Screw the headline, bottom line is: WE ARE ALREADY AT WAR!

[robertpaulsen]

I've seen a couple threads here quibbling over what's up with the headlines at Raw Story and why did they change it. Bottom line is that whatever you want to title it, this story is a devastating expose that needs to be read. Here's the snip that blew my mind:



Although the specifics of what the MEK is being used for remain unclear, a UN official close to the Security Council explained that the newly renamed MEK soldiers are being run instead of military advance teams, committing acts of violence in hopes of staging an insurgency of the Iranian Sunni population.

“We are already at war,” the UN official told RAW STORY.

Asked how long the MEK agents have been active in the region under the guidance of the US military civilian leadership, the UN official explained that the clandestine war had been going on for roughly a year and included unmanned drones run jointly by several agencies.

In a stunning repeat of pre-war Iraq activities, the Bush administration continues to publicly call for action and pursue diplomatic solutions to allegations that Iran is bomb-ready. Behind the scenes, however, the administration is already well underway and engaged in ground operations in Iran.

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/US_outsourcing_special_operations_intelligence_gathering_0413.html


I'm not interested in debating the reliability of Larisa Alexandrovna. As far as I'm concerned, she's one of the best investigative reporters around, and her knowledge and expertise in matters related to Iran machinations of the * regime is impeccable. What I am interested in debating is how we can stop the war in Iran from becoming a shock and awe blitzkrieg that could ignite World War III. Let's quit wasting time & focus on what needs to be done!

[Selatius]

1. We will get bogged down like the Germans inside Russia in '42

Sure, in the initial stages we may look like we're whupping their asses by knocking out their airforce, knocking out their radar defense networks, and knocking out their communications nodes, and nuking their nuclear refining facilities, but we're going to get bogged down because we bit off more than we can chew, and there's no way the country will fall without a violent struggle, and there is serious possibility of provoking several other nations in the Middle East to shun us if not openly declaring hostilities against the US.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

18. We're already bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan.

[Bonhomme Richard]

2. As screwy as things are, I wouldn't be suprised if our agents ....

were teaching them how to enrich uranium.

[understandinglife]

3. K&R.

George W. Bush willfully violated National Security to cover-up his willful launch of a war of aggression and illegal occupation of Iraq.

[wtbymark]

4. There may be some sp. Op. going on in Iran

but I really don't think we will bomb anything, not without the whole world knowing about it, and Iran will retaliate - and it won't be pretty. We may have a couple of agents running around trying to stir up trouble, but we've been doing that for at least 20 years - I believe the Iranians have that well under control. As I saw Wilkerson say on CSPAN today, "Iran is in the catbird seat"

[robertpaulsen]

7. I wouldn't characterize it as being well under control.

These incidents from the OP link show exactly what is going on:


Eight killed in Iran bomb attacks

At least eight people were killed and 46 injured in two blasts in the south-western Iranian city of Ahwaz, police said.

The two bombs exploded outside a privately-run bank and a government office in the city in Khuzestan province, which borders Iraq.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had been due to give a speech at a religious centre nearby.

But his office told the BBC the visit had been cancelled due to bad weather.

more...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4642170.stm



Bomb blasts hit Iran oil cities

Two bombs have exploded in the southern Iranian cities of Dezful and Abadan, according to Iranian reports.

In both cities, the devices were planted in the governor's offices, the official Irna news agency says. No serious injuries were reported.

The attacks are the latest in a series to hit the southern Khuzestan province, at the heart of Iran's oil industry.

Eight people died when bombs exploded by a government office and bank in the provincial capital Ahwaz a month ago.

more...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4754446.stm



Bomb blasts rock IranAdd to Clippings

AP< TUESDAY, JUNE 14, 2005 12:44:09 AM>
Bomb blasts struck Iranian government buildings in the capital of an oil-rich border province, followed within hours by two other bombs in central Tehran, killing nine people, days before presidential elections.

Iran’s security service blamed the bombings on Sunday — the deadliest in Iran in more than a decade — on supporters of ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. State-run TV quoted hospital officials as saying at least eight people were killed and 86 injured in four explosions in Ahvaz, the capital of the southwestern Khuzestan province bordering Iraq.

Hours later, two small bombs exploded in central Tehran, killing one person and wounding four. Police said one suspect was taken into custody. A spokesman for the Supreme National Security Council, Iran’s top security decision-making body, blamed groups affiliated to Saddam’s former Baathist regime in Iraq. State TV quoted spokesman Ali Agha Mohammadi as saying the perpetrators of the Ahvaz bombings had infiltrated into Iran from Basra in southern Iraq.

more...

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1141214.cms

[Dhalgren]

8. The problem with the Bush Dictatorship is that you cannot

adequately anticipate their actions because you cannot truly know their motives. They do not think, plan, and articulate as normal, rational human beings do; they create their own reality. You cannot say that Bush would not bomb Iran because the whole world would know, without assuming that Bush cares if the whole world knows. And you can't say that he cares so, because you can't know. The US Dictatorship acts and functions in such a way that the best bet, often, is to assume the Dictator will do that which appears to be most against his country's best interest. In this way President-for-Life Bush is very like his Republican followers, they often vote against their own best interests...

[Media_Lies_Daily]

25. According to Sy Hersh, it's been going on since 2004.

[Laurab]

44. Rumor has it - an Air Force friend is being deployed to Iran

on May 12th. The AF guy (an officer) told me he was being deployed, just not where. I was told where by a mutual friend, whom I pretty much trust. The deploy part isn't rumor, it's fact, direct from the horses mouth so to speak. Iran is rumor, but it would go along with everything else I've been hearing.

Unfortunately, it looks as though we WILL be bombing Iran, although I'd like to believe otherwise.

[rodeodance]

60. I think the Air Force will be the 'force' in this attach--it will happen,

[leftchick]

5. the job of stopping it belongs to congress

and that isn't going to happen. Hersh suggests the joint chiefs would say no to military action and if bush pursues it anyway some will quit! I have no clue who could stop it at this point other than Fitz indicting cheney.

[rodeodance]

61. The issue with the military-is that they want the nuclear arms OFF the

table (in plans for action against Iran). Then sy said some would object/quit.

[seaside]

6. It's scarey.. check out this Kos diary

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/4/13/123018/176

the diary is chocked full of documentation that will show how
startling the whole thing is. There is a link to a petition to
be sent to General Pace. We need to do what we can to stop
this foolishness!

Sorry, I haven't figured out how to insert a hyperlink yet, so
please cut & paste. Also, I can't do my own post, I just
signed up here at DU. Looks like it's a great place to help
get the word out. If someone can do a separate post to help
give this more exposure it would be appreciated. Thanks!

