One suspects much quiet diplomacy was involved in this. You remember quiet diplomacy; a tool that was out of favor from 2000-2008?
The Associated Press: Lawyer: US reporter leaves jail in Iran: "A lawyer for a U.S. journalist jailed in Iran says she has been freed from prison after an appeals court suspended her eight-year jail sentence. Abdolsamad Khorramshahi says Roxana Saberi is 'now out of jail.'"
Showing posts with label Iran. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Iran. Show all posts
Monday, May 11, 2009
Monday, June 16, 2008
Why Leak the Khan Bomb Design Now?
As you know from my previous posts on McBush and Iran, I am paying particular attention to possible propaganda efforts that the administration may put forth to preposition public opinion for an attack on Iran before the November elections.
With that in mind its interesting to note that Bush decided last Wednesday to echo a phrase he used repeatedly in creating the drumbeat to invade Iraq:
President Bush said Wednesday that if diplomacy fails to deter Iran from developing its nuclear program, then "all options are on the table."
Combine this with the recent release of information from unnamed "American and international investigators" regarding a possibly improved bomb design that Khan may have been responsible for. Why release information on Khan's bomb design now when it was originally discovered in 2005 (It was not until 2005 that officials of the I.A.E.A., which is based in Vienna, finally cracked the hard drives on the Khan computers recovered around the world.)?
The salient portion of David Sanger's piece in the NYT, at least with regards to my concern, is this:
Among the missiles that could carry the smaller weapon, according to some weapons experts, is the Iranian Shahab III, which is based on a North Korean design.
It is also surely no coincidence that Sanger includes the following snippet in his lead paragraph:
"....they have not been able to determine whether they were sold to Iran".....
One suspects that they were also unable to determine if the designs were sold to, I don't know, lets say Liechtenstein or to Brittney Spears for that matter. This is disappointing, Sanger was fairly independent during the run up to the Iraq invasion, lets hope he is not becoming this year's Judy Miller.
Three year old information suddenly leaking as Bush says all options are on the table, sound familiar to anyone?
With that in mind its interesting to note that Bush decided last Wednesday to echo a phrase he used repeatedly in creating the drumbeat to invade Iraq:
President Bush said Wednesday that if diplomacy fails to deter Iran from developing its nuclear program, then "all options are on the table."
Combine this with the recent release of information from unnamed "American and international investigators" regarding a possibly improved bomb design that Khan may have been responsible for. Why release information on Khan's bomb design now when it was originally discovered in 2005 (It was not until 2005 that officials of the I.A.E.A., which is based in Vienna, finally cracked the hard drives on the Khan computers recovered around the world.)?
The salient portion of David Sanger's piece in the NYT, at least with regards to my concern, is this:
Among the missiles that could carry the smaller weapon, according to some weapons experts, is the Iranian Shahab III, which is based on a North Korean design.
It is also surely no coincidence that Sanger includes the following snippet in his lead paragraph:
"....they have not been able to determine whether they were sold to Iran".....
One suspects that they were also unable to determine if the designs were sold to, I don't know, lets say Liechtenstein or to Brittney Spears for that matter. This is disappointing, Sanger was fairly independent during the run up to the Iraq invasion, lets hope he is not becoming this year's Judy Miller.
Three year old information suddenly leaking as Bush says all options are on the table, sound familiar to anyone?
Thursday, June 5, 2008
More On McBush (pun intended)
This is an important read; Cockburn and the Independent, while oft vilified by the Right, have a pretty strong record on Iraq going back to pre-invasion days.
Revealed: Secret plan to keep Iraq under US control
Bush wants 50 military bases, control of Iraqi airspace and legal immunity for all American soldiers and contractors
By Patrick Cockburn
Thursday, 5 June 2008
I will include a few excerpts at the end of this post but do go and read the whole thing!
It is starting to look like one thing this blog will do is keep a running history on a Bush/Neocon/McCain confluence (I won't yet call it a conspiracy) that may well lead the US to attack or invade Iran as well as execute preposterous goings-on with Iraq. A few words about the confluence; the NeoCon dream of remaking the Middle East still burns brightly, at least in Dick Cheney's mind, Bush is growing desperate for something he can call victory in Iraq before he leaves office and will do all he can to make it harder for the next President to abandon our Imperialist Adventure, and McCain's only real hope of election is riding the wave of fresh aggression in Iraq and thus public support for continued misadventures in Iran. This latter point will create tremendous pressure from the Neo-Con wing of what is still called the Republican Party for that aggression to ocur.
