Talk:Ahmed Chalabi

Initial comments

I made no change to the content; I only broke one paragraph into two and moved one sentence from a paragraph to its own paragraph (as it wasn't close enough to the subject of the paragraph it was in.) In effect, I guess I broke onew long paragraph into three shorter paragraphs.

I undid some vandalism to the Introduction. It read "Chalabi is a controversial devil figure for many reasons. In the lead-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq..." The devil part is obvious vandalism. --24.139.46.213 (talk) 02:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC) 08MAR10

I'm concerned that the section I worked on seems a little unprofessional. First it discusses misleading claims by the INC/Chalabi in strong language, and then offers as an example what to a reader probably seems a minor error in detail.

That is, the significance of the Salman Pak claims was that Iraq was purportedly training terrorists to hijack planes there, not what sort of plane they were using in their training. The error in plane model seems a trivial "gotcha" which is outweighed by the text's apparent confirmation that Iraq was training terrorists to hijack planes there.

To most people, this is like arguing about what color their uniforms were when they were being trained to hijack planes.

I have little doubt that some better example of a false claim by Chalabi can be offered. The one offered here is not impressive.

The ironic thing is, if the claim was simply made here that Chalabi and the INC made misleading and false claims, without offering any example in the text, I would have no beef with that. M. E. Smith

Rei, while the government and media's various claims about Chalabi deserve as much attention from the article as you or anyone else is willing to give them, it is also necessary that the article not state disputed and controversial views as plain fact. Everyking 18:11, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

Hmmm... I'm not sure exactly what you're saying is contested. Are you saying the fact that he provided information to the OSP is contested? Or that the words "major portion" are contested? Or that the categories that the information covered are contested? And if so, by whom? I mean, if you can show a fairly legitimate source contesting this, I would be happy to use your wording. I haven't seen an official admission of this, but I haven't seen anyone contest it either, and there have been many unofficial admissions. If things are only uncontested when there is an official admission of it, then (for example) the addictiveness of tobacco would have been "contested" until the 90s. Rei 19:27, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

An official (or unofficial, depending on what game they happen to be playing) "admission" is not enough to say the matter in question is finally settled. We do not accept the claims of the government or the media as simple fact as a matter of blind faith, unless it is something that is not seriously contested, or we have no reason to think it is contested. You stated as fact that Chalabi provided the info, and more importantly, that US intelligence relied on the info. I think that is a spurious claim that ought to be qualified by directly attributing it to those who claim it. Everyking 19:41, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

...Which is why I added references. And, as I mentioned, I'll gladly get you as many as you want. Rei 19:58, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

Rei, providing references does not turn a falsehood into truth. Did you read anything I wrote? This sentence: "In the lead-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, under his guidance the INC provided a major portion of the information on which U.S. Intelligence based its condemnation of Saddam Hussein, including reports of weapons of mass destruction and ties to al-Qaeda." states as fact something that I believe is false. You can add a hundred references; if it ain't true, they won't help. That's why I suggest either using my wording, or directly attribute some of these claims using your references. For example: "According to so-and-so, under his guidance the INC provided..." instead of a simple assertion of fact, as it is presently phrased. Everyking 20:09, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

Ok, given that, I would have to say, "According to multiple members of the Office Of Special Plans interviewed by multiple sources on multiple occasions...". I'd prefer the current version better, but if you like that better, go for it. You say you believe it is false. Can you provide any evidence for such a view? If you cannot, then it isn't "contested". Heck, even Chalabi's people have talked about the evidence they provided. One of his men, code-named "curveball", has been all over the press recently. Surely you're familiar with this. With what do you contest it? I'm quite curious. Rei 21:28, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

This isn't black and white. Philisophically speaking, the only way I know Chalabi even exists is because of "reports" -- and on the other hand, there are loony "reports" that the Israelis flew the planes in 9/11. It isn't obvious when a statement crosses the line to where we can confidently state something without a "reports" weasel-word. In this case, I think it's really borderline. We have multiple, independent varifications, and I can't imagine it's not true, but I think some people might try to dispute it. So I think either wording -- that he gave the info, or that there are reports that he gave the info -- is acceptable. Quadell (talk) 21:12, May 20, 2004 (UTC)

I think that was my doing. I thought it had been officially recognized that much of the bad info received by the Office for Special Planning had come from Chalabi. When I re-read "The Lie Factory", from Mother Jones, it looks like it has been confirmed by numerous off-the-record sources, but not officially admitted per se. So my bad. Quadell (talk) 18:42, May 20, 2004 (UTC)

To add to the confusion on this issue, note the following from a Washington Post article:

"The vast majority of reports of his proximity to and influence on administration policy have been greatly exaggerated," said a senior administration official involved in Iraq policy who knows Chalabi. "The reality is that he was among a wide variety of Iraqi figures who made the case to an array of American officials over a period of time for the liberation of the Iraqi people."

