The same old story, as Bush, snr, on the road to Desert Storm; US rejection of every peace overture put on the table; so George emulating his father, in many ways, but crucially lacking any of the foresight that his father had.
While reading your others it occurred to me a manual for Republican presidential nominee, could include ..
Desired qualities: ignorance of accurate and important facts of foreign affairs.
Education requirements: absolute internalization of and total allegiance to neo-con propaganda myths.
Eyesight: blind to reality, but correctable to queue card reading where applicable, good enough
Smell: smell a rat in every Spanish psychologist interviewer, as they could not possibly be anything like they say they are; since they are the enemy, they lie about everything.
Hearing: deaf to the desires and hopes of the common American people.
Commitment: to alienate as many foreigners as possible.
Also, it occurred to me, were coffee and cigarettes available to the Guantanamo prisoners of, oops!, excuse me, to enemy combatants, as were available to McCain, as a POW, in Viet Nam.
You know something is amiss when Central Intelligence Agency director Michael Hayden defends the recent US intelligence finding on Iran, that claims Tehran stopped its nuclear weapon program in 2003, and, in the same breath, alleges Iran has a "nuclear weapons drive".
Although in sharp contrast with recent statements by Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell, who is seeking damage control by saying that the NIE report he supervised should have put it differently, Hayden's "double-speak" at least has the protean value of neutralizing the anti-Iran war drive led by Vice President Dick Cheney, who in his recent tour of the Middle East stated unequivocally that Iran is enriching uranium to "weapons grade". There is no empirical support for Cheney's claim, that puts him at odds with the various International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reports on Iran that consistently cite low-grade enrichment on Iran's part, ie, about 4%, that is fully monitored by the IAEA's robust inspection regime. In comparison, Hayden's carefully-chosen vocabulary, emphasizing Iran's tendency or "drive" to be more precise, has the advantage of heating up the pot of allegations against Iran without necessarily bringing it to boiling point.
That is the likely decision of the next US president, who must choose between stark alternatives toward Iran, as many US think-tanks are now churning out reports on the Iran and Middle East priorities of the next occupier of the Oval Office. Meanwhile, the recent IAEA report, citing slow Iranian progress in installing cascades of its centrifuges, acts as yet another brake on Iran-bashing, by highlighting the fact that, contrary to some Israeli and neo-conservative claims, Iran is nowhere near the "point of no return".
There is still a great amount of time "left for diplomacy", to use the common catchphrase in Western capitals. Iran's reported difficulties with its old P-1 centrifuges and its bold, new attempt with the more advanced P-2/IR-2 centrifuges, have raised questions about the wisdom of devoting so much of the its scientific resources to the enrichment program, when other aspects of Iran's nuclear program could well benefit from the diversion of those resources.
That is a question that, perhaps, could become paramount the closer next year's Iranian presidential elections come. After all, whatever rightful national pride there is in mastering the nuclear fuel cycle, the light-years gap between Iran's P-1 and advanced European or American centrifuges reminds one not so much of Iran's technological progress but rather of its lagging behind. Iran's behavior is not dissimilar to the Cubans priding themselves on cobbling together 1950s foreign vehicles.
The real pride rests in an effective closing of the relative gaps, and it is precisely here where the down side of Iran's singular emphasis on the enrichment program deserves attention. (Especially as this is done to the detriment of other dimensions of its nuclear program, geared to address the nation's power grid, a necessity for economic progress.) This warrants consideration of recent media reports of the US taking issue with two Russian institutes, subsidized by the US, which are involved with the Bushehr nuclear power plant in Iran.
US officials opposed to Bushehr have no legal ground to stand on, given that the United Nations Security Council has exempted Bushehr from any sanctions and, as repeatedly stated by Russian officials, has given Russia the green light to proceed with the completion of the much-delayed power plant. In addition, as pointed out by Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki in a recent letter to the UN secretary general, the UN Security Council has failed to take into account the successful resolution of the so-called "outstanding questions" that were for a long time the prime reasons for the US's and its allies' allegations of a nuclear weapons program in Iran.
Mottaki has dismissed some US information, much of it taken from a laptop computer of a "deceased person", and has called for sanctions on those imposing sanctions on Iran. The Security Council recently paved the way for a third round of sanctions on Iran over its uranium-enrichment program. From Tehran's vantage point, in the war of attrition over its nuclear program being fought in the arena of world public opinion, the chips are piling up against the US and its allies.
