69 million page views

Some Important Questions To Consider

Reader comment on item: 'Walking Back the Cat' On Chalabi

Submitted by Florence Sinow (United States), Jun 22, 2004 at 10:46

If it is actually the White House, i.e. the president and/or vice-president, and their closest advisors, who have been attempting to "marginalize" Mr. Chalabi, as "Time Magazine" has "documented," my question is "Why?" The White House, I understood, chose Mr. C. as a trustworthy ally and supporter for our country's effort to take some form of democracy to the Iraqi people. Why would anyone among those who can be represented in print as "the White House," except someone seeking to undermine those efforts or to cast doubts on the good sense and abilities of the president and/or vice president. Who, in the circle of people around Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney, would have such a motive and, if so, why? I find it scary.

Each of the possibilities set forth in this message from Daniel Pipes gives us much to think about. Whichever is correct, I want to know WHO first put this accusation of Mr. Chalabi out and for what motive and if it is Mr. Chalabi or the Bush/Cheney team that is the true target. I do not question that we have cracked the codes. I do question the source of the charge against a man who was so acceptable to the White House as an ally and known to and admired by Mr. Pipes. Shouldn't we demand to know specifically by name and agency from whence such charges have come before we can fairly assess them?
Dislike
Submitting....

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".

Submit a comment on this item

<< Previous Comment      Next Comment >>

Reader comments (16) on this item

Title Commenter Date Thread
I think this one is off the mark [160 words]BigAlJun 30, 2004 13:2715855
LEGAL STATUS OF ISLAM [62 words]DON VANJun 28, 2004 17:1815817
Assumptions not included. [63 words]John BergJun 23, 2004 16:1715780
Intrigue [50 words]PattiJun 23, 2004 03:3615777
chalabi [21 words]rick sakaiJun 23, 2004 02:5415776
About Chalabi [41 words]CluelessJun 22, 2004 23:4515774
Another possibility [75 words]JackJun 22, 2004 21:1915773
why are you surprised? [108 words]john w mcginleyJun 22, 2004 14:4915770
Cracking Codes [166 words]FriendJun 22, 2004 13:2615767
Clears the air of alot of questions [34 words]Gary JonesJun 22, 2004 11:4315765
Chalabi/Iran Code [10 words]Aaron RosloffJun 22, 2004 11:0515762
Whose side are they on? [92 words]Jay A. Lerman, MSIAJun 22, 2004 10:4715761
Some Important Questions To Consider [239 words]Florence SinowJun 22, 2004 10:4615760
Chalabi-Scapegoat [93 words]Saul RapkinJun 22, 2004 10:4415758
Ignoring some of the information [73 words]Jun 22, 2004 10:0615757
'Walking Back the Cat' On Chalabi... [81 words]Menahem DunskyJun 22, 2004 06:1615753

Follow Daniel Pipes

Facebook   Twitter   RSS   Join Mailing List

All materials by Daniel Pipes on this site: © 1968-2024 Daniel Pipes. daniel.pipes@gmail.com and @DanielPipes

Support Daniel Pipes' work with a tax-deductible donation to the Middle East Forum.Daniel J. Pipes

(The MEF is a publicly supported, nonprofit organization under section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code.

Contributions are tax deductible to the full extent allowed by law. Tax-ID 23-774-9796, approved Apr. 27, 1998.

For more information, view our IRS letter of determination.)