Yet no Iraqi leader has had more to do with the U.S. intervention in Iraq than Chalabi, from charming Congress into authorizing almost $100 million to back his fledgling Iraqi National Congress in the late 1990s and convincing Washington about Hussein's weapons of mass destruction in 2002 to pressing for war last year, say both his supporters and critics.

So an administration official denies that he was the primary source for bad info, but the Post has no problem stating as fact that he was.

Then note this caption in a CNN article:

Ahmed Chalabi is thought to have been a source of intelligence about Iraq's alleged WMD.

Talk about weasel words! I don't think there's a consensus as to whether we can call it a fact yet or not, that he provided most of the bad info that led us into war. He clearly did. I just don't know if we can say it yet. Quadell (talk) 14:19, May 21, 2004 (UTC)

We need to have more rigorous standards than "He clearly did...but we can't call it a fact." A vast web of lies has been spun about this war, but we are working on an encyclopedia; we must approach all the claims that are put forward with caution. What if we had just claimed before the war that it was plain fact that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, because the government and media made such a forceful case that it did? We'd look pretty silly now, wouldn't we? Everyking 14:47, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

There is a difference between saying that he himself was a major source, and that the INC was. It is true that Chalabi's personal involvement has been overblown, and I have made several modifications to the article to point out that it was his organization, not he himself, who was providing this information. But it is essentially undeniable that the INC was a major source of these stories, and I can provide reference after reference (again, just name your number). I'd like to ask again: does anyone have anything that says that the *INC* (which was led by Chalabi) didn't play a major role in pushing these allegations?

Just as a side note - before the war, I was debating against people who claimed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, and provided tons of references (just like I'm offering to do here), so that was probably a bad example that you picked.  :) Not everyone fell for the government's transparent yarn, hook line and sinker. You just had to read documents from the IAEA and UNSCOM/UNMOVIC, read articles from places like the Biosecurity Journal and the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, trace back the claims to individuals (for example, I found that a number of the claims about some of the horrors of Saddam Hussein and his WMDs were being pushed by the same INC member who had claimed that not only did Iraq have nuclear weapons, but had already tested them - which is physically impossible, since we monitor rival states for electromagnetic evidence of nuclear explosions)... it just all fell apart when you looked into it. And about half of the reports traced back to the INC. Rei 16:03, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

You are right that the myth of WMDs could be easily dismissed before the war, but the myth of Ahmed Chalabi can also be dismissed. I dismissed both before the war, as I dismiss both now. But my point was that the government/media was pushing the WMD line on Americans in early 2003, and it has been pushing the Chalabi myth, too, yet you think you can take the media's word for it when they explain this myth now, in 2004. Anybody could have provided "references" to back up the allegations of WMDs in early 2003, and plenty of people were. You cannot just pick some references to cite and say the matter is settled. That contradicts the whole spirit of NPOV. We are not here to determine finally what the truth is; we are simply here to present things objectively, without making judgements to be imposed upon our readers. Everyking 17:10, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

I also want to a) question the bias of this article, but b) throw forward this quote from The Huffington Post of Friday, September 16, 2005 (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nora-ephron/hooked-on-anonymity_b_7355.html), from columnist Nora Ephron. When speaking on the New York Times' over-use of anonymous sources she quoted Ahmed Chalabi, who should have said, "I’m talking to you on condition of anonymity because I hope to plant false information about weapons of mass destruction in your very powerful newspaper in order to con the United States government into going to war against Saddam Hussein so I can return to Iraq and become part of the new government and steal a whole bunch more money than I already have." Someone should work that quote into the article. And yes, this article is biased against Mr. Chalabi, who, while I believe that he lied about WMDs etc. to get power, until that's proven we can't state that as unquestionable fact. Meaning, as long as there are reasonable people who disagree, such people need to be acknowledged. Mrcolj 14:27, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

---

Many supposedly held him up as a main hope for democracy in Iraq,

Many did hold him up. Why say supposedly? Could we rephrase this please? Some such thing as

• Chalabi had many supporters in the United States who held him up as a chmapion of democracy in Iraq.

