Michael Ledeen responds to Vanity Fair piece

By

The Latest Disinformation from Vanity Fair [Michael Ledeen]

My experience with Vanity Fair is even more extensive than David Frum's, having been the subject of a 30,000 word screed that ends with the author's bland confession "there is no evidence for any of this." So I am not at all surprised to see the editors yank words from me, David, and others out of context and totally misdescribe what we think, do and feel. I do not feel "remorseful," since I had and have no involvement with our Iraq policy. I opposed the military invasion of Iraq before it took place and I advocate "as I still do'support for political revolution in Iran as the logical and necessary first step in the war against the terror masters.

Readers of NRO know well how disappointed I have been with our failure to address Iran, which was, and remains, the central issue, and it has been particularly maddening to live through extended periods when our children were in battle zones where Iranian—supported terrorists were using Iranian—made weapons against Americans, Iraqis and Afghans. I have been expressing my discontent for more than three years. So much for a change of heart dictated by developments on the ground.

So it is totally misleading for Vanity Fair to suggest that I have had second thoughts about our Iraq policy. But then one shouldn't be surprised. No one ever bothered to check any of the lies in the first screed, and obviously no fact—checker was involved in the latest "promotion." I actually wrote to David Rose, the author of the article—to—come, a person for whom I have considerable respect. He confirmed that words attributed to me in the promo had been taken out of context.

Posted at 1:35 PM on National Review Online

The Latest Disinformation from Vanity Fair [Michael Ledeen]

My experience with Vanity Fair is even more extensive than David Frum's, having been the subject of a 30,000 word screed that ends with the author's bland confession "there is no evidence for any of this." So I am not at all surprised to see the editors yank words from me, David, and others out of context and totally misdescribe what we think, do and feel. I do not feel "remorseful," since I had and have no involvement with our Iraq policy. I opposed the military invasion of Iraq before it took place and I advocate "as I still do'support for political revolution in Iran as the logical and necessary first step in the war against the terror masters.

Readers of NRO know well how disappointed I have been with our failure to address Iran, which was, and remains, the central issue, and it has been particularly maddening to live through extended periods when our children were in battle zones where Iranian—supported terrorists were using Iranian—made weapons against Americans, Iraqis and Afghans. I have been expressing my discontent for more than three years. So much for a change of heart dictated by developments on the ground.

So it is totally misleading for Vanity Fair to suggest that I have had second thoughts about our Iraq policy. But then one shouldn't be surprised. No one ever bothered to check any of the lies in the first screed, and obviously no fact—checker was involved in the latest "promotion." I actually wrote to David Rose, the author of the article—to—come, a person for whom I have considerable respect. He confirmed that words attributed to me in the promo had been taken out of context.

Posted at 1:35 PM on National Review Online