Lying About Ledeen: National Review Falsely Claims NeoCon ‘Has Opposed Military Action Against Iran’
Lying About Ledeen: National Review Falsely Claims NeoCon ‘Has Opposed Military Action Against Iran’
The right-wing blogosphere is up in arms over a Rolling Stone article about prominent neo-conservative Michael Ledeen. The article, written by James Bamford, argues that Ledeen was using unreliable intelligence to push the Bush administration into military action against Iran. The National Review’s Andrew McCarthy and Mark Levin claim that the premise of Bramford’s article is flawed because Ledeen opposes military action against Iran:
Yet, anyone even vaguely familiar with Michael’s work knows that he has opposed military action against Iran — notwithstanding that he was years ahead of most experts in accurately portraying Iran’s role as the terror master at the center of the jihadist network.
Ledeen makes a similar argument is his own response to Bramford, claiming “I’ve openly and consistently opposed military invasion.”
Actually, writing for the National Review on July 11, Ledeen said the United States should attack Iran:
But one thing I do know: I would insist that my soldiers have the right of “hot pursuit” into Iran and Syria, and I would order my armed forces to attack the terrorist training camps in those countries.
The National Review has every right to defend Ledeen. But they should at least make a modest effort to get their facts straight.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
52 Responses to “Lying About Ledeen: National Review Falsely Claims NeoCon ‘Has Opposed Military Action Against Iran’”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
F.Y.I. The name is Bamford. James Bamford. The article is great. Ledeen has weakened this countries security.
July 31st, 2006 at 10:12 amOh boy the National Review loves to twist facts > Neocons have been pushing for war on Iran for several years now!
July 31st, 2006 at 10:12 amJudd > just wanted to remind you that Seixon works for the National Review! Strange coincidence or somthing more devious?
July 31st, 2006 at 10:15 amhe did not say that we should attack Iran……what he really said was that we should attack Iran……sheesh
July 31st, 2006 at 10:15 amand what about the terror camps inside Iran’s ally Iraq? When does that attack begin?
July 31st, 2006 at 10:22 amBut they should at least make a modest effort to get their facts straight.
Why start now, I ask you?
July 31st, 2006 at 10:23 amThanks #1 — the correction has been made.
July 31st, 2006 at 10:24 amI think that as the freaks at NRO become increasingly isolated in their imperial delusions we will see their rationalizations will grow ever more twisted (Hitchens is a good example of this kind of pathology). Intellectual dishonesty is already the norm at NRO. Balls out lying in the manner of Bush and Rove can’t be far behind.
July 31st, 2006 at 10:31 amOT
An obscure law approved by a Republican-controlled Congress a decade ago has made the Bush administration nervous that officials and troops involved in handling detainee matters might be accused of committing war crimes and prosecuted in US courts.
July 31st, 2006 at 10:33 amThese guys are all like cheney….hiding in the shadows and controlling the prez but not standing up for their beliefs or positions.
July 31st, 2006 at 10:38 amFlip-flopper. Why has he changed his position? Reality creeping in to his dusty brain?
July 31st, 2006 at 10:38 amNow if we can just get Bill Kristol to admit he’s a lying, snot nosed,
July 31st, 2006 at 10:49 amhypocritical little waste of protoplasm we’ll get some real news.
Bill, you’re not over there defending America.
Why do you hate our troops so much?
Ledeen is just looking for another job for his talentless daughter.
July 31st, 2006 at 11:04 amAgain I will mention this, Mr. Ledeen is the same guy who talks to a dead CIA officer thru a Ouija board and writes about it in the National Review. His is part of the PNAC’s Fantasy Squad. I can’t imagine what else gets him off. He is Bush’s GG Liddy. “Friutcake”, to quote Anthony Hopkins from the movie Nixon.
July 31st, 2006 at 11:05 amWarmonger Boycott Alert:
Michael Ledeen is listed as a boardmember of the Lonestart Steakhouse. So either boycott that rednuck dump or make it your favorite spot to “chew and screw”. Just make sure you tip the waitress.
http://www.lonestarsteakhouse.com/Directors.asp
-GSD
July 31st, 2006 at 11:08 amLedeen’s comments that he would allow hot pursuit into Iran after terrorists who just attacked you is entirely reasonable and anyone with any brains should support it. Likewise his comment that he would strike the terrorist camps there. It is called preemption: you have the right to attack someone who is making ready to attack you, and there is a long history of the right of preemption. See the Caroline incident and the US attack on a Japanese sub trying to enter Pearl Harbor early on Dec 7, 1941.
