Michael Ledeen is asking the right questions
Michael Ledeen writes about Staff Sgt. Jason C. Ramseyer, a Marine recently klilled by an IED in Iraq. to learn more about this amazing man, click here.
Ledeen is asking two very good questions,
Mr. President: You know, as those Marines know, that the IEDs are coming from Iran. Staff Sgt Ramseyer certainly knew it, as do his men from 3rd Marines. Why are you not ordering the military to act against the sites where the IEDs are being assembled? And why are you not ordering strikes against the terrorist training camps in Iran and in Syria? Is that not legitimate self-defense?
Generals: You tell us that you foresaw many of the difficulties in Iraq. Yet you led your troops into combat, and only afterwards condemned the military strategy that you ordered your men and women to carry out. How do you explain that to the widows and orphans and injured? If you were so smart, why didn’t you oppose the strategy when it might have mattered? Why didn’t you speak out THEN? Indeed, why didn’t you resign and speak out publicly, instead of waiting until now, when you come off as political opportunists?
Iraq | Administrator | 
April 27, 2006 1:05 pm
Michael Ledeen is a dangerous neocon propagandist who has been relentless in his push for war with Iran. Let’s not forget that last July the Italian parliament identified Ledeen along with three others, including Ahmed Chalabi, as the peddlers of the fraudulent Niger yellowcake documents that were used as an excuse to invade Iraq. Let’s also not forget Ledeen’s prior close involvement with Oliver North in the Iran-Contra scandal. Ledeen, resident scholar of the neocon/Zionist American Enterprise Institute, has a track record of deception and anti-American activity, so it should come as no surprise that he would be the chief agitator behind another disastrous, illegal and immoral Middle Eastern war. Ledeen is an enemy of the American people.
John, you are an ass. Go away.
I am sorry to have upset you, Rosemary.
John,
I hope you keep sharing your opinions with us.
Kevin
Thanks, Kevin. I submit this piece written by Ghali Hassan at uruknet.info:
The U.S. version of diplomacy is accompanied by a vicious propaganda campaign to demonise and portray the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, in a very unfavourable way. Western mainstream media, led by the New York Times, the BBC and the Washington-based neo-fascist organisation, Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), have fabricated allegations against President Ahmedinejad. They alleged that President Ahmedinejad denied the Jewish holocaust took place and threatened to “wipe Israel off the map.” Of course, it was a fabricated lie and President Ahmedinejad did not say anything like this. In fact, none of President Ahmedinejadâ?? speeches (in Farsi) contain anything close to what has been magnified.
Throughout the U.S. history of imperialism, the U.S. has always concentrated its war propaganda on one individual in the target nation. For example Presidents Fidel Castro, Saddam Hussein and Hugo Chávez are made the epitomes of hatred. They are demonised to the highest point in order to make the American people feel obliged to support war against the target nation. The U.S. creates an illusion that the native population are suffering and helpless, and they need “our” help. As American author Stephen Kinzer writes; “Americans love to have a demon, a certain person who is the symbol of all the evil and tyranny in the regime that we want to attack.” For example, Saddam has become synonymous with evil and provided justification to commit greater evil against the people of Iraq. The U.S. administration writes Kinzer, “play[s] on the American compassion to achieve support for interventions” and commits war crimes against the Iraqi people.
Me again - Ahmedinejad is certainly not an angel, but there is absolutely a concerted effort in the Western media to make him look as unstable and dangerous as possible. This is your corrupt and complicit media at work, working in lockstep with government to lie the American people into another illegal war.
John,
Forget the media for a minute. Just take a look at what the guy says. Media “spin” to make him look unstable and dangerous isn’t necessary.
Is the media in charge or is the government or are they working together? I’m confused, because from what I see , the media is overwhelmingly liberal and hardly in the habit of doing George W. Bush any favors.
Kevin
Kevin, one of the author’s points, which I’ve seen elsewhere, is that Ahmedinejad’s words have been purposely mistranslated. As for Bush and the liberal media, I’ve maintained and continue to maintain that what we see in the media is a charade. The government completely controls the media, including the “liberal” NY Times. If you are willing to accept that this administration has orchestrated mindnumbing crimes against humanity, then it will become apparent whose side the media was on when the truth finally comes out.
Two comments:
First, while Ledeen may advocate dealing with Iranian terrorist training camps, border encroachments, and direct action by members of the Revolutionary Guard units, such as occured in Iraqi Kurdistan in March),he has advocated not war at present, but that the U.S. should immediately support both Iranian-American broadcasting efforts in California, as well as seriously supporting opposition to the mullahocracy in Iran. Instead, the administration’s efforts have been focused on monetary support of the Voice of America and other of what he calls “toothless tigers.”
The mullahs are loathed by the majority of Iranians, especially the younger generations, and with active resistance efforts to the regime in such areas as Baluchistan, now is the time to actively support internal regime change. Covert activities, intel-support of active opposition forces, etc. are the near term course of action of choice.
Second, as a U.S. Army officer I participated in contingency warplanning for Iraq from 1998-2000 (note, the Clinton Adminsitration). I will simply say that the post-war phase or “occupation” was anticipated by the military, as least when I was involved, to be more along the lines of Japan after World War II. In other words, an immediate clampdown on Baghdad by U.S. forces, a strong central military government, and move slowly to the establishment of a republic step-by-step, with outlying areas and towns under military control.
From what I have seen from the “opposition-generals” they are complaining about the lack of troop numbers (at their less shrill best). The real issue was not as much numbers, as actions that took place. The administration should have turned to the lessons of “The Prince” (written for temporary transition from corrupt, tyrannical governments to republics)instead of a sort of “Kum-bah-Yah” wishful thinking. I would also point out that several of these generals have “beefs” with Rumsfeld’s increased focus on special operations forces and their autonomy from regular force commands. I applaud those changes. Regular combat arms commanders hate not having operational control of special units, and do not usually apply their unique abilities effectively. Such are the petty jealousies within uniform.
As for this whole insane “poor Ahmedinejad was mistranslated” press-conspiracy theory above—you are quite mad aren’t you?