The Iranians see more and more nations, not only in the Third World, becoming convinced of the unfairness of the UN sanctions. The recent US$10-22 billion Iran-Swiss gas deal, raising the ire of US officials without a comparable negative backlash in Berlin and a number of other European capitals, points at frustration in the US's policy of isolating Iran, a main energy hub for Europe. Signs of a discrete parting of the ways between the US and the European Union are already discernible in the controversy about this gas deal. This is bound to encourage similar deals between Iran and European gas and oil companies; the net of sanctions is wearing thin and gaping holes in it will soon be so huge as to make it irrelevant.
Spy photos reveal 'secret launch site' for Iran's long-range missiles
A close examination of the photographs has indicated that the Iranians are following the same path as North Korea
Michael Evans
The secret site where Iran is suspected of developing long-range ballistic missiles capable of reaching targets in Europe has been uncovered by new satellite photographs.
The imagery has pinpointed the facility from where the Iranians launched their Kavoshgar 1 “research rocket” on February 4, claiming that it was in connection with their space programme.
Analysis of the photographs taken by the Digital Globe QuickBird satellite four days after the launch has revealed a number of intriguing features that indicate to experts that it is the same site where Iran is focusing its efforts on developing a ballistic missile with a range of about 6,000km (4,000 miles).
A previously unknown missile location, the site, about 230km southeast of Tehran, and the link with Iran's long-range programme, was revealed by Jane's Intelligence Review after a study of the imagery by a former Iraq weapons inspector. A close examination of the photographs has indicated that the Iranians are following the same path as North Korea, pursuing a space programme that enables Tehran to acquire expertise in long-range missile technology.
Geoffrey Forden, a research associate at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said that there was a recently constructed building on the site, about 40 metres in length, which was similar in form and size to the Taepodong long-range missile assembly facility in North Korea.
Avital Johanan, the editor of Jane's Proliferation, said that the analysis of the Iranian site indicated that Tehran may be about five years away from developing a 6,000km ballistic missile. This would tie in with American intelligence estimates and underlines why President Bush wants the Polish and Czech components of the US missile defence system to be up and running by 2013.
The Czech Republic has now agreed to have a special radar system on its soil and the Polish Government is still negotiating with Washington over the American request to site ten interceptor missiles in Poland.
The Kavoshgar 1 rocket that was launched in the presence of President Ahmadinejad of Iran was based on the Shahab 3B missile, a version of the North Korean Nodong liquid-propellant missile.
Dr Forden said that the Kavoshgar launch did not demonstrate any significant advances in ballistic missile technology. “But it does reveal the likely future development of Iran's missile programme,” he said.
At a meeting on February 25 between the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Iranians, UN inspectors confronted them with evidence of design studies for mounting nuclear warheads on long-range missiles. The Iranians denied any such aspirations.
However, according to Jane's Intelligence Review, the satellite photographs prove that the Kavoshgar 1 rocket was not part of a civilian space centre project but was consistent with Iran's clandestine programme to develop longer-range missiles.
The examination of the launch site revealed that it was part of a large and growing complex “with very high levels of security and recent construction activity”. It was clearly “an important strategic facility”, Dr Forden said.
The former Iraq weapons inspector said that Iran was benefiting from the North Korean missile programme and following its designs. The Taepodong 1 consisted of a liquid-propellant Nodong (like the Shahab 3) first stage, a liquid-propellant Scud second stage and a solid-propellant third stage.
“The production and testing facility next to the Kavoshgar 1 launch site would seem well positioned to contribute to this third stage,” Dr Forden said.
F6 .. Leading conservatives openly support a Terrorist group By Glenn Greenwald .. Monday, Jan 3, 2011 09:04 ET
lease note: many links inside .. link free version follows ..
(updated below)
Imagine if a group of leading American liberals met on foreign soil with -- and expressed vocal support for -- supporters of a terrorist group that had (a) a long history of hateful anti-American rhetoric, (b) an active role in both the takeover of a U.S. embassy and Saddam Hussein's brutal 1991 repression of Iraqi Shiites, (c) extensive financial and military support from Saddam, (d) multiple acts of violence aimed at civilians, and (e) years of being designated a "Terrorist organization" by the U.S. under Presidents of both parties, a designation which is ongoing? The ensuing uproar and orgies of denunciation would be deafening.
