Image: Salvador Dali, Geopoliticus child watching the birth of the new man
It is difficult to understand why, in the case of Iran, the suspension of the program for enrichment of uranium has been made a precondition for any talks in which such suspension is the main subject. It is not long ago that an American commission led by former Secretary of State James Baker and former Representative Lee Hamilton declared that the United States ought to engage in talks with Iran and Syria. Yet, despite the dire situation in Iraq, the Bush administration prefers to talk to Iran and Syria through public statements and military threats...A less humiliating approach might give better results. Such an approach is now being tested in the case of North Korea. Why not in Iran, too? Hans Blix, Will the United States Attack Iran?, International Herald Tribune, 2-19-07
Al-Qaeda is believed to have established compounds inside Pakistan to train small groups of operatives for possible attacks in the West, a US official said. The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the compounds had been detected over the past year in a semi-autonomous tribal area along the mountainous border with Afghanistan....they were being used to train groups of 10 to 20 people at a time for what were believed to be operations in the West, particularly in Western Europe, the official said...The compounds suggest that Al-Qaeda, once seen as having been reduced to a largely inspirational role in an increasingly dispersed, decentralized international jihadist movement, is rebuilding its capacity to mount international operations. Qaeda camps in Pakistan to train operatives: US official, Agence France Press, 2-19-07
Hard Rain Journal 2-21-07: This is Madness -- Bush-Cheney Target Saddam and then the Iranians -- Both Sworn Enemies of Al Qaeda, Meanwhile...
By Richard Power
It is madness.
In the twisted and bloody world of Middle East geopolitics, the maxim is "My enemy's enemy is my friend."
And yet, the Bush-Cheney regime has already taken out Saddam Hussein and is now preparing to attack the Iranians -- both sworn enemies of Al Qaeda.
Are we to conclude, therefore, that Al Qaeda is the Bush-Cheney regime's friend?
After all, before they seized power in 2000, the Bush-Cheney regime's neo-con "thought leaders" had openly opined for "another Pearl Harbor," and after they were installed, they consistently ignored direct and dire warnings of an imminent threat from Al Qaeda.
And then, of course, there is the issue of business relationships between the Bush-Cheney cabal and the Saudis in general, and between the Bush and Bin Laden families in particular.
The pretexts for the saber-rattling over Iran is that it is on the way to developing nuclear weapons and that it is behind the killing of US military in Iraq.
Well, Pakistan, a government which harbors and has been seriously compromised by Al Qaeda, already has nuclear weapons; and most of the US military personnel killed in Iraq have died at the hands of Sunni insurgents, armed and funded by "our allies" in Saudi Arabia.
What is wrong with this picture? What are we really looking at here? And are you ready for the answer?
The Neo-Cons have an answer, of course, but it too is a lie -- i.e., to break the jaw bones of the Middle East in order to reshape its face; but even if it weren't a lie, it could not have been sold to the American people if it had been plainly spoken up front.
Don't lose track of the four stories cited below, and the big questions they raise --
What involvement did Bush's political advisor, Karl Rove, have in the decision to spurn Iran's offer of cooperation?
Did Condoleeza Rice commit perjury in her US Senate testimony on the 2003 Iranian peace proposal?
Is Dick Cheney the real target of the US DoJ investigation into the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame?
Is the DoJ purge of Republican-appointed prosecutors a brazen attempt to halt ongoing investigations into official corruption that would lead inevitably to the White House?
Here are brief excerpts from the four stories, with links to the full texts, as well as the big questions that they raise:
What involvement did Bush's political advisor, Karl Rove, have in the decision to spurn Iran's offer of cooperation?
Karl Rove, then White House deputy chief of staff for President George W. Bush, received a copy of the secret Iranian proposal for negotiations with the United States from former Republican Congressman Bob Ney in early May 2003, according to an Iranian-American scholar who was then on his Congressional staff.Karl Rove, then White House deputy chief of staff for President George W. Bush, received a copy of the secret Iranian proposal for negotiations with the United States from former Republican Congressman Bob Ney in early May 2003, according to an Iranian-American scholar who was then on his Congressional staff.
Ney, who pleaded guilty last year and was sentenced to prison in January for his role in the Jack Abramov lobbying scandal, was named by former aide Trita Parsi as an intermediary who took a copy of the Iranian proposal to the White House...Ney was chosen by Swiss Ambassador in Tehran Tim Guldimann to carry the Iranian proposal to the White House, according to Parsi, because he knew the Ohio Congressman to be the only Farsi-speaking member of Congress and particularly interested in Iran... Gareth Porter, Rove Said to Have Received 2003 Iranian Proposal, Inter Press Service, 2-18-07
Did Condoleeza Rice commit perjury in her US Senate testimony on the 2003 Iranian peace proposal?
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice misled the U.S. Congress when she said last week that she had not seen a 2003 Iranian proposal for talks with the United States, a former senior government official said...
Flynt Leverett, who worked on the National Security Council when it was headed by Rice, likened the proposal to the 1972 U.S. opening to China. He said he was confident it was seen by Rice and then-Secretary of State Colin Powell but "the administration rejected the overture."
