Being a Good Liar, Mr. Ledeen, Requires a Good Memory

By Meteor Blades

When choosing who among the neo-conservative imperialists has most completely adopted the politics of Darth Vader, Michael Ledeen surely must rank near the top. Among those without a sense of history, Ledeen is probably best known for his columns at National Review Online in which he repeats his signature “Faster, please” regarding what he believes is the sine qua non of the “war on terror,” regime change in Tehran brought about by intensive and extensive U.S. assistance to internal and exiled Iranian resistance groups.

In the late 1970s, Ledeen had connections to ultra-rightists in the Italian intelligence services (SISMI) at a time when neo-fascists were engaged in what amounted to a terrorist war in Italy.

In the 1980s, he was a go-between for dealings between the Reagan Administration and Iran arms dealer Manucher Ghorbanifar in what would come to be known as the Iran-contra affair.

In December 2001, he arranged a meeting in Rome among members of SISMI, Ghorbanifar and U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency officials, including Larry Franklin, who worked at Donald Rumsfeld’s Office of Special Plans and was sentenced to nearly 13 years in prison earlier this year for passing secrets to Israel. Ledeen was a consultant for Douglas Feith, another NeoImp who ran the OSP. Vincent Cannistraro, former head of counterterrorism operations at the CIA, and former CIA counter-terrorism officer Philip Giraldi, have both strongly implicated Ledeen in the forgeries of documents designed to show Saddam Hussein had attempted to buy “yellowcake” uranium from Niger, which Ledeen has hotly denied. You can read more in Craig Unger’s lengthy article in Vanity Fair, a piece which Ledeen has even more hotly denied.

That list barely scratches the surface. If you're really interested in Ledeen's thought processes, you might want to check out my blogmate emptywheel's take in Michael Ledeen's Wilderness of Mirrors.

Now, Ledeen has joined the growing parade of NeoImps who have sought one way or another to dissociate themselves from the war on Iraq, some even going so far as to say they wouldn’t have supported it knowing what they know now. But Ledeen goes a good deal further.

As Mona (via Glenn Greenwald) points out at Inactivist, Ledeen falsely claims he never did support the invasion. And he’s nasty about it. He says at NRO’s The Corner:

My experience with Vanity Fair is even more extensive than David Frum’s, having been the subject of a 30,000 word screed that ends with the author's bland confession "there is no evidence for any of this." So I am not at all surprised to see the editors yank words from me, David, and others out of context and totally misdescribe what we think, do and feel. I do not feel "remorseful," since I had and have no involvement with our Iraq policy. I opposed the military invasion of Iraq before it took place and I advocated—as I still do—support for political revolution in Iran as the logical and necessary first step in the war against the terror masters. …

So it is totally misleading for Vanity Fair to suggest that I have had second thoughts about our Iraq policy. But then one shouldn't be surprised. No one ever bothered to check any of the lies in the first screed, and obviously no fact-checker was involved in the latest "promotion." [My emphasis - MB]

Just one problem, as Mona says: Ledeen wrote a column in August 2002, Scowcroft Strikes Out, in which he does support the invasion.

Even more telling is an August 2002 interview with the execrable FrontPageMag.com (which I will not directly link, but you can read in its entirety at [frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=2325]).

The interview was conducted by Jamie Glazov. I have excised comments from the other participants: Vladimir Bukovsky, Richard Pipes and Fred Barnes.

Question #1: Gentlemen, should we go to war against Iraq?

Ledeen: We have been at war with Iraq for years, since we performed victory interruptus at the end of the Gulf War phase. Iraq has attempted to assassinate a former American president, broken the agreement to permit international inspectors, aided anti-American terrorists both internationally and within the United States, and called for anti-American jihad with monotonous regularity. The only question is whether or not we’re prepared to finally wage the war in such a way as to win it.

Question #2: Okay, well if we are all so certain about the dire need to invade Iraq, then when do we do so?

Ledeen: Yesterday.

Question #3: Aside from the "invasion idea," does the State Deptartment's idea of a coup make any sense?

Ledeen: The idea of a coup is very bad because we want to change the regime, not replace the tyrant. We want a freer Iraq, not merely to topple one military despot and install a successor.

Question #4: The impression appears to be that the American government is very isolated in its fear of Saddam getting his hands on nuclear weapons? Why is this?

