 |
|
Can we expect to see Richard Perle start to defend Chalabi's leaks of the most sensitive US intelligence to the Iranian terror masters? Ledeen? Harold Rhode? Michael Rubin? I hear Larry Franklin isn't defending Chalabi any more.
There are only two defenses I can see: it's not true (seems the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of, it's true). Or, it's okay that Chalabi did it.
Or, there's a third. How about, WE WERE WRONG. We were fools, and dupes. But none of these people seem to have the moral capacity to admit they were wrong. What kind of blindness, what kind of pathological arrogance, prevents these people from ever admitting they are wrong?
MORE: A friend says Chalabi supporters may also use the defense, Chalabi was framed by Iranians who wanted him to be politically neutralized in Iraq. [As if he even needed to be neutralized by outside forces!] That the two Iranians who were detected in an intercept to be discussing what Chalabi supposedly gave them could have been trying to frame him. I find this deeply unconvincing. [Remember how each shred of bogus intel about ties between al Qaeda and Saddam these very same neocons clung to as the holy grail? This is that in reverse].
A question. Is Chalabi simply believed to have conversationally told an Iranian source that the US had broken XYZ communications code? Or is he actually believed to have had physical access to some sort of code breaking technology itself? Why does this matter? Because the number of US officials who might have known the formeris certainly greater than the latter. Even a civilian Pentagon official known to be very close to Chalabi and who believes himself a huge expert on Iran and the Middle East might have heard the latter and passed it on to Chalabi.