Kurdistan) and southern Iraq, among the Shiites, to install himself as a viable political alternative to the Iraqi dictator. The main thesis centered on gaining a physical foothold in southern Iraq and taking control of the oil fields surrounding Basra, enabling the INC to become economically viable, which in turn created the conditions for political viability. Chalabi, the paper held, was ideally suited for this role since he already had a large following inside Iraq and was widely recognized outside Iraq as a legitimate contender for the helm of post-Saddam Iraq. I was somewhat taken aback by the content of the Singer paper. I was on dangerous political ground here, a U.N. weapons inspector charged with the disarmament of Iraq, suddenly dabbling in the world of regime change. Far from advising me on issues of intelligence regarding Iraqi WMD, Ahmed Chalabi had turned the tables and had me advising him on how to overthrow Saddam Hussein. Within the hour Chalabi returned to his apartment, accompanied by a tall man in a gray suit, Stephen Rademaker. Rademaker was the husband of Danielle Pletka, the senior professional staff member for Near East and South Asia affairs on the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee. Rademaker was the legal counsel for the House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee and, like his wife, an unabashed member of the right wing of the Republican Party, along with being a champion of Chalabi. Rademaker joined Francis Brooke, Chalabi and me in the comfortably laid-out living room of the town house, where we discussed not arms control but regime change. I started off with the premise that the best way to achieve regime change in Iraq was to hold Saddam accountable for his requirement to disarm, and that the focus of our discussion should therefore be how to get the U.S. government to take more seriously the work of UNSCOM, and to put the weight of America behind such smoking-gun evidence as the VX nerve agent lab report from Aberdeen. Rademaker interjected at that point. “We agree. But we all know Saddam is cheating, and that his days are numbered. What we don’t have is a plan on what we are going to do once Saddam is out of office. Mr. Chalabi represents our best hopes in that regard, which is why we’re delighted that you and he are meeting like this.”
1
2
3
4
5
NEXT PAGE >>>
Previous item: Monster Community Weighs In on Campaign Controversy Next item: Looking Beyond the 'Racial Divide' Elsewhere: . CommentsAre you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig.
By keller, March 28 at 11:23 am # Sheynonomous If you are such a person to call to action, why do you sit on your computer to the call of 721 comments?????? Go and freaking do something with your life. Call to action?? what the hell does that mean?? You are an instigator of crap. Oh sorry () ()( s ) and you can’t spell or use proper diction in your ‘call to action’ prose whilst you sit at your computer wishing for a different world.
By Joe, March 19 at 11:26 am # Shenonymous, Re your thoughts, “There is an implication for action in the original intent of the article. What exactly does anyone think it is?” The message is stop what you’re doing. Leave them alone.
By nils cognizant, March 18 at 2:14 pm # john, after carefully reading the article, I too was struck by the frankly announced sequence of actions in which Mr. Ritter took part. I’d like to give my more charitable take on this, though. This article must have been a struggle for Ritter to work through. The fact that he is man enough to detail these events is a tribute to him; a man I believe to have grown tremendously since the Chalabi days. I’ve been loosely following Iraq’s travails since the Clinton years and the awful suffering inflicted on the Iraqi population by that President, with needed medical and water filtration supplies stopped before they could be delivered and the careless, frequent use of depleted-uranium anti-armor missiles launched at Iraqi targets (in the South, I think)as we used the Iraqis for target practice. My observation of Mr. Ritter is that he underwent a spiritual change in the late 90’s, overcoming his Marine Corps aggressive training and finding the Iraqi people to be worthy of rescue rather than rough handling and invasion. He is becoming a model for military men here and abroad; those with an expanding world-view and a systematic, solutions-based approach to foreign policy.
By Joe, March 17 at 4:40 pm # Heavyrunner--check the last page of this article. Ritter makes the same points you have made in criticizing the lab findings. Of course, since he is not a chemist, Ritter had no reason to suspect the original report.
By john in california, March 17 at 2:39 pm # Now let me see, Mr. Ritter. You betrayed your boss, your job, your oath to leak information that you had no way to verify and that was subsequently (waaay subsequently) found to be false, giving this info to the political foes of someone you deemed weak knowing they would use it to your boss, your agency and your mission. You were also, apparently, a spy for the CIA, in direct contradiction of everything you and your agency said at the time, though it was the main rationale for Saddam kicking out inspectors. You not only gave secret info to a politico who may have had security clearances but also to an Iraqi national in direct contradiction of your agency’s and your own sworn oath. And all of this you could have revealed before the war but waited until it is useless in stopping the carnage and for this you expect what? Sympathy? Praise? Respect for now mildly questioning you judgment then? Oh, mea culpa, me oh my! Or are we to think you were so naïve that you thought taking this unreliable info to those trying to sabotage the use of inspections would produce something good for Iraq? In truth, you were just pissed off at your bosses for not paying enough attention to you so you thought “ To hell with them! I’ll just sneak around to my right wing buddies in DC and fuck over all this diplomacy shit!” Great job, Mr. Ritter, great job!
By Nancie, March 17 at 12:43 pm # ChalibiIt is amazing to me that Chalabi continues to have the blessings of people in power. He’s a two-bit politician without any credibility at all. Whoops, reminds me of so many others in the Bush Administration—a plethora without credibility!
By Bill Blackolive, March 17 at 12:10 pm # Scott, this is tiring. As can be seen at patriotsquestion9/11 you too know there is a US coverup of 9/11. Get ye back to there to see and understand there will be no time to kill you when a thousand respectable folks have enough heart to say there is this coverup of the US government’s attack on its people, attack on the populace’s mind after bodily murder. You are safe, man, you are safe and please help gang up because otherwise there will be the worsening.
By Bill Blackolive, March 17 at 12:06 pm # Scott, this is tiring. As can be seen at patriotsquestion9/11 you too know there is a US coverup of 9/11. Get ye there to see and understand there will be no time to kill you when a thousand respectable folks have enough heart to say there is this coverup of the US government’s attack on its people, attack on the populace’s mind after bodily murder. You are safe, man, you are safe and please help gang up because otherwise there will be the worsening.
By Jimmy McStubble, March 17 at 11:55 am # Re: Mike Mid-CityI think it’s just the nature of our society. My generation doesn’t speak out like they did in the 60’s. We know nothing of real activism, and those who we wish to influence know only of actual gatherings. The days of Washington DC protests are over. We are in a digital world now, and perhaps it will only be time until my generation is in power and all of our blogging will start to make a difference. I have always promoted that we combine the efforts and try and bring the future sooner. The military personnel didn’t speak out because they didn’t want to lose their jobs, or end up MIA. It’s rough out there looking for work. I’ll be 23 this year, and I’ve had Bush in office since I was 15 years old, so I don’t know much else. Just what’s in history. I guess i’ll stop because I got off topic lines ago. -Steve
By STORMY7, March 17 at 9:06 am # stormy7THERE IS NO ACCOUNTABILITY. THERE WILL BE NO ACCOUNTABILITY. WE HAVE LOST SOMETHING VERY VALUABLE TO ALL AMERICANS. WE HAVE LOST THE CONSTITUTION. THE ONLY LAWS ABIDED BY THIS GOVERNMENT ARE BUSH’S LAW. Add Your Comment |
COMMENT TOOLS:
Hide comments
Show comments
Comment on this article