I would also like to see explicit mention in this article of OpEd writers unwavering support for this man, particularly Jim Hoagland of the Washington Post who came out repeatedly in his defense. I'll do it myself if no one cares to bite. CSTAR 15:42, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

There's also Christopher Hitchens, who defended Chalabi in Slate. I look forward to your additonal work, Cstar

---

Could we break this up into sections? CSTAR 21:37, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Doesn't this guy look like Palatine from the Star Wars saga?

edit statement for clarity?

"Curveball" – the brother of one of Chalabi's top lieutenants – fed hundreds of pages of bogus "firsthand" descriptions of mobile biological weapons factories on wheels and rails. However, this assertion made by reporters from Newsweek (Michael Isikoff), Knight-Ridder (Jonathan Landay), and the Los Angeles Times (Bob Drogin) has been proven completely false.[9]

As written, this statement implies that reporters claimed that "Curveball" was offering bogus information, but that claim was later proved false. I would like to change this statement to read instead:

"Curveball" – the brother of one of Chalabi's top lieutenants – fed hundreds of pages of "firsthand" descriptions of mobile biological weapons factories on wheels and rails, but these assertions were later demonstrated to be false [9].

the term neoconservative

I take issue with the use of the term neoconservative as used in this document. I understand this to be a factual base, and we all know neocon is a derogative term, and therefore it's a political term. You are essentially labeling the people in the pentagon without further at least backing up the use of the term. Couldnt that simply be changed to "prominent people in the pentagon?" Or at least, those "neocons" should be listed. Jviehe 14:21, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I've never understood neoconservative to be a derogatory term. Much like I've never understood liberal to be a derogatory term. That some people use as such terms, does not make them such terms, and obviously, neoconservative if it is to replaced with something, should be a replaced with a synonoum for it.

Chalabi on TV

The Journal Report November 13, 2005 "The Chalabi Comeback" Episode #232. Ahmed Chalabi, deputy prime minister of Iraq, visits Washington, D.C.; Republican candidates.

Chalabi says Rob Silverman report page 108 says he had little influence on (american foreign policy??) Chalabi says his organization only provided three people. The first one was taken by the US never to be seen again.

Chalabi say american troops can leave by 2006.

Chalabi is an "Escrow"?

I don't understand the last sentence of the introduction. It says that Chalabi is an "escrow," which the American Heritage online dictionary defines as "Money, property, a deed, or a bond put into the custody of a third party for delivery to a grantee only after the fulfillment of the conditions specified." The Wikipedia definition provided by the link echoes this definition, but neither seems to provide any circumstance under which the word might be used to describe a person. (Unless the article means "escrow agent", but it's not clear how Chalabi fills that role.) The linked CNN article doesn't use the term at all.

Could someone provide some clarification / excise the term? Thanks.

I took it out - it really makes no sense... 62.141.24.81 18:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

opinion

i think the author meant the french word escroc, which is a crook.

Chalabi under investigation... or not

There is another garbled phrase in the first paragraph (introduced in this edit [[1]]: "currently under investigation by several government sources". A "source" is a journalist's informant. For this phrase to be literally correct, the sources would have to be in the government and investigating Chalabi personally. However, as I recall, the people who put it about that Chalabi was under investigation were retired intelligence professionals, no longer in government employ, and they did not claim to be doing the investigation themselves... I would also be interested to know if there is any evidence that Chalabi is under official investigation, as some of his supporters say it's just a smear campaign coming from his long-term enemies within the US government. Crudely, the rivalry is said to be between CIA/State/Allawi/INA and DIA/Pentagon/Chalabi/INC. (The INA is Allawi's old group, the Iraqi National Accord.) Mporter 03:38, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Ahmed not Achmed

I have repeatedly heard Ahmed Chalabi referred to as "Achmed" and I'm assuming it is a mistake. I know nothing about Arabic and Persian names, but I imagine that this is an error which seldom gets corrected. Could this article note the mistake (if it is one) in order to specify the correct spelling and prounciation of his name?

