HomeLatestBest ofCollections
It's a very sad world we live in when Sir Paul McCartney and his wife are facing divorce and all anyone seems to want to do is make jokes about her false leg. Personally, I think it's prosthetic.
News reports have confirmed that Paul McCartney has separated from his wife Heather Mills-McCartney. Mrs Mills-McCartney is said to be distraught over the split. "He has been my crutch for so long!" She said in an earlier briefing, "I have no idea why this has happened, I'm really stumped"
"She's running around in circles", according to a close friend, "she will need all the support she can get. It's not like its easy to walk out on a relationship like this"
After his break up with Heather, Paul was asked if he would ever consider going down on one knee again. Paul said he would prefer it if we called her Heather.
It is not known whether a pre-nuptial agreement was signed prior to the marriage. Paul McCartney is one of the richest men in the world, and if an agreement has been signed it is believed that she won't have a leg to stand on.
Rumours abound over the split which have suggested that infidelity may have been the cause. "She's terrible" a source stated, "always trying to get her leg over".
Another source has suggested that her battle with alcoholism was the cause. "Macca couldn't handle it anymore" a friend said, "he would get home at night and find her legless"
Many have attributed this to a problem which started with the present that Paul bought her prior to the wedding. He gave her a new prosthetic leg for Christmas but that was just a stocking-filler.
--------------------------------------...
A miner in Africa has an accident and loses a leg. He says to his mate "I'm f---ed, who will want a one legged gold digger?" His mate says, "try Paul McCartney"
Finally a poem by Sir Paul McCartney:
I lay upon a grassy bank
My hands were all a quiver
I slowly removed her suspender belt and her leg fell in the river
These jokes are funny but let's spare a thought for Paul please. Now she has left him, he's going to struggle to find another woman who can fill her shoe.
Sir Paul offered the gold-digging b*tch a £20,000,000 settlement. Her lawyer advised her to take the money and run. She tried... and fell over.
McCartney V McCartney?
Giggles...... funny!!! 10/10
Reply:Cruel, as the jokes were, you have a great sense of humour.
Reply:thanks for the laugh.
Reply:i once pulled a bird with 1 leg but did not notice it. we got back to her place %26amp; she went upstairs saying "follow me up in 5 minutes"
i went up %26amp; she was lying on the bed %26amp; i said "where's your other leg?"
"over there on the dressing table" she replied
so i said "has one of my exes been telling you how wide you have to spread your legs?"
Reply:The previous Mrs.MsCartney was good for a few laughs too........What do you call a dog with wings?
Reply:do you also find it funny that kids have lost their limbs to meningitis. would you make a joke of it. i can laugh at most things but not disability.
scooter
Monday, August 3, 2009
A stranger played footsie with me at the movies?
I was with my boyfriend and this guy sat next to me at the movies 3 weeks ago.The movie is playing and all of the sudden I feel tickling on my stocking foot and it went on for 5 minutes.I thought it was an accident but it started again the stranger next to me was playing footsie with me!I wasnt sure what to do I didn't want to make a scene so I moved my foot over but he reached to touch my foot some more.But I was getting turned on a little bit because it was dangerous.So I took off my shoe and played back I was really getting horny because this was so taboo.We spent the rest of the movie fondling each others feet did this stranger uncover a hidden foot fetish?Should I tell my boyfriend?
A stranger played footsie with me at the movies?
if ur boyfrind did that with a girl while he was sitting next to u what will b ur reaction !
Reply:I think you should leave it alone, and don't go in for cheap tactics like this. It would have just been a one time thing with no meaning anyway and you would have felt used. Ignore those things. Ask your boyfriend to move down a seat, or something.
Reply:You've written this crap before.
I'm on to you now.
Reply:You obviously like having your feet played with. If you like it, tell your boyfriend and let him play.
Reply:CAUTION !! You may have opened the door to a stalker
Reply:you sound really cool and normal to me... playing footsie with a stranger is harmless as long as it ends there. as far as telling your boyfriend i wouldnt but just try it with him sometime at dinner or something then you will know if you really have a foot fetish
Reply:No! That sounds ******* hot! You should have whispered to him to meet you in the bathroom during the movie and done him!
Reply:I don't think you have a foot fetish I think it was more the thrill of getting caught. Kind of like the thrill an exibitionist has. On the other hand would like it if your boyfriend was doing that with a girl sitting next to him
Reply:No it was just a omne time thing.
Reply:...be glad "he" didn't offer you some of his "buttered" popcorn
Reply:cool! you bad bad girl.....;]
sweating
A stranger played footsie with me at the movies?
if ur boyfrind did that with a girl while he was sitting next to u what will b ur reaction !
Reply:I think you should leave it alone, and don't go in for cheap tactics like this. It would have just been a one time thing with no meaning anyway and you would have felt used. Ignore those things. Ask your boyfriend to move down a seat, or something.
Reply:You've written this crap before.
I'm on to you now.
Reply:You obviously like having your feet played with. If you like it, tell your boyfriend and let him play.
Reply:CAUTION !! You may have opened the door to a stalker
Reply:you sound really cool and normal to me... playing footsie with a stranger is harmless as long as it ends there. as far as telling your boyfriend i wouldnt but just try it with him sometime at dinner or something then you will know if you really have a foot fetish
Reply:No! That sounds ******* hot! You should have whispered to him to meet you in the bathroom during the movie and done him!
Reply:I don't think you have a foot fetish I think it was more the thrill of getting caught. Kind of like the thrill an exibitionist has. On the other hand would like it if your boyfriend was doing that with a girl sitting next to him
Reply:No it was just a omne time thing.
Reply:...be glad "he" didn't offer you some of his "buttered" popcorn
Reply:cool! you bad bad girl.....;]
sweating
What NOT to Get Your Dog for Christmas?
1. A CD of cats meowing popular Christmas songs.
2. A chew toy with the head already gnawed off by his canine brother who chewed his way into the gift box around the 15th of the month.
3. A chew toy shaped like a shoe which he is immediately going to confuse with the right sneaker of your favorite pair.
4. Central A/C for his Dogloo when you're still using individual wall units that are barely up to cooling a small close-size area in your house.
5. Anything Garfield.
6. A remote control for the refrigerator door.
7. A knitted pink sweater that makes your macho doberman look like a poodle.
8. A deluxe pre-packaged treat-filled Christmas stocking that's large enough for you to use as a sleeping bag.
9. Doggie antlers when your near-sighted hunting relatives will be spending the holidays with you.
10. A stuffed toy dog with an angel's halo as a hint as to what he has to do to get more presents next year.
11. A doggie door between you and the suspicious butcher next door.
12. An audition for a diet dog food commercial where they feed him so much during retakes that he actually gains weight.
13. A piece of jewelry featuring a ceramic dog of his breed for you to wear.
14. His own i-pets.com credit card.
15. A cat.
What NOT to Get Your Dog for Christmas?
quite funny indeed.
Reply:Rambling Rose thank you for the points and you're welcome. Report It
Reply:is it just me that is wondering what this is doing in the jokes and riddles section???
Reply:Very funny.LoL
Reply:good...
Reply:a dog is not just for christmas...
Reply:will take this when i go shopping
starred
Reply:I like it hahaha
Reply:Brilliant lol
well done
star
Reply:hehehe, excellent list hun, pmsl
star time
xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Reply:Lol, some of them were quite funny I suppose, but they could be better.
sunburn
2. A chew toy with the head already gnawed off by his canine brother who chewed his way into the gift box around the 15th of the month.
3. A chew toy shaped like a shoe which he is immediately going to confuse with the right sneaker of your favorite pair.
4. Central A/C for his Dogloo when you're still using individual wall units that are barely up to cooling a small close-size area in your house.
5. Anything Garfield.
6. A remote control for the refrigerator door.
7. A knitted pink sweater that makes your macho doberman look like a poodle.
8. A deluxe pre-packaged treat-filled Christmas stocking that's large enough for you to use as a sleeping bag.
9. Doggie antlers when your near-sighted hunting relatives will be spending the holidays with you.
10. A stuffed toy dog with an angel's halo as a hint as to what he has to do to get more presents next year.
11. A doggie door between you and the suspicious butcher next door.
12. An audition for a diet dog food commercial where they feed him so much during retakes that he actually gains weight.
13. A piece of jewelry featuring a ceramic dog of his breed for you to wear.
14. His own i-pets.com credit card.
15. A cat.
What NOT to Get Your Dog for Christmas?
quite funny indeed.
Reply:Rambling Rose thank you for the points and you're welcome. Report It
Reply:is it just me that is wondering what this is doing in the jokes and riddles section???
Reply:Very funny.LoL
Reply:good...
Reply:a dog is not just for christmas...
Reply:will take this when i go shopping
starred
Reply:I like it hahaha
Reply:Brilliant lol
well done
star
Reply:hehehe, excellent list hun, pmsl
star time
xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Reply:Lol, some of them were quite funny I suppose, but they could be better.
sunburn
This is just classic!?
It's a very sad world we live in when Sir Paul McCartney and his wife are
facing divorce and all anyone seems to want to do is make jokes about her
false leg. Personally, I think it's prosthetic.
News reports have confirmed that Paul McCartney has separated from his
wife Heather Mills-McCartney. Mrs Mills-McCartney is said to be distraught
over the split. "He has been my crutch for so long"! She said in an
earlier briefing, "I have no idea why this has happened, I'm really
stumped"
"She's running around in circles", according to a close friend, "she needs
all the support she can get. It's not like its easy to walk out on a
relationship like this"
After his break up with Heather, Paul was asked if he would ever consider
going down on one knee again. Paul said he would prefer it if we called
her Heather.
It is not known whether a pre-nuptial agreement was signed prior to the
marriage. Paul McCartney is one of the richest men in the world, and if an
agreement has been signed it is believed that she won't have a leg to
stand on.
Rumours abound over the split which have suggested that infidelity may
have been the cause. "She's terrible" a source stated, "always trying to
get her leg over".
Another source has suggested that her battle with alcoholism was the
cause. "Macca couldn't handle it anymore" a friend said, "he would get
home at night and find her legless"
Many have attributed this to a problem which started with the present that
Paul bought her prior to the wedding. He gave her a new prosthetic leg for
Christmas but that was just a stocking-filler.
A miner in Africa has an accident and loses a leg. He says to his mate
"I'm f---ed, who will want a one legged gold digger?" His mate says "try
Paul McCartney"
Finally a poem by Sir Paul McCartney:
I lay upon a grassy bank
My hands were all a quiver
I slowly removed her suspender belt and her leg fell in the river
These jokes are funny but lets spare a thought for Paul please. Now she
has left him, he's going to struggle to find another woman who can fill
her shoe.
This is just classic!?
to protect yourself from the 'Yahoo Police' you should ask a ? try - isn't this just a .....
Reply:Little funny
Reply:nice cheerful thoughts for the day.
Reply:nice
Reply:that isnt funny %26gt;yawn%26lt; its boring
skin rashes
facing divorce and all anyone seems to want to do is make jokes about her
false leg. Personally, I think it's prosthetic.
News reports have confirmed that Paul McCartney has separated from his
wife Heather Mills-McCartney. Mrs Mills-McCartney is said to be distraught
over the split. "He has been my crutch for so long"! She said in an
earlier briefing, "I have no idea why this has happened, I'm really
stumped"
"She's running around in circles", according to a close friend, "she needs
all the support she can get. It's not like its easy to walk out on a
relationship like this"
After his break up with Heather, Paul was asked if he would ever consider
going down on one knee again. Paul said he would prefer it if we called
her Heather.
It is not known whether a pre-nuptial agreement was signed prior to the
marriage. Paul McCartney is one of the richest men in the world, and if an
agreement has been signed it is believed that she won't have a leg to
stand on.
Rumours abound over the split which have suggested that infidelity may
have been the cause. "She's terrible" a source stated, "always trying to
get her leg over".
Another source has suggested that her battle with alcoholism was the
cause. "Macca couldn't handle it anymore" a friend said, "he would get
home at night and find her legless"
Many have attributed this to a problem which started with the present that
Paul bought her prior to the wedding. He gave her a new prosthetic leg for
Christmas but that was just a stocking-filler.
A miner in Africa has an accident and loses a leg. He says to his mate
"I'm f---ed, who will want a one legged gold digger?" His mate says "try
Paul McCartney"
Finally a poem by Sir Paul McCartney:
I lay upon a grassy bank
My hands were all a quiver
I slowly removed her suspender belt and her leg fell in the river
These jokes are funny but lets spare a thought for Paul please. Now she
has left him, he's going to struggle to find another woman who can fill
her shoe.
This is just classic!?
to protect yourself from the 'Yahoo Police' you should ask a ? try - isn't this just a .....
Reply:Little funny
Reply:nice cheerful thoughts for the day.
Reply:nice
Reply:that isnt funny %26gt;yawn%26lt; its boring
skin rashes
Why did Larry Craig get into trouble for simply asking the guy next door for some tp?
Obviously, he was out of toilet paper, so he gestured to the guy in the next stall to give up a few squares by putting his hand under the wall, and by tapping his shoe to get his attention.
If this is a crime, then..whatever.
Craig did nothing wrong, in fact it was the the airport maintenance people's fault for not keeping the bathrooms stocked with enough paper for the atendees.
Why did Larry Craig get into trouble for simply asking the guy next door for some tp?
SO WHY DID HE ADMIT GUILT HAHA
HE'S ALREADY STATED HE'S GUILTY
Reply:what he plead guilty to was not soliciting for sex, but disorderly conduct. I think he plead guilty so that he wouldn't have to have his name associated with what they have eventually gone ahead and called it anyway. I am still trying to figure out what he did wrong, tapped his foot...ran his hand under the edge of the stall. He didn't touch the guy, didn't say anything, didn't disrobe...can you really be arrested for tapping your foot in the restroom?
It's crazy, and it's politically motivated.
Reply:He pled guilty.
That's pretty much self explanatory.
Reply:I'm baffled too. Doesn't everybody (at least in Idaho) ask for T.P. by sliding their foot under the partition and rubbing the foot of the guy in the nest stall and saying "Could you give me a little help?"?
You forgot to point out that it was Clinton's fault.
Reply:Oh right! That's it! He just wanted some toilet paper. Give me a break! This is not his first time in this situation, there are reports going back several years of similar behavior
He was also caught peeping on the guy through the cracks in the stall door. He plead guilty and tried to use his position to get out of the situation
Reply:I know. It's ridiculous. He just wanted to wipe his butt, for God's sake. Is that a crime?
Reply:The arrest log:
Airport police Sgt. Dave Karsnia, who was investigating allegations of sexual conduct in airport restrooms, went into a stall shortly after noon on June 11 and closed the door.
Minutes later, the officer said he saw Craig gazing into his stall through the crack between the door and the frame.
After a man in the adjacent stall left, Craig entered it and put his roller bag against the front of the stall door, "which Sgt. Karsnia's experience has indicated is used to attempt to conceal sexual conduct by blocking the view from the front of the stall," said the complaint, which was dated June 25.
The complaint said Craig then tapped his right foot several times and moved it closer to Karsnia's stall and then moved it to where it touched Karsnia's foot. Karsnia recognized that "as a signal often used by persons communicating a desire to engage in sexual conduct," the complaint said.
Craig then passed his left hand under the stall divider into Karsnia's stall with his palm up and guided it along the divider toward the front of the stall three times, the complaint said.
The officer then showed his police identification under the divider and pointed toward the exit "at which time the defendant exclaimed `No!'" the complaint said.
The Aug. 8 police report says Craig handed the arresting officer a business card that identified him as a member of the Senate.
"What do you think about that?" Craig is alleged to have said, according to the report.
Reply:Ya right!!!
car makes
If this is a crime, then..whatever.
Craig did nothing wrong, in fact it was the the airport maintenance people's fault for not keeping the bathrooms stocked with enough paper for the atendees.
Why did Larry Craig get into trouble for simply asking the guy next door for some tp?
SO WHY DID HE ADMIT GUILT HAHA
HE'S ALREADY STATED HE'S GUILTY
Reply:what he plead guilty to was not soliciting for sex, but disorderly conduct. I think he plead guilty so that he wouldn't have to have his name associated with what they have eventually gone ahead and called it anyway. I am still trying to figure out what he did wrong, tapped his foot...ran his hand under the edge of the stall. He didn't touch the guy, didn't say anything, didn't disrobe...can you really be arrested for tapping your foot in the restroom?
It's crazy, and it's politically motivated.
Reply:He pled guilty.
That's pretty much self explanatory.
Reply:I'm baffled too. Doesn't everybody (at least in Idaho) ask for T.P. by sliding their foot under the partition and rubbing the foot of the guy in the nest stall and saying "Could you give me a little help?"?
You forgot to point out that it was Clinton's fault.
Reply:Oh right! That's it! He just wanted some toilet paper. Give me a break! This is not his first time in this situation, there are reports going back several years of similar behavior
He was also caught peeping on the guy through the cracks in the stall door. He plead guilty and tried to use his position to get out of the situation
Reply:I know. It's ridiculous. He just wanted to wipe his butt, for God's sake. Is that a crime?
Reply:The arrest log:
Airport police Sgt. Dave Karsnia, who was investigating allegations of sexual conduct in airport restrooms, went into a stall shortly after noon on June 11 and closed the door.
Minutes later, the officer said he saw Craig gazing into his stall through the crack between the door and the frame.
After a man in the adjacent stall left, Craig entered it and put his roller bag against the front of the stall door, "which Sgt. Karsnia's experience has indicated is used to attempt to conceal sexual conduct by blocking the view from the front of the stall," said the complaint, which was dated June 25.
The complaint said Craig then tapped his right foot several times and moved it closer to Karsnia's stall and then moved it to where it touched Karsnia's foot. Karsnia recognized that "as a signal often used by persons communicating a desire to engage in sexual conduct," the complaint said.
Craig then passed his left hand under the stall divider into Karsnia's stall with his palm up and guided it along the divider toward the front of the stall three times, the complaint said.
The officer then showed his police identification under the divider and pointed toward the exit "at which time the defendant exclaimed `No!'" the complaint said.
The Aug. 8 police report says Craig handed the arresting officer a business card that identified him as a member of the Senate.
"What do you think about that?" Craig is alleged to have said, according to the report.
Reply:Ya right!!!
car makes
Here are 50 uses for condoms enjoy?
Who said there aren't perfectly good uses for used condoms? I can give you at least 50 that are sure to be great examples...
Bicycle handle grips.
French tickler animals.
Shower caps for people with tiny heads.
Put one on a light bulb for mood lighting.
Fill one with helium and tie a note to it.
Get 1000 and make a submarine.
Put one over the showerhead to surprise Dad.
Put 'em on your cat's feet to keep it from climbing the curtains.
Blow a bunch up and tie them to the cars outside a wedding.
Put one on your nose and be Bobo the clown.
Water wings for those non-swimmers.
Use 500 of them to spell out "We Want Women!!" on your house.
Jello molds.
Finger puppets.
A wind sock.
Use as a bobber when fishing.
Put them on soda cans to keep the fizz in when you're not drinking it.
Practical joke: Put one on an exhaust pipe.
Suspenders.
Recycle as a Burger King ketchup baggie. (or would mayonnaise be better?)
Small animal muzzle.
Put them on your fingers %26amp; play proctologist.
Put them on your toes to make swim fins.
Draw eyeballs on them and make funny glasses.
Automatic door closing devices.
Have 'water' balloon fights.
Glue a bunch together and use to replace silicon breast implants.
Freeze them for an all- natural Popsicle.
Glue several together and sell as a "Stretch Man" toy.
Use for a Xmas stocking for those times when coal doesn't tell 'em just
how bad they screwed up this year.
Ear/nose plugs.
Use 365 of them to make into a tire, and call it a "Good Year".
Replace those old "Dr. Scholls" shoe cushions.
Feed them to your pet iguana, Clyde.
Paint scales on them %26amp; put them in a fish tank.
"I challenge you to a duel!"
Drain plugs.
Put them in with your tax return.
Go see "Saturday Night Fever" and throw them at the screen.
Punching bags.
Hang them on the blades of a ceiling fan.
Send 50 of them to your ex-girlfriend.
Novelty key rings.
Hang them all around your windshield and be a Chicano.
Spell "Happy Birthday" on a cake.
Break out your paints and make wax fruit.
Put them on your nipples and try to swing them in opposite directions.
Make a "water" bed.
Put your money in one. Nobody will steal it!
Stick one on the bridge of your nose and run around saying "Gobble Gobble".
Here are 50 uses for condoms enjoy?
you know... i am sorry but these were not funny at all!
Reply:did u make these up all by yourself?
Reply:kinda funny but gross, especially the jello mold part, I mean they are USED.
Reply:Yawn
U must be a rich man to have so much time to come up with 50 different uses.
Next time make it something that doesn't take 15 minutes to read
Reply:what an idiot
Reply:I must say, some of those are pretty funny!
Reply:or put lotion in them and leave them in public parks - the lotion looks like the real deal :(
Reply:huh
Reply:hahahahaha pretty goood those are thumbs way up man rofl
Reply:haha good ones! Did you know they are also great for pregnancy prevention!!?
Reply:i thought they were really funny, i got caught at the office while laughing at them, but my boss was too embarrassed after he read a couple and forgot to yell at me :)
flower
Bicycle handle grips.
French tickler animals.
Shower caps for people with tiny heads.
Put one on a light bulb for mood lighting.
Fill one with helium and tie a note to it.
Get 1000 and make a submarine.
Put one over the showerhead to surprise Dad.
Put 'em on your cat's feet to keep it from climbing the curtains.
Blow a bunch up and tie them to the cars outside a wedding.
Put one on your nose and be Bobo the clown.
Water wings for those non-swimmers.
Use 500 of them to spell out "We Want Women!!" on your house.
Jello molds.
Finger puppets.
A wind sock.
Use as a bobber when fishing.
Put them on soda cans to keep the fizz in when you're not drinking it.
Practical joke: Put one on an exhaust pipe.
Suspenders.
Recycle as a Burger King ketchup baggie. (or would mayonnaise be better?)
Small animal muzzle.
Put them on your fingers %26amp; play proctologist.
Put them on your toes to make swim fins.
Draw eyeballs on them and make funny glasses.
Automatic door closing devices.
Have 'water' balloon fights.
Glue a bunch together and use to replace silicon breast implants.
Freeze them for an all- natural Popsicle.
Glue several together and sell as a "Stretch Man" toy.
Use for a Xmas stocking for those times when coal doesn't tell 'em just
how bad they screwed up this year.
Ear/nose plugs.
Use 365 of them to make into a tire, and call it a "Good Year".
Replace those old "Dr. Scholls" shoe cushions.
Feed them to your pet iguana, Clyde.
Paint scales on them %26amp; put them in a fish tank.
"I challenge you to a duel!"
Drain plugs.
Put them in with your tax return.
Go see "Saturday Night Fever" and throw them at the screen.
Punching bags.
Hang them on the blades of a ceiling fan.
Send 50 of them to your ex-girlfriend.
Novelty key rings.
Hang them all around your windshield and be a Chicano.
Spell "Happy Birthday" on a cake.
Break out your paints and make wax fruit.
Put them on your nipples and try to swing them in opposite directions.
Make a "water" bed.
Put your money in one. Nobody will steal it!
Stick one on the bridge of your nose and run around saying "Gobble Gobble".
Here are 50 uses for condoms enjoy?
you know... i am sorry but these were not funny at all!
Reply:did u make these up all by yourself?
Reply:kinda funny but gross, especially the jello mold part, I mean they are USED.
Reply:Yawn
U must be a rich man to have so much time to come up with 50 different uses.
Next time make it something that doesn't take 15 minutes to read
Reply:what an idiot
Reply:I must say, some of those are pretty funny!
Reply:or put lotion in them and leave them in public parks - the lotion looks like the real deal :(
Reply:huh
Reply:hahahahaha pretty goood those are thumbs way up man rofl
Reply:haha good ones! Did you know they are also great for pregnancy prevention!!?
Reply:i thought they were really funny, i got caught at the office while laughing at them, but my boss was too embarrassed after he read a couple and forgot to yell at me :)
flower
What was the cost of the stuffers before taxes?
The old lady who lived in a shoe was having some real trouble buying Christmas presents for her enormous family. Although she bought the least expensive stocking stuffers she could find, the bill was high. Of course, both a 15 percent sales tax and a 5 percent luxury tax were added to the original price. She paid a total of $100. What was the cost of the stuffers before taxes?
What was the cost of the stuffers before taxes?
Sure sounds like a homework question.
That said, the original price was $100/1.2, or $83.33. Add 20% tax to that and you get $100.
You might get some answers of $80, but that's not correct. 20% of $80 is $16, so she'd only have paid $96 total, not $100.
car audio
What was the cost of the stuffers before taxes?
Sure sounds like a homework question.
That said, the original price was $100/1.2, or $83.33. Add 20% tax to that and you get $100.
You might get some answers of $80, but that's not correct. 20% of $80 is $16, so she'd only have paid $96 total, not $100.
car audio
In the divorce settlement Paul McCartney gave Heather a plane?
and she got a silk stocking for the other leg...
He has also issued this statement:
'I will never marry again. No other woman could possibly fill Heather's shoe.'
Don't you just love to hate her?
xx
In the divorce settlement Paul McCartney gave Heather a plane?
Paul McCarttney was asked "would you ever consider going down on one knee again?". "Don't call.her that", he replied.
Reply:Ha ha ha have a star!
Reply:Fair enough - I was just about to go all legal on yr *** w the actual ruling....
Reply:Good ones.
Have you read the High Court Judgement ?
He said that Paul's evidence was honest and consistent but Heather's was.... well. a bunch of lies, LOL !!
The judge is quite clear that he thinks of Heather as a gold digger. (her statements that she was already a wealthy woman before meeting Sir Paul were GREATLY EXAGGERATED"
Reply:I think that is a misquote. He actually said "Heather is a pill and a shrew."
Reply:LOL
Reply:don't know / don't care
I only feel sorry for the kid...
this just shows u money don't bring you happiness.
he may never marry again? (it's a tad costly for him without PRE-nups), but everyone knows the love of his life was is late wife Linda anyway.
I just wish they'd stop giving her any publicity, she got her money.. she should be happy.. and go back to normal life (whatever normal is)
still, no one will date her probably except gold diggers.. funny that.
Reply:that made me laugh out loud and everyone just looked at me ha!
Reply:LOL made me and my friend giggle for a while thanks
Reply:That's just cruel.
I love it,the woman is awful.
Reply:how generous of him.
mobility scooter
He has also issued this statement:
'I will never marry again. No other woman could possibly fill Heather's shoe.'
Don't you just love to hate her?
xx
In the divorce settlement Paul McCartney gave Heather a plane?
Paul McCarttney was asked "would you ever consider going down on one knee again?". "Don't call.her that", he replied.
Reply:Ha ha ha have a star!
Reply:Fair enough - I was just about to go all legal on yr *** w the actual ruling....
Reply:Good ones.
Have you read the High Court Judgement ?
He said that Paul's evidence was honest and consistent but Heather's was.... well. a bunch of lies, LOL !!
The judge is quite clear that he thinks of Heather as a gold digger. (her statements that she was already a wealthy woman before meeting Sir Paul were GREATLY EXAGGERATED"
Reply:I think that is a misquote. He actually said "Heather is a pill and a shrew."
Reply:LOL
Reply:don't know / don't care
I only feel sorry for the kid...
this just shows u money don't bring you happiness.
he may never marry again? (it's a tad costly for him without PRE-nups), but everyone knows the love of his life was is late wife Linda anyway.
I just wish they'd stop giving her any publicity, she got her money.. she should be happy.. and go back to normal life (whatever normal is)
still, no one will date her probably except gold diggers.. funny that.
Reply:that made me laugh out loud and everyone just looked at me ha!