[Lars39]

9. Welcome to DU, seaside!

:toast:

[seaside]

13. Thanks Lars39

Looks like a great place to mingle with like minded liberals! Cheers :D

[seemslikeadream]

10. uncheck the first box in the message

this one
Check here if you want to format your message in plain text. Use for posting code snippets.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/4/13/123018/176


:hi:

[seaside]

16. Gotcha seems

:thumbsup:

[robertpaulsen]

12. Fantastic first post, seaside! Thank you!

Here's a snip:

But that's not all folks. The U.S. Strategic Command (STRATCOM) announced in a press release dated December 1, 2005 that it had "achieved operational capability for rapidly striking targets around the globe using nuclear or conventional weapons." What follows are excerpts from a news report regarding STRATCOM's press release contained in in my story posted here last December entitled The Future of Blitzkrieg is Now:

The annual Global Lightning exercise last month tested U.S. strategic warfare capabilities, including the so-called CONPLAN 8022 mission for a global strike, according to publicly available military documents.

CONPLAN 8022 is "a new strike plan that includes pre-emptive nuclear strike against weapons of mass destruction facilities anywhere in the world," said Hans Kristensen, a consultant for the Natural Resources Defense Council. Kristensen first published the STRATCOM press release on his Web site, nukestrat.com.

Let that sink in for a moment. Since December 1, 2005, our military has had the capability to execute CONPLAN 8022, a "pre-emptive nuclear strike against WMD facilities anywhere in the world." Sounds a lot like what Hersh was describing in the New Yorker, doesn't it? And what the hell is the CONPLAN 8022? Well, here's the Washington Post story by Wiiliam Arkin, dated May 15, 2005, on what it is, and what it calls for:

CONPLAN 8022 is different from other war plans in that it posits a small-scale operation and no "boots on the ground." The typical war plan encompasses an amalgam of forces -- air, ground, sea -- and takes into account the logistics and political dimensions needed to sustain those forces in protracted operations. All these elements generally require significant lead time to be effective. (Existing Pentagon war plans, developed for specific regions or "theaters," are essentially defensive responses to invasions or attacks. The global strike plan is offensive, triggered by the perception of an imminent threat and carried out by presidential order.)


Fuck international law, they're saying, if the Pentagon plans it, it's legal!

[seaside]

19. Sounds like Unitary Pentagon Powers

it's all part of the great neocon PNAC policy well on it's way..

thank Steven D for the info. I'm just trying to do what I can to do SOMETHING to stop these :crazy:

BTW, Here's the petition site link:
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/233932107

[robertpaulsen]

28. Thanks. Everyone needs to sign this!

Every little effort to stop these bastards counts!

[newyawker99]

24. Hi seaside!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[rodeodance]

59. i second that (e)motion:-)

[faithnotgreed]

58. welcome seaside - were very glad youre here

there are varying opinions here as you will find but i THINK most all of us agree that we have an insane government machinery

[seemslikeadream]

11. The formal war declaration against Iran

http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss/2006/sectionV.html
http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss/2006/sectionV.html
the formal war declaration against Iran, the National Security Strategy of March 16, 2006, stated:

"We may face no greater challenge from a single country than from Iran."
"The Iranian regime sponsors terrorism; threatens Israel; seeks to thwart Middle East peace; disrupts democracy in Iraq; and denies the aspirations of its people for freedom."
"he first duty of the United States Government remains what it always has been: to protect the American people and American interests. It is an enduring American principle that this duty obligates the government to anticipate and counter threats, using all elements of national power, before the threats can do grave damage."
"The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction – and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy's attack. There are few greater threats than a terrorist attack with WMD."
"To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively."
"When the consequences of an attack with WMD are potentially so devastating, we cannot afford to stand idly by as grave dangers materialize."
"here will always be some uncertainty about the status of hidden programs."
"Advances in biotechnology provide greater opportunities for state and non-state actors to obtain dangerous pathogens and equipment."
"Biological weapons also pose a grave WMD threat because of the risks of contagion that would spread disease across large populations and around the globe."
"Countering the spread of biological weapons .... will also enhance our Nation's ability to respond to pandemic public health threats, such as avian influenza."

[Me.]

39. Someone Should Forward This To Biden

Who said on Hardball tonight that the rez couldn't go into Iran without the approval of Congress and that Congress wouldn't let this rez make another of his stupid mistakes. I think he also made reference to a dictatorship.

[Douglas Carpenter]

14. I wish I could say that I am shocked

and check out this article:

Fishing for a Pretext in Iran

by Juan Cole; March 18, 2006

link: http://www.zmag.org/content/print_article.cfm?itemID=9929

snip:"Supreme Jurisprudent Ali Khamenei has given a fatwa or formal religious ruling against nuclear weapons, and President Ahmadinejad at his inauguration denounced such arms and committed Iran to remaining a nonnuclear weapons state.

In fact, the Iranian regime has gone further, calling for the Middle East to be a nuclear-weapons-free zone. On Feb. 26, Ahmadinejad said:
“We too demand that the Middle East be free of nuclear weapons; not only the Middle East, but the whole world should be free of nuclear weapons.”
Only Israel among the states of the Middle East has the bomb, and its stockpile provoked the arms race with Iraq that in some ways led to the U.S. invasion of 2003. The U.S. has also moved nukes into the Middle East at some points, either on bases in Turkey or on submarines.

Iran is a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and has allowed the International Atomic Energy Agency to inspect and monitor its nuclear energy research program, as required by the treaty. It raised profound suspicions, however, with its one infraction against the treaty--which was to conduct some secret civilian research that it should have reported and did not, and which was discovered by inspectors. Tehran denies having military labs aiming for a bomb, and in November of 2003 the IAEA formally announced that it could find no proof of such a weapons program."

snip:"it is often alleged that since Iran harbors the desire to “destroy” Israel, it must not be allowed to have the bomb. Ahmadinejad has gone blue in the face denouncing the immorality of any mass extermination of innocent civilians, but has been unable to get a hearing in the English-language press. Moreover, the presidency is a very weak post in Iran, and the president is not commander of the armed forces and has no control over nuclear policy. Ahmadinejad’s election is not relevant to the nuclear issue, and neither is the question of whether he is, as Liz Cheney is reported to have said, “a madman.” Iran has not behaved in a militarily aggressive way since its 1979 revolution, having invaded no other countries, unlike Iraq, Israel or the U.S. Washington has nevertheless succeeded in depicting Iran as a rogue state"

snip: "in November of 2003 the IAEA formally announced that it could find no proof of such a weapons program. The U.S. reaction was a blustery incredulity, which is not actually an argument or proof in its own right, however good U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton is at bunching his eyebrows and glaring."

[seemslikeadream]

15. Bolton compares Iran threat to Sept. 11 attacks

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11849446

House panel seeks sanctions; Rice wants talks with Tehran on nuclear aims

Updated: 10:54 p.m. ET March 15, 2006
UNITED NATIONS - The U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, Wednesday compared the threat from Iran’s nuclear programs to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on the United States.

“Just like Sept. 11, only with nuclear weapons this time, that’s the threat. I think that is the threat,” Bolton told ABC News’ Nightline. “I think it’s just facing reality. It’s not a happy reality, but it’s reality and if you don’t deal with it, it will become even more unpleasant.”

Bolton ratcheted up the rhetoric as the five veto-holding members of the U.N. Security Council failed again to reach agreement on how to curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions after a fifth round of negotiations.

[robertpaulsen]

20. Didn't Walrus threaten "painful, tangible consequences" for Iran?

I'll try searching for that quote.

And Bolton's henchman, Stephen Rademaker said yesterday Iran could build a nuke in 16 days.

