Dinner with Chalabi

November 15, 2005 8:39 AM

Dinner with Chalabi
posted by delmoi (46 comments total)

A more timely Cusack film title: "Say Anything."
posted by bardic at 8:47 AM on November 15, 2005

So wait, what did John Cusack think about Chalabi?
posted by loquax at 8:47 AM on November 15, 2005

Is this the Chalabi who is wanted in Jordan for robbing banks?
posted by hortense at 8:54 AM on November 15, 2005

The story definitely needs more Cusack.
posted by odinsdream at 8:55 AM on November 15, 2005

Not just wanted, but convicted and sentenced to over 20 years of hard labor in absentia. And a friend of Iran.
posted by bardic at 8:57 AM on November 15, 2005

I'd think John Cussack would have better things to do in the middle of the night than phone old women. Being a star doesn't seem so glamourous now, does it?
posted by Keith Talent at 8:58 AM on November 15, 2005

I'm assuming there's a connection to Cusack's recent piece against the war in the HuffPo. And then Arianna took him to dinner? I can't really tell.
posted by bardic at 9:17 AM on November 15, 2005

Hello?? This post is not about John Cusack.
It's about Ahmed Chalabi, a man instrumental in bamboozeling this country into a needless WAR.
(Although I agree that Arianna Huffington's vanity sometimes gets in the way of her intentions to uncover the truth.)
posted by threehundredandsixty at 9:29 AM on November 15, 2005

Well, it may be about Chalabi (or rather, her dinner with Chalabi and her busy flight schedule), but then why was Huff name dropping washed up 80's actors?

And here's Chris Hitchen's take on wether on not Chalabi bamboozeled anyone into war for balance.

Also, John Cusack has an unhealthy obsession with Jon Stewart, and doesn't proofread. And misuses question marks.
posted by loquax at 9:34 AM on November 15, 2005

But wait...

what was Cusack wearing?
posted by OhPuhLeez at 10:00 AM on November 15, 2005

Christopher Hitchens? "...For balance."

Please. I might be more charitable towards that shrill, shilling and self-serving demagogue if his prose style wasn't so fucking excrable.
posted by Haruspex at 10:18 AM on November 15, 2005

A more timely Cusack film title...

A more topical post title: My Dinner with Ahmed.
posted by alms at 10:24 AM on November 15, 2005

Lol Chris Hitchens is drunk lol.

Sigh.

Surely we can get an Iranian Cleric's take on all of this... you know... for "balance".
posted by basicchannel at 10:29 AM on November 15, 2005

Thanks for that, loquax. That's a new low even for Hitchens. He's been plumbing new depths for a couple of years now but I've gone from my original dismay at finding the occasional strawman in his articles to -- as in the case of that one -- having to look hard to find anything that's not. Intentionally hazy and dishonest dribblings from someone who was once notable for incisiveness and clarity. Very depressing.
posted by George_Spiggott at 10:34 AM on November 15, 2005

Please. I might be more charitable towards that shrill, shilling and self-serving demagogue if his prose style wasn't so fucking excrable.

Funny, I feel the same way about Ariana.
posted by loquax at 10:34 AM on November 15, 2005

washed up 80's actors?

heathen
posted by MikeKD at 10:44 AM on November 15, 2005

if his prose style wasn't so fucking excrable.
posted by Haruspex at 12:18 PM CST on November 15

This is funny for so many reasons.

Hitchens is a phenomenal essayist. He has an amazing mastery of the English language and prose. It goes a lot to your credibility that you would attack him on that ground. Disagreeing with makes sense. The "he is a drunk" line, while ad hominem and irrelvant, at least has the virtue of being correct. But to criticize his prose? That is just silliness.
posted by dios at 10:59 AM on November 15, 2005

And here's Chris Hitchen's take on wether on not Chalabi bamboozeled anyone into war for balance.

Hitchens and Chalabi are good friends, and lately Hitchens has been saying that he thinks Chalabi cracked the Iranian codes himself, or something like that because "he's a mathematician".
posted by delmoi at 11:30 AM on November 15, 2005

Isn't it cute when politicos namedrop like giddy schoolgirls?!?!
posted by wavespy at 11:31 AM on November 15, 2005

I don't think Ariana has a neutral position in this, but her article was mostly a recounting of the evening (with a little red-meat thrown in at the end).
posted by delmoi at 11:31 AM on November 15, 2005

loquax writes "And here's Chris Hitchen's take on wether on not Chalabi bamboozeled anyone into war for balance."

I wonder if you can smell the desperation on Hitchens' person as clearly as you can smell it from his talking-points-loaded "take". "How could they persuade a vast organization, equipped with satellite surveillance that can almost read a license plate from orbit, of a plain untruth?", he asks... well, evidently those satellites can't find a 6 foot 7 Yemeni in Pakistan, never mind a license plate.
posted by clevershark at 11:44 AM on November 15, 2005

dios writes "Hitchens is a phenomenal essayist. He has an amazing mastery of the English language and prose."

It's only too bad that he has decided to make such an utter waste of himself by endorsing lies and mediocrity to the extent to which he has done for the past, what, 7-8 years?
posted by clevershark at 11:46 AM on November 15, 2005

Surreal indeed. You all thought it was strange for Cusak to be calling Huffington? Half the reason it was so surreal is that it reaveals what a small world the public circles of our society are contained in...
posted by VulcanMike at 11:59 AM on November 15, 2005

Far be it for me to malign talented drunks — some of my favorite prosodists have been staggering inebriates (Malcolm Lowry, anyone?). But your assertion defending him, Dios, is simply that, an unfounded assertion, and 'amazing mastery' is exemplary puerile puffery in itself.