Reply:LOL made me and my friend giggle for a while thanks
Reply:That's just cruel.
I love it,the woman is awful.
Reply:how generous of him.
mobility scooter
Is this cheating?
My husband and I were at the movies.This man sat next to me so during the movie I started feeling rubbing on my ankle and foot so I moved my foot away and the rubbing continued.I thiught it was a mouse but realized the guy next to me was trying to play footsie with me under the seat.But I was curious about this game so I let him rub my stocking foot and I was getting turned on.My hubby is boring and doesnt know how to have fun.I know I was getting wet and got fidgety.I finally just slipped off my shoe and we fondled feet and my husband never knew.I was in a dangerous mood and this bad boy stranger got me hot.He got up and left before the movie ended.The thing is I would mind having him do that again or I could do it to someone else.This guy unleshed something inside of me do I need help?Counseling?
Is this cheating?
I love playing footsies...hit me up. :-)
Reply:you have a husband!!!!
Reply:***** your married if you feel like going to someone else maybe you should be divorced first all kind of scandalous people out there just like you you will find someone
Reply:You got aroused by another guy touching and rubbing you, doesnt matter where it was.
You wanted more and let him do more.
You didnt tell your husband about it.
You allowed another man to touch you to get you aroused, you didnt tell...Yes, that is cheating.
Sex is an act that provides arousal.
It is not limited to a bed or the genital area.
Reply:That's just how the game goes baby. When you find a self confident player, a real man, a guy who got the balls to make his move, you can't help but being turned on. You ain' t no sl@t, you're just a girl that's in a boring relationship. But if your relationship is boring it's your fault too. You gotta talk more with your man about it. If he doesn't want to talk, move on. If you do him dirty, you better be ready for the consequences if he find out.
Reply:I'm not sure if I would call this cheating but since you say that your husband is boring, why not try to teach him how to have fun. You wouldn't want your hubby to play footsie with another woman.
Reply:try doing this with your husband that's is what he is there for
maybe this guy for just trying in a good way _ like a sign - how to have more fun with your man
please don't cheat on your husband you will regret it if you do
Reply:Guess what!! The guy you where playing footsie with probably left the movie early and was waiting in the lobby to exchange cell phone numbers with you before the movie ended. (Thinking that you had "game" and would make an excuse to go to the lobby.)
Not sure if what happened could be considered cheating, but things were going that way very quickly. You say your husband is boring and doesn't like to have fun. I hope you are able to talk with hubby about this and together you and your hubby can take steps to make things more exciting.
Might what to watch out for type of person who is interested in people with boring relationships. Most of the time they just want to play around, friends with benefits style. Cheaters are usually found out by their spouses. Hate to see you in that kind of mess over a benefit. Think about it. Be careful, be well and good luck.
microsoft
Is this cheating?
I love playing footsies...hit me up. :-)
Reply:you have a husband!!!!
Reply:***** your married if you feel like going to someone else maybe you should be divorced first all kind of scandalous people out there just like you you will find someone
Reply:You got aroused by another guy touching and rubbing you, doesnt matter where it was.
You wanted more and let him do more.
You didnt tell your husband about it.
You allowed another man to touch you to get you aroused, you didnt tell...Yes, that is cheating.
Sex is an act that provides arousal.
It is not limited to a bed or the genital area.
Reply:That's just how the game goes baby. When you find a self confident player, a real man, a guy who got the balls to make his move, you can't help but being turned on. You ain' t no sl@t, you're just a girl that's in a boring relationship. But if your relationship is boring it's your fault too. You gotta talk more with your man about it. If he doesn't want to talk, move on. If you do him dirty, you better be ready for the consequences if he find out.
Reply:I'm not sure if I would call this cheating but since you say that your husband is boring, why not try to teach him how to have fun. You wouldn't want your hubby to play footsie with another woman.
Reply:try doing this with your husband that's is what he is there for
maybe this guy for just trying in a good way _ like a sign - how to have more fun with your man
please don't cheat on your husband you will regret it if you do
Reply:Guess what!! The guy you where playing footsie with probably left the movie early and was waiting in the lobby to exchange cell phone numbers with you before the movie ended. (Thinking that you had "game" and would make an excuse to go to the lobby.)
Not sure if what happened could be considered cheating, but things were going that way very quickly. You say your husband is boring and doesn't like to have fun. I hope you are able to talk with hubby about this and together you and your hubby can take steps to make things more exciting.
Might what to watch out for type of person who is interested in people with boring relationships. Most of the time they just want to play around, friends with benefits style. Cheaters are usually found out by their spouses. Hate to see you in that kind of mess over a benefit. Think about it. Be careful, be well and good luck.
microsoft
Do any of you ladies like having your pantyhose or stocking feet massaged?
Either after work or just anytime. Do you dip your stockinged feet in and out of your shoes too?
Do any of you ladies like having your pantyhose or stocking feet massaged?
After a long day at work I love to slip off my heels and let my stocking feet breathe. And I guess a massage would feel good.
Ps. I love pantyhose as much as you, we must talk.
Reply:weird.
u belong on another website.
Reply:yes. God yes, who ever said you have to wear high heels to look professional was nuts
Reply:ewwww.
Reply:i love foot massages.
Reply:If my feet are going to be rubbed, I'd rather they were bare. The nylon hosiery takes away from the experience for me.
I only take my feet in and out of my shoes (stockings or no) if they are hot or if my shoes have become uncomfortable.
Reply:PANTYH0S3
Reply:I don't wear panties, But I'll take a foot massege.
Reply:NASCAR you are very right...what brand do you wear?contact me pls
Reply:Hmmm...someone with a foot fetish....I don't wear pantyhose...I hate them, but feel free to massage my feet anytime!
accessories belts
Do any of you ladies like having your pantyhose or stocking feet massaged?
After a long day at work I love to slip off my heels and let my stocking feet breathe. And I guess a massage would feel good.
Ps. I love pantyhose as much as you, we must talk.
Reply:weird.
u belong on another website.
Reply:yes. God yes, who ever said you have to wear high heels to look professional was nuts
Reply:ewwww.
Reply:i love foot massages.
Reply:If my feet are going to be rubbed, I'd rather they were bare. The nylon hosiery takes away from the experience for me.
I only take my feet in and out of my shoes (stockings or no) if they are hot or if my shoes have become uncomfortable.
Reply:PANTYH0S3
Reply:I don't wear panties, But I'll take a foot massege.
Reply:NASCAR you are very right...what brand do you wear?contact me pls
Reply:Hmmm...someone with a foot fetish....I don't wear pantyhose...I hate them, but feel free to massage my feet anytime!
accessories belts
Detective Ronran noticed on Katie's body welts that were obviously the result of a recent assault. The marks o
Detective Ronran noticed on Katie's body welts that were obviously the result of a recent assault. The marks on her body had a pattern to them and Officer Tyran asked with what was she hit. Katie replied that she had been hit with a belt and possibly the buckle as well as a shoe. Detective Ronran attempted several times to take a photograph with a digital camera but was unable to do so because of a camera and disk malfunction.
Officer Ferguson spoke to Katie about the belt and shoe and Katie went to the master bedroom, opened the bedroom door and went inside. Officer Ferguson followed and Katie gathered up two belts and a sandle that were on the floor and placed them on the bed. Detective Ronran followed to get a better look at the items.
While inside the bedroom, Detective Ronran noticed that the closet and bathroom doors were closed. Detective Ronran believed "that it was in his best interest for [his] protection and the protection of others that these two areas behind the doors were cleared and safe. [His] concern for his safety was heighten[ed] after learning that Katie was evasive in giving information about her father's whereabouts."
In his report, Detective Tyran wrote the following:
I opened the closet door and checked the immediate visible area. I then checked behind the open door and noticed on the floor two cases of ammunition and one green metal army ammo case. I scanned back across the closet and noticed in the back left corner a black duffle bag that was standing upright and partially open.
When I focused my vision on the opening of the bag, I observed what appeared to be the front sights of rifles. These sights were not the standard beaded post sights, but sights that were common on known assault rifles. From where I was standing I could not tell if they were real or if they were toys. I moved into the closet and got a closer look into the bag through the opening. At this time, I observed metal barrels, wooden stocks and "banana" style magazines. I felt confident that the weapons were real. I left the items as I found them and went to secure the bathroom.
It appeared that after I had opened the closet door, Katie left the room as if we were going to find something or someone.
Upon finding these items, Detective Ronran informed all present of the items and announced that he needed to call a supervisor because of the seriousness of the situation.
Captain Merriman arrived and decided that the weapons be removed from the residence. Also, the officers determined that Taylor had been previously convicted of a misdemeanor involving domestic violence and was in illegal possession of the firearms as a prohibited person under Title 18, United States Code, Section 922(g)(9).
Prior to trial, the defense counsel for Taylor moved to suppress the firearms and ammunition that were seized from his apartment. Discuss the legal principles that would apply to this motion to suppress and how the court should rule.
Detective Ronran noticed on Katie's body welts that were obviously the result of a recent assault. The marks o
People in pre-law should at least attempt to do their own homework.
I did when I was in college.
Reply:Two words:
Radar calibration.
Seriously.
Reply:ok we answered the same situation 3 times now. stop spamming
Reply:How many aliases do you have? This question has been asked three times within the last hour. MOVE ON SON.
accessories belts
Officer Ferguson spoke to Katie about the belt and shoe and Katie went to the master bedroom, opened the bedroom door and went inside. Officer Ferguson followed and Katie gathered up two belts and a sandle that were on the floor and placed them on the bed. Detective Ronran followed to get a better look at the items.
While inside the bedroom, Detective Ronran noticed that the closet and bathroom doors were closed. Detective Ronran believed "that it was in his best interest for [his] protection and the protection of others that these two areas behind the doors were cleared and safe. [His] concern for his safety was heighten[ed] after learning that Katie was evasive in giving information about her father's whereabouts."
In his report, Detective Tyran wrote the following:
I opened the closet door and checked the immediate visible area. I then checked behind the open door and noticed on the floor two cases of ammunition and one green metal army ammo case. I scanned back across the closet and noticed in the back left corner a black duffle bag that was standing upright and partially open.
When I focused my vision on the opening of the bag, I observed what appeared to be the front sights of rifles. These sights were not the standard beaded post sights, but sights that were common on known assault rifles. From where I was standing I could not tell if they were real or if they were toys. I moved into the closet and got a closer look into the bag through the opening. At this time, I observed metal barrels, wooden stocks and "banana" style magazines. I felt confident that the weapons were real. I left the items as I found them and went to secure the bathroom.
It appeared that after I had opened the closet door, Katie left the room as if we were going to find something or someone.
Upon finding these items, Detective Ronran informed all present of the items and announced that he needed to call a supervisor because of the seriousness of the situation.
Captain Merriman arrived and decided that the weapons be removed from the residence. Also, the officers determined that Taylor had been previously convicted of a misdemeanor involving domestic violence and was in illegal possession of the firearms as a prohibited person under Title 18, United States Code, Section 922(g)(9).
Prior to trial, the defense counsel for Taylor moved to suppress the firearms and ammunition that were seized from his apartment. Discuss the legal principles that would apply to this motion to suppress and how the court should rule.
Detective Ronran noticed on Katie's body welts that were obviously the result of a recent assault. The marks o
People in pre-law should at least attempt to do their own homework.
I did when I was in college.
Reply:Two words:
Radar calibration.
Seriously.
Reply:ok we answered the same situation 3 times now. stop spamming
Reply:How many aliases do you have? This question has been asked three times within the last hour. MOVE ON SON.
accessories belts
What would you wear with a black dress (stocking,jewlery).?
I got this black dress for a christmas party saturday night. I have peekaboo toe shoes from nine west. The question is, black or silver jewlery and black or nude stockings?
http://www.gap.com/browse/product.do?cid...
What would you wear with a black dress (stocking,jewlery).?
That is a very cute dress! I think nude stockings would work really well with them and perhaps try the more expensive ones that have a nice shine and sheer toe, because of your shoes?? Silver jewelry will stand out more and compliment the dress.. the black jewelry won't give much of an effect!
Hope this helps, but definitely go with shimmery nude stockings! your legs are going to stand out really well and make it very elegant and classy!
Reply:I would go with silver jewlery and nude stockings. Because if you wear too much black it will look like you're about to go to a funeral.
Reply:Nice dress. I would go with silver jewelry that sparkles and nude stockings. I think that would make you stand out more than just wearing all black. Have a good time!
Reply:Definately black jewelry with the nude stockings, and add a little flair with a bright or shimmery scarf. Keep it simple. With a black dress less is more.
Reply:If you were to wear stockings I would ditch the peep toe shoe and wear black tights with a pump.. nude stockings are so old fashioned.. especially with an open toed shoe
Reply:the thing is how long is the dress? if its long then some black jewelry will go good but just a neclace and maybe a bracelet or if not just a simple scarf. if its a cut dress then silver jewlery will go good and just a teeny bi of glittery makeup but not much
Reply:wow thats nice, id wear nude stockings, an either gold shoes jewellery and bag or silver shoes jewellery and bag, too much black isnt always a good thing u need a touch of colour
Reply:That's such a pretty dress! I would definatly wear sparkling silver jewellery and nude stockings.
Reply:I would wear black tights or black stockings with a vine pattern. Those are really hot this season. I think that Silver Jewelry looks great with Black. You don't want to see too much black ya know?
My Fashion Blog: http://la-fashion-a-la-mode.blogspot.com...
Reply:silver jewellery with nude stocking would be perfect in addition a top knot with falling curls will look fantastic
interest rate
http://www.gap.com/browse/product.do?cid...
What would you wear with a black dress (stocking,jewlery).?
That is a very cute dress! I think nude stockings would work really well with them and perhaps try the more expensive ones that have a nice shine and sheer toe, because of your shoes?? Silver jewelry will stand out more and compliment the dress.. the black jewelry won't give much of an effect!
Hope this helps, but definitely go with shimmery nude stockings! your legs are going to stand out really well and make it very elegant and classy!
Reply:I would go with silver jewlery and nude stockings. Because if you wear too much black it will look like you're about to go to a funeral.
Reply:Nice dress. I would go with silver jewelry that sparkles and nude stockings. I think that would make you stand out more than just wearing all black. Have a good time!
Reply:Definately black jewelry with the nude stockings, and add a little flair with a bright or shimmery scarf. Keep it simple. With a black dress less is more.
Reply:If you were to wear stockings I would ditch the peep toe shoe and wear black tights with a pump.. nude stockings are so old fashioned.. especially with an open toed shoe
Reply:the thing is how long is the dress? if its long then some black jewelry will go good but just a neclace and maybe a bracelet or if not just a simple scarf. if its a cut dress then silver jewlery will go good and just a teeny bi of glittery makeup but not much
Reply:wow thats nice, id wear nude stockings, an either gold shoes jewellery and bag or silver shoes jewellery and bag, too much black isnt always a good thing u need a touch of colour
Reply:That's such a pretty dress! I would definatly wear sparkling silver jewellery and nude stockings.
Reply:I would wear black tights or black stockings with a vine pattern. Those are really hot this season. I think that Silver Jewelry looks great with Black. You don't want to see too much black ya know?
My Fashion Blog: http://la-fashion-a-la-mode.blogspot.com...
Reply:silver jewellery with nude stocking would be perfect in addition a top knot with falling curls will look fantastic
interest rate
Discuss the legal principles that would apply to this motion to suppress and how the court should rule.?
On March 31, 2004, around 1300 hours, Officer Ferguson of the Franklin Police Department was dispatched to 100 Prince Royal Lane, Apartment #1404, the residence of the defendant Kevin Taylor ("Taylor"). Upon arriving at the residence, Officer Ferguson met Katie, the seventeen year old daughter of Taylor, outside of the apartment.
Katie informed Officer Ferguson that Taylor woke her up around noon and was mad because she had not cleaned her room. Taylor beat Katie with a belt and a shoe. Officer Ferguson observed that Katie had several areas where the skin was broken on her arms. Officer Ferguson contacted Detective Ronran, of the Criminal Investigations Division, for assistance and to take photographs of Katie.
While waiting for Detective Ronran to arrive, Katie walked into the apartment and returned with three pictures. Katie stated: "This is what my father does, praise his money." The pictures depicted cash, apparently stacks of $100's, $50's, $10's and $5's, spread out on a bed. Officer Ferguson asked Katie what her father did for a living and she replied that she didn't know.
Detective Ronran arrived and found Officer Ferguson and two other officers standing outside the apartment with Katie. Detective Ronran asked Katie if he could photograph her injuries and if they could go inside the apartment to take the photographs. Katie said that her father had left yet the officers sensed that she seemed hesitant when the officers asked to go in the apartment to take photographs of her injuries. Detective Ronran specifically asked Katie if her father was still there. Katie stated that he was not. When asked, however, "what did her father leave in?" Katie stated she did not know. When asked what her father was driving early that day, she again stated that she did not know. Katie stated that she was afraid of her father and appeared to be protecting him from the police lest he cause her more harm. Upon the officer's urging, Katie opened the door of the apartment and Detective Ronran looked for a suitable location to take the photographs.
Detective Ronran noticed on Katie's body welts that were obviously the result of a recent assault. The marks on her body had a pattern to them and Officer Tyran asked with what was she hit. Katie replied that she had been hit with a belt and possibly the buckle as well as a shoe. Detective Ronran attempted several times to take a photograph with a digital camera but was unable to do so because of a camera and disk malfunction.
Officer Ferguson spoke to Katie about the belt and shoe and Katie went to the master bedroom, opened the bedroom door and went inside. Officer Ferguson followed and Katie gathered up two belts and a sandle that were on the floor and placed them on the bed. Detective Ronran followed to get a better look at the items.
While inside the bedroom, Detective Ronran noticed that the closet and bathroom doors were closed. Detective Ronran believed "that it was in his best interest for [his] protection and the protection of others that these two areas behind the doors were cleared and safe. [His] concern for his safety was heighten[ed] after learning that Katie was evasive in giving information about her father's whereabouts."
In his report, Detective Tyran wrote the following:
I opened the closet door and checked the immediate visible area. I then checked behind the open door and noticed on the floor two cases of ammunition and one green metal army ammo case. I scanned back across the closet and noticed in the back left corner a black duffle bag that was standing upright and partially open.
When I focused my vision on the opening of the bag, I observed what appeared to be the front sights of rifles. These sights were not the standard beaded post sights, but sights that were common on known assault rifles. From where I was standing I could not tell if they were real or if they were toys. I moved into the closet and got a closer look into the bag through the opening. At this time, I observed metal barrels, wooden stocks and "banana" style magazines. I felt confident that the weapons were real. I left the items as I found them and went to secure the bathroom.
It appeared that after I had opened the closet door, Katie left the room as if we were going to find something or someone.
Upon finding these items, Detective Ronran informed all present of the items and announced that he needed to call a supervisor because of the seriousness of the situation.
Captain Merriman arrived and decided that the weapons be removed from the residence. Also, the officers determined that Taylor had been previously convicted of a misdemeanor involving domestic violence and was in illegal possession of the firearms as a prohibited person under Title 18, United States Code, Section 922(g)(9).
Prior to trial, the defense counsel for Taylor moved to suppress the firearms and ammunition that were seized from his apartment. Discuss the legal principles that would apply to this motion to suppress and how the court should rule.
Discuss the legal principles that would apply to this motion to suppress and how the court should rule.?
check the other EXACT SAME QUESTION
Reply:Two words:
Presumptive testing.
Seriously.
Reply:Hey, this is yahoo answers. If you want some help with your law school class try going to a more dedicated website.
skin disease
Katie informed Officer Ferguson that Taylor woke her up around noon and was mad because she had not cleaned her room. Taylor beat Katie with a belt and a shoe. Officer Ferguson observed that Katie had several areas where the skin was broken on her arms. Officer Ferguson contacted Detective Ronran, of the Criminal Investigations Division, for assistance and to take photographs of Katie.
While waiting for Detective Ronran to arrive, Katie walked into the apartment and returned with three pictures. Katie stated: "This is what my father does, praise his money." The pictures depicted cash, apparently stacks of $100's, $50's, $10's and $5's, spread out on a bed. Officer Ferguson asked Katie what her father did for a living and she replied that she didn't know.
Detective Ronran arrived and found Officer Ferguson and two other officers standing outside the apartment with Katie. Detective Ronran asked Katie if he could photograph her injuries and if they could go inside the apartment to take the photographs. Katie said that her father had left yet the officers sensed that she seemed hesitant when the officers asked to go in the apartment to take photographs of her injuries. Detective Ronran specifically asked Katie if her father was still there. Katie stated that he was not. When asked, however, "what did her father leave in?" Katie stated she did not know. When asked what her father was driving early that day, she again stated that she did not know. Katie stated that she was afraid of her father and appeared to be protecting him from the police lest he cause her more harm. Upon the officer's urging, Katie opened the door of the apartment and Detective Ronran looked for a suitable location to take the photographs.
Detective Ronran noticed on Katie's body welts that were obviously the result of a recent assault. The marks on her body had a pattern to them and Officer Tyran asked with what was she hit. Katie replied that she had been hit with a belt and possibly the buckle as well as a shoe. Detective Ronran attempted several times to take a photograph with a digital camera but was unable to do so because of a camera and disk malfunction.
Officer Ferguson spoke to Katie about the belt and shoe and Katie went to the master bedroom, opened the bedroom door and went inside. Officer Ferguson followed and Katie gathered up two belts and a sandle that were on the floor and placed them on the bed. Detective Ronran followed to get a better look at the items.
While inside the bedroom, Detective Ronran noticed that the closet and bathroom doors were closed. Detective Ronran believed "that it was in his best interest for [his] protection and the protection of others that these two areas behind the doors were cleared and safe. [His] concern for his safety was heighten[ed] after learning that Katie was evasive in giving information about her father's whereabouts."
In his report, Detective Tyran wrote the following:
I opened the closet door and checked the immediate visible area. I then checked behind the open door and noticed on the floor two cases of ammunition and one green metal army ammo case. I scanned back across the closet and noticed in the back left corner a black duffle bag that was standing upright and partially open.
When I focused my vision on the opening of the bag, I observed what appeared to be the front sights of rifles. These sights were not the standard beaded post sights, but sights that were common on known assault rifles. From where I was standing I could not tell if they were real or if they were toys. I moved into the closet and got a closer look into the bag through the opening. At this time, I observed metal barrels, wooden stocks and "banana" style magazines. I felt confident that the weapons were real. I left the items as I found them and went to secure the bathroom.
It appeared that after I had opened the closet door, Katie left the room as if we were going to find something or someone.
Upon finding these items, Detective Ronran informed all present of the items and announced that he needed to call a supervisor because of the seriousness of the situation.
Captain Merriman arrived and decided that the weapons be removed from the residence. Also, the officers determined that Taylor had been previously convicted of a misdemeanor involving domestic violence and was in illegal possession of the firearms as a prohibited person under Title 18, United States Code, Section 922(g)(9).
Prior to trial, the defense counsel for Taylor moved to suppress the firearms and ammunition that were seized from his apartment. Discuss the legal principles that would apply to this motion to suppress and how the court should rule.
Discuss the legal principles that would apply to this motion to suppress and how the court should rule.?
check the other EXACT SAME QUESTION
Reply:Two words:
Presumptive testing.
Seriously.
Reply:Hey, this is yahoo answers. If you want some help with your law school class try going to a more dedicated website.
skin disease
Is the idea of the christmas stocking taken from the feast of saint nicholas?
since children leave their shoes out for st. nicholas to leave candy for them.
and happy st. nicholas day.. God Bless=)
Is the idea of the christmas stocking taken from the feast of saint nicholas?
actually the stocking thing started with St. Nicholas, but not with candy. The story says that St. Nicholas came across a very poor family, a father and his 3 daughters. The father was contemplating selling the oldest into slavery to get the money for the dowry of the other two. However when it came time to trade daughter for money he couldn't bring himself to do so. In that time, as we all know, it was customary to wash and dry your stockings every night. So St. Nicholas (allegedly) tossed a golden coin from the open house window into the stocking of the oldest girl, and she was married to a higher class man. He did the same when it came to the middle child and the youngest as well..
Reply:sort of
NIcholas knew a family with 3 girls and a dad who were so poor the father could not care for them
he left three socks with a gold ball in each for the gals and the dad was able to keep his daughters..
Reply:Yes. Originally gifts were given to children on the feast of St.Nicholas and not at Christmas.
The stocking comes from a story about St. Nicholas who was Bishop of Myra in the 4th century. There was a man in the town who had three daughters and he could not afford the dowry to get them all husbands. St Nicholas wanted to give them each a gold coin but his gifts were always anonymous. He decide to throw the coins down the chimney of their house. When he did this, the coins fell into the girls stockings that were hanging by the fire to dry over night.
As a matter of interest, there is a statue of Santa in Myra in Turkey where he is known as Noel Baba.
Also of interest is the fact that he attended the First Council of Nicea where the Nicene Creed was written and adopted by the Christian church.
dog skin problem
and happy st. nicholas day.. God Bless=)
Is the idea of the christmas stocking taken from the feast of saint nicholas?
actually the stocking thing started with St. Nicholas, but not with candy. The story says that St. Nicholas came across a very poor family, a father and his 3 daughters. The father was contemplating selling the oldest into slavery to get the money for the dowry of the other two. However when it came time to trade daughter for money he couldn't bring himself to do so. In that time, as we all know, it was customary to wash and dry your stockings every night. So St. Nicholas (allegedly) tossed a golden coin from the open house window into the stocking of the oldest girl, and she was married to a higher class man. He did the same when it came to the middle child and the youngest as well..
Reply:sort of
NIcholas knew a family with 3 girls and a dad who were so poor the father could not care for them
he left three socks with a gold ball in each for the gals and the dad was able to keep his daughters..
Reply:Yes. Originally gifts were given to children on the feast of St.Nicholas and not at Christmas.
The stocking comes from a story about St. Nicholas who was Bishop of Myra in the 4th century. There was a man in the town who had three daughters and he could not afford the dowry to get them all husbands. St Nicholas wanted to give them each a gold coin but his gifts were always anonymous. He decide to throw the coins down the chimney of their house. When he did this, the coins fell into the girls stockings that were hanging by the fire to dry over night.
As a matter of interest, there is a statue of Santa in Myra in Turkey where he is known as Noel Baba.
Also of interest is the fact that he attended the First Council of Nicea where the Nicene Creed was written and adopted by the Christian church.
dog skin problem
Coworkers wife was playing footsie with me at dinner!?
We had a Thanksgiving company dinner party.I was with my date and sitting across from one of the superiors wife.They seemed so happy together.She's Filipino and very pretty.We were eating dinner and I start feeling touching on my shoe and it was still rubbing for about 10 minutes.Then felt a stocking foot up my leg and realized it was her playing footsie with with me.She would look at me bu pretend nothing was going on.Then her foot rubbed against my leg and I was scared that her husband would catch her but he was talking to the other big bosses.The problem is she comes to work once in a while but I had no idea she was liking me.I really like this job and hope to move up the corporate ladder.
Coworkers wife was playing footsie with me at dinner!?
Then stay away from her
Reply:My advice is to avoid her when possible, yet be polite. She sounds like bad news and definitely not in your best interest. There are tons of others you can share with.
Reply:Remember what happened with Joseph and Potiphar's Wife?
You might be accused of something, even though nothing happened. You don't want to get fired for what DIDN'T happen.
Stay away. Far away.
Reply:Ya, Avoid her at all costs. Don't tell her off cause she can make up stories about you cause she is obviously not stable. So just avoid all contact. Duck and Hide when she comes whatever you have to do.
