Curiouser and curiouser

It is of course, entirely possible to believe (I think this is my actual view) that Chalabi is a crook and that he is being set up …

I’d also just like to remind all CT readers (since, apparently, you don’t read this anywhere else), that although Hitchens is right that Chalabi was found guilty by a Jordanian tribunal that did not live up to the very best standards of regulation, this tribunal was convened after the insolvency of Petra Bank, and that the insolvency of Petra Bank was precipitated by the fact that another Chalabi-family-controlled bank had lost its banking licence in Switzerland; it is not at all giving the whole picture to imply that it was only the Jordanians who were concerned about the probity of the Chalabi empire.

One of the saddest falls from grace re: Chalabi was the Obs’s Nick Cohen, who drank the Kool-Aid (as they say on the left side of the pond) in a rather big way with regard to Iraq. He’s steered rather clear of the topic for many months.

re: Hitch. Someone should see if Chalabi has a stake in the Johnny Walker distribution network around DC. But Hitch may be having his ‘Homage in Catalonia’ moment, which, if it were the case, would be rather sad for someone who, one presumes, has read the book.

Cohen may have gone silent on Iraq (are you sure about that? I distinctly remember him writing something in the New Statesman recently, which not only reaffirmed his pro-war position, but also backed the government re the Butler report!)

But anyway, over at Harry’s Place, Johann Hari continues to brazenly suggest that the likes of Chomsky were “anti-democratic” for daring to come out against the invasion (rather reminiscent of the right-wing claim that to be anti-war was automatically to be pro-Saddam). He bases this view on post-invasion opinion polls which, he claims, show Iraqis in favour of the invasion.

Hari, of course, glosses quickly over the overwhelming lack of support for the US occupation, because that casts doubt on his point.

Oh sorry, the Chalabi connection there. I forgot to mention it!

So did Hari (which is the point I was going to mention) – probably because he realised that to cite Chalabi’s propaganda (bought and paid for by aid from the US congress) about how Iraqis on the ground were begging for Iraq to be bombed, would not necessarily sound all that convincing from today’s vantage point.

robin: I must admit that don’t follow the New Statesman now that I’m across the pond — heck, I never read it anyway — but his Obs columns have been very much an Iraq-free zone for quite a while. (A quick search of the archives bears this out.) But it’s weird to read his comments back in 2002:

Many in the INC believe that what truly infuriates the CIA is that Chalabi is a cultured businessman, who speaks English better than most Western politicians. He argues with style and force against the INC’s detractors on the US networks and in Congress and the Washington think-tanks.

George Tenet, who, incredibly, remains the CIA director after his failure to protect his country on 11 September, is the leader of the faction in Washington which loathes the INC…

In Washington, the State Department, which has stopped funding the INC after disputed accusations of fraud, and the CIA take no notice of the threat and support the ‘nicer Sunni tyrant’ option. Paradoxically, the greatest supporters of the civilian movement are the military in the Pentagon.

The struggle between the departments is underway, but the balance of forces is against the INC. A democratic Iraq would give the subject peoples of the Gulf monarchies ideas above their station.

The CIA faction does appear to have won, with Allawi’s installation. But the notion of Chalabi as a beacon of light, hope and freedom (and accurate information) appears to have been somewhat naive. It’s on record that the INC engaged in mass appropriation of property — or at least, a very particular brand of squatting — on its return to Iraq.

Thanks Mario I will check those out.