by publius
Peter Beinart reviews Norman Podhoretz and Michael Ledeen's new books and isn't exactly impressed. Re Ledeen, Beinart writes:
Ledeen’s effort to lay virtually every attack by Muslims against Americans at Tehran’s feet takes him into rather bizarre territory. He says the 1998 bombings of the United States Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania “were in large part Iranian operations,” which would come as news to the 9/11 Commission, which attributed them solely to Al Qaeda. He says Shiite Iran was largely behind Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a man famous for his genocidal hatred of Shiites. He claims that “most” Iraqi insurgents are “under Iranian guidance and/or control,” not just Shiite warlords like Moktada al-Sadr, but Sunni militants as well — the very people who say they are fighting to prevent Iranian domination. In Ledeen’s view, in fact, Sunni-Shiite conflict — the very thing that most observers think is tearing Iraq apart — is largely a mirage, because Iran controls both sides. And Al Qaeda is a mirage too, a mere front for the regime in Tehran. “When you hear ‘Al Qaeda,’ ” Ledeen writes, “it’s probably wise to think ‘Iran.’ ” Not surprisingly, he thinks the mullahs were probably behind 9/11.
It's worth noting that Beinart ranks Ledeen's book as far superior to Crazy Norman Podhoretz's war porn rantings. Podhoretz, remember, is advising Rudy on foreign policy.
Podhoretz, remember, is advising Rudy on foreign policy.
Wow.
"Whom the gods wish to destroy they first drive mad."
Posted by: obscure | September 09, 2007 at 12:33 PM
Who are these insane people and why do they get to publish books?
We are so fncked.
Posted by: Ugh | September 09, 2007 at 12:51 PM
We are so fncked.
I am sending a plea to the universal spirit that a few doughty democrats might dig in and give Gen. Petraeus a sound and honest grilling.
Failing that, what hope is there?
Posted by: obscure | September 09, 2007 at 12:59 PM
Wow, al Qaeda's got impressive diplomatic and operational reach. Working with Saddam Hussein and the ayatollahs...
Posted by: Nell | September 09, 2007 at 01:10 PM
Of course, Ronald Reagan's administration managed the same feat briefly.
I think Ledeen's there to make less obviously insane but still poisonous policy look appealing by comparison.
Posted by: Nell | September 09, 2007 at 01:12 PM
Nell: Of course, Ronald Reagan's administration managed the same feat briefly.
With no little assistance/encouragement from Ledeen (as I'm sure you recall ;-)).
Posted by: matttbastard | September 09, 2007 at 02:04 PM
obscure: I am sending a plea to the universal spirit that a few doughty democrats might dig in and give Gen. Petraeus a sound and honest grilling.
Even if I weren't an atheist, I'd still wager your plea would fall on deaf ears. In lieu of solid data, Petraeus has charts and maps. Pretty, colour-coded maps.
What good is a "sound and honest grilling" if the Congresscritters still give the 'surge' another Friedman to work? ('If'. That's a good one, mattt.)
Posted by: matttbastard | September 09, 2007 at 02:21 PM
My god, these people are completely delusional.
Posted by: Fledermaus | September 09, 2007 at 03:13 PM
Reading Peter Beinart's review of Podhoretz' and Ledeen's latest screeds in the NYT Book Review, I couldn't help but be reminded of how much the latters' rants more closely resemble blog posts than what one would normally think of as political "books". The same belligerent tone, the same self-righteous ideology-mongering, the same flip acceptance of shorthand catch-phrases (like "Islamofacism"- otherwise undefined) in place of any sort of nuance or detailed argument, etc. etc. All the same stuff one gets used to in the blogosphere: it just seems a sad commentary on the state of our discourse that supposedly "Serious" commentators can't, apparently, improve the product very much in "serious" (i.e., dead-tree) publications. But then, it IS Norman Podhoretz....
Oh, and Beinart's closing graf was the best zinger....
"One day, prominent conservatives will offer not merely new foreign policies for the post-Bush era, but a new style of foreign policy argument: lighter on character attacks and unsubstantiated generalizations, heavier on careful reasoning and empirical evidence. And when they do, they may find “World War IV” and “The Iranian Time Bomb” instructive, as object lessons in the kinds of books not to write."
Indeed.
Posted by: Jay C | September 09, 2007 at 04:14 PM
What good is a "sound and honest grilling" if the Congresscritters still give the 'surge' another Friedman to work
It's the court of public opinion that matters. Some pushback against Bush's house of cards could do wonders.
Posted by: obscure | September 09, 2007 at 04:32 PM
obscure: It's the court of public opinion that matters. Some pushback against Bush's house of cards could do wonders.
