Church: Mormon Leader, 95, in Hospital - Yahoo! News:
Gordon B. Hinckley thought to be guided by Cleon Skouson is devestated by the loss of the Prophet's Prophet. Speculation abounds that Hinckley may call for the end of the Chuch of Jesus of Laterday Saints.
"Church: Mormon Leader, 95, in Hospital Tue Jan 24, 7:18 PM ET
SALT LAKE CITY - Gordon B. Hinckley, the 95-year-old president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, was hospitalized Tuesday for what church officials described as a routine procedure.
Hinckley, president of the 12 million-member Mormon church since 1995, was at an undisclosed hospital Tuesday afternoon, church spokeswoman Kim Farah said.
No other details, including which hospital and the nature of the medical procedure, were immediately available.
Hinckley, a third-generation Mormon, has worked for the church for 70 years. He is its most-traveled president, and remains active in church affairs despite his age. In December, he attended a 200th anniversary celebration in Vermont marking the birth of church founder Joseph Smith.
Presidents of the Mormon church serve for life.
Mormonism is one of the world's fastest-growing religions. The church has doubled in size every 14 or 15 years since 1950.
The architect of the church's vast public relations network, Hinckley has long worked to burnish the faith's image as a world religion far removed from its peculiar and polygamous roots.
In 2004 President Bush awarded Hinckley the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest civilian honor in the U.S., in a ceremony at the White House."
Friday, January 27, 2006
Hitting the Mark on Iran by Michael Rubin
"Hitting the Mark on Iran
by Michael Rubin
FrontPageMagazine.com
January 27, 2006
http://www.meforum.org/article/893
Ali Safavi's response is dishonest but useful as a study of Mujahedin-e Khalq (MKO) tactics.
Let there be no mistake: Masud Rajavi's Mujahedin-e Khalq is a terrorist group; Rajavi is as much a Monster of the Left as Yasir Arafat [1] or Robert Mugabe.
Mujahedin-e Khalq members trained with Arafat's Palestinian Liberation Organization and in Qadhafi's Libya. The groups terrorists have assassinated Americans, Iranian civilians, and bombed public buildings. Its members embraced Saddam Hussein and participated in the slaughter of Iraqi Kurdish civilians following their 1991 uprising against Saddam's dictatorial rule.
Safavi's endorsement of violence parallels the logic expressed by supporters of Islamic Jihad, Abu Sayyaf, and al-Qaeda. Comparisons betwen the Mujahedin-e Khalq and either American revolutionaries or French partisans ring hollow: The Mujahedin-e Khalq has no support among Iranians inside their own country. Citing the groups own publications to claim popularity as did Jalal Arani [2]is dishonest.
True, some Iranians did support the Mujahedin-e Khalq in 1972. Many Iranians, chafing under the Shah, accepted the rhetoric of demagogues like Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and groups like the Mujahedin-e Khalq. But Iranian public opinion has changed over the past 34 years. That Mr. Safavi has to return to 1972 to claim public support underlines the fallacies of his argument. Supporters who did not abandon the Mujahedin-e Khalq when it murdered civilians and planted bombs washed their hands of the group after Rajavi allied himself with Saddam Hussein. Many have since fled the Rajavi personality cult.
Mr. Safavi may want to dismiss Ervand Abrahamian's The Iranian Mojahedin.[3] It is a devastating and careful study of the Mujahedin-e Khalq. Abrahamian's books exploring torture in Iran, Khomeinis philosophy, and the history of the Mujahedin-e Khalq are well-reviewed and well-regarded by both left and right.[4] Reviewing a book of Abrahamian's essays, Daniel Pipes (neither a communist sympathizer nor a cheerleader for the Islamic Republic), wrote Abrahamian makes his case the old-fashioned way, through a close reading of texts and study of events.[5] Abrahamian's scholarship rests on archival research and documentary evidence. He is no Rashid Khalidi.[6] He did not cherry-pick his sources or remove context. Rather, he examined the opus of Rajavi's works and charted their development.
Mr. Safavi is likewise dishonest with his dismissal of Islamic Marxism, which was oft-discussed within Mujahedin-e Khalq circles and Iranian society.
Mr. Safavi poses a false choice: Theocracy or Mujahedin-e Khalq. Iranians want neither. They are sophisticated and vocal. They opine openly about various opposition groups, figures, and movements. They do not need to Mujahedin-e Khalq to channel their thoughts; they speak for themselves. They despise the Mujahedin. Safavi should not dismiss seventy million Iranians as agents of Tehran's intelligence ministry.
The only constituency that matters is Iranians residing inside Iran. Getting the signature of European parliamentarians and a few U.S. congressmen on petitions means little. Nor is the Mujahedin-e Khalq honest with its sponsorship. Few politicians make the mistake of signing their petitions twice. The U.S. government chronicles an ever expanding number of Mujahedin-e Khalq front organizations.[7] The group forms short-lived proxies to capitalize upon existing public support for issues ranging from calls for a constitutional referendum to earthquake relief.[8] But the Mujahedin-e Khalq's strategy of deception has undercut the Iranian peoples struggle for liberation by cynicism about and politicians detachment from legitimate opposition movements.
How pervasive is the groups dishonesty? In his letter to Frontpage Magazine, Safavi describes himself as a sociologist who has studied the activities of the Mujahedin-e Khalq for 34 years. Actually, Ali Safavi is a senior member of the National Council of Resistance of Iran, the Mujahedin-e Khalqs political wing.[9]
Most of Safavi's prose and notes are irrelevant to the argument and obscure or ignore points raised in Monsters of the Left: The Mujahedin al-Khalq. He seeks credibility by citing everything from the Pope to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Cults often use similar strategies. Often Safavi's notes refer to points tangential to the original arguments and, in some cases, even to points Mr. Safavi himself makes. Several look credible, but do not say what Mr. Safavi alleges.
Nor does Mr. Safavi gain credibility for the Mujahedin-e Khalq by cherry-picking statements. Mujahedin-e Khalq publications are infamous in Washington for using ellipses to alter the meanings analysis published elsewhere by policymakers. Citing statements replicated in recent Mujahedin-e Khalq publications brings as much credibility as quoting from Lyndon LaRouche's Executive Intelligence Review. Quality of sourcing always matters: Justin Raimondo is hardly a trustworthy authority.[10] David S. Cloud, having left the Wall Street Journal, has quickly become the New York Times' new Jason Blair.
That the Mujahedin-e Khalq helped expose Tehrans secret nuclear program does not give it a free pass to popular legitimacy. Previous and subsequent Mujahedin-e Khalq revelations proved false. So, too, are Mujahedin-e Khalq pronouncements that they had the support of the Bush administration. It is unfortunate that left-wing bloggers like Laura Rozen and Juan Cole advanced such statements. They substituted accuracy and sourcing with speculation and fabrication. Their statements helped the Mujahedin-e Khalq claim false legitimacy.
Mr. Safavi is right that the Islamic Republic is the antithesis of democracy. The nuclear threat is real. The problem is not political, but rather ideological.[11] Iranian leaders mean what they say. Neither European engagement nor flaccid diplomacy will work. It is an embarrassment that, as the Bush administration enters its sixth year, there remains no policy toward Iran. Bush's rhetoric means little when his administration is unwilling to act in support of the Iranian people. But solidarity with the Iranian people should mean what Solidarity meant to the Polish people. When the Reagan administration debated how to support Poland against the tyranny of the Soviet Empire, career diplomats and European officials counseled a do-nothing approach, for fear that real support for the dockyard workers in Gdansk would cause complicate diplomatic initiatives. President Ronald Reagan dismissed such concerns. So, too, should Bush.
But support for freedom in Iran means listening to the Iranian people. It means funding independent labor unions and unlicensed, truly independent civil society. So that the New York Times no longer accepts Iranian government statistics like voter turn-out at face value, the U.S. government should fund independent Iranian organizations to conduct true surveys. Iranian universities are full of honest sociologists, statisticians, and students who chafe under their governments rule and can participant. Nor, if the Bush administration is serious, should the Los Angeles-based Persian-language media want for funds.
The Mujahedin-e Khalq remains a terrorist group. That its target is not a friend of the U.S. government should be irrelevant. Under no circumstances, though, should Congressmen or Senators be duped into believing the rhetoric of a group like the Mujahedin-e Khalq who may see a cash cow, but whose ideology and actions are out-of-step with the freedom and liberty Iranians desire and deserve.
Notes:
[1] http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=19590
[2] http://frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=21025
[3] New Haven: Yale University Press, 1992.
[4] See reviews, for example, in the Middle East Quarterly: http://www.meforum.org/article/114; and http://www.meforum.org/article/820
[5] Review of Abrahamian. Khomeinism: Essays on the Islamic Republic. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993. http://www.meforum.org/article/820
[6] http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=18419
[7] http://www.treas.gov/offices/enforcement/ofac/actions/20030815.shtml; http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2003/23311.htm
[8] For example, see: MKO Organizes Gathering in Washington DC Convention Center. Radio Farda. January 24, 2004. http://www.radiofarda.com/transcripts/topstory/2004/01/20040124_1430_0344_0750_EN.asp
[9] Lisa Bryant. Iranian Resistance Group Seen as Leverage in Nuclear Dispute. Voice of America. January 23, 2006. http://www.voanews.com/english/2006-01-23-voa73.cfm
[10] http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=17310
[11] http://www.meforum.org/article/892"
by Michael Rubin
FrontPageMagazine.com
January 27, 2006
http://www.meforum.org/article/893
Ali Safavi's response is dishonest but useful as a study of Mujahedin-e Khalq (MKO) tactics.
