Reply #38: The neocons' relationship with Chalabi DATES from that period

[DrBB]

...and before. He was a Univ. of Chicago grad, as were many of the neocns, and though I can't quote chapter and verse off the top of my head, one of his professors introduced him to the neocon back in the 80s, IIRC--early enough to view the PNAC and it's "Let's start with Iraq!" scheme as having been influenced by Chalabian disinformation.

I really don't get this latest instance of DU pretzel logic. The neocons were eager for a certain kind of evidence; Chalabi was eager to supply it to 'em. We already knew that. And now it turns out that not only was a lot of it bogus shit of his own invention, some of it actually was calculated disinformation from Iran.

I can hardly imagine worse news for the Bush admin, if this pans out. Yet I keep reading various versions of the idea that the Chalabi-Iran connection is b.s. and is "really" a scheme to get the neocons off the hook by scapegoating Chalabi. In a word, Huh?

The idea is ridiculous. He was the neocons' darling, very publicly and demonstrably so. If it turns out that the whole time they were proclaiming him the Churchill of Iraq, he was funneling Iranian disinformation straight to Dick Cheney, who was slurping it down like lasagna and turning over the crown jewels of US secret info to Chalabi, who was taking it straight back to Iran, well, I don't think that gets 'em off any hooks. Impales 'em right squarely on a few, far as i can see. It shows 'em being played for chumps, displaying an incompetence verging on high treason in time of war. I can't for the life of me fathom how this is supposed to work to their benefit somehow.