You missed the latest on Chalabi. We've dumped him. Not only that, but now we're saying that he was the source of at least some of the bogus WMD information.
voanews.com
duluthsuperior.com
I've been playing this in my head, trying to follow the pachinko ball around.
We know Chalabi was Woolsey's client, and we know he was Perle's boy, which probably means he was Wolfie's boy, which probably means he was, willy-nilly, Rummy's boy, although who knows? I have a hard time believing he got past Rummy's nose, but then I am a fool for Rummy.
We know Cheney vetted him, went to the mat for him, although we don't really know why - was Woolsey-Perle-Wolfowitz all it took? Maybe so . . . .
We know from what we see about Abu Ghraib that it is an example of CIA and DOD using the long knives against each other, searching for the patsy, but it would be foolish not to expect that CIA isn't monolithic and neither is DOD. Maybe Rummy is dumping Wolfie (who, by the way, I also like. A lot.)
So.
Chalabi is thrown to the wolves (no pun intended) and he's being dumped on as the source of bad info on WMD. Which, as I have been speculating using cui bono as Occam's Razor, makes a great deal of sense, the other obvious source being Mossad. Who, after all, could plausibly convince otherwise intelligent "intelligence agents" that they had actual living people who knew what Saddam was up to and lived to tell the tale?
Well and good, this is immediately apparent to all.
I like to think this is not so immediately obvious -- is the administration admitting that there were no WMD?
Cui bono the sudden appearance of an old Sarin shell? Chalabi struggling to keep his $340K a month (not chicken feed, my dear, is it?)
Much fun. |