Let there be no mistake: Masud Rajavi's Mujahedin-e Khalq is a terrorist group; Rajavi is as much a Monster of the Left as Yasir Arafat [1] or Robert Mugabe.
Mujahedin-e Khalq members trained with Arafat's Palestinian Liberation Organization and in Qadhafi's Libya. The groups terrorists have assassinated Americans, Iranian civilians, and bombed public buildings. Its members embraced Saddam Hussein and participated in the slaughter of Iraqi Kurdish civilians following their 1991 uprising against Saddam's dictatorial rule.
Safavi's endorsement of violence parallels the logic expressed by supporters of Islamic Jihad, Abu Sayyaf, and al-Qaeda. Comparisons betwen the Mujahedin-e Khalq and either American revolutionaries or French partisans ring hollow: The Mujahedin-e Khalq has no support among Iranians inside their own country. Citing the groups own publications to claim popularity as did Jalal Arani [2]is dishonest.
True, some Iranians did support the Mujahedin-e Khalq in 1972. Many Iranians, chafing under the Shah, accepted the rhetoric of demagogues like Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and groups like the Mujahedin-e Khalq. But Iranian public opinion has changed over the past 34 years. That Mr. Safavi has to return to 1972 to claim public support underlines the fallacies of his argument. Supporters who did not abandon the Mujahedin-e Khalq when it murdered civilians and planted bombs washed their hands of the group after Rajavi allied himself with Saddam Hussein. Many have since fled the Rajavi personality cult.
Mr. Safavi may want to dismiss Ervand Abrahamian's The Iranian Mojahedin.[3] It is a devastating and careful study of the Mujahedin-e Khalq. Abrahamian's books exploring torture in Iran, Khomeinis philosophy, and the history of the Mujahedin-e Khalq are well-reviewed and well-regarded by both left and right.[4] Reviewing a book of Abrahamian's essays, Daniel Pipes (neither a communist sympathizer nor a cheerleader for the Islamic Republic), wrote Abrahamian makes his case the old-fashioned way, through a close reading of texts and study of events.[5] Abrahamian's scholarship rests on archival research and documentary evidence. He is no Rashid Khalidi.[6] He did not cherry-pick his sources or remove context. Rather, he examined the opus of Rajavi's works and charted their development.
Mr. Safavi is likewise dishonest with his dismissal of Islamic Marxism, which was oft-discussed within Mujahedin-e Khalq circles and Iranian society.
Mr. Safavi poses a false choice: Theocracy or Mujahedin-e Khalq. Iranians want neither. They are sophisticated and vocal. They opine openly about various opposition groups, figures, and movements. They do not need to Mujahedin-e Khalq to channel their thoughts; they speak for themselves. They despise the Mujahedin. Safavi should not dismiss seventy million Iranians as agents of Tehran's intelligence ministry.
The only constituency that matters is Iranians residing inside Iran. Getting the signature of European parliamentarians and a few U.S. congressmen on petitions means little. Nor is the Mujahedin-e Khalq honest with its sponsorship. Few politicians make the mistake of signing their petitions twice. The U.S. government chronicles an ever expanding number of Mujahedin-e Khalq front organizations.[7] The group forms short-lived proxies to capitalize upon existing public support for issues ranging from calls for a constitutional referendum to earthquake relief.[8] But the Mujahedin-e Khalq's strategy of deception has undercut the Iranian peoples struggle for liberation by cynicism about and politicians detachment from legitimate opposition movements.
How pervasive is the groups dishonesty? In his letter to Frontpage Magazine, Safavi describes himself as a sociologist who has studied the activities of the Mujahedin-e Khalq for 34 years. Actually, Ali Safavi is a senior member of the National Council of Resistance of Iran, the Mujahedin-e Khalqs political wing.[9]
Most of Safavi's prose and notes are irrelevant to the argument and obscure or ignore points raised in Monsters of the Left: The Mujahedin al-Khalq. He seeks credibility by citing everything from the Pope to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Cults often use similar strategies. Often Safavi's notes refer to points tangential to the original arguments and, in some cases, even to points Mr. Safavi himself makes. Several look credible, but do not say what Mr. Safavi alleges.
Nor does Mr. Safavi gain credibility for the Mujahedin-e Khalq by cherry-picking statements. Mujahedin-e Khalq publications are infamous in Washington for using ellipses to alter the meanings analysis published elsewhere by policymakers. Citing statements replicated in recent Mujahedin-e Khalq publications brings as much credibility as quoting from Lyndon LaRouche's Executive Intelligence Review. Quality of sourcing always matters: Justin Raimondo is hardly a trustworthy authority.[10] David S. Cloud, having left the Wall Street Journal, has quickly become the New York Times' new Jason Blair.
That the Mujahedin-e Khalq helped expose Tehrans secret nuclear program does not give it a free pass to popular legitimacy. Previous and subsequent Mujahedin-e Khalq revelations proved false. So, too, are Mujahedin-e Khalq pronouncements that they had the support of the Bush administration. It is unfortunate that left-wing bloggers like Laura Rozen and Juan Cole advanced such statements. They substituted accuracy and sourcing with speculation and fabrication. Their statements helped the Mujahedin-e Khalq claim false legitimacy.
Mr. Safavi is right that the Islamic Republic is the antithesis of democracy. The nuclear threat is real. The problem is not political, but rather ideological.[11] Iranian leaders mean what they say. Neither European engagement nor flaccid diplomacy will work. It is an embarrassment that, as the Bush administration enters its sixth year, there remains no policy toward Iran. Bush's rhetoric means little when his administration is unwilling to act in support of the Iranian people. But solidarity with the Iranian people should mean what Solidarity meant to the Polish people. When the Reagan administration debated how to support Poland against the tyranny of the Soviet Empire, career diplomats and European officials counseled a do-nothing approach, for fear that real support for the dockyard workers in Gdansk would cause complicate diplomatic initiatives. President Ronald Reagan dismissed such concerns. So, too, should Bush.
But support for freedom in Iran means listening to the Iranian people. It means funding independent labor unions and unlicensed, truly independent civil society. So that the New York Times no longer accepts Iranian government statistics like voter turn-out at face value, the U.S. government should fund independent Iranian organizations to conduct true surveys. Iranian universities are full of honest sociologists, statisticians, and students who chafe under their governments rule and can participant. Nor, if the Bush administration is serious, should the Los Angeles-based Persian-language media want for funds.
The Mujahedin-e Khalq remains a terrorist group. That its target is not a friend of the U.S. government should be irrelevant. Under no circumstances, though, should Congressmen or Senators be duped into believing the rhetoric of a group like the Mujahedin-e Khalq who may see a cash cow, but whose ideology and actions are out-of-step with the freedom and liberty Iranians desire and deserve.
Notes:
[1] http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=19590
[2] http://frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=21025
[3] New Haven: Yale University Press, 1992.
[4] See reviews, for example, in the Middle East Quarterly: http://www.meforum.org/article/114; and http://www.meforum.org/article/820
[5] Review of Abrahamian. Khomeinism: Essays on the Islamic Republic. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993. http://www.meforum.org/article/820
[6] http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=18419
[7] http://www.treas.gov/offices/enforcement/ofac/actions/20030815.shtml; http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2003/23311.htm
[8] For example, see: MKO Organizes Gathering in Washington DC Convention Center. Radio Farda. January 24, 2004. http://www.radiofarda.com/transcripts/topstory/2004/01/20040124_1430_0344_0750_EN.asp
[9] Lisa Bryant. Iranian Resistance Group Seen as Leverage in Nuclear Dispute. Voice of America. January 23, 2006. http://www.voanews.com/english/2006-01-23-voa73.cfm
[10] http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=17310
[11] http://www.meforum.org/article/892"
Thursday, January 26, 2006
The Sentinel: Bush Administration Helped Iranian Hardliner Get Elected
The Sentinel: "Bush Administration Helped Iranian Hardliner Get Elected
By Margie Burns
Ali Hashemi Rafsanjani, the only major Iranian figure who advocated reaching out to America, made indirect overtures to the Bush administration in the period leading up to the Iranian election but was rebuffed, according to local businessman Barry O'Connell, who frequently travels to Iran.
State Department personnel referred pejoratively to Rafsanjani, the political figure best known outside Iran and most often favored by the business community in Iran and elsewhere, as "that old fox" and "that old wheeler dealer," O'Connell said. Among feelers preceding the election last June, Iran had conveyed messages through members of its legislative assembly via business contacts, which reached the South East Asia section of the State Department. According to Department personnel, O'Connell said, messages that Rafsanjani was interested in dealing with the U.S. were relayed "upstairs" to the seventh floor offices of the Secretary of State.
The feelers were ignored. Asked whether the Bush administration opposed Rafsanjani and influenced the Iranian election, O'Connell answers, "Very much so."
Interestingly, there were other impediments to cooperation with moderate or secular or business-oriented Iranians in the weeks leading up to the election, including restraints to travel in and out of Iranian air space, imposed with the cooperation of elements in the business community and government contractors. In any case, the administration rebuffs decreased the ability of Rafsanjani to draw support. "He was almost the only one reaching out to America, and they treated him this way?" O'Connell comments. "They [said] it to me personally, so it is reasonable to assume that they said it to others. This administration would not deal with him at all."