Neither of these situations is the same as a ground war invasion. Tell me, is there any reason whatsoever that you Lefties would ever support the US actually defending itself? Or Israel? I’d really like to know.
July 31st, 2006 at 11:09 amhey, stogie, is there any vicious, unwarranted, baseless, fact-free set of neocon fantasies you won’t support becasue they’ve scared the shit out of you? Thought not.
July 31st, 2006 at 11:23 amWhat’s wrong with being two-faced about a two-faced liar?
It’s not such a bad thing, if I might not say so myself.
-
July 31st, 2006 at 11:24 amAnd, Stogie, a followup: are there any war crimes the US or Israel can commit that you would like to see prosecuted, or is your neocon fantasy world based on the usual American exceptionalism that’s working so well as we lose three wars simultaneously?
July 31st, 2006 at 11:25 amI don’t know Ledeen’s position on attacking Iran although as hawkish as he usually is, I would be surprised if he really wouldn’t support such an attack if it actually came down to it. He is, from what I have seen of his work, one of the more execrable neocon warhawks.
However, the quote you cite above is misleading at best. In that statement, he is answering a very specific hypothetical and answering it in a somewhat reasonable way. It certainly cannot be taken as proof in and of itself that he supports invasion. Not by a longshot.
July 31st, 2006 at 11:27 amWhat exactly does the NR believe that Ledeen’s incessant “faster, please” tagline really means? Faster diplomacy? Faster infusions of cash to Halliburton? Or it just supposed to be an aside to Victor Davis Hanson, who’s under Ledeen’s desk and down to the short strokes?
July 31st, 2006 at 11:29 amStogie, the only way we can defend ourselves is to have OPEC disbanded. How’s that?
July 31st, 2006 at 11:30 amStogie, go smoke yourself.
-GSD
July 31st, 2006 at 11:31 amThis guy is a clown, no doubt about it. But I’m not sure the quote that has been pulled necessarily stands for the proposition that he supports a full-scale regime change invasion of Iran. I think it is taken a bit out of context - and not very well at that.
In any event, who really gives a crap what this douschebag thinks.
July 31st, 2006 at 11:38 amStogie, give up the Rovian talking points. They don’t play any more, except at NRO, where facts and reality don’t reach.
Defending oneself is not the same as attacking another country. Consider Iraq. We’ve ‘defended ourselves’ into 2600+ dead Americans, $400 Billion of OUR money (much into Halliburton’s vaults), a breeding ground for more terrorists and the disdain of the world. And we found what? A few decades-old munitions we probably supplied Saddam in the first place.
Great policy you Righties came up with. If we ‘defend ourselves’ this well a few more times, there won’t be anything left to defend. Not only that, we’ll have MORE enemies to defend ourselves against!
No - we ‘Lefties’ believe in defending our country - by being smarter than the Dodos running our current foreign policy.
July 31st, 2006 at 11:39 amWe lefties are trying to defend our country from a hostile administration that beleives in paying rightwing companies to jam phone lines on election day to prevent elderly and sick voters from calling for help to get to the voting booths, from an adminstration that believes “if the president does it, it’s not illegal, that believes in jailing American citizens without due process for an endless amount of time, that believes in using federal tax monies to pay for domestic propaganda, that uses spy agencies to spy on Americans without warrants.
That is what is ruining the nation, not a handful of Taliban asswipes in Afghanistan.
-GSD
July 31st, 2006 at 11:43 am25 give up the Rovian talking points comment by liberalpercy
I’ve been thinking that maybe we need to come up with a list of Rovian talking points, typical troll arguments, neocon strawmen, etc. Then, we can all have a copy and one of us post the list at the beginning of each thread. Then, we can respond to trolls with a simple “see post #1″ and ignore their repetitious nonsense.
July 31st, 2006 at 11:46 amNational Review [Online] … should at least make a modest effort to get their facts straight
we’ll find a way to turn lead into gold before that, reality is @ odds w/their entire line of thinking, if they let facts form the basis or their arguments, they woulnd’t be able to support the present administration, and that’s priority number one, facts, reality, and truth be damned
July 31st, 2006 at 11:56 am#27 Great idea!
