Matt Yglesias’ increasingly knee-jerk dyspepsia toward conservatives continues. He writes of my position of Chalabi: “Jonah Goldberg, wisely, pronounces the whole issue too hard to understand, thus ensuring that whichever faction comes out on top in the end, he’ll be okay.”

Um, isn’t it possible I’m not biding my time in some Machiavellian scheme to “come out on top” (Oh, the glory that will rain upon the conservative who is on the winning side of the Great Chalabi Debate!), but I’m actually being intellectually honest? For the record, I don’t think I’ve ever written a whole paragraph about Achmed Chalabi, though I did interview him by satellite once for a BBC show I was on. I’ve never been able to figure out what the story is on him. My guess is that this is one of those times when both sides are more right than wrong. He is a con man and a political hustler. But lots of good history has been made by people who fit that description (if liberals want nothing to do with such people, I await the purge of Jesse Jackson from liberal ranks, by the way). I guess my problem has always been that I couldn’t ever figure out whether he was the right hustler for the job. I’d share more, but my snitches tell me the pro-Chalabi faction is ascendent and I don’t want to blow my chances at a coupon for a free stuffed-crust pizza at the Baghdad Pizza Hut.