Responding to questions about the other Iranian candidates, O'Connell says that the administration "didn't seem concerned about Ahmadinejad at all." There was no apparent concern, at the policy-making level, that some hardliner or radical fundamentalist might win the election as a result of its actions. The possibility, treated as inevitability in rightwing publications and think tanks associated with White House Middle East policy, seems not to have been regarded as an outcome to be avoided.
Since the election, Rafsanjani has increased in his powers, according to O'Connell. "He is not out of power at all." The new President, Ahmadinejad, gets "all the spotlight" but does not have much power.
This is not to say that power in Iran has become all secular. The bulk of power is held by the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Hoseini-Khamenei, in office since 1989, and also by the head of the expediency committee. Thus power is largely divided among four places -- the Supreme Leader, the committee head, Rafsanjani and the new head who has gotten all the global spotlight.
These internal divisions in Iran tend not to be reflected in administration rhetoric about Iran. The White House, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and neoconservatives in media have focused publicly only on President Ahmadinejad, whose world-burning rhetoric makes their project easy. The rightwing National Review, co-founded by William A. Rusher, who also founded the infamous Concerned Alumni of Princeton and is Chairman of the media corporation that launched the most recent attack on Rep. John Murtha (D-Penn.), is running articles about Iran that eerily parallel rhetoric about Iraq leading up to the Iraq war.
O'Connell points out that, while neoconservatives advocate several months of bombing Iran — two or three months, at least, of bombing purported "nuclear" sites in Iran, those sites are all in residential neighborhoods.
Supposing the administration were to bomb millions of Iranians, for two or three months, as neoconservatives are proposing, O'Connell wonders. "If we start another war," in Iran this time, "how do we get out of it?" "There is no exit strategy — like in Iraq." Right now, the U.S. maintains a tenuous hold in Iraq because of the majority Shia population who, led largely by Ayatollah Sistani, have chosen to try to participate in reestablishing Iraq as a nation. But Iraqi Shia might well react against an administration bombing millions of Shia in Iran, where they are 89 percent of the population.
Shia Islam has two main schools of thought: the theocratic, which predominates in Iran; and one that more separates church and state, which predominates in Iraq. Administration policy seems to aim at driving the two populations together in opposition to the U.S. This would approach the goal of a pan-Islam war, global war between the West and Muslims, advocated by some well-placed neoconservatives and also by Osama bin Laden.
Iran has no embassy in the U.S. but has an Iran Interests Section in the embassy of its ally Pakistan. The administration just conducted a bloody air strike against Pakistan, killing civilians."
By Margie Burns
Ali Hashemi Rafsanjani, the only major Iranian figure who advocated reaching out to America, made indirect overtures to the Bush administration in the period leading up to the Iranian election but was rebuffed, according to local businessman Barry O'Connell, who frequently travels to Iran.
State Department personnel referred pejoratively to Rafsanjani, the political figure best known outside Iran and most often favored by the business community in Iran and elsewhere, as "that old fox" and "that old wheeler dealer," O'Connell said. Among feelers preceding the election last June, Iran had conveyed messages through members of its legislative assembly via business contacts, which reached the South East Asia section of the State Department. According to Department personnel, O'Connell said, messages that Rafsanjani was interested in dealing with the U.S. were relayed "upstairs" to the seventh floor offices of the Secretary of State.
The feelers were ignored. Asked whether the Bush administration opposed Rafsanjani and influenced the Iranian election, O'Connell answers, "Very much so."
Interestingly, there were other impediments to cooperation with moderate or secular or business-oriented Iranians in the weeks leading up to the election, including restraints to travel in and out of Iranian air space, imposed with the cooperation of elements in the business community and government contractors. In any case, the administration rebuffs decreased the ability of Rafsanjani to draw support. "He was almost the only one reaching out to America, and they treated him this way?" O'Connell comments. "They [said] it to me personally, so it is reasonable to assume that they said it to others. This administration would not deal with him at all."
Responding to questions about the other Iranian candidates, O'Connell says that the administration "didn't seem concerned about Ahmadinejad at all." There was no apparent concern, at the policy-making level, that some hardliner or radical fundamentalist might win the election as a result of its actions. The possibility, treated as inevitability in rightwing publications and think tanks associated with White House Middle East policy, seems not to have been regarded as an outcome to be avoided.
Since the election, Rafsanjani has increased in his powers, according to O'Connell. "He is not out of power at all." The new President, Ahmadinejad, gets "all the spotlight" but does not have much power.
This is not to say that power in Iran has become all secular. The bulk of power is held by the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Hoseini-Khamenei, in office since 1989, and also by the head of the expediency committee. Thus power is largely divided among four places -- the Supreme Leader, the committee head, Rafsanjani and the new head who has gotten all the global spotlight.
These internal divisions in Iran tend not to be reflected in administration rhetoric about Iran. The White House, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and neoconservatives in media have focused publicly only on President Ahmadinejad, whose world-burning rhetoric makes their project easy. The rightwing National Review, co-founded by William A. Rusher, who also founded the infamous Concerned Alumni of Princeton and is Chairman of the media corporation that launched the most recent attack on Rep. John Murtha (D-Penn.), is running articles about Iran that eerily parallel rhetoric about Iraq leading up to the Iraq war.
O'Connell points out that, while neoconservatives advocate several months of bombing Iran — two or three months, at least, of bombing purported "nuclear" sites in Iran, those sites are all in residential neighborhoods.
Supposing the administration were to bomb millions of Iranians, for two or three months, as neoconservatives are proposing, O'Connell wonders. "If we start another war," in Iran this time, "how do we get out of it?" "There is no exit strategy — like in Iraq." Right now, the U.S. maintains a tenuous hold in Iraq because of the majority Shia population who, led largely by Ayatollah Sistani, have chosen to try to participate in reestablishing Iraq as a nation. But Iraqi Shia might well react against an administration bombing millions of Shia in Iran, where they are 89 percent of the population.
Shia Islam has two main schools of thought: the theocratic, which predominates in Iran; and one that more separates church and state, which predominates in Iraq. Administration policy seems to aim at driving the two populations together in opposition to the U.S. This would approach the goal of a pan-Islam war, global war between the West and Muslims, advocated by some well-placed neoconservatives and also by Osama bin Laden.
Iran has no embassy in the U.S. but has an Iran Interests Section in the embassy of its ally Pakistan. The administration just conducted a bloody air strike against Pakistan, killing civilians."
Monday, January 23, 2006
Pro-Abortion Cult Candidate Scranton vows to stay in GOP governor's race through primary
Scranton vows to stay in GOP governor's race through primary: " Posted on Mon, Jan. 23, 2006
Scranton vows to stay in GOP governor's race through primary
PETER JACKSON
Associated Press
HARRISBURG, Pa. - Bill Scranton on Monday vowed to stay in the race for the GOP nomination for governor through the May 16 primary, saying it is the only way to force opponent Lynn Swann to debate the issues and his qualifications to be the state's chief executive.
The former lieutenant governor said Swann implicitly endorsed an open primary when he said he is willing to participate in as many as three primary debates, but only after the Republican State Committee's expected Feb. 11 endorsement vote.
Scranton said he will urge the state committee to remain neutral.
"Lynn's candidacy is 18 days old - 18 days and he's asking Republican leaders for an unqualified (vote of) support for an unknown, untested, first-time candidate for public office," he told about 200 people at a Pennsylvania Press Club luncheon.
Swann is well known because of his years as a star on the Pittsburgh Steelers and a football analyst for ABC Sports, but he is new to politics.
"Running against Ed Rendell is not entry-level politics," Scranton said, referring to the Democratic incumbent, who is expected to seek a second term. "The Republican nominee must withstand tough questions, be ready with real answers and be ready with real solutions."
Swann's campaign spokeswoman said he has not decided whether he would stay in the race if he fails to win the endorsement.
"We respect the party process," said the spokeswoman, Melissa Walters. "We've been working hard to secure the endorsement and we'll continue to do so."
Scranton and Swann have been competing fiercely behind the scenes for support from state committee members and the race is considered tight. Swann has had remarkable success in straw votes among committee members in the central and northwest regions of the state, but the areas that have yet to be canvassed include some Scranton strongholds.
Swann remains optimistic that he will win the endorsement, Walters said. Scranton denied that his change in strategy reflected a lack of support from the state committee.
"I think the endorsement is very much up in the air at the moment," he said.
The other candidate for the nomination, retired Pennsylvania Manufacturers' Association chief Jim Panyard, is not competing for the endorsement.
Eileen Melvin, the state's GOP chairwoman, said the committee is "sticking with the endorsement process, absolutely," and will not choose an open primary on Feb. 11. The committee's endorsements have helped launch the careers of such well known Republicans as former Gov. Tom Ridge and U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum, she said.
"It works," she said. "We're focused on finding the best candidate to beat Ed Rendell."
At least one GOP leader who is backing Scranton said he was pleased by the move.
Scranton is "putting his money where his mouth is," said Paul Catalano, the Republican chairman in Lackawanna County, which includes the city named after Scranton's ancestors.
Scranton made several campaign promises Monday as he unveiled a blueprint for state government that he said would rein in spending, reduce certain business taxes, expand alternatives to public schools and overhaul the rules of public service.
He promised to advocate a constitutional convention to consider government reforms, such as shrinking the size of the Legislature, to close what he described as serious loopholes in the slot-machine gambling law, and to end Pennsylvania's distinction as the only state without a lobbyist-disclosure law.
The only pre-endorsement debate among the GOP candidates, scheduled for Wednesday night in Harrisburg, was canceled after Scranton joined Swann in refusing to participate.