Suasive diction is clarity and control over vocabulary; Hitchens possesses neither. Clarity of language is due to clarity of thought; Hitchens clearly lacks any. My enduring disdain for Hitchens' political views is largely based on his inability to ever express those views cogently, effectively and with conviction.

But by all means, Dios, declare silliness as you see fit. It's of no concern to me. For that matter, if Emile Zola were somehow exhumed, brainwashed and hired as a staff member of the American Enterprise Institute, I think even a ringing J'Accuse [Non] would be hard pressed to redeem Hitchens' dearest collaborator.
posted by Haruspex at 12:16 PM on November 15, 2005

Haruspex, I'm inclined to let your laughable statements pass without comment. But I will note that I think your point is obvious: you are attacking of the best in the world at a particular task in order to subconsciously place yourself above him and indicate your believed superiority over all of English writing. You even go so far as he has no clarity or control over vocabulary.

I really feel no need to argue with you on this. He has the skins and awards on the wall, your disdain notwithstanding. But feel free to argue absurdly moronic things such as that one of the best writers around is, in truth, a drooling monkey with a typewriter.
posted by dios at 12:23 PM on November 15, 2005

Don't whimper so, Dios. It's unbecoming, or, to deploy your favored mode of rhetorical evasion, it's "immature." I'm sorry if I denigrated your favorite dipsomaniacal ex-Trotskyite scribbler, okay? Surely he'll recover.

But the contention remains valid: Hitchens provides no balance to a discussion of Chalabi's corruption. Refute without resorting to monkeys.
posted by Haruspex at 12:36 PM on November 15, 2005

But the contention remains valid: Hitchens provides no balance to a discussion of Chalabi's corruption. Refute without resorting to monkeys.

Again, but Ariana does? Hitchens and Huffington are probably at equidistant points from "neutral" or "unbiased".
posted by loquax at 12:47 PM on November 15, 2005

Hitchens on Mother Teresa.

Hitchens on Reagan.

I really enjoyed some of his essays and books, but he's not someone I'd point to as an exemplar of masterful essay writing. Good at times. And while I admire his consistency with regards to his feelings about Saddam and Iraq, it's a shame he can't come out and admit that Bush and Blair are far from Churchill and FDR, and that the whole debacle needs to be thoroughly re-thought if it's ever going to have a chance of rising above a complete clusterfuck that bolsters both Al-Qaida types and the regional dictators that were there in the first place.

His piece on Chalabi is crap--"yes he's a crook but he's our crook." That type of stuff used to be beneath him. I think someone's use of the term "desperation" is appropriate to many of his pieces as of late.
posted by bardic at 12:57 PM on November 15, 2005

Megu is surreal enough without Chalabi, Cusack, and Huffington.
posted by dontoine at 1:29 PM on November 15, 2005

Tea With Chalabi?
posted by darkstar at 1:43 PM on November 15, 2005

a vast organization, equipped with satellite surveillance that can almost read a license plate from orbit

Are those the same satellites that couldn't detect the phantom WMDs or see them being moved to Syria?

His piece on Chalabi is crap--"yes he's a crook but he's our crook.

Funny, we used to say the same thing about Saddam.
posted by kirkaracha at 2:11 PM on November 15, 2005

A more timely Cusack film title

The Sure Thing? Better Off Dead? Hot Pursuit? The Grifters? True Colors? Money for Nothing? Con Air?
posted by kirkaracha at 2:14 PM on November 15, 2005

Con Heir?
posted by Haruspex at 2:18 PM on November 15, 2005

Arianna is pretty fuckin' hot, I'd be calling her at 12:30 too if I had her number.
posted by afx114 at 2:46 PM on November 15, 2005

This post sucks.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 2:48 PM on November 15, 2005

Better Off Dead is the greastest movie of the decade known as the 80s. There, I said it.
posted by euphorb at 3:53 PM on November 15, 2005

"I want my two dollars!"
posted by wavespy at 4:15 PM on November 15, 2005

I still don't know who Chalabi is. But now I don't care. The system works!
posted by Eideteker at 4:31 PM on November 15, 2005

Metafilter: Refute without resorting to monkeys.

That's my first one of those. Is it OK?
posted by Cookiebastard at 4:59 PM on November 15, 2005

Dinner with Chalabi

You don't need to take him out to dinner, he'll fuck you for free.
posted by dgaicun at 8:54 PM on November 15, 2005

It would have been wittier to call it "My dinner with Ahmed". You know, echoes of "My dinner with Andre" and all that.
posted by clevershark at 9:07 PM on November 15, 2005

Guys, I gotta have more Cusack.

If all Chalabi has done is all by design I applaud his expertise (not, of course, his goals or morals). One of the best strategies is the old "let's you and him fight."
posted by Smedleyman at 9:26 PM on November 15, 2005

fucking excrable.

Why is it that I cannot find this (second) word anywhere except used as a (probably erroneous) substitute for "execrable"?
posted by Wolof at 9:29 PM on November 15, 2005

Right you are, Wolof. Rage impairs proofing. Clenched teeth are apt to foil a few vowels.
posted by Haruspex at 3:34 AM on November 16, 2005

The excrable pedant = excreable man gunk.
posted by dgaicun at 10:34 AM on November 16, 2005

Foiled teeth and clenched bowels aside, if Chalabi a convicted criminal in another country, why is he allowed to traipse around and schmooze with our muckety-mucks? Why isn't he just arrested and extradited?

Diplomatic immunity? FBI malaise? Sunspots? What?
posted by darkstar at 5:19 PM on November 18, 2005