July 31st, 2006 at 11:57 am[…] I’m guessing the interns at the NRO are too busy fetching cruellers and lattes for the Doughy Pantload to check for those pesky things called “facts” these days. What else explains this? The right-wing blogosphere is up in arms over a Rolling Stone article about prominent neo-conservative Michael Ledeen. The article, written by James Bamford, argues that Ledeen was using unreliable intelligence to push the Bush administration into military action against Iran. The National Review’s Andrew McCarthy and Mark Levin claim that the premise of Bramford’s article is flawed because Ledeen opposes military action against Iran: Yet, anyone even vaguely familiar with Michael’s work knows that he has opposed military action against Iran — notwithstanding that he was years ahead of most experts in accurately portraying Iran’s role as the terror master at the center of the jihadist network. […]
July 31st, 2006 at 12:00 pm25 give up the Rovian talking points comment by liberalpercy
I’ve been thinking that maybe we need to come up with a list of Rovian talking points, typical troll arguments, neocon strawmen, etc. Then, we can all have a copy and one of us post the list at the beginning of each thread. Then, we can respond to trolls with a simple “see post #1″ and ignore their repetitious nonsense.
Comment by PLC
—————–
Then where would the poor trolls go?The weather’s been too hot for under-the-bridge-sitting.
They so want us to see the light(or,as we liberals would perceive it,the darkness).
July 31st, 2006 at 12:07 pm31
July 31st, 2006 at 12:14 pmThe poor trolls would still come begging anyway and we true compassionate progressives can give them some scraps of food to sustain them. Why, the entertainment factor is enough for them to earn that. Besides, once in a while, one actually has something to say besides the herd chatter that we can still learn from.
Facts straight? Think Progress, your problem is that you live in the Reality Based Community. So stop it already.
And now, your Daily Lieberman 2 Minute Hate.
July 31st, 2006 at 12:17 pm#
OT
An obscure law approved by a Republican-controlled Congress a decade ago has made the Bush administration nervous that officials and troops involved in handling detainee matters might be accused of committing war crimes and prosecuted in US courts.
Comment by Jake — July 31, 2006 @ 10:33 am
The War Crimes Act of 1996 is NOT an obscure law. The administration’s fear is obviously that THEY might be accused and prosecuted for their crimes.
July 31st, 2006 at 12:20 pmGeorge Bush and his vassal, Tony Blair, are no statesmen. They are war criminals. They claim to be pious Christians. They are the physical manifestation of the devil himself.
July 31st, 2006 at 12:28 pmMobilize to avenge the blood of Qana
Pardon me for upsetting the liberal orthodoxy, but stogie has a point. It is not entirely incoherent (although it does require a degree of nuance of which Bush & CO per se have largely seemed incapable) to be against an invasion in general, even pre-emptively, but to favor a limitted invasion in hot pursuit of specific terrorists. I fail to see where Ladeen is being entirely inconsistent here.
Indeed, left-wing paranoia about a possible Iran invasion blinds us to dealing with some really important questions about national security — questions the raising of which would really strike a stake through the “Bush is tough on terrorism” meme.
(1) If Ladeen and his ilk realized that Iran was so important in promoting terror, why did they urge us to invade Iraq, which invasion has been a gift and a boon to both Al Qaeda and Iran? Were they too stupid to see what would happen in Iraq? I think not — the “flypaper” rhetoric as well as the very motivation for going into Iraq (to establish bases so we could appease Al Qaeda by polling out of Saudi Arabia as well as neutralizing an enemy of theirs) bespeaks perhaps a misjudgment about the ability to bog down terrorists (as if that sort of thing worked in ‘Nam), but it does indicate that the people planning the invasion knew that Al Qaeda would at least take what we were viewing as bait and they realized was food.
(2) But did people like Ladeen realize the benefits to Iran? If not, why should anyone take Ladeen and his ilk seriously? If so, why did we invade Iraq again?
(3) So, to make you really go hmmm … how many Bush & CO advisors and associates in pushing this Iraq war were involved in Iran/Contra?