The only sensible transcription is "Ahmed" (or possibly "Ahmad") - Arabic has two /h/ sounds, one of them identical with the English, the other not. This is the other one. There's no equivalent sound in English (nor in any European language so far as I know), and thereefore no letter in the Latin alphabet to represent it. So /h/ will do. As for his other names, Abdel Hadi should properly be one word (how can you be "the servant of", which is what Abdel means, without being the servant of someone/thing?). His last name, Chalabi, is interesting. There's no /ch/ sound in Arabic, and therefore no letter in the Arabic alphabet to represent it. But there is a /ch/ sound in the Iraqi dialect of Arabic. You find it in words like /simich/, meaning "fish" - which is /samak/ in, for example, Egyptian. I vaguely remember /kalb/ (Egyptian /kelb/) might also be pronounced /chelb/. Anyway, the actual spelling would be /Jelebi/ (or /Jalabi/). I find it odd that this results in Iraqi /Chalabi/, as jim (the name of that particular letter, representing a soft /j/ sound) usually turns into a /k/ or /g/ sound in Iraqi, depending on surrounding sounds. Or maybe I'm wrong. PiCo 10:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Chalabi is a common, if not obvious to English speakers, transliteration of the word Shalabi, meaning roughly "gentleman." It was presumably an honorific given in Ottoman times and then converted into a surname. The Arabic letter should be converted from jim to shin. If you wanted to do an academic transliteration of his other name, it would be `Abd al-Hadi, but 1)Abdul or Abdel, even though it's nonsense Arabic, is the commonly accepted way of writing names of this type in Western languages, and 2) the convention is to let people who have an established way of spelling their names in Roman script use whatever spelling they want. --AG 07:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

There are three "h" sounds in Modern Standard Arabic (known as "Fuss-ha"). The first is an aspirated, very breathy "h," which is the letter used in Chalabi's first name, Ahmed, as well as other common names such as Muhammad or Mahmoud. The second is a hard "h" sound produced in the back of the mouth/top of the throat that sounds somewhat like the "ch" in the English colloquialism "blech," and is usually written "kh." Although Farsi (aka Persian) is a different language than Arabic, it uses an almost identical script and thus this hard "h" is used in the name Ayatollah Khomeini. Lastly, there is a third "h" sound in Arabic, written differently than the first two (which are similar in appearance). This "h" is usually pronounced the same as we would in English, i.e. "heather" or "heat." 169.253.4.21 21:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)Evan

Chalabi's INC and the Plame affair

Please note this piece, naming Chalabi as one of the four 'prime suspects':

En Italie, le parlement vient de conclure une étude sur les origines et les conséquences des faux, et selon certaines sources, le rapport mentionne parmi les principaux suspects Michael Ledeen, Dewey Clarridge, Ahmed Chalabi et Francis Brookes. [2]

In Italy, the Parliament comes to conclude a study on the origins and the consequences from the forgeries, and according to certain sources, the report/ratio mentions among the principal suspects Michael Ledeen, Dewey Clarridge, Ahmed Chalabi and Francis Brookes.

And Perle, in October 2002, with this surprising admission:

"The I.N.C. has been without question the single most important source of intelligence about Saddam Hussein," said Richard N. Perle, an influential adviser to the Pentagon and an admirer of Mr. Chalabi and the Iraqi National Congress. "What the agency has learned in recent months has come largely through the I.N.C.'s efforts despite indifference of the C.I.A." [3]

And there's this: Chalabi stands by faulty intelligence that toppled Saddam's regime (Filed: 19/02/2004)

An Iraqi leader accused of feeding faulty pre-war intelligence to Washington said yesterday his information about Saddam Hussein's weapons, even if discredited, had achieved the aim of persuading America to topple the dictator.

Ahmad Chalabi and his London-based exile group, the Iraqi National Congress, for years provided a conduit for Iraqi defectors who were debriefed by US intelligence agents. But many American officials now blame Mr Chalabi for providing intelligence that turned out to be false or wild exaggerations about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

Mr Chalabi, by far the most effective anti-Saddam lobbyist in Washington, shrugged off charges that he had deliberately misled US intelligence. "We are heroes in error," he told the Telegraph in Baghdad. "As far as we're concerned we've been entirely successful. That tyrant Saddam is gone and the Americans are in Baghdad. What was said before is not important. The Bush administration is looking for a scapegoat. We're ready to fall on our swords if he wants."

{...} US officials said last week that one of the most celebrated pieces of false intelligence, the claim that Saddam Hussein had mobile biological weapons laboratories, had come from a major in the Iraqi intelligence service made available by the INC.

US officials at first found the information credible and the defector passed a lie-detector test. But in later interviews it became apparent that he was stretching the truth and had been "coached by the INC".

He failed a second polygraph test and in May 2002, intelligence agencies were warned that the information was unreliable.

