Ledeen has zero credibility. This is a person who floated the idea that after invading Iraq we might have to go to war with France and Germany. Seriously.

http://www.nationalreview.com/ledeen/ledeen031003.asp

"If this is correct [that France and Germany are involved in a plot to bring down America via Muslim terrorism], we will have to pursue the war against terror far beyond the boundaries of the Middle East, into the heart of Western Europe."

Doesn't get much more insane than that.

Regarding Ledeen and his ability to lie without any shame at all. Nothing tops this

http://dailydoubt.blogspot.com/2008/01/michael-ledeen-fanatical-liar.html

FOUR HOURS AFTER THE 9/11 ATTACKS Ledeen posted on his blog that Saddam was responsible for them and that we need to go to war with Iraq!

Finally, someone should remind the president that we are still living with the consequences of Desert Shame, when his father and his father's advisers--most notably Colin Powell and Brent Scowcroft--advised against finishing the job and liberating Iraq. And the president should show the world that he is cut from different fabric, by immediately moving the American Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, and removing the pettifogging restrictions on the Iraqi Resistance, thereby taking the fight directly to Saddam on his own territory.

If he does that, he will show his antiterrorist people that the rules have changed, and we are serious. If he doesn't, they will cover their asses with legal opinions forbidding them to act effectively.

Machiavelli famously said that it's impossible to get good leaders in peacetime. We will now find out if we have leaders capable of waging war.

That in that post on 9/11, Ledeen also says that Saddam was responsible for the first World Trade Center bombing in the 90s.

Uh, the news covers what people want to see, what they care about. The networks can't afford to cover wonkish policy details like this military news propaganda story - YAWN - and stay in business. They've got to cover the stuff people care about.

Take, for instance, CNN Headline News which has today devoted a significant amount of liver coverage to the wreckless driving trial of Hulk Hogan's son.*

*This comment inspired by the work of Megan McCardle

I always make errors like that. I need an editor.

He is a pundit. He offers his opinion on things. The "journalism" he does consists of either regurgitating what his sources have gossiped to him or offering opinion based on uncritical acceptance of said gossip. This has some utility, as it gives him insider insight; for example, his book Politics Lost reveals how Democratic strategists managed to kill Al Gore's passion for the environment in 2000 and turn him into a robot.

But little actual journalism gets done by the ever growing pundit class that masquerades as journalism.

Something I find interesting is that when you compare the pundit class to the actual journalists what jumps out at you is how when you think of the pundits you think of their personalities where as when it comes to the journalists you think of their work.

Compare, for instance what comes to mind when you think of Klein versus Charlie Savage, Peggy Noonan versus James Bamford, Maureen Down versus Eric Lichtbau, etc.

It is difficult not to spontaneously combust reading that bit about the Iran war games. These are people who want nothing more than to start war after war but when it comes to actually preparing for those roles they toss away any and all information that they don't care for so as to create the reality that they wish for.

And then they send someone else to go die and get their arms and legs blown off in the Hell that results from the epistemic hell these cretinous fools live in.

I just finished reading Still Broken and its another vivid example of thousands upons thousands (if not approaching a million) lives being lost by people who believe that you can wish reality into existence.

And then what do they do after they've created the conditions for endless death and destruction? They go out and campaign on being strong on national security, on being "pro-troops" despite stop-lossing them and sending them into combat ahead of their equipment and not giving them the medical care they deserve. They say that if a Democrat is elected Americans will die inspite of the fact that more Americans have died as a consequence of the Bush's leadership than those who died on 9/11 (which also resulted - at least in part from the Bush administration's failure to recognize non-politicized reality).

But hell, at least President Bush gave up golf. Good golly that must be tough on him.

I love hearing the same pundits who worship Reagan accuse of the Democrats of engaging in Orwellian newspeak when they talk about strategic redeployment from Iraq. They characterize it as "cutting and running" and idiots like Sean Hannity invoke the deified Reagan to say that's what we shouldn't do.

When the marine barracks was bombed in Beirut by terrorists Reagan issued a "strategic redeployment" of the troops there.

Chris Mathews issued a severe intellectual beat-down to some AM radio host who could literally do nothing more than recite "appeasement" over and over again like a mindless parrot.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1wSZBTAXRs&eurl=http://dailydoubt.blogspot.com/

"And it is not our job to debate them."

It's your g.d. job to discern facts, though. What is it about D.C. that eats peoples brains and souls?