Scranton saw no point in a one-on-one debate with Panyard because Panyard is not competing for the party's endorsement, Scranton's campaign manager, James Seif, said Monday.
"That's not a debate," Seif said.
Seif said Scranton pulled out of the event only after Swann did not change his mind before a Friday deadline set by the debate's sponsors.
The sponsors criticized both Swann and Scranton at a Capitol news conference Monday.
"I have never seen such arrogance," said Paula Harris, president of the Andrew Young National Center for Social Change, a Harrisburg-based educational-services company that had been the lead sponsor."
Scranton vows to stay in GOP governor's race through primary
PETER JACKSON
Associated Press
HARRISBURG, Pa. - Bill Scranton on Monday vowed to stay in the race for the GOP nomination for governor through the May 16 primary, saying it is the only way to force opponent Lynn Swann to debate the issues and his qualifications to be the state's chief executive.
The former lieutenant governor said Swann implicitly endorsed an open primary when he said he is willing to participate in as many as three primary debates, but only after the Republican State Committee's expected Feb. 11 endorsement vote.
Scranton said he will urge the state committee to remain neutral.
"Lynn's candidacy is 18 days old - 18 days and he's asking Republican leaders for an unqualified (vote of) support for an unknown, untested, first-time candidate for public office," he told about 200 people at a Pennsylvania Press Club luncheon.
Swann is well known because of his years as a star on the Pittsburgh Steelers and a football analyst for ABC Sports, but he is new to politics.
"Running against Ed Rendell is not entry-level politics," Scranton said, referring to the Democratic incumbent, who is expected to seek a second term. "The Republican nominee must withstand tough questions, be ready with real answers and be ready with real solutions."
Swann's campaign spokeswoman said he has not decided whether he would stay in the race if he fails to win the endorsement.
"We respect the party process," said the spokeswoman, Melissa Walters. "We've been working hard to secure the endorsement and we'll continue to do so."
Scranton and Swann have been competing fiercely behind the scenes for support from state committee members and the race is considered tight. Swann has had remarkable success in straw votes among committee members in the central and northwest regions of the state, but the areas that have yet to be canvassed include some Scranton strongholds.
Swann remains optimistic that he will win the endorsement, Walters said. Scranton denied that his change in strategy reflected a lack of support from the state committee.
"I think the endorsement is very much up in the air at the moment," he said.
The other candidate for the nomination, retired Pennsylvania Manufacturers' Association chief Jim Panyard, is not competing for the endorsement.
Eileen Melvin, the state's GOP chairwoman, said the committee is "sticking with the endorsement process, absolutely," and will not choose an open primary on Feb. 11. The committee's endorsements have helped launch the careers of such well known Republicans as former Gov. Tom Ridge and U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum, she said.
"It works," she said. "We're focused on finding the best candidate to beat Ed Rendell."
At least one GOP leader who is backing Scranton said he was pleased by the move.
Scranton is "putting his money where his mouth is," said Paul Catalano, the Republican chairman in Lackawanna County, which includes the city named after Scranton's ancestors.
Scranton made several campaign promises Monday as he unveiled a blueprint for state government that he said would rein in spending, reduce certain business taxes, expand alternatives to public schools and overhaul the rules of public service.
He promised to advocate a constitutional convention to consider government reforms, such as shrinking the size of the Legislature, to close what he described as serious loopholes in the slot-machine gambling law, and to end Pennsylvania's distinction as the only state without a lobbyist-disclosure law.
The only pre-endorsement debate among the GOP candidates, scheduled for Wednesday night in Harrisburg, was canceled after Scranton joined Swann in refusing to participate.
Scranton saw no point in a one-on-one debate with Panyard because Panyard is not competing for the party's endorsement, Scranton's campaign manager, James Seif, said Monday.
"That's not a debate," Seif said.
Seif said Scranton pulled out of the event only after Swann did not change his mind before a Friday deadline set by the debate's sponsors.
The sponsors criticized both Swann and Scranton at a Capitol news conference Monday.
"I have never seen such arrogance," said Paula Harris, president of the Andrew Young National Center for Social Change, a Harrisburg-based educational-services company that had been the lead sponsor."
AsiaMedia :: The Zionist Spin: US: 'Good guy' Pentagon analyst jailed 12 years for leaking data
AsiaMedia :: US: 'Good guy' Pentagon analyst jailed 12 years for leaking data: "US: 'Good guy' Pentagon analyst jailed 12 years for leaking data
Pentagon analyst admits to revealing information about national security to journalists and diplomats
South China Morning Post
Sunday, January 22, 2006
Alexandria, Virginia --- Frustrated with what he saw as US government inaction against the threat posed by Iran, Pentagon analyst Lawrence Franklin decided to take national security into his own hands.
He leaked classified information to reporters, an Israeli diplomat and two members of a pro-Israel lobby group, hoping the National Security Council would take notice.
He certainly got the government's attention. Franklin has been sentenced to more than 12 years in prison, even though the judge believed his intentions were good.
"The defendant did not seek to hurt the United States," US District Judge T.S. Ellis said at Franklin's sentencing for illegally disclosing classified information. "He thought he was helping to bring certain information to the attention" of the security council.
Franklin said he discussed classified information with the diplomat and two former lobbyists from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee between 2002 and 2004. Worries about Iran have risen significantly since then.
Franklin, 59, a policy analyst whose expertise included Iran, pleaded guilty to three felony counts in October as part of a plea bargain that requires him to co-operate in the government's prosecution against the former lobbyists, who are scheduled for trial in April.
Franklin's sentence could be sharply reduced later if prosecutors are satisfied with the extent of his co-operation. He will remain free while the case continues.
Franklin did not speak at the sentencing, but said at his plea hearing in October he was motivated by frustration with US policy in the Middle East when he gave classified information to Israeli diplomat Naor Gilon and lobbyists Steven J. Rosen and Keith Weissman.
Prosecutor Kevin DiGregory said Franklin's actions were dangerous because "once the US government loses control of classified information, there's no way of knowing into whose hands that information may fall".
Date Posted: 1/22/2006"
Pentagon analyst admits to revealing information about national security to journalists and diplomats
South China Morning Post
Sunday, January 22, 2006
Alexandria, Virginia --- Frustrated with what he saw as US government inaction against the threat posed by Iran, Pentagon analyst Lawrence Franklin decided to take national security into his own hands.
He leaked classified information to reporters, an Israeli diplomat and two members of a pro-Israel lobby group, hoping the National Security Council would take notice.
He certainly got the government's attention. Franklin has been sentenced to more than 12 years in prison, even though the judge believed his intentions were good.
"The defendant did not seek to hurt the United States," US District Judge T.S. Ellis said at Franklin's sentencing for illegally disclosing classified information. "He thought he was helping to bring certain information to the attention" of the security council.
Franklin said he discussed classified information with the diplomat and two former lobbyists from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee between 2002 and 2004. Worries about Iran have risen significantly since then.
Franklin, 59, a policy analyst whose expertise included Iran, pleaded guilty to three felony counts in October as part of a plea bargain that requires him to co-operate in the government's prosecution against the former lobbyists, who are scheduled for trial in April.
Franklin's sentence could be sharply reduced later if prosecutors are satisfied with the extent of his co-operation. He will remain free while the case continues.
Franklin did not speak at the sentencing, but said at his plea hearing in October he was motivated by frustration with US policy in the Middle East when he gave classified information to Israeli diplomat Naor Gilon and lobbyists Steven J. Rosen and Keith Weissman.
Prosecutor Kevin DiGregory said Franklin's actions were dangerous because "once the US government loses control of classified information, there's no way of knowing into whose hands that information may fall".
Date Posted: 1/22/2006"
Sunday, January 22, 2006
The Media Line - Franklin Agrees to Implicate AIPAC
The Media Line - News Detail: "PENTAGON FIGURE IN AIPAC CASE SENTENCED TO 12 YEARS... Larry Franklin, the Pentagon analyst who was arrested for passing classified information to two staffers from America’s lobby for Israel, AIPAC, has received a 12-year jail sentence. It came as part of a plea bargain on Friday. He was also fined $10,000. Of great concern to AIPAC is that as part of the plea bargain, Franklin will testify against Keith Weissman and Steve Rosen – and in doing so can earn time off his sentence. Key to the case against the fired-AIPACers is whether they knew that the information they received from Franklin was classified, a critical point that Franklin is expected to confirm. His testimony and other information that will come out of the Rosen/Weissman trial could also prove that the pair was working within the normal confines of their AIPAC jobs, presumably creating a link to top AIPAC officials who have until now denied any knowledge of their staffers’ illegal activities. Although the organization has, until now, been said not to have been a target of the investigation, some legal experts opine that this can change dramatically with Franklin’s testimony."
Thursday, January 19, 2006
Accuracy In Media - AIM Report: Looney Clooney Smears Senator McCarthy - January A
Accuracy In Media - AIM Report: Looney Clooney Smears Senator McCarthy - January A: "AIM Report: Looney Clooney Smears Senator McCarthy - January A
January 13, 2006 The movie begins with an outright falsehood and ends with a monumental disingenuous half-truth that insults one's intelligence.
By Wes Vernon*
"History" is almost always written by the winners in a given conflict. Anyone viewing the George Clooney film, "Good Night and Good Luck," should bear in mind that media skill does not necessarily reflect historical truth.
CBS News icon Edward R. Murrow was the clear winner in his battle with Senator Joseph R. McCarthy—not because the CBS commentator was right or that McCarthy was wrong in his investigations of Communists in and out of government (Quite the opposite, in fact), but because Murrow was a smooth media personality with a wide audience and McCarthy sported a five o'clock shadow and had inadequate public relations skills for the then new television era.