Ledeen: We’re not isolated. Allied governments are reluctant to publicly announce their support until and unless they see we are serious. Once that happens they will be begging to participate. Or do you think they really want to be locked out of the oil market?

Questions # 5, #6, #7:

No reply from Ledeen.

Question #8: Let us suppose that, for one reason or another, the U.S. suddenly becomes afraid to act and does not invade Iraq. What are the consequences?

Ledeen: If we don't remove Saddam, we will not only encourage him to use his most terrible weapons, first against Israel and then against us, but also encourage the entire terror network and the other "terror masters," Syria and Iran. Finally, it will strengthen the radical wing of the Saudi royal family, which will in turn reinforce the ideological assembly line of terrorists: the worldwide network of radical schools and mosques funded by the Saudis.

Question #9: I know we have all gone over this a thousand times, and at the risk of repeating a broken record, let me ask this one more time: was it a mistake not to take Saddam out in the Gulf War? Part of the wisdom not to have unseated him was, apparently, the philosophy of the evil we know is better than the evil we don’t know. In other words, maybe some fanatical Islamo-Fascists might have replaced him. There was also the fear of igniting mass hatred from the Arab world. Do these considerations matter anymore in the context of the upcoming war?

Ledeen: Yes we should have removed Saddam in '91, only the 41 loyalists and assorted fools think otherwise.

Question #10: Let’s put Saddam aside for a moment. Personally, I am very pessimistic about the West’s ability to defeat this new threat in militant and radical Islam. I think that the Soviet and Fascist threats were easier to deal with. In the end, I fear that the radical Muslims, especially in the Arab world, will always stick together, and we will be dealing with millions upon millions of religious fanatics who not only seek our death, but also their own. How can we be confident in facing Islamic messianism? I don’t think we’ve ever seen a threat like this and I doubt that our Western democracies have the resolve or capability to defeat it. Please tell me I am wrong.

Ledeen: Yes of course we're going to win, and we're going to remove the tyrannies in Iran and Syria, and either Saudi Arabia is going to change their policies — shutting down the radical schools and mosques — or we will have to go after them as well. Remember there are lots of overqualified unemployed Hashemites nowadays. You don't believe we will win because you haven't studied our history. If it were Europe you might be right; Europe is ready to surrender to anyone. They tried hard to surrender to the Soviet Union but it just didn't work out for them, poor things. But we are talking about America, and Americans love to fight and love to win.

Question #11:

No reply from Ledeen.

Question #12: I would not be content with just a war against Iraq. The bottom line is that, notwithstanding how many Westerners want to keep their head buried in the sand, we are at war. And we are at war with radical Islam — with which Hussein has been complicit in launching terrorism against the West. We have to hit them before they hit us. So we have to go after the others once we finish off Iraq. Can we agree on who the others are?

Ledeen: As for radical Islam, I think you'll find them less vigorous and less united once we've smashed them. But we're taking too long, that's the main problem these days.

“But then one shouldn’t be surprised. No one ever bothered to check any of the lies” in Ledeen’s vitriolic claim at NRO. Five minutes on that modern invention called Google was all it took.

Comments

[freepatriot]

Mr. ladeen just forgot to invent the memory hole, that's all

or maybe the innertubes just have a liberal bias

either way, you gotta bet that these stupid fuckers already knew we were writing this stuff down and keeping backup copies ???

they can't be THAT STUPID, can they ???

[William Ockham]

MB,

Mr. Ledeen would doubtless disagree with the assertion in your post title. His notion of a good lie is simply one that serves his current purpose. He knows he doesn't have to worry about whether or not his current lies are consistent with his past ones for the simple reason that his target audience won't care. The true believers have already donned their reality interference headgear (which for some is no more complicated than sticking their fingers in their ears and repeating "Nah, nah, nah, I can't hear you") and the policymakers he hopes to influence are more than happy with Ledeen's amoral propaganda, no internal consistency required as long as it fires up the rubes.

The really amazing thing about Mr. Ledeen is that the sum of all his efforts over the last 25 years has been to strengthen the hand of his putative enemies, the most radical leaders of the Islamic revolution in Iran. Every single time the U.S. has followed Mr. Ledeen's advice, the Iranians, especially the radical mullahs, have benefitted. Unlike Mr. Chalabi, who is rather obviously an agent of the Iranian government, Mr. Ledeen truly seems to be the classic "useful idiot".