Reply:are you sure it was her leg ?? could have been ur dates foot .....and if it was her leg...maybe she thought it was her husbands leg ...anyway if ur sure then i suggest you pretend like nothing happened ....and avoid this woman at work like the plague .....theres no need to talk things out or open your mouth about what happened at dinner ...what I'm saying is PRETEND LIKE NOTHING HAPPENED ...if she brings up what happened at work ...act like you have no idea what shes talking about ....make it look like she got the someone elses leg and stick to that story ....good luck
Hotel reviews
Coworkers wife was playing footsie with me at dinner!?
Then stay away from her
Reply:My advice is to avoid her when possible, yet be polite. She sounds like bad news and definitely not in your best interest. There are tons of others you can share with.
Reply:Remember what happened with Joseph and Potiphar's Wife?
You might be accused of something, even though nothing happened. You don't want to get fired for what DIDN'T happen.
Stay away. Far away.
Reply:Ya, Avoid her at all costs. Don't tell her off cause she can make up stories about you cause she is obviously not stable. So just avoid all contact. Duck and Hide when she comes whatever you have to do.
Reply:are you sure it was her leg ?? could have been ur dates foot .....and if it was her leg...maybe she thought it was her husbands leg ...anyway if ur sure then i suggest you pretend like nothing happened ....and avoid this woman at work like the plague .....theres no need to talk things out or open your mouth about what happened at dinner ...what I'm saying is PRETEND LIKE NOTHING HAPPENED ...if she brings up what happened at work ...act like you have no idea what shes talking about ....make it look like she got the someone elses leg and stick to that story ....good luck
Hotel reviews
Where do the clothes/shoe sellers on ebay get all there designer items?
i was just on ebay looking at shops that sell high end designer fashion such as christian louboutin, miu miu, prada etc. And was wondering where they get the stock from? its clearly not fake as they have 100% feedback. So where do they get it? any ideas or anyone know? thanks x
Where do the clothes/shoe sellers on ebay get all there designer items?
People probably have friends that work at
fancy expensive stoors, like Neiman Marcus. And they ask them to buy
stuff with their discounts. Then, they probably
sell it a little bit higher.
Reply:yeah, it is mostly fake, feeback arent always 100% true, they could just do accounts and type positive feebacks for themselves.
As for the real stuff (if there is any) maybe outlets??
Reply:i really wouldn't buy it. even if they have 100% feedback it may not be real. if it seems like the price is too good to be true, it is probably fake. but the real ones, people just buy from stores, and decide they dont want it, or they do it as a business by buying it from stores on sale
cat skin problem
Where do the clothes/shoe sellers on ebay get all there designer items?
People probably have friends that work at
fancy expensive stoors, like Neiman Marcus. And they ask them to buy
stuff with their discounts. Then, they probably
sell it a little bit higher.
Reply:yeah, it is mostly fake, feeback arent always 100% true, they could just do accounts and type positive feebacks for themselves.
As for the real stuff (if there is any) maybe outlets??
Reply:i really wouldn't buy it. even if they have 100% feedback it may not be real. if it seems like the price is too good to be true, it is probably fake. but the real ones, people just buy from stores, and decide they dont want it, or they do it as a business by buying it from stores on sale
cat skin problem
Ladies, when you are not at home, why are you walking around in your stocking feet?
And the bonus question is where do you find yourself walking around without shoes most often? (Work or office, mall, theater, conference center or hotel, bar or night club, grocery store, gas station, outside in general, etc.)
I have seen many girls walking around in their nylons, and in fact my girlfriend seems to do this a lot! I asked her about it and she told me that she just loves the feeling of being in just nylons!
So, is it:
1) Your shoes hurt your feet.
2) You are flirting and want men to see your feet.
3) Your feet are too hot.
4) You like the feeling of walking in nylons.
5) You forgot to put your shoes back on after having them off.
6) You forgot your shoes all together.
7) Other? Please explain!
Ladies, when you are not at home, why are you walking around in your stocking feet?
I always walk barefoot -never in nylons- because it's comfortable. I love feeling all the different surfaces underfoot; walking around with even the thinnest soles is like visiting an art show wearing dark glasses or a concert wearing ear plugs.
I don't care for nylons, I've only owned two or three pairs in my life and they didn't last more than a day or two even when I still wore shoes, before they had a rip in them. I'm much too active for such flimsy clothing!
I don't walk barefoot to attract attention, I get lots of questions (contrary to the US, few people here think it's gross or dangerous, nor are there any dress codes in stores or restaurants, but it is rare so I get loads of curious questions like isn't that cold or did you lose your shoes). But even though the comments are rarely negative, sometimes I get a bit tired of them. I'd like it best if I lived some place where bare feet were more common and fewer people would say anything at all.... as for flirting with guys, I don't know if foot fetishes are more uncommon here or if it's just coincidence but I've hardly ever had that kind of attention from a guy in all those years I've gone barefoot. It's usually seen as a bit of a hippie thing or a health freak thing, more in the category of wearing socks and sandals or Birks, than anything attractive. If I wanted attention from guys the first thing I'd have to change about myself is buy a pair of fashionable shoes again!
Reply:feeett hurt! fashion over comfort!
Reply:omg i don't even know what nylons are? lol!
Reply:Sometimes all of the above, %26amp; sometimes, some of us are just being polite and removing our shoes so as not to dirty the other persons home, office.
Reply:These question should be classified as "Your thinking too much."
Reply:I would like to know the answer to this too. I think it's awful and disgusting. I do go without shoes/socks in my own home.
But out in public places no way. Even if my feet are aching in 4" heels oh well. I will suffer in the pain, I chose to wear them.
Yes fashion over pain, but if you take off the shoes are you really choosing that?
How attractive are those feet...all black on the bottom and who knows what's stuck to them. JMO but ewwwwwww.
Reply:Personally I hate nylons...I wear cotton socks, thicker or thinner according to what i wear (sneakers or boots), and only calf-short nylons with pumps or leather shoes worn under troursers, but that's it...*smile*
develop skin cancer
I have seen many girls walking around in their nylons, and in fact my girlfriend seems to do this a lot! I asked her about it and she told me that she just loves the feeling of being in just nylons!
So, is it:
1) Your shoes hurt your feet.
2) You are flirting and want men to see your feet.
3) Your feet are too hot.
4) You like the feeling of walking in nylons.
5) You forgot to put your shoes back on after having them off.
6) You forgot your shoes all together.
7) Other? Please explain!
Ladies, when you are not at home, why are you walking around in your stocking feet?
I always walk barefoot -never in nylons- because it's comfortable. I love feeling all the different surfaces underfoot; walking around with even the thinnest soles is like visiting an art show wearing dark glasses or a concert wearing ear plugs.
I don't care for nylons, I've only owned two or three pairs in my life and they didn't last more than a day or two even when I still wore shoes, before they had a rip in them. I'm much too active for such flimsy clothing!
I don't walk barefoot to attract attention, I get lots of questions (contrary to the US, few people here think it's gross or dangerous, nor are there any dress codes in stores or restaurants, but it is rare so I get loads of curious questions like isn't that cold or did you lose your shoes). But even though the comments are rarely negative, sometimes I get a bit tired of them. I'd like it best if I lived some place where bare feet were more common and fewer people would say anything at all.... as for flirting with guys, I don't know if foot fetishes are more uncommon here or if it's just coincidence but I've hardly ever had that kind of attention from a guy in all those years I've gone barefoot. It's usually seen as a bit of a hippie thing or a health freak thing, more in the category of wearing socks and sandals or Birks, than anything attractive. If I wanted attention from guys the first thing I'd have to change about myself is buy a pair of fashionable shoes again!
Reply:feeett hurt! fashion over comfort!
Reply:omg i don't even know what nylons are? lol!
Reply:Sometimes all of the above, %26amp; sometimes, some of us are just being polite and removing our shoes so as not to dirty the other persons home, office.
Reply:These question should be classified as "Your thinking too much."
Reply:I would like to know the answer to this too. I think it's awful and disgusting. I do go without shoes/socks in my own home.
But out in public places no way. Even if my feet are aching in 4" heels oh well. I will suffer in the pain, I chose to wear them.
Yes fashion over pain, but if you take off the shoes are you really choosing that?
How attractive are those feet...all black on the bottom and who knows what's stuck to them. JMO but ewwwwwww.
Reply:Personally I hate nylons...I wear cotton socks, thicker or thinner according to what i wear (sneakers or boots), and only calf-short nylons with pumps or leather shoes worn under troursers, but that's it...*smile*
develop skin cancer
Adidas Men's Mega Ice Running Shoe picture?
can someone get me an acyual picture that they took not the stock photo
Thanks
Adidas Men's Mega Ice Running Shoe picture?
go to google and type: Mens Adidas Mega Ice. The first link under shopping part will be finish line, click that and a picture will come up. There are 59.99 right and now and limited time.
microsoft excel
Thanks
Adidas Men's Mega Ice Running Shoe picture?
go to google and type: Mens Adidas Mega Ice. The first link under shopping part will be finish line, click that and a picture will come up. There are 59.99 right and now and limited time.
microsoft excel
Adidas Men's Mega Ice Running Shoe picture?
can someone get me an actual picture that they took not the stock photo
Adidas Men's Mega Ice Running Shoe picture?
There is some pictures of adidas , you can have a look it :)
http://www.apparel-shoes.com/classlist.a...
I hope it can help you !
nanny
Adidas Men's Mega Ice Running Shoe picture?
There is some pictures of adidas , you can have a look it :)
http://www.apparel-shoes.com/classlist.a...
I hope it can help you !
nanny
Hhow can I produce shoe polish from bee wax.?
Iam a beekeeper with large stock of bee wax in rural Northern Nigeria.
Hhow can I produce shoe polish from bee wax.?
Beeswax is a natural shoe polish. All you need to do is warm the shoe/boot and rub it with a stick of wax. Warming the waxed footwear again will even out the layer of waterproofing beeswax and give it shine. Adding a lipid-soluble colouring will give your beeswax the colour of the footwear you are polishing. To make the beeswax softer and more pliable, it can be mixed with mineral oil or other suitable oils. Buffing with a soft cloth will also produce shine.
Reply:Dry the wax in the sun.
windows media player 11
Hhow can I produce shoe polish from bee wax.?
Beeswax is a natural shoe polish. All you need to do is warm the shoe/boot and rub it with a stick of wax. Warming the waxed footwear again will even out the layer of waterproofing beeswax and give it shine. Adding a lipid-soluble colouring will give your beeswax the colour of the footwear you are polishing. To make the beeswax softer and more pliable, it can be mixed with mineral oil or other suitable oils. Buffing with a soft cloth will also produce shine.
Reply:Dry the wax in the sun.
windows media player 11
Just opened my own shoe shop?
i am happy been open 5 weeks covering all expenses but abit worried on not havin money to buy more stock any advice
thanks
Just opened my own shoe shop?
Do special offers .. as a shoe lover i am drawn to getting a bargain . .even if it is only £5 of the price ..
you could do 2 pairs for x amount
you could give a free gift
I am assuming you are doing it on line . .if you are try a loyalty scheme for valued customers .. IE free postage or £10% off next purchase ..
You need to keep your customers intrested and it is always good to let them know via advertising what is coming next and you must keep up with the trends
I am happy to shop where i get a good service and feel as if i am being treated special
The first year in business is tough it is make or break and you will never make any money for yourself in the first year . .whatever you make pay your over heads and then put back into the shop as you need new stock in order to maintain intrest
good luck
Reply:If you get a second income you could buy more stock with money you have made in your spare time, go to wwww.more4yourlife.co.uk for more information call 0191 3504973 leave your details and i will contact you and let you know how to start thanks for reading this.hope to hear from you soon Karen.
Reply:The short and sweet version of my answer is that you are probably a. taking too much of a salary. b. charging too little for your merchandise. c. paying too much for your merchandise. some combination or all of the above. End result, you are losing money and failing to recognize it.
Reply:i cant realy give any advice, but a little suggestion. im a lady who takes a size 9 shoe and for over 15 years i have had to travel, as all the local shoe shops only go up to a size 8. im not saying buy loads of bigger sizes, but going up a couple may increase your profits - and customers. all the best
Reply:Can you not get stock that is basically on loan by the manufacturer and if it doesn't sell you send it back - only if the stock (or part of it) sells do you need to pay the manufacturer. You may not make as much profit but at least you would have stock on display and if you build a rapport with several manufacturers they will rotate the stock you have and make sure you have all the new lines and fashions.
windows
thanks
Just opened my own shoe shop?
Do special offers .. as a shoe lover i am drawn to getting a bargain . .even if it is only £5 of the price ..
you could do 2 pairs for x amount
you could give a free gift
I am assuming you are doing it on line . .if you are try a loyalty scheme for valued customers .. IE free postage or £10% off next purchase ..
You need to keep your customers intrested and it is always good to let them know via advertising what is coming next and you must keep up with the trends
I am happy to shop where i get a good service and feel as if i am being treated special
The first year in business is tough it is make or break and you will never make any money for yourself in the first year . .whatever you make pay your over heads and then put back into the shop as you need new stock in order to maintain intrest
good luck
Reply:If you get a second income you could buy more stock with money you have made in your spare time, go to wwww.more4yourlife.co.uk for more information call 0191 3504973 leave your details and i will contact you and let you know how to start thanks for reading this.hope to hear from you soon Karen.
Reply:The short and sweet version of my answer is that you are probably a. taking too much of a salary. b. charging too little for your merchandise. c. paying too much for your merchandise. some combination or all of the above. End result, you are losing money and failing to recognize it.
Reply:i cant realy give any advice, but a little suggestion. im a lady who takes a size 9 shoe and for over 15 years i have had to travel, as all the local shoe shops only go up to a size 8. im not saying buy loads of bigger sizes, but going up a couple may increase your profits - and customers. all the best
Reply:Can you not get stock that is basically on loan by the manufacturer and if it doesn't sell you send it back - only if the stock (or part of it) sells do you need to pay the manufacturer. You may not make as much profit but at least you would have stock on display and if you build a rapport with several manufacturers they will rotate the stock you have and make sure you have all the new lines and fashions.
windows
Help HALLOWEEN IS NEAR !!!?
I have a question can you give me any idea's such as hair ? leggings ? face make-up (should I go beautiful or freaky like green)
I need a little help completing this because normally she picks what she wants from wal-mart wanted to make her smile and be a little different that same ole routine ya know ??? I would forever be grateful for any advice you might have to make my daughter age 8 have a safe-fun-interesting- yet lasting memory at the age where everything is embarrassing to her at times I have to kiss her indoors unless I steal it afraid of her feelings the link to the outfit I got her on EBAY is at the link below best idea gets Highest Rating and 10 points adding you to my FAVORITES LIST ~ That is if you have yahoo - aol - or MSN .. Bonus if you have EBAY items for sale I'm not rich but I do like a good bargain.. So hint " MAKE MY DAUGHTER' HALLOWEEN wonderful and magical even Memorable where I get a " Your the BEST EST mom in the WORLD" even that she loves me more than all the RED m %26amp; m 's lol and you will have a " FRIEND" for life or 10 points and highest rating worth more than 10 and i promise to consider you the next time " I find myself in a PICKLE " and it is very cold in TN so keep in mind major concerns are hair face maybe even color of stocking or heck sale me sum on ebay lol down to what shoe's
Help HALLOWEEN IS NEAR !!!?
search on google! sear halloween costume ideas. it should come up with something fun! just search!
Reply:Well apparently lol they erased it!!! lol ha thats what he gets Report It
books
I need a little help completing this because normally she picks what she wants from wal-mart wanted to make her smile and be a little different that same ole routine ya know ??? I would forever be grateful for any advice you might have to make my daughter age 8 have a safe-fun-interesting- yet lasting memory at the age where everything is embarrassing to her at times I have to kiss her indoors unless I steal it afraid of her feelings the link to the outfit I got her on EBAY is at the link below best idea gets Highest Rating and 10 points adding you to my FAVORITES LIST ~ That is if you have yahoo - aol - or MSN .. Bonus if you have EBAY items for sale I'm not rich but I do like a good bargain.. So hint " MAKE MY DAUGHTER' HALLOWEEN wonderful and magical even Memorable where I get a " Your the BEST EST mom in the WORLD" even that she loves me more than all the RED m %26amp; m 's lol and you will have a " FRIEND" for life or 10 points and highest rating worth more than 10 and i promise to consider you the next time " I find myself in a PICKLE " and it is very cold in TN so keep in mind major concerns are hair face maybe even color of stocking or heck sale me sum on ebay lol down to what shoe's
Help HALLOWEEN IS NEAR !!!?
search on google! sear halloween costume ideas. it should come up with something fun! just search!
Reply:Well apparently lol they erased it!!! lol ha thats what he gets Report It
books
Uk online 'cheapish' shoe shop? im looking for like wedge sandals like the ones made from canvas or something?
any ideas?.........i tried litlle woods and addictions, but they are out of stock at the moment,
any other ideas??
cheers
Uk online 'cheapish' shoe shop? im looking for like wedge sandals like the ones made from canvas or something?
The best thing to do is to go on ebay. They have exactly what ur looking for and cheap. I got me a pair.
Reply:Try this ebay store: http://stores.ebay.com/The-Shoe-Queens
They sell really cute platforms and wedges and the prices are great. They ship worldwide.
Reply:I'm not sure if they ship to the UK but you could try
Zappos.com or Piperlime.com
C++ Function
any other ideas??
cheers
Uk online 'cheapish' shoe shop? im looking for like wedge sandals like the ones made from canvas or something?
The best thing to do is to go on ebay. They have exactly what ur looking for and cheap. I got me a pair.
Reply:Try this ebay store: http://stores.ebay.com/The-Shoe-Queens
They sell really cute platforms and wedges and the prices are great. They ship worldwide.
Reply:I'm not sure if they ship to the UK but you could try
Zappos.com or Piperlime.com
C++ Function
Black Net Stocking - Help with coordination?
To look professional, discret:
Blouse: black? solid?
Skirt: mid-length or long?
Skirt color: black? solid?
Shoes: peep toe? leather? suede?
Thanks!
Black Net Stocking - Help with coordination?
Skirt solid if you are going for the proffesional look. Skirt black mid-length definitly, blouse choose solid colors. if you'r feeling sexy, choose red, if you'r not feeling anything, choose white. Actually, black is ok with all colours except brown, blue. Brown cause its too dark an overall look and its not exaclty black, so not a good choice. it dull lyour personality. Blue cause it is not a natural color and should be worn with caution, so to keep it safe, dun wear blue.
Shoes: Suede. Soild colors too. keep it dark. you can pair it with your blouse. if your wearing a red blouse, wear a dark red one. if your wearing a black blouse, wear a bright red one to make yourself more colourful. if your wearing other colors for blouses, i suggest you stick with black. If your professional look is dull above your legs, wear glossy suedes, if its not dull, den any material is ok as long as it is not glossy.
Hint: nvr wear any shoes that shows your stockings on your feet, like strappy. wear shoes that cover as much of your feet as possible.
Reply:Personally, I don't like to show stockings in my feet, but I have seen photos in fashion magazines with models wearing peep toe shoes...not sexy though. Report It
Reply:OK, This is just my opinion: White blouse, Mid-length black skirt, peep toe shoes, fish nets are always sexy and cool, but too bad they're not considered very professional. If you're daring, do it. If not, then straight up black hose. P.S. Join me in being one of the daring ones!!
Reply:long black skirt with big side slit. tight white blouse. black strappy leather heels.
Reply:do u mean fishnet stockings- if u do let me stop u here -they are not in fashion right now- what u should try is a stocking that has a design on them. you can get nice black stockings with a design also in black on them try nordstroms or lord and taylor
ask me fashion questions at
shopjeanius.blogspot.com
www.myspace.com/shopjeanius
Nike
Blouse: black? solid?
Skirt: mid-length or long?
Skirt color: black? solid?
Shoes: peep toe? leather? suede?
Thanks!
Black Net Stocking - Help with coordination?
Skirt solid if you are going for the proffesional look. Skirt black mid-length definitly, blouse choose solid colors. if you'r feeling sexy, choose red, if you'r not feeling anything, choose white. Actually, black is ok with all colours except brown, blue. Brown cause its too dark an overall look and its not exaclty black, so not a good choice. it dull lyour personality. Blue cause it is not a natural color and should be worn with caution, so to keep it safe, dun wear blue.
Shoes: Suede. Soild colors too. keep it dark. you can pair it with your blouse. if your wearing a red blouse, wear a dark red one. if your wearing a black blouse, wear a bright red one to make yourself more colourful. if your wearing other colors for blouses, i suggest you stick with black. If your professional look is dull above your legs, wear glossy suedes, if its not dull, den any material is ok as long as it is not glossy.
Hint: nvr wear any shoes that shows your stockings on your feet, like strappy. wear shoes that cover as much of your feet as possible.
Reply:Personally, I don't like to show stockings in my feet, but I have seen photos in fashion magazines with models wearing peep toe shoes...not sexy though. Report It
Reply:OK, This is just my opinion: White blouse, Mid-length black skirt, peep toe shoes, fish nets are always sexy and cool, but too bad they're not considered very professional. If you're daring, do it. If not, then straight up black hose. P.S. Join me in being one of the daring ones!!
Reply:long black skirt with big side slit. tight white blouse. black strappy leather heels.
Reply:do u mean fishnet stockings- if u do let me stop u here -they are not in fashion right now- what u should try is a stocking that has a design on them. you can get nice black stockings with a design also in black on them try nordstroms or lord and taylor
ask me fashion questions at
shopjeanius.blogspot.com
www.myspace.com/shopjeanius
Nike
Do you and your friends, family partner wear slippers. if so why. and what kind?
my wife operates at no shoe policy. its too cold to go barefoot and she wont allow stocking feet.so we wear slippers.i friends bring their own or she gives them a pair. she s into large furry ones and i wear designer leather. kids love moccaisins and bunny slippers. last year vogue magazine said slippers were the must have footware item/ they get a bad press.but we all love them. any of you agree. its best to be comfortable and relaxed than being cold and irritable.anyway our slippers are cool and stylish or we wouldnt wear. mot everyone wear tartan slippers these days. thank goodness,
Do you and your friends, family partner wear slippers. if so why. and what kind?
My mom wears these UGG slippers to work (at the hospital, haha). She has two pairs, one in brown and one in black. UGG also makes a pair of moccasins, I'm thinking about getting them.
Reply:Oh hell yeah, the streets are dirty, and we all wear slippers to keep the floors clean. I love moccassins, comfortable and its not even like wearing slippers. Feet need a break from constricting shoes.
Reply:UGG Boots Are Just Horrible!
Reply:I wear slippers at home because they're comfortable and warm my feet. I like the furry or soft cotton ones. I really never looked too much into slippers and the kinds to choose from as much you did but I think its kinda cute. lol But I'm just wondering does your wife make you guys wear slippers outside the house too??? I'm just kind of thrown off by the whole friends thing. BTW good thing your wife doesn't allow stockings because I think they're tacky. Slippers are so much better looking and comfortable and elegant enough to wear at home when you have a couple of family and friends over or even just random guests instead of having to wear regular shoes.
P.S
I love matching my slippers with my PJs. Its stylish and it feels good to look good and be comfortable at home too!
Reply:my parents wear slippers, i'm not sure of the brand. But i wear bed socks. so comfy and you can get them just about anywhere.
Reply:I wear mocs at home all year. Deer skin in the summer, moose or buffalo in the fall/ spring and in the colder weather, I switch to sheepskin ones for the added warmth and the occasional step outside in the snow for the mail
C++
Do you and your friends, family partner wear slippers. if so why. and what kind?
My mom wears these UGG slippers to work (at the hospital, haha). She has two pairs, one in brown and one in black. UGG also makes a pair of moccasins, I'm thinking about getting them.
Reply:Oh hell yeah, the streets are dirty, and we all wear slippers to keep the floors clean. I love moccassins, comfortable and its not even like wearing slippers. Feet need a break from constricting shoes.
Reply:UGG Boots Are Just Horrible!
Reply:I wear slippers at home because they're comfortable and warm my feet. I like the furry or soft cotton ones. I really never looked too much into slippers and the kinds to choose from as much you did but I think its kinda cute. lol But I'm just wondering does your wife make you guys wear slippers outside the house too??? I'm just kind of thrown off by the whole friends thing. BTW good thing your wife doesn't allow stockings because I think they're tacky. Slippers are so much better looking and comfortable and elegant enough to wear at home when you have a couple of family and friends over or even just random guests instead of having to wear regular shoes.
P.S
I love matching my slippers with my PJs. Its stylish and it feels good to look good and be comfortable at home too!
Reply:my parents wear slippers, i'm not sure of the brand. But i wear bed socks. so comfy and you can get them just about anywhere.
Reply:I wear mocs at home all year. Deer skin in the summer, moose or buffalo in the fall/ spring and in the colder weather, I switch to sheepskin ones for the added warmth and the occasional step outside in the snow for the mail
C++
Please help would you help out your fiance if he had money problems?
i have been divorced for 5yrs which has left me heavy in debt. my fiance of 7 months has alot more money than i do. She just came back from a trip to europe always has a new car and has more disposable income than i do. I asked her if she could help me out with my debt( i have over 20k on c.c)and she said no she wants to keep her money in her stocks. i don't know how to feel now if the shoe was on the other foot i would give her the money.I make more than she does but with my child care payments she takes home more.Right now we live together and split the bills 50/50. I feel if she loved me she would want to help me get back on my feet. Was i wrong to ask her to help me pay off my debt from my last marrage?
Please help would you help out your fiance if he had money problems?
You weren't wrong to ask. She WAS smart to say no. You have been single for 5 years. You should have gotten your fiances straightened out before this. As for child care expenses, you made them, you pay for them. I hope your lady is smart enough to not marry you until and unless you learn to manage your money, and grow up enough to stop expecting others to bail you out of your own financial mistakes.
Reply:well when you guys get married you are supposed to be a team but u can't make her do something she doesnt want to and I dont see anything wrong with asking because if you dont ask you dont know
Reply:YIOU ARE WAAAY OFF BASE! You shouldn't even consider going into a serious relationship with that kind of debt! How dare you ask your woman to pay YOUR debts off. I remember when my sister was still engaged to her husband, she found out he had some major c.c. bills and she made him pay them Off! before they walked down the aisle. Your fiance didn't have anything to do with the debt you incurred from your last marriage, or the child support that YOU are responsible for your children. I don't blame her one bit for keeping her money in her stocks. You don't sound like you're worth even an investment of time!
Reply:What's love got to do with the fact thet YOU are in debt? She didn't create your debt, you did. Suck it up and be a man! Handle your own business. If she were smart, she would dump you.
Reply:I PERSONALLY THINK THAT YOU WERE WRONG TO ASK HER. I COULDN'T BEGIN TO IMAGINE ASKING SOMEONE FOR FINANCIAL HELP -- UNLESS IT'S A BANK!!!
UNTIL THE TWO OF YOU GET MARRIED, THEN YOUR DEBT IS YOUR DEBT. PERIOD. NOW, WHEN MY HUSBAND AND I GOT MARRIED, I HAD QUITE A BIT OF DEBT AND HE DIDN'T. AND EVEN THOUGH WE'VE BEEN MARRIED 4 YEARS NOW, I HAVE NEVER ASKED HIM TO HELP BAIL ME OUT. (I KNOW IT SOUNDS WEIRD, BUT WE HAVE SEPARATE CHECKING ACCOUNTS.) I REFUSE TO GIVE UP MINE AN HE REFUSES TO GIVE UP HIS. SO WE HAVE SEPARATED THE BILLS EVENLY.......WITH THE EXCEPTION OF MY PRIOR BILLS. I FEEL THAT SINCE IT WAS MY DEBT BEFORE, THEN IT'S MY DEBT NOW. MAYBE I'M CRAZY IN THINKING THIS WAY. ALL OF MY FRIENDS THINK SO. BUT THAT'S JUST HOW I AM.
I'M ALL ABOUT THIS: IF YOU DUG THE HOLE, THEN YOU LIE IN THAT SUCKER.
