Maybe he can cut to the chase and start burning Ledeen in electronic effigy?

Since I gather from his latest posts that Mark seems to regard Ledeen and his views as being solely responsible for all that goes ill in Iraq. One wonders what will happen when he gets to the people who actually had real authority on the ground like Rumsfeld, Bremer, Sanchez, and Casey. My best guess is that he has very little idea who the latter two are and very little desire to learn. Or failing that he could actually hold al-Qaeda and Sadr, who are actively formenting most of the violence, responsible for their actions. Instead, he chooses to blame Michael Ledeen and compare him to Trotsky (I wonder where that comparison could have possibly come from?), rather bizarrely holding responsible for the Iraq war a man whose white whale has long been not Iraq, but Iran.

I've discussed the fact that Mark is more interested in talking than learning when it comes to Ledeen's actual views, but this quote in particular is a rather noxious case of misrepresentation. If you read what Ledeen actually said, he stated the number of casualties suffered by US forces in Iraq was secondary as far as public perception was concerned to whether or not we were seen as winning. I don't necessarily think that this is all that controversial a statement as far as an observation of human behavior. At the very least, it is a debateable point. But then again, since Mark has denounced Ledeen as "evil" on more than one occasion, I gather the general rules of civility and good faith representation need not apply.