"What the caterpillar calls the end of life, wise men call a butterfly."

I'm not sure where this comes from since the person posting it didn't site a source, but it's an interesting take on Chalabi:

"The raids on the residence and offices of Ahmad Chalabi mark the end of warm relations between the former exile and the Bush administration. The genie, however, may not be so easy to return to the bottle. After years of giving Chalabi power, money and influence, he reigns over a web of control "that stretches from the oil industry to the banking system to the purges of former members of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party." Analysts say that "unless the Bush administration moves to dismantle his empire, Chalabi will continue controlling much of Iraq's politics from behind the scenes, and he could seriously disrupt American plans for turning over nominal sovereignty to a new Iraqi government on June 30." The fall of the darling of the right from leader of a free Iraq to embarrassing liability is another black eye for the Pentagon, which built its case for war based on unreliable and self-serving intelligence it received from Chalabi. The White House planned for massive stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction; a war which would pay for itself; a small postwar stabilization force; and a population ready to welcome American troops as liberators."

Guess none of that was true, was it? Seems like whoever is spinnning this story is making Chalabi out to be the fall guy. What isn't mentioned is that the Pentagon and the Administration had the duty and obligation to verify any information Chalabi provided them. If they failed to do so, didn't provide due diligence prior to committing American troops and taxpayers money, or simply chose to believe his story because it was convenient for their agenda, then who's the guilty party?