Well, Ahmad Chalabi’s going to be coming to Washington soon. And who is rolling out the red carpet for his “rehabilitation” there but… his old pal at the WaPo, Jim Hoagland!
Chalabi’s chutzpah in seeking a major rehabilitation in DC– after the emergence of lots of evidence has emerged that not only does he have a close political relationship with the mullahs’ regime in Teheran, but also that he has handed over significant amounts of confidential US national-security information to them– is in itself quite astounding. Right now, indeed, as he makes his way to DC, he has decided to take a stopover in Teheran. (Don’t get me wrong. I am all for seeing the easing of tensions between the US government and the regime in Teheran, and the establishment of solid means of communication between them. Ahmad Chalabi, however, is not the kind of person one would like to see anywhere near to playing an “honest broker” role of this type!)
But Chala’s chutzpah in seeking rehabilitation in DC is not so surprising– hey, this is the guy who bounced back in the Middle Eastern and global arenas after having defrauded scores of thousands of investors in his “Petra Bank” scam in Jordan in the 1980s. What amazes me is his continuing success in being able to bamboozle and hold in his camp a number of apparently intelligent and well-connected members of the western polite who are far from hanging their heads in shame at this point at the revelations of their friend’s multiple shenanigans.
Hoagland is a case in point. As Douglas McCollam noted in this important piece in the Columbia Journalism Review in July/August 2004, Hoagie had been one of the main (and apparently very willing) tools used by Chala’s exile-based “Iraqi National Congress” as it systematically tried to build up the case for the US to invade Iraq. Hoagie, it should be noted, is no starry-eyed neophyte in the world of journalism. He is a decades-long veteran of the WaPo’s “Foreign Service” who has been an “Associate Editor” of the paper for several years now. He has no excuses except pure ideology for the pugnacious and quite uncritical role he played before March 2003 as he beat the drums for war.
There is obviously a lot more to say about the irony and chutzpah of Ahmad Chalabi than I have time to say here. Lots more to say, too, about Jim Hoagland. I guess he doesn’t really like having his role investigated. CJR’s McCollum wrote that when he called Hoagie to ask for comment on the piece he was writing last year Hoagie, “who has championed the INC for years, abruptly hung up on me before calling back to apologize graciously.” (If you haven’t read what McCollum wrote about Hoagie’s role in the INC’s pre-war disinformation campaign about Saddam’s alleged links with and international Islamist terrorism, you should go back there and do so.)
And now, in his latest fauning, excuse-laden piece about Chalabi, Hoagland tries to get a sly little dig of his own in against McCollum. Using very heavy “irony” he asks:
- Chalabi? Isn’t he the aforesaid Arab con man of journalistic and political lore who tricked alert politicians such as Jay Rockefeller, and the entire CIA, into believing Hussein was moments away from blowing them to kingdom come? The same guy who provided the opportunity for shallow journalistic exposs and a magazine cover — on the Columbia Journalism Review, of all places — that were redolent with whiffs of anti-Arab stereotyping that would have been denounced if other ethnic groups had been so targeted?
The suggestion that McCollum’s piece “would have been denounced [as anti-Arab stereotyping] if other ethnic groups had been involved” is outrageous. It comes out of literally nowhere. There is no hint of ethnic stereotyping in what McCollum wrote, and Hoagie should immediately retract and apologize for that suggestion.
Hoagie goes on with the crux of how he is hoping, this time round, to “sell” his old buddy Ahmad to the US public:
- Yes, Chalabi is back, in Iraq and in Washington. He visits here this week at the invitation of an administration that listened to him before the war — except of course when he opposed the occupation and other things they wanted to do — and then tried to eliminate him from Iraqi politics in Allawi’s favor. I know, the story line gets confusing, but remember, we are in Valerie Plame deep-cover territory here.
The visit would be a good occasion for the American public to catch up on the thing that interests Hagel — the chances of democracy in Iraq — and on how Chalabi would hurry American troops home. Rockefeller, Harry Reid and other Democrats could ask him in person how he so brilliantly tricked them, and then explain that in detail to their constituents.
Gimme a break. Time for all this tired old hack to retire, at the very least. (If not, to be aggressively investigated regarding the nature of his ties to Chalabi and the role he played in helping spread and add credibility to Chala’s disgraceful pre-war disinformation.)
Interesting post on Hoagland. I too was appalled by this piece, but from a different point of view. Seems to me what Hoagland is doing here is carrying the White House’s water for the proposition that the Democrats mustn’t be allowed to try to shuck off their pro-war votes on the excuse “I was lied to.” Chalabi serves as a useful foil for the basic argument that only Bushco can lead — and that the best the Dems can do is say “I was stupid enough to be conned.”
Too close to true for comfort, unhappily. And certainly a guy who will carry that argument is likely to feel right at home with the con man Chalabi. Maybe what we have here is folks who belong in the same moral universe?
Well said, Helena.
Good point you make there, Jan. (And I’m sure the kind of “moral universe” you were were writing about was actually a highly immoral one.)
However, I still think that dem leaders like Kerry, the Hillster, etc, need to be brave enough– I won’t say “man” enough– to stand up forthfightly and say, “We were misled!” One could make the case that the disinformation campaign to which they fell prey was a fiendishly complex and multifaceted one…
That, plus the real old-timers like Robert Byrd and the younger “firebrands” like Kucinich, Barbara Lee, Howard Dean etc in the party who called the truth on the war all along should be celebrated and their principled position on the war affirmed.
