The Hashemite King, Abdullah II of Jordan, yesterday gave an interview to CNN in which he sneered at the leader of the Iraqi National Congress, Ahmad Chalabi. The last time America fought a war against Saddam Hussein, back in 1991, Abdullah’s father, King Hussein, sided with Saddam, refusing to join the coalition assembled by President George H.W. Bush.

This time around, the King of Jordan — now Abdullah II — is doing what he can to make sure that America loses the peace, by undermining the one man best able to put Iraq on the course to future of freedom, democracy, and rule of law.

“I don’t particularly think I’ve ever met the gentleman, but as you just said, he’s wanted for embezzling people’s funds in both Jordan, Lebanon. There’s a case in the banking system in Switzerland. So he does have a big question mark over his head,” Abdullah II said. “But if you look at a potential future for Iraq, I would imagine that you’d want somebody who suffered alongside the Iraqi people. This particular gentleman, I think, left Iraq when he was, I think, 11 or 7. And so, what contacts does he have with the people on the street?”

CNN hasn’t exactly covered itself with glory on the Iraqi front, what with the admission of its chief news executive, Eason Jordan, that the network regularly suppressed news of Saddam’s atrocities. Mr. Jordan had his reasons for that, but one can only wonder what were the reasons that the network yesterday failed to challenge the Hashemite ruler with the obvious follow-up questions.

Here are some that the network might have put to Abdullah II:

1. You yourself left Jordan before age 10 to attend St. Edmund’s School in Surrey, England, and then Eaglebrook School and Deerfield Academy in Deerfield, Mass. Then you went to the Royal Military Academy in Sandhurst, England. You also spent years taking degrees at Oxford, England, and at the Georgetown University School of Foreign Service. Isn’t it hypocritical of you to criticize Mr. Chalabi for not suffering alongside the Iraqi people? After all, you weren’t exactly suffering alongside the Jordanian people.

2. About that alleged embezzlement. The Jordanian charges against Petra Bank, which you refer to, were made in a special “security court” established under martial law — an emergency measure adopted following the war in 1967. If the charges were so strong, why weren’t they made in an ordinary Jordanian court?

3. This special Jordanian security court was established on April 1, 1992. It had its first hearing on April 8, 1992. The following day, April 9, 1992, the court handed down a 223-page decision against Mr. Chalabi. How was it possible for this court to thoroughly and fairly examine matters involving a complex international banking empire and issue a 223-page ruling all in the space of 24 hours? Is this the way the rule of law works in Jordan?

4. Did the timing of the Jordanian security court’s attack on Mr. Chalabi and his bank have anything to do with Mr. Chalabi’s appearance in a “60 Minutes” segment in early 1992, in which he showed documents detailing the links of your father, King Hussein, to arms purchases by Saddam Hussein’s Iraq?

5. After Mr. Chalabi was convicted, he apparently met twice with your father. If these Jordanian banking abuses of which Mr. Chalabi was supposedly guilty of were so severe, why did the king not arrest him?

6. Prince Hassan of Jordan, your father’s brother, made a surprise appearance at an Iraqi opposition meeting held in July at London, where he gave a luncheon speech on the historical ties between Iraq and Jordan, the New York Times reported. The meeting was led and organized by Mr. Chalabi, who was in attendance. If Mr. Chalabi was so discredited by this banking scandal, what is Prince Hassan doing signaling support by attending his meetings?

7. You seem, Your Royal Highness, to be keeping close track of this legal matter. How come you didn’t mention that the only time the Petra Bank case went before a serious court, in Hong Kong in 1993, the court found that under British law the whole Jordanian martial law takeover of the bank had been illegal?

8. America’s Central Intelligence Agency has a long and close collaboration with the Jordanian royal family and its intelligence service. The CIA is known to be a bitter enemy of Mr. Chalabi, preferring to push its own Iraqi opposition figures. Abdullah II, were your comments about Mr. Chalabi made at the behest of the CIA?

Now, Mr. Chalabi’s opponents have every right, no doubt, to respond to the pressing needs for reconstruction and new leadership in Iraq by excavating the details of a decade-old Jordanian banking matter. But the public deserves to know that there are plenty of more questions, and not all of them have answers that will make the current Jordanian regime and its defenders particularly comfortable.

Why CNN didn’t ask those questions in its encounter with Abdullah II is beyond us. But it wouldn’t surprise us if in years hence a future CNN executive will take to the pages of the New York Times to offer a guilt-wracked apologia about the questions that the network failed to pose when they needed to be asked — and could have made a difference.