Reply #26: Ledeen helped frame Billy Carter & foist Ch-Ch-Chalabi

[Octafish]

Ledeen's Way

Jim Lobe,  July 3, 2003

"I think the level of casualties is secondary. I mean, it may sound like an odd thing to say, but all the great scholars who have studied American character have come to the conclusion that we are a warlike people and that we love war. . . . What we hate is not casualties, but losing." - Michael Ledeen, March, 2003, in a lecture at the American Enterprise Institute (for more see GNN's EastCoast Bunker, April 1, 2003)

When the Washington Post published a list of the people whom Karl Rove, President George W. Bush's closest advisor, regularly consults for advice outside the administration, foreign policy veterans were shocked when Michael Ledeen popped up as the only full-time international affairs analyst.

"The two met after Bush's election," the Post reported cheerfully, quoting Ledeen about Rove's request that "any time you have a good idea, tell me." "More than once, Ledeen has seen his ideas, faxed to Rove, become official policy or rhetoric," noted the newspaper.

SNIP...

To Ledeen, whose own contacts with the mullahs in the Iran-Contra affair 15 years ago remain the source of some mystery, Iran is "the mother of modern terrorism." And terrorism has been Ledeen's bread and butter since at least the late 1970s, when he consulted for Italian military intelligence, which in turn enabled him to expose Billy Carter's dealings with the Muammar Gaddafi regime in Libya to the great satisfaction of Republicans, who were revving up their campaign against Billy's brother, then president Jimmy Car

CONTINUED...

http://www.guerrillanews.com/intelligence/doc2310.html


The BFEE WorkerTurd Ledeen's also been instrumental in foisting Ch-Ch-Chalabi. From the same brave journalist -- a REAL reporter:

COMMENTARY

Democracy a tool in neo-con hands

By Jim Lobe

Of the delusions that US neo-conservatives perpetrated in their drive to take the United States to war in Iraq, the most durable has been the notion that they are committed to the spread of Wilsonian democracy. As someone who has watched the neo-con movement over the past 30 years or so, I find this notion hard to accept.

My skepticism is based not only on their obvious selectivity. After all, one has only to look at their support for authoritarian regimes in Uzbekistan, Pakistan, Tunisia and Jordan - as opposed to their eagerness to invade Iraq in the name of bringing democratic rule there - to find some glaring inconsistencies.

Nor is it the fact that neo-conservatives pushed hardest for President George W Bush to cease dealing with Yasser Arafat, who, after all, was elected by a substantial majority of eligible Palestinian voters on the West Bank and in Gaza, that suggests a certain hypocrisy or blindness on the issue. Neo-con hardliners such as Richard Perle believe Palestinians should be denied self-determination altogether.

Without doubt, neo-cons have long professed a devotion to democracy. Indeed, their main argument in favor of a US strategic alliance with Israel - a central and persistent tenet of the neo-conservative creed over three decades - has been the Jewish state's status as the lone democratic outpost in a region of seething and hate-filled Arab autocracies.

CONTINUED...

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/FG27Ak02.html

EDIT: fixed head to foist