Take up your arms, sons and daughters
We will arise from the bunkers
By land, by sea, by dirigible
We’ll leave our tracks untraceable now
- Sons and Daughters, The Decemberists
I see that our dear friend Mona is once again firing shots across our bow. A few weeks ago she tried to (apparently) goad me into an argument, and now she is taking aim at Lance. Specifically, Mona crows that a comment by Michael Ledeen, whom Lance interviewed, is Exhibit A in her never-ending case to prove him a liar:
Michael Ledeen has never, ever advocated a military invasion of Iran. Those (like me) who have claimed he is being coy and that that is and has always been his entire objective, have been pilloried for denigrating the honor of this oh-so-decent man. Calumny most foul, it has been! We do not understand his genius, his wisdom, his commitment to democracy and “peaceful change.”
Last fall, Leeden told the neolibertarian blog, A Second Hand Conjecture, which reverently finds him to be among the most “consistently misrepresented public intellectuals,” my emphasis:
ASHC: You have written that in order to win this war we would need to defeat Syria and Iran. In my reading you explicitly reject major military action against these states. First of all, why are these two states the most important in your mind? Second, why would you caution against an attempt at regime change through military force?
Michael Ledeen: I’ve always said invasion of Iran would be a terrible mistake, and it would demonstrate a failure to design and conduct a rational policy toward Iran.
Mona claims that Ledeen was lying above, as evidenced by his recent statement regarding Sen. Lieberman publicly pondering the efficacy of bombing Iran:
Now, let us look at what Michael Ledeen wrote today about Joe Lieberman’s call to militarily invade Iran, in a post titled Lieberman for Secretary of State, my emphasis:
On Face the Nation, he just called for military strikes against terrorist training camps inside Iran, echoing, ahem, myself lo these several years…Meanwhile, the appeasers over at the State Department, from the spokesman to the secretary herself, are reassuring the world that we’re going to continue our conversations…
So, it is not a “terrible mistake,” or a “failure of rational policy” to bomb Iran after all! Now, Ledeen is one of those who “imagines we are going to invade Iran.”
Because we are blessed with so many intelligent and insightful readers, I am sure that I do not need to point out the rather obvious flaw in Mona’s “evidence.” However, for posterity’s sake, I’ll just note that “bombing Iran” does not equate to “invading Iran.” Indeed, the two actions are not even remotely close. And yet, to Mona, this is evidence of Ledeen’s disingenousness.
Undermining her supposed point even further is that fact that Lieberman did not call for bombing Iran indiscriminately, as a means of curbing Iran’s assistance to terrorists operating in Iraq:
“I think we’ve got to be prepared to take aggressive military action against the Iranians to stop them from killing Americans in Iraq,” Lieberman said. “And to me, that would include a strike over the border into Iran, where we have good evidence that they have a base at which they are training these people coming back into Iraq to kill our soldiers …
“We’ve said so publicly that the Iranians have a base in Iran at which they are training Iraqis who are coming in and killing Americans. By some estimates, they have killed as many as 200 American soldiers,” Lieberman said. “Well, we can tell them we want them to stop that. But if there’s any hope of the Iranians living according to the international rule of law and stopping, for instance, their nuclear weapons development, we can’t just talk to them.”
He added, “If they don’t play by the rules, we’ve got to use our force, and to me, that would include taking military action to stop them from doing what they’re doing.”
Finally, in direct opposition to Mona’s claim that “Joe Lieberman call[ed] to militarily invade Iran,” we have this from the horse’s mouth (my emphasis):
Lieberman said much of the action could probably be done by air, although he would leave the strategy to the generals in charge. “I want to make clear I’m not talking about a massive ground invasion of Iran,” Lieberman said.
Hear all the bombs, they fade away
Hear all the bombs, they fade away
- Sons and Daughters, The Decemberists
So, to recap,
(a) Lieberman is not advocating for an invasion, but
(b) Lieberman is calling for a limited air strikes on operational military targets, and
(c) Michael Ledeen claims to not support a military invasion, but
(d) does approve of Lieberman’s call for air strikes,
Neither Lieberman nor Ledeen are advocating nor calling for an invasion of Iran.
Anyone who claims that Michael Ledeen has somehow reversed his position on an invasion of Iran based on the evidence above is either (1) just plain wrong, (2) as mendacious as she claims Ledeen to be, (3) reading-challenged, (4) just plain stupid, or (5) all of the above.
To top it all off, Mona chides us here at ASHC with the following:
Ledeen defenders have been played for the worst sort of suckers, and it really is past time to admit it, guys.
Mona’s condescension lost all of its luster for me quite some time ago, but I do find it amusing every now and then. Despite the fact that Mona has no ethos or philosophy of her own, and regardless of her inability to comprehend those whose thoughts she adopts for herself, she has absolutely no problem raining down insults from above upon those she has deemed her intellectual inferiors. Mona imagines herself with a front seat at the oracle, and is bewildered by anyone who does not see what the gods have revealed to her, much less when they do not do so with the same ferocity and conviction.
The problem for Mona is that she is not the great thinker she assumes to be, but instead an egotist posing as an intellectual. She apparently has neither the capacity for original thought, nor the depth to understand the thoughts (much less words) of others. She is an intellectual wasteland devoid of growth or the means of life. So when she takes aim at one of us here at ASHC, I can only be amused at the fact that she seems inexhaustibly possessed of the notion that she has even the slightest effect on anyone who does not share her delusions. I see her much as the windmills must have regarded Don Quixote.
Nevertheless, attack us she will, and I wish her good luck in that endeavor. If someday she happens upon a real argument, I shall be sure to thank whomever she borrowed it from.
P.S. Just for fun, I’ll leave you with two bits of funny:
(1) MONA: “And don’t miss what Greenwald has to say about Lieberman’s deadly insane position.”
Does anyone else recall the grief visited upon Brit Hume for calling Murtha’s ramblings “dotty” and the subsequent vitriol aimed squarely at Lance for pointing out the obvious?
(2) As indicated in the post above, Mona severely misunderstands the definition of “bombing.” As yet more evidence of that fact, this time pertaining to “google-bombing,” see the following:
The guy calling for it should be Secretary of State, says documented liar Ledeen.
Three guesses as to whose name shall forever be associated with “documented liar” on Google thanks to Mona. Come to think of it, you could make three guesses and have all of them be right!
Sphere: Related Content