...but they don't seem to remember what he had to say about fanatics. To quote:

"A fanatic is someone who can't change his mind and won't change the subject."

This pretty much describes most neo-cons, including Ledeen. I'm not to familiar with his writing, but from what I read in the interview, he seems like the perfect person for the neo-cons right now. Blaming Iran (and Syria, and Saudi Arabia) is much more palatable than the other options which are a). regime change is impractical and doesn't produce the desired result or b). neo-conservative ideas and policies were instrumental in screwing up Iraq.

Hearing people like Leeden brings to mind an anarchist friend of mine from a while back. We were playing a board game, and things weren't going his way, so he flipped the game onto the floor. While we were picking it up, he proceeded to explain to me why the world would be a better place if only people agreed with him. The best way you can tell that revolution is in the DNA of neo-cons is their burning desire to topple or smash any government they decide does not properly represent it's people. They are very interested in dismantling the imperfect, but not so interested in the boring work of making a government work; they seem to think such things will take care of themselves. Would fomenting a revolt in Iran be something that would actually succeed soon enough to help us in Iraq? If so many people want a revolution in Iran, why don't we see some sort of group, paramilitary or otherwise, that represents this desire? Would the new government actually be benign to our interests? Who knows. Micheal Leeden doesn't. He doesn't even know if it would work. He just knows that we have to do it. Policy makers take tis kind of advice at their peril.

Kudos to Salon for interviewing people across the political spectrum.

This war was not the brainchild of congress, nor was it conjured up by State Department beareucrats, nor was it insisted upon by the military, and it was certainly not demanded by the public, who were rightfully focused on Afghanistan and the hunt for Osama Bin Laden. The decision to invade Iraq was made by the Bush administration. I will not try to argue that we would be better off if people like Clark had been more courageous and forceful in their objections, if Congress had been more dilligent, if the media had done it's job properly, and the citizenry had been less inclined to give themselves over to fear and accept the absurd idea of pre-emptive war. But none of this should distract us from the fact the the Bush adminstration planned this war, pushed this war and lied to make this war happen, all the while sidelining the people who did actually come out against it along the way.

It is correct to recognize that Bush is not solely responsible for this debacle; we are a democracy, and as such, we all bear some measure of responsibility for what is done in our name. But for President Bush to blame the military for following his directives and implementing his policy is absurd.

I was not surprised to hear President Bush characterize the sectarian violence in Iraq as a recent development last night. To quote:

"When I addressed you just over a year ago, nearly 12 million Iraqis had cast their ballots for a unified and democratic nation. The elections of 2005 were a stunning achievement."

And later:

"But in 2006, the opposite happened. The violence in Iraq — particularly in Baghdad — overwhelmed the political gains the Iraqis had made."

What he's whispering loud and clear is that things were going well until 2006. His supporters can draw the logical conclusion that if things were good in 2005 and started to deteriorate in 2006, then those who implement the strategy are impeding it's success. For this to make sense, you have to ignore the steady increase in violence and unrest that has been in evidence since we invaded. You also have to ignore the fact that the neo-conservatives who derided and ridiuled any suggestion that a large force would be nessecary to stabilize Iraq blame the military for not demanding such a force four years too late.

It shouldn't come as any surprise that President Bush continues to ignore what's actually happening in Iraq, nor should we be surprised that punishment will be meted out to people further down the chain of command. It is always someone else who is responsible. First it was the media, war critics and Democrats who were undermining the war effort. Recently it has been implied that the American people in general don't have the stomach for this fight, and now, finally, it is the military's turn to take the blame. It remains to be seen whether President Bush will run out of people to blame for his administration's mistakes before he leaves office.

...that "[i]t is a common tactic to accuse your opponent of exactly that which you practice..." in the same letter that he identifies "the real threat of violence" as the "loving, tolerant left".

And round and round we go.

I hope we see more of Nate the Neoconservative.