In the final installment of a series of interviews with RAW STORY Managing News Editor Larisa Alexandrovna, controversial Neoconservative scholar and Iran Contra figure Michael Ledeen denounces his reputation as a Neo-Fascist, criticizes the Bush administration's personnel decisions with regard to high level officials, and calls for the resignation of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.
The most striking comment Ledeen makes is in reference to Osama bin Laden as having died in Iran late last year, echoing already long circulated accounts that bin Laden has been presumed dead for some time now.
In describing the Iraq war, Ledeen explains that he had strongly advised against the plan, saying that the invasion of Iraq was the "Wrong war, wrong time, wrong way, wrong place."
Ledeen also describes National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley as in a state of permanent "deputy" status. Hadley was Deputy National Security Advisor under now Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Ledeen provides a rather telling comparison of the Hadley/Rice relationship by using a precursor:
"I think Hadley is to Rice as Scowcroft was to Kissinger; not inclined to think or act independently," said Ledeen.
Other highlights include Ledeen's definition of the controversial concept of "Creative Destruction," as well as his hope for a bipartisan foreign policy solution in which different view points would stop "borking" one another: "We can't keep on Borking each other, describing one another in ugly caricatures, and refusing to think through what are, after all, often very difficult issues," says Ledeen."
Tuesday, March 21, 2006
Ledeen: osama bin laden is dead
* part 3 of Larisa's interview with Ledeen is up. here's the intro:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Again, the only thing that remotely makes sense about Leeden is just how little sense he makes.
He's internally inconsitent. At the same time he promotes the admin's stand on national security, he's seen taking down the admin on other critical issues and highlighting how incompetent they are. He says Iraq was a big mistake, but then says the real target should have been Iran. And even though now we're in no position to attack Iran, we still need to do something about them, NOW.
In short, even though he advocates looking at the situations and the problems that lead to those situations and understanding them, rather than blaming the "idiot" who happened to be calling the shots, his own prescriptions seem to belie this advice. Namely, Bush needs to shuffle up his cabinet and get the "right" people in there. In other words, he won't repudiate the big ideas, but seems to think if *he* were in charge, he would do it right.
This is a peculiar disease amongst conservatives of all stripes, the idea that it's not the ideology that's flawed, but rather the execution. "If only I were in charge...." Yet, it seems no matter which conservative we put in charge, they always seem to f*** it up, and are surprised when they do.
I'm still no closer to wrapping my head around Leeden. In this latest piece, I almost find myself agreeing with him at times, especially in his characterization and realization that some of our purported "allies" are also actually our enemies at the same time. He has a nuanced, if flawed, understanding of the world (his biggest flaw is his persistent belief that war and misery is the natural state of mankind).
In any case, it's intersting to see his musings. He, more than anyone else, is likely to give us a bone to chew on and help track down what's really going on (partially because he's somehow convinced himself that he's "washed his hands" of all these messes and likes to act as a disinterested observer, when in reality he was a key cog and a first-hand witness to the treachery.)
yep. he's pretty infuriating. god knows what iran would look like if ledeen was king....
that's the trouble with the neocons - the straussian postion that the rubes should be kept in the dark may (conceivably, in theory) have some validity - but the inherent problem is that the people who argue such a thing always presume/assume/demand that they be puppetmasters, and not puppets. if they had the slightest intellectual integrity, they'd hand the keys to someone else and go scurrying back into the darkness of the cave to be ruled in ignorance.
similarly, the 'strategy of tension' should be renamed 'murder to get what we want'
larisa is correct to skewer him for his 'creative destruction' bullshit. 'creative destruction' is a gorgeous concept, but they've bastardized to mean 'we'll creatively destroy stuff to get what we want'
Post a Comment