It would be horrible if we did invade Iran. But let’s not let our fear that Cmdr. Cookoo Bananas may very well try to pull of such a thing blind us to some very real questions about the degree to which, at least de facto pro-Iranian influence exists on our foreign policy in practice. Some people may be talking a tough talk about Iran — a talk so tough it’s actually influencing Iran to be more militaristic and threatening … but something else is going on as well here …
Why are people who were so hot to go into Iraq, ostensibly as part of the global war on terror, actually opposing going into Iran? Are they smart enough to realize how suicidal such an invasion would be? I doubt it — there is something else going on and it stinks to high heaven (and it’s called having Team B Iran/Contra terrorist lovers in charge of our so-called war on terrorism). Let’s put on our tinfoil hats, so to speak, and focus — who are these people and why are they speaking out of both sides of their mouths?
July 31st, 2006 at 12:32 pmThe Israeli self-image of rationality, self-confidence, restraint, pragmatism, and marshal moral superiority are delusions and myths, constructed to protect the Israeli psyche, manipulated by the state to keep alive the specter of existential terror in the Israeli public and to disguise the state’s raison d’etre, expansion and ethnic cleansing in Palestine.
The Pathology Of Israeli Power
July 31st, 2006 at 12:34 pmIt’s as if there is no middle ground for Zionism, no doubt, no introspection: it’s our existence or theirs. This psychopathology is made all the more palpable because of the intense moral contradictions: while it has accomplished impressive things, including “Jewish democracy,” a place for some Jews to take refuge or to find pride, survival at all odds, and economic and technological development, Israel is a colonial settler society in origin as much as Zionism is also a variant of Jewish nationalism; it is both non-democratic in its exclusion of non-Jews and democratic for its Jewish majority.
Regardless of how one sees it, the end result is, as Israeli observers themselves have commented, a barbarization, moral decline or debasement, of Israeli society. How could it be otherwise, what with a Zionist ideology that, from its origin, treated the Palestinians with cruelty, disdain, violence, and loathing, traits common to all colonial-settler societies. And with the state since 1948 having so thoroughly indoctrinated Israeli society, through wars and manipulation of existential fears, occupation and relentlessly violent oppression. And with a racist educational system-which portrays the “Arabs” as inferior, lazy, fatalistic, dirty, easily inflammable, violent, bloodthirsty-and socialization of superiority and separation and alienation of Jews from non-Jews, in cities and neighborhoods, on Jewish owned lands and public domains.
The pathological nature of this indoctrination is illustrated by the cold-blooded October 2004 murder of the 13-year schoolgirl, Iman al-Hams, by a “Captain R,” who was subsequently acquitted and promoted. After shooting her twice in the head, he walked away then turned around and emptied the entire magazine of his automatic rifle, 17 bullets, into her to “confirm the kill.” The captain, on tape, “clarifies” why he killed Iman: “This is commander. Anything that’s mobile, that moves in the [security] zone, even if it’s a three-year-old, needs to be killed.” (See Chris McGreal, Guardian, Nov. 16, 2005) Journalists and human rights organizations have documented countless cases of Israelis killing children, even for sports and game. Notice, here, the captain’s language: “Anything that’s mobile.needs to be killed.” Not anyone who is mobile. Palestinian children are like animals, like anything moving, they, it, need(s) to be killed.
Captain R turns out to be a Druze, a powerful telling of the sick success of Israeli socialization and indoctrination. This Druze, historically the marginal outsider in mainstream Islamic society, internalized Israel’s ethnic/racial pecking order-its colonially inherited psychopathology in which the indigenous become animals-therefore violently displacing his inferiority, as Mizrahi Jews do, onto the Palestinians. Dehumanizing, hating and killing Palestinians is the ultimate, disturbed act of belonging and loyalty to a society accustomed to its influential members referring to Palestinians as beasts, two-legged animals, cockroaches and worms, unaware of their own degradation and dehumanization in the process.
This state of acute political and social psychosis, manifested by power’s irrational application and self-dehumanizing behavior, betrays a deep-seated fear: while Israel possesses unequaled, sanctimonious power and its political/military class was historically confident of its ability to militarily prevail against Arab armies, the country is unceasingly, silently, troubled by the possibility of one day being abandoned by the United States. Without its patron, its power is as nothing, not necessarily militarily, but emotionally and psychologically.
July 31st, 2006 at 12:49 pmThere is much to be said about the negative consequences of Zionism, but if it is “pathology”, that standard of pathology makes any and all power pathological, does it not?
I guess this is particularly telling:
the state’s raison d’etre, expansion and ethnic cleansing in Palestine.
That phrase, raison d’etre, I do not think it means what you think it means ( / Inigo Montoya ).