Reply:Indirectly she will be helping you with your debt since the payoff will come out of the household income, seems like she is very smart for keeping the money in investments, she would have no obligation or reason to pony up the money to pay off your debt for you, I would never have asked her to.
Reply:no you weren't wrong in asking her. you guys are supposed to be a "team". helping each other out. maybe she is scared that you just want the money and will use it to get out of debt than leave her. explain to her maybe your reasons why you want to get out of debt such as perhaps before you guys get married so you can have a financially stable household.
Reply:She should NOT pay off your debts.
Reply:She has given you her answer about the money,and it was "no". Don't keep harping on it or you will ruin your relationship.
You need a new spending plan that actually fits YOUR situation. Ask your fiance to help you with that, since she seems better with money and planning. Maybe she could pay a larger portion of the bills (that is what I do at home, since I get paid more); but asking her for money outright (I get the sense you are not planning on paying her back) will probably cause problems down the line.
In the end, it was your descisions that got you into debt, you should be the one to get yourself out.
Reply:Maybe she thinks you only want her for her money. I'm not sure if I would, I suppose it would depend on the situation.
Reply:Why should she give you money SHE has earned? She is paying half of the bills which is as it should be. She is not responsible for you meeting YOUR financial obligations. She is smart not to give you any of the money SHE has earned, obviously she is a very wise woman and that wisdom has paid off for her to enable her to go on vacations and enjoy what life has to offer. YOUR child support and other financial obligations are not her responsibility. I suggest you seek a second job or a loan from a bank if you need more money.
Reply:"if the shoe was on the other foot i would give her the money"
That is why you are in debt and she can go to europe.
I say dig yourself out.
Reply:Once you get married you two are a team and should help each other out and I guess if you live together now its the same difference. I don't think you can expect her to be paying off debt thought that you and your ex-wife accumulated. You wouldn't want to pay for a home or a car that say your fiances ex was living in or driving. I can see how both of you would feel. Good luck!!
Reply:You should not expect your fiance to pay for your past relationship, or old debt. She has worked hard to get to a secure financial position and she would be unwise to compromise that now. Take stock of your situation and have an honest discussion with her about each of your expectations financially once you are married. Otherwise, you could be headed for more trouble. Good luck.
finance
Please help would you help out your fiance if he had money problems?
You weren't wrong to ask. She WAS smart to say no. You have been single for 5 years. You should have gotten your fiances straightened out before this. As for child care expenses, you made them, you pay for them. I hope your lady is smart enough to not marry you until and unless you learn to manage your money, and grow up enough to stop expecting others to bail you out of your own financial mistakes.
Reply:well when you guys get married you are supposed to be a team but u can't make her do something she doesnt want to and I dont see anything wrong with asking because if you dont ask you dont know
Reply:YIOU ARE WAAAY OFF BASE! You shouldn't even consider going into a serious relationship with that kind of debt! How dare you ask your woman to pay YOUR debts off. I remember when my sister was still engaged to her husband, she found out he had some major c.c. bills and she made him pay them Off! before they walked down the aisle. Your fiance didn't have anything to do with the debt you incurred from your last marriage, or the child support that YOU are responsible for your children. I don't blame her one bit for keeping her money in her stocks. You don't sound like you're worth even an investment of time!
Reply:What's love got to do with the fact thet YOU are in debt? She didn't create your debt, you did. Suck it up and be a man! Handle your own business. If she were smart, she would dump you.
Reply:I PERSONALLY THINK THAT YOU WERE WRONG TO ASK HER. I COULDN'T BEGIN TO IMAGINE ASKING SOMEONE FOR FINANCIAL HELP -- UNLESS IT'S A BANK!!!
UNTIL THE TWO OF YOU GET MARRIED, THEN YOUR DEBT IS YOUR DEBT. PERIOD. NOW, WHEN MY HUSBAND AND I GOT MARRIED, I HAD QUITE A BIT OF DEBT AND HE DIDN'T. AND EVEN THOUGH WE'VE BEEN MARRIED 4 YEARS NOW, I HAVE NEVER ASKED HIM TO HELP BAIL ME OUT. (I KNOW IT SOUNDS WEIRD, BUT WE HAVE SEPARATE CHECKING ACCOUNTS.) I REFUSE TO GIVE UP MINE AN HE REFUSES TO GIVE UP HIS. SO WE HAVE SEPARATED THE BILLS EVENLY.......WITH THE EXCEPTION OF MY PRIOR BILLS. I FEEL THAT SINCE IT WAS MY DEBT BEFORE, THEN IT'S MY DEBT NOW. MAYBE I'M CRAZY IN THINKING THIS WAY. ALL OF MY FRIENDS THINK SO. BUT THAT'S JUST HOW I AM.
I'M ALL ABOUT THIS: IF YOU DUG THE HOLE, THEN YOU LIE IN THAT SUCKER.
Reply:Indirectly she will be helping you with your debt since the payoff will come out of the household income, seems like she is very smart for keeping the money in investments, she would have no obligation or reason to pony up the money to pay off your debt for you, I would never have asked her to.
Reply:no you weren't wrong in asking her. you guys are supposed to be a "team". helping each other out. maybe she is scared that you just want the money and will use it to get out of debt than leave her. explain to her maybe your reasons why you want to get out of debt such as perhaps before you guys get married so you can have a financially stable household.
Reply:She should NOT pay off your debts.
Reply:She has given you her answer about the money,and it was "no". Don't keep harping on it or you will ruin your relationship.
You need a new spending plan that actually fits YOUR situation. Ask your fiance to help you with that, since she seems better with money and planning. Maybe she could pay a larger portion of the bills (that is what I do at home, since I get paid more); but asking her for money outright (I get the sense you are not planning on paying her back) will probably cause problems down the line.
In the end, it was your descisions that got you into debt, you should be the one to get yourself out.
Reply:Maybe she thinks you only want her for her money. I'm not sure if I would, I suppose it would depend on the situation.
Reply:Why should she give you money SHE has earned? She is paying half of the bills which is as it should be. She is not responsible for you meeting YOUR financial obligations. She is smart not to give you any of the money SHE has earned, obviously she is a very wise woman and that wisdom has paid off for her to enable her to go on vacations and enjoy what life has to offer. YOUR child support and other financial obligations are not her responsibility. I suggest you seek a second job or a loan from a bank if you need more money.
Reply:"if the shoe was on the other foot i would give her the money"
That is why you are in debt and she can go to europe.
I say dig yourself out.
Reply:Once you get married you two are a team and should help each other out and I guess if you live together now its the same difference. I don't think you can expect her to be paying off debt thought that you and your ex-wife accumulated. You wouldn't want to pay for a home or a car that say your fiances ex was living in or driving. I can see how both of you would feel. Good luck!!
Reply:You should not expect your fiance to pay for your past relationship, or old debt. She has worked hard to get to a secure financial position and she would be unwise to compromise that now. Take stock of your situation and have an honest discussion with her about each of your expectations financially once you are married. Otherwise, you could be headed for more trouble. Good luck.
finance
How do I determine the IPO of my company?
Its just a shoe cleaning service, but I am looking for an ownership from stocks, which will probably pay for the capital, and just be the manager of it. Many people want to be owners of this company, so how should I make the IPO?
How do I determine the IPO of my company?
To do an IPO (Initial Public Offering) you probably have to find an underwriter to sell through. If you just want to sell stock you don't have to be 'public' and a IPO is unnecessary. If you know the people who are interested in buying all you need to do is incorporate. There are several online services that will help you do this cheap but are only intended for simple incorporation purposes. You should check with an accountant and/or lawyer on the legal and tax implications before you sell any stock, especially to someone other than yourself.
FISH
How do I determine the IPO of my company?
To do an IPO (Initial Public Offering) you probably have to find an underwriter to sell through. If you just want to sell stock you don't have to be 'public' and a IPO is unnecessary. If you know the people who are interested in buying all you need to do is incorporate. There are several online services that will help you do this cheap but are only intended for simple incorporation purposes. You should check with an accountant and/or lawyer on the legal and tax implications before you sell any stock, especially to someone other than yourself.
FISH
Work clothes crisis ???
I am going to start my job soon with an accounting firm %26amp; I am new to the work place in this country (USA). Pls give me some idea about the business attire thats appropriate. One major question that i have is if i am wearing a knee lenght skirt do i hv to wear a stocking with that or are stockings outdated ???
What kinda shoe should i wear ?? should is be closed toes ?? also i am not comfotable wearing heels. is flats ok ??
I have seen most women here wearing make up and I have never used make up in my life (other than lipstick and some eyeliner)
Pls keep in mind that i am not in the media/entertainment or fashion field so suggest clothes accordingly.
Work clothes crisis ???
In my opinion, skirts and dresses would be best working in an office or for a firm; try and stay away from pants (especially jeans!) as much as possible!
Do you like executive suits at all?
Also, wear nice feminine tops, nothing too tight or too floral and keep away from nasty and tacky polyester fabrics too!
Keep your makeup to a minimum: nice and light.
Light foundation, pale lipstick or lip gloss (no bright red tones!) of a pastel shade would be ideal combined with a discreet eyeliner and eyeshadow and mascara and you will look fantastic!
As far as footwear is concerned, if you're tall, flat shoes (no boots!) are okay but nothing too heavy looking!
If you're rather short, well at least get yourself a pair of heels that aren't too high, know what I mean?
Good luck with your new job!
Reply:trousers shirt . with or w/o blazer. or a knee length skirt. i don't think stockings are necessary. check with your firm for the dress code.
Reply:I think you should wear a suit ( womens) You can either get it in pants or a skirt( wear skin color tights). I recommend pants. And wear nice shoes with both( doesn't have to be high heels). And lipstick, eyeliner, and tan blush should be all you need for makeup!
Reply:Stockings are definitely NOT outdated! just keep the colors neutral with whatever skirt or dress you choose to wear. Flats are definitely fine, no need for high heels.
Make up is not a necessity, believe me! you are definitely on track, just don't be like some women who would wear jeans to an office which is definitely a NO NO! Me and my boyfriend went to the bank the other week and this woman behind the counter was wearing jeans, I can't believe her supervisor let her get away with that. Now that's inappropriate.
Reply:Congratulations on your new job!
Stockings are not out-dated.
They do complement the business attire, as long as they are not those fishnets or opaque fashionable tights. Try go for some nude/tan coloured stockings that have a shine/sheen to them... the more expensive ones.. They will make your outfit look very corporate presentable and also make your legs look fantastic.
Good luck =)
Reply:You have the right idea overall, the only i might avoid is the open toe.
All the ideas for the Skirts to the make up is fine.
Reply:Of course flats are ok! Closed toes look more formal, so it is far more recomended than sandals or something like it.
Pencil skirts and blouses are very appropriate to work and a fairly safe match.
It is ok not to use full-face make up - even because that ruins your skin! Just keep with your eyeliner and lipstick, and add a bit of blush so you won't look pale, this works perfectly for everyday use.
Other than that, I just wish you good luck in your new job =D
selling
What kinda shoe should i wear ?? should is be closed toes ?? also i am not comfotable wearing heels. is flats ok ??
I have seen most women here wearing make up and I have never used make up in my life (other than lipstick and some eyeliner)
Pls keep in mind that i am not in the media/entertainment or fashion field so suggest clothes accordingly.
Work clothes crisis ???
In my opinion, skirts and dresses would be best working in an office or for a firm; try and stay away from pants (especially jeans!) as much as possible!
Do you like executive suits at all?
Also, wear nice feminine tops, nothing too tight or too floral and keep away from nasty and tacky polyester fabrics too!
Keep your makeup to a minimum: nice and light.
Light foundation, pale lipstick or lip gloss (no bright red tones!) of a pastel shade would be ideal combined with a discreet eyeliner and eyeshadow and mascara and you will look fantastic!
As far as footwear is concerned, if you're tall, flat shoes (no boots!) are okay but nothing too heavy looking!
If you're rather short, well at least get yourself a pair of heels that aren't too high, know what I mean?
Good luck with your new job!
Reply:trousers shirt . with or w/o blazer. or a knee length skirt. i don't think stockings are necessary. check with your firm for the dress code.
Reply:I think you should wear a suit ( womens) You can either get it in pants or a skirt( wear skin color tights). I recommend pants. And wear nice shoes with both( doesn't have to be high heels). And lipstick, eyeliner, and tan blush should be all you need for makeup!
Reply:Stockings are definitely NOT outdated! just keep the colors neutral with whatever skirt or dress you choose to wear. Flats are definitely fine, no need for high heels.
Make up is not a necessity, believe me! you are definitely on track, just don't be like some women who would wear jeans to an office which is definitely a NO NO! Me and my boyfriend went to the bank the other week and this woman behind the counter was wearing jeans, I can't believe her supervisor let her get away with that. Now that's inappropriate.
Reply:Congratulations on your new job!
Stockings are not out-dated.
They do complement the business attire, as long as they are not those fishnets or opaque fashionable tights. Try go for some nude/tan coloured stockings that have a shine/sheen to them... the more expensive ones.. They will make your outfit look very corporate presentable and also make your legs look fantastic.
Good luck =)
Reply:You have the right idea overall, the only i might avoid is the open toe.
All the ideas for the Skirts to the make up is fine.
Reply:Of course flats are ok! Closed toes look more formal, so it is far more recomended than sandals or something like it.
Pencil skirts and blouses are very appropriate to work and a fairly safe match.
It is ok not to use full-face make up - even because that ruins your skin! Just keep with your eyeliner and lipstick, and add a bit of blush so you won't look pale, this works perfectly for everyday use.
Other than that, I just wish you good luck in your new job =D
selling
Boyfriends uncle was playing footsie with me at dinner what 2 do?
My boyfriend went to go visit his uncle on Saturday night.He was excited about us meeting because his uncle is so cool to him.We arrive at his house and meet his wife.We had dinner and during the meal his uncle was rubbing my leg with his bare foot.He kept going up and down my stocking leg and was trying to take off my shoe with his foot.I got up to go to the bathroom but had to return to the table but I was in shock.He started doing it again but I got turned on a little and just let him do it.Did I cheat?Should I say anything to my bf about his uncle playijg footsie with me?
Boyfriends uncle was playing footsie with me at dinner what 2 do?
You could have and should have moved so that he could not touch you. Your reaction (turned on a little) grosses me out. You should tell your boyfriend what happened and never be alone with his uncle. You are not much of a girlfriend if a stranger can turn you on with his dirty, stinky foot. Ewww. You need to check your morals, I think you left them at the door.
Reply:Tell your boyfriend immediately. His uncle's behavior was inappropriate.
Reply:I would let it go for now and not say anything yet. Next time you go over there, and he does it again stop him from doing it. And then let your boyfriend know
Reply:omg you got turned on ??? lol is his uncle hot ? oh god girl that's soooooooo not right (unless his uncle is hot...... so is he??) and duhh thats cheating but even if you dumped your bf you wouldn't be able to get with his married uncle....or maybe you could haha but in all honesty jokes aside that sounds pretty gross and effed up and wrong you also sound young so if your a teen thats harsh jail bait. good luck with that!
Reply:maybe he thought it was his wife's leg?wait no... anyway...TELL HIM yeah it's kinda cheating. (imagine if your boyfriend and YOUR aunt were doing that!!! you'd want him to tell you right?)
Reply:This is what you asked in your last question
"We went to see a movie and my friend told me I dare you to sit next to any guy and play footsie with him during the movie and see what happens.So I picked a guy who was with his girlfriend and we intentionally sat next to him.The movie started so I unziipped my boot and when it was dark I started rubbing his foot up and down and he didn't move.So I am elbowing my friend letting her know I was doing it.Then I pit my stocking foot up his leg.He wasnt moving and I think he was liking it I stopped after 10 minutes but later he started feeling my stocking foot so he wanted more LOL!I just tickkled his foot a little.But it just shows how horny guys are even if they have a lady they are willing to play footsie because they know they can't get caught.Other ladies might want to try it its a good joke LOL!"
this is my response in realtion to your last question and this one, you seem to like playing footsie, and i think that you were the one to instigate this.. plain and simple.. this is just weird and the story sounds similar but with a twist.. you were at your boyfriends "house" and it was your boyfriends "uncle"... think about it..
your just a confused girl that makes up stories cause u have no life......
Reply:no
Reply:YOU cant hide or ignore something like that. Yes flirting back to another man is considered flirting. How would you feel if the role was reversed and another girl had been doing that to your b/f??? YOu would be upset. Don't hide stuff like that from your b/f, he'll end up finding out and if you hide it he'll think something really is going on or worse believe his uncle if he tells him you started it. communication is the key in every relationship
Reply:blackmail him if he has money
Reply:First off your bf's uncle is crossing the line because you're his nephew's girlfriend and the moment it happened you should have pulled your man to the side and told him. You don't sit there and allow someone to do that because how would you feel say if your aunt was doing that to your man and he came and told you about it would you like it? Your man's uncle is disrespecting his nephew and his relationship.
Reply:yEAH u should so that he knows never to leave u and him alone and so that he says something to his uncle
Reply:Unpleasant as it is, tell your bf but you can leave out the part of getting turned on, that just clouds the issue. If you don't tell and you go back again the same thing will happen. If you wish you could wait until an invitation comes up and then tell bf you want different seating arrangements and then tell why.
Reply:First off, EWW
Second, yea tell your boyfriend, that's something he needs to know
Third, you ought to be shame for letting it go on. You knew it was wrong and you went along with it anyway. You enjoyed it so yea, you cheated!
Reply:I don't think you cheated; but I think you should say something. It might be hard because your boyfriend is close to his uncle, but it's for the best.
Eevee
Reply:you should confront Mr 'cool and MARRIED' uncle and make sure he knows this behavior is unacceptable. then decline invitations to do things that involve him in the future. if you have to attend functions with this man and he attempts to make more passes at you, CALL HIM ON IT IN FRONT OF EVERYONE ELSE.
If you feel like you can't (or don't want to) completely call him out, ask about it innocently (and loudly) as if you don't realize he is trying to hit on you (since him hitting on you is such an unbelievable thing) that his rubbing his foot on you must be some family custom you didn't' know about... lol)
this should sufficiently embarrass him into keeping his feet, hands and mind off his nephew's girlfriend.
Reply:u h well hmm let me think, YOU LET ANOTHER GUY BASICALLY FEEL YOU UP! you let him do it because it felt good? now if your bf were to know about this would he feel good? you sound young. you shouldnt have let him do that, you need to speak up about what happened.
Reply:Dont say anything to your BF but if you ever encounter that again you need to say something to the Uncle. No you didnt cheat either.
Reply:Eeewww Tell your bf!
Reply:uh wow you definitely cheated on him. you sound like a cheap asian prostitute. what the hell?? you got turned on?? i don't blame you though. you should totally sleep with him though and see how big his gun is if you know what i mean ; )
Reply:oh god. creepy!
Reply:Tell him that but if he doesn't believe then he just thinks you like his uncle.
Reply:Depending on how old you are Thats freakin digusting with his fungus big toe . Thats nasty now that I got a picture in my head. But yea tell ur boy friend
Reply:wow...you lil vixen you...lol...that is pretty hot...I'd keep your mouth shut girl for sure...I can guarantee the uncle is ready for phase 2 of his plans though, so you better avoid him...unless you want to....hmmm
Ignore the morons telling u to tell the BF...keep you mouth shut!!!!! and move on,,,
Reply:I think it might be wrong that you liked it. You don't have to tell your boyfriend, however you should advise the uncle that it is inappropriate for him to be doing that. He should keep that for him and his wife to be doing.
I wouldn't consider it cheating though. Just don't do it again and tell the uncle to stop, and you'll be just fine!
Reply:why would you get turned on by your boyfriends uncle...... have some morals, and turn that switch in your head off, and also, tell your boyfriend to put his uncle in check, that was pretty low of him to do, that guy is a creep. Hell, tell his wife, let her smack him up a bit, the jerk deserves it.
Reply:wear steal toed boots or sharp heels and kick him on the shin
Reply:You have got yourself in a world of trouble now...Now the next time the uncle sees you,he is going to want to take it to the next level B/C you let him do that,he is going to think that you want him..Hell you might what to...
Why in the Hell did you let him do that...especiallly not even knowing him....
Reply:You did not cheat but thats pretty gross (Stay away)
Reply:It's not your fault. Tell your boyfriend.
Reply:No...go for it your not married
Reply:did you have an orgasm?
if you did, you cheated
car audio
Boyfriends uncle was playing footsie with me at dinner what 2 do?
You could have and should have moved so that he could not touch you. Your reaction (turned on a little) grosses me out. You should tell your boyfriend what happened and never be alone with his uncle. You are not much of a girlfriend if a stranger can turn you on with his dirty, stinky foot. Ewww. You need to check your morals, I think you left them at the door.
Reply:Tell your boyfriend immediately. His uncle's behavior was inappropriate.
Reply:I would let it go for now and not say anything yet. Next time you go over there, and he does it again stop him from doing it. And then let your boyfriend know
Reply:omg you got turned on ??? lol is his uncle hot ? oh god girl that's soooooooo not right (unless his uncle is hot...... so is he??) and duhh thats cheating but even if you dumped your bf you wouldn't be able to get with his married uncle....or maybe you could haha but in all honesty jokes aside that sounds pretty gross and effed up and wrong you also sound young so if your a teen thats harsh jail bait. good luck with that!
Reply:maybe he thought it was his wife's leg?wait no... anyway...TELL HIM yeah it's kinda cheating. (imagine if your boyfriend and YOUR aunt were doing that!!! you'd want him to tell you right?)
Reply:This is what you asked in your last question
"We went to see a movie and my friend told me I dare you to sit next to any guy and play footsie with him during the movie and see what happens.So I picked a guy who was with his girlfriend and we intentionally sat next to him.The movie started so I unziipped my boot and when it was dark I started rubbing his foot up and down and he didn't move.So I am elbowing my friend letting her know I was doing it.Then I pit my stocking foot up his leg.He wasnt moving and I think he was liking it I stopped after 10 minutes but later he started feeling my stocking foot so he wanted more LOL!I just tickkled his foot a little.But it just shows how horny guys are even if they have a lady they are willing to play footsie because they know they can't get caught.Other ladies might want to try it its a good joke LOL!"
this is my response in realtion to your last question and this one, you seem to like playing footsie, and i think that you were the one to instigate this.. plain and simple.. this is just weird and the story sounds similar but with a twist.. you were at your boyfriends "house" and it was your boyfriends "uncle"... think about it..
your just a confused girl that makes up stories cause u have no life......
Reply:no
Reply:YOU cant hide or ignore something like that. Yes flirting back to another man is considered flirting. How would you feel if the role was reversed and another girl had been doing that to your b/f??? YOu would be upset. Don't hide stuff like that from your b/f, he'll end up finding out and if you hide it he'll think something really is going on or worse believe his uncle if he tells him you started it. communication is the key in every relationship
Reply:blackmail him if he has money
Reply:First off your bf's uncle is crossing the line because you're his nephew's girlfriend and the moment it happened you should have pulled your man to the side and told him. You don't sit there and allow someone to do that because how would you feel say if your aunt was doing that to your man and he came and told you about it would you like it? Your man's uncle is disrespecting his nephew and his relationship.
Reply:yEAH u should so that he knows never to leave u and him alone and so that he says something to his uncle
Reply:Unpleasant as it is, tell your bf but you can leave out the part of getting turned on, that just clouds the issue. If you don't tell and you go back again the same thing will happen. If you wish you could wait until an invitation comes up and then tell bf you want different seating arrangements and then tell why.
Reply:First off, EWW
Second, yea tell your boyfriend, that's something he needs to know
Third, you ought to be shame for letting it go on. You knew it was wrong and you went along with it anyway. You enjoyed it so yea, you cheated!
Reply:I don't think you cheated; but I think you should say something. It might be hard because your boyfriend is close to his uncle, but it's for the best.
Eevee
Reply:you should confront Mr 'cool and MARRIED' uncle and make sure he knows this behavior is unacceptable. then decline invitations to do things that involve him in the future. if you have to attend functions with this man and he attempts to make more passes at you, CALL HIM ON IT IN FRONT OF EVERYONE ELSE.
If you feel like you can't (or don't want to) completely call him out, ask about it innocently (and loudly) as if you don't realize he is trying to hit on you (since him hitting on you is such an unbelievable thing) that his rubbing his foot on you must be some family custom you didn't' know about... lol)
this should sufficiently embarrass him into keeping his feet, hands and mind off his nephew's girlfriend.
Reply:u h well hmm let me think, YOU LET ANOTHER GUY BASICALLY FEEL YOU UP! you let him do it because it felt good? now if your bf were to know about this would he feel good? you sound young. you shouldnt have let him do that, you need to speak up about what happened.
Reply:Dont say anything to your BF but if you ever encounter that again you need to say something to the Uncle. No you didnt cheat either.
Reply:Eeewww Tell your bf!
Reply:uh wow you definitely cheated on him. you sound like a cheap asian prostitute. what the hell?? you got turned on?? i don't blame you though. you should totally sleep with him though and see how big his gun is if you know what i mean ; )
Reply:oh god. creepy!
Reply:Tell him that but if he doesn't believe then he just thinks you like his uncle.
Reply:Depending on how old you are Thats freakin digusting with his fungus big toe . Thats nasty now that I got a picture in my head. But yea tell ur boy friend
Reply:wow...you lil vixen you...lol...that is pretty hot...I'd keep your mouth shut girl for sure...I can guarantee the uncle is ready for phase 2 of his plans though, so you better avoid him...unless you want to....hmmm
Ignore the morons telling u to tell the BF...keep you mouth shut!!!!! and move on,,,
Reply:I think it might be wrong that you liked it. You don't have to tell your boyfriend, however you should advise the uncle that it is inappropriate for him to be doing that. He should keep that for him and his wife to be doing.
I wouldn't consider it cheating though. Just don't do it again and tell the uncle to stop, and you'll be just fine!
Reply:why would you get turned on by your boyfriends uncle...... have some morals, and turn that switch in your head off, and also, tell your boyfriend to put his uncle in check, that was pretty low of him to do, that guy is a creep. Hell, tell his wife, let her smack him up a bit, the jerk deserves it.
Reply:wear steal toed boots or sharp heels and kick him on the shin
Reply:You have got yourself in a world of trouble now...Now the next time the uncle sees you,he is going to want to take it to the next level B/C you let him do that,he is going to think that you want him..Hell you might what to...
Why in the Hell did you let him do that...especiallly not even knowing him....
Reply:You did not cheat but thats pretty gross (Stay away)
Reply:It's not your fault. Tell your boyfriend.
Reply:No...go for it your not married
Reply:did you have an orgasm?
if you did, you cheated
car audio
Can someone make me a cute new outfit i can wear for my bf.......?
im a 19 year old female
fave colors : red, blue, black, and pink
fave stores: hottopic, penny's, macys
shirt size: large
waist:13
shoe:8 1/2
fave style: punk
i love stocking and leg warmers and stuff like that thanks
Can someone make me a cute new outfit i can wear for my bf.......?
black blouse over just leggings? where the end has like ruffles, so it doesnt look like you're wearing leggings that look like leggings.
maybe you shouldnt let us pick wut you should wear, and let you choose your own for your own personality...
Reply:just throw some clothes on. loser.
flower
fave colors : red, blue, black, and pink
fave stores: hottopic, penny's, macys
shirt size: large
waist:13
shoe:8 1/2
fave style: punk
i love stocking and leg warmers and stuff like that thanks
Can someone make me a cute new outfit i can wear for my bf.......?
black blouse over just leggings? where the end has like ruffles, so it doesnt look like you're wearing leggings that look like leggings.
maybe you shouldnt let us pick wut you should wear, and let you choose your own for your own personality...
Reply:just throw some clothes on. loser.
flower
Should I tell my girlfriend?
