Thoughts on Michael Ledeen

Michael Ledeen claims that: "In fact, according to Iranians with whom I have spoken, there were monster demonstrations in eleven provinces and 37 cities, and many thousands — one source said more than 30,000 — people were arrested, some only briefly, others shipped off to the infamous prisons and torture chambers of the regime."

Perhaps, but remember, Mr. Ledeen also claims that his friends have told him where the WMDs are, but for some reason our government is refusing to look for them (so apparently the Bush administration is doing nothing to prove that its asseritons about WMDs were true).

"Last August [in 2003 -Gl.] I called [David Kay] in Baghdad to tell him that I had a person — a good person, like himself, a person I trust — who was prepared to take him to an underground laboratory from which a quantity of enriched uranium had been taken a few years ago, and smuggled to Iran. Wow, he said, let's go look. Have the guy call me, we'll check it out... But, as I say, the CIA never went to look."

Read the whole article for the whole story. But doesn't anyone else think that it is ridiculous that the government wouldn't pursue a lead that could help them prove their story? Even if you don't trust the CIA, Michael Ledeen had been talking about how corrupt, or at least inept they are for more than a year and a half before his contact with David Kay back in August 2003. (here and here and here and here for more on the fact that Ledeen doesn't trust the CIA, whether because he feels it is corrupt or inept - there is also a link to an article "why muzzle Saddam's Foes" but it goes to the wrong article) If he had good information, why not pass it to someone like Wolfowitz or Rumsfeld or someone in the Defense Department, who presumably would make certain it was looked at. (And don't tell me he couldn't get to them; if he could talk to David Kay, he could have talked to someone in the DoD). Why would Mr. Ledeen only contact a person whose action was predicated on the decision of an organization (the CIA) that Ledeen so thouroughly distrusts (at least Ledeen seems to imply that David Kay's inspection of the WMD site was predicated on the CIA's go-ahead)?

A more simple, and in my opinion, better, explanation is that Michael Ledeen's "good person" is trying to trick him. An even better explanation is that Michael Ledeen is LYING.

That is all.