[katie Jensen]

Great post! It's amazing to me to think that the consequences of the Nixon dysfunction are still affecting our government and society today. I just don't think we really had a handle of the true seriousness of the Nixon years. It is, as if I needed the cumulative knowledge of the past administrations and Bush to fully understand the consequences of the Nixon Administration. I pray that we as a nation learn from the bigger picture and understand that the black and white thinking, the cognitive distortions were symptoms of a some very pathological people.

Will we as a nation get better at recognizing that when simplicity replaces complexity and elegance is not the outcome, we are looking at a distorted vision. We don't have to argue about right or wrong, we only need to recognize how to know if it's a distortion or not. It's a distortion if the speech is full of black and white thinking and many judgments. If we are arguing right and wrong instead discussing the viability of a solution, we need to be wary. That's how americans can know the difference between pathology and leadership. I pray we learn from this administration, how to recognize despotism for future generations.

[profmarcus]

i confess to having been only dimly aware of michael ledeen... i know he's been a strong force within the neocon cabal that's driven us to the brink of complete foreign policy and international relations meltdown, but i had never associated him with outright evil of the sort that karl rove has inadvertently shown us on occasion - until this...
-----
Ledeen: Yes of course we're going to win, and we're going to remove the tyrannies in Iran and Syria, and either Saudi Arabia is going to change their policies -- shutting down the radical schools and mosques -- or we will have to go after them as well. Remember there are lots of overqualified unemployed Hashemites nowadays. You don't believe we will win because you haven't studied our history. If it were Europe you might be right; Europe is ready to surrender to anyone. They tried hard to surrender to the Soviet Union but it just didn't work out for them, poor things. But we are talking about America, and Americans love to fight and love to win.
-----
up to this point, i had seen ledeen as just another neocon ideologue, huffing and puffing about the u.s. manifest destiny as world savior, but it was his comments about europe that stopped me cold... and it's not even his views ABOUT europe that i find so appalling... it's the cold, cruel - yes, evil - way he phrased them... it's the same reaction i had to ron suskind's description * of what he heard while waiting outside karl rove's white house office... there's a difference between being an ideologue and being pathologically evil... congratulations, mr. ledeen... you've joined karl at the top of my list of darkest forces...
-----
* Eventually, I met with Rove. I arrived at his office a few minutes early, just in time to witness the Rove Treatment, which, like LBJ’s famous browbeating style, is becoming legend but is seldom reported. Rove’s assistant, Susan Ralston, said he’d be just a minute. She’s very nice, witty and polite. Over her shoulder was a small back room where a few young men were toiling away. I squeezed into a chair near the open door to Rove’s modest chamber, my back against his doorframe.

Inside, Rove was talking to an aide about some political stratagem in some state that had gone awry and a political operative who had displeased him. I paid it no mind and reviewed a jotted list of questions I hoped to ask. But after a moment, it was like ignoring a tornado flinging parked cars. "We will fuck him. Do you hear me? We will fuck him. We will ruin him. Like no one has ever fucked him!" As a reporter, you get around—curse words, anger, passionate intensity are not notable events—but the ferocity, the bellicosity, the violent imputations were, well, shocking. This went on without a break for a minute or two. Then the aide slipped out looking a bit ashen, and Rove, his face ruddy from the exertions of the past few moments, looked at me and smiled a gentle, Clarence-the-Angel smile. "Come on in." And I did. And we had the most amiable chat for a half hour.
-----
every so often, someone will tip his hand, and you can see the real person behind the imago... rove's revealing moment for me was the above... for ledeen, it was the interview with frontpagemag... in that one brief instant, the mask is off, and you can see the true evil underneath...

http://takeitpersonally.blogspot.com/

[smiley]

The sad thing is, he probably knows too much. I mean, this guy is a dirty spy who has been involved with under-the-table CIA bullshit for over 40 years. He's probably unindictable because he knows where too many bodies are buried. I've noticed in the last month of reading SCOTUS decisions that there is an unspoken undercurrent that runs through many of them, that unites even Crazy Tony with his liberal colleagues. That undercurrent is encouraging respect for the institution. Teaching another generation that provoking instability and war in the middle east has been our official policy for at least the last 60 years will not encourage respect for the institution of American government.

