Dillweed alert: 

The right-wing blogosphere is up in arms over a Rolling Stone article about prominent neo-conservative Michael Ledeen. The article, written by James Bamford, argues that Ledeen was using unreliable intelligence to push the Bush administration into military action against Iran. The National Review’s Andrew McCarthy and Mark Levin claim that the premise of Bramford’s article is flawed because Ledeen opposes military action against Iran:

Yet, anyone even vaguely familiar with Michael’s work knows that he has opposed military action against Iran — notwithstanding that he was years ahead of most experts in accurately portraying Iran’s role as the terror master at the center of the jihadist network.

Just for the record, here is a (partial) collection of quotes from the PNAC in 1992 (emphasis added): 

"Potential rivals such as China are anxious to exploit these  transformational technologies broadly, while adversaries like Iran, Iraq and North Korea are rushing to develop ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons as a deterrent to American intervention in regions they seek to dominate." 

"U.S. nuclear force planning and related arms control policies must take account of a larger set of variables than in the past, including the growing number of small nuclear arsenals – from North Korea to Pakistan to, perhaps soon, Iran and Iraq..." 

"Iraq, Iran, Libya and Syria – “already have or are developing ballistic missiles” that could threaten U.S allies and forces abroad." 

"We cannot allow North Korea, Iran, Iraq or similar states to undermine American leadership, intimidate American allies or threaten the American homeland itself."

And my personal favorite: 

"Over the long term, Iran may well prove as large a threat to U.S. interests in the Gulf as Iraq has.  And even should U.S.-Iranian relations improve, retaining forward-based forces in the region would still be an essential element in U.S. security strategy given the longstanding American interests in the region."