So why do I feel this must be recorded? Well before the Iraq invasion I argued long and hard with many otherwise intelligent folk that the entire justification was bogus. The problem, as near as I could tell, was that nobody was paying much attention to the netherworld of blogs and foreign press. While I am tempted to think that could not happen today, nearly 7 years later, I actually think it could easily happen again. To some degree that is a reflection of my distrust of many Democrats in Congress. After all there have been no impeachments for radically impeachable offenses (and even now many Democrats are moving to forever codify unconstitutional spying by the Executive branch upon US citizens, another important read) It also reflects my somewhat skeptical feelings towards Obama regarding his still untested backbone. And finally, there has been no significant improvement in the MSM; they continue to be lazy and worthless for the most part.
A secret deal being negotiated in Baghdad would perpetuate the American military occupation of Iraq indefinitely, regardless of the outcome of the US presidential election in November.
America currently has 151,000 troops in Iraq and, even after projected withdrawals next month, troop levels will stand at more than 142,000 – 10 000 more than when the military "surge" began in January 2007. Under the terms of the new treaty, the Americans would retain the long-term use of more than 50 bases in Iraq. American negotiators are also demanding immunity from Iraqi law for US troops and contractors, and a free hand to carry out arrests and conduct military activities in Iraq without consulting the Baghdad government.
Mr Bush is determined to force the Iraqi government to sign the so-called "strategic alliance" without modifications, by the end of next month. But it is already being condemned by the Iranians and many Arabs as a continuing American attempt to dominate the region. Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, the powerful and usually moderate Iranian leader, said yesterday that such a deal would create "a permanent occupation". He added: "The essence of this agreement is to turn the Iraqis into slaves of the Americans."
For now, all I can do is Hope We Don't Get fooled Again!
Revealed: Secret plan to keep Iraq under US control
Bush wants 50 military bases, control of Iraqi airspace and legal immunity for all American soldiers and contractors
By Patrick Cockburn
Thursday, 5 June 2008
I will include a few excerpts at the end of this post but do go and read the whole thing!
It is starting to look like one thing this blog will do is keep a running history on a Bush/Neocon/McCain confluence (I won't yet call it a conspiracy) that may well lead the US to attack or invade Iran as well as execute preposterous goings-on with Iraq. A few words about the confluence; the NeoCon dream of remaking the Middle East still burns brightly, at least in Dick Cheney's mind, Bush is growing desperate for something he can call victory in Iraq before he leaves office and will do all he can to make it harder for the next President to abandon our Imperialist Adventure, and McCain's only real hope of election is riding the wave of fresh aggression in Iraq and thus public support for continued misadventures in Iran. This latter point will create tremendous pressure from the Neo-Con wing of what is still called the Republican Party for that aggression to ocur.
So why do I feel this must be recorded? Well before the Iraq invasion I argued long and hard with many otherwise intelligent folk that the entire justification was bogus. The problem, as near as I could tell, was that nobody was paying much attention to the netherworld of blogs and foreign press. While I am tempted to think that could not happen today, nearly 7 years later, I actually think it could easily happen again. To some degree that is a reflection of my distrust of many Democrats in Congress. After all there have been no impeachments for radically impeachable offenses (and even now many Democrats are moving to forever codify unconstitutional spying by the Executive branch upon US citizens, another important read) It also reflects my somewhat skeptical feelings towards Obama regarding his still untested backbone. And finally, there has been no significant improvement in the MSM; they continue to be lazy and worthless for the most part.
A secret deal being negotiated in Baghdad would perpetuate the American military occupation of Iraq indefinitely, regardless of the outcome of the US presidential election in November.
America currently has 151,000 troops in Iraq and, even after projected withdrawals next month, troop levels will stand at more than 142,000 – 10 000 more than when the military "surge" began in January 2007. Under the terms of the new treaty, the Americans would retain the long-term use of more than 50 bases in Iraq. American negotiators are also demanding immunity from Iraqi law for US troops and contractors, and a free hand to carry out arrests and conduct military activities in Iraq without consulting the Baghdad government.
Mr Bush is determined to force the Iraqi government to sign the so-called "strategic alliance" without modifications, by the end of next month. But it is already being condemned by the Iranians and many Arabs as a continuing American attempt to dominate the region. Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, the powerful and usually moderate Iranian leader, said yesterday that such a deal would create "a permanent occupation". He added: "The essence of this agreement is to turn the Iraqis into slaves of the Americans."