Is this not 2002? How can anyone not say that history is repeating itself again?!

[robertpaulsen]

23. Here it is.

Bolton warns Iran of ‘painful consequences’
U.N. ambassador says U.S. has upped measures to stave off nuclear threat
Image: JOHN BOLTON
Caleb Jones / AP
The U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, speaks Sunday during the American Israel Public Affairs Committee's annual Policy Conference in Washington.


NBC VIDEO
Launch

• U.S. warns Iran on nuclear work
March 5: One day before an international showdown, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N. said there will be consequences if Iran doesn't back down. NBC's Lisa Daniels reports.


Updated: 7:53 p.m. ET March 5, 2006

WASHINGTON - Iran faces “tangible and painful consequences” if it continues its nuclear activities and the United States will use “all tools at our disposal” to stop this threat, a senior U.S. official said Sunday, ahead of a crucial international meeting on Iran.

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton, speaking at a convention of Jewish-Americans, said it is too soon for the U.N. Security Council to impose sanctions on Iran but other countries are talking about doing so and Washington is “beefing up defensive measures to cope with the Iranian nuclear threat.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11684031/

Sound familiar? Remember the "grave and growing" danger in 2002?

[stop the bleeding]

17. number 5, and Sy talked about this maybe 2 years ago on DNow

the fact that we already have people executing operations.


Yes we are at war

[seemslikeadream]

21. we have to act on assumption - too great to wait for irrefutable proof

http://www.state.gov/t/us/rm/33909.htm

Biological Weapons

The U.S. Intelligence Community stated in its recent 721 Report that, “Tehran probably maintains an offensive BW program. Iran continued to seek dual-use biotechnical materials, equipment, and expertise. While such materials had legitimate uses, Iran's biological warfare (BW) program also could have benefited from them. It is likely that Iran has capabilities to produce small quantities of BW agents, but has a limited ability to weaponize them.” Because BW programs are easily concealed, I cannot say that the United States can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Iran has an offensive BW program. The intelligence I have seen suggests that this is the case, and, as a policy matter therefore, I believe we have to act on that assumption. The risks to international peace and security from such programs are too great to wait for irrefutable proof of illicit activity: responsible members of the international community should act to head off such threats and demand transparency and accountability from suspected violators while these threats are still emerging. It would be folly indeed to wait for the threat fully to mature before trying to stop it.

Iran is a party to the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) and the 1925 Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare. Like the CWC, the central obligation of the BWC is simple: no possession, no development no production and, together with the 1925 Protocol, no use of biological weapons. The overwhelming majority of States Parties abide by these obligations. We believe Iran is not abiding by its BWC obligations, however, and we have made this abundantly clear to the parties of this treaty. It is time for Iran to declare its biological weapons program and make arrangements for its dismantlement.

[mrdmk]

47. Iran has had biological weapons used against them with our blessing

more or less. One does not know with this crowd.

<snip>
Iraq has no known experience using biological agents in the field, but it does have such experience with chemical weapons. Baghdad made liberal use of mustard gas against Iranian troops during the 1980-1988 Iraq-Iran war and allegedly gassed Iraqi Kurdish civilians in northern Iraq in 1988. Some investigators of the gassing of the Iraqi Kurds believe Baghdad may also have used biological and radiological agents at the same time.
<end of snip>
link
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EB01Ak06.html

[Emit]

22. MEK.

The IPC is supported by the neocon all-stars that we’ve come to know and love such as Doug Feith, Frank Gaffney, Mike Ledeen, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Don Rumsfeld, Condi Rice, et al. But these first benchers are running out of political muscle as their war in Iraq continues to drain the resources of the American people on all political, economic and military fronts. What’s worse, perhaps, is their “with us or against us” mentality that has caused new political and economic alliances to form (example: South America-China-Iran) and that has accelerated both conventional and nuclear arms races. Having failed on so many fronts, they recognize that to get the US into Iran, some new faces are needed and that’s where the IPC back benchers are critical to the forthcoming anti-Iranian/Persian propaganda operations.

The IPC is linked through its purpose and people to the Coalition for a Democratic Iran and the MEK, the Washington PAC, JINSA, AIPAC, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, the DOD, the Center for Security Policy, and all the major US intelligence agencies. IPC members are primarily defense & security contractors/consultants and would benefit financially from a war with Iran.

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/May05/Stanton0519.htm

Originally posted here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=2046689#2047483

and

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=577982#578273

[robertpaulsen]

26. Great thread, wasn't it? Here's more on MEK & Larry Franklin.

On May 3, as the Iranian "grand bargain" proposal was on its way to Washington, Tehran's representative in Geneva, Javad Zarif, offered a compromise on the issue, according to Leverett: if the United States gave Iran the names of the cadres of the Mujahideen e Kalq (MEK) who were being held by U.S. forces in Iraq, Iran would give the United States the names of the al Qaeda operatives they had detained. The MEK had carried out armed attacks against Iran from Iraqi territory during the Saddam regime and had been named a terrorist organisation by the United States. But it had capitulated to U.S. forces after the invasion, and the neoconservatives now saw the MEK as a potential asset in an effort to destabilise the Iranian regime. The MEK had already become a key element in the alternative draft NSPD drawn up by neoconservatives in the administration.

The indictment of Iran analyst Larry Franklin on Feith's staff last year revealed that, by February 2003, Franklin had begun sharing a draft NSPD that he knew would be to the liking of the Israeli Embassy. (Franklin eventually pled guilty to passing classified information to two employees of an influential pro-Israel lobbying group and was sentenced to 12 and a half years in prison.) Reflecting the substance of that draft policy, ABC News reported on May 30, 2003 that the Pentagon was calling for the destabilisation of the Iranian government by "using all available points of pressure on the Iranian regime, including backing armed Iranian dissidents and employing the services of the Mujahideen e Kalq..."

Nevertheless, Pres. Bush apparently initially saw nothing wrong with trading information on MEK, despite arguments that MEK should not be repatriated to Iran. "I have it on good authority," Leverett told IPS, "that Bush's initial reaction was, 'But we say there is no such thing as a good terrorist'." Nevertheless, Bush finally rejected the Iranian proposal. By the end of May, the neoconservatives had succeeded in closing down the Geneva channel for good. They had hoped to push through their own NSPD on Iran, but according to the Franklin indictment, in October 1983, Franklin told an Israeli embassy officer that work on the NSPD had been stopped. But the damage had been done. With no direct diplomatic contact between Iran and the United States, the neoconservatives had a clear path to raising tensions and building political support for regarding Iran as the primary enemy of the United States.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/intervention/iran/general/2006/0328cabal.htm

[Emit]

27. And that draft NSPD that called to destabilize the Iranian government

was written by Michael Rubin of AEI, who I heard just yesterday on NPR debating the same thing, what some call the third option, which, essentially, is what IPC, MEK, etc. supports, which, in a nut shell means regime change and nothing short of it, although he wouldn't admit to it when cornered.

