Remember when it was a big deal to be on the cover of Rolling Stone? It’s not anymore – not for a helluva long time. We all know that. Rolling Stone has evolved into a fuddy-duddy publication that is about as cutting edge as, well, the procrustean boomer who owns it. [Weren't your books once published by Rolling Stone?-ed. Yes, but that was in another country and the wench is dead.]
So the irrelevance of Rolling Stone is the good news for my pal Michael Ledeen. The bad news is that they have just published an article by James Bamford that rakes him over the coals pretty good – in fact it pushes the envelope of slander, according to Michael, and I tend to agree with him. And Rolling Stone being the dead tree outfit that it is (they don’t publish replies on their website), Michael can only set the record straight with a letter to the editor which will run who knows when or if in the magazine. Maybe for ski season if he’s lucky.
So in the interest of fair play, I am posting Michael’s letter to Rolling Stone here. It will give people a chance to evaluate for themselves. The letter follows:
Jeez, I thought it was only coffee in that cup Jim Bamford drank from at my house, but apparently he slipped something stronger into it when I was opening the box of cookies he brought over. Anyone who thinks I have any influence on the Bush Administration is regularly swallowing something more powerful than caffeine.
I’ve been writing for years now to encourage the government to support democratic revolution in Iran, but nothing of the sort has been done. I’ve openly and consistently opposed military invasion, yet Bamford says I’m trying–and on the verge of succeeding–to cause a “bloody war.” He says that Douglas Feith brought me into his “cabal,” but I have never worked for Feith, or Rumsfeld’s Pentagon (Indeed I called for Rumsfeld to be replaced two years ago), or anyone else in this administration. As I told Bamford–and I have a recording of our conversation–I have no access to this administration, let alone sway over it. But he insists that I am Svengali to George Bush’s Trilby. Any fact checkers left at the “Stone”?
He can’t even run a decent “Nexis” search. He claims that our conversation was the first time I had discussed the meeting in Rome in 2001 that enabled the United States to obtain detailed information about Iranian plans to kill our soldiers in Afghanistan. In fact it was the umpteenth time I had been interviewed, in American and European publications and blogs, most recently in “Raw Story.” I have written about it several times myself. And why not? That information saved American lives, as Bamford could have confirmed if he had been willing to work harder.
As for the endlessly maligned Mr. Ghorbanifar, who looks more reliable today, the CIA who described him as the world’s greatest liar and refused to look at his information about murderous Iranian activities in Afghanistan and Iraq, or Mr. G himself? Nowadays his picture of Iran’s role in the terror war against us is almost universally accepted. And by the way, the information Ghorbanifar gave me in the fall of 2001had to do with events inside Iran. Nothing secret, just unnoticed information about the widespread Iranian hatred of the regime. That, too, is now conventional wisdom. Bamford claims to be an independent critic of the Intellience Community, but here he has swallowed the company’s bait en toto.
Whatever that stuff was in the coffee cup had long-lasting effects, because it totally knocked out the little grey cells in his frontal lobes. Somehow imagining that I want to invade Iran, he quotes an article of mine in “National Review Online” in which I call for the United States to support regime change in Syria and Iran, as if that meant a military campaign. If he had looked up a few lines he would have found these words:
“Give them a chance to fight for their freedom, as we did with the Georgians. The longer we dither, the more likely it becomes that we will sadly and unnecessarily find ourselves in a military confrontation of some sort, with all the terrible consequences that entails.”
That’s the actual context. The opposite of what Bamford says.
For the sake of brevity and bandwidth, I have omitted several other inaccuracies in Bamford’s article which Michael cites. Bamford is welcome to reply here if he wishes.
PJM Home
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
15 Comments
1. triticale:I think that being on the cover of the Rolling Stone stopped being a big deal when they played along and put Dr. Hook there, but I can’t be sure because I’d stopped paying attention to the publication by then.