Zionism may have been callous to the Palestinian people; Israel may have been cruel. But Zionism is not some colonialist plot to extinguish the Palestinian people. I am not the sort to think any criticism of Israel or even Zionism is anti-Semitic, but I would question the motives of one who thinks that Zionism’s purpose is colonialism or genocide. If you believe that it is, you either are all too ready to believe the worst of Zionism (and why would that be? anti-Semitism perhaps?) or you must believe that Pakistan exists as a colonialist entity to liquidate Hindus, etc. What happened upon Israel’s founding, while horrible for many a Palestinian Arab, was not remarkable at the time, considering the far greater attrocities that were occurring in terms of forced population transfers. That the problem still exists is not Israel’s fault, but the fault of the Arab nations who did not absorb populations as was widely deemed necessary to avoid a repeat of WWII. It is crying wolf to claim anti-Semitism every time Israel gets blamed for things it’s done wrong — but it seems anti-Semitic to me to claim Israel is evil for doing the same things that were considered necessary to avoid WWIII when done by every other nation in the world who was attempting to force “destablizing” minorities into national boundaries with their ethnic kin — it may have been right, it likely was wrong and it certainly was horrific in terms of the human cost … but why the focus on Israel? How was Israel different than any of the other nations arising, e.g., out of the colonial rule whose emergence prompted population transfers (e.g. Pakistan, India, etc.)? It’s one thing to ask why we must have the soft-bigotry of low expectations we display when comparing Israel to every other country (which is why I wonder if some of the same Zionist types who complain Jews like me are self-hating are merely projecting their own self-hatred), but to single out and condemn Israel for normative practices of the time outside of the “Israel should have known better” rubric but rather in a rubric of “Zionism=inherently evil but we’ll ignore the pervasiveness of what we are claiming is a unique evil to Zionism” reeks to me of anti-Semitism. Why else single out Israel in that way? What else distinguishes Israel?
July 31st, 2006 at 1:19 pmThe poor trolls would still come begging anyway and we true compassionate progressives can give them some scraps of food to sustain them. Why, the entertainment factor is enough for them to earn that. Besides, once in a while, one actually has something to say besides the herd chatter that we can still learn from.
Comment by PLC
July 31st, 2006 at 1:24 pm————–
PLC, All are teachers/learners,imo.
Often,though,not in the manner intended.
why is it that ANY criticism of israel makes someone antisemitic. who the israeli right are that are in power are a disgrace to those before them that died in the ovens in Auschwitz.
July 31st, 2006 at 1:40 pmanothing thing DAS - this article I posted only reasserts the KNOWLEDGE I have had of this for the last 30 years.
why is it that a few Jewish people I have run across are OUTRAGED at all of this too, to the point where they are VERY APOLOGETIC!
July 31st, 2006 at 1:42 pmExcerpt from a Raw Story interview with Michael Ledeen…
http://www.rawstory.com/ news/ 2006/ Conversations_with_Machiavellis_Ghost_Part_3_0320.html
RS): I want to revisit what we briefly touched upon with regard to the Iraq war and pre-war intelligence, but I want to continue from a different vantage point. Let’s begin with the attacks of September 11, 2001. Do you think the attacks could have been and should have been avoided? Were there enough warnings? If so, where did the failure, in your opinion, occur?
ML): Wrong war, wrong time, wrong way, wrong place. As I said at the time. The key to the terror structure was and is Iran, and we should have started by supporting democratic revolution in Iran, not invading any place. And even if you decided to ‘do’ Iraq first, it should have been political first, and military second-if-necessary. I proposed declaring the ‘no fly zones’ to be ‘free Iraq,’ and then dropping leaflets on the country urging Iraqis to go govern themselves, preparing for the fall of the regime.
RS): Why do you think we have failed in democratic endeavors with regard to Iran?
ML): I think the CIA is both incompetent and unwilling to find and report the truth about Iran. They are afraid some president will tell them to get active in Iran, and they don’t know where to start. To get the top al Qaeda people you would have to go into Iran, where most of them spend most of their time, and the CIA isn’t up to that.
We still have no Iran policy, and we are trying to win a regional war while playing defense in one country alone. That is a sucker’s game.
July 31st, 2006 at 1:48 pm“This is not an invasion of Cambodia. The areas in which these attacks will be launched are completely occupied and controlled by North Vietnamese forces. Our purpose is not to occupy the areas. Once enemy forces are driven out of these sanctuaries, and once their military supplies are destroyed, we will withdraw.
