Page 1 of 1

The latest disinformation from Michael Ledeen

PostPosted: Sat Nov 04, 2006 11:24 pm
by NewKid
"The Latest Disinformation from Vanity Fair"<br><br><!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="" target="top"></a><!--EZCODE LINK END--><br><br>via Greenwald:<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>UPDATE II: As Mona at Inactivist astutely notes, National Review's Michael Ledeen -- one of the blame-shifting neocons quoted in the Vanity Fair article -- has the audacity to claim today in the Corner that he "opposed the military invasion of Iraq before it took place," even though he wrote an August, 2002 National Review article advocating the war in Iraq: <br><br>It's always reassuring to hear Brent Scowcroft attack one's cherished convictions; it makes one cherish them all the more. . . . So it's good news when Scowcroft comes out against the desperately-needed and long overdue war against Saddam Hussein and the rest of the terror masters. As usual, Scowcroft has it backwards.<br><br><br>In the same article, Ledeen mocks Scowcroft for worrying that an invasion of Iraq "could turn the whole region into a caldron and destroy the War on Terror." Ledeen scoffed: "One can only hope that we turn the region into a cauldron, and faster, please. If ever there were a region that richly deserved being cauldronized, it is the Middle East today."<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br><br><br><!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="" target="top"></a><!--EZCODE LINK END--> <p></p><i></i>

Re: The latest disinformation from Michael Ledeen

PostPosted: Sun Nov 05, 2006 12:05 am
by rain
<!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>It's all the fault of the Iraqi people</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> (updated below)<br><br>At least the squirming, conniving neconservatives in this Vantiy Fair article are blaming their failed war on George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld. As ugly as it is to watch the war's prime architects and chief advocates pretend that they had nothing to do with this disaster, more despicable still are the ones who are blaming the Iraqi people for what has happened. Look at what Paul Mirgenoff at Powerline said yesterday:<br><br>"Unfortunately, though, more was required of the Iraqi people than just voting. The situation called on them to elect leaders who would work in good faith for national reconciliation, rather than tilting substantially in the direction of one sectarian faction. The Iraqis failed to do this when they voted in the Shia-militia-friendly Maliki government, thereby making it difficult, if not impossible, for the U.S. to work with the current government to curb sectarian violence.<br><br>The Iraqis, of course, are not the first people to make a very bad decision at the polls. The fact that they did so is <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>not necessarily</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> evidence of some national "genetic" flaw, much less a demonstration that democracy can't work in the Middle East. It just means that the Iraqi people did less than what a difficult situation required, and that we must face up to and deal with the consequences."<br>.....<br><br>that's also the line taken in the '...Rumsfield to go' editorial.<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>But despite the best efforts of American trainers, the problem of molding a viciously sectarian population into anything resembling a force for national unity has become a losing proposition.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>and that<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>For two years, American sergeants, captains and majors training the Iraqis have told their bosses that Iraqi troops have no sense of national identity, are only in it for the money, don't show up for duty and cannot sustain themselves.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>and the editorial handily fails to mention that Iraq was <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>illegally invaded under demonstrably (criminal) false premises.</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END-->, as Greenwald notes. ...<br><br> We invaded their country, removed their government, disbanded their military, shattered their infrastructure, and -- for the last three years -- all but stood by while the country was taken over by murderous gangs and lawless militias and predictably collapsed into civil war. But it's all their fault because they voted for the wrong candidate six months ago. If only the Iraqis had elected Ahmad Chalabi as Prime Minister, it would have all worked out great. ...<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="">glenngreenwald.blogspot.c...eople.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>I'd have to take issue with 'predictably collapsed into civil war', too.<br><br><br><br><br> <p></p><i></i>

Re: The latest disinformation from Michael Ledeen

PostPosted: Sun Nov 05, 2006 5:35 pm
by chiggerbit
I seem to remember most of the experts, the ones with real credentials, prior to our invasion predicting the liklihood of civil war. <p></p><i></i>


PostPosted: Sun Nov 05, 2006 9:23 pm
by robertdreed
I note that Ledeen is accusing Vanity Fair magazine of "disinformation", implying that he's purposefully being smeared by a journalistic conspiracy...<br><br>That speaks volumes about his tactical methods. <p></p><i></i>

Re: "Disinformation"

PostPosted: Mon Nov 06, 2006 12:47 am
by NewKid
<!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="" target="top"></a><!--EZCODE LINK END--><br><br><!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="" target="top"></a><!--EZCODE LINK END--><br><br> <p></p><i></i>