But analysts missed the warning, and the mobile laboratory story remained firmly established in the catalogue of alleged Iraqi violations until months after the overthrow of Saddam. [4]

Also, there's Dowd's column, "Woman of Mass Destruction", about Judith Miller (one of the two reporters who did time for the Plame affair):

Judy's stories about WMD fit too perfectly with the White House's case for war. She was close to Ahmad Chalabi, the con man who was conning the neocons to knock out Saddam so he could get his hands on Iraq, and I worried that she was playing a leading role in the dangerous echo chamber that former Senator Bob Graham dubbed "incestuous amplification." Using Iraqi defectors and exiles, Mr. Chalabi planted bogus stories with Judy and other credulous journalists. truthout's cache

I still see no reference to Plame or the Plame Affair. Every one Judith Miller mentioned in her long career is not part of the Plame story.--Mr j galt 06:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Let me restate it for you.

"The I.N.C. has been without question the single most important source of intelligence about Saddam Hussein," said Richard N. Perle, an influential adviser to the Pentagon and an admirer of Mr. Chalabi and the Iraqi National Congress. "What the agency has learned in recent months has come largely through the I.N.C.'s efforts despite indifference of the C.I.A."

What did 'the agency learn' 'despite indifference of the C.I.A.', prior to October, 2002? That's right. The Niger claims. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 06:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

RfC opened for Mr j galt

An RfC has been opened here.-- User:RyanFreisling @ 22:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Question to be answered?

Question to be answered: Chalabi is listed in the Wiki Article "Iraqi Transitional Government" as a Deputy Prime Minister, yet this article reads as if he is no longer part of the Iraqi Government. I suggest you review this and make an adjustment, even if it is a short paragraph at the end to state: "Chalabi was (elected|appointed) as Deputy Prime Minister on (date) with responsibilities (whatever they are).

Thanks

Mike (Mcrawford01) Mcrawford01 07:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Too bad

That the Islamic Army In Iraq didnt succeed in assasinating him, they came so close. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.248.159.240 (talk) 18:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

USA bias

This article tends to veer toward a proxy of USA political debates. While these issues are important, they should not be at the expense of the treatment of the subject from a more non-USA perspective. See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. — AjaxSmack 07:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Well he spent much of his life in the U.S., and arguably most of his notability stems from his actions in the U.S. advocating for invasion. Is there a specific example of your issue with the article? CKCortez (talk) 05:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Iranian affiliation

formatted Listing Port (talk) 04:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

You might like to add that Chalabi was an Iranian asset. This is fairly well known by those in intelligence circles, has been reported in some papers and even cited in some recent books. I first heard about a year ago in a letter from Richard Sale and Milt Bearden to Col. Pat Lang.

http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2007/05/richard_sale_on.html

Reproduced here with the permission of Richard Sale and Milt Bearden. Richard informs me that all of this was "on the record." pl

---

"Dear Pat:

I have been busy working on the Balkans, but wanted to provide some data about Chalabi and Iran.

According to more than half a dozen CIA operatives, including former clandestine DO officials, "Agency people became aware that Chalabi had probably been a long-time agent for Iran," in the words of one. These sources, including Whitley Bruner, say that Chalabi was long ago working for Iran in Lebanon, even before the agency recruited him in 1991 and stuck him in as head of the INC. Bruner said of Chalabi: "He never gave the agency any intel on Iran, never submitted to being debriefed.' adding, "He was Iran’s guy." Bruner and others claim that Chalabi "wanted to start low-intensity war with Iraq. He hoped we would get sucked in." The plan was that the INC would "appeal to US benefactors and we would rescue our proxies." Former CIA agent, Bob Baer who went into Kurdistan in 1994, said that Chalabi always came into Kurdistan from Iran, where he had a villa. He said Chalabi was very close to Iranians, and covert operators said IRG folk were often at his house in Salauddin. The INC was totally penetrated by Iranian and Iraqi agents but the CIA didn't care. Chalabi was never entrusted with any secret operations. He was be the day to day manager of INC which was putting out anti-Saddam gray propaganda. We wanted Saddam to know about the INC just to keep the pressure on him. In 1996, the CIA was trying to organize a serious attempt to overthrow Saddam using the INA, headed by a former Saddam hit man, Iyad Allawi who had broken with Saddam and walked in to work for MI-6 in the late 1970s. The Brits eventually brought him to the CIA in 1992. Allawi had assets inside Saddam's military but Chalabi betrayed the coup out of jealousy. The INA was the preferred CIA instrument, its intelligence was being checked out by technical means, and its success would have meant the end of Chalabi's funding. In any case, Chalabi got caught fabricating information and the CIA cut him off. He merely went to the Pentagon and the checks kept coming because his fabricated intelligence on Iraq's WMD was so essential to selling the war, this from a man who had already failed four CIA polygraphs so that the agency had issued a "burn" notice on him by the late 1990s. In 2004, Chalabi betrayed to Iran the fact the NSA was listening to mail belonging to Iran's Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS). Milt Bearden called me in real distress the day the Iranian channel went off the air. But Chalabi's real goal was to get rid of the Baathists in Iraq, and get rid of the army. In spite of promises we had made to senior Iraqi military, some of whom facilitated our entry into Iraq in 2003, Bremer, Wolfowitz and Chalabi broke all those promises and the Iraqis joined the insurgency.

