Advertisement
Check out " The Next War," James Bamford's report on the Bush administration's secret plans to sell a new war -- with Iran (from the August 10, 2006 issue of Rolling Stone) and join the debate here.
Jeez, I thought it was only coffee in that cup Jim Bamford drank from at my house, but apparently he slipped something stronger into it when I was opening the box of cookies he brought over. Anyone who thinks I have any influence on the Bush administration is regularly swallowing something more powerful than caffeine.
I've been writing for years now to encourage the government to support democratic revolution in Iran, but nothing of the sort has been done. I've openly and consistently opposed military invasion, yet Bamford says I'm trying -- and on the verge of succeeding -- to cause a "bloody war." He says that Douglas Feith brought me into his "cabal," but I have never worked for Feith, or Rumsfeld's Pentagon (indeed I called for Rumsfeld to be replaced two years ago), or anyone else in this administration. As I told Bamford -- and I have a recording of our conversation -- I have no access to this administration, let alone sway over it. But he insists that I am Svengali to George Bush's Trilby. Any fact checkers left at the Stone?
He can't even run a decent Nexis search. He claims that our conversation was the first time I had discussed the meeting in Rome in 2001 that enabled the United States to obtain detailed information about Iranian plans to kill our soldiers in Afghanistan. In fact it was the umpteenth time I had been interviewed, in American and European publications and blogs, most recently in Raw Story. I have written about it several times myself. And why not? That information saved American lives, as Bamford could have confirmed if he had been willing to work harder.
As for the endlessly maligned Mr. Ghorbanifar, who looks more reliable today, the CIA who described him as the world's greatest liar and refused to look at his information about murderous Iranian activities in Afghanistan and Iraq, or Mr. G himself? Nowadays his picture of Iran's role in the terror war against us is almost universally accepted. And by the way, the information Ghorbanifar gave me in the fall of 2001 had to do with events inside Iran. Nothing secret, just unnoticed information about the widespread Iranian hatred of the regime. That, too, is now conventional wisdom. Bamford claims to be an independent critic of the Intelligence Community, but here he has swallowed the Company's bait en toto.
Whatever that stuff was in the coffee cup had long-lasting effects, because it totally knocked out the little gray cells in his frontal lobes. Somehow imagining that I want to invade Iran, he quotes an article of mine in National Review Online in which I call for the United States to support regime change in Syria and Iran, as if that meant a military campaign. If he had looked up a few lines he would have found these words:
"Give them a chance to fight for their freedom, as we did with the Georgians. The longer we dither, the more likely it becomes that we will sadly and unnecessarily find ourselves in a military confrontation of some sort, with all the terrible consequences that entails."
That's the actual context. The opposite of what Bamford says.
Michael A. Ledeen
Advertisement
James Bamford responds: I have to say, Michael Ledeen brews an excellent cup of Italian espresso -- I wouldn't dream of adding anything to it. When the situation requires, he can also be very good at modesty. He portrays himself as a powerless, misunderstood peacenik who is shocked, shocked that anyone suspect that he would countenance a military solution in Iran. He insists he has "no access to this administration." But as the Washington Post has documented, Ledeen is among Karl Rove's high level "network of advisers." Ledeen once boasted to the reporters that Rove told him, "Anytime you have a good idea, tell me." And, according to the Post, he frequently does: "Every month or six weeks, Ledeen will offer Rove 'something you should be thinking about.' More than once, Ledeen has seen his ideas, faxed to Rove, become official policy or rhetoric."
Ledeen also claims that he has "consistently opposed military invasion" of Iran and Syria. But he certainly makes no bones about his distain for diplomacy. "All this diplotalk about snuggling up to the Syrians makes me sick," he wrote in July. "Down with Assad. Down with Khamene'I." And he frequently uses "take-no-prisoners" language when referring to Tehran and Damascus. "I would insist that my soldiers have the right of 'hot pursuit' into Iran and Syria," he wrote last month, "and I would order my armed forces to attack the terrorist training camps in those countries." In his book The War Against the Terror Masters, he refers to "our enemies" and says, "we must destroy them to advance our historic mission." Sounds like war talk to me.
With so little to challenge in the article, Ledeen spends much of his time defending himself against things of which I didn't accuse him, such as being employed by the Pentagon, and arguing over how many times he's been interviewed. I wrote that Feith brought him into his "cabal," which he certainly did by sending him off to Rome on a secret mission with several people from his Office of Special Plans. And I have yet to find an interview in which Ledeen extensively discusses his role in the Rome meeting. The interview he cited in Raw Story was simply an exchange of several e-mails in which he talks about a recent vacation to Italy, adding, "I did not 'go to Rome.' "
Finally, Ledeen is still in denial about his friend Ghorbanifar who, he says, "looks more reliable today." Despite the fact that my last book, A Pretext for War, was endlessly critical of the CIA, he says I have "swallowed the Company's bait en toto" about Ghorbanifar. In fact, it was Donald Rumsfeld's Pentagon that said nothing came of the information Ghorbanifar gave at the Rome meeting.
All of this could be looked at as simply a silly sideshow were it not for the fact that the last time this circus came to town, we ended up in a deadly blood-drenched quagmire in Iraq. In the next war I think we should leave the troops home and send in the clowns.
Share your thoughts here and read " The Next War," James Bamford's report on the Bush administration's secret plans to sell a new war -- with Iran (from the August 10, 2006 issue of Rolling Stone).