For now, all I can do is Hope We Don't Get fooled Again!
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Bombs Away
Well I really didn't see this Asia Times piece on attacking Iran before writing my previous post. The whole article is worth a read. (The senators mentioned are supposedly Feinstein and Lugar.)
"The George W Bush administration plans to launch an air strike against Iran within the next two months, an informed source tells Asia Times Online, echoing other reports that have surfaced in the media in the United States recently.
Two key US senators briefed on the attack planned to go public with their opposition to the move, according to the source, but their projected New York Times op-ed piece has yet to appear.
The source, a retired US career diplomat and former assistant secretary of state still active in the foreign affairs community, speaking anonymously, said last week that the US plans an air strike against the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC). The air strike would target the headquarters of the IRGC's elite Quds force. With an estimated strength of up to 90,000 fighters, the Quds' stated mission is to spread Iran's revolution of 1979 throughout the region."
"The George W Bush administration plans to launch an air strike against Iran within the next two months, an informed source tells Asia Times Online, echoing other reports that have surfaced in the media in the United States recently.
Two key US senators briefed on the attack planned to go public with their opposition to the move, according to the source, but their projected New York Times op-ed piece has yet to appear.
The source, a retired US career diplomat and former assistant secretary of state still active in the foreign affairs community, speaking anonymously, said last week that the US plans an air strike against the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC). The air strike would target the headquarters of the IRGC's elite Quds force. With an estimated strength of up to 90,000 fighters, the Quds' stated mission is to spread Iran's revolution of 1979 throughout the region."
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
Daddy Warbucks (Arming Iraq and Attacking Iran)
A week of so ago USA Today mentioned that, "Iraq began committing money to U.S. foreign military sales in December 2006 and by last May had $3 billion in an account dedicated to the program.
About $1.6 billion worth of contracts have already been delivered and another $1 billion is under contract, Benkert said. The remaining money hasn't been spent yet.
The United States also continues to support Iraq's security forces with U.S. tax dollars. The Pentagon budgeted $3 billion this fiscal year to equip and train Iraq's security forces."
Math wasn't my major but that seems like 6 billion of arms we will supply to that oh so stable government of Iraq. Gosh any chance of blow back on this one? (How many IED's were made from parts brokered by Rummy for the Reagan administration as a gift to Saddam? How many millions did Ronnie provide to the future Taliban in Afghanistan in the 80's?)
Invade a country for no good reason causing the death of a few hundred thousand people, then tell them they have to create their own democracy while privatizing the war and the "peace" for the profit of your good buddies, look to Iran; rinse and repeat.
And here's even more depressing news; more good citizens believe we should talk with Iran than believe in Evolution.
Why is that depressing? Answer after you contemplate the graphic below from a recent Gallup Poll.
With McBush beating the drums for attacking Iran this poll can only be taken as extremley bad news for Republicans (lord knows McBush's economic policies, and I use that term loosely, will be enough of a disaster for him.)
What can change the picture?
A serious strike on Iran before the Presidential elections, thats what. Its the Hail Mary for Mc Bush and GWB is just the lad to authorize it. (That's seriously bad news for ALL OF US!)
A snip from GWB commanding the troops, from Michael Abramowitz at the Post via Talking Points Memo:
During a videoconference with his national security team and generals, Sanchez writes, Bush launched into what he described as a "confused" pep talk:
"Kick ass!" he quotes the president as saying. "If somebody tries to stop the march to democracy, we will seek them out and kill them! We must be tougher than hell! This Vietnam stuff, this is not even close. It is a mind-set. We can't send that message. It's an excuse to prepare us for withdrawal."
"There is a series of moments and this is one of them. Our will is being tested, but we are resolute. We have a better way. Stay strong! Stay the course! Kill them! Be confident! Prevail! We are going to wipe them out! We are not blinking!"
Damn I miss Ike!
Hell I even miss Goldwater! Even his granddaughter still has some common sense.
“‘I don’t know if [Barry Goldwater] would recognize the Republican Party today,’ Alison Goldwater Ross, a registered Democrat and granddaughter of the 1964 GOP presidential candidate, told The Huffington Post. ‘I’m sure if we were to raise his ashes from the Colorado River… he would be going, ‘What? This is not my vision. This is not my party.’”
(Please forgive the partial duplicate post below. Lycos has fallen and it can't get up. Their new webon interface is pretty spiffy for us HTML laymen put it seems to be missing a way to delete a broken post.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
