Yesterday, I testified before the House Foreign Affairs Committee on issues relating to U.S. policy toward Iran. Evidently, for the Huffington Post’s Nico Pitney — of Obama’s staged-question fame — my presence was controversial. The day before the hearing, Pitney wrote on Huffington Post:

Last week, the House Foreign Affairs Committee announced that it was holding a hearing this Wednesday titled, “Iran: Recent Developments and Implications for U.S. Policy.” My initial thought was that the panel was decent but a bit disappointing, and lacking in progressive voices… On Friday, I spoke with committee chairman Rep. Howard Berman’s staff and suggested that they invite Trita Parsi, the superb analyst who heads the National Iranian American Council, to testify. I was told that Parsi would be considered but that it was late in the process to add witnesses. But on Monday morning, the committee announced two new additions to the hearing, both aggressive neoconservatives whose Middle East analysis has proven detrimental. One is Orde F. Kittrie of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, the other is Michael Rubin of the American Enterprise Institute…
Rubin’s addition, in particular, is rather stunning. His career work include aiding Doug Feith in the notorious Office of Special Plans to advance dubious intelligence that helped lead the U.S. into war in Iraq; repeatedly advocating for military action against Iran over the last several years; and, in June, laying out the case for why Ahmadinejad would be preferable to a “more soft-spoken and less defiant” president like Mousavi — “it would be easier for Obama to believe that Iran really was figuratively unclenching a fist when, in fact, it had it had its other hand hidden under its cloak, grasping a dagger.”

Nico, stop embarrassing yourself:

  1. I worked in the Office of Special Plans (as a Council on Foreign Relations International Affairs Fellow), beginning after the controversy about intelligence. This is why I do not appear in any of the Congressional or Pentagon reports about the issue. Every hear of fact-checking? Nor, for that matter, did I “aid” Douglas Feith, any more than the several hundred other people under him in OSD. I reported to Bill Bruner, who reported to Abe Shulsky, who reported to Bill Luti who would, depending on the issue, go either to Peter Flory, Peter Rodman, or Doug Feith. I averaged meetings with Mr. Feith about once every seven months or so. Huffington Post’s ignorance about the Pentagon’s structure is stunning. Based on your links, you base the entirety of your understanding on an article by Robert Dreyfuss. If The Huffington Post wants to base reporting on a man who fabricates interviews and who dedicated his first book to his colleagues in Lyndon LaRouche’s organization, that says a lot about you, Arianna Huffington, and your colleagues.
  2. You say I repeatedly advocate for military action against Iran over the last several years. You lie shamelessly. Name a single instance, Nico. You cite this article, but it notes that I do not call for military force. Like the president, I consider kinetic action a last resort. Indeed, I have argued against colleagues who embrace military strikes. Not only would military action rally Iranians around the flag, but since strikes would only delay an Iranian nuclear program, they would in effect use the U.S. military to kick the can down the road because U.S. politicians do not want to deal with the real problem, which is the nature of the Iranian regime. It is sad to see that you follow in the path of the National Iranian American Council’s journalism fellow Artin Afkhami, who was caught fabricating a quote and attributing it to the Washington Post. Perhaps he’s angling for a job at the Huffington Post?
  3. You write that, in June, I said that I preferred Ahmadinejad to win over Mousavi. I said no such thing. Your colleague Rachel Weiner did. She was too ignorant of the topic she was reporting to realize that the issues of concern to U.S. national security — terrorism and proliferation — are in the purview of the Supreme Leader and Revolutionary Guard than the president.

Nico, I do need to thank you. It’s not every day that, despite Sam Stein’s insistence that The Huffington Post is a serious news outlet, its editor asks Congress to invite a favored activist to hearings, sources material to Lyndon LaRouche, footnotes items which contradict the statements they seek to source and, stumbles over basic issues like the power structure in Iran. Alas, while your ego may have reached new heights with Obama’s favor, not everything is as much of a put-up job as a White House press conference.