Walid Jumblat's Excellent Adventure in Washington, DC: The New US Favorite Warlord From Lebanon. And why this former admirer of Zarqawi became an admired guest at Rice's Department of State.
I have received several accounts of Jumblat's appearance in Washington, DC at the Saban Center. My friends and friends of the site sent me their observations, or transcripts. I shall share some. Z. said:

"As to Jumblat, I was there with F., D., M., and several others who are proponents of the "wooden language". By and large, WJ's prestation was poor, disappointing. From my perspective, besides his reiteration of his empty slogan and the inherent contradictions in his statements (he blissfully ignored that he was a main partner and beneficiary of Syrian presence in Lebanon) WJ demonstrated the strategic weakness of March 14. He acknowledged that there was no clear strategy to achieve their goals as his opponents are 'formidable'. He reiterated that Shabaa' s farms were not Lebanese. At best, they may be owned by Lebanon but Lebanon had no sovereignty over them unless the Syrians unequivocally stated that Shabaa' s farms were Lebanese. Anyway, he believes that the truce agreement is what Lebanon needed and the implementation of 1559. The most important point in the national dialogue is the removal of the pres ident. However, if the removal of the latter would mean a trade off with the abandonment of 1559 then he would have Lahoud stay. Thus, it is important to disarm Hizbullah if Lebanon is to become independent and free!!! His agenda is therefore the same as that of the Israel and the US. He hopes that the US will provide him with support because March 14 people are not strong enough to provoque the change. He acknowledged the inherent weakness. In the Q&A session, he avoided the pointed questions about why the leaders of March 14 had abandonned the non sectarian demands of the LEbanese youth. His pitiful reply was that he, Hariri, and Geagea have gone beyond sectarianism. If this is true then I am a Martian!!! He urged the Syrian opposition (present in the audience) to seek support for the removal of that "guy" in Damascus.

understand that F.. will be calling you and will brief you orally about the meeting, which as I told you confirmed the dead end situation of the so-called new majority.

He was careful though not to attack either Aoun or Nasrallah though he acknowledged he had differences of opinion. His general demenear showed a lot of stress and he looked somewhat disoriented."
F. reported this:
"He was poor. Bankrupt. A "young" woman (Marchiste) told him that she is disappointed .... that the dividends of her support were nil .... that they (March shit) did not offer anything to the young "hungry for a secular agenda." He told her: "We should have gone all the way and ... gotten rid of Lahoud...." It looked pitiful. Crux of the meeting: "If Hezballah is going to wiggle itself out of 1559 ... then we might as well keep Lahoud..." adding "I do not want to undermine the HIWAR, .... but there are no two ways of getting to 1559..." "... I am here to ask US assistance AGAINST the Syr regime ... bla bla bla .... AND STRENGHTENING OF THE LAF ... because THEY ARE WEAK NOW to IMPLEMENT 1559. (whereas US sources say that the LAF are overly armed... but they need to be REDIRECTED towards the "Real" enemy: Syria). Basically, it was Jumblatt at his lowest .... with nothing to add, nothing to deliver .... but hopes for more delinquency from the Bush administration. He winked from Berri's side as "maghloob 3ala Amroh...." (this was the ONLY worthy comment he made!)
And S. provided a detailed transcript. Some excerpts:
"M[artin]Indyk begins to introduce WJ by noting that he is ‘nervous’ since WJ is such a big target for assassination, and although he is happy that he has come to discuss Lebanon, he is nevertheless slightly shaken by being with him on stage. Goes on to mention WJ’s father Kamal, and WJ’s current passion for the environment and for riding Harley Davidson motorcycles (Harley’s?). MI continues making silly comments about the threats to WJ’s life and how he feels nervous (strangely, he actually did look nervous).His first point is quite blunt: he is here in Washington to ask the US for help against the Syrian dictatorship. (This was basically the only thing he talked about the whole time, in very hollow, empty terms. Many of his answers simply spewed out rhetoric about the need for democracy, transparency, a ‘Lebanese President’, etc, etc. Naturally, all the blame for Lebanon’s ills was put on Syria’s shoulders, specifically Syria’s dictator as he would call him constantly. During his brief lecture and even in the Q&A he was very careful not to be too specific about the ‘help’ he was there to request. Essentially, the ‘help’ he was there requesting was for Washington to continue putting pressure on the Syrians. He did later ask for military assistance, but very little mention at all (other than in very quick passing) was made about economic or political ‘help'...WJ says that the US needs to initiate change in the Arab World and that it started this process by going into Iraq, which he says “started well”. He did not elaborate on how it is going now, or what he meant by that it “started well”. (It was remarkable how he dodged criticizing the American occupation or even American policy towards Iraq, whether in reference to Iraq, Palestine, Syria, or Egypt he seemed to support US policy and ‘efforts’ in the region)...He then said something which I didn’t understand, he said and I quote “What is left of the Arabs?” It was very out of context, but then he went on to repeat the question of how a democracy can exist with a dictatorship. He ended by saying that this question has basically brought him to Washington, and that he is there to request the US’ “help and understanding”.[And then Q&A] Q: Nora [Boustany](couldn’t make out last name, Washington Post), What would the USLebanon? A: The Cedar Revolution is an asset to US policy in the Middle East. By supporting the CR the US demonstrates the positive effects of its policy and the CR can be considered a reliable ally and asset in the region. He also goes on to mention that Egypt, eventually Iraq and even Hamas can become US assets (he had mentioned Hamas earlier, noting that their election victory may actually be a good thing, this comes back to bite him). Q: Harry Mitchell (no affiliation), Why is this in the national security interests of the US? And, to what extent has the country (Lebanon) sought to engage the diaspora in the effort to remove Damascus? A: The US’s credibility in the entire Middle East is at stake (again, the ‘asset’ argument)....Q: MI, Why is the Hamas election a good thing? A: He is not here to defend Hamas (it kept coming up for some reason, he made a big mistake by saying that their election victory could prove beneficial to the US, and people were still trying to figure out what he meant), and the US should go back to the roadmap (at this point, MI noted that it was dead, but didn’t push the point. WJ was clearly trying to weasel his way out of talking about Hamas. He said that Hamas must define its own agenda according to 242. He was clearly agitated talking about Hamas.)...Q: Barry Schwein(?) (Couldn’t quite make out last name, AP), Why is Rice giving you ‘face time’, does it encourage you or is it simply providing you rhetorical denunciations of Syria? Do you hope for something other than words? Did you ask for the meeting with Rice? A: If the US can damage Syria, we do not mind, “this guy in Damascus” won’t stop supporting terrorism. He is there to ask for moral and political support. (He keeps spewing out terrorism/democracy babble and being vague about what sort of ‘help’ he needs. It is amazing how he literally just throws in the words democracy, governancy, transparency, terrorism, freedom, etc, etc, whenever he finds an opportunity)"