Greenwald on Ledeen (& others ): "The art of neoconservative innuendo"

[laststeamtrain]

The art of neoconservative innuendo

(updated below)

Writing in National Review a couple of days ago, Michael Ledeen of the American Enterprise Institute blatantly violated the New Rule in America which prohibits questioning the credibility of a four-star General in a Time of War, when Ledeen (during a Time of War) attacked recently retired Four-Star General John Abizaid for explaining why a nuclear-armed Iran is less dangerous than a U.S. war with Iran. Said Ledeen in attacking the General:

"Abizaid Speaks! Oh Dear...

"General Abizaid has unburdened himself on the subject of nuclear Iran. He thinks Iran is kinda like the Soviet Union, it's deterrable, and while he'd rather Iran not have nukes, all in all we could live with it. . . .

"I'm grateful for this bit of enlightenment from the former commander of Central Command, whose failed strategy in Iraq led us to fight more effectively, especially against the Iranians' depredations in both Iraq and Afghanistan. It was under Abizaid that the copious evidence of Iranian activity was suppressed, and we, let's say, took it easy on the thousands of Revolutionary Guards killers running all over the country. He now wants to extend that policy to Iran itself. He's got plenty of company in Foggy Bottom, Langley, and the White House."

So Gen. Abizaid, who "failed" in his mission, also "suppressed" the "copious evidence" of Iranian involvement in Iraq. That sounds like Ledeen is accusing General Abizaid of being less than honest -- how else can one characterize someone who "suppresses" evidence? -- and that, as we learned this week, is not allowed. The Commander-in-Chief just explained this morning that such attacks are "disgusting" and constitute attacks on The Troops Themselves.

<snip>

As I've documented previously, one of the most intellectually dishonest attributes of neoconservatives generally -- one of the principal features that makes them such a corrosive presence in our political discourse -- is their fondness for trafficking in innuendo and argument by implication. They love to spew out vague phrases filled with obvious, implied meaning yet they virtually always lack the courage to explicitly state what they are trying to convey. They will say things like "it's time to get our hands dirty in this war" or "we need to stop being so politically correct in how we fight" or "it's time that there be real consequences for those who undermine America in a time of war," but they will be too afraid to specify exactly what they are advocating even when asked to do so.

<more>

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/09/20/ledeen/index.html?source=rss&aim=greenwald

[tech3149]

1. Jumping Jesus on a Pogo Stick!

It just goes to show these idiots have no connection with reality. Abizade knew how how much of a clusterf#$% Iraq would be. Check this bit of historical reference.

U.S. general, replaced Tommy Franks in July as the commander of allied forces in the Persian Gulf. Abizaid, an Arab-American, is fluent in Arabic. Days after he assumed the post, Abizaid said coalition troops in Iraq were confronting “a classical guerrilla-type campaign” by forces loyal to Saddam Hussein and by terrorist groups. The statement departed from defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld's earlier assessments, which said the attacks were random and unorganized.