I've gathered my thoughts further on yesterday's post and would like to be more explicit about Ledeen's truth destruction. So here goes.
Ledeen was instrumental in helping to achieve the war in Iraq. Privately, he was advising (both as a consultant to Rove and as a member of AEI) the administration on how to execute the invasion of Iraq and covertly seeking to provide "intelligence" (read:bogus propaganda) that would justify said invasion. Publically, he was writing columns and appearing on television supporting the case for an invasion of Iraq in order to bolster public approval for an invasion by posing as an independent voice without revealing his personal investment in the planned invasion of Iraq. The Free Inquiry interview where Ledeen claims his only influence came from his public sayings and writings illustrates this lie.
Years later, when the war in Iraq had turned into a debacle, Ledeen attempted to claim that not only had he not had any special influence with the administration, but that he never advocated invading Iraq in the first place, but in fact had opposed the invasion - a flat out lie.
So first Ledeen lied about his involvement with the invasion in order to help achieve the invasion. When the invasion turned into a disaster Ledeen lied again, this time in order to preserve his own credibility.
Which brings us to the lie from Ledeen's blog about Woodward's bookwhere he attempts to suggest that the reason America is losing in Iraq is because we have not gone to war with Iran. This reality revision serves two purposes:
1. It shifts the blame for the war from himself, his neoconservative compatriots, and the White House onto Iran
2. It allows him to propagandize for his long dreamed of war with Iran.
The truth of why Iraq has turned into a disaster has been documented by now in any number of books - Blind into Baghdad, Fiasco, Hubris, Cobra II, State of Denial, The Assasins' Gate, Losing Iraq - and by multiple foreign policy experts. The notion that the reason we can't stabilize Iraq is because we haven't gone to war with Iran is pure nonsense and reality revision. It is not worth discussion.
This is why truth is an obstacle for Ledeen to destroy. And the reason why it means we should be weary is because if Ledeen is trying to destroy the truth in order to promote a war with Iran then that means that the White House is probably also considering a war with Iran in which it will also seek to destroy truth in order to achieve that war.
The Bush administration has made fighting the war on terror a centerpiece of its political strategy and has long had regime change in Iran as one of its central goals; selling Iran as the next phase of the war on terror might be something that Karl Rove believes would be able to rally the Republican base the way war with Iraq did. And if so, he and the White House would employ the same propaganda tactics that they used to sell war with Iraq while disguising the whole time their true intentions from the public. The only other course for the administration is to admit failure, and given that option, they are far more likely to try to recast the failure in Iraq as the fault of Iran rather than its own disastrous incompetence.
And considering President Bush just met with leaders of the Religious Right to discuss Iran - whose position can generally be described as such - they're for nuclear war with Iran because they think it will speed up their being Raptured - there is cause for concern.
Is Bannon Fifth-Columning the Pope?
1 hour ago