I had a freaky experience at the movies on Saturday.My girl and I sat down and then about ten minutes later another lady with her husband sat next to us.I was next to the wife she was 35 Asian.The movie started and I noticed she unzipped her boots and she would keep tapping my foot with hers.Then her stocking foot went up and down my shoe.I realized she was trying to play footsie with me.I let her do it because she was very pretty and her husband couldn't see.This lady was a freak she put her foot up my pantleg and could hear here moaning.This lady was A FREAK!I haven't told my girl yet but should I tell her or not?
Should I tell my girlfriend?
no need to tell her now. should of told her when it was happening.
Reply:yeah tell your girlfriend. i think it would make her laugh. tell it like it was supposed to be funny.
Reply:You didn't do anything wrong, so if you want to tell her, do it. I mean, you probably shouldn't have let her, but just explain how much of an akward situation it was. YOu didn't respond at all, so she shouldn't be upset.
Reply:To late now!!! You should have whispered it while y'all was there...She may question why in tha h3ll didn't you inform her of this while y'all was there. I would be mad if i was your gurl...I would say that you liked it!!!
Reply:no it was a one time deal and didn't lead to anything, maybe she thought you were her husband? tell her only if your girlfriend would think its funny, if she would take offense than no
Reply:No it's all over now.
Reply:You should tell her. Trust me on this one. If you tell her now yeah she'll be mad, but not half as mad as she would be if she found out from someone else. Besides, think about it this way if some 35 year old married man and your girl were playing footsie without you knowing... wouldn't you want her to tell you. And be honest, silly little things like this could make or brake you relationship with her.
-Nikki-
Reply:i mean i think u'd feel beta telling her but at the same time...how might ya girl react? think about that (y in da world would u let a 35yr old women do that...ewww! no matter how pretty ya thinkl she is ...ewww!)
Reply:dont tell her, if u arent very faithful, she was prolly giving the guy next to her a hand job, or did it while u were gone and she was with someone
Reply:she was crazy not u, so why tell.. lol
Reply:No.
But it was wrong of you to let her do that.
But save yourself from being yelled at by your girlfriend and DONT tell her
Reply:no, she start a big commotion abou it
Reply:I sounds kind of funny. But if I was in your girlfriends position i wouldn't appreciate it one bit that you stayed playing. U should tell her only because If U keep this a secret than God knows how many more lies you would get away with... If she's a good girlfriend she doesn't deserve that so think about it. Be truthful thats a major importance in a relationship.
Reply:no it aint worth it!
Reply:No brains required for this one.
If the lady enjoyed it, and you enjoyed it, then there are two winners.
If you tell your girlfriend then there'll be two losers.
Answer: Keep quiet and you've got a nice memory and a girlfriend.
Ps: Where was the cinema ??? ;-)
Reply:wtf. why the hell would you let her do that!?
thats really stupid. you shoulda stopped her.
Reply:No Tell me where the Lady is now.
Reply:yes be honest that you were weirded out
Reply:you shouldn't tell her, besides, if you tell her now, she will probably get mad at you
Reply:You should be ashamed of yourself!!!!!!!!!!!
You should have turned to the whorebag and told her off!!
You sound like the kind of guy who is easily seduced and would cheat on your girlfriend.
buying
Should I tell my girlfriend?
no need to tell her now. should of told her when it was happening.
Reply:yeah tell your girlfriend. i think it would make her laugh. tell it like it was supposed to be funny.
Reply:You didn't do anything wrong, so if you want to tell her, do it. I mean, you probably shouldn't have let her, but just explain how much of an akward situation it was. YOu didn't respond at all, so she shouldn't be upset.
Reply:To late now!!! You should have whispered it while y'all was there...She may question why in tha h3ll didn't you inform her of this while y'all was there. I would be mad if i was your gurl...I would say that you liked it!!!
Reply:no it was a one time deal and didn't lead to anything, maybe she thought you were her husband? tell her only if your girlfriend would think its funny, if she would take offense than no
Reply:No it's all over now.
Reply:You should tell her. Trust me on this one. If you tell her now yeah she'll be mad, but not half as mad as she would be if she found out from someone else. Besides, think about it this way if some 35 year old married man and your girl were playing footsie without you knowing... wouldn't you want her to tell you. And be honest, silly little things like this could make or brake you relationship with her.
-Nikki-
Reply:i mean i think u'd feel beta telling her but at the same time...how might ya girl react? think about that (y in da world would u let a 35yr old women do that...ewww! no matter how pretty ya thinkl she is ...ewww!)
Reply:dont tell her, if u arent very faithful, she was prolly giving the guy next to her a hand job, or did it while u were gone and she was with someone
Reply:she was crazy not u, so why tell.. lol
Reply:No.
But it was wrong of you to let her do that.
But save yourself from being yelled at by your girlfriend and DONT tell her
Reply:no, she start a big commotion abou it
Reply:I sounds kind of funny. But if I was in your girlfriends position i wouldn't appreciate it one bit that you stayed playing. U should tell her only because If U keep this a secret than God knows how many more lies you would get away with... If she's a good girlfriend she doesn't deserve that so think about it. Be truthful thats a major importance in a relationship.
Reply:no it aint worth it!
Reply:No brains required for this one.
If the lady enjoyed it, and you enjoyed it, then there are two winners.
If you tell your girlfriend then there'll be two losers.
Answer: Keep quiet and you've got a nice memory and a girlfriend.
Ps: Where was the cinema ??? ;-)
Reply:wtf. why the hell would you let her do that!?
thats really stupid. you shoulda stopped her.
Reply:No Tell me where the Lady is now.
Reply:yes be honest that you were weirded out
Reply:you shouldn't tell her, besides, if you tell her now, she will probably get mad at you
Reply:You should be ashamed of yourself!!!!!!!!!!!
You should have turned to the whorebag and told her off!!
You sound like the kind of guy who is easily seduced and would cheat on your girlfriend.
buying
Socks with white pumps? look silly? what colour?
I have on a pair of white pumps today, and my black jeans. My feet are freezing as they are bare at the moment, but will these shoes look silly with socks on? What colour (if any should I wear)? Would I perhaps be better with nude pop socks (you know like tan stocking thingys)?
Socks with white pumps? look silly? what colour?
In this situation I usually get "dress socks"... they are thinner than regular socks and look better with dressy shoes. I would say go with a nude or black.
Reply:That whole thing about no white in winter is bullcrappy. I think white in winter is classy! Report It
Reply:when it's cold forget fashion so you can get white...anyway get a dress nylon sock or just wear boots
Reply:First, the real answer should be no white pumps after labor day. I know that is an old fashion wives tale, but we all know that white is OUT in the fall and winter. Try black pumps and dress socks. NEVER gym socks :) or thick ones. You aren't dressing for warmth you are dressing for fashion. (unless you are an outside white collar worker)
Reply:wear skin socks.
your skin color sockss....?
Reply:wear boots! It's ffffreeeezing
tanning
Socks with white pumps? look silly? what colour?
In this situation I usually get "dress socks"... they are thinner than regular socks and look better with dressy shoes. I would say go with a nude or black.
Reply:That whole thing about no white in winter is bullcrappy. I think white in winter is classy! Report It
Reply:when it's cold forget fashion so you can get white...anyway get a dress nylon sock or just wear boots
Reply:First, the real answer should be no white pumps after labor day. I know that is an old fashion wives tale, but we all know that white is OUT in the fall and winter. Try black pumps and dress socks. NEVER gym socks :) or thick ones. You aren't dressing for warmth you are dressing for fashion. (unless you are an outside white collar worker)
Reply:wear skin socks.
your skin color sockss....?
Reply:wear boots! It's ffffreeeezing
tanning
Abortion law question?
im NOT in this situation, im just curious, so lay off your hate, feminists and pro-life nutjobs. im wondering if a dude knocks a girl up, she has the right to an abortion, but does he have the same right?if not, can he make it known he didnt want it and make her carry the burden by herself or does he just have the right to pay? and if thats the case, then why arent any lawyers or lobbyists fighting this inequality? it may be the womans body, but whats growing in it is only HALF hers! if the shoe were on the other foot, all the feminists would be crying so loudly, you wouldnt be able to hear the TV no matter where you lived, and hilary clinton would be crusading......double standards have NO place in a so-called "free" society.
and dont talk to me about 'taking responsibility' if we all did that the USA wouldnt be a laughing stock around the world.
Abortion law question?
No.
Men have no rights.
Reply:He does have the same right to an abortion, as soon as he finds himself pregnant... I would suggest, from a purely financial view, that he carry to term though! http://www.malepregnancy.com/
Here's the solution... Since this IS supposedly a "free" society, you are free... any, OBLIGATED to work to change ANY law you feel is unfair, biased, discriminatory, etc... Please do so!
The law is set up so that BOTH parents are supposed to provide care and support for any child... You have a right to go to court and fight for equal parenting of any child BORN of your genetic material....
flower
and dont talk to me about 'taking responsibility' if we all did that the USA wouldnt be a laughing stock around the world.
Abortion law question?
No.
Men have no rights.
Reply:He does have the same right to an abortion, as soon as he finds himself pregnant... I would suggest, from a purely financial view, that he carry to term though! http://www.malepregnancy.com/
Here's the solution... Since this IS supposedly a "free" society, you are free... any, OBLIGATED to work to change ANY law you feel is unfair, biased, discriminatory, etc... Please do so!
The law is set up so that BOTH parents are supposed to provide care and support for any child... You have a right to go to court and fight for equal parenting of any child BORN of your genetic material....
flower
Plz. help me to write the main idea of this article in the NY Times. in two pages.?
November 5, 2006
Where Plan A Left Ahmad Chalabi
By DEXTER FILKINS
1. London, August 2006
Many miles away in a more dangerous place the dream is ending badly. The bodies pile up. Good people stream to the borders. Leaders pile money onto planes. The center is giving way.
The apartment on South Street in London is an antidote to Baghdad in nearly every respect. Where the Iraqi capital rings with chaos and violence, the sidewalks of Mayfair are quiet enough to hear your own voice above the cars. Baghdad is treeless and tan; the South Street apartment opens onto a private park filled with the lushness of an English garden. Just across the way is the Anglican church where General Eisenhower, stationed here as the commander of Allied forces during the war, came to pray. A maid greets you at the door, an elderly Lebanese woman who doubles as an Arabic teacher for the children.
The parlor is neatly appointed and filled with art, most of it European, different from the Baghdad house, where most of it is Iraqi. There is “Sketch of a Woman,” by Lucien Pissarro, the French painter who propagated Impressionism in London; it catches the light nicely. The furniture is expensive, the kind that makes you hesitate to sit down. But the place has a lived-in quality too; family members come and go, clutching bags and calling to one another down the hallways. No one seems the least bit awed by the man of the house, who is dressed in a bespoke suit and carries himself like a monarch, and who, until now, hasn’t spent more than a day at a time here since before the Iraq war began.
For Ahmad Chalabi, Iraq is an abstraction again. Once again, his native country is a faraway land ruled by somebody else, a place where other people die. It’s a place to be discussed, rued, plotted over, from a parlor on an expensive Western street. Iraq’s new leaders, the men who excluded Chalabi from the government they formed this spring, still call for advice — several times a day, Chalabi says. He is here in London, his longtime home in exile, temporarily, he says, taking his first vacation in five years. At lunch at a nearby restaurant an hour before, he ordered the sea bass wrapped in a banana leaf. He walks the streets unattended by armed guards.
But the interlude, Chalabi says, is just that, a passing thing. His doubters will come back to him; they always have. As ever, he wears a jester’s smile, wide and blank, a mask that has carried him through crises of the first world and the third. Still, a touch of bitterness can creep into Chalabi’s voice, a hint that he has concluded that his time has come and gone. Indeed, even for a man as vain and resilient as Chalabi, his present predicament stands too large to go unacknowledged. Once Iraq’s anointed leader — anointed by the Americans — Chalabi, at age 62, is without a job, spurned by the very colleagues whose ascension he engineered. His benefactors in the White House and in the Pentagon, who once gobbled up whatever half-baked intelligence Chalabi offered, now regard him as undependable and — worse — safely ignored. Chalabi’s life work, an Iraq liberated from Saddam Hussein, a modern and democratic Iraq, is spiraling toward disintegration. Indeed, for many in the West, Chalabi has become the personification of all that has gone wrong in Iraq: the lies, the arrogance, the occupation as disaster.
“The real culprit in all this is Wolfowitz,” Chalabi says, referring to his erstwhile backer, the former deputy secretary of defense, Paul Wolfowitz. “They chickened out. The Pentagon guys chickened out.”
Chalabi still considers Wolfowitz a friend, so he proceeds carefully. America’s big mistake, Chalabi maintains, was in failing to step out of the way after Hussein’s downfall and let the Iraqis take charge. The Iraqis, not the Americans, should have been allowed to take over immediately — the people who knew the country, who spoke the language and, most important, who could take responsibility for the chaos that was unfolding in the streets. An Iraqi government could have acted harshly, even brutally, to regain control of the place, and the Iraqis would have been without a foreigner to blame. They would have appreciated the firm hand. There would have been no guerrilla insurgency or, if there was, a small one that the new Iraqi government could have ferreted out and crushed on its own. An Iraqi leadership would have brought Moktada al-Sadr, the populist cleric, into the government and house-trained him. The Americans, in all likelihood, could have gone home. They certainly would have been home by now.
“We would have taken hold of the country,” Chalabi says. “We would have revitalized the civil service immediately. We would have been able to put together a military force and an intelligence service. There would have been no insurgency. We would have had electricity. The Americans screwed it up.”
Chalabi’s notion — that an Iraqi government, as opposed to an American one, could have saved the great experiment — has become one of the arguments put forth by the war’s proponents in the just-beginning debate over who lost Iraq. At best, it’s improbable: Chalabi is essentially arguing that a handful of Iraqi exiles, some of whom had not lived in the country in decades, could have put together a government and quelled the chaos that quickly engulfed the country after Hussein’s regime collapsed. They could have done this, presumably, without an army (which most wanted to dissolve) and without a police force (which was riddled with Baathists).
In fact, the Americans considered the idea and dismissed it. (But not, Wolfowitz insists, because of him. His longtime aide, Kevin Kellems, said that Wolfowitz favored turning over power “as rapidly as possible to duly elected Iraqi authorities.”) The Bush administration decided to go to the United Nations and have the American role in Iraq formally described as that of an “occupying power,” a step that no Iraqi, not even the lowliest tea seller, failed to notice. They appointed L. Paul Bremer III as viceroy. Instead of empowering Iraqis, Bremer set up an advisory panel of Iraqis — one that included Chalabi — that had no power at all. The warmth that many ordinary Iraqis felt for the Americans quickly ebbed away. It’s not clear that the Americans had any other choice. But here in his London parlor, Chalabi is now contending that excluding Iraqis was the Americans’ fatal mistake.
“It was a puppet show!” Chalabi exclaims again, shifting on the couch. “The worst of all worlds. We were in charge, and we had no power. We were blamed for everything the Americans did, but we couldn’t change any of it.”
It’s three and a half years later now. More than 2,800 Americans are dead; more than 3,000 Iraqis die each month. The anarchy seems limitless. In May 2004, American and Iraqi agents even raided Chalabi’s home in Baghdad. He has been denounced by Bremer and by Bush and accused of passing secrets to America’s enemy, Iran. At the heart of the American decision to take over and run Iraq, Chalabi now concludes, lay a basic contempt for Iraqis, himself included.
“In Wolfowitz’s mind, you couldn’t trust the Iraqis to run a democracy,” Chalabi says. “ ‘We have to teach them, give them lessons,’ in Wolfowitz’s mind. ‘We have to leave Iraq under our tutelage. The Iraqis are useless. The Iraqis are incompetent.’
“What I didn’t realize,” Chalabi says, “was that the Americans sold us out.”
Turkish coffee is served, then tea. I consider Chalabi’s predicament: the Iraqi patrician, confidant of prime ministers and presidents, the M.I.T.- and University of Chicago-trained mathematics professor, owner of a Mayfair flat, complaining of being regarded, by the masters he once manipulated, as a scruffy, shiftless native.
“I’ve been a friend of America, and I’ve been its enemy,” he says. “America betrays its friends. It sets them up and betrays them. I’d rather be America’s enemy.”
And so he is. Sort of. With Chalabi, it’s hard to be certain, and not just because his motives are so opaque, but because he is never still. He is enigmatic, brilliant, nimble, unreliable, charming, narcissistic, finally elusive. The journey to Mayfair is a long one. What happened to Chalabi?
Well, you might ask: What happened to Iraq?
2. Mushkhab, January 2005
The election is coming, and we are heading south. Twenty cars, mostly carrying men with guns. They hang out the windows, pointing their Kalashnikovs at the terrified drivers. Get out of the way or we shoot, and maybe we shoot anyway — that’s the message. But that’s Iraq. We move quickly, weaving, south in the southbound, south in the northbound. Very fast. Unbelievably fast. Drivers veer and career. We go where we want.
We’re low on fuel, and a gas station beckons. It is one of the strange and singular facts of Iraqi life that despite sitting atop an ocean of oil, Iraqis must wait hours — often days — for gasoline at the pumps. Lack of refining capacity, smuggling, stealing, insurgent attacks, Soviet subsidies: it’s complicated. On the road outside Salman Pak, the line is perhaps 300 cars long.
The Chalabi convoy cuts straight to the front of the line. No one protests. It’s the guns. The Iraqis wait for days, and our effrontery brings no protest. Not a peep. We get our gas and we speed away, guns out the windows. Very fast.
An hour later, we arrive at our destination, Mushkhab. It’s a mostly Shiite town about 100 miles south of Baghdad. It is friendly country — to Chalabi, and still, then, to Americans.
The whole town — the males, anyway — gathers round. Chalabi stands in the center, dressed in a dark gray Western suit. The Iraqis clap and read poetry; some of it they sing. It’s a tradition, a kind of serenade to the honored guest.
“Hey, listen, Bush, we are Iraqis,” the poet says, and everyone is clapping. “We never bow our heads to anyone, and we won’t do it for you. We have tough guys like Chalabi on our side — be careful.”
Everyone laughs.
We move inside the mudhif, a tall, long, fantastic structure woven of dried river reeds, a kind of pavilion of rattan. The room is laid with hand-woven carpets, and on the walls hang framed yellowed photographs of the leaders of the tribe, Al Fatla, meeting with their British overlords many years ago. A pair of loudspeakers are set up in the front. Chalabi takes a microphone.
“My Iraqi brothers, the Americans pushed out Saddam, but they did not liberate our country,” Chalabi tells the group. “We are asking you to participate in this election so that we can have an independent country. This is not just words. The Iraqi people will liberate the country.”
He goes on a little more, warming to the Iraqis assembled about him.
“On my way here, I saw a huge line of people waiting for gasoline,” Chalabi tells the group. “Some of them were there for two nights, carrying blankets with them. It makes me very sad to see my brothers wait for days to get gas at the station.”
Shameless, huh? I thought so, too. Almost a thing of beauty. It was so outrageous I almost wanted to forgive him, as a teacher might her sassy but cleverest boy. And that’s the thing about Chalabi: he’s very difficult to dislike. It may be his secret.
It was Chalabi, after all — a foreigner, an Arab — who persuaded the most powerful men and women in the United States to make the liberation of Iraq not merely a priority but an obsession. First in 1998, when Chalabi persuaded Congress to pass the Iraq Liberation Act (in turn leading to payments to his group, the Iraqi National Congress, exceeding $27 million over the next six years) and then, later, in persuading the Bush administration of the necessity of using force to destroy Saddam Hussein. And when it all went bad, when those nuclear weapons never turned up, the clever child shrugged and smiled. “We are heroes in error,” Chalabi told Britain’s Daily Telegraph. Almost with a wink.
Lunch is served: a long table heaped with rice and roasted lamb. No seats. Everyone stands, dozens of us, and we dig in with our fingers. After a time, we prepare to leave. The table and the ground around it are littered with rice and lamb bones. We re-form into a convoy and speed toward the holy city of Najaf.
By the time we arrive in Najaf, it’s dark. The fighting between American soldiers and the Mahdi Army irregulars laid waste to the city only a few months before, but on this night, Najaf seems remarkably calm. The pilgrim hotels lie in ruins, but the golden dome of the shrine of Imam Ali shimmers under a January moon.
Chalabi exits his S.U.V. and strides inside through the 20-foot-high wooden doors. A clutch of Sunni leaders, whom Chalabi has agreed to show around, trail in step. The curiosities intersect: the Sunnis are not Shiites, and this is the holiest of Shiite places, the tomb of the son-in-law of the Holy Prophet and the very heart of the Shiite faith. But they are still Muslims, and they are allowed to pass. As a non-Muslim, I wait outside in the street.
More unlikely than the presence of the Sunnis is their tour guide, Chalabi. Or it was unlikely. Not anymore. Chalabi, the Westernized, Western-educated mathematician, has entered his Islamist phase.
It’s not terribly convincing. He does not don a turban. He has no beard. He does not pray. He does not, really, even pretend. But as a practical politician — as an exile come home to a strange land getting stranger by the day — Chalabi had to do something. Relations between Chalabi and the Bush administration began to sour almost immediately after the fall of Hussein, when the Americans decided against putting Iraqis — presumably Chalabi — in charge. Bremer considered him an egomaniac. When no W.M.D. turned up, more and more Americans came to blame Chalabi for the war. Chalabi’s association with the Americans grew more disadvantageous by the day.
The break came on May 20, 2004, when the Americans, accusing Chalabi of telling the Iranian government that the Americans were eavesdropping on their secret communications, swooped in on his Baghdad compound. American troops sealed off Mansour, the neighborhood where Chalabi lived, while scores of Iraqi and American agents kicked in the compound doors. One of the Iraqis, Chalabi said, put a gun to his head.
“Look, I think they tried to kill him,” Richard Perle, the former Pentagon adviser and longtime Chalabi friend, said of the American and Iraqi agents. “I think the raid on his house was intended to result in violence. They had sent 20 or 40 Humvees over there. Chalabi was being protected by a force of about 100 guys with machine guns. It is a miracle that it didn’t result in a massive shootout.”
No shots were fired, but the break seemed final. Isolated, Chalabi turned to Islam — and, in particular, to Moktada al-Sadr, the Shiite cleric and leader of two armed uprisings against the Americans and the Iraqi government. Sadr is an erratic and unpredictable young man who sometimes ends his sermons with apocalyptic visions of the “hidden” 12th imam revealing himself. He is also the most popular man in Iraq. In the anarchy that ensued following the fall of Hussein, Iraqis, once known for their largely secular outlook, ran headlong toward Islam. Religion and anarchy moved together: the worse conditions got in the streets, the more Islamic Iraqis became.
In the three and a half years that I have known Chalabi, I never once saw him pray. Or give any indication that he harbored religious beliefs at all. Mowaffak al-Rubaie, the Iraqi national security adviser and a devout Shiite, told me once that when he and a group of five senior Iraqi politicians visited the Imam Ali shrine in 2004, all of them prayed but Chalabi. While the others knelt, Rubaie said, Chalabi stood quietly with his hands folded in front of him.
On this return visit to the Imam Ali shrine, Chalabi and his Sunni colleagues spent 10 minutes inside and exited without saying a thing. But word travels quickly down Najaf’s narrow streets, and by the time our convoy sped back to Baghdad, there were very few people in Najaf who did not know that Chalabi had come.
Once, when I asked Chalabi about his flirtation with the Islamists, he answered not in terms of religion but of politics. Moktada, he explained, was not essentially dangerous but merely misunderstood, an outsider who could be coaxed into Iraq’s new democratic order. Chalabi was happy to act as the bridge, and if he benefited politically from his efforts, he was not complaining.
“The Americans made a mistake when they excluded Moktada in the beginning,” Chalabi told me. “Our real business is to persuade everybody that Sadr is better inside than outside, and to provide some measure of comfort to the middle class that he is not going to eat them up.”
Indeed, Chalabi and Sadr are not as unlikely a pair as they may seem. Musa al-Sadr, the late Iranian-born ayatollah and Moktada’s cousin, presided over Chalabi’s wedding in Beirut in 1971. Chalabi’s wife, Leila, is the daughter of Adel Osseiran, a leader of the Lebanese independence movement. Musa al-Sadr was the founder of Amal, which became the prototypical Shiite party in the Middle East.
It seemed like a game, and not one that Chalabi liked to give away. Whenever I asked him about his coziness with Moktada, and how it squared with his own religious beliefs, I usually received a curt retort.
For a time, Chalabi — and the Americans — got the better of the deal. Moktada fielded candidates in the January 2005 election, and his militia, though still untamed, fell into line behind its leader. He endorsed something less than an absolute role for Islam in the Iraqi Constitution. By early 2006, parties loyal to Sadr held the largest bloc in the Iraqi Parliament. As for Chalabi, Moktada kept him afloat a little longer.
But in siding with the Islamists, Chalabi helped make them stronger than they were, and he threw his weight behind a number of trends that were only then becoming dominant: the Islamization of Iraqi society, the division of Iraq into sectarian cantons. Those trends later spiraled out of control, into the de facto civil war that is unfolding now. Some Iraqis who watched Chalabi then still don’t forgive him — and they think that ultimately, the Islamists got the better of him.
“Ahmad’s problem is that Ahmad is usually the smartest man in the room, and he thinks he can control what happens,” I was told by an Iraqi official who worked with Chalabi at the time and who would speak only anonymously. “But these guys don’t care if you have a Ph.D. in math; they’ll kill you. In the end, things went way past the point where Ahmad thought they would ever go. I can’t imagine he wanted that. But he helped start it.”
3. Baghdad, October 2005
Chalabi is standing on the rooftop of his ancestral home in Khadimiya, a heavily Shiite neighborhood known for its shrine. Mansour, the area where he has lived since Hussein’s fall, has slipped into anarchy. The final round of nationwide elections is a couple of months away. For the moment, Chalabi is the deputy prime minister, behind the affable but ineffectual Ibrahim Jaafari.
Across the street stand a pair of grain silos built by his father, Abdul Hadi Chalabi. Downstairs, on a wall in the sitting room, there is an old British map dating to the 1920’s, showing Baghdad, which was much smaller than it is now. North of Baghdad, in what was then farmland and what is now Khadimiya, a dot indicates a town. The dot says, “Chalabi.” At the time, Chalabi’s family owned nearly two and a half million acres throughout Iraq.
Those vast holdings are reduced to the compound where Chalabi now stands. It’s about 10 acres, including the main house, which a team of workers is renovating, a large swimming pool, a grove of date palms and, in the back, a mudhif. There is a row of garages, decrepit now, where workers once serviced the machinery and trucks that brought the wheat and dates to market.
“Imagine,” Chalabi says, turning to me. “And C.I.A. says I have no roots here.”
Chalabi spent 45 years in exile. Under the Hashemite monarchy installed by the British after World War I, the ruling class of the new Iraq was largely made up of Sunni Muslims, as it had been under the Ottoman Turks. The Chalabis were part of the small Shiite elite; most of the rest of the Shiite majority formed a vast underclass. The remnants of that Shiite elite now form a sizable slice of the political establishment of post-Saddam Iraq. In addition to Chalabi, there is Adil Abdul Mahdi, the vice president, a Chalabi friend since boyhood; Ayad Allawi, the former president, who is a Chalabi relative by marriage; and Feisal al-Istrabadi, the deputy ambassador to the United Nations in New York. In the 1950’s, Chalabi, Mahdi and Allawi were schoolmates at Baghdad College, an elite Jesuit high school. Even in their class photos, nearly a half-century old, all three men are instantly recognizable: Mahdi, the soft-spoken intellectual; Allawi, the charming bully; and Chalabi, the boy genius in a bow tie.
