Go Back   I-Mockery Forum > I-Mockery Discussion Forums > Philosophy, Politics, and News
FAQ Members List Calendar Today's Posts

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Preechr Preechr is offline
=======
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: NA
Preechr is probably a spambot
Old Aug 12th, 2004, 01:34 PM        Starting to make some sense...
Chalabi Strikes Back
A counterfeit charge considered.
By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Wednesday, Aug. 11, 2004, at 3:13 PM PT

Today in Washington, D.C., a lawsuit was filed by Ahmad Chalabi in the District of Columbia Superior Court. Brought under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations statute, it charges various high officials in the Jordanian government, and the Jordanian monarchy in general, with having sought to loot the Chalabi family's Bank of Petra. The suit further alleges that several named Jordanians used their influence to try to have Chalabi forcibly returned to his native Iraq in 1989, there to be tortured and killed by Saddam Hussein.

Some people, including myself, have known for a few days that this lawsuit was impending. But over last weekend, an Iraqi judge ordered Chalabi's arrest on a charge of counterfeiting, and further ordered the arrest of his nephew, Salem Chalabi, on the graver charge of involvement in the murder of an Iraqi official.

On May 20, furthermore, Ahmad Chalabi's home in Baghdad was raided and he was publicly accused of passing classified information to the government of Iran. Nothing further has been heard of those charges, which struck many people at the time as highly implausible (if only because the Iranians had apparently used their "broken" code to alert their HQ that the code had been broken). So what merit might there be in the latest accusations, and should one pay any attention to their timing?

The last time I saw Dr. Chalabi, as it happens, he was telling the amusing story of the recall of the Iraqi dinar. In one of its better decisions, the Bremer regime in Baghdad had printed a new currency without the face of the dictator and told people to bring in their old bills and exchange them. According to Chalabi, a vast amount of extra currency—very much more than anticipated or known about by the Iraqi National Bank—had been turned in. The debauching and bankrupting of Iraq, he said, had been much greater even than he had feared. Some Baathist leaders had obviously been printing their own dough. We had a bit of a laugh about it: Some of the money I had seen looked as if it had been run off on an old Xerox machine.

In the interlude between the recall of the old notes and the issuance of the new ones, a few sporting types may well have tried to print a freelance version for themselves. And these became, when discovered, the property of the Finance Ministry, over which Chalabi had some jurisdiction. But on Jan. 16 the old notes became valueless. And the sudden raid on Chalabi's home took place on May 20. So if there were any samples of dud money lying around, they would only prove, if they proved anything, that he was either a collector of curios or a fool. His worst enemy has not alleged the second charge.

However, it has been freely said for several years that Chalabi fled Jordan after the meltdown of his family's bank, and it may seem easier to press a case of counterfeiting against someone with a reputation as a shady businessman. Hence the importance of today's suit, which in more than 50 pages constitutes not just Chalabi's response to the original charge, but his bringing of several charges in turn.

It always struck me as odd that Chalabi and his bank were judged, in 1989, by a specially convened Jordanian military tribunal. This is not the way that banking regulation normally takes place, even in the Levant. But it was notorious that the Jordanian military at that time was dependent on its Iraqi big brother and neighbor. And Chalabi had asserted in public that the Jordanian regime had helped Iraq violate various arms embargos by purchasing weaponry allegedly for Jordanian use and then trans-shipping it to Baghdad.

With Saddam Hussein gone (and now facing a special Iraqi tribunal that has actually been convened with great difficulty by Salem Chalabi) there are some people more willing to talk. The suit lodged in the D.C. Superior Court quotes directly from Lt. Col. Hafez Amin, the original Jordanian investigator, who seems to me to state in round terms that the investigation of the Petra Bank was politically motivated from the beginning. Now, I am not qualified to scrutinize bank records and money transfers and discover a trail, nor am I qualified to determine cryptographic evidence. But I will say that I have a slight instinct for a bogus story. We were asked to believe, last May, that a drunken CIA agent had blabbed about the Iranian codes to Chalabi, who had then hastened to warn Tehran. That's bullshit if ever I have heard it: Chalabi doesn't pour drinks, for one thing, and the CIA station in Baghdad hated him like poison. Furthermore, a renowned man of business like himself—he actually introduced the Visa card to the Middle East in his halcyon days—may perhaps have the Soros-like skill to alter currency rates. But he's not going to be found holding a bundle of grubby forged dinars, for Chrissake. Perhaps the CIA is again judging its enemies by its own low-rent standards.

As I write, the Allawi government in Baghdad is trying, with American support, a version of an "iron fist" policy in the Shiite cities of the south. ("Like all weak governments," as Disraeli once said in another connection, "it resorts to strong measures.") Chalabi, who has spent much of this year in Najaf, thinks that this is extremely unwise. We shall be testing all these propositions, and more, as the months go by.

Christopher Hitchens is a columnist for Vanity Fair and a regular contributor to Slate. His most recent book is Blood, Class and Empire. He is also the author of A Long Short War: The Postponed Liberation of Iraq.

Article URL: http://slate.msn.com/id/2105032/
__________________
mburbank~ Yes, okay, fine, I do know what you meant, but why is it not possible for you to get through a paragraph without making all the words cry?

