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.