On July 14, 1958, King Faisal II, the British-backed monarch, was deposed and killed; a day later, the prime minister, Nuri al-Said, fled to the home of Chalabi’s sister, Thamina. She dressed Said in an abaya, the head-to-toe gown worn by women. With the army closing in, Thamina Chalabi took Said to the home of Feisal al-Istrabadi’s grandparents. Ahmad Chalabi, then 14, watched his mother and Bibiya al-Istrabadi weep as they pondered the prime minister’s fate.
“Three or four hours later, Said was dead,” Chalabi told me. “He shot himself.”
Chalabi fled Iraq a few months later, first for Lebanon, then England and then America, where he received a degree in mathematics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a doctorate from the University of Chicago. (Dissertation title: “Jacobson Radical of Group Algebras Over Fields Characteristic p.”) He did not return to Baghdad until April 11, 2003.
Chalabi’s homecoming, after the U.S. invasion, was not the triumphant return he hoped it would be. What should have been his principal claim to legitimacy — his central role in toppling Saddam — never carried him very far; it became a liability as Iraq descended into chaos. In the new Iraq, Westernized elites carried less and less authority. Power belonged to the clerics and to the populists. And then there was the scandal at Petra Bank in Jordan, the outlines of which every Iraqi, no matter how dimly educated, seemed already to know: that Chalabi had been convicted in absentia for fraud and sentenced to 22 years in prison for embezzling almost $300 million. (Chalabi, who fled Jordan before he could be arrested, has long denied the charges, maintaining that they were cooked up by the Jordanian government under pressure from Saddam Hussein. Last year, the Jordanians signaled that they were willing to pardon Chalabi. But Chalabi insisted on a public apology, which the Jordanians refused to give.) Even the small army of Iraqi exiles that Chalabi had raised before the war never grew to be much more than a personal militia. One poll, conducted in early 2004, showed him to be the least trusted public figure in Iraq — even less trusted than Saddam Hussein.
Dexter Filkins
The suspicions that ordinary Iraqis harbored about Chalabi were never relieved by his industriousness. As oil minister and deputy prime minister, Chalabi worked night and day, often on the minutiae of Iraq’s oil pipelines and electricity lines or the precise wording, in Arabic and English, of the Iraqi Constitution. I typically went to see Chalabi at night, sometimes at 9 or 10, and usually had to wait an hour or so while he finished with his other visitors. If it was true that Chalabi had returned to Iraq with the expectation of acquiring power, it was not true that he was unwilling to work for it. Chalabi, like all Iraqi political leaders, functioned in conditions of mortal danger at nearly all times. Even when he wanted to walk into his backyard, he had to be followed by armed guards. It’s an exhausting and debilitating way to live. But while many Iraqi exiles either gave up and returned to the West, or now spend as much time outside the country as in, Chalabi stayed in Iraq almost continuously following Hussein’s fall.
For all the hard work, his zigging and zagging across the political spectrum frustrated many of the Iraqi elites — his only natural constituency — especially after his flirtation with the Islamists. “I don’t think Chalabi has any credibility left,” Adnan Pachachi, the 83-year-old former foreign minister, told me before the 2005 elections. “He is not acceptable to Iraqis. People don’t like him shifting all the time. This thing with Moktada — it’s ridiculous.”
One who remained true was his friend Mahdi, who seemed, perhaps from his boyhood days swimming in the Tigris with Chalabi, to carry a deeper understanding of his old friend. “This is the style of Ahmad,” Mahdi told me just before the elections. “He was a banker. He works a dossier. Each time it’s different — he invests here, he invests there, he invests elsewhere. He has had successes, he has had maybe his failures. I can work with him.”
Chalabi never grasped his essential unpopularity. In the first round of elections, in January 2005, Chalabi rode into office as a member of the United Iraqi Alliance, the Shiite coalition pulled together by Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the powerful Shiite religious leader. Nearly every Shiite in Iraq voted for the U.I.A., and a name on its slate all but guaranteed a seat in the Parliament. The leadership of the U.I.A. was sharply Islamist.
Nearly a year later, as the December 2005 elections approached, Chalabi veered again, away from the Islamists, away from Moktada. Chalabi publicly chided the Shiite coalition as being too Islamic-minded, declaring he didn’t want to be a member of a government that was planning to transform Iraq into an Islamist state. By that time, of course, Iraq was already quite Islamist anyway. “They’re Islamist, and I don’t want to be part of the sectarian project,” Chalabi told me just before the elections that December. I actually believed him, but given his association with Moktada, it didn’t seem that many other Iraqis would.
The reality, anyway, was more complicated. In the weeks before the election, the Shiite alliance offered Chalabi and his supporters 5 seats on its 275-seat slate; Chalabi demanded 10. Some Shiite leaders told me that they had deliberately offered Chalabi a low figure in the hope that he would leave their alliance for good. Mahdi, the vice president, denied that this was true.
“For four days I tried to convince him; I even threatened him,” Mahdi told me. “I said, ‘Ahmad, if you leave this room, we will be no more friends.’ I was not serious. I was only threatening.”
So Chalabi went his own way. If he had wanted only a seat for himself, he could have taken his place in the Shiite alliance; plenty of other Iraqis did. In going alone, he must have known that he was risking disaster. He went ahead anyway.
A few days before the election, I drove up to Chalabi’s compound in Khadimiya for a lunch he was holding for tribal leaders. In much the same fashion as in Mushkhab 11 months before, about 100 sheiks from Sadr City listened to a Chalabi speech before descending on heaps of lamb and rice.
One of the sheiks, a man named Sahaeh Masif al-Kindh, approached me as he walked out.
“Chalabi didn’t forget us when we were living under Saddam,” al-Kindh told me. “He was Saddam’s biggest enemy. We don’t forget that.”
4. Washington, November 2005
The second round of Iraqi elections is only a few weeks away, and the wheel is turning again. Chalabi, once in favor, then out, is back in. Ostensibly, he has been invited to Washington by Treasury Secretary John Snow to talk about the Iraqi economy. But it’s more than that. He’s going to see Vice President Cheney, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. The allegations that prompted the raid on Chalabi’s compound 18 months before, that he tipped the Iranians to American eavesdropping, are mysteriously forgotten. Indeed, everything seems to have been forgotten.
Chalabi is rising on the catastrophe that Iraq has become. The Bush administration is grasping for anyone who might help them. On paper at least, Chalabi has a shot at becoming prime minister.
Most of the meetings are private. There is a dinner at the home of Richard Perle for some of Chalabi’s old Washington friends. One of the events, a speech at the American Enterprise Institute, is public. The room is filled. At the end of a speech, Chalabi is asked by someone in the crowd if he would like to apologize for misleading the Bush administration about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
Chalabi nods as if he knew the question was coming.
“This is an urban myth,” he says. The audience gasps.
Chalabi told me later that his role as an intelligence conduit on weapons of mass destruction began shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks, when he was contacted by the Department of Defense. Not vice versa. “They came to us and asked, ‘Can you help us find something on Saddam?’ ” he said. “We put out feelers.”
By that time, the autumn of 2001, Chalabi had a long record of working with the American government in its shadow war against Hussein. Throughout the 1990’s, however, Chalabi demonstrated time and again that he would pursue his own interests, even if they clashed with those of the United States. There was the time in 1995, for instance, when Chalabi, under the employ of the C.I.A. in the Kurdish-controlled city of Erbil, launched an unauthorized attack on Hussein’s army. The attack failed to spark an uprising against Hussein; the Turks sent troops into northern Iraq; the C.I.A. was furious. It was a fiasco.
“Very quickly he got out of control,” one retired C.I.A. officer who worked with Chalabi told me. “We didn’t know what he was doing over there. He was trying to provoke a war with Saddam.”
Then there was the time, in 1996, when Chalabi interfered with a C.I.A. plot to topple Saddam. I heard the story not from Chalabi but from Perle, the Bush defense adviser and Chalabi friend. As Perle tells it, Chalabi called him in a panic from London, telling him that a C.I.A.-backed plot against Hussein was fatally compromised. The fact that the C.I.A.’s Iraqi front-man for the plot, Ayad Allawi, was a rival of Chalabi’s (as well as his relative) had nothing to do with his concerns, Perle said.
As Perle tells it, he quickly telephoned the C.I.A. director at the time, John Deutch, who agreed to meet in downtown Washington. Perle said he spent an hour laying out Chalabi’s worries.
“He was obviously concerned,” Perle said of Deutch.
The plot went ahead anyway. It was a catastrophe. Hussein arrested as many as 800 people and reportedly executed dozens of high-ranking officers. As a final indignity, Hussein’s men dialed up Allawi’s headquarters in Amman, Jordan, on a C.I.A.-provided communications device they captured from the plotters and left a message: “You might as well pack up and go home.”
Some people in the C.I.A. held Chalabi responsible, believing that he had spread word of the plot in order to deny Ayad Allawi the upper hand in the exile movement.
“There was abiding suspicion in the agency that Chalabi blew it,” the former C.I.A. agent said. The fallout over the failed coup precipitated the C.I.A.’s decision to break ties with Chalabi.
Chalabi dismisses those claims, and some in the C.I.A. from the period back him up. “Chalabi was as true to me as the day was long,” says Robert Baer, a former C.I.A. field agent in northern Iraq. “If Chalabi was going to blow the operation, why would he tell the C.I.A.?”
There was the money issue, too. Throughout the 1990’s, as the C.I.A. and Congress funneled millions of dollars to Chalabi’s organization, the Iraqi National Congress, rumors swirled about corruption. One of the skeptics was W. Patrick Lang, a senior official at the Defense Intelligence Agency. In 1995, Lang told me, he was sitting in the lobby of the Four Seasons Hotel in Washington, when he overheard a group of Iraqis talking about the money they had received from the American government.
“I knew who these guys were, and I heard them speaking Arabic, and it was obviously Iraqi Arabic,” Lang said. “So I went over and sat next to them and listened. So what they were talking about was how to spend the Americans’ money, going on shopping trips, stuff like that. Oh, they were talking about going shopping for jewelry for women, toys for kids. Consumer goods. They were also talking about Las Vegas. ‘We will sneak out of here and go to Las Vegas. We have a lot of money now.’ ”
A couple of years later, Lang said, he visited the office of Senator Trent Lott, then the Senate majority leader. After introducing an Arab businessman to Lott, Lang sat in Lott’s anteroom with a number of Capitol Hill staff members who helped draft the Iraq Liberation Act, which provided millions of dollars to Chalabi’s Iraqi National Congress. They were praising Chalabi: “They were talking about him, that Chalabi fits into this plan as a very worthwhile, virtuous exemplar of modernization, somebody who could help reform first Iraq and then the Middle East. They were very pleased with themselves.” Lang, an old Middle East hand who had worked in Iraq in the 1980’s, said he was stunned. “You guys need to get out more,” Lang recalls saying at the time. “It’s a fantasy.”
Years later, Lang said, many of the same men who were sitting in Lott’s office that day became key players in the Pentagon’s plans for an invasion of Iraq.
Which brings us back to Chalabi’s “urban myth”: the notion that he provided bogus intelligence to the Bush administration and helped persuade them — or provide the pretext — to invade Iraq. In his speech at the American Enterprise Institute, Chalabi exhorted the audience to turn to Page 108 of the Robb-Silverman report, a recently completed blue-ribbon investigation, which, he said, exonerates him.
It does, in a way. The report does not say that Chalabi %26amp; Company played an important role in the events leading to the war. It says only that the Bush administration did not rely much on intelligence Chalabi handed over in making the decision to invade.
“In fact, overall, C.I.A.’s postwar investigations revealed that I.N.C.-related sources had a minimal impact on prewar assessments,” the report says.
This is also Chalabi’s version. In the run-up to war, he says, he provided only three defectors to the American intelligence community. “We did not vouch for any of their information,” Chalabi told me.
One of the people whom the I.N.C. made available to American intelligence was Adnan Ihsan al-Haideri, who claimed that he had worked on buildings that were used to store biological, nuclear and chemical weapons equipment. Chalabi told me that he made Haideri available to American intelligence at a safe house in Bangkok. He didn’t think much of Haideri or his information, he says, and was astonished to learn later that the information he provided became a pillar of the Americans’ charges against Hussein.
“We told them, ‘We don’t know who this guy is,’ ” Chalabi said. “Then the Americans spoke to him and said, ‘This guy is the mother lode.’ Can you believe that on such a basis the United States would go to war? The intelligence community regarded the I.N.C. as useless. Why would the government believe us?”
Perle, from his perch on the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Advisory Committee Board, backs Chalabi’s version. He was privy to much of the intelligence the administration was collecting on Hussein in the days before the war. He says that American intelligence officials began from the premise that Hussein had never destroyed his stocks of banned weapons and that he had kept his programs alive. American spies were only looking to confirm what they thought they already knew. In any event, Perle said, very little of their information came from Chalabi.
“I had all the security clearances,” Perle said. “I was pretty much aware of the people that the I.N.C. was bringing to the table to talk about what they knew. Everything they did came with a disclaimer. To the best of my knowledge, there was no single important fact that was uniquely conveyed to U.S. intelligence by anyone who had been assisted by the I.N.C.”
Indeed, Chalabi says, much of the most important evidence that led America to war did not come from the I.N.C.: not the report on the uranium from Niger, and not Curveball, the Iraqi defector who made bogus claims about mobile biological weapons labs.
“It’s not our fault,” Chalabi says.
But the story doesn’t end there.
A second report, released by the Senate Intelligence Committee in September 2006, reached far more damning conclusions. The report states flatly that Chalabi’s group introduced defectors to American intelligence who directly influenced two key judgments in the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate, which preceded the Senate vote on the Iraq war: that Hussein possessed mobile biological-weapons laboratories and that he was trying to reconstitute his nuclear program. The report said that the I.N.C. provided a large volume of flawed intelligence to the United States about Iraq, saying the group “attempted to influence United States policy on Iraq by providing false information through defectors directed at convincing the United States that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and had links to terrorists.” (Five Republican senators disagreed with the report’s conclusions about the I.N.C.)
Chalabi’s denials are unconvincing for another reason. His role in the preparations for war was not just as a source for American intelligence agencies. He was America’s chief public advocate for war, spreading information gathered by his own intelligence network to newspapers, magazines, television programs and Congress. (A New York Times reporter, Judith Miller, was one of Chalabi’s primary conduits; in an e-mail message sent in 2003 that has been widely quoted since, she wrote that Chalabi “has provided most of the front-page exclusives on W.M.D. to our paper” and that the Army unit she was then traveling with was “using Chalabi’s intell and document network for its own W.M.D. work.”) Indeed, the press proved even more gullible than the intelligence experts in the American government. In a June 2002 letter to the Senate Appropriations Committee, the I.N.C. listed 108 news articles based on information provided by the group. The list included articles concerning some of the wildest claims about Hussein, including that he had collaborated in the Sept. 11 attacks.
David Kay, the former chief weapons inspector in Iraq, offers one of the most compelling explanations for how pivotal Chalabi’s role was in taking America to war. Kay said that while the C.I.A. had long regarded Chalabi with suspicion, disregarding much of what he gave them, Chalabi had succeeded in persuading his more powerful friends in other parts of the government — Vice President Dick Cheney, for instance, and Wolfowitz. The pressure brought by those men, Kay told me, ultimately persuaded George Tenet, director of the C.I.A., that the White House was committed to war and that there was no point in resisting it.
“In my judgment, the reason George Tenet and the top of the agency came over to the argument that Iraq had W.M.D. was that they really knew that the vice president and Wolfowitz had come to that conclusion anyway,” Kay said. “They had been getting information from Chalabi for years.”
Of Wolfowitz, whom he has known for years, Kay said: “He was a true believer. He thought he had the evidence. That came from the defectors. They came from Chalabi.”
Kay said he continued to feel Chalabi’s influence with Wolfowitz even after the invasion, when Kay was leading the team searching for W.M.D. from mid- to late 2003. “Paul, when faced with evidence that we had developed on the ground, would say, Well, Chalabi says this, the I.N.C. says this, why are you not seeing it?” Kellems, the Wolfowitz assistant, disputed Kay’s story, saying that Tenet’s views were shared by officials across the government. “The position taken on weapons was the consensus view of the United States, including of the Clinton administration and other Western intelligence agencies — as well as that of Mr. Kay himself prior to visiting Iraq,” Kellems said.
Lawrence Wilkerson, chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell in Bush’s first term, adds a final turn to the labyrinth. In the frantic days leading up to Powell’s speech at the United Nations in February 2003, when he laid out the case for war, Wilkerson said he spent many nights sleeping on a couch in George Tenet’s office. During those preparations, Wilkerson told me, Powell insisted that every point he would make at the U.N. had to be supported by at least three independent sources.
“We had three or four sources for every item that was substantive in his presentation,” Wilkerson told me in an interview in Washington. “Powell insisted on that. But what I am hearing now, though, is that a lot of these sources sort of tinged and merged back into a single source, and that inevitably that single source seems to be either recommended by, set up by, orchestrated by, introduced by, or whatever, by somebody in the I.N.C.”
Wilkerson said that the revelations, some of which he says he has heard from his own friends inside American and European intelligence agencies, have forced him to rethink how America went to war. “I have maintained pretty much the same thing that the president said, ‘Well, we all got fooled, it was lousy intelligence, and no one in the national leadership spun the intelligence,’ ” Wilkerson said. “I am having to revisit that. And that is disturbing to me.”
Wilkerson raises a crucial point. Assuming that Chalabi was a source for at least some of the bogus intelligence, we might ask ourselves: so what? Was the American national security apparatus so incompetent that it could be hoodwinked by a handful of shopworn engineers and an Iraqi mathematician to take the country into war? Or is the lesson more disturbing — that Chalabi simply gave the Bush administration what it wanted to hear?
“I think Chalabi and the I.N.C. were very shrewd,” Wilkerson said. “I think Chalabi understood what people wanted, and he fed it to them. From everything I’ve heard, no one says he is dumb.”
5. Tehran, November 2005
Amid the debate about Chalabi’s role in taking America to war, one little-noticed phrase in a Senate Intelligence Committee report on W.M.D. offered an important insight into Chalabi’s identity. One of the principal errors made by the Bush administration in relying on Chalabi’s Iraqi National Congress, the report said, was to disregard conclusions by the C.I.A. and the Defense Intelligence Agency that “the I.N.C. was penetrated by hostile intelligence services,” notably those of Iran.
The Iran connection has long been among the most beguiling aspects of Chalabi’s career. Baer, the former C.I.A. operative, recalled sitting in a hotel lobby in Salah al-Din, in Kurdish-controlled Iraq, in 1995 while Chalabi met with the turbaned representatives of Iranian intelligence on the other side of the room. (Baer, as an American, was barred from meeting the Iranians.) Baer says he came to regard Chalabi as an Iranian asset, and still does.
“He is basically beholden to the Iranians to stay viable,” Baer told me. “All his C.I.A. connections — he wouldn’t get away with that sort of thing with the Iranians unless he had proved his worth to them.”
Pat Lang, the D.I.A. agent, holds a similar view: that in Chalabi, the Iranians probably saw someone who could help them achieve their long-sought goal of removing Saddam Hussein. After a time, in Lang’s view, the Iranians may have figured the Americans would leave and that Chalabi would most likely be in charge. Lang insists he is only speculating, but he says it has been clear to the American intelligence community for years that Chalabi has maintained “deep contacts” with Iranian officials.
“Here is what I think happened,” Lang said. “Chalabi went and told the guys at the Ministry of Intelligence and Security in Tehran: ‘The Americans are giving me money. I’m their guy. I’m their candidate.’ And I’m sure their eyes lit up. The Iranians would reason that they could use this guy to manipulate the United States to get what they wanted. They would figure that the U.S. would invade. They would figure that we would come and we would go, and if we left Chalabi in charge, who was a good friend of theirs, they would be in good shape.”
Lang’s thesis is impossible to prove, and Chalabi denies it. And even if it were true, Chalabi’s role would be difficult to discern: so many different Iranian agencies are thought to be pursuing so many different agendas in Iraq that a single Iranian national interest is difficult to identify. Still, if Lang’s and Baer’s argument is true, it would be the stuff of spy novels: Chalabi, the American-adopted champion of Iraqi democracy, a kind of double agent for one of America’s principal adversaries.
In late 2005, I accompanied Chalabi on a trip to Iran, in part to solve the riddle. We drove eastward out of Baghdad, in a convoy as menacing as the one we had ridden in south to Mushkhab earlier in the year. After three hours of weaving and careering, the plains of eastern Iraq halted, and the terrain turned sharply upward into a thick ridge of arid mountains. We had come to Mehran, on one of history’s great fault lines, the historic border between the Ottoman and Persian Empires. As we crossed into Iran, the wreckage and ruin of modern Iraq gave way to swept streets and a tidy border post with shiny bathrooms. Another world.
An Iranian cleric approached and shook Chalabi’s hand. Then he said something curious: “We are disappointed to hear that you won’t be staying in the Shiite alliance,” he said. “We were really hoping you’d stay.” The border between Iraq and Iran had, for the moment, disappeared.
More curious, though, was the authority that Chalabi seemed to carry in Iran, which, after all, has been accused of assisting Iraqi insurgents and otherwise stirring up chaos there. For starters, Chalabi asked me if I wanted to come along on his Iranian trip only the night before he left — and then procured a visa for me in a single day: a Friday, during the Eid holiday, when the Iranian Embassy was closed. Under ordinary circumstances, an American reporter might wait weeks.
Then there was the executive jet. When we arrived at the border, Chalabi ducked into a bathroom and changed out of his camouflage T-shirt and slacks and into a well-tailored blue suit. Then we drove to Ilam, where an 11-seat Fokker jet was idling on the runway of the local airport. We jumped in and took off for Tehran, flying over a dramatic landscape of canyons and ravines. We landed in Iran’s smoggy capital, and within a couple of hours, Chalabi was meeting with the highest officials of the Iranian government. One of them was Ali Larijani, the national security adviser.
I interviewed Larijani the next morning. “Our relationship with Mr. Chalabi does not have anything to do with his relationship with the neocons,” he said. His red-rimmed eyes, when I met him at 7 a.m., betrayed a sleepless night. “He is a very constructive and influential figure. He is a very wise man and a very useful person for the future of Iraq.”
Then came the meeting with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president. I was with a handful of Iranian reporters who were led into a finely appointed room just outside the president’s office. First came Chalabi, dressed in a tailored suit, beaming. Then Ahmadinejad, wearing a face of childlike bewilderment. He was dressed in imitation leather shoes and bulky white athletic socks, and a suit that looked as if it had come from a Soviet department store. Only a few days before, Ahmadinejad publicly called for the destruction of Israel. He and Chalabi, who is several inches taller, stood together for photos, then retired to a private room.
At the time of Chalabi’s visit, Iran and the United States were engaged in a complicated diplomatic dance; the American ambassador in Baghdad, Zalmay Khalilzad, had been authorized to open negotiations with the Iranians over their involvement in Iraq. Still, Chalabi insists he carried no note from the Iranians when he flew to Washington the next week. Officially, at least, Iran and the United States never got together.
As ever, Chalabi had multiple agendas. One was to learn whether the Iranians would support his candidacy for the prime ministership (the same reason he traveled to the United States). It makes you wonder, in light of the Baer and Lang thesis: was Chalabi telling the Iranians, or asking them for permission? Or making a deal, based on his presumed leverage in the United States? The possibilities seemed endless.
Chalabi played it cool.
“The fact that Iraq’s neighbor is also a country that is majority Shia is no reason for us to accept any interference in our affairs or to compromise the integrity of Iraq,” he said after his meeting with Ahmadinejad.
Richard Perle, Chalabi’s friend, discounted the idea that Chalabi might be a double agent. “Of course Chalabi has a relationship with the Iranians — you have to have a relationship with the Iranians in order to operate there,” Perle said. “The question is what kind of relationship. Is he fooling the Iranians or are the Iranians using him? I think Chalabi has been very shrewd in getting the things he has needed over the years out of the Iranians without giving anything in return.”
For all of the skullduggery surrounding the trip to Iran, though, the greatest revelation came later in the day. When the meeting with Ahmadinejad ended, he asked Chalabi if there was anything he could to do to make his stay more comfortable. Chalabi said yes, in fact, there was: would he mind if he, Chalabi, took a tour of the Museum of Contemporary Art?
So there we were, in the middle of the Axis of Evil, strolling past one of the finest collections of Western Modern art outside Europe and the United States: Matisse, Kandinsky, Rothko, Gauguin, Pollock, Klee, Van Gogh, five Warhols, seven Picassos and a sprawling garden of sculpture outside. The collection was assembled by Queen Farah, the shah’s wife, with the monarchy’s vast oil wealth. And now, with the mullahs in charge, the museum is largely forgotten. The day we were there, the gallery was all but empty. We had the museum’s enthusiastic English-speaking tour guide all to ourselves.
“Thank you, thank you, for coming!” Noreen Motamed exclaimed, clapping her hands.
We walked the empty halls. Chalabi moved through the place deliberately, nodding his head, pausing at the Degas and the Pissarro.
“Wow,” Chalabi said before Jesus Rafael Soto’s painting “Canada.” “Look at that.”
A retinue of Iranian officials walked with us, unmoved by the splendor. Ahmadinejad had stayed behind.
For all of the furies that emanate from the halls of the Iranian government, it has taken fine care of Queen Farah’s collection. Indeed, about the only way you would know you were not in a museum in New York or London was the absence of the middle panel from Francis Bacon’s triptych “Two Figures Lying on a Bed With Attendant,” which depicts two naked men.
“It is in the basement, covered,” Motamed said with disappointed eyes.
Finally, we came across a pair of paintings by Marc Chagall, the 20th-century Modernist and painter of Jewish life. The display contained no mention of this fact.
Chalabi gazed at the Chagalls for a time. Then, with a rueful smile, turned, to no one in particular, and said loudly: “Imagine that. They have two paintings by Marc Chagall in the middle of a museum in Tehran.” The Iranian officials seemed not to hear.
6. Baghdad, December 2005
A winter rain is falling. Chalabi is standing inside a tent in Sadr City, the vast Shiite slum of eastern Baghdad. He’s talking about his plans for restoring electricity, boosting oil production and beating the insurgency. People seem to be listening, but without enthusiasm. The violence here, worsening by the day, is washing away the hopes of ordinary Iraqis. Less and less seems possible anymore. People are retreating inward, you can see it in the glaze in their eyes.
As Chalabi speaks, I pull aside one of the Iraqis who had been listening. What do you think of him? I ask.
“Chalabi good good,” the Iraqi man says in halting English.
Whom are you going to vote for?
“The Shiite alliance, of course,” the Iraqi answers. “It is the duty of all Shiite people.”
When the election came, Chalabi was wiped out. His Iraqi National Congress received slightly more than 30,000 votes, only one-quarter of 1 percent of the 12 million votes cast — not enough to put even one of them, not even Chalabi, in the new Iraqi Parliament. There was grumbling in the Chalabi camp. One of his associates said of the Shiite alliance: “We know they cheated. You know how we know? Because in one area we had 5,000 forged ballots, and when they were counted, we didn’t even get that many.” He shrugged.
But the truth seemed clear enough: Chalabi was finished. Chalabi, who could plausibly claim that he, more than any other Iraqi, had made the election possible, had been shunned by the very people he had worked so hard to set free. No amount of deal making or of public relations foot-work, or of endorsements from friends, was able to save him. Chalabi may have helped bring democracy to Iraq, but it was democracy that finished him. He was, in the end, a parlor politician, someone from the world of his father or grandfather, or maybe of Victorian England: a brilliant negotiator and schemer who might settle a country’s problems over a cup of tea. But in Iraq, by late 2005, real power was no longer held by the parlor men, or by politicians at all. It was held by people like Moktada al-Sadr, populist leaders with a militia and a mass following in the street.