If the depths of Leeden's perfidity were exposed for the world to see, we'd have to dismantle the CIA entirely, and I'm sure that the top brass of that Agency have sufficiently... persuasive... materials...(cough blackmail cough) to ensure that would never happen.

I think the best we can hope for is that someone will order him to be fitted for cement shoes. And then Negroponte will throw him out of a helicopter into the ocean.

[pol]

What is so disgusting is that Ledeen's wife, Barbara, is involved with a group that throws monthly parties for the Iraq War wounded who are receiving treatment at Walter Reed Army Hospital. A friend told me that a group from his church helped out, and I thought I might like to be a part. When I looked into it, it was a party organized by Barbara and buddies and attended by neoconservatives.

Can you believe the hypocrisy?

They set aside the second Saturday of every month for a party, where volunteers and soldiers could meet. When the Iraq War started, she and two career officers -retired admiral John Totushek and Lt. Gen. Theodore Stroup Jr.--formed another group, the Helping Our Heroes Foundation, to help wounded veterans deal with financial crises, career and educational problems, and other challenges of reentry into civilian life. The group held a Memorial Day dinner last May that brought patients together with 35 Republican senators. The group's first Hire a Hero evening-an event that brings veterans together with potential employers--was held on December 8.

When Theobald and the patients ran into political problems-red tape and some institutional roadblocks--Theobald called Barbara Ledeen, an aide to Rick Santorum at the Senate Republican Conference who has a large circle of activist friends. Ledeen started coming to the Saturday parties, and before long she was acting as a one-woman switchboard, connecting veterans and families to their senators and congressmen, working to secure help and money, and leaning on uncooperative bureaucrats. In September 2003, Ledeen began sending out mass e-mails to all the Hill's Republican staffers, urging them and their bosses to appear at the Saturday parties. Staffers from Tom DeLay's office, for example, began to appear every month. Senators Ted Stevens, John Cornyn, and Jeff Sessions came, and spent hours visiting patients in wards.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_25_56/ai_n13619686

[prostratedragon]

Can you believe the hypocrisy?

Thank you for pointing this out, I had never heard of these parties. I think it is worse than just hypocrisy, though, it is encouraging feelings in the veterans and families that these are the people who care about their specific needs, despite the facts that a---it still does not force the government as a whole —through, you know, the due processes of budget appropriations and spending— to fulfill its obligations (and all ours by extension) to all veterans, even though B.Ledeen is probably well-connected enough to mount an effort that would lead to a proper government response; and b---instead of feeling that they have been treated fairly and received their due from the government that sent them into danger and demanded so much else from them, the vets and their families are being set up to bond and feel gratitude to the people who deliberately and with the deepest, and dare I say philosophically "justified," cyncism, used them.

It is deeply corrupt stuff. Some might say I'm being unfair in judging so harshly, but I say that people who advertise themselves as having such penetrating insight into the workings of people's minds that they can "leverage" even whole nations in the way they want them to go, should be presumed to make the effort to do so whenever it might be useful to them.

[prostratedragon]

Glen Greenwald, who cites, the DKos version of this article, has an excellent point and an excellent idea for all of these lying retreaters. The point:

I don't think any sentient human being will believe that Ledeen forgot that he was a proponent of this invasion. It is clear that he simply wants to disassociate himself from the worst strategic disaster made by our country in a long time, if not ever, by lying about his support for it. He's trying to preserve his credibility in order to enable himself, NR, and the AEI to continue to drive our country's foreign policy -- particularly the additional regime change adventures they want in many more countries -- and it is intolerable for this to be permitted. [My emphasis---pd]

Actually, this is only one of several excellent points, but maybe the most important. The idea:

… doesn't Rich Lowry, the Editor of NR, have an obligation -- at the very least -- to print a retraction or correction of Ledeen's lie? And are NR's journalistic standards so low or non-existent that they would continue to allow someone like Ledeen, who blatantly lies about such a critical issue, to continue to write for them? You can (and, I think, should) ask Lowry about that by e-mailing him …

Some useful e-mail addresses are at Unclaimed Territory,

http://tinyurl.com/yyydfh

[Dominic]

.