"The Iran Policy Committee, a new Washington group of former Middle East experts, offers a third alternative to negotiations, which they say are getting nowhere, or the military option, which they view as adventurous. The IPC supports regime change in Tehran, though they advocate doing so by supporting and empowering the Iranian resistance from within... More specifically, the IPC want the U.S. government to support one particular group, the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq.":

Analysis: A Third Option For Iran
~snip~

A review of the IPC's first white paper reveals language and propaganda that is eerily identical to that used by the MEK, thus leaving well-informed and experienced analysts in little doubt that the paper was in part, if not in whole, written by agents of the MEK in the US. This style is also evident in the IPC's two subsequent white papers released in June and September. The promotion of the so-called "third way", oddly implicating the Shi'ite Islamic Republic in the spread of al-Qaeda-style Salafi jihadism (which is anti-Shi'ite through and through), and falsely accusing Iran of being the central force behind the Iraqi insurgency, are pure MEK disinformation techniques.

~snip~

Leaving aside the highly questionable relationship between the IPC and the MEK, the solution offered by the former to the policy differences on Iran is not altogether convincing. In the IPC's first white paper, the authors review the appeasement and military options before concluding that "Washington should consider a third alternative, one that provides a central role for the Iranian opposition to facilitate regime change". The problem for the IPC is that the US government instinctively distrusts the MEK, which has a history of anti-Western propaganda, is the only Iranian organization that has admitted to killing Americans, and was for nearly 20 years an unwavering ally of Saddam Hussein.

Moreover, the IPC's lukewarm enthusiasm for the use of military force against Iran is, at best, deceptive. Indeed, if the IPC is serious about promoting MEK interests, then it must realize (as the MEK readily does) that only massive US-led military force against Iran could make marginalized exiled groups like the MEK even remotely relevant.

Furthermore, a brief glance at the IPC co-chair biographies reveals why this MEK-connected think tank secretly lobbies for war against Iran. Composed of retired senior military officers, a former ambassador, and Claire M Lopez, former operations officer with the CIA (and the sole administrator of the IPC and its main point of contact with the MEK), these individuals' expertise and career paths are based on the promotion of military options rather than peaceful ones. Moreover, several of the principals are affiliated with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and its related think tanks.

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/iran-05j.html

Deja vu. The IPC and MEK-connected think tanks have been putting out a lot of the propaganda about Iran, For example, I read something just a while back that the MEK's online "news" blog was the one who started the rumor that the current President of Iraq was the one in the photo with the hostages -- essentially kick-starting that whole story that got so many people worked up. It's INC-Chalabi, Benador Assoc., Rendon, etc., etc. all over again. Same players, different acronyms.

And, yes, that was an excellent thread, thanks in great part to your insightful contributions to these subjects. I have so many of those excellent threads like that bookmarked -- we could write a good book with all of this!

[ShortnFiery]

29. We have FIVE (5x) former Generals who are blowing the whistle

on Rumsfeld! We have a chance here to put on the skids, if only, we could get more brave Field Grade and General Officers to SPEAK out how horrid the Civilian Leadership is, to the point, that the Military can NOT properly execute this occupation.

We need more brave souls and to call the Corporate MSM and say, "Are you listening?!?"

[Emit]

30. Here's Ron Paul, in a speech before the House

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
Before the U.S. House of Representatives

April 5, 2006

Iran: The Next Neocon Target

~snip~

It’s amazing how soon after being thoroughly discredited over the charges levied against Saddam Hussein the Neo-cons are willing to use the same arguments against Iran. It’s frightening to see how easily Congress, the media, and the people accept many of the same arguments against Iran that were used to justify an invasion of Iraq.

More:
http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:ulMIawTjiFQJ:www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2006/cr040506.htm+ron+paul+house+speech+iran+april&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1

[robertpaulsen]

31. Hey Emit, here's that ABC link where Feith kisses up to MEK.

Published on Friday, May 30, 2003 by the ABC News
Pentagon Eyes Massive Covert Attack on Iran


WASHINGTON - The Pentagon is advocating a massive covert action program to overthrow Iran's ruling ayatollahs as the only way to stop the country's nuclear weapons ambitions, senior State Department and Pentagon officials told ABCNEWS.

The proposal, which would include covert sponsorship of a group currently deemed terrorist by the U.S. government, is not new, and has not won favor with enough top officials to be acted upon.

snip

The State Department argument was that MEK is on the terrorist list and any failure to disarm it would be an act of hypocrisy, which was the same line taken by the Iranians in confidential meetings that have been ongoing in Geneva, until the United States recently cut them off.

The office of Doug Feith, undersecretary for policy at the Department of Defense, argued that the MEK has not targeted Americans since the 1970s, which is true, and was only put on the terrorist list by the Clinton administration as a gesture to improve relations with Iran.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0530-03.htm

It's been on the drawing board since PNAC was created in the '90s, but they've been planning this militarily since at least 2003!

[robertpaulsen]

33. OH MAN! Check out this link of MEK with Geoffrey D. Miller!

For those not familiar with this neo-con thug's machinations, the first two snips spell out his Gitmo & Abu Ghraib inhumanity. The third snip really pertains to this thread:



August 31, 2003-September 9, 2003

Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller, who oversees the prison at Guantanamo, is sent to Iraq with a team “experienced in strategic interrogation” “to review current Iraqi theater ability to rapidly exploit internees for actionable intelligence” and to review the arrangements at the US military prisons in Iraq. The team consists of 17 interrogation experts from Guantanamo Bay and includes officials from the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA). The Pentagon’s decision to dispatch the team on this mission was influenced by the military’s growing concern that the failure of Coalition Forces to quell resistance against the occupation was linked to a dearth in “actionable intelligence” (see (August 2003)). Miller has therefore come to help Brig. Gen. Barabara Fast improve the results of her interrogation operations. More to the point, he is supposed to introduce her to the techniques being used at Guantanamo. Officials are hoping detainees will provide intelligence on weapons of mass destruction and Saddam Hussein, who is still on the loose. “ came up there and told me he was going to ‘Gitmoize’ the detention operation,” Brig. Gen. Janis L. Karpinski, later recalls. Miller will later deny he used the word “Gitmoize.” During Miller’s visit, a Joint Interrogation and Debriefing Center (JIDC) is established in order to centralize the intelligence operations at the prison. Cpt. Carolyn A. Wood is made Officer in Charge (OIC) of the Interrogation Coordination Element (ICE), within the JIDC. Before returning to Washington, Miller leaves a list of acceptable interrogation techniques—based on what has been used in Guatanamo—posted on a wall in Abu Ghraib which says that long term isolation, sleep disruption, “environmental manipulation” and “stress positions” can be used to facilitate interrogations, but only with the approval of Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez on a case-by-case basis. The use of dogs is also included, even though the technique was banned at Guantanamo eight months before by Donald Rumsfeld (see January 15, 2003). Karpinski later recalls, “He said they are like dogs and if you allow them to believe at any point that they are more than a dog then you’ve lost control of them.” Miller’s visit to Iraq heralds some significant changes, that include, first, the introduction of more coercive interrogation tactics; second, the taking control of parts of the Abu Ghraib facility by military intelligence; and third, the use of MPs in the intelligence collection process. During his visit, Miller discusses interrogation techniques with military intelligence chief Col. Thomas M. Pappas. “The operation was snowballing,” Samuel Provance, a US military intelligence officer will recall, describing the situation at Abu Ghraib after Miller’s visit. “There were more and more interrogations. The chain of command was putting a lot of resources into the facility.” And Karpinski will later say that she was being shut out of the process at about this time. “They continued to move me farther and farther away from it.”