Jul 27, 2006 - 4:52 pm 2. Kevin Peters:Roger:
Jul 27, 2006 - 6:06 pm 3. Rick Ballard:How can you fall for the evil “cabal” leader Ledeen’s trick. The fact that he has argued against a military invasion of Iran consistently is just a clever ruse to hide the fact that he wants to invade Iran. And of course we all know this is really a Rovian plant to blur the truth Just like we all know that Howard Dean is a neocon plant. And that you Roger were never a liberal. Ah, I have to run, neocon black helicopters are coming after me. Damn you Ledeen, you clever anti-invasion yet pro invasion fiend you!!!!!!!!!!
Having read Michael Ledeen for more than a few years and having always disagreed with his aversion to the use of force against Iran I can only say that the abysmal quality of Mr. Bamford’s research is matched perfectly with the quality of his writing.
Rolling Stone’s aspirations to rise to the third rate will continue to be dashed should they continue to publish articles of this nature.
Jul 27, 2006 - 6:08 pm 4. Luther McLeod:It is all about agenda anymore, as those with ” little grey cells in his (their) frontal lobes” know.
Fact’s out the window, research a waste of time. Why did Bamford even bother doing an interview, he could have called it in from home.
Rolling Stone is an anachronism, held up and sustained by aging ‘hippies’ who can’t accept a different world view other than the “summer of love.” I am so glad to have escaped.
Jul 27, 2006 - 7:06 pm 5. Barry Dauphin:Once Bamford saw the words “National Review”, he already knew what he’d write. Going to interview Ledeen was good for the expense account.
Jul 27, 2006 - 8:22 pm 6. Michael J. Totten:That’s one obnoxious journalist.
Jul 27, 2006 - 8:26 pm 7. chuck:Remember when it was a big deal to be on the cover of Rolling Stone?
No. I have never read Rolling Stone, it never caught my attention. Why do you think it has gotten worse? Perhaps it is much the same.
Jul 27, 2006 - 8:28 pm 8. Vexorg:I wonder what would happen if this Bamford fellow ever managed to wander into the comment section over at Tim Blair’s blog?
Jul 27, 2006 - 9:31 pm 9. Jim:Roger, this plays into your old line about how queer the times are (when liberals are against liberty, etc.) In other words, let me get this straight: The rockers at Rolling Stone are fighting against a guy whose idea is that the kids living under the thumb of The Man should “have a revolution”? Queer indeed.
Jul 27, 2006 - 9:33 pm 10. Karl:Remember when it was a big deal to be on the cover of Rolling Stone?
It is true that it was considered a big deal in the past, but that merely reflects the era when media was largely immune to public criticism.
Watch Almost Famous — a fictionalized autobiography by former RS writer Cameron Crowe. Listen to what is said about the rag. Lester Bangs was calling the staff “swill merchants” in 1973. Jason Lee’s character points out — correctly — that the rag completely missed the boat on Led Zeppelin. And so on. Indeed, someone could have a lot of fun writing an article that goes through any RS “all-time greatest whatever” list and checking the entries against what the rag actually wrote about them at the time.
Jul 28, 2006 - 1:06 am 11. Terrye:I keep hearing that when Clinton called for regime change in Iraq that was not the same thing as calling for invasion. But then again, Clinton is not part of a cabal.
Just another moron running off at the mouth. Ladeen should be happy it is the Rolling Stone. No one will notice.
Jul 28, 2006 - 3:33 am 12. Larry J:Here’s a couple simple questions that I hope someone can answer:
Why should anyone even remotely conservative agree to be interviewed by a journalist?
Given the hatchet jobs that journalists do on conservatives on a regular basis, why agree to an interview when you’re very likely to get hosed?
Jul 28, 2006 - 6:07 am 13. Sgt. Mom:The only possible reason for reading Rolling Stone in the late 1980ies was because PJ O’Rourke was there, regularly.
Jul 28, 2006 - 6:23 am 14. Kevin Peters:Well, that was my excuse, anyway.
Roger:
Jul 28, 2006 - 9:10 am 15. Dale Gribble:Rolling Stone used to be hip. Now they are just as likely to have Brittney Spears or any other top twenty kid act on the cover just to generate sales. When you cover the same stories as People magazine or MTV you know you have slipped.
Thanks for reminding me Sgt.Mom. That’s where I ran into PJ also.
Jul 28, 2006 - 2:28 pm