Once a spinner, always a spinner

We've noted the activities of Dan Senor a couple of times: most recently as a lobbyist for Google, and before that as author of then Iraqi PM Allawi's Bush-Cheney '04 campaign speech to Congress before the last election. He pops up in Friday's Wall Street Journal (subs. req'd), presumably not on time billed to Google, to argue for keeping Sunni insurgents out of the partially formed Iraqi government:

The notion that the [Iraqi] cabinet should have "credibility" with those behind the terrorism is based on a strange idea: that the insurgency exists because Sunnis were disenfranchised. The premise is that Iraqis are being blown up on a daily basis because the insurgents want to join the government. This premise is backwards: The insurgents have never wanted to be in the government; they are against any sort of democracy, and want to destroy it.

Alas! Sunday's New York Times informs us:

WASHINGTON, May 14 - The Bush administration, struggling to cope with a recent intensification of insurgent violence in Iraq, has received signals from some radical Sunni Arab leaders that they would abandon fighting if the new Shiite majority government gave Sunnis a significant voice in the country's political evolution, administration officials said this week.

The officials said American contacts with what they called "rejectionist" elements among Sunni Arabs - the governing minority under Saddam Hussein, which has generated much of the insurgency, and largely boycotted January's elections - showed that many wanted to join in the political system, including the writing of a permanent constitution.

Of course, directly contradicting what Senor says. There are just two possibilities. One is that Senor is plain stupid and forgot to check the latest White House talking points before he rushed to type up an old script for the WSJ. But the other is that there is faction fighting in Washington about how the Iraqi government should be formed, and Senor's WSJ piece was a pre-emptive strike on behalf of the Exclude-the-Sunni crowd in Washington (who probably overlap extensively with the Chalabi boosters). The Sunni inclusionists then strike back with the NYT story.

But what does it say about Dan Senor that something he writes only leads one to wonder whether he's stupid or who he could be spinning for?