Bush isn't up for reelection. He can afford to continue defiantly catering to his chosen special interests and his ego, in lieu of reality and a skeptical populace. The court of public opinion no longer has jurisdiction over his decisions. And despite the public by and large seeing through the smoke and mirrors, Congress will roll over yet again - regardless of the Kabuki performance that will inevitably be held tomorrow.
6 more months.
Bet on it.
Posted by: matttbastard | September 09, 2007 at 05:19 PM
I think President Bush is well aware of the need to consolidate his legacy in history. He can not leave the job of stabilizing the Middle East and orienting it in a pro-American direction halfway finished. He will not allow the nerve center of Islamofascism in Teheran alive and ticking waiting for their opportunity to complete Hitler's holocaust of the Jewish people. He also needs to insure that the current malaise of confidence in American public opinion not persist into the 2008 elections. I fully expect him to face these problems head-on and lead an invincible surge on all fronts, military, economic and political and pass on a bright future to his Republican successor in 2009.
Posted by: nabalzbbfr | September 09, 2007 at 05:58 PM
What matttbastard said.
Also: I think the Administration will use the "news" in the "Petraeus Report" as a stepping-stone to implement the last unfailed bit of their overarching "strategy" for the Middle East, i.e. a permanent occupation (at some strength or other) of Iraq - regardless of the opinions of the Iraqis or anyone else (the American public least of all).
Posted by: Jay C | September 09, 2007 at 06:04 PM
Ahmadinejad is actually in control of both Sunnis ahd Shiites. That sort of thing happens all the time. In Van">http://www.google.com/search%3Fhl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26q%3Dslan%26btnG%3DSearch&sa=X&oi=print&ct=title">Van Vogt novels, anyway.
Posted by: Mike Schilling | September 09, 2007 at 06:40 PM
Bush isn't up for reelection.
That was hardly my point. Put it this way, it's not just the court of public opinion, which you're right, Bush has already lost. It's also the court of media opinion, which can be substantially influenced by a bold performance, especially one which marshalls facts and exposes tomfoolery.
What I'm saying is that if a democrat gets his game on and puts Petraeus on the defensive, exposing the rank confidence game he and Bush are playing it can have a powerful effect on how the media treats Bush and his gang of liars.
And when the media smell blood we get to a whole new level.
Posted by: obscure | September 09, 2007 at 07:58 PM
What I'm saying is that if a democrat gets his game on and puts Petraeus on the defensive, exposing the rank confidence game he and Bush are playing it can have a powerful effect on how the media treats Bush and his gang of liars.
And when the media smell blood we get to a whole new level.
To coin a phrase: Go ahead, make my day!
Posted by: nabalzbbfr | September 09, 2007 at 08:47 PM
It's also the court of media opinion, which can be substantially influenced by a bold performance, especially one which marshalls facts and exposes tomfoolery.
What I'm saying is that if a democrat gets his game on and puts Petraeus on the defensive, exposing the rank confidence game he and Bush are playing it can have a powerful effect on how the media treats Bush and his gang of liars.
And when the media smell blood we get to a whole new level.
The same media that all summer has aided and abetted the Bush admin's PR surge? Bold performances from the likes of Biden, who has already embraced GOP talking points as gospel?
I especially liked how, after much Spectoring, sputtering and bluster, Congress boldly and courageously caved to Executive demands re: previously unlawful domestic surveillance and warrentless wiretapping.
Please.
I'm sure there will a pungent stench after Monday's dog and pony show, but it sure as hell won't be blood (or at least not Bush's blood).
Six. More. Months.
Posted by: matttbastard | September 09, 2007 at 11:50 PM
Go ahead and be a cynic, mattbastard. It's a simple fact that Bush is a bully. It's a simple fact that people often exhibit herd-like behavior. It's a simple fact that when a bully is confronted and had the air let out of his balloon, that can have a dramatic effect.
So, 'please' yourself.
Posted by: obscure | September 10, 2007 at 07:22 AM
You and I seem to have different notions of what is meant by 'facts'.
JFTR, I resent and reject the 'cynic' label. There most certainly is good reason to remain optimistic, even after 6 years of extreme shock treatment. But it's gonna take a lot more than political theatre and hollow gestures to even begin to undo the damage that has been wrought by Bush and the ideological-industrial complex.
Gonna take time, hard goddamn work, and no little courage (eg, expressing the will to put impeachment on the table, no matter how 'unserious' the notion may seem to the Beltway punditry).
But so far I haven't observed any reason why I should hope that this Congress is prepared to do what it takes to live up to the mandate it was given in November 2006 by the American people. That's not cynicism; that's (unfortunately) reality.
Posted by: matttbastard | September 10, 2007 at 04:18 PM