People and organizations involved: Janis L. Karpinski, Geoffrey D. Miller, Samuel Provance, Carolyn A. Wood, Barbara G. Fast, Thomas M. Pappas

snip


May 5, 2004

For the first time, Maj. Gen. Geoffrey D. Miller leads a group of journalists around the Abu Ghraib prison. When prisoner Huda al-Azzawi sees Miller with the group of reporters, she shouts out: “We are not the killers. You are the killers. This is our country. You have invaded it.” Journalists notice five women screaming and waving their arms through the iron bars. One of them, possibly Al-Azzawi, shouts in Arabic: “I’ve been here five months. I don’t belong to the resistance. I have children at home.” The women had been instructed the day before to keep quiet (see May 4, 2004). Al-Azzawi recalls: “After that they didn’t let me out of my cell for an entire month. A US officer came to me and said: ‘Because of you we have all been punished.’” Elsewhere at Abu Ghraib, prisoners run out shouting as the bus with journalists drives by. A man with one leg waves his prosthetic leg in the air, shouting in Arabic: “Why? Why? Nobody has told me why I am here.”

People and organizations involved: Geoffrey D. Miller, Huda al-Azzawi

snip


July 21, 2004

Maj. Gen. Geoffrey D. Miller, the deputy commanding general in Iraq, says in a memorandum that the US has designated members of the Mujahedeen-e Khalq (MEK) as “protected persons.” According to the Fourth Geneva Convention, people who are designated as “protected” cannot be punished collectively or forced to leave an occupied country. The members were afforded the new status only after signing an agreement rejecting violence and terrorism, the memo says. The memorandum angers Tehran. “We already knew that America was not serious in fighting terrorism,” Iran’s foreign ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi says, adding that by affording MEK fighters the new status, the US has created a new category of “good terrorists.” “The American resort to the Geneva Conventions to support the terrorist hypocrites is naive and unacceptable,” he says. Despite the members’ new status and despite having been cleared of any wrongdoing, the US military and the MEK leadership do not allow any of the group’s members to leave Camp Ashraf. Several of the members say they were lured into joining the group with false promises and now want to return home to Iran. The MEK has been called cult-like (see ) and its leadership compared to Stalin by former members of the group.

People and organizations involved: Geoffrey D. Miller, Mujahedeen-e Khalq

more...

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?id=1521846767-2744



Think about the implications of this. The same man who designated MEK as "protected persons" set up the conditions that allowed Abu Ghraib to happen. The inhumanity of Abu Ghraib was carried out by remnants of TF 20. Remember the 4 to 5 person task force Larisa wrote about?


It is also difficult to establish whether or not TF20’s various sub-teams were used by civilian leadership to achieve other goals, not known to the primary unit.

What is, however, apparent is that the Office of Special Plans’ teams were deployed in obscurity and on occasion even bumped into sanctioned special ops teams, creating a sense of unease among the various forces on the ground.

Sources raised most concern about an alleged off-book 4-5 man team which operated in the summer through the fall of 2003. What this team was doing and under whose authority it operated is unclear.

Yet at least one source close to the UN Security Council tells RAW STORY that the smaller team was acting on behalf of Office of Special Plans and Defense Department leadership, specifically under the guidance of Feith and in tandem with Cambone.

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Secretive_military_unit_sought_to_solve_0105.html


I'm not trying to suggest a "unifying theory" that Larisa warned against. Just that once again, all roads lead to Iran.

[Emit]

34. So they protected the MEK ?

That goes along with what Juan Cole discussed here.

The Neoconservatives have some sort of shadowy relationship with the Mojahedin-e Khalq Organization or MEK. Presumably its leaders have secretly promised to recognize Israel if they ever succeed in overthrowing the ayatollahs in Iran. When the US recently categorized the MEK as a terrorist organization, there were howls of outrage from "scholars" associated with the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (a wing of AIPAC), such as ex-Trotskyite Patrick Clawson and Daniel Pipes. MEK is a terrorist organization by any definition of the term, having blown up innocent people in the course of its struggle against the Khomeini government. (MEK is a cult-like mixture of Marx and Islam). The MEK had allied with Saddam, who gave them bases in Iraq from which to hit Iran. When the US overthrew Saddam, it raised the question of what to do with the MEK. The pro-Likud faction in the Pentagon wanted to go on developing their relationship with the MEK and using it against Tehran.

So it transpires that the Iranians were willing to give up 5 key al-Qaeda operatives, whom they had captured, in return for MEK members.

Franklin, Rhode and Ledeen conspired with Ghorbanifar and SISMI to stop that trade. It would have led to better US-Iran relations, which they wanted to forestall, and it would have damaged their proteges, the MEK.

http://www.juancole.com/2004/08/pentagonisrael-spying-case-expands.html


I know that this was posted previously, either on this thread or another like it, but it bears repeating in light of that info about Maj. Gen. Geoffrey D. Miller/MEK.


edited to correct link

[robertpaulsen]

37. Yes! Thanks for highlighting that, Emit.

I was having trouble with that link, but I found another:

http://www.juancole.com/2004/08/pentagonisrael-spying-case-expands.html

Does it surprise you Michael Ledeen fits into this once again? Or AIPAC? Or SISMI?

This is something else, I tell ya.

[Emit]

36. And, of course, it goes back to the Ledeen et al meeting

Here's an article from LexisNexis -- discussing that notorious meeting with Rhode, Franklin and Mansur Ghorbanifar, et al. brokered by Ledeen:

~snip~According to sources who have been briefed on the case, the focus of the FBI probe finally settled on a meeting in Rome in December 2001, attended by Rhode and Franklin who met with an Iranian, Mansur Ghorbanifar ... The head of Italy's military intelligence also attended, according to these sources ... At that meeting, Ghorbanifar offered to put the Bush administration in touch with "elements in Tehran who could mount a coup with U.S. help," one source close to the case said.

~snip~

Other sources briefed on the case, however, said another meeting occurred in Paris in June 2002 when Rhode "accidentally" bumped into Ghorbanifar, a meeting attended by Franklin, Rhode and Ruel Marc Gerecht, a former CIA operative, now a scholar with the American Enterprise Institute, and an assistant to Richard Perle, a former senior Defense Department official during the Reagan administration.

Sources close to the case also said that the meeting "was prearranged" and involved representatives of the Mujahedin al-Kahlq, an Iranian group of exiles, to discuss assistance to the MEK for the purpose of destabilizing the current government of Iran.

According to a congressional investigative memo, these meetings were arranged by Gerecht and Ledeen. Ledeen denies this. "The only meeting I knew about was the December meeting," he said. "I don't know about the others, if they in fact existed." Ledeen denounced the Franklin case as "total bullshit and lies."

~snip~

One source with close knowledge of the case said that the Franklin-Rhode- Gerecht meetings with the MEK, which is on the State Department's list of terrorist organizations was "served to undermine (Secretary of State) Colin Powell's effort to sustain dialogue with moderate elements within the Iranian government."