How can someone who obviously thinks so much of their ideas have so little respect for expressing them? How can someone who so yearns to be taken seriously make so little effort?!
Reply With Quote
  #2  
mburbank mburbank is offline
The Moxie Nerve Food Tonic
mburbank's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: right behind you
mburbank has disabled reputation
Old Aug 12th, 2004, 02:06 PM       
Okay, I'm not saying Chalabi was ever guilty of bank fraud in Jordan, but as Hitchens himself points out, what the hell do we know about it?

I agree totally that the forgery claim is bogus, I mean why would you bother with Dinars when you have real actual US dollars which I'm sure are a lot more usable in Iraq these days, certainly privately, if not publicly.

But I really have to wonder about Hitchen's crush on Chalabi. Setting aside alleged bank fraud and currency scams, no one can say Chalabi wasn't lying through his teeth when he provided 'deserters' and climed to know anything about what was going on in Iraq during his exile. No one can argue that when Chalabi got too hot for even the Neo Cons to handle, he turned himself from sophisticated secular modern Chalabi into extremist muslim Chalabi faster than you can change outfits on a Barbie doll. He could be %100 percent innocent of any economic fraud ever, Jordan could have robbed his family blind at Sadaams request, that doesn't mean Chalabi isn't an opportunist shark you shouldn't trust any further than you could throw him.

Hitchen's talk of Chalabis 'amusing' after dinner annecdotes, and phrases like 'he actually introduced the Visa card to the Middle East in his halcyon days' are psychofantic and nauseating. When did Hitchens become so fawning, so proud of being on the 'inside'?


Hitch seems to be pitching the idea that since this most recent series of dustups is an obvious clumsy frame job that means any previous charges against him are too. He mentions Chalabi's trial in Jordan seemed strange, but he doesn't even give the number of years between his fleeing Jordan and filing this lawsuit. If it wasn't urgent in the intervening years, why now?

I'll admit, it seems pretty ugly that now Chalabi's no longer of any use to the the administration their hanging him out to dry (and it seems pretty evident we've at very, very least withdrawn our protection and funding and more likely we're the ones setting him up to be 'shot while resisting arrest'. But if even the Neo Cons who once thought Chalabi could hand them Iraq on a silver platter can see there's no hiding what a sham he is, what's up with Hitchens?
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Preechr Preechr is offline
=======
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: NA
Preechr is probably a spambot
Old Aug 12th, 2004, 02:28 PM       
In AChimps terms, I'd suspect Chalabi has a Charisma of at least 14, and Hitchens has simply, as you've said, fallen head over heels in love with the guy, and is giving him the most benefit of any doubts possible. I'm also thinking, however, there's likely more to Hitchens' trust than we're able to see at the moment.

I think I'm gonna extend Hitch a little leeway myself here... He's too big of a cynic to go this far out on a limb.

My working theory of the moment, which is complex enough to either be brilliant or traditional enough to be obvious, is that Team Bush© has come to the understanding that the Iraqi elections will be won by whomever hates America's continued influence in Iraq the loudest. No Iraqi wants to live in another puppet-state. Watching this unfold will also prove convenient to the US President, who will be wanting to get the troops back home (or at least safely sequestered in Iraqi and Afghani fortresses) with a politically motivated quickness.

I guess I'm thinking this whole parting of the ways between Chalabi and America is yet another sham. At least, it's possible that accusing Chalabi as an Iranian spy might make him an attractive target for Iranian spy runners, which might prove a source of intelligence for us but would likely prove to be pretty stupid. I doubt Iran would trust Chalabi anymore than you or I would.
__________________
mburbank~ Yes, okay, fine, I do know what you meant, but why is it not possible for you to get through a paragraph without making all the words cry?

How can someone who obviously thinks so much of their ideas have so little respect for expressing them? How can someone who so yearns to be taken seriously make so little effort?!
Reply With Quote
  #4  
mburbank mburbank is offline
The Moxie Nerve Food Tonic
mburbank's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: right behind you
mburbank has disabled reputation
Old Aug 12th, 2004, 04:09 PM       
Interesting and plausible. If this is what's going on, what kind of odds do you give we accidentally get him killed while pretending we don't like him so he'll become more powerful?

Or, conversely, if you're right, and if he does land in power, I'd give odds of 100 - 1 that he does the quickest Noriega/Sadaam biting of the hand that fed him yet on record.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Preechr Preechr is offline
=======
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: NA
Preechr is probably a spambot
Old Aug 12th, 2004, 06:01 PM       
EXACTLY. Are we standing here watching our government install another El Presidente? Do these people ever learn ANYTHING? ...or are there hidden harmonies to this song we can't hear?

As I've said, I can see the military, War on Terror benefit to flanking Iran (as it was never feasible to directly attack it,) as well as that of building an obstacle between Iran and Syria... all in hopes that we can build a big belt of friendly across the middle east (controlling any north-bound pipelines from Saudi, of course...) BUT I just can't imagine that there's not a better method to accomplish the changes necessary for a successful War on Terror... Well, let me put it this way: The root of "Why they Hate US" is exactly these kinds of methods employed incessantly over the last half century: Fucking with Arab governments; treating Muslims as pawns in a larger, more US-centric game; and installing assholes to positions of power based solely on their ability to be perceived as malleable.

*sigh*
__________________
mburbank~ Yes, okay, fine, I do know what you meant, but why is it not possible for you to get through a paragraph without making all the words cry?

How can someone who obviously thinks so much of their ideas have so little respect for expressing them? How can someone who so yearns to be taken seriously make so little effort?!
Reply With Quote
Reply



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

   


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:05 AM.


© 2008 I-Mockery.com
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.