Whatever the merits of that raid yesterday, it seems to me some conservatives take their loyalty to Chalabi too far. Here is the beginning of the Wall Street Journal editorial on the matter: “Someday we hope U.S. officials will explain to us how in scarcely a year they managed to turn one of our closest allies in ousting Saddam Hussein into an opponent of American purposes.” Uh, isn’t it at least possible that Chalabi has been in the wrong? Also, people who are usually hawks on Iran and oppose all Iranian influence in Iraq sing a different tune when it comes to Chalabi. The New York Sun in its editorial today says of the Bush administration’s case against Chalabi: “If it involves Iran, the administration will have to explain why Mr. Chalabi’s dealings with Iran are worse than their own negotiations in Geneva or worse than those of other Iraqi faction with which America regularly does business.” But wait a minute. If Chalabi’s really our guy, shouldn’t he be purer on Iran than other players in Iraq? And if the New York Sun criticizes others for being entangled with Iran, why doesn’t Chalabi come in for that criticism too?