Michael Ledeen "explains" it all. I don't know how I ever could have doubted him....
August 31, 2004 | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference My Apologies:
» Not Very Reassuring from Kautilyan
I found it kind of amusing that in today's NYT David Johnston and Eric Schmitt go to neocon Michael Ledeen to get a denial that Larry Franklin, the Defense official accused of spying for Isreal, did anything wrong. Efforts to [Read More]
Tracked on Aug 31, 2004 11:10:30 AM
» Gift Basket
from Tom Jamme's Blog
Sweet Blessings, a new Christian-based online shop featuring cookie bouquets, candy bouquets and gift baskets, opens with a campaign to donate a portion of all profits to Habitat For Humanity. The devastation of hurricanes Katrina and Rita, while not a... [Read More]
Tracked on Oct 7, 2005 12:24:04 AM
Tracked on Jun 5, 2006 1:26:01 PM
Tracked on Jun 5, 2006 11:00:00 PM
» New Engineering Center to Transform Sensor Technology from Baltimore researchers
is expected to revolutionize sensor technology, yielding devices that have a [Read More]
Tracked on Jun 10, 2006 1:55:18 AM
» Health Tip: Calming an Upset Stomach
from small meals of
things -- a bacterial or viral infection, pregnancy, food poisoning, or reaction to drugs or therapy. Here are suggestions from the Cleveland [Read More]
Tracked on Jun 19, 2006 1:11:21 AM
Tracked on Jun 21, 2006 4:45:46 PM
Tracked on Jul 27, 2006 10:06:37 AM
Tracked on Aug 15, 2006 10:19:45 AM
As if Ledeen's credibility wasn't destroyed already, now he's channeling James Jesus Angelton. That's right, the same JJA who became a paranoid schizophrenic in the later stages of his career. Nice.
Posted by: JR | Aug 31, 2004 9:01:21 AM
The argument re: the incompetence of the spycraft is strictly air.
The argument re: the usual silence of the FBI is more convincing. Or would be if the administration hadn't just spent nearly 4 years using and abusing the CIA and FBI.
Posted by: Jeffrey Davis | Aug 31, 2004 9:24:33 AM
Ok, what's the deal with the columnists of the right always writing columns as if they are speaking with dead people (the most notable is, of course, Safire's ongoing conversations with Nixon)? Does it lend some necrophilic aura of credibility?
Posted by: Scott Pauls | Aug 31, 2004 9:28:00 AM
Incredible isn't it, this kind of gaming, laughing response. I also think it's odd the tortured, demented dead are involved in these mortiferous screeds.
Posted by: Mark Findrick | Aug 31, 2004 9:54:40 AM
Is it worth pointing out here that James Jesus Angleton was a paranoid, raving lunatic?
Posted by: praktike | Aug 31, 2004 10:28:59 AM
Does the fact that Ledeen is named in the Washington Monthly piece about meetings between Franklin and Manucher Ghorbanifar have any bearing? Ledeen couldn't possibly be covering his own butt, could he?
Posted by: Jon | Aug 31, 2004 10:33:20 AM
Defining an Ownership Society
This is the new theme of the Republican Party that will be presented in the coming days of the Republican National Convention.
As a registered Libertarian I am absolutely thrilled to see the Republican Party adopt important Libertarian values.
Defining an Ownership Society
By David Boaz
President Bush says he wants America to be an “ownership society.” What does that mean?
People have known for a long time that individuals take better care of things they own. Aristotle wrote, "What belongs in common to the most people is accorded the least care: they take thought for their own things above all, and less about things common, or only so much as falls to each individually." And we all observe that homeowners take better care of their houses than renters do. That’s not because renters are bad people; it’s just that you’re more attentive to details when you stand to profit from your house’s rising value or to suffer if it deteriorates.
Just as homeownership creates responsible homeowners, widespread ownership of other assets creates responsible citizens. People who are owners feel more dignity, more pride, and more confidence. They have a stronger stake, not just in their own property, but in their community and their society. Maintaining dignity and confidence is no doubt difficult for those with few economic choices. Geoff Mulgan, a top aide to British prime minister Tony Blair, explains, “To escape from poverty you need assets—assets which you can put to work. There is a good deal of historical evidence…as well as abundant contemporary evidence, that ownership tends to encourage self-esteem and healthy habits of behaviour, such as acting more for the long term, or taking education more seriously."