Perhaps the most glaring distortion in the film is the failure to note that Murrow, a former director of the U.S. Information Agency, was motivated to go after McCarthy because one of Murrow's friends, Laurence Duggan, had been questioned about his communist ties and committed suicide as a result. As Stephen Hunter conceded in an October 7, 2005, Washington Post review of the film, it turned out that Duggan was a Soviet spy embedded in the U.S. State Department at the time.
The facts about Duggan are included in the book, The Haunted Wood, by Allen Weinstein, the founder of the Center for Democracy, and Aleksandr Vassiliev, a journalist and former KGB agent.
The movie begins with an outright falsehood and ends with a monumental disingenuous half-truth that insults one's intelligence.
The falsehood is a billboard in the film saying that McCarthy had claimed that over 200 Communists were in the State Department.
The Facts
William F. Buckley, Jr. and L. Brent Bozell in their 1953 book, McCarthy and his Enemies, conclusively showed that the figure the Wisconsin Republican senator used in a Wheeling, West Va. speech was 57 Communists, not 205 as was reported at the time and assumed by authors and historians to this day. The higher inaccurate figure was derived in part from an honest mix-up at the time. However, it was also perpetuated early on by some who knew better but were determined to hold McCarthy to it so as to try to discredit him and his cause. Authors and commentators have picked up the 205 figure and assumed (without any original research) that it was true.
So 55 years later, we must try—again—to set the record straight. That disentanglement will be laid out in the forthcoming book (Crown Publishers, projected release September, 2006) Blacklisted by History written by M. Stanton Evans, who is the ultimate authority on McCarthy and his investigations (He has been writing the book for over ten years).
In an interview with AIM, Evans says the 205 figure was in the advance text "that some speechwriter probably prepared, obviously. And [before McCarthy] delivered the speech, he [had gone] through the [written text] and revised it."
The senator "never said it [the 205 number] and so this became a huge controversy, and in 1951, Senator [William] Benton of Connecticut moved that McCarthy be expelled from the Senate [charging] that he lied—perjured himself about the numbers in Wheeling."
The upshot was that a Democrat-dominated Senate subcommittee "sent investigators to Wheeling to interview people, and they came back [saying] in essence that McCarthy was right—that he didn't say it [205]—that therefore Benton was wrong and McCarthy was right."
But Evans notes "this report was suppressed—disappeared—and it was never mentioned in the final report of the committee" In other words, the investigators did not come back with the answer the Democrats wanted, so they ignored it, thus leaving the inaccurate figure dangling out there for the media and future historians to repeat again and again.
Setting The Record Straight
Evans promises an entire chapter in his book will answer every question about McCarthy's Wheeling speech.
That is the damage to history in the early part of "Good Night and Good Luck." Near the end comes a total distortion that is disingenuous, outrageous, and reflects the mindset of the movie producers. It glosses over the treason of Alger Hiss.
There is absolutely no doubt whatever that Alger Hiss was a Soviet agent, who bored from within the government to do the bidding of his Stalinist masters in Moscow. That has been established through post-Cold War revelations in the Venona decrypts and other archived evidence.
On the very night of Hiss's death, this writer phoned AIM founder Reed Irvine and told him of an AP obit story repeating discredited erroneous material that appeared to exonerate Hiss. Irvine then called the AP and set the record straight. The wire service made the appropriate correction, and at least some of the news outlets that had used the first wire report also corrected themselves.
The movie producers put into the mouth of the late CBS CEO William S. Paley the statement that Hiss was not convicted of treason, but instead was convicted of the lesser crime of perjury.
Even if the gullible were to believe everything else in the film, that one line alone should discredit the entire flick.
It is true Hiss was convicted of perjury. What is relevant is what his perjured testimony actually was. He was convicted for lying when he said he was not a Communist Soviet agent who had worked with Whittaker Chambers, the man who had identified Hiss under oath. Hiss lied when he had denied knowing Chambers.
The statute of limitations had run out on the charge of espionage. Alger Hiss lied when he denied that more serious charge. For the movie to put the Paley dialogue into the script without giving it essential context is beyond misleading. It is gratuitous because McCarthy had very little to do with the Hiss case. Taken together with other propaganda in the show, that Hiss line puts "Good Night and Good Luck" in a class with such discredited movies as "Mission to Moscow," "Action in the North Atlantic," and Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11." It shows again the left will never give up on the "Hiss was innocent" theme.
More Flaws
On other counts, "Good Night and Good Luck" is all downhill in terms of accuracy.
Murrow is depicted as saying McCarthy was off base "99 percent of the time." Though perhaps an offhand figure of speech, the comment literally is terrible math, even worse history. It goes hand in hand with the line that "McCarthy never caught any subversives."
Senator McCarthy never claimed to be a one-man substitute for the FBI or authorized intelligence services. Time after time, he found subversives, security risks, or outright Communists had been in sensitive positions and were protected by higher government authority, and he demanded to know why.
It is literally not true that "McCarthy never found any Communists." Many witnesses who testified before his committee pleaded the Fifth Amendment when asked if they were members of the Communist party. But both before and after the Wisconsin senator assumed his committee chairmanship, he did in fact hit pay dirt. Herewith, two examples:
Owen Lattimore. The film makes no reference to Lattimore other than McCarthy's invoking his name (along with others) during his response to Murrow's attack.
Owen Lattimore was a prime focus of attention shortly after McCarthy burst upon the national scene in 1950. The senator had come across a massive cover-up in the then 5-year old Amerasia case. In 1945, several persons were arrested after intelligence authorities raided an office in New York City where the magazine Amerasia was published. The pro-Chinese Communist sheet had published highly sensitive classified information. It appeared to be a transmission belt in the U.S. for sup-porters of the Chinese Communists who were then mounting an (ultimately successful) effort to overthrow the pro-Western regime of Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek.
What McCarthy had discovered was a Truman administration cover-up that had used the clout and powerful contacts of the old Roosevelt administration "Mr. Fixit," Thomas Corcoran, or "Tommy the Cork" as FDR affectionately called him. His role in pulling strings behind the scenes was finally brought to light in the 1996 book, The Amerasia Spy Case by Harvey Klehr and Ronald Radosh. McCarthy, along with the rest of world, did not know of Corcoran's role in quickly making the Amerasia case just "go away." Those arrested got off with little more than a slap on the wrist, and the headlines disappeared.
McCarthy's focus on Amerasia led to the exposure of a carefully orchestrated campaign to convince U.S. government officials and the American media (notably the book-publishing world) that the Chiang Kai-shek government was hopelessly corrupt and incompetent and that the Communist crusade to take power was unstoppable. The result was the media of that day were telling Americans that the Chinese Communists were not really Communists, but instead were "simple agrarian reformers." Rarely—if ever—was it mentioned that the "reformers" were backed to the hilt with arms and ammunition from the neighboring Stalinist regime in the Soviet Union.
At the center of the propaganda effort was the Institute of Pacific Relations (IPR), of which Owen Lattimore was a top official. IPR's influence was considerable—both in the State Department and the U.S. media.
McCarthy blew the whistle on the cover-up and the IPR, and (among others) Lattimore who protested his innocence. At first Lattimore was exonerated by the stacked anti-McCarthy Tydings committee which compounded the whitewash.
However, McCarthy was ultimately vindicated by another panel. The Democrat-dominated Senate Internal Security Subcommittee, of which McCarthy himself was not a member, was chaired by Nevada Democrat Pat McCarran. That thorough months-long investigation concluded in a voluminous report that "[Owen] Lattimore was for some time beginning in the middle 1930's a conscious articulate instrument of the Soviet conspiracy." The panel cited a long list of instances of Lattimore's willing collaboration with the enemies of this country.
Annie Lee Moss. A young Fairfax, Va. mother and homemaker named Mary Stalcup Markward had for seven years been a member of the Washington D.C. Communist Party. She was director of the party's membership, all the while working undercover for the FBI. She testified before McCarthy's committee that Annie Lee Moss had been listed on the CP membership rolls.
McCarthy focused on a bewildering circumstance. Not only had the Army ignored an FBI warning that one of its employees, Annie Lee Moss, was a Communist, but also compounded the offense by reassigning Moss, a Signal Corps cafeteria worker, to the far more sensitive position of Pentagon code clerk. By any standard, that was an unusually huge promotion. Who did it? And why?
Murrow's selective editing showed the case backfiring on McCarthy when Moss appeared before the committee as a befuddled woman who supposedly had been confused with another Annie Lee Moss.
Four years later, after McCarthy had died, the Subversive Activities Control Board presented solid evidence that Markward's testimony was true and that the Annie Lee Moss who appeared before the McCarthy committee was in fact a member of the Communist Party.
Clooney did not include that information in "Good Night and Good Luck."
Among other distortions/inaccuracies in the film:
Murrow castigated McCarthy for saying that the ACLU was listed as a front for the Communist Party. Murrow said there was no such listing. But not mentioned in Clooney's movie is the fact that McCarthy was referring to a period in the early Thirties—a time when, as journalist Allan H. Ryskind notes in Human Events, various government agencies "with cause" did in fact view the ACLU as subversive.
Intellectual dishonesty by the sin of omission occurs several times in "Good Night and Good Luck."
The media played up the emotional confrontation between Senator McCarthy and Army Counsel Joseph Welch during the Army-McCarthy hearings.