These actions are in no way directed to the security interests of any nation. Any government that chooses to use these actions as a pretext for harming relations with the United States will be doing so on its own responsibility and on its own initiative, and we will draw the appropriate conclusions. ”
30 April 1970, Washington, DC
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/ speeches/ richardnixoncambodia.html
July 31st, 2006 at 1:48 pmrovian troll talking point that trumps and justifies all: “We are at WAR!”
July 31st, 2006 at 4:09 pmWhat Ledeen advocates is nonsesical. Nowonder people misinterperet his “policy”. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/7/31/173717/695
July 31st, 2006 at 6:01 pmThe NEOCONS are the biggest America-haters out there.
The only thing they like about America is it’s MONEY, which they love to steal in vast amounts.
In the final analysis, the whole “neocon”
label is just a phony cover for Corporatist thieves who see the U.S. treasury as a big ATM machine for their personal use.
I doubt there are ANY real neocon “believers” out there, except for the idiot citizens who support BushCo.
The bigwigs & pundits know it’s a phony label.
But hey, it works! It really is a good cover for their mass-larceny.
The Neocon bigwigs and RW pundits are the REAL traitors.
July 31st, 2006 at 6:40 pm[…] UPDATE: ThinkProgress found another invade Iran quotation from Ledeen, this one dated July 11: I would insist that my soldiers have the right of “hot pursuit” into Iran and Syria, and I would order my armed forces to attack the terrorist training camps in those countries. […]
July 31st, 2006 at 7:50 pmDAS wrote:
What happened upon Israel’s founding, while horrible for many a Palestinian Arab, was not remarkable at the time, considering the far greater attrocities that were occurring in terms of forced population transfers. That the problem still exists is not Israel’s fault, but the fault of the Arab nations who did not absorb populations as was widely deemed necessary to avoid a repeat of WWII.
Why don’t people get that Syrians, Jordanians, Lebanese are not the same culture as Palestinians? Why do people blindly accept this notion that “Arab nations”, which have completely different cultures and in many cases speak a foim of Arabic mutually unintelligible with Palestinian Arabic, should have “absorb”ed the Palestinians? Someone needs to call bullshit on this, so I guess it will be me.
Jews fleeing Naziism tried to get “absorbed” by Western nations and failed. Did that justify the Holocause? Because that’s what Israel is doing to the Palestinians: a Holocaust. Whether the “Arab nations”. whatever that is, dhould or should not have absorbed the Palestinians, the fact remains that Israel should not be rounding them up, building walls around them, cutting them off from movement to their jobs, homes, relatives in other countries.
This is an outrage, and it has nothing to do - nothing at all - with the “Arab nations” failing to “absorb” Palestinians in the 1940s. Get a frickin’ clue, DAS.
July 31st, 2006 at 11:46 pmTo Burro: It”s country”s not countries.
August 2nd, 2006 at 12:48 amThere is a difference between the isolated attacks on terror camps that Ledeen advocates and a full scale war such as the one we are engaged in right now in Iraq that Ledeen doesnt advocate. Surely you all are not too stupid to realize the difference? No one has been as right as Ledeen in predicting this entire middle east debacle. He is the one who said not to invade iraq but to deal with Iran instead, he is the one who said that Iran would never allow Iraq to become a democracy, he is the one who said that we have to look at the problem of islamic fascism as a regional issue that cant be isolated to one place such as Iraq. And to mysterious traveler who makes a snide remark about ledeen’s daughter: you must be one of these liberals born without testacles who stoops so low as to criticize a young woman working hard as part of a giant team to protect this country.
August 6th, 2006 at 12:57 pmWhat Ladeen really supports - a democratic uprising in Iran:
Ladeen in 2002 -
October 19th, 2006 at 2:14 am“We do not know how this will play out in the coming days and weeks, but one thing is already luminously clear: The Bush administration has missed an opportunity to strike a massive blow against the terror masters. If, instead of winking and nodding at various Iranian emissaries and back channels, we had
supported the Iranian people with money, effective radio and television, and modern communications gear, the regime could very well have been smashed this past weekend. We may well have similar opportunities in the future, even the near future, and it would be wise if the deep thinkers in Foggy Bottom started pondering how to fulfill our revolutionary tradition rather than how best to appease Iran’s oppressors.”