But on December 23, a group of leading conservatives -- including Rudy Giuliani and former Bush officials Michael Mukasey, Tom Ridge, and Fran Townsend -- did exactly that. In Paris, of all places, they appeared at a forum organized by supporters of the Mujaheddin-e Khalq (MEK) -- a group declared by the U.S. since 1997 to be "terrorist organization" -- and expressed wholesale support for that group. Worse -- on foreign soil -- they vehemently criticized their own country's opposition to these Terrorists and specifically "demanded that Obama instead take the [] group off the U.S. list of foreign terrorist organizations and incorporate it into efforts to overturn the mullah-led government in Tehran." In other words, they are calling on the U.S. to embrace this Saddam-supported, U.S.-hating Terrorist group and recruit them to help overthrow the government of Iran. To a foreign audience, Mukasey denounced his own country's opposition to these Terrorists as "nothing less than an embarrassment."
Using common definitions, there is good reason for the MEK to be deemed by the U.S. Government to be a Terrorist group. In 2007, the Bush administration declared that "MEK leadership and members across the world maintain the capacity and will to commit terrorist acts in Europe, the Middle East, the United States, Canada, and beyond," and added that the group exhibits "cult-like characteristics." The Council on Foreign Relations has detailed that the MEK has been involved in numerous violent actions over the years, including many directed at Americans, such as "the 1979 takeover of the U.S. embassy in Tehran by Iranian revolutionaries" and "the killings of U.S.military personnel and civilians working on defense projects in Tehran in the 1970s." This is whom Guiliani, Ridge, Townsend and other conservatives are cheering.
Applying the orthodoxies of American political discourse, how can these Terrorist-supporting actions by prominent American conservatives not generate intense controversy? For one thing, their appearance in France to slam their own country's foreign policy blatantly violates the long-standing and rigorously enforced taboo against criticizing the U.S. Government while on dreaded foreign soil (the NYT previously noted that "nothing sets conservative opinion-mongers on edge like a speech made by a Democrat on foreign soil"). Worse, their conduct undoubtedly constitutes the crime of "aiding and abetting Terrorism" as interpreted by the Justice Department -- an interpretation recently upheld as constitutional by the Supreme Court's 5-4 decision last year in Holder v. Humanitarian Law. Georgetown Law Professor David Cole represented the Humanitarian Law plaintiffs in their unsuccessful challenge to the DOJ's interpretation of the "material support" statute, and he argues today in The New York Times that as a result of that ruling, it is a felony in the U.S. "to engage in public advocacy to challenge a group's 'terrorist' designation or even to encourage peaceful avenues for redress of grievances."
Like Cole, I believe the advocacy and actions of these Bush officials in support of this Terrorist group should be deemed constitutionally protected free expression. But under American law and the view of the DOJ, it isn't. There are people sitting in prison right now with extremely long prison sentences for so-called "material support for terrorism" who did little different than what these right-wing advocates just did. What justifies allowing these Bush officials to materially support a Terrorist group with impunity?
Then there's CNN. How can they possibly continue to employ someone -- Fran Townsend -- who so openly supports a Terrorist group? Less than six months ago, that network abruptly fired its long-time producer, Octavia Nasr, for doing nothing more than expressing well wishes upon the death of Sayyed Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah, one of the Shiite world's most beloved religious figures. Her sentiments were echoed by the British Ambassador to Lebanon, Frances Guy, who wrote a piece entitled "The Passing of a Decent Man," and by the journal Foreign Policy, which hailed him as "a voice of moderation and an advocate of unity." But because Fadlallh had connections to Hezbollah -- a group designated as a Terrorist organization by the U.S. -- and was an opponent of Israel, neocon and other right-wing organs demonized Nasr and CNN quickly accommodated them by ending her career.
Granted, Nasr was a news producer and Townsend is at CNN to provide commentary, but is it even remotely conceivable to imagine CNN employing someone who openly advocated for Hamas or Hezbollah, who met with their supporters on foreign soil and bashed the U.S. for classifying them as a Terrorist organization and otherwise acting against them or, more radically still, demanding that the U.S. embrace these groups as allies? To ask the question is to answer it. So why is Fran Townsend permitted to keep her CNN job even as she openly meets with supporters of a Terrorist group with a long history of violence and anti-American hatred?