The Army's case against McCarthy was going rather badly as the hearings progressed. The Army claimed it was pressured by McCarthy's committee to give special treatment to Private G. David Schine, a former committee staffer. Evidence showed the opposite: The Army favored Schine in a futile effort to persuade McCarthy to drop his probe of Ft. Monmouth and the remnants of the Rosenberg spy ring. That prompted Welch to do what author M. Stanton Evans (in our AIM interview) describes as a "series of [irrelevant] improvisations and digressions which became issues that had nothing to do with the substance of the charges."
The most famous one came when the Boston lawyer badgered McCarthy counsel Roy Cohn by repeatedly demanding—in a mocking way—to submit the names of any real communists "before sundown."
That went on and on until it goaded McCarthy into swinging back.
He then said if Mr. Welch was so anxious to expose subversives before sundown, then it should be noted that Fred Fisher, a member of Welch's law firm, had been a member of the National Lawyers Guild, a group cited as a mouthpiece for the Communist Party.
The movie focuses on the scene showing Welch sobbing and urging that McCarthy not "assassinate this lad [Fisher] further."
What Clooney's movie leaves out is that Welch himself had outed Fisher six weeks earlier.
Welch "had brought it up publicly in the New York Times," Evans tells AIM. "In the New York Times there was a big picture of Fred Fisher [with Welch saying] he had relieved him of the [Army/McCarthy] investigations because he [admitted] he had been a member of the National Lawyers Guild when Welch confronted him." Thus, says Evans, "Welch had done exactly what he was deploring McCarthy for doing."
After the hearing adjourned, Welch quickly walked out to the hall and around the corner. Whereupon—believing the audience and TV cameras were out of sight—the Army counsel turned to an associate and asked, "Well, how did it go?"
"This ['assassinated'] lad," by the way was not injured for life. Fred Fisher became a partner in a prestigious Boston law firm and president of the Massachusetts Bar Association.
On the day McCarthy died—May 2, 1957— radio commentator Fulton Lewis, Jr. declared he had "never seen such a shocking exhibition of distorted reporting and reportorial untruth as I witnessed throughout the coverage of the Army-McCarthy hearings."
"It was a journalistic lynching party, spurred on by powerful frightened groups, who were in for the kill," Lewis said, adding that "any reporter who dared try to tell the truth as to what was going on, as I did, was boycotted through sponsors, harassed by defamation, held up to scorn, and all but crucified himself."
That fully describes the media's inaccurate portrayal of Senator McCarthy, amplified in 2005 by "Good Night and Good Luck."
Lessons Learned?
But demonstrating that it, like the press, has not learned any lessons from this period, the Department of State has announced that it is launching an "Edward R. Murrow Journalism Program" in conjunction with the Aspen Institute and six leading U.S. schools of journalism. An Aspen Institute press release claimed that Murrow was guided by "integrity, ethics, courage, and social responsibility."
We could possibly expect such a program under the Clinton Administration. But under the Bush Administration and Secretary Condoleezza Rice? There is something still seriously wrong at the State Department.
WORSE THAN WIKIPEDIA
John Seigenthaler, the founding editorial director of USA Today, has been making numerous media appearances ever since he blew the whistle on how the on-line encyclopedia Wikipedia had published false information about him. He first used USA Today, the largest circulation newspaper in the U.S., to tell this story. Seigenthaler got the false information taken out of a bio about him but he still complains that it took too long and was too difficult to get the changes made.
As we have noted, USA Today is the same paper that still won't apologize for smearing President Bush by using phony National Guard documents. The paper got them from the same source used by CBS, Bill Burkett, who admits he lied about where he got them. Nobody knows where they came from, another indication of their suspicious nature. AIM took this this case all the way to the annual meeting of Gannett, parent company of USA Today, and still was unable to get USA Today editor Ken Paulson to apologize or reprimand anybody.
AIM editor Cliff Kincaid made those points when he called in to C-SPAN during Seigenthaler's appearance. Seigenthaler responded by accusing Kincaid of having misrepresented the nature of the controversy. "I'm well aware of what happened," he claimed. "Yes, there was contact with that source." He then insisted that the paper had run a story "that validated what they had done and explained what they had done and what they had not done."
He's apparently referring to the fact that after the paper got caught using the phony documents, it ran a story about the problem. But that's not the same as what happened when CBS got caught. CBS was investigated by a special panel and people were fired. Doing a follow-up story is not the same thing as disciplining people.
Seigenthaler was falsely accused of being suspected of participating in the assassinations of John and Robert Kennedy. He had the right to be outraged. Again, however, he had a megaphone—USA Today—to trumpet his alarm and concern. And that's the same paper that smeared Bush with no consequences to anyone involved in the smear.
What You Can Do
Send the enclosed cards or cards and letters of your own choosing to the State Department's Karen Hughes and to actor George Clooney. Also, order your copy of the important book War Footing by mail or online.
Wes Vernon is a Washington-based writer & broadcast journalist."
January 13, 2006 The movie begins with an outright falsehood and ends with a monumental disingenuous half-truth that insults one's intelligence.
By Wes Vernon*
"History" is almost always written by the winners in a given conflict. Anyone viewing the George Clooney film, "Good Night and Good Luck," should bear in mind that media skill does not necessarily reflect historical truth.
CBS News icon Edward R. Murrow was the clear winner in his battle with Senator Joseph R. McCarthy—not because the CBS commentator was right or that McCarthy was wrong in his investigations of Communists in and out of government (Quite the opposite, in fact), but because Murrow was a smooth media personality with a wide audience and McCarthy sported a five o'clock shadow and had inadequate public relations skills for the then new television era.
Perhaps the most glaring distortion in the film is the failure to note that Murrow, a former director of the U.S. Information Agency, was motivated to go after McCarthy because one of Murrow's friends, Laurence Duggan, had been questioned about his communist ties and committed suicide as a result. As Stephen Hunter conceded in an October 7, 2005, Washington Post review of the film, it turned out that Duggan was a Soviet spy embedded in the U.S. State Department at the time.
The facts about Duggan are included in the book, The Haunted Wood, by Allen Weinstein, the founder of the Center for Democracy, and Aleksandr Vassiliev, a journalist and former KGB agent.
The movie begins with an outright falsehood and ends with a monumental disingenuous half-truth that insults one's intelligence.
The falsehood is a billboard in the film saying that McCarthy had claimed that over 200 Communists were in the State Department.
The Facts
William F. Buckley, Jr. and L. Brent Bozell in their 1953 book, McCarthy and his Enemies, conclusively showed that the figure the Wisconsin Republican senator used in a Wheeling, West Va. speech was 57 Communists, not 205 as was reported at the time and assumed by authors and historians to this day. The higher inaccurate figure was derived in part from an honest mix-up at the time. However, it was also perpetuated early on by some who knew better but were determined to hold McCarthy to it so as to try to discredit him and his cause. Authors and commentators have picked up the 205 figure and assumed (without any original research) that it was true.
So 55 years later, we must try—again—to set the record straight. That disentanglement will be laid out in the forthcoming book (Crown Publishers, projected release September, 2006) Blacklisted by History written by M. Stanton Evans, who is the ultimate authority on McCarthy and his investigations (He has been writing the book for over ten years).
In an interview with AIM, Evans says the 205 figure was in the advance text "that some speechwriter probably prepared, obviously. And [before McCarthy] delivered the speech, he [had gone] through the [written text] and revised it."
The senator "never said it [the 205 number] and so this became a huge controversy, and in 1951, Senator [William] Benton of Connecticut moved that McCarthy be expelled from the Senate [charging] that he lied—perjured himself about the numbers in Wheeling."
The upshot was that a Democrat-dominated Senate subcommittee "sent investigators to Wheeling to interview people, and they came back [saying] in essence that McCarthy was right—that he didn't say it [205]—that therefore Benton was wrong and McCarthy was right."
But Evans notes "this report was suppressed—disappeared—and it was never mentioned in the final report of the committee" In other words, the investigators did not come back with the answer the Democrats wanted, so they ignored it, thus leaving the inaccurate figure dangling out there for the media and future historians to repeat again and again.
Setting The Record Straight
Evans promises an entire chapter in his book will answer every question about McCarthy's Wheeling speech.
That is the damage to history in the early part of "Good Night and Good Luck." Near the end comes a total distortion that is disingenuous, outrageous, and reflects the mindset of the movie producers. It glosses over the treason of Alger Hiss.
There is absolutely no doubt whatever that Alger Hiss was a Soviet agent, who bored from within the government to do the bidding of his Stalinist masters in Moscow. That has been established through post-Cold War revelations in the Venona decrypts and other archived evidence.
On the very night of Hiss's death, this writer phoned AIM founder Reed Irvine and told him of an AP obit story repeating discredited erroneous material that appeared to exonerate Hiss. Irvine then called the AP and set the record straight. The wire service made the appropriate correction, and at least some of the news outlets that had used the first wire report also corrected themselves.
The movie producers put into the mouth of the late CBS CEO William S. Paley the statement that Hiss was not convicted of treason, but instead was convicted of the lesser crime of perjury.
Even if the gullible were to believe everything else in the film, that one line alone should discredit the entire flick.
It is true Hiss was convicted of perjury. What is relevant is what his perjured testimony actually was. He was convicted for lying when he said he was not a Communist Soviet agent who had worked with Whittaker Chambers, the man who had identified Hiss under oath. Hiss lied when he had denied knowing Chambers.
