Ledeen Scream

Not surprisingly, the Cornerites have been quiet about Larry Franklin's guilty plea, in which Franklin admitted to passing classified defense information to Israel and AIPAC. Perhaps they're embarassed for their pal, American Enterprise Institute "scholar" and neoclown Mikey Ledeen.

Here's a flashback to Leeden's defense of his pal Franklin, in which Ledeen employed the lame device of a conversation with dead CIA scumbag James Angleton:

ML: Don't you believe the stories about a mole hunt in the Pentagon?

JJA: Of course there are mole hunts. That's what CI people do. But they're supposed to be secret. Once you go public with the story, you've alerted your targets, and sabotaged your own investigation.

ML: So you're not impressed with all the news stories?

JJA: Look, as you've said, if the FBI has a real case, they don't go whispering to the press about it. They go to the grand jury. They don't leak, they indict and prosecute.

ML: Plus, they promised their media agents -- I mean the journalists -- that there would be arrests, and pronto. Nobody's been arrested, and some of the latest stories even quote the "sources" as saying that the Pentagon target -- my pal Larry Franklin -- may well be exonerated. That's quite a turnaround in a couple of days, isn't it?

JJA: It's embarrassing. At this point, given the state of the "news stories," you'd have to conclude that the CI folks in the bureau are either incompetent or McCarthyites. Either they leaked information that should have been kept secret -- if there is indeed any case against Mr. Franklin or others -- or they are trying to smear him and some of his friends and colleagues. Including you, I might point out.

ML: Thanks for noticing, but it's same old, same old. But maybe it's not the bureau. Apparently people on the intelligence oversight committees were briefed on the investigation, so maybe they're the leakers.

...

JJA: Yes. Conversely, if there were no such approval, it would suggest that they don't have much of a case. I'd be interested in knowing specifically how many wiretaps were approved or rejected. For example, I'd be quite astonished if a court approved a wiretap of AIPAC -- which, according to the stories, is the alleged intermediary of the "classified information" Franklin is supposed to have passed to the Israelis.

ML: What's your gut reaction?

JJA: I can't really tell, because the "story" doesn't make any sense. What do we know about Franklin? The main fact is that he's an intelligence professional. He spent his career in the DIA. Like everyone else who handles classified material, he knows the rule by heart: You cannot disclose such information to "unauthorized persons." So if a professional decides to do that, he's always going to do it very carefully. You've read enough spy novels to know the methods: dead drops, secret writing, codes, the whole nine yards.

...

ML: But countries, even friendly countries, certainly spy on one another, so theoretically there might be friendly espionage operations in Washington.

JJA: There are certainly espionage operations here, from all our friends and enemies. But Israel is one of the countries least likely to recruit agents in the American government.

ML: Because of Pollard, right?

JJA: You bet. That damn near wrecked the relationship, and they don't want a repeat. And I keep coming back to the professionalism question. If someone in the U.S. government were passing secrets to Israel, I just can't imagine that it would take place in a restaurant, or that AIPAC -- which knows it has endless enemies in the counterintelligence community -- would do such a thing.

ML: So what do you think an AIPAC guy would do if somebody walked up to him in a restaurant and said "Here, I've got some interesting documents for you about American policy debates on Iran."

JJA: The AIPAC guy would run away as fast as he could. Are you kidding?

ML: I agree. And I also agree that we're dealing with incompetence or McCarthyism. In either case, it's disgusting.

...

ML: Let's come back to the journalists for a second. Aren't they culpable too?

JJA: That's a bit more difficult, but they certainly haven't covered themselves with glory. Whenever they're approached with a story like this, they should ask the FBI: If you've got such a strong case, why haven't you obtained indictments from a grand jury? And if there aren't any indictments, and if nobody's been arrested, then why are you asking me to do your dirty work for you?

ML: So put up or shut up, right?

JJA: Amen, brother. Put up or shut up.

ML: I'll get back to you if there are further developments.

We await your further reports, Mikey. Put up or shut up.

More on the Ledeen/Franklin/Feith connection here.

And let's not overlook the stellar work of clownhall.com's Joel Mowbray, who crowed in April that "[s]tories on Larry Franklin, dual loyalties, and espionage for Israel look more far-fetched with each passing day." (And attempted a little ass-covering in May.) I expect Mowbray will be silent in October.