Instead of which…
(Dominic was quite right, in a comment on an earlier post, to say that folks in the US peace movement must NOT see their/our role as being to hitch our cart totally to the Democratic Party. I don’t. But still, the politics of the Dem Party can certainly affect the outcome of this war. Over the longer term– 20 years?– we really need a huge transformation in the politics of the whole country… Lots of work to do.)
Red carpets are interesting diplomatic paraphrenalia but itsn’t it time that worldnews look at the Paris intifada going on for more than a week and expanding to other cities?
I’ve watched French TV and seen it grow, it looks like the dynamics that fueled the London bombers is finding a different expression in France, and certainly one that cannot be attributed to four bad apples and their Imam. I welcome the opinions and wisdom of this board if somebody wants to shed some light on this event.
David
Concerning the Dems, I remember Juan Cole some weeks ago calling them to admit publicly that they were misled by the Bush lies and propaganda.
However I think that if they stay mute and reactionless it’s for some good reasons.
The first may be tactic : wait that the Bushies fell down like a foul fruit, all by themselves.
The second may be less honorable : I personnally can’t imagine that the most prominent Dems sitting in the different Congress comittee and commission weren’t informed of the real reasons, that they weren’t aware of what was going on. I’m sure these Dems knows that the Bushies could prove them wrong if they were pretending to have been missled.
If EU governments like France and Germany could find out that the so-called intelligence proving the existence of wmd in Iraq and of terrrorist links to Saddam were bogus, then Congress participating in the important national security commissions can’t have ignored it, even if he is part of the opposition. A commander in chief (Geezz how I hate that word) can’t go to war with a divided country, he has to make sure the opposition will keep on following him, he can’t risk to sabotage the nation unity by playing tricks to the important opposition leaders. I can’t imagine that the Dems leaders (not all, only the important ones) weren’t clear about the war and agreeing with Bush.
Here is an amusing piece about Chalabi written back in October 2003 by a Minnesota software developer:
http://www.commondreams.org/scriptfiles/views03/1004-02.htm
Sometimes it’s good to laugh a little.
Concerning the riots in Paris which are now spreading in other provincial cities, I don’t understand why you call them Intifada. Noone in France name them so, not even the participants, at least I didn’t hear it.
What we have in France has nothing to do with terrorism it’s a wide social movement which is caused by joblessness and exclusion.
They have much more to do with the right wing policies a la neocons which were imposed on France by Chirac and above all by Sarkozy : many many funds were cut in social programs aimed at integration, while more ressources were put on repression. Sarkozy developped a theory of “zero tolerance” which has produced the opposite results.
After an incident (which isn’t yet completely clear but for the fact that two youngs who took refuge in an electric transformator have died electrocuted – with or without the police chasing them, that is the question) the whole leftover suburbs went in flames. At first they responded to Sarkozy’s provocation, because he named them thugs to be cleaned away. But sure enough if the whole suburbs are now burning since a week, it is for other serious social reasons. Since 1968, I haven’t seen such an important social movement. Hundreds cars are burned out. And also a police station, some schools and many public busses.
Beside the many social workers and mediators trying to cool the spirits, there are two different groups pushing to the riots : the gang and drug’s dealers holding the different suburbs, who fight to extend their territories and also perhaps, some islamist activists.
It is not impossible that islamist movements try to organize this social movement. But it isn’t the only force around. And Muslims movements come with different flavors. I hope that this movement will cause the fall of Sarkozy. It is well possible, because he has been so irresponsible in his provocations. On the other hand when elections take place after riots, people tend rather to vote for the right parties, for the restauration of order.
au contraire…Sarkozy understands the need to coopt the Le Pens on the far right (by taking a strong law and order position and on illegal immigration) while making the French citizens from North Africa stakeholders rather than seething “outsiders”…that is why in the home of egalite and French “grandeur”, he favors meaningful affirmative action policies… “I think some people accumulate so many handicaps that if the state does not help them, they have no chance of making it,” he explained. Europeans pride themselves on their commitment to multiculturalism but in practice there is far less of the melting pot diversity that serves as a safety valve on the other side of the Atlantic. He also favors public financing of mosques in the land of banned head scarves.
With high unemployment, an aging nativist population and an increasingly alienated and growing Muslim population, France – like many European countries – faces a demographic challenge not just to funding its generous pension and other social programs but to help prevent Islamic extremists from exploiting the situation.
Hammurabi,
Concerning Sarkozy and his so called “meaningful affirmative action policies” you have to look further than words, to the facts : in reality, the actual government has cut a lot of money from social programs. This is the reality. The immigrant suburbs have been left over. Youngs have joblessness of 40 % at least .. no hope for any future.
Yes, they have an interesting policy to finance mosquees by public funds in France. But that is only to control it better. Sarkozy has been bashing Tarik Ramadan for instance, whom Blair called as an expert on integration after the London Bombing.. That says it all on the so called integration policies of the actual French government. As long as they incorporate the flavour of neocons discourse in thier policies, they won’t be able to begin a dialogue with the suburbs.
(Please note that the “French rioting” discussion has moved here.)
Re Chalabi– thanks for that link, John C. Yes, a nice piece of writing, though made me sad more than it made me laugh because it seemed so well to capture the essence of the man and the cravn nature of relevant actors in the US system…
Last year when I was in Beirut I reconnected with a couple of good friends there– people whose opinions I respect on many, many subjects and whom I like a lot– who both admire and like Ahmad Chalabi a lot. They both stressed (as everyone does) that the guy is “really smart”. But they also said he is “deeply misunderstood by his critics.” One of them added that he “is a really loyal friend.”
I guess, seeing the way Chala has negotiated the political shoals over the past 15 years– and most particularly, the last three– I would have to say he really is smart as a snake. That, however, would seem to have nothing at all to do with his moral qualities…