Bush and Chalabi

From a Washington Post article on Chalabi, via Atrios :

“Nobody knows how the president will finally come down on Chalabi. Right now Bush reportedly remains unconvinced that Chalabi is the one to lead Iraq into a democratic future. Jordan's King Abdullah didn't help matters: When he met with Bush recently, he is said to have delivered a broadside against his old nemesis, who was convicted of embezzling millions from a Jordanian bank. According to a friend of Abdullah's, the president reacted to the information with outrage at Chalabi.”

As Atrios asks: did Bush really not know this until recently?

I've known this for months, and I'm no expert. It's been widely reported in the press. And it's a key piece of information in deciding on Chalabi's role.

"According to a friend of Abdullah's" is not exactly impeccable sourcing, so perhaps it's just inaccurate. And I suppose he could have been doing a "shocked and appalled" song and dance for the King of Jordan, but I don't see what that would accomplish--the benefits would seem to be outweighed by the appearance that Bush does not know what's going on.

A few weeks or months back, there was an article or interview with Bush that noted that he never reads newspapers, instead relying on summaries and briefings from his staff. A lot of Democrats said this showed his ignorance, incuriousity, lack of critical thinking, etc. But some veteran Washington journalists said, "what's the big deal, all Presidents do that" and I thought it was overblown. Now I wonder.

Comments

[James Casey]

I suppose there are a fair few arguments and reasons for not reading the papers (although we know he watches some television), but I was thinking yesterday, when someone here in the UK was telling me about an incident in Bush's recent visit to Blair's constituency, where his route was changed to avoid seeing protestors, how, were I in a position of responsibility like that, I'd *want* to see it, because otherwise one becomes out of touch, and complacent.

It's not nice seeing opposition, especially vehement opposition. But you don't think you have to work so hard if you reckon everyone's getting on fine with what you're doing.

Complacency leads to relaxation, relaxation leads to laziness, laziness... leads to *suffering*

Er... seem to have lost my way. What I'm saying is I would try to find a source of opposition in the press and I would read that religiously, because if I really cared about what I was doing, I'd want to make sure I could answer any concerns people might have about it.

So, if I were Bush, I'd read Eschaton. The posts, not the comments, mind you...

[Stan LS]

FYI:

Chalabi was accused of stealing about $300 million from the Petra Bank. The INC leader has denied the charges and said they were brought against him under pressure from Saddam, Middle East Newsline reported.

and

U.S. officials said the Petra Bank collapse was investigated in the late 1990s when Congress approved $97 million for the Iraqi opposition, including the INC. They said the investigation determined that the Jordanian charges against Chalabi were politically motivated.

More importantly:

Officials said Interpol refused to process the Jordanian request for a warrant against Chalabi because he was convicted in a state security court, rather than in a civilian court. Amman has pledged to retry Chalabi in a civilian court.

Link.

I understand there's a certain appeal in showing that Bush is a moron and all. But, obviously, there's another side to this story which you chose not to publicise.

Now I wonder.

[Katherine]

Oh come on. I don't know whether or not Chalabi's conviction is valid, and didn't want to wade into that; surely you agree that it's something the President ought to know? And if he didn't know I think it's less a sign that he's a moron, and more that some of his advisors are not entirely trustworthy if they're not giving him all the relevant information.

[Stan LS]

Katherine,

Money quote According to a friend of Abdullah's, the president reacted to the information with outrage at Chalabi.

I guess it all depends on who you trust. Besides hearsay - this is an an unnamed source who claims to be a friend of Abdullah and who claims that Bush is on the same page as Abdullah. Hmm.
Also, let me remind you of this:

MALAYSIAN Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad has said President George W. Bush came close to apologising to him for the strong language that the US administration had used to criticise his claims that Jews rule the world.

Bush, however, has told reporters he made it personally clear to Mahathir that his remarks were "reprehensible" as well as "divisive and unnecessary".
"He did not rebuke me," Mahathir said in an interview during a visit to Indonesia and published today in Malaysia's New Straits Times newspaper. "He came very nearly to apologising to me for the strong words used."

Link.

Same point. Its about who you trust (or what fits your agenda, maybe?)