The election results were a harbinger of the civil war. Iraqis voted almost entirely along sectarian and ethnic lines: Kurds for the big Kurdish parties, Sunnis for the Sunni parties and Shiites for the big Islamist Shiite alliance. Iraqis who tried to run on a secular platform — Chalabi, for instance, and his relative, Allawi, in another party — found themselves abandoned. Just two months later, in February of this year, following the destruction of the Askariya shrine, a holy Shiite temple in Samarra, the civil war began in earnest: Shiite gunmen, who had for years been restrained by the Shiite leadership in the face of the Sunni onslaught, were finally free to retaliate.
Chalabi, shut out of the government, claimed that his sin was one of miscalculation. There was some truth to this: in all likelihood, Chalabi did not lose because he had been convicted of stealing millions of dollars from a Jordanian bank. Or because of the rumors swirling around Baghdad that he had looted the treasury. Or even because he was an exile close to the Americans. No: plenty of Westernized Iraqi exiles were elected to Parliament — among them Mowaffak al-Rubaie and Adil Abdul Mahdi — who, like Chalabi, didn’t have local followings and were trailed by similar questions. Practically speaking, Chalabi lost because he had broken from the big cleric-backed Shiite alliance that swept the election. “I had not realized how polarized Iraq had become,” Chalabi told me after the election.
He might have gotten a seat in the cabinet, but that didn’t work out, either. That stung: the new Iraqi government is staffed with Chalabi’s old colleagues, many of them members of the exile alliance he once led. Jalal Talabani is president. Adil Abdul Mahdi, his boyhood friend, is vice president. Barham Salih, comrade of many years, is deputy prime minister. His old confidant Zalmay Khalilzad, who played a central role in forming the new government, is the American ambassador. In the end, they couldn’t — or wouldn’t — bring him aboard. “Chalabi really made a mess of things,” said one Iraqi political leader who now occupies a key post in the government. He declined to elaborate.
As anticlimactic as was Chalabi’s fall, its real meaning lay in a paradox: democratic politics no longer mattered. For three years, the American-backed enterprise in Iraq rested on the assumption that the exercise of democratic politics would drain away the anger that was driving the violence. Instead of bullets, there would be ballots.
But at the culmination of that long process — two constitutions, two elections and a referendum — the violence was worse than ever. It turns out that democratic politics does not stop violence; indeed, the elections, by polarizing Iraq’s sectarian and ethnic communities, may have helped push the country into civil war.
Effectively, by the fall of 2006, the overwhelming majority of Iraq had no government at all. It was a failed state. Yes, there were Iraqis — Chalabi’s friends — who went to their jobs every day, toiling dutifully and not so dutifully inside the Green Zone, which every day seemed more and more divorced from the reality outside. In the Red Zone, as the real Iraq is called, Iraq was a nightmarish, apocalyptic place, where gunmen kidnapped children and sometimes killed them, where bodies turned up at the morgue peppered by holes from electric drills and corpses lay uncollected in the streets, along with the trash, for days on end.
Ahmad Chalabi devoted his whole adult life to toppling a dictator and achieving power in the place of his birth. He felled the dictator, helping along a reckless gamble that wagered the future of a nation. The gamble failed, a nation imploded and Chalabi never ascended to the throne he so coveted. But in an odd turn of fortune, the throne no longer had anything to offer.
7. London, August 2006
The conversation is wrapping up. The talk turns to the government of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, the machinations of those around him, what the future might hold. Chalabi, in an expansive mood, gets up, goes into a closet and brings out a note that Bob Baer, the C.I.A. agent, scribbled to him in that hotel lobby when the two men plotted a coup many years before. The talk, improbably, turns to memoirs; at the moment, Baer’s, “See No Evil,” was a best seller. I ask Chalabi, who is back on the couch, if it isn’t time that he write his own.
He doesn’t hesitate to answer.
“Too early!” Chalabi says. “Too early!”
Plz. help me to write the main idea of this article in the NY Times. in two pages.?
I really thought about helping you out here, just because it would be fun to write. Then I looked at your profile and see that:
1. You answer other people's questions so obviously without care and thought and apparently just for points so you can go ask more questions.
and
2. The people that are gracious enough to assist you or answer your questions most of the time don't even recieve the courtesy of you selecting the "best answer" but they are instead selected by voters.
So instead I decide that if you are not interested in doing the right, then why in the world should anyone be interested in helping you?
Reply:So this is a "do my homework" question? Report It
Reply:i agree with stymie :) Report It
Reply:nicely done Report It
Reply:Yep, quite agree Report It
Reply:You can never underestimate the USA and the lenghtd they will go to to save a dime on a gallon of crude.there were no WMD's and if there were, they were planted by the U.S Report It
Reply:wow..go stymie! lol Report It
Reply:thats wayyy to long like what do u want from us? that will take forever!!!!!!!!! Report It
Reply:The main idea should look like this and I do not have a monopoly on this heading
'Lies and Liers who Lie them' Report It
tanning
Where Plan A Left Ahmad Chalabi
By DEXTER FILKINS
1. London, August 2006
Many miles away in a more dangerous place the dream is ending badly. The bodies pile up. Good people stream to the borders. Leaders pile money onto planes. The center is giving way.
The apartment on South Street in London is an antidote to Baghdad in nearly every respect. Where the Iraqi capital rings with chaos and violence, the sidewalks of Mayfair are quiet enough to hear your own voice above the cars. Baghdad is treeless and tan; the South Street apartment opens onto a private park filled with the lushness of an English garden. Just across the way is the Anglican church where General Eisenhower, stationed here as the commander of Allied forces during the war, came to pray. A maid greets you at the door, an elderly Lebanese woman who doubles as an Arabic teacher for the children.
The parlor is neatly appointed and filled with art, most of it European, different from the Baghdad house, where most of it is Iraqi. There is “Sketch of a Woman,” by Lucien Pissarro, the French painter who propagated Impressionism in London; it catches the light nicely. The furniture is expensive, the kind that makes you hesitate to sit down. But the place has a lived-in quality too; family members come and go, clutching bags and calling to one another down the hallways. No one seems the least bit awed by the man of the house, who is dressed in a bespoke suit and carries himself like a monarch, and who, until now, hasn’t spent more than a day at a time here since before the Iraq war began.
For Ahmad Chalabi, Iraq is an abstraction again. Once again, his native country is a faraway land ruled by somebody else, a place where other people die. It’s a place to be discussed, rued, plotted over, from a parlor on an expensive Western street. Iraq’s new leaders, the men who excluded Chalabi from the government they formed this spring, still call for advice — several times a day, Chalabi says. He is here in London, his longtime home in exile, temporarily, he says, taking his first vacation in five years. At lunch at a nearby restaurant an hour before, he ordered the sea bass wrapped in a banana leaf. He walks the streets unattended by armed guards.
But the interlude, Chalabi says, is just that, a passing thing. His doubters will come back to him; they always have. As ever, he wears a jester’s smile, wide and blank, a mask that has carried him through crises of the first world and the third. Still, a touch of bitterness can creep into Chalabi’s voice, a hint that he has concluded that his time has come and gone. Indeed, even for a man as vain and resilient as Chalabi, his present predicament stands too large to go unacknowledged. Once Iraq’s anointed leader — anointed by the Americans — Chalabi, at age 62, is without a job, spurned by the very colleagues whose ascension he engineered. His benefactors in the White House and in the Pentagon, who once gobbled up whatever half-baked intelligence Chalabi offered, now regard him as undependable and — worse — safely ignored. Chalabi’s life work, an Iraq liberated from Saddam Hussein, a modern and democratic Iraq, is spiraling toward disintegration. Indeed, for many in the West, Chalabi has become the personification of all that has gone wrong in Iraq: the lies, the arrogance, the occupation as disaster.
“The real culprit in all this is Wolfowitz,” Chalabi says, referring to his erstwhile backer, the former deputy secretary of defense, Paul Wolfowitz. “They chickened out. The Pentagon guys chickened out.”
Chalabi still considers Wolfowitz a friend, so he proceeds carefully. America’s big mistake, Chalabi maintains, was in failing to step out of the way after Hussein’s downfall and let the Iraqis take charge. The Iraqis, not the Americans, should have been allowed to take over immediately — the people who knew the country, who spoke the language and, most important, who could take responsibility for the chaos that was unfolding in the streets. An Iraqi government could have acted harshly, even brutally, to regain control of the place, and the Iraqis would have been without a foreigner to blame. They would have appreciated the firm hand. There would have been no guerrilla insurgency or, if there was, a small one that the new Iraqi government could have ferreted out and crushed on its own. An Iraqi leadership would have brought Moktada al-Sadr, the populist cleric, into the government and house-trained him. The Americans, in all likelihood, could have gone home. They certainly would have been home by now.
“We would have taken hold of the country,” Chalabi says. “We would have revitalized the civil service immediately. We would have been able to put together a military force and an intelligence service. There would have been no insurgency. We would have had electricity. The Americans screwed it up.”
Chalabi’s notion — that an Iraqi government, as opposed to an American one, could have saved the great experiment — has become one of the arguments put forth by the war’s proponents in the just-beginning debate over who lost Iraq. At best, it’s improbable: Chalabi is essentially arguing that a handful of Iraqi exiles, some of whom had not lived in the country in decades, could have put together a government and quelled the chaos that quickly engulfed the country after Hussein’s regime collapsed. They could have done this, presumably, without an army (which most wanted to dissolve) and without a police force (which was riddled with Baathists).
In fact, the Americans considered the idea and dismissed it. (But not, Wolfowitz insists, because of him. His longtime aide, Kevin Kellems, said that Wolfowitz favored turning over power “as rapidly as possible to duly elected Iraqi authorities.”) The Bush administration decided to go to the United Nations and have the American role in Iraq formally described as that of an “occupying power,” a step that no Iraqi, not even the lowliest tea seller, failed to notice. They appointed L. Paul Bremer III as viceroy. Instead of empowering Iraqis, Bremer set up an advisory panel of Iraqis — one that included Chalabi — that had no power at all. The warmth that many ordinary Iraqis felt for the Americans quickly ebbed away. It’s not clear that the Americans had any other choice. But here in his London parlor, Chalabi is now contending that excluding Iraqis was the Americans’ fatal mistake.
“It was a puppet show!” Chalabi exclaims again, shifting on the couch. “The worst of all worlds. We were in charge, and we had no power. We were blamed for everything the Americans did, but we couldn’t change any of it.”
It’s three and a half years later now. More than 2,800 Americans are dead; more than 3,000 Iraqis die each month. The anarchy seems limitless. In May 2004, American and Iraqi agents even raided Chalabi’s home in Baghdad. He has been denounced by Bremer and by Bush and accused of passing secrets to America’s enemy, Iran. At the heart of the American decision to take over and run Iraq, Chalabi now concludes, lay a basic contempt for Iraqis, himself included.
“In Wolfowitz’s mind, you couldn’t trust the Iraqis to run a democracy,” Chalabi says. “ ‘We have to teach them, give them lessons,’ in Wolfowitz’s mind. ‘We have to leave Iraq under our tutelage. The Iraqis are useless. The Iraqis are incompetent.’
“What I didn’t realize,” Chalabi says, “was that the Americans sold us out.”
Turkish coffee is served, then tea. I consider Chalabi’s predicament: the Iraqi patrician, confidant of prime ministers and presidents, the M.I.T.- and University of Chicago-trained mathematics professor, owner of a Mayfair flat, complaining of being regarded, by the masters he once manipulated, as a scruffy, shiftless native.
“I’ve been a friend of America, and I’ve been its enemy,” he says. “America betrays its friends. It sets them up and betrays them. I’d rather be America’s enemy.”
And so he is. Sort of. With Chalabi, it’s hard to be certain, and not just because his motives are so opaque, but because he is never still. He is enigmatic, brilliant, nimble, unreliable, charming, narcissistic, finally elusive. The journey to Mayfair is a long one. What happened to Chalabi?
Well, you might ask: What happened to Iraq?
2. Mushkhab, January 2005
The election is coming, and we are heading south. Twenty cars, mostly carrying men with guns. They hang out the windows, pointing their Kalashnikovs at the terrified drivers. Get out of the way or we shoot, and maybe we shoot anyway — that’s the message. But that’s Iraq. We move quickly, weaving, south in the southbound, south in the northbound. Very fast. Unbelievably fast. Drivers veer and career. We go where we want.
We’re low on fuel, and a gas station beckons. It is one of the strange and singular facts of Iraqi life that despite sitting atop an ocean of oil, Iraqis must wait hours — often days — for gasoline at the pumps. Lack of refining capacity, smuggling, stealing, insurgent attacks, Soviet subsidies: it’s complicated. On the road outside Salman Pak, the line is perhaps 300 cars long.
The Chalabi convoy cuts straight to the front of the line. No one protests. It’s the guns. The Iraqis wait for days, and our effrontery brings no protest. Not a peep. We get our gas and we speed away, guns out the windows. Very fast.
An hour later, we arrive at our destination, Mushkhab. It’s a mostly Shiite town about 100 miles south of Baghdad. It is friendly country — to Chalabi, and still, then, to Americans.
The whole town — the males, anyway — gathers round. Chalabi stands in the center, dressed in a dark gray Western suit. The Iraqis clap and read poetry; some of it they sing. It’s a tradition, a kind of serenade to the honored guest.
“Hey, listen, Bush, we are Iraqis,” the poet says, and everyone is clapping. “We never bow our heads to anyone, and we won’t do it for you. We have tough guys like Chalabi on our side — be careful.”
Everyone laughs.
We move inside the mudhif, a tall, long, fantastic structure woven of dried river reeds, a kind of pavilion of rattan. The room is laid with hand-woven carpets, and on the walls hang framed yellowed photographs of the leaders of the tribe, Al Fatla, meeting with their British overlords many years ago. A pair of loudspeakers are set up in the front. Chalabi takes a microphone.
“My Iraqi brothers, the Americans pushed out Saddam, but they did not liberate our country,” Chalabi tells the group. “We are asking you to participate in this election so that we can have an independent country. This is not just words. The Iraqi people will liberate the country.”
He goes on a little more, warming to the Iraqis assembled about him.
“On my way here, I saw a huge line of people waiting for gasoline,” Chalabi tells the group. “Some of them were there for two nights, carrying blankets with them. It makes me very sad to see my brothers wait for days to get gas at the station.”
Shameless, huh? I thought so, too. Almost a thing of beauty. It was so outrageous I almost wanted to forgive him, as a teacher might her sassy but cleverest boy. And that’s the thing about Chalabi: he’s very difficult to dislike. It may be his secret.
It was Chalabi, after all — a foreigner, an Arab — who persuaded the most powerful men and women in the United States to make the liberation of Iraq not merely a priority but an obsession. First in 1998, when Chalabi persuaded Congress to pass the Iraq Liberation Act (in turn leading to payments to his group, the Iraqi National Congress, exceeding $27 million over the next six years) and then, later, in persuading the Bush administration of the necessity of using force to destroy Saddam Hussein. And when it all went bad, when those nuclear weapons never turned up, the clever child shrugged and smiled. “We are heroes in error,” Chalabi told Britain’s Daily Telegraph. Almost with a wink.
Lunch is served: a long table heaped with rice and roasted lamb. No seats. Everyone stands, dozens of us, and we dig in with our fingers. After a time, we prepare to leave. The table and the ground around it are littered with rice and lamb bones. We re-form into a convoy and speed toward the holy city of Najaf.
By the time we arrive in Najaf, it’s dark. The fighting between American soldiers and the Mahdi Army irregulars laid waste to the city only a few months before, but on this night, Najaf seems remarkably calm. The pilgrim hotels lie in ruins, but the golden dome of the shrine of Imam Ali shimmers under a January moon.
Chalabi exits his S.U.V. and strides inside through the 20-foot-high wooden doors. A clutch of Sunni leaders, whom Chalabi has agreed to show around, trail in step. The curiosities intersect: the Sunnis are not Shiites, and this is the holiest of Shiite places, the tomb of the son-in-law of the Holy Prophet and the very heart of the Shiite faith. But they are still Muslims, and they are allowed to pass. As a non-Muslim, I wait outside in the street.
More unlikely than the presence of the Sunnis is their tour guide, Chalabi. Or it was unlikely. Not anymore. Chalabi, the Westernized, Western-educated mathematician, has entered his Islamist phase.
It’s not terribly convincing. He does not don a turban. He has no beard. He does not pray. He does not, really, even pretend. But as a practical politician — as an exile come home to a strange land getting stranger by the day — Chalabi had to do something. Relations between Chalabi and the Bush administration began to sour almost immediately after the fall of Hussein, when the Americans decided against putting Iraqis — presumably Chalabi — in charge. Bremer considered him an egomaniac. When no W.M.D. turned up, more and more Americans came to blame Chalabi for the war. Chalabi’s association with the Americans grew more disadvantageous by the day.
The break came on May 20, 2004, when the Americans, accusing Chalabi of telling the Iranian government that the Americans were eavesdropping on their secret communications, swooped in on his Baghdad compound. American troops sealed off Mansour, the neighborhood where Chalabi lived, while scores of Iraqi and American agents kicked in the compound doors. One of the Iraqis, Chalabi said, put a gun to his head.
“Look, I think they tried to kill him,” Richard Perle, the former Pentagon adviser and longtime Chalabi friend, said of the American and Iraqi agents. “I think the raid on his house was intended to result in violence. They had sent 20 or 40 Humvees over there. Chalabi was being protected by a force of about 100 guys with machine guns. It is a miracle that it didn’t result in a massive shootout.”
No shots were fired, but the break seemed final. Isolated, Chalabi turned to Islam — and, in particular, to Moktada al-Sadr, the Shiite cleric and leader of two armed uprisings against the Americans and the Iraqi government. Sadr is an erratic and unpredictable young man who sometimes ends his sermons with apocalyptic visions of the “hidden” 12th imam revealing himself. He is also the most popular man in Iraq. In the anarchy that ensued following the fall of Hussein, Iraqis, once known for their largely secular outlook, ran headlong toward Islam. Religion and anarchy moved together: the worse conditions got in the streets, the more Islamic Iraqis became.
In the three and a half years that I have known Chalabi, I never once saw him pray. Or give any indication that he harbored religious beliefs at all. Mowaffak al-Rubaie, the Iraqi national security adviser and a devout Shiite, told me once that when he and a group of five senior Iraqi politicians visited the Imam Ali shrine in 2004, all of them prayed but Chalabi. While the others knelt, Rubaie said, Chalabi stood quietly with his hands folded in front of him.
On this return visit to the Imam Ali shrine, Chalabi and his Sunni colleagues spent 10 minutes inside and exited without saying a thing. But word travels quickly down Najaf’s narrow streets, and by the time our convoy sped back to Baghdad, there were very few people in Najaf who did not know that Chalabi had come.
Once, when I asked Chalabi about his flirtation with the Islamists, he answered not in terms of religion but of politics. Moktada, he explained, was not essentially dangerous but merely misunderstood, an outsider who could be coaxed into Iraq’s new democratic order. Chalabi was happy to act as the bridge, and if he benefited politically from his efforts, he was not complaining.
“The Americans made a mistake when they excluded Moktada in the beginning,” Chalabi told me. “Our real business is to persuade everybody that Sadr is better inside than outside, and to provide some measure of comfort to the middle class that he is not going to eat them up.”
Indeed, Chalabi and Sadr are not as unlikely a pair as they may seem. Musa al-Sadr, the late Iranian-born ayatollah and Moktada’s cousin, presided over Chalabi’s wedding in Beirut in 1971. Chalabi’s wife, Leila, is the daughter of Adel Osseiran, a leader of the Lebanese independence movement. Musa al-Sadr was the founder of Amal, which became the prototypical Shiite party in the Middle East.
It seemed like a game, and not one that Chalabi liked to give away. Whenever I asked him about his coziness with Moktada, and how it squared with his own religious beliefs, I usually received a curt retort.
For a time, Chalabi — and the Americans — got the better of the deal. Moktada fielded candidates in the January 2005 election, and his militia, though still untamed, fell into line behind its leader. He endorsed something less than an absolute role for Islam in the Iraqi Constitution. By early 2006, parties loyal to Sadr held the largest bloc in the Iraqi Parliament. As for Chalabi, Moktada kept him afloat a little longer.
But in siding with the Islamists, Chalabi helped make them stronger than they were, and he threw his weight behind a number of trends that were only then becoming dominant: the Islamization of Iraqi society, the division of Iraq into sectarian cantons. Those trends later spiraled out of control, into the de facto civil war that is unfolding now. Some Iraqis who watched Chalabi then still don’t forgive him — and they think that ultimately, the Islamists got the better of him.
“Ahmad’s problem is that Ahmad is usually the smartest man in the room, and he thinks he can control what happens,” I was told by an Iraqi official who worked with Chalabi at the time and who would speak only anonymously. “But these guys don’t care if you have a Ph.D. in math; they’ll kill you. In the end, things went way past the point where Ahmad thought they would ever go. I can’t imagine he wanted that. But he helped start it.”
3. Baghdad, October 2005
Chalabi is standing on the rooftop of his ancestral home in Khadimiya, a heavily Shiite neighborhood known for its shrine. Mansour, the area where he has lived since Hussein’s fall, has slipped into anarchy. The final round of nationwide elections is a couple of months away. For the moment, Chalabi is the deputy prime minister, behind the affable but ineffectual Ibrahim Jaafari.
Across the street stand a pair of grain silos built by his father, Abdul Hadi Chalabi. Downstairs, on a wall in the sitting room, there is an old British map dating to the 1920’s, showing Baghdad, which was much smaller than it is now. North of Baghdad, in what was then farmland and what is now Khadimiya, a dot indicates a town. The dot says, “Chalabi.” At the time, Chalabi’s family owned nearly two and a half million acres throughout Iraq.
Those vast holdings are reduced to the compound where Chalabi now stands. It’s about 10 acres, including the main house, which a team of workers is renovating, a large swimming pool, a grove of date palms and, in the back, a mudhif. There is a row of garages, decrepit now, where workers once serviced the machinery and trucks that brought the wheat and dates to market.
“Imagine,” Chalabi says, turning to me. “And C.I.A. says I have no roots here.”
Chalabi spent 45 years in exile. Under the Hashemite monarchy installed by the British after World War I, the ruling class of the new Iraq was largely made up of Sunni Muslims, as it had been under the Ottoman Turks. The Chalabis were part of the small Shiite elite; most of the rest of the Shiite majority formed a vast underclass. The remnants of that Shiite elite now form a sizable slice of the political establishment of post-Saddam Iraq. In addition to Chalabi, there is Adil Abdul Mahdi, the vice president, a Chalabi friend since boyhood; Ayad Allawi, the former president, who is a Chalabi relative by marriage; and Feisal al-Istrabadi, the deputy ambassador to the United Nations in New York. In the 1950’s, Chalabi, Mahdi and Allawi were schoolmates at Baghdad College, an elite Jesuit high school. Even in their class photos, nearly a half-century old, all three men are instantly recognizable: Mahdi, the soft-spoken intellectual; Allawi, the charming bully; and Chalabi, the boy genius in a bow tie.
On July 14, 1958, King Faisal II, the British-backed monarch, was deposed and killed; a day later, the prime minister, Nuri al-Said, fled to the home of Chalabi’s sister, Thamina. She dressed Said in an abaya, the head-to-toe gown worn by women. With the army closing in, Thamina Chalabi took Said to the home of Feisal al-Istrabadi’s grandparents. Ahmad Chalabi, then 14, watched his mother and Bibiya al-Istrabadi weep as they pondered the prime minister’s fate.
“Three or four hours later, Said was dead,” Chalabi told me. “He shot himself.”
Chalabi fled Iraq a few months later, first for Lebanon, then England and then America, where he received a degree in mathematics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a doctorate from the University of Chicago. (Dissertation title: “Jacobson Radical of Group Algebras Over Fields Characteristic p.”) He did not return to Baghdad until April 11, 2003.
Chalabi’s homecoming, after the U.S. invasion, was not the triumphant return he hoped it would be. What should have been his principal claim to legitimacy — his central role in toppling Saddam — never carried him very far; it became a liability as Iraq descended into chaos. In the new Iraq, Westernized elites carried less and less authority. Power belonged to the clerics and to the populists. And then there was the scandal at Petra Bank in Jordan, the outlines of which every Iraqi, no matter how dimly educated, seemed already to know: that Chalabi had been convicted in absentia for fraud and sentenced to 22 years in prison for embezzling almost $300 million. (Chalabi, who fled Jordan before he could be arrested, has long denied the charges, maintaining that they were cooked up by the Jordanian government under pressure from Saddam Hussein. Last year, the Jordanians signaled that they were willing to pardon Chalabi. But Chalabi insisted on a public apology, which the Jordanians refused to give.) Even the small army of Iraqi exiles that Chalabi had raised before the war never grew to be much more than a personal militia. One poll, conducted in early 2004, showed him to be the least trusted public figure in Iraq — even less trusted than Saddam Hussein.
Dexter Filkins
The suspicions that ordinary Iraqis harbored about Chalabi were never relieved by his industriousness. As oil minister and deputy prime minister, Chalabi worked night and day, often on the minutiae of Iraq’s oil pipelines and electricity lines or the precise wording, in Arabic and English, of the Iraqi Constitution. I typically went to see Chalabi at night, sometimes at 9 or 10, and usually had to wait an hour or so while he finished with his other visitors. If it was true that Chalabi had returned to Iraq with the expectation of acquiring power, it was not true that he was unwilling to work for it. Chalabi, like all Iraqi political leaders, functioned in conditions of mortal danger at nearly all times. Even when he wanted to walk into his backyard, he had to be followed by armed guards. It’s an exhausting and debilitating way to live. But while many Iraqi exiles either gave up and returned to the West, or now spend as much time outside the country as in, Chalabi stayed in Iraq almost continuously following Hussein’s fall.
For all the hard work, his zigging and zagging across the political spectrum frustrated many of the Iraqi elites — his only natural constituency — especially after his flirtation with the Islamists. “I don’t think Chalabi has any credibility left,” Adnan Pachachi, the 83-year-old former foreign minister, told me before the 2005 elections. “He is not acceptable to Iraqis. People don’t like him shifting all the time. This thing with Moktada — it’s ridiculous.”
One who remained true was his friend Mahdi, who seemed, perhaps from his boyhood days swimming in the Tigris with Chalabi, to carry a deeper understanding of his old friend. “This is the style of Ahmad,” Mahdi told me just before the elections. “He was a banker. He works a dossier. Each time it’s different — he invests here, he invests there, he invests elsewhere. He has had successes, he has had maybe his failures. I can work with him.”
Chalabi never grasped his essential unpopularity. In the first round of elections, in January 2005, Chalabi rode into office as a member of the United Iraqi Alliance, the Shiite coalition pulled together by Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the powerful Shiite religious leader. Nearly every Shiite in Iraq voted for the U.I.A., and a name on its slate all but guaranteed a seat in the Parliament. The leadership of the U.I.A. was sharply Islamist.
Nearly a year later, as the December 2005 elections approached, Chalabi veered again, away from the Islamists, away from Moktada. Chalabi publicly chided the Shiite coalition as being too Islamic-minded, declaring he didn’t want to be a member of a government that was planning to transform Iraq into an Islamist state. By that time, of course, Iraq was already quite Islamist anyway. “They’re Islamist, and I don’t want to be part of the sectarian project,” Chalabi told me just before the elections that December. I actually believed him, but given his association with Moktada, it didn’t seem that many other Iraqis would.
The reality, anyway, was more complicated. In the weeks before the election, the Shiite alliance offered Chalabi and his supporters 5 seats on its 275-seat slate; Chalabi demanded 10. Some Shiite leaders told me that they had deliberately offered Chalabi a low figure in the hope that he would leave their alliance for good. Mahdi, the vice president, denied that this was true.
“For four days I tried to convince him; I even threatened him,” Mahdi told me. “I said, ‘Ahmad, if you leave this room, we will be no more friends.’ I was not serious. I was only threatening.”