The statute of limitations had run out on the charge of espionage. Alger Hiss lied when he denied that more serious charge. For the movie to put the Paley dialogue into the script without giving it essential context is beyond misleading. It is gratuitous because McCarthy had very little to do with the Hiss case. Taken together with other propaganda in the show, that Hiss line puts "Good Night and Good Luck" in a class with such discredited movies as "Mission to Moscow," "Action in the North Atlantic," and Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11." It shows again the left will never give up on the "Hiss was innocent" theme.
More Flaws
On other counts, "Good Night and Good Luck" is all downhill in terms of accuracy.
Murrow is depicted as saying McCarthy was off base "99 percent of the time." Though perhaps an offhand figure of speech, the comment literally is terrible math, even worse history. It goes hand in hand with the line that "McCarthy never caught any subversives."
Senator McCarthy never claimed to be a one-man substitute for the FBI or authorized intelligence services. Time after time, he found subversives, security risks, or outright Communists had been in sensitive positions and were protected by higher government authority, and he demanded to know why.
It is literally not true that "McCarthy never found any Communists." Many witnesses who testified before his committee pleaded the Fifth Amendment when asked if they were members of the Communist party. But both before and after the Wisconsin senator assumed his committee chairmanship, he did in fact hit pay dirt. Herewith, two examples:
Owen Lattimore. The film makes no reference to Lattimore other than McCarthy's invoking his name (along with others) during his response to Murrow's attack.
Owen Lattimore was a prime focus of attention shortly after McCarthy burst upon the national scene in 1950. The senator had come across a massive cover-up in the then 5-year old Amerasia case. In 1945, several persons were arrested after intelligence authorities raided an office in New York City where the magazine Amerasia was published. The pro-Chinese Communist sheet had published highly sensitive classified information. It appeared to be a transmission belt in the U.S. for sup-porters of the Chinese Communists who were then mounting an (ultimately successful) effort to overthrow the pro-Western regime of Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek.
What McCarthy had discovered was a Truman administration cover-up that had used the clout and powerful contacts of the old Roosevelt administration "Mr. Fixit," Thomas Corcoran, or "Tommy the Cork" as FDR affectionately called him. His role in pulling strings behind the scenes was finally brought to light in the 1996 book, The Amerasia Spy Case by Harvey Klehr and Ronald Radosh. McCarthy, along with the rest of world, did not know of Corcoran's role in quickly making the Amerasia case just "go away." Those arrested got off with little more than a slap on the wrist, and the headlines disappeared.
McCarthy's focus on Amerasia led to the exposure of a carefully orchestrated campaign to convince U.S. government officials and the American media (notably the book-publishing world) that the Chiang Kai-shek government was hopelessly corrupt and incompetent and that the Communist crusade to take power was unstoppable. The result was the media of that day were telling Americans that the Chinese Communists were not really Communists, but instead were "simple agrarian reformers." Rarely—if ever—was it mentioned that the "reformers" were backed to the hilt with arms and ammunition from the neighboring Stalinist regime in the Soviet Union.
At the center of the propaganda effort was the Institute of Pacific Relations (IPR), of which Owen Lattimore was a top official. IPR's influence was considerable—both in the State Department and the U.S. media.
McCarthy blew the whistle on the cover-up and the IPR, and (among others) Lattimore who protested his innocence. At first Lattimore was exonerated by the stacked anti-McCarthy Tydings committee which compounded the whitewash.
However, McCarthy was ultimately vindicated by another panel. The Democrat-dominated Senate Internal Security Subcommittee, of which McCarthy himself was not a member, was chaired by Nevada Democrat Pat McCarran. That thorough months-long investigation concluded in a voluminous report that "[Owen] Lattimore was for some time beginning in the middle 1930's a conscious articulate instrument of the Soviet conspiracy." The panel cited a long list of instances of Lattimore's willing collaboration with the enemies of this country.
Annie Lee Moss. A young Fairfax, Va. mother and homemaker named Mary Stalcup Markward had for seven years been a member of the Washington D.C. Communist Party. She was director of the party's membership, all the while working undercover for the FBI. She testified before McCarthy's committee that Annie Lee Moss had been listed on the CP membership rolls.
McCarthy focused on a bewildering circumstance. Not only had the Army ignored an FBI warning that one of its employees, Annie Lee Moss, was a Communist, but also compounded the offense by reassigning Moss, a Signal Corps cafeteria worker, to the far more sensitive position of Pentagon code clerk. By any standard, that was an unusually huge promotion. Who did it? And why?
Murrow's selective editing showed the case backfiring on McCarthy when Moss appeared before the committee as a befuddled woman who supposedly had been confused with another Annie Lee Moss.
Four years later, after McCarthy had died, the Subversive Activities Control Board presented solid evidence that Markward's testimony was true and that the Annie Lee Moss who appeared before the McCarthy committee was in fact a member of the Communist Party.
Clooney did not include that information in "Good Night and Good Luck."
Among other distortions/inaccuracies in the film:
Murrow castigated McCarthy for saying that the ACLU was listed as a front for the Communist Party. Murrow said there was no such listing. But not mentioned in Clooney's movie is the fact that McCarthy was referring to a period in the early Thirties—a time when, as journalist Allan H. Ryskind notes in Human Events, various government agencies "with cause" did in fact view the ACLU as subversive.
Intellectual dishonesty by the sin of omission occurs several times in "Good Night and Good Luck."
The media played up the emotional confrontation between Senator McCarthy and Army Counsel Joseph Welch during the Army-McCarthy hearings.
The Army's case against McCarthy was going rather badly as the hearings progressed. The Army claimed it was pressured by McCarthy's committee to give special treatment to Private G. David Schine, a former committee staffer. Evidence showed the opposite: The Army favored Schine in a futile effort to persuade McCarthy to drop his probe of Ft. Monmouth and the remnants of the Rosenberg spy ring. That prompted Welch to do what author M. Stanton Evans (in our AIM interview) describes as a "series of [irrelevant] improvisations and digressions which became issues that had nothing to do with the substance of the charges."
The most famous one came when the Boston lawyer badgered McCarthy counsel Roy Cohn by repeatedly demanding—in a mocking way—to submit the names of any real communists "before sundown."
That went on and on until it goaded McCarthy into swinging back.
He then said if Mr. Welch was so anxious to expose subversives before sundown, then it should be noted that Fred Fisher, a member of Welch's law firm, had been a member of the National Lawyers Guild, a group cited as a mouthpiece for the Communist Party.
The movie focuses on the scene showing Welch sobbing and urging that McCarthy not "assassinate this lad [Fisher] further."
What Clooney's movie leaves out is that Welch himself had outed Fisher six weeks earlier.
Welch "had brought it up publicly in the New York Times," Evans tells AIM. "In the New York Times there was a big picture of Fred Fisher [with Welch saying] he had relieved him of the [Army/McCarthy] investigations because he [admitted] he had been a member of the National Lawyers Guild when Welch confronted him." Thus, says Evans, "Welch had done exactly what he was deploring McCarthy for doing."
After the hearing adjourned, Welch quickly walked out to the hall and around the corner. Whereupon—believing the audience and TV cameras were out of sight—the Army counsel turned to an associate and asked, "Well, how did it go?"
"This ['assassinated'] lad," by the way was not injured for life. Fred Fisher became a partner in a prestigious Boston law firm and president of the Massachusetts Bar Association.
On the day McCarthy died—May 2, 1957— radio commentator Fulton Lewis, Jr. declared he had "never seen such a shocking exhibition of distorted reporting and reportorial untruth as I witnessed throughout the coverage of the Army-McCarthy hearings."
"It was a journalistic lynching party, spurred on by powerful frightened groups, who were in for the kill," Lewis said, adding that "any reporter who dared try to tell the truth as to what was going on, as I did, was boycotted through sponsors, harassed by defamation, held up to scorn, and all but crucified himself."
That fully describes the media's inaccurate portrayal of Senator McCarthy, amplified in 2005 by "Good Night and Good Luck."
Lessons Learned?
But demonstrating that it, like the press, has not learned any lessons from this period, the Department of State has announced that it is launching an "Edward R. Murrow Journalism Program" in conjunction with the Aspen Institute and six leading U.S. schools of journalism. An Aspen Institute press release claimed that Murrow was guided by "integrity, ethics, courage, and social responsibility."
We could possibly expect such a program under the Clinton Administration. But under the Bush Administration and Secretary Condoleezza Rice? There is something still seriously wrong at the State Department.
WORSE THAN WIKIPEDIA
John Seigenthaler, the founding editorial director of USA Today, has been making numerous media appearances ever since he blew the whistle on how the on-line encyclopedia Wikipedia had published false information about him. He first used USA Today, the largest circulation newspaper in the U.S., to tell this story. Seigenthaler got the false information taken out of a bio about him but he still complains that it took too long and was too difficult to get the changes made.
As we have noted, USA Today is the same paper that still won't apologize for smearing President Bush by using phony National Guard documents. The paper got them from the same source used by CBS, Bill Burkett, who admits he lied about where he got them. Nobody knows where they came from, another indication of their suspicious nature. AIM took this this case all the way to the annual meeting of Gannett, parent company of USA Today, and still was unable to get USA Today editor Ken Paulson to apologize or reprimand anybody.
AIM editor Cliff Kincaid made those points when he called in to C-SPAN during Seigenthaler's appearance. Seigenthaler responded by accusing Kincaid of having misrepresented the nature of the controversy. "I'm well aware of what happened," he claimed. "Yes, there was contact with that source." He then insisted that the paper had run a story "that validated what they had done and explained what they had done and what they had not done."