All the best,

Richard Sale"

76.103.124.31 (talk) 01:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

This article is seriously lacking on the Iranian issue. This man was almost single-handedly responsible for providing people like Douglas J. Feith and others at the Office of Special Plans with the faulty intelligence about WMD that lead the United States into the war in Iraq, a war that has made the Iranian position in the Middle East very much stronger. And he's heavily involved with the Iranian regime. Some say he's an Iranian agent. This highly controversial issue should be dealt with in much greater detail in this article. A good source for this information is The Man Who Pushed America to War: The Extraordinary Life, Adventures and Obsessions of Ahmad Chalabi. There's an interview with the author here. Wikipedia should really be doing a lot better on such an important topic.

"Initially, Chalabi enjoyed close political and business relationships with some members of the U.S. government"

This half-sentence is just a hint on how far this page is from being fit for an encyclopedia:

• When was that, initially?
• Who were those unnamed members of the US government?
• What nature were these alleged relationships?

Other examples:

• fallen out of favor (whose favor?)
• is currently under investigation by several U.S. government sources: Since when? Which government bodies (or sources)?
• Chalabi was also part of a three-man executive council... : who were the other two?
• the Iraqi National Congress (INC), created (...) for the purpose of fomenting the overthrow of (...) Saddam Hussein : well, fomenting is hardly NPOV.
• it never had any influence or any following to speak of : probably means it had some influence or following not to speak of, as after being non existent (or unspeakable) this influence "gradually waned until the December 2005 elections."
• "[Chalabi] is a controversial figure" very much sounds like a highly controversial statement.
• Nearly all, if not all, of this information has turned out to be of questionable accuracy. The very phrase "of questionable accuracy" is of unquestionable inaccuracy, i.e. highly questionable and totally lacking any degree of accuracy. Do we mean "false" ou "unproved" or whatever: if so, why not boldly say so? And is it "all" or "nearly all" (meaning what?) of this info that is so questionable: is it for the reader to decide? Isn't an encyclopedia supposed to provide information, rather than unanswered questions?
• He is "said to have political contacts with (...)": Just who says so? What kind of contacts?

And so on... At least this opening paragraph needs serious improvement, by people who know the subject matter much better than I do (which is not much of a challenge, really :))

Stefan Ivanovich (talk) 23:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

How is he allive?

Honestly with absolutely no threat intended im really wondering how it is that a political figure like him survived? Wouldnt the Saddam Hussein administration take him out? If there was trully a war about to begin with the United States and Saddam Hussein and his administration wouldnt the forst person to go would be the traitor of iraq? I'm just surprised how hes alive and clearly a United States suporter (and western supporter. This guy is loaded because of Saddam Hussein's toppling —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.31.254 (talk) 19:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Embezzlement, Theft, Misuse of Depositor Funds and Currency Speculation in Jordan

A section really needs to be added with respect to his embezzlement conviction in Jordan.

The following is a link from The Guardian on this subject.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/apr/14/iraq.davidleigh

There is a wealth of information on this subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.182.56.5 (talk) 22:02, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Ahmed Chalabi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110202103425/http://chalabibook.com/ to http://www.chalabibook.com/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130707161206/http://www.salon.com/2011/12/05/arrows_of_the_night_the_man_behind_the_iraq_war/singleton/ to http://www.salon.com/2011/12/05/arrows_of_the_night_the_man_behind_the_iraq_war/singleton/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070803124926/http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0401-10.htm to http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0401-10.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:29, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ahmed Chalabi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071012122946/http://www.atholbooks.org/review/iraq.php to http://www.atholbooks.org/review/iraq.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071029203904/http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/20893.html to http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/20893.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:46, 28 June 2017 (UTC)