~snip~

When questioned by congressional investigators, Luti "and other senior Defense officials denied that there was any serious consideration of using the MEK terrorists to destabilize the Iran regime," according to a source briefed on the case. This source added, "Just such a proposal was raised by DoD officials at a meeting of the deputies -- or deputy secretaries of the National Security Council cabinet departments." National security adviser Condoleezza Rice "was extremely agitated by the suggestion," this source alleged. According to an account in The New York Times, when Secretary of State Colin Powell, heard of the June 2002 meeting, he called and complained to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, alleging that Feith's missions were "against U.S. policy."

~SNIP~

Copyright 2004 U.P.I.
United Press International
August 30, 2004 Monday
LENGTH: 1204 words
HEADLINE: DOD spy's arrest imminent
BYLINE: By RICHARD SALE
DATELINE: NEW YORK, Aug. 30 (UPI)

[robertpaulsen]

38. Wow! The same Richard Sale who fingered Hannah re: Plame?

I wonder if he's connected the dots on this.

Glad you got the LexisNexis, that's a good find. I'll be back tomorrow, so keep this thread up.

I love your research!

[Emit]

46. Yes, I think it is the same Richard Sale

Here's what Larry Johnson says about Sale:

Richard Sale, a long-time Intelligence correspondent, was the first to tip me last year to the developing Larry Franklin spy scandal, which proved to be right. I've found Richard to always be on target in my experience.
-Larry C. Johnson

I have been saving many articles and links on all of this, and most of this stuff comes from files I've collected on Ledeen, Neocons, etc.

I've also been following some blog sites that are favorable toward regime change in Iran, many of which are very fond of Michael Ledeen et al. Here's an entry from one of these blogs where they were pretty unhappy about Horowitz's FrontPageMag.com publishing of a report about the "third option."

From Regime Change Iran:

I have long been a reader of David Horowitz's FrontPageMag.com. So I was surprised today their editors appear to have taken a wrong turn on Iran. Yesterday, they published a report by David Johnson, co-founder of the US Alliance for Democratic Iran and its Director of Operations.

The article entitled: A Third Option for Iran suggests that the current thinking in Washington D.C. sees only two options: either appeasement of Iran's Islamic Republic or a military strike. On this I agree, and like David I believe that a third option is not getting the attention it deserves, more about this later.

But I was shocked to read that his "third option" involved support for an organization that the U.S. State Department has designated a "terrorist" organization, the MEK. The article was blatantly slanted towards the MEK, in exclusion of all other options.

Since I have been publishing all the major news on Iran for several years now, I am well aware of the various options in regards to the Iranian threat. I know most of the leaders of the Iranian expatriate community and there is little support for the MEK among them. I believe the MEK may have a place at the table in a future Iran, but a limited one.

I have also been aware of the massive campaign the MEK have been waging to legitimize themselves in the eyes of our government. I also understand the only way they will ever be in power inside of Iran is if the U.S. were to back them in an overthrow of the Iranian government.

It appears that is exactly what the MEK are seeking. David reported on the MEK's recent conference in Washington D.C. (attended by a few hundred Iranian, virtually all MEK supporters) saying:

plans for Iran remain ambitious. Mrs. Rajavi's position as an interim president is planned to last for only six months after the fall of the current Iranian regime. At the end of her interim term, free and monitored elections would be held throughout Iran.

It appears the leader of the MEK is seeking U.S. help in replacing the Islamic Republic with herself as the new leader, for six months.

~snip~

Cont'd: http://regimechangeiran.blogspot.com/2005/05/frontpagemagcom-third-option-for-iran.html


From the link above at The Third Option:

A common image at the convention was that of Maryam Rajavi, the president elect of the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), a major Iranian opposition coalition. The NCRI was designated a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) by the U.S. Department of State in 1999. State contends that the NCRI is an alias for the Mojahedin-e Khalq (MEK) that is intensely focused on overthrowing the current Iranian government.

~snip~

Regardless of the obvious constraints the FTO list puts on the organization, the NCRI's plans for Iran remain ambitious. Mrs. Rajavi's position as an interim president is planned to last for only six months after the fall of the current Iranian regime. At the end of her interim term, free and monitored elections would be held throughout Iran.

In the meantime, Mrs. Rajavi and the NCRI are pursuing what many of the convention's speakers referred to as "The Third Option." The third option as stated by the NCRI suggests that change in Iran should be initiated by the Iranian people and sustained indigenously. This, too, is likely the method that a war-weary American public would prefer.

Two recent Gallup polls show that Americans believe the current Iranian government is a significant threat to the United States, but they do not support a military solution to the Iran problem. That said, the third option may be exactly what the American public is looking for—however, it will likely come as a shock to them to learn that the idea came from a group the U.S. government has branded a terrorist organization.

[Emit]

50. Another mention of Ledeen/AEI/MKO/MEK

This is translated from Farsi, I think. It is a little hard to follow in places -- :

The Third Way!
By Bijan Niabati
April 16, 2005


Last Thursday the large Congress of Iranians was held in Washington. The organizers of this meeting were the "Mojahedin Khalq Organization", sponsored and supported by the "Enterprise" Institute and "Michael Ledeen" himself. Last year, a concert in Washington was also organized and sponsored by the same people…

My enemy's enemy is my friend!

I have written articles about the "Enterprise" Institute before ... I mentioned that: "Regime change is something that has been decided upon. The problem is, an acceptable alternative to take power". ... The commissioning of such an alternative or a "desirable alternative" has been the aim of this Institute... The line taken by this Institute therefore in the last one or two years has always been to gather together the totally dependent figures of the Monarchists with the totally independent forces of the Mojahedin Khalq. (I'm pretty sure he's referring to the AEI here when he writes the "Institute" -- Emit)

~snip~

The desired method for the Americans for a controlled change in the regimes in the region is to start a Velvet Revolution. It means that either the dictatorial regimes should accept the basic fundamental of referring to the vote of the people and prepare their societies for the attack of "liberal democracy" or they will be sidelined! Recently, I heard a sentence quoting "Ali Abdullah Saleh" the president of Yemen saying that "Either we will cut and dress our hair ourselves or they will shave it for us"!

Relative to the above, the presence of "Richard Perl", theorizer of the hawks in the present American administration, participating in last year's concert in Washington to preliminarily introduce and emphasize the "referendum" as a so called solution presented by the Mojahedin, was to try to present it in a framework of non violent (read anti-revolutionary) line of action. ...
~snip~

The reaction of the "Enterprise" institute was the premature and knee jerk "Referendum" proposal by "Mohsen Sazgara" with the support of "Reza Pahlavi" under the umbrella of "Michael Ledeen". Not forgetting that in the last few years, there has been a history of contacts between the so called reformists inside the regime and the buried remnants of the Monarchists.