So Chalabi went his own way. If he had wanted only a seat for himself, he could have taken his place in the Shiite alliance; plenty of other Iraqis did. In going alone, he must have known that he was risking disaster. He went ahead anyway.
A few days before the election, I drove up to Chalabi’s compound in Khadimiya for a lunch he was holding for tribal leaders. In much the same fashion as in Mushkhab 11 months before, about 100 sheiks from Sadr City listened to a Chalabi speech before descending on heaps of lamb and rice.
One of the sheiks, a man named Sahaeh Masif al-Kindh, approached me as he walked out.
“Chalabi didn’t forget us when we were living under Saddam,” al-Kindh told me. “He was Saddam’s biggest enemy. We don’t forget that.”
4. Washington, November 2005
The second round of Iraqi elections is only a few weeks away, and the wheel is turning again. Chalabi, once in favor, then out, is back in. Ostensibly, he has been invited to Washington by Treasury Secretary John Snow to talk about the Iraqi economy. But it’s more than that. He’s going to see Vice President Cheney, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. The allegations that prompted the raid on Chalabi’s compound 18 months before, that he tipped the Iranians to American eavesdropping, are mysteriously forgotten. Indeed, everything seems to have been forgotten.
Chalabi is rising on the catastrophe that Iraq has become. The Bush administration is grasping for anyone who might help them. On paper at least, Chalabi has a shot at becoming prime minister.
Most of the meetings are private. There is a dinner at the home of Richard Perle for some of Chalabi’s old Washington friends. One of the events, a speech at the American Enterprise Institute, is public. The room is filled. At the end of a speech, Chalabi is asked by someone in the crowd if he would like to apologize for misleading the Bush administration about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
Chalabi nods as if he knew the question was coming.
“This is an urban myth,” he says. The audience gasps.
Chalabi told me later that his role as an intelligence conduit on weapons of mass destruction began shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks, when he was contacted by the Department of Defense. Not vice versa. “They came to us and asked, ‘Can you help us find something on Saddam?’ ” he said. “We put out feelers.”
By that time, the autumn of 2001, Chalabi had a long record of working with the American government in its shadow war against Hussein. Throughout the 1990’s, however, Chalabi demonstrated time and again that he would pursue his own interests, even if they clashed with those of the United States. There was the time in 1995, for instance, when Chalabi, under the employ of the C.I.A. in the Kurdish-controlled city of Erbil, launched an unauthorized attack on Hussein’s army. The attack failed to spark an uprising against Hussein; the Turks sent troops into northern Iraq; the C.I.A. was furious. It was a fiasco.
“Very quickly he got out of control,” one retired C.I.A. officer who worked with Chalabi told me. “We didn’t know what he was doing over there. He was trying to provoke a war with Saddam.”
Then there was the time, in 1996, when Chalabi interfered with a C.I.A. plot to topple Saddam. I heard the story not from Chalabi but from Perle, the Bush defense adviser and Chalabi friend. As Perle tells it, Chalabi called him in a panic from London, telling him that a C.I.A.-backed plot against Hussein was fatally compromised. The fact that the C.I.A.’s Iraqi front-man for the plot, Ayad Allawi, was a rival of Chalabi’s (as well as his relative) had nothing to do with his concerns, Perle said.
As Perle tells it, he quickly telephoned the C.I.A. director at the time, John Deutch, who agreed to meet in downtown Washington. Perle said he spent an hour laying out Chalabi’s worries.
“He was obviously concerned,” Perle said of Deutch.
The plot went ahead anyway. It was a catastrophe. Hussein arrested as many as 800 people and reportedly executed dozens of high-ranking officers. As a final indignity, Hussein’s men dialed up Allawi’s headquarters in Amman, Jordan, on a C.I.A.-provided communications device they captured from the plotters and left a message: “You might as well pack up and go home.”
Some people in the C.I.A. held Chalabi responsible, believing that he had spread word of the plot in order to deny Ayad Allawi the upper hand in the exile movement.
“There was abiding suspicion in the agency that Chalabi blew it,” the former C.I.A. agent said. The fallout over the failed coup precipitated the C.I.A.’s decision to break ties with Chalabi.
Chalabi dismisses those claims, and some in the C.I.A. from the period back him up. “Chalabi was as true to me as the day was long,” says Robert Baer, a former C.I.A. field agent in northern Iraq. “If Chalabi was going to blow the operation, why would he tell the C.I.A.?”
There was the money issue, too. Throughout the 1990’s, as the C.I.A. and Congress funneled millions of dollars to Chalabi’s organization, the Iraqi National Congress, rumors swirled about corruption. One of the skeptics was W. Patrick Lang, a senior official at the Defense Intelligence Agency. In 1995, Lang told me, he was sitting in the lobby of the Four Seasons Hotel in Washington, when he overheard a group of Iraqis talking about the money they had received from the American government.
“I knew who these guys were, and I heard them speaking Arabic, and it was obviously Iraqi Arabic,” Lang said. “So I went over and sat next to them and listened. So what they were talking about was how to spend the Americans’ money, going on shopping trips, stuff like that. Oh, they were talking about going shopping for jewelry for women, toys for kids. Consumer goods. They were also talking about Las Vegas. ‘We will sneak out of here and go to Las Vegas. We have a lot of money now.’ ”
A couple of years later, Lang said, he visited the office of Senator Trent Lott, then the Senate majority leader. After introducing an Arab businessman to Lott, Lang sat in Lott’s anteroom with a number of Capitol Hill staff members who helped draft the Iraq Liberation Act, which provided millions of dollars to Chalabi’s Iraqi National Congress. They were praising Chalabi: “They were talking about him, that Chalabi fits into this plan as a very worthwhile, virtuous exemplar of modernization, somebody who could help reform first Iraq and then the Middle East. They were very pleased with themselves.” Lang, an old Middle East hand who had worked in Iraq in the 1980’s, said he was stunned. “You guys need to get out more,” Lang recalls saying at the time. “It’s a fantasy.”
Years later, Lang said, many of the same men who were sitting in Lott’s office that day became key players in the Pentagon’s plans for an invasion of Iraq.
Which brings us back to Chalabi’s “urban myth”: the notion that he provided bogus intelligence to the Bush administration and helped persuade them — or provide the pretext — to invade Iraq. In his speech at the American Enterprise Institute, Chalabi exhorted the audience to turn to Page 108 of the Robb-Silverman report, a recently completed blue-ribbon investigation, which, he said, exonerates him.
It does, in a way. The report does not say that Chalabi %26amp; Company played an important role in the events leading to the war. It says only that the Bush administration did not rely much on intelligence Chalabi handed over in making the decision to invade.
“In fact, overall, C.I.A.’s postwar investigations revealed that I.N.C.-related sources had a minimal impact on prewar assessments,” the report says.
This is also Chalabi’s version. In the run-up to war, he says, he provided only three defectors to the American intelligence community. “We did not vouch for any of their information,” Chalabi told me.
One of the people whom the I.N.C. made available to American intelligence was Adnan Ihsan al-Haideri, who claimed that he had worked on buildings that were used to store biological, nuclear and chemical weapons equipment. Chalabi told me that he made Haideri available to American intelligence at a safe house in Bangkok. He didn’t think much of Haideri or his information, he says, and was astonished to learn later that the information he provided became a pillar of the Americans’ charges against Hussein.
“We told them, ‘We don’t know who this guy is,’ ” Chalabi said. “Then the Americans spoke to him and said, ‘This guy is the mother lode.’ Can you believe that on such a basis the United States would go to war? The intelligence community regarded the I.N.C. as useless. Why would the government believe us?”
Perle, from his perch on the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Advisory Committee Board, backs Chalabi’s version. He was privy to much of the intelligence the administration was collecting on Hussein in the days before the war. He says that American intelligence officials began from the premise that Hussein had never destroyed his stocks of banned weapons and that he had kept his programs alive. American spies were only looking to confirm what they thought they already knew. In any event, Perle said, very little of their information came from Chalabi.
“I had all the security clearances,” Perle said. “I was pretty much aware of the people that the I.N.C. was bringing to the table to talk about what they knew. Everything they did came with a disclaimer. To the best of my knowledge, there was no single important fact that was uniquely conveyed to U.S. intelligence by anyone who had been assisted by the I.N.C.”
Indeed, Chalabi says, much of the most important evidence that led America to war did not come from the I.N.C.: not the report on the uranium from Niger, and not Curveball, the Iraqi defector who made bogus claims about mobile biological weapons labs.
“It’s not our fault,” Chalabi says.
But the story doesn’t end there.
A second report, released by the Senate Intelligence Committee in September 2006, reached far more damning conclusions. The report states flatly that Chalabi’s group introduced defectors to American intelligence who directly influenced two key judgments in the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate, which preceded the Senate vote on the Iraq war: that Hussein possessed mobile biological-weapons laboratories and that he was trying to reconstitute his nuclear program. The report said that the I.N.C. provided a large volume of flawed intelligence to the United States about Iraq, saying the group “attempted to influence United States policy on Iraq by providing false information through defectors directed at convincing the United States that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and had links to terrorists.” (Five Republican senators disagreed with the report’s conclusions about the I.N.C.)
Chalabi’s denials are unconvincing for another reason. His role in the preparations for war was not just as a source for American intelligence agencies. He was America’s chief public advocate for war, spreading information gathered by his own intelligence network to newspapers, magazines, television programs and Congress. (A New York Times reporter, Judith Miller, was one of Chalabi’s primary conduits; in an e-mail message sent in 2003 that has been widely quoted since, she wrote that Chalabi “has provided most of the front-page exclusives on W.M.D. to our paper” and that the Army unit she was then traveling with was “using Chalabi’s intell and document network for its own W.M.D. work.”) Indeed, the press proved even more gullible than the intelligence experts in the American government. In a June 2002 letter to the Senate Appropriations Committee, the I.N.C. listed 108 news articles based on information provided by the group. The list included articles concerning some of the wildest claims about Hussein, including that he had collaborated in the Sept. 11 attacks.
David Kay, the former chief weapons inspector in Iraq, offers one of the most compelling explanations for how pivotal Chalabi’s role was in taking America to war. Kay said that while the C.I.A. had long regarded Chalabi with suspicion, disregarding much of what he gave them, Chalabi had succeeded in persuading his more powerful friends in other parts of the government — Vice President Dick Cheney, for instance, and Wolfowitz. The pressure brought by those men, Kay told me, ultimately persuaded George Tenet, director of the C.I.A., that the White House was committed to war and that there was no point in resisting it.
“In my judgment, the reason George Tenet and the top of the agency came over to the argument that Iraq had W.M.D. was that they really knew that the vice president and Wolfowitz had come to that conclusion anyway,” Kay said. “They had been getting information from Chalabi for years.”
Of Wolfowitz, whom he has known for years, Kay said: “He was a true believer. He thought he had the evidence. That came from the defectors. They came from Chalabi.”
Kay said he continued to feel Chalabi’s influence with Wolfowitz even after the invasion, when Kay was leading the team searching for W.M.D. from mid- to late 2003. “Paul, when faced with evidence that we had developed on the ground, would say, Well, Chalabi says this, the I.N.C. says this, why are you not seeing it?” Kellems, the Wolfowitz assistant, disputed Kay’s story, saying that Tenet’s views were shared by officials across the government. “The position taken on weapons was the consensus view of the United States, including of the Clinton administration and other Western intelligence agencies — as well as that of Mr. Kay himself prior to visiting Iraq,” Kellems said.
Lawrence Wilkerson, chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell in Bush’s first term, adds a final turn to the labyrinth. In the frantic days leading up to Powell’s speech at the United Nations in February 2003, when he laid out the case for war, Wilkerson said he spent many nights sleeping on a couch in George Tenet’s office. During those preparations, Wilkerson told me, Powell insisted that every point he would make at the U.N. had to be supported by at least three independent sources.
“We had three or four sources for every item that was substantive in his presentation,” Wilkerson told me in an interview in Washington. “Powell insisted on that. But what I am hearing now, though, is that a lot of these sources sort of tinged and merged back into a single source, and that inevitably that single source seems to be either recommended by, set up by, orchestrated by, introduced by, or whatever, by somebody in the I.N.C.”
Wilkerson said that the revelations, some of which he says he has heard from his own friends inside American and European intelligence agencies, have forced him to rethink how America went to war. “I have maintained pretty much the same thing that the president said, ‘Well, we all got fooled, it was lousy intelligence, and no one in the national leadership spun the intelligence,’ ” Wilkerson said. “I am having to revisit that. And that is disturbing to me.”
Wilkerson raises a crucial point. Assuming that Chalabi was a source for at least some of the bogus intelligence, we might ask ourselves: so what? Was the American national security apparatus so incompetent that it could be hoodwinked by a handful of shopworn engineers and an Iraqi mathematician to take the country into war? Or is the lesson more disturbing — that Chalabi simply gave the Bush administration what it wanted to hear?
“I think Chalabi and the I.N.C. were very shrewd,” Wilkerson said. “I think Chalabi understood what people wanted, and he fed it to them. From everything I’ve heard, no one says he is dumb.”
5. Tehran, November 2005
Amid the debate about Chalabi’s role in taking America to war, one little-noticed phrase in a Senate Intelligence Committee report on W.M.D. offered an important insight into Chalabi’s identity. One of the principal errors made by the Bush administration in relying on Chalabi’s Iraqi National Congress, the report said, was to disregard conclusions by the C.I.A. and the Defense Intelligence Agency that “the I.N.C. was penetrated by hostile intelligence services,” notably those of Iran.
The Iran connection has long been among the most beguiling aspects of Chalabi’s career. Baer, the former C.I.A. operative, recalled sitting in a hotel lobby in Salah al-Din, in Kurdish-controlled Iraq, in 1995 while Chalabi met with the turbaned representatives of Iranian intelligence on the other side of the room. (Baer, as an American, was barred from meeting the Iranians.) Baer says he came to regard Chalabi as an Iranian asset, and still does.
“He is basically beholden to the Iranians to stay viable,” Baer told me. “All his C.I.A. connections — he wouldn’t get away with that sort of thing with the Iranians unless he had proved his worth to them.”
Pat Lang, the D.I.A. agent, holds a similar view: that in Chalabi, the Iranians probably saw someone who could help them achieve their long-sought goal of removing Saddam Hussein. After a time, in Lang’s view, the Iranians may have figured the Americans would leave and that Chalabi would most likely be in charge. Lang insists he is only speculating, but he says it has been clear to the American intelligence community for years that Chalabi has maintained “deep contacts” with Iranian officials.
“Here is what I think happened,” Lang said. “Chalabi went and told the guys at the Ministry of Intelligence and Security in Tehran: ‘The Americans are giving me money. I’m their guy. I’m their candidate.’ And I’m sure their eyes lit up. The Iranians would reason that they could use this guy to manipulate the United States to get what they wanted. They would figure that the U.S. would invade. They would figure that we would come and we would go, and if we left Chalabi in charge, who was a good friend of theirs, they would be in good shape.”
Lang’s thesis is impossible to prove, and Chalabi denies it. And even if it were true, Chalabi’s role would be difficult to discern: so many different Iranian agencies are thought to be pursuing so many different agendas in Iraq that a single Iranian national interest is difficult to identify. Still, if Lang’s and Baer’s argument is true, it would be the stuff of spy novels: Chalabi, the American-adopted champion of Iraqi democracy, a kind of double agent for one of America’s principal adversaries.
In late 2005, I accompanied Chalabi on a trip to Iran, in part to solve the riddle. We drove eastward out of Baghdad, in a convoy as menacing as the one we had ridden in south to Mushkhab earlier in the year. After three hours of weaving and careering, the plains of eastern Iraq halted, and the terrain turned sharply upward into a thick ridge of arid mountains. We had come to Mehran, on one of history’s great fault lines, the historic border between the Ottoman and Persian Empires. As we crossed into Iran, the wreckage and ruin of modern Iraq gave way to swept streets and a tidy border post with shiny bathrooms. Another world.
An Iranian cleric approached and shook Chalabi’s hand. Then he said something curious: “We are disappointed to hear that you won’t be staying in the Shiite alliance,” he said. “We were really hoping you’d stay.” The border between Iraq and Iran had, for the moment, disappeared.
More curious, though, was the authority that Chalabi seemed to carry in Iran, which, after all, has been accused of assisting Iraqi insurgents and otherwise stirring up chaos there. For starters, Chalabi asked me if I wanted to come along on his Iranian trip only the night before he left — and then procured a visa for me in a single day: a Friday, during the Eid holiday, when the Iranian Embassy was closed. Under ordinary circumstances, an American reporter might wait weeks.
Then there was the executive jet. When we arrived at the border, Chalabi ducked into a bathroom and changed out of his camouflage T-shirt and slacks and into a well-tailored blue suit. Then we drove to Ilam, where an 11-seat Fokker jet was idling on the runway of the local airport. We jumped in and took off for Tehran, flying over a dramatic landscape of canyons and ravines. We landed in Iran’s smoggy capital, and within a couple of hours, Chalabi was meeting with the highest officials of the Iranian government. One of them was Ali Larijani, the national security adviser.
I interviewed Larijani the next morning. “Our relationship with Mr. Chalabi does not have anything to do with his relationship with the neocons,” he said. His red-rimmed eyes, when I met him at 7 a.m., betrayed a sleepless night. “He is a very constructive and influential figure. He is a very wise man and a very useful person for the future of Iraq.”
Then came the meeting with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president. I was with a handful of Iranian reporters who were led into a finely appointed room just outside the president’s office. First came Chalabi, dressed in a tailored suit, beaming. Then Ahmadinejad, wearing a face of childlike bewilderment. He was dressed in imitation leather shoes and bulky white athletic socks, and a suit that looked as if it had come from a Soviet department store. Only a few days before, Ahmadinejad publicly called for the destruction of Israel. He and Chalabi, who is several inches taller, stood together for photos, then retired to a private room.
At the time of Chalabi’s visit, Iran and the United States were engaged in a complicated diplomatic dance; the American ambassador in Baghdad, Zalmay Khalilzad, had been authorized to open negotiations with the Iranians over their involvement in Iraq. Still, Chalabi insists he carried no note from the Iranians when he flew to Washington the next week. Officially, at least, Iran and the United States never got together.
As ever, Chalabi had multiple agendas. One was to learn whether the Iranians would support his candidacy for the prime ministership (the same reason he traveled to the United States). It makes you wonder, in light of the Baer and Lang thesis: was Chalabi telling the Iranians, or asking them for permission? Or making a deal, based on his presumed leverage in the United States? The possibilities seemed endless.
Chalabi played it cool.
“The fact that Iraq’s neighbor is also a country that is majority Shia is no reason for us to accept any interference in our affairs or to compromise the integrity of Iraq,” he said after his meeting with Ahmadinejad.
Richard Perle, Chalabi’s friend, discounted the idea that Chalabi might be a double agent. “Of course Chalabi has a relationship with the Iranians — you have to have a relationship with the Iranians in order to operate there,” Perle said. “The question is what kind of relationship. Is he fooling the Iranians or are the Iranians using him? I think Chalabi has been very shrewd in getting the things he has needed over the years out of the Iranians without giving anything in return.”
For all of the skullduggery surrounding the trip to Iran, though, the greatest revelation came later in the day. When the meeting with Ahmadinejad ended, he asked Chalabi if there was anything he could to do to make his stay more comfortable. Chalabi said yes, in fact, there was: would he mind if he, Chalabi, took a tour of the Museum of Contemporary Art?
So there we were, in the middle of the Axis of Evil, strolling past one of the finest collections of Western Modern art outside Europe and the United States: Matisse, Kandinsky, Rothko, Gauguin, Pollock, Klee, Van Gogh, five Warhols, seven Picassos and a sprawling garden of sculpture outside. The collection was assembled by Queen Farah, the shah’s wife, with the monarchy’s vast oil wealth. And now, with the mullahs in charge, the museum is largely forgotten. The day we were there, the gallery was all but empty. We had the museum’s enthusiastic English-speaking tour guide all to ourselves.
“Thank you, thank you, for coming!” Noreen Motamed exclaimed, clapping her hands.
We walked the empty halls. Chalabi moved through the place deliberately, nodding his head, pausing at the Degas and the Pissarro.
“Wow,” Chalabi said before Jesus Rafael Soto’s painting “Canada.” “Look at that.”
A retinue of Iranian officials walked with us, unmoved by the splendor. Ahmadinejad had stayed behind.
For all of the furies that emanate from the halls of the Iranian government, it has taken fine care of Queen Farah’s collection. Indeed, about the only way you would know you were not in a museum in New York or London was the absence of the middle panel from Francis Bacon’s triptych “Two Figures Lying on a Bed With Attendant,” which depicts two naked men.
“It is in the basement, covered,” Motamed said with disappointed eyes.
Finally, we came across a pair of paintings by Marc Chagall, the 20th-century Modernist and painter of Jewish life. The display contained no mention of this fact.
Chalabi gazed at the Chagalls for a time. Then, with a rueful smile, turned, to no one in particular, and said loudly: “Imagine that. They have two paintings by Marc Chagall in the middle of a museum in Tehran.” The Iranian officials seemed not to hear.
6. Baghdad, December 2005
A winter rain is falling. Chalabi is standing inside a tent in Sadr City, the vast Shiite slum of eastern Baghdad. He’s talking about his plans for restoring electricity, boosting oil production and beating the insurgency. People seem to be listening, but without enthusiasm. The violence here, worsening by the day, is washing away the hopes of ordinary Iraqis. Less and less seems possible anymore. People are retreating inward, you can see it in the glaze in their eyes.
As Chalabi speaks, I pull aside one of the Iraqis who had been listening. What do you think of him? I ask.
“Chalabi good good,” the Iraqi man says in halting English.
Whom are you going to vote for?
“The Shiite alliance, of course,” the Iraqi answers. “It is the duty of all Shiite people.”
When the election came, Chalabi was wiped out. His Iraqi National Congress received slightly more than 30,000 votes, only one-quarter of 1 percent of the 12 million votes cast — not enough to put even one of them, not even Chalabi, in the new Iraqi Parliament. There was grumbling in the Chalabi camp. One of his associates said of the Shiite alliance: “We know they cheated. You know how we know? Because in one area we had 5,000 forged ballots, and when they were counted, we didn’t even get that many.” He shrugged.
But the truth seemed clear enough: Chalabi was finished. Chalabi, who could plausibly claim that he, more than any other Iraqi, had made the election possible, had been shunned by the very people he had worked so hard to set free. No amount of deal making or of public relations foot-work, or of endorsements from friends, was able to save him. Chalabi may have helped bring democracy to Iraq, but it was democracy that finished him. He was, in the end, a parlor politician, someone from the world of his father or grandfather, or maybe of Victorian England: a brilliant negotiator and schemer who might settle a country’s problems over a cup of tea. But in Iraq, by late 2005, real power was no longer held by the parlor men, or by politicians at all. It was held by people like Moktada al-Sadr, populist leaders with a militia and a mass following in the street.
The election results were a harbinger of the civil war. Iraqis voted almost entirely along sectarian and ethnic lines: Kurds for the big Kurdish parties, Sunnis for the Sunni parties and Shiites for the big Islamist Shiite alliance. Iraqis who tried to run on a secular platform — Chalabi, for instance, and his relative, Allawi, in another party — found themselves abandoned. Just two months later, in February of this year, following the destruction of the Askariya shrine, a holy Shiite temple in Samarra, the civil war began in earnest: Shiite gunmen, who had for years been restrained by the Shiite leadership in the face of the Sunni onslaught, were finally free to retaliate.
Chalabi, shut out of the government, claimed that his sin was one of miscalculation. There was some truth to this: in all likelihood, Chalabi did not lose because he had been convicted of stealing millions of dollars from a Jordanian bank. Or because of the rumors swirling around Baghdad that he had looted the treasury. Or even because he was an exile close to the Americans. No: plenty of Westernized Iraqi exiles were elected to Parliament — among them Mowaffak al-Rubaie and Adil Abdul Mahdi — who, like Chalabi, didn’t have local followings and were trailed by similar questions. Practically speaking, Chalabi lost because he had broken from the big cleric-backed Shiite alliance that swept the election. “I had not realized how polarized Iraq had become,” Chalabi told me after the election.
He might have gotten a seat in the cabinet, but that didn’t work out, either. That stung: the new Iraqi government is staffed with Chalabi’s old colleagues, many of them members of the exile alliance he once led. Jalal Talabani is president. Adil Abdul Mahdi, his boyhood friend, is vice president. Barham Salih, comrade of many years, is deputy prime minister. His old confidant Zalmay Khalilzad, who played a central role in forming the new government, is the American ambassador. In the end, they couldn’t — or wouldn’t — bring him aboard. “Chalabi really made a mess of things,” said one Iraqi political leader who now occupies a key post in the government. He declined to elaborate.
As anticlimactic as was Chalabi’s fall, its real meaning lay in a paradox: democratic politics no longer mattered. For three years, the American-backed enterprise in Iraq rested on the assumption that the exercise of democratic politics would drain away the anger that was driving the violence. Instead of bullets, there would be ballots.
But at the culmination of that long process — two constitutions, two elections and a referendum — the violence was worse than ever. It turns out that democratic politics does not stop violence; indeed, the elections, by polarizing Iraq’s sectarian and ethnic communities, may have helped push the country into civil war.
Effectively, by the fall of 2006, the overwhelming majority of Iraq had no government at all. It was a failed state. Yes, there were Iraqis — Chalabi’s friends — who went to their jobs every day, toiling dutifully and not so dutifully inside the Green Zone, which every day seemed more and more divorced from the reality outside. In the Red Zone, as the real Iraq is called, Iraq was a nightmarish, apocalyptic place, where gunmen kidnapped children and sometimes killed them, where bodies turned up at the morgue peppered by holes from electric drills and corpses lay uncollected in the streets, along with the trash, for days on end.
Ahmad Chalabi devoted his whole adult life to toppling a dictator and achieving power in the place of his birth. He felled the dictator, helping along a reckless gamble that wagered the future of a nation. The gamble failed, a nation imploded and Chalabi never ascended to the throne he so coveted. But in an odd turn of fortune, the throne no longer had anything to offer.
7. London, August 2006
The conversation is wrapping up. The talk turns to the government of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, the machinations of those around him, what the future might hold. Chalabi, in an expansive mood, gets up, goes into a closet and brings out a note that Bob Baer, the C.I.A. agent, scribbled to him in that hotel lobby when the two men plotted a coup many years before. The talk, improbably, turns to memoirs; at the moment, Baer’s, “See No Evil,” was a best seller. I ask Chalabi, who is back on the couch, if it isn’t time that he write his own.
He doesn’t hesitate to answer.
“Too early!” Chalabi says. “Too early!”
Plz. help me to write the main idea of this article in the NY Times. in two pages.?
I really thought about helping you out here, just because it would be fun to write. Then I looked at your profile and see that:
1. You answer other people's questions so obviously without care and thought and apparently just for points so you can go ask more questions.
and
2. The people that are gracious enough to assist you or answer your questions most of the time don't even recieve the courtesy of you selecting the "best answer" but they are instead selected by voters.
So instead I decide that if you are not interested in doing the right, then why in the world should anyone be interested in helping you?
Reply:So this is a "do my homework" question? Report It
Reply:i agree with stymie :) Report It
Reply:nicely done Report It
Reply:Yep, quite agree Report It
Reply:You can never underestimate the USA and the lenghtd they will go to to save a dime on a gallon of crude.there were no WMD's and if there were, they were planted by the U.S Report It
Reply:wow..go stymie! lol Report It
Reply:thats wayyy to long like what do u want from us? that will take forever!!!!!!!!! Report It
Reply:The main idea should look like this and I do not have a monopoly on this heading
'Lies and Liers who Lie them' Report It
tanning
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)