Comments on: Wall Street Journal Stands by Its Man, Chalabi

By: Montag

Montag — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 21:52:37 +0000

Once again we marvel at the incredibly cheap cost of words and strategies, and the incredible pain and suffering those words lead to.

Wolfowitz could not even conceptualize how keeping his ex-lover on the payroll would play out. Chalabi is ” a brilliant mathematican, a chess player…”
Whatever this is supposed to be, it is actually a poor attempt at screenplay writing, and is contemptuously set forth, as if something that totally ignores the morals of the individual but lauds his smarts should be a reason to trust such a person.
May as well trust Alcibidiades.

Pretty soon, we will all have had quite enough of the depredations of the best and the brightest, from Iraq to Wall Street.

And Bobby Fisher was a better chess player.

By: lester

lester — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 17:23:46 +0000

not hard to believe a group as isolated and out of touch with reality as the neo cons would have their whole set of people they like and don’t turned on it’s head and they would not want to talk about it. It’s a testament to the weakness of the ideology itself.

so is Chalabi now some kind of neo neo con or something? I say it’s highly important we do not at all consider the ideas of either he or the old neos. let them peddle these weird ideas to themselves at the AEI and to those dumb enough to invest with this guys “iraq based investment bank” respectively

By: DICKERSON3870

DICKERSON3870 — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 14:53:42 +0000

RE:”I am told by a reliable informant who attended AEI’s pre-election forum…”
MY COMMENT: Admit it!!! You’re tormented by your having been declared persona non grata by “The Institute”*.
*Use of “The Institute” (in the place of AEI) just might be an allusion to Kafka. But then, one never knows for certain.

By: DICKERSON3870

DICKERSON3870 — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 14:35:09 +0000

RE: “…the inclusion of Syria — whom neo-cons like Elliott Abrams consider close to the the devil incarnate…”
MY QUESTION: Might this be a classic example of what Freud referred to as ‘psychological projection’? After all, no less of a neo-con authority than the “Reverend” John Hagee has said that the anti-Christ will be “a Jew” (or “part Jew”). Personally, I’ve never believed in what Einstein referred to as “purely primitive legends”, but I’m not opposed to ‘hedging my bets’(à la Wall Street).
Psychological projection – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection
Einstein quote – http://www.lettersofnote.com/2009/10/word-god-is-product-of-human-weakness.html