~snip~

Cont'd here:

http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:C-IwJ0mNquYJ:www.iran-interlink.org/files/News3/May05/singleton050505.htm++Iran+Policy+Committee+Michael+ledeen&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=26

[robertpaulsen]

53. More today on Geoffrey Miller - Rumsfeld OKd him to abuse detainee

Report: Rumsfeld allowed Guantanamo abuse
Defense secretary reportedly authorized degradation of al-Qaida detainee

WASHINGTON - U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld allowed an “abusive and degrading” interrogation of an al-Qaida detainee in 2002, an online magazine reported Friday, citing an Army document.

snip

Rumsfeld spoke regularly to U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller, a key player in the treatment of detainees in Iraq and Guantanamo, during the interrogation of Mohammed al-Kahtani, who is suspected to have been an intended Sept. 11 hijacker, Salon quoted the inspector general’s report as saying.

snip

Miller — who headed the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, helped shape detention practices at Abu Ghraib and later oversaw all detention operations in Iraq — in January invoked his right not to incriminate himself in the courts-martial of soldiers tried for Abu Ghraib abuses.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12319090/

[Emit]

54. Not surprising, sadly. Aargh! More US relation with protected MEK

MEK From Daniel Pipes:

Nov. 9, 2003 update: Despite its being on the terrorism list, the MEK remains in an odd limbo, as described in today's Washington Post:

"The problem is they're still labeled as terrorists, even though we both know they're not," said Sgt. William Sutherland, explaining why a reporter could not enter Camp Ashraf. "Much as I'd like to go and do a story myself on how they're not terrorists—rather, they're patriots—it's not going to happen until they get put on the green list." …

Last month, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell wrote Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld to remind the Pentagon that the mujaheddin's forces in Iraq are supposed to be U.S. captives, not allies.

At Camp Ashraf, however, U.S. soldiers idling in the chalky dust outside the compound said they were uncertain even whether they were guards. "It's kind of hard to say," said a sergeant who declined to give his name.

Do prisoners invite guards over for dinner? The mujaheddin hosted a banquet for the Americans, laying out a spread of chicken and French fries after showing off a new museum dedicated to the history of their struggle.

As these contradictions suggest, the U.S. government has yet to figure out its relationship with the MEK. The result is policy chaos. Let's hope this means that something constructive might yet come out of it.

http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/80

[Emit]

55. Also, it seems some of the neocons

aren't on the same page with whether to support the MEK/MKO or not.

This is from the Foundation for Democracy in Iran's website.

MEK/MKO disputes Human Rights report. A U.S. representative of the National Council of Resistance in Iran, a front organization for the Mujahedin-e Khalq, tells Radio Farda that a 28-page Human Rights Watch report on MEK abuse of former MEK members in Iraq is a pack of lies, and that former MEK dissidents are actually Iranian government intelligence agents. But former MEK member Mohammed Hussein Sobhani says he was imprisoned in the MEK's Camp Ashraf in Iraq for eight and a half years, transferred to the Iraqi security service for 35 days, then held in Saddam's infamous Abu Ghreib prison for another year. Other witnesses interviewed by Human Rights Watch tell similar stories. Georgetown University professor Raymond Tanter has come out in support of the MEK, (see also a Washington Institute Policy Watch paper Tanter wrote with Patrick Clawson) as have pro-MEK websites such as IranFocus. Read the HR Watch report on their website, or download a pdf copy here. MEK dissidents have established their own website with individual stories of abuse by MEK leaders Maryam and Massoud Rajavi, iran-interlink.org.

http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:wsSq_-knN9cJ:www.iran.org/++Mahmoud+Ahmadinejad+Mujahedin-e+Khalq+&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=3

Kenneth R. Timmerman, described as a neocon -- who writes a lot of op-eds that show up on NRO and such, is the executive director of FDI; he was an aide to Tom Lantos (D-CA). I have read recent articles by Timmerman where he does not support the use of MKO/MEK for regime change efforts in Iran. Maybe he hasn't received the memo yet? :shrug:



FDI was established in 1995 with grants from the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), to "promote democracy and internationally-recognized standards of human rights in Iran."

Interesting mixture on NED board:

NED Board Officers in 2005: Vin Weber, chairman; Thomas Donahue, vice-chair; Julie Finley, treasurer; Jean Bethke Elshtain, secretary; and Carl Gershman, president. NED Board Members: Morton Abramowitz, Evan Bayh, Rita DiMartino, Rep. Christopher Cox, Gen. Wesley Clark (ret.), Ester Dyson, Sen. Richard Gephardt, Sen. William Frist, Francis Fukuyama, Suzanne Garment, Lee Hamilton, Richard Holbrooke, Emmanuel Kampouris, Sen. Jon Kyl, Larry Liebanow, Rep. Gregory Meeks, Robert Miller, Michael Novak, Sen. Paul Sarbanes, Terrence Todman, and Howard Wolple.

http://www.ned.org/


BTW, we now have a new Office of Iran Affairs.

Rice’s new Iran group: http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:I8chnb-ZmycJ:www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/03/02/us.iran/index.html+Office+of+Iran+Affairs+&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1

Edited to add, from that quote above about Mohammed Hussein Sobhani, that's an interesting little story in itself. I read some stuff about it -- if it applies, I'll post later. So far, I'm still trying to get a handle on the whole story. Seems Mohammed Hussein Sobhani claims he was imprisoned and abused by MEK, but others deny it, saying he was working with them?

[stillcool]

32. I just posted the petition link in a post of it's own...

with a link back here. A leaflet bombing campaign with the facts displayed in the most readable manner possible, is my only contribution to a solution....K&R...

[killbotfactory]

35. I remember reports of bombs going of in some Iranian city

I guess that was us, after all.

[alfredo]

40. One fear I have expressed that bush's wars have strained our

military to the breaking point. We don't have as many options now. We don't have the equipment, ammo, and soldiers needed for a real emergency. bush may be more willing to use nuclear weapons as a substitute for conventional arms because of the deficiencies caused by the two wars we are already fighting.

[Me.]

41. Incredible Thread

I keep thinking about AIPAC being the second leaf of the 3 leaf clover with Plame and the Niger forgeries being the others and here you've brought in both Franklin and Ledeen.

[Emit]

42. The info in the RawStory article in your OP meshes well with

Sy Hersh's article from last year, The Coming Wars and Scott Ritter said last year that operations had began (or were to begin in June). It's of interest to note, too, that Ritter mentions the use of the MEK/MKO under CIA direction:

However, in several previous items in this space, primarily by our Editor-Publisher Michael Carmichael, we have read, courtesy of Scott Ritter, ex-Marine, ex-US Government weapons inspector in Iraq, which Bush has already signed off on a military attack on Iran for June. Bush's statements on "diplomacy" obviously constitute major lying to the world, right up there with the lying to the world on the reasons for the US invasion of Iraq. At stake with this newest ultra-Imperialist adventure of the Georgites are the lives of hundreds of thousands of people, to say nothing of the future of Constitutional democracy in the US, and the future of the US economy, to say nothing of the world's economy. And if they use nuclear (yes, George, that is the correct spelling) weapons, as I suggested they might in my previous Short Shot, well . . .

Which brings us to the present and my present comment.

