Ledeen: Don't read what you are into the big document of Iraq

[kpete]

June 16, 2006

Nonsense
Don’t read what you are into the big document of Iraq.

By Michael Ledeen

“So how exactly do you figure out when something is real, and when it’s a deception?”

I was talking via my rickety ouija board with the spirit of James Jesus Angleton, the former chief of CIA counterintelligence, somewhere in the Great Beyond, concerning the much ballyhooed document found in Iraq and published with great gravitas all over the world. Angleton seemed much amused by the document, which he dismissed as a manifest phony.

JJA: Well, the assumption about this piece of paper is that it reflects the thinking of at least one important terrorist leader, right? Otherwise it wouldn’t be important.

ML: Obviously.

JJA: So how come this terrorist leader makes so many mistakes? I mean, blatant factual errors. Let’s start with his statement — #5 in the first set of numbered paragraphs — that there has been “a decline of the resistance’s assaults.”

ML: Well, our casualties are certainly down, aren’t they?

JJA: Not really. May was one of the worst months since the fall of Saddam. Recently there’s been a dramatic increase in assaults and the number of dead innocents. Precisely the opposite of what the unnamed “leader” says

..................

" I think the Iranians put out this sort of nonsense so that we’ll have trouble figuring out what’s real. And by the way, it wasn’t found in Zarqawi’s house, contrary to the triumphant announcement from the office of the Iraqi prime minister. So it’s certainly not a Last Testament. It’s just nonsense."

more at:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZDc2YTM3Zjk1NWVjOGNjODhmY2U1ZWQ4Y2U1N2E4ZTI=

emptywheel has a review:
http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the_next_hurrah/2006/06/ledeen_loses_co.html#more

[SmokingJacket]

1. Excellent.

Not much pisses me totally off anymore -- but I ranted to my husband about that piece of shit propaganda for a good long time this morning. The local newspaper's headline was all about the "document" found in the "hideout" of "Al Qaeda in Iraq" -- bullshit, bullshit, bullshit -- and not a word questioning it. I'm glad to see someone is.

[Jackpine Radical]

2. It somehow worries the hell out of me when I see Ledeen--

Goddamit, LEDEEN of all people--calling Bullshit on pro-war propaganda. There is something deeply disturbing to my world-view in this picture, something like waking up in an Escher painting.

[Roland99]

3. Ledeen is just BATSHIT INSANE!!

No need to mince words about that pathological criminal.

[eleny]

4. ledeen is a steaming pile of it

i don't know what his game is this time. no matter what that is - he's a steaming pile.

[Igel]

5. "Don’t read what you are into the big document of Iraq" ...

But's that what he does.

I'm not saying the letter is real, but let's not assume Ledeen's spot-on accurate because we want to say the letter is false. Zarqawi wasn't writing for Ledeen, the US, or DU. He was writing for the people he led, whatever you take that to mean. It's possible for Ledeen to be wrong *and* for the letter to be fake.

Zarq-dude was arguably in charge of part of the resistance; grant me that, for argument's sake. A big point with everybody is that killing him, indeed wiping out his entire organization, would have a non-spectacular effect on the insurgency? One could argue that some spectacular or strategic attacks are his, but not the majority. Maybe it'll affect the course of the occupation, but maybe not.

Ask yourself this: Would Zarqawi be complaining that he has to do things that he has no control over? I.e., does 'resistance' mean SCIRI's group? Ba'athist groups? Naw. Not the way to bet. He's talking about his folk. You know, that percentage that everybody downplays.

Since he's most likely talking about that small portion of the resistance, there are ways in which Ledeen's comment on assaults/casaulties may well be a non-sequitur: assaults are down, the letter says; no, no, Ledeen replies, the number of assaults and casualties are up. (1) The number of AQ-related assaults may be down, and the number of casualties may indeed still rise with increasing lethality, but we only really count casulaties here; (2) the overall number of AQ assaults may be down, but the number of successful AQ assaults may have increased; (3) the number of AQ assaults may be down, but the number of assaults by the other resistance groups may still be up. We simply can't tell from the information: his statements may be true, they may be false.

