A Tiny Revolution
Monday, November 6, 2006

Much of the blurghosphere is gaping in slack-jawed amazement at Michael Ledeen this afternoon. And rightfully so. Others in the right-wing's core of frothing foreign policy lunatics are spectacular liars, landing the equivalent of double and triple axels with ease. But Ledeen has flown far beyond what anyone had dreamed possible for human beings. Behold, the nonuple axel of lying:

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.

WOW. Let's rewind the tape and watch that one again in slow motion.

Mona at Inactivist was the first to pick up on this. She points out that on August 6, 2002, Ledeen ridiculed Brent Scowcroft's concerns that an invasion of Iraq "could turn the whole region into a caldron and destroy the War on Terror." How ridiculous, wrote Ledeen:

One can only hope that we turn the region into a cauldron, and faster, please...

The most dangerous course of action is Scowcroft's: Finesse Iraq...

Then Meteor Blades at Daily Kos quoted Ledeen's responses in an August 12, 2002 Frontpage interview:

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.

Then Glenn Greenwald spoke up, with quotes from a Ledeen Wall Street Journal op-ed.

But there's more. Much, much more.

Sadly, some of this is via Nexis and not on the regular internets. But here it is, in chronological order:

Hardball, August 19, 2002:

MICHAEL LEDEEN, AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE: ...I think in the case of Iraq, the strongest argument for a preemptive strike is to say what I believe which is that we have in effect been at war with Iraq for quite a long time. They have attacked us repeatedly. They tried to assassinate one former American president. They've supported terrorists that have carried out terrorist activities within the United States...So this would not be a preemptive strike. This would be a response...

BARNICLE: So Michael, that begs the question that if we continue to go down this road, as articulated by President Bush at West Point, do we really need as a nation more enemies around the globe?

LEDEEN: I don't think winning this war will create enemies, quite the contrary. I think that enemies would take heart from our failure to wage this war and even more so from our failure to win the war. I don't believe for a minute that the European leaders from today are saying go slow, take it easy...

They know we're going to win this war and they cannot stay out of it. It's just too damaging to them. So I think you'll see a huge change once the war starts and I think that if President Bush is to be faulted for anything in this so far, it's that he's taken much too long to get on with it, much too long.

"Ledeen Keeps Track of Terrorism" by Paula R. Kaufman, Insight Magazine, October 29, 2002

Q: Why then do we need European approval to take down Saddam?

A: We don't. But we will bring down Saddam and when we do we will have Europe's approval. The British, well, there's no uncertainty about them. They're with us all the way. And Italy and Spain are on board.

In the end, however, we will have the approval of the rest...

Q: ...when Bill Clinton was in the White House, Sens. Tom Daschle [D-S.D.], Patrick Leahy [D-Vt.] and John Kerry [D-Mass.] couldn't line up fast enough to flex U.S. military muscle in Iraq. What's going on?

A: It's certainly true that a lot of Democrats were in favor of going after Saddam when Clinton was in power. But they knew Clinton wasn't going to attack Iraq, so it was perfectly safe for them to come out in favor of war. Nonetheless, the stance of some of them today is incredible. If the case for striking tyrants such as Saddam was strong before 9/11, then it certainly is a hell of a lot stronger after 9/11.

"The Blind Leading the Blind" by Michael Ledeen, National Review Online, November 21, 2002:

We are gearing up for a military campaign against Iraq, which, even if it is necessary is only a part of the strategy for the broad war in which we are engaged.

"A Meaningful Address" by Michael Ledeen, New York Sun, January 28, 2003:

The president is well aware of the "uncertainty discount" that afflicts our capital markets nowadays - people are nervous about investing because they are waiting for many shoes to drop, from our long-overdue liberation of Iraq to possible renewed terrorist strikes against us here at home. The longer we dawdle, the greater our anxiety...

The myriad legal minds noodling this issue disagree as to whether or not we were already entitled to strike Iraq, or whether it called for renewed Security Council endorsement. I think the nature of the ceasefire agreement adds a second solid basis for liberating Iraq, along with the self-defense principle.

"The Willful Blindness of those Who Will Not See" by Michael Ledeen, National Review Online, February 18, 2003:

There is no dispute over Iran's preeminent role, even among those experts who shrink from its consequences. Yet Western governments, even the Bush administration, have steadfastly refused to do the one thing that the facts demand: design and conduct a policy to help the Iranian people fulfill their desire for freedom, and bring down the murderous regime in Tehran. Unlike the war against Iraq, it doesn't require bombs or bullets, only the usual kind of financial and moral support we have given to so many freedom fighters in the past. ...

The liberation of Iran would be the greatest imaginable triumph in the war against terrorism, as well as the fulfillment of America's mission to support freedom fighters against their tyrants. As in the war against Iraq, we have already waited far too long to get on with it.

Faster, please!

Michael Ledeen: THE. BEST. THERE. EVER. WAS.

Print Friendly Page

Email

Yahoo! MyWeb Del.icio.us