Ledeen: The Truth About Tenet

Uh oh, Michael Ledeen is starting to talk to himself, and you know what that means! In this editorial he has a "ouija board" conversation with deceased former head of CIA counterintelligence James Jesus Angleton who explains that former CIA officials have setup the new Iranian president, Ahmadi Nezhad, prior to regime change. I kind of wondered if Nezhad's anti-Israel remarks were disingenuous. Does this mean Ledeen, and the Bush administration, may be giving up on the idea of regime change for Iran?

http://www.nationalreview.com/ledeen/ledeen200512190833.asp

Tenet isn't Dulles, and Goss isn't even Tenet. I doubt whether we have the power and the guile to pull it off, anymore.

Ledeen should just give poor J.J. a rest.

and maybe some anti-vampire measures as well. (Crossed fingers? Garlic wreaths?). The man is a rabid Neo-Con, truly a nutcase. He is the likely arranger of the Niger forgeries and god knows what else; hangs out with people like Ahmad Chalabi and (Iran-Contra arms dealer) Manucher Ghorbanifar--a serious troublemaker and major destroyer of world peace from way back.

I read this seemingly meaningless and stupid piece of writing, looking for clues to the misdirection he is undoubtedly trying to give, or the disinformation, or the coverup of dirty or murderous Bushite deeds. It ostensibly says that Tenet is still running the CIA, and that the CIA installed the Iran mullah who railed against Israel the other day (said it was the Europeans who had harmed the Jews, so why didn't they give up their land to create the state of Israel, instead of taking Palestinians' land?). And the reason the CIA installed this mullah (according to the Ladeen fantasy conversation with a dead former CIA head, James Angleton) was to foment "regime change" in Iran.

I think Ladeen has deteriorating mental faculties--as one might, who has so much blood on this hands. I can't make much sense of this article, even on the surface level. Why would he write it? What is his point? Possibly the only point is to put "Iran" and "regime change" together in the same sentence one more time. But I don't think he's really trying to communicate with the general public (except, in a general way, to create some kind of legitimacy for himself as a sane and respectable commentator on foreign policy). It feels more like an insider piece. He could be trying to undermine said mullah and get him killed. (His tongue-in-cheek method might not translate.) He may be trying to put a thin veneer of amusing black ops over the Iran situation, to cover up some other, more diabolical scheme that is in motion ("Gulf of Tonkin II"?). Or he might be trying to distance himself from Bush/Cheney and the Cartel, or from Tenet, by appearing to describe things from the outside (as a guesser at what's going on), in order to head off guilt for something that is about to be disclosed about him (for instance, by the AIPAC/Franklin investigation--gov't employees spying for Israel). Neo-Cons are supposedly in disrepute these days, among worried Republican politicos. So he tries to make light of it all--as if he hadn't been in the thick of the Cartel's lies and their heinous war.

The piece warrants attention because of Ladeen's known and yet to be known connections to Plamegate, and possibly other Bushite crimes. (The Niger forgeries that started it all--precipitated Wilson's trip to Niger and subsequent article--went from Ladeen to Hadley to Rumsfeld/Cheney, or possibly the other way around, Rumsfeld/Cheney ordered up the forgeries through Hadley from Ladeen. The forgeries--which were crude and easily detectable--may have been intended to bait the CIA into a public no-nukes-in-Iraq position, that would later be discredited, when the nukes that Ladeen and Ghorbanifar were intending to plant in Iraq were "found." (My theory of Plamegate--that Plame found out about this nefarious scheme and foiled it.)

As I tried to point out in another popular thread, Ledeen could be THE key individual in the Niger forgeries. (I didn't realize until recently the key role he and Ghorbanifar played in Iran-Contra, as well)

I would add that Ledeen's insane philosophies (for example, his positive portrayal of a universal fascism movement) have had a major impact on the Bush administration's foreign policies, so no matter how crazy it gets I would still take what he says seriously. I noticed critical press coverage today of the Iranian president and how he is rolling back years of progress of the previous Iranian administration.

I have a big container of Kosher salt that I use regularly. :-)

and start hiding smidgens of truth in plain sight amidst all the fairy tales.

It reminds me of Carrol Quigley, or Clinton paying homage to Quigley in his nomination acceptance speech, or one of those quotes from David Rockefeller or Mike Wallace where they stick it right in our faces:

Angelton via Ledeen: "It was all coordinated, all staged, the usual disinformation for a gullible public."

To remind bigger players what he could reveal if he is allowed to take the fall for the Niger forgery.

That guy in Iran is straight out of central casting, and if the goal was peace with iran, we wouldn't have invaded iraq and strengthened the hand of the mullahs.

I have no doubt Ledeen would be considering his options, and "That guy in Iran is straight out of central casting", but it does not follow that he is our puppet, it seems much more likely he is a what he seems, a front man for the Mullahs. This piece makes more sense to me as a fairy tale told to assert the illusion of control where real control is failing, which is a common sort of bluff for a person in a weak and precarious position.