[von]

According to a friend of Abdullah's, the president reacted to the information with outrage at Chalabi

Actually, for me the story stops right there. Abdullah has a motivation to prove his relevance in the Middle East, and one way to do that is to create the impression that he has the ear of the President. I'm not clairvoyant, but "friend of Abdullah" sounds like an "approved leak" to me, which suggests that some shading has occurred. Also, Pres. Bush may have known full well of Chalabi's (quasi) conviction, but become enraged to make the diplo-nicey-nicey -- which suggests that Bush is both informed and doing what he's supposed to.

[Stan LS]

Von,

What did Bush know, and when did he know it?!!? :P

[Edward]

What kind of man do you want as president. One who prefers to be isolated, protected, and spoon-fed what he should think or one who's curious, actually in-touch, and trusts his own ability to reason through the media mush?

How does knowing he's incurious help anyone sleep at night?

[Katherine]

I did say in the post that the sourcing is sketchy and Bush's reaction could have been an act.

[von]

I did say in the post that the sourcing is sketchy and Bush's reaction could have been an act.

Yup, you did. I wrote merely to amplify that portion of it -- which I view to be determinative.

[Stan LS]

What kind of man do you want as president. One who prefers to be isolated, protected, and spoon-fed what he should think or one who's curious, actually in-touch, and trusts his own ability to reason through the media mush?

Oh, God..

How does knowing he's incurious help anyone sleep at night?

How's he incurious again?

[Joe]

Edward, if he was curious you guys would just start putting a big yellow hat on Cheney. Cheney neither likes hats nor yellow. Would just piss him off even more. Probably invade every country that produces oil, including getting ahold of the olive oil presses in Italy and Greece. By having the current President be 'uncurious' or what have you, this country has fewer wars to worry about. I sleep safer at night because of it.

[Vinteuil]

Don't be ridiculous. *Of course* Bush knew all about the embezzlement story. It's the first thing anybody ever learns about Chalabi. And he also knew Chalabi's version of events, and that "nobody could ever flesh out the Jordanian thing," as Quinn's piece quotes someone saying. So when King Abdullah brings it up, Bush humors him, and everybody's happy.

Fascinating article, by the way--Atrios should have read the whole thing.

[Edward]

There's something off here.

If you buy the spin that Bush knew about Chalabi's embezzling and was just playing "diplo-nicey-nicey" (great term by the way, von), then you have to assume that Bush was purposely sending the message that he (Bush) was out of touch or that he thought King Abdullah was an idiot he could easily bamboozle.

Isn't it more likley that the President would fake surprise and reassure King Abdullah he'd get to the bottom of it, if this was a diplomatically sensitive position he was caught in, rather than fake "outrage"?

Why outrage? It doesn't put Bush in a better light. Outrage is the reaction of someone who's not in control.

I'm having trouble pinning this down, but either the report is wrong or Bush didn't know.

[Stan LS]

Edward,

If you buy the spin that Bush knew about Chalabi's embezzling and was just playing "diplo-nicey-nicey"

Well, if you buy that According to a friend of Abdullah's is a credible source...

[Edward]

um, yeah, Stan, you'd have to buy that to particpate in this segment of the conversation...that doesn't mean any is saying it's "true"

stay with us here.

[Edward]

um, yeah, Stan, you'd have to buy that to particpate in this segment of the conversation...that doesn't mean anyone is saying it's "true"

stay with us here.

[Edward]

double double sorry sorry

[Joe Iam]

Chalabi makes the ideal candidate for President of Iraq. As a convicted crook, he would make an ideal partner in adventure for Cheynee.

He has all the qualities of Hamid Karzai for the puppet the US is looking for.

[Vinteuil]

OK, so Edward and Joe Iam buy King Abdullah's line and reject Chalabi's version of the story.

Question: do you guys have reliable inside sources of information? Or are you just choosing up sides based on your political orientation?

Believe it or not, I am persuadable. But only by evidence. Give it a try.

[Katherine]

I think it's a lot more likely that the source is not credible than that Bush did this for diplomatic reasons.

[Stan LS]

Joe,

As a convicted crook, he would make an ideal partner in adventure for Cheynee.

I see you hold Jordan's state security court in great esteem. Nice.