There is simply no limit on the manipulation and exploitation of the term "terrorism" by America's political class. Joe Biden and Mitch McConnell support endless policies that slaughter civilians for political ends, yet with a straight face accuse Julian Assange -- who has done nothing like that -- of being a "terrorist." GOP Rep. Peter King is launching a McCarthyite Congressional hearing to investigate radicalism and Terrorism sympathies among American Muslim while ignoring his own long history of enthusiastic support for Catholic Terrorists in Northern Ireland; as Marcy Wheeler says: "Peter King would still be in prison if the US had treated his material support for terrorism as it now does."
And WikiLeaks this morning published a diplomatic cable from the U.S. summarizing the long-discussed meeting on July 25, 1990, at which the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie, talked to Saddam -- a month before Iraq's invasion of Kuwait -- about the history of extensive American support for his regime, the desire of the U.S. for friendly relations with Saddam, and her statement that the U.S. does not care about Saddam's border disputes with Kuwait (Glaspie recorded that she told Saddam: "then, as now, we took no positions on these Arab affairs"). Months later, the U.S. attacked Iraq and cited a slew of human rights abuses and support for Terrorism that took place when the U.S. was arming and supporting Saddam and during the time they had removed Iraq from the list of State Sponsors of Terrorism in order to provide that support.
The reason there isn't more uproar over these Bush officials' overt foreign-soil advocacy on behalf of a Terrorist group is because they want to use that group's Terrorism to advance U.S. aims. Using Terrorism on behalf of American interests is always permissible, because the actual definition of a Terrorist -- the one that our political and media class universally embraces -- is nothing more than this: "someone who impedes or defies U.S. will with any degree of efficacy."
Even though the actions of these Bush officials violate every alleged piety about bashing one's own country on foreign soil and may very well constitute a felony under U.S. law, they will be shielded from criticisms because they want to use the Terrorist group to overthrow a government that refuses to bow to American dictates. Embracing Terrorist groups is perfectly acceptable when used for that end. That's why Fran Townsend will never suffer the fate of Octavia Nasr, and why her fellow Bush officials will never be deemed Terrorist supporters by the DOJ or establishment media outlets, even though what they've done makes them, by definition, exactly that.
UPDATE: Amazingly, Fran Townsend, on CNN, hailed the Supreme Court's decision in Humanitarian Law -- the Supreme Court ruling that upheld the DOJ's view that one can be guilty of "material support for terrorism" simply by talking to or advocating for a Terrorist group -- and enthusiastically agreed when Wolf Blitzer said, while interviewing her: "If you're thinking about even voicing support for a terrorist group, don't do it because the government can come down hard on you and the Supreme Court said the government has every right to do so." Yet "voicing support for a terrorist group" is exactly what Townsend is now doing -- and it makes her a criminal under the very Supreme Court ruling that she so gleefully praised. http://www.salon.com/news/terrorism/index.html ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Apologies for any repetition, i was fiddling about after seeing another article on the Conservatives meeting with the MEK, before bumping into the excellent Greenwald article above ..
2007, Bush plans for air strikes on Iran were well underway .. bits and pieces ..
"Other neo-cons elsewhere in Washington are opposed to an air strike but advocate a different form of military action, supporting Iranian armed groups, in particular the Mujahideen-e Khalq (MEK), even though the state department has branded it a terrorist organisation.
Raymond Tanter, founder of the Iran Policy Committee, which includes former officials from the White House, state department and intelligence services, is a leading advocate of support for the MEK. If it comes to an air strike, he favours bunker-busting bombs. "I believe the only way to get at the deeply buried sites at Natanz and Arak is probably to use bunker-buster bombs, some of which are nuclear tipped. I do not believe the US would do that but it has sold them to Israel." http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=16955784&txt2find=mek ..
Activities .. The group's worldwide campaign against the Iranian government uses propaganda and terrorism to achieve its objectives and has been supported by reprehensible regimes, including that of Saddam Hussein. During the 1970s, the MEK assassinated several U.S. military personnel and U.S. civilians working on defense projects in Tehran and supported the violent takeover in 1979 of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran. Despite U.S. efforts, MEK members have never been brought to justice for the group's role in these illegal acts. .. http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/crt/2006/82738.htm
2008 search MEK this board .. basically how the neoconservative cabal in the Bush administration blocked sensible and plausible peace offers by Iran, as is par the course for those who think war is the only way.
ps: the one i am replying to??? .. Bush rejects Iran peace plans library .. just to get the word library in.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