And that's ignoring the very possibility that the document predates the May blitz, and the upturn Ledeen discusses is a consequence of the letter. If that's the case, this turns from a problem to a feature.

Countries supporting the occupation? Are they using the same language? I seem to recall a few diplomatic folk from an Arab country being killed, with an AQ announcement saying it was because their country "supported the occupation". Those from another counter were kidnapped and released for their country's 'support'. The Islamists' saying mere relations were "support" was certainly an extreme view; but there it was. No troops; no money; no PR. Just having diplomatic relations ... it's very much 'if you're not with us, you're with them' thinking. Do we have the same usage here? Yes, no, maybe? Have you been keeping track of who has diplomatic relations with Iraq? Positive statements from the OIC or other countries about the Iraqi government? Anybody ready to say that Ledeen's right, using not what Ledeen wants the word to mean, but what may be Zarqawi's meaning of the word? I'm not. I have no idea. His points may be verifiable, but he doesn't even bother the attempt, and he's crucially pitching right into gaps from what I recall from the MSM and blogs.

And so it goes. Ledeen wants the letter to be false because if it's there, then there's an opportunity to embarrass the * administration into backing off from confrontation with Iran. Ledeen wants confrontation with Iran. That's stupid reasoning.

Some DUers disagree with the idea of confrontation with Iran. So Ledeen's quibbles presumably must be false. Indeed, they're indeterminate, as far as I know. There may be evidence showing that diplomatic support's dropped, that the letter was dated late last week, and that specifically AQ attacks actually increased, etc. Haven't seen it. Ledeen's claims aren't evidence.

Others disagree strongly with the claims that AQ, and in some funny logic, by extension the entire resistance, is struggling. So they want Ledeen's claims to be true, because then there's no evidence that AQ (or the resistance, whichever) is faltering. But Ledeen's claims are still indeterminate.

I read this letter, and knew that both dems and repubs would be split internally over this letter--some would want it to be false, some true, depending whether Iran or the insurgency ranked higher. What they believe it means depends on what they want to believe.

Anybody have some actual evidence the letter's fake, something linking to a person who's claiming an observation? Some conclusion that's deducible from a set of observations or generally agreed upon facts? Or, more importantly, does anybody have evidence that it's not fake, since the default assumption is that it isn't, IMHO?

Anybody? Anything?

[Bucky]

6. Why are Republicans still fawning over James Jesus Angleton?

Why not channel some other obscure bureaucrat from American history? Angleton was hardly a distinctive figure in the Cold War--not a great thinker, not a terribly accomplished spymaster, not even a consistant conservative. He sure wasn't someone terribly interested in or knowledgeable about Iraq. It's like channelling William McKinley to ask his expert advise on internet stocks, or praying to the ghost of James G Blaine for insights into how to engineer the next Mars lander.

With all the great conservatives in history to choose from, why dig up this particular corpse? Fuckin' random weirdos.

[Peace Patriot]

7. Haven't been following the letter controversy, so can't comment on the

content, but Ladeen is the rabid NeoCon who organized the Rome 2001 meeting, where the Niger forgeries were likely concocted, and possibly also a plot to, a) plant nukes in Iraq, to make the forged docs come true, which may have been foiled by the Plame/Brewster-Jennings WMD counter-proliferation network, which led to (or paralleled), b) the outing of Plame and destruction of that network. Ladeen like his pal Manucher Ghorbanifar (Iran-Contra arms dealer) are disinformation artists and major warmongers and war profiteers. Bear this in mind, on anything he writes. What is his nefarious purpose? Could be just to get creds as a legitimate commentator, on a particular issue, to accomplish something else later. Not. To. Be. Trusted.

By the way--re: the supposed Zarqawi letter. How can anybody trust ANYTHING that has gone through Bushite hands? These are the very same people who cited the Niger forgeries--which they knew to be bullshit--to justify invading Iraq! ANY document that they purport to have must be presumed to be false, as a starting premise. You'd think we'd learn. As with their "elections," we need to say: prove it to me. Trust is not an option with these liars and criminals.