Speaking at a conference on Capitol Hill, Leverett said "this was a serious proposal, a serious effort" by Iran to lay out a comprehensive agenda for U.S.-Iranian rapprochement.
"The Bush administration up to and including Secretary Rice is misleading Congress and the American public about the Iran proposal," he said.
Testifying before the House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee last week, Rice told lawmakers who asked about Leverett's previous public comments and writings on the Iranian proposal: "I don't know what Flynt Leverett's talking about."
She faulted him for not telling her, "We have a proposal from Iran and we really ought to take it."
...Leverett said he deserved an apology from Rice for calling his competence into question.
He said he had left the National Security Council, which advises the president on security issues, in March 2003 before the Iranian proposal was received. He returned to the CIA where he previously worked and soon after that left government.
Hence, he wasn't in a position to make this case directly to Rice, nor was it his responsibility, he said.
But among other things, Leverett said that then-Secretary of State Colin Powell, in a discussion about the Iranian proposal, told him he "couldn't sell it at the White House." This was evidence it had been discussed there, he said. Ex-Aide Says Rice Misled US Congress on Iran , Reuters, 2-14-07
Is Dick Cheney the real target of the US DoJ investigation into the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame?
This weekend, RAW STORY interviewed Marcy Wheeler, one of the blogosphere’s most tireless observers and analysts of the CIA leak investigation and the I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby Trial...
BB: Do you think that the Intelligence Identities Act is a law that will ever be successfully adjudicated?
MW: Well the problem in this case, I’m not entirely convinced that Fitzgerald’s done. I used to be conservative on that, believing that he was done. But there are little snippets of hints that he’s not.
BB: What are those? Talk about those.
MW: I don’t think I should say. It’s court personnel stuff. If nothing else, there may be another charge for Libby that he’s lying about the NIE. But I think Fitzgerald clearly wants Cheney and he’s not the kind of person who rests on his laurels after getting one conviction. One thing I can say is I don’t understand why Eric Edelman wasn’t called and that may be something he kept in reserve. I don’t understand why Jenny Mayfield wasn’t called, that may be something he kept in reserve. I think I understand why the defense didn’t call her. So he may or may not be done, but, in this case, if he’s not done, I say this in the book, there are two Constitutional issues you run up against. Because I’ve long believed that if Fitzgerald gets to the point where he can prove that it wasn’t the NIE they were declassifying but it was Plame’s identity, then you’re in the Constitutional issue of whether Navy vs. Egan, which is what Addington was using to justify it, whether its true that it can supersede all the procedures that executive orders lay out for declassification. That you can instantly declassify something. And whether you can declassify Plame’s identity without telling her. And I’m still not convinced that you can indict a sitting vice president for something he did as a sitting vice president. Agnew was indicted for something he did before. Brian Beutler, Chief Libby trial blogger says she believes prosecutor 'wants Cheney,' 'won't rest on laurels', Raw Story, 2-20-07
Is the DoJ purge of Republican-appointed prosecutors a brazen attempt to halt ongoing investigations into official corruption that would lead inevitably to the White House?
All but one of the U.S. attorneys recently fired by the Justice Department had positive job reviews before they were dismissed, but many ran into political trouble with Washington over issues ranging from immigration to the death penalty, according to prosecutors, congressional aides and others familiar with the cases.
Two months after the firings first began to make waves on Capitol Hill, it has also become clear that most of the prosecutors were overseeing significant public-corruption investigations at the time they were asked to leave. Four of the probes target Republican politicians or their supporters, prosecutors and other officials said.
The emerging details stand in contrast to repeated statements from the Justice Department that six of the Republican-appointed prosecutors were dismissed because of poor performance...
The decision by Cummins and some of the others to speak out underscores the extent to which the firings have spiraled out of the Justice Department's control. Officials initially sought to obscure the firings even from some senators, and have since issued confusing signals and contradictory information about the episode. Dan Eggen, 6 of 7 Dismissed U.S. Attorneys Had Positive Job Evaluations, Washington Post, 2-18-07
FIVE MOST RECENT RELATED POSTS
Hard Rain Journal 2-16-07: What Happens When a Whole Nation is Dragged into Room 101? Remember, 2+2=4
Hard Rain Journal 2-13-07: Is the Mainstream News Media Ignoring the Biggest Obstruction of Justice in US History?
Hard Rain Journal 2-2-07: Forget about 2008, the Fate of the Republic could be Decided in the Next Six Months
Hard Rain Journal 1-26-07: Should Cheney be the Direct Target of Congressional Investigation?
Hard Rain Journal 1-19-07: The Hard Rain Falls Between PNAC and the PATRIOT Act, but the US News Media Sees, Hears, Speaks No Evil
Richard Power is the founder of GS(3) Intelligence and Words of Power. His work focuses on the inter-related issues of security, sustainability and spirit, and how to overcome the challenges of terrorism, cyber crime, global warming, health emergencies, natural disasters, etc. You can reach him via e-mail: richardpower@wordsofpower.net. For more information, go to www.wordsofpower.net
Iraq, Iran, Al Qaeda, Hans Blix, Flynn Leverett, DoJ, Patrick Fitzgerald, Condoleeza Rice, Bush, Cheney, Saudia Arabia, Osama Bin Laden, Pakistan, Richard Power, Words of Power