As is well known, the victor in the recent Iranian Presidential election was former Tehran mayor Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. While the open military assault predicted by Scott Ritter and Seymour Hersh has not yet taken place, according to Ritter the U.S. assault on Iran has already begun, covertly. (You can follow Scott Ritter’s work at the Project for the Old American Century (http://www.oldamericancentury.org/), http://www.informationclearinghouse.info, and Common Dreams (http://www.commondreams.org/. Hey Scott, set up a website, will you?) If true, this initiative has much in common with the pre-emptive air war that the US and the UK launched against Iraq well before they went to the UN with their “justifications” for “meeting the clear and present danger of that Hussein’s Iraq presented to the world.” Ritter states that the anti-Iranian government terrorist organization, the Mujaheddin-e Khalg (known as the MEK or MKO in the West) is operating as a strike force under CIA direction, and that the United States is preparing to stage military attacks with U.S. troops from the neighboring Republic of Azerbaijan.

http://www.thepoliticaljunkies.net/Archived/Year%202005/Jul/Wk3/Jonas.htm

[Marie26]

43. How stupid are these people?

Oh yeah, a Sunni insurgency will take out Iran... just like, ten years ago, a Shiite insurgency would take out Saddam.

[Rainscents]

45. Is this mean, we're going to have Bush for another 4 years?

:argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh:

My gut feeling, after Nov election, there will be draft.

[Douglas Carpenter]

48. wackos at NewsMax gleeful about the coming attack on Iran!

I hate to quote NewsMax and my apologies if I am breaking any rules. Obviously I am not quoting them because I value them. I'm quoting them because it shows that there are other sources of info predicting a massive bombing campaign against Iran:

"'Big George': The Coming Attack on Iran
Kenneth R. Timmerman, NewsMax.com
Friday, April 14, 2006

WASHINGTON -- Retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Tom McInerney calls it the "Big George" scenario.

According to the man who helped plan the first air war against Saddam in 1991, U.S. aircraft, armed with conventional bunker-buster bombs, would be more than enough to wipe out Iran's nuclear and missile facilities, and cripple its ability to command and control its military forces.

McInerney believes that U.S. air power is so massive, precise, and stealthy, it can effectively disarm Iran with just limited assistance from covert operators on the ground whose task would be to light up enemy targets.

In his "Big George" scenario, the United States would attack 1,000 targets in Iran. Fifteen B2 stealth bombers based in the United States and another 45 F117s and F-22s based in the region would carry out the initial waves of the attack, crippling Iran's long-range radar and strategic air defenses."

link:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/4/13/94944.shtml?s=sp

[Emit]

49. How funny.

I just read that same article off another website. Yes, it's dirty work, but someone has to do it. Later on, he disses Sy Hersh:

From your link:

Hersh has frequently quoted former DIA analyst Colonel Patrick Laing and like-minded former officials who have vigorously denounced the Bush administration over the war in Iraq.


Their claims have been dismissed by current military and intelligence officials who argue that they are politically motivated.


In one such story in 2003, Hersh alleged the Pentagon had a "secret" Iraq war planning outfit that was carrying out rogue intelligence operations, when in fact the Office of Special Plans was an analytical unit that was part of the Pentagon's policy shop.

[newspeak]

51. since * has been in office

his cabal has decreased tax for the elite, overspent our treasury, and weakened our military. Are we sure they're not out to destroy us???? "His Base" who are global corporate greed heads could care less about the stability of our infrastructure as long as they get their profit. Now these wars may be about cornering the oil, but for the oil industries, it's also about making profits by it's depletion. Not one drop of blood will my family shed for such inhumane unconscionable greedy corruption.

[Emit]

52. kick! n/t

[Emit]

56. Kick, especially in light of benburch's post

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x936073

[robertpaulsen]

62. Thank you very VERY much for this, Emit.

Lots of great discussion, worth bookmarking.

Confirmation of Larisa Alexandrovna's scoop on Iran Military Ops!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2570340

[Emit]

64. No problem -- here's another related bit of info

From the anticipated neocon/Industrial War Complex regime change in progress:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2572494&mesg_id=2572583

[countryjake]

57. K & R

[LisaL]

63. Seriously? Well, it's not like we didn't know which country

Bush was going to pick up next.
His appetite for war appears to be insatiable.

[Emit]

65. Also, this is an interesting piece from a different perspective

that you may (or not) be interested in. Even though it was written in '03, it speaks to the neocons' attempt to back a regime change via MEK, Pahlavi, etc. and points to other options:

I think the reason for the confusion of US policy makers, with respect to the Islamic Republic of Iran, is a lot more fundamental than that...

The reason for the confusion is very complex but at the same time it is very simple. It is simply because the US is afraid of *uncertainty*. US politicians exactly had the same problem when the Soviet Union was ready to go beyond Gorbachev. They asked themselves who will be the replacement? It took them some time before even Yeltsin appeared and some more time before he was taken seriously by the West, and many were still dreaming of descendants of Romanovs, or thought Soviet Union was not going to go and tried making deals with various factions of the Soviet Communist Party.

~snip~

So those who try to invent different governments and leaders for Iran, such as those in US policy-making circles dreaming to make a king out of Reza Pahlavi, are as much wasting their time, as those who are clinging back to some faction of Islamic Republic to escape the *uncertainty* of Iran. The reality is that for the US to best help itself and Iran, it should come to terms with this *uncertainty* and see that the main democratic opposition is *inside* Iran and knows *what* it wants, which is an independent and democratic secular republic, and has organizations such as Jebhe Demokratik with leaders like Tabarzadi and Hamidi, who have asked for complete removal of Islamic Republic. And organizations like Jebhe Melli inside Iran, which basically is disillusioned with Khatami and is seeking the separation of state and religion, and is calling for a secular republic. And the various youth groups inside and outside prisons in Iran, and Kurdish groups like Komala in Kurdestan, which is more of a forward-looking democratic group than a socialist tag it still carries, as well as various groups outside Iran including leftists, monarchists, nationalists and others. This is the reality of Iran which is basically directed for removing IRI and forming a forward-looking secular republic.



Now in this atmosphere, there is the *certainty* of the *what* which is ending the Islamism and IRI and starting a secular republic, but at the same time there is the *uncertainty* of *who* of the next state and which group, etc will be dominant, etc. What can US do? I think it should come to terms with this *uncertain* reality, instead of one day assuming Reza Pahlavi or MKO to be leaders of the next state, and another day seeing its falsity to fall back on some factions of IRI again, trying to subjectively end an uncertainty which is part of this development. Iranians do not want to return to monarchy and the MKO is basically a dead Islamist cult, and IRI so-called reformists and other factions of IRI are at their end of life. If the US be resolutely against the IRI, which is expiring fast, it will cause hardline bastions of IRI, to hesitate to commit more atrocities, the same way the Soviet coup makers in the last days of Gorbachev, got the message and stopped to commit more murders.

Cont'd here:
http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:nqtQqrv1DTMJ:www.ghandchi.com/226-confusion.htm+IRI+iran&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=3

[robertpaulsen]

66. Thanks Emit. This whole Pahlavi revival is sickening.

And it just highlights the insincerity behind the neo-cons supposed goal of democratizing the Middle East. Almost like they're rubbing the Iranian's nose in shit, taunting, "We can replace a Ahmadinejad with a Pahlavi as easily as we can replace a Mossadeq with a Pahlavi".

These people have no shame.