Former prime minister Margaret Thatcher had that goal in mind when she set out to privatize Great Britain’s public housing. Her administration sold 1.5 million housing units to their occupants, transforming 1.5 million British families from tenants in public housing to proud homeowners. She thought the housing would be better maintained, but more importantly she thought that homeowners would become more responsible citizens and see themselves as having a real stake in the future and in the quality of life in their communities. And yes, she thought that homeowners would be more likely to vote for lower taxes and less regulation—policies that would tend to improve the country’s economic performance—and thus for the Conservative Party, or for Labour Party candidates only when they renounced their traditional socialism.
Margaret Thatcher saw that private ownership allows people to profit from improving their property by building on it or otherwise making it more valuable. People can also profit by improving themselves, of course, through education and the development of good habits, as long as they are allowed to reap the profits that come from such improvement.
... because "reaping profits" is what the whole human experience is about -- right?
Would this be about the right time to pronounce the scandal dead, or too complicated to sort out?
And would someone, for God's sake, go back in time and undermine the first time that spammer's great-grandparents met? Or, in the alternative, do this little thing we call banning one's IP address.
Front Page Mag also has a "rebuttal."
I almost wish that that liberals had no integrity, so that we could deliver such ridiculous "denials" with a straight face.
I have a great deal of information on the whole Franklin case on my blog. Click on my name.
Leeden's whole argument seems to be that because Franklin got caught he must be innocent.
Posted by: dc | Aug 31, 2004 12:24:22 PM
"Leeden's whole argument seems to be that because Franklin got caught he must be innocent."
Well, that would explain why we responded to 9/11 by catching Saddam rather than Osama . . .
Posted by: rea | Aug 31, 2004 12:29:57 PM
While Ledeen is in the channeling mode--he might want to call his daughter, Simone the MBA, and ask her how $8.8B US taxpayer dollars went missing in Iraq.
Posted by: Jadegold | Aug 31, 2004 12:32:31 PM
Adrian, thank you for sharing.
I now understand why labor relations have been so bad recently. Business owners have been treating employees like renters instead of owners.
This would all clear up if we eliminated hiring and brought back slavery.
Posted by: J Thomas | Aug 31, 2004 3:10:10 PM
I hate to break it to you guys, but "Israeli spy ring" is a huge story, were it to exist.
"Back-channel meetings with dubious characters in the Iranian exilee community" is just a snooze.
Blame Leslie Stahl for overselling the former.
Posted by: David | Aug 31, 2004 3:24:45 PM
Looks like Ledeen is putting out feelers to get someone to contact him regarding who else the FBI may have attempted to get wiretap permission for.
It's really creepy how blase the neocons are regarding the apparent fact that the Israelis have open and easy access to confidential US policy info. It's like they are so used to the illegal contacts and info sharing, and it also seems to be widespread in Congress via AIPAC influence, that they have lost sight of how outrageous the average citizen might find it.
I would like to think that this whole thing would blow sky high if everyone realized the undue influence the radical party of a foreign govt has on our govt. But, like fundamentalists of the muslim faith who identify more with their faith than their country, the fundamentalist American Christians identify more with their faith than with this country. The people who are into that day of revelation crap are not going to be bothered with the Israeli influence thing. They are probably sending money to AIPAC and to the nutso settler movement.
The neocon rationale that is springing up all over right now is is like saying, "Well, Mobster Billy can just walk into the policestation any time he wants and we'll show him our police roster and our methods for going after mobsters. There was absolutely no reason for Officer Smith to meet him in a public lunch counter and hand him this information."
Posted by: karol | Aug 31, 2004 7:14:24 PM
Shorter Ledeen: If Franklin really did spy for Israel, there would be no way to know about it.
Posted by: Calboy | Sep 1, 2004 12:52:51 AM
He's right. If an israeli spy followed proper proceures the FBI couldn't possibly catch him unless somebody in the israeli system switched sides and told.
But those procedures are so much trouble, they're such a bother, why would anybody use them when the FBI isn't going to catch them anyway? And besides, the FBI wouldn't dare prosecute.
That's the part that I don't get, why would the FBI bother to follow this up when they know they can't win? Everybody involved is going to get reprimands and likely demotions. Why did they think they could get away with it?
Posted by: J Thomas | Sep 1, 2004 12:09:43 PM
Very nice site. Will sure visit again.
The comments to this entry are closed.