...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.