He's apparently referring to the fact that after the paper got caught using the phony documents, it ran a story about the problem. But that's not the same as what happened when CBS got caught. CBS was investigated by a special panel and people were fired. Doing a follow-up story is not the same thing as disciplining people.
Seigenthaler was falsely accused of being suspected of participating in the assassinations of John and Robert Kennedy. He had the right to be outraged. Again, however, he had a megaphone—USA Today—to trumpet his alarm and concern. And that's the same paper that smeared Bush with no consequences to anyone involved in the smear.
What You Can Do
Send the enclosed cards or cards and letters of your own choosing to the State Department's Karen Hughes and to actor George Clooney. Also, order your copy of the important book War Footing by mail or online.
Wes Vernon is a Washington-based writer & broadcast journalist."
Employee's True Face Background of a Fox News Analyst
Employee: " Employee's True Face
Background of a Fox News Analyst
Iran Interlink, February 2004
Ali Reza Jafarzadeh, frontman for the MKO and the NCRI in the United States, is still being introduced by the Fox News Network as their independent Iran analyst. Fox News' insistence on using this individual has prompted ridicule by many in the media and in political circles. Fox News has clearly decided that using this notorious man is more important for their pay masters than maintaining their reputation as a serious broadcaster. Or it could be that the Network has no other choice in its decision making except to consent to this scandal. Whatever the reason, Fox News has refused to answer any questions about it. The company is already under investigation about its code of conduct and connections with terrorist organizations.
For those who have still any doubts about the issue, below is a brief biography of the notorious terrorist whom Fox News introduces as its analyst.
Alireza Jafarzadeh was born in Mashad (Iran) and moved to the USA before the 1979 revolution in Iran. He began there as a student of Civil Engineering. But he soon became engaged with the Mojahedin Khalq Organization (MKO) in the US. The MKO is designated by the US, UK, EU and many other countries as a terrorist entity in part because of the MKO's affiliation with the regime of Saddam Hussein. MKO activities include the massacre of Iraqi Kurds and Marsh Arabs in March 1991 after Gulf War I, and co-operation with Iraqi Intelligence in hiding WMDs from UN weapons inspectors. Jafarzadeh worked for the MKO in several countries including Iraq. He was promoted to the position of spokesman for the MKO in the US which then gave him a position as member of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), the MKO's political wing, which is also designated in the US as a terrorist entity.
Jafarzadeh quickly became a devoted member of the MKO and on the order of the organization's Ideological (or cult) Leader, Massoud Rajavi, married Robabeh Sadeghi of Babol, Iran, after she fled her country in 1986. In 1990, Massoud Rajavi ordered all MKO members to divorce for ideological reasons. Jafarzadeh and Sadeghi, were divorced on his command.
Jafarzadeh was such a committed member that he repeatedly volunteered for suicide operations. In the MKO publication No. 127, he is quoted as saying that he is ready to burn himself in front of the UN's New York office whenever it is needed for the MKO's cause.
In 1988, together with 15 other MKO members in the US, Jafarzadeh left for Iraq to participate in the Eternal Light military operation. He served in Hossein Abrishamchi's military unit in Iraq and undertook terrorist training in an Iraqi camp called Zaboli Camp. After the MKO's disastrous defeat in this operation, he was sent back to the US.
In a press conference on 24 March 1991, Jafarzadeh explained the details of one particular MKO operation in Iraqi Kurdistan (Operation Morvarid). This was soon exposed, by Human Rights Watch among others, as the deliberate massacre of Kurdish civilians by the MKO on the direct orders of Saddam Hussein.
Some months later, MKO radio announced Jafarzadeh had been made a Deputy Executive member of the MKO. His name along with his paramilitary rank was also published in MKO newspapers.
In 1992, with the help of Saddam Hussein's Intelligence Service, Jafarzadeh traveled to Pakistan to negotiate and establish new relations between the MKO and one of the war lords of Baluchestan (on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border). The relation was established in order to facilitate sending terrorist teams into Iran for paramilitary terrorist operations. Jafarzadeh was the broker for this deal and in person paid some of the tribal chiefs on behalf of Iraqi Intelligence.
From 1998 Jafarzadeh has been introduced as a member of the NCRI (MKO) Foreign Affairs Committee. In 1992 he took part in interviews (including an interview with Voice of America Radio) as the NCRI representative.
Jafarzadeh also attended a meeting in Washington in 2001. The meeting was organized by the MKO to protest inclusion of their name in the US administration's list of terrorist organizations. Jafarzadeh was the MKO's speaker at this meeting to explain their position.
Fox News now introduces Jafarzadeh as either their employee or as the head of a consultancy company. But as recently as 2002 the same man was interviewed by Fox News as the MKO's representative in the US Congress.
There are serious allegations that Jafarzadeh has been involved in illegal deals in the USA, including deals involving chemicals which can be used to produce WMDs. There are also allegations that the MKO, with him as its representative, have been involved in serious money laundering and drug trafficking in the USA. These allegations, as well as his and Fox News' dodgy connections in Washington, are currently under investigation."
Background of a Fox News Analyst
Iran Interlink, February 2004
Ali Reza Jafarzadeh, frontman for the MKO and the NCRI in the United States, is still being introduced by the Fox News Network as their independent Iran analyst. Fox News' insistence on using this individual has prompted ridicule by many in the media and in political circles. Fox News has clearly decided that using this notorious man is more important for their pay masters than maintaining their reputation as a serious broadcaster. Or it could be that the Network has no other choice in its decision making except to consent to this scandal. Whatever the reason, Fox News has refused to answer any questions about it. The company is already under investigation about its code of conduct and connections with terrorist organizations.
For those who have still any doubts about the issue, below is a brief biography of the notorious terrorist whom Fox News introduces as its analyst.
Alireza Jafarzadeh was born in Mashad (Iran) and moved to the USA before the 1979 revolution in Iran. He began there as a student of Civil Engineering. But he soon became engaged with the Mojahedin Khalq Organization (MKO) in the US. The MKO is designated by the US, UK, EU and many other countries as a terrorist entity in part because of the MKO's affiliation with the regime of Saddam Hussein. MKO activities include the massacre of Iraqi Kurds and Marsh Arabs in March 1991 after Gulf War I, and co-operation with Iraqi Intelligence in hiding WMDs from UN weapons inspectors. Jafarzadeh worked for the MKO in several countries including Iraq. He was promoted to the position of spokesman for the MKO in the US which then gave him a position as member of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), the MKO's political wing, which is also designated in the US as a terrorist entity.
Jafarzadeh quickly became a devoted member of the MKO and on the order of the organization's Ideological (or cult) Leader, Massoud Rajavi, married Robabeh Sadeghi of Babol, Iran, after she fled her country in 1986. In 1990, Massoud Rajavi ordered all MKO members to divorce for ideological reasons. Jafarzadeh and Sadeghi, were divorced on his command.
Jafarzadeh was such a committed member that he repeatedly volunteered for suicide operations. In the MKO publication No. 127, he is quoted as saying that he is ready to burn himself in front of the UN's New York office whenever it is needed for the MKO's cause.
In 1988, together with 15 other MKO members in the US, Jafarzadeh left for Iraq to participate in the Eternal Light military operation. He served in Hossein Abrishamchi's military unit in Iraq and undertook terrorist training in an Iraqi camp called Zaboli Camp. After the MKO's disastrous defeat in this operation, he was sent back to the US.
In a press conference on 24 March 1991, Jafarzadeh explained the details of one particular MKO operation in Iraqi Kurdistan (Operation Morvarid). This was soon exposed, by Human Rights Watch among others, as the deliberate massacre of Kurdish civilians by the MKO on the direct orders of Saddam Hussein.
Some months later, MKO radio announced Jafarzadeh had been made a Deputy Executive member of the MKO. His name along with his paramilitary rank was also published in MKO newspapers.
In 1992, with the help of Saddam Hussein's Intelligence Service, Jafarzadeh traveled to Pakistan to negotiate and establish new relations between the MKO and one of the war lords of Baluchestan (on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border). The relation was established in order to facilitate sending terrorist teams into Iran for paramilitary terrorist operations. Jafarzadeh was the broker for this deal and in person paid some of the tribal chiefs on behalf of Iraqi Intelligence.
From 1998 Jafarzadeh has been introduced as a member of the NCRI (MKO) Foreign Affairs Committee. In 1992 he took part in interviews (including an interview with Voice of America Radio) as the NCRI representative.
Jafarzadeh also attended a meeting in Washington in 2001. The meeting was organized by the MKO to protest inclusion of their name in the US administration's list of terrorist organizations. Jafarzadeh was the MKO's speaker at this meeting to explain their position.
Fox News now introduces Jafarzadeh as either their employee or as the head of a consultancy company. But as recently as 2002 the same man was interviewed by Fox News as the MKO's representative in the US Congress.
There are serious allegations that Jafarzadeh has been involved in illegal deals in the USA, including deals involving chemicals which can be used to produce WMDs. There are also allegations that the MKO, with him as its representative, have been involved in serious money laundering and drug trafficking in the USA. These allegations, as well as his and Fox News' dodgy connections in Washington, are currently under investigation."
SPC STRATEGIC POLICY CONSULTING, INC - Alireza Jafarzadeh Biography
SPC STRATEGIC POLICY CONSULTING, INC: "1101 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 600, Washington, DC 20004; Tel: 202-756-2288; Fax: 202-318-8382; www.spconsulting.us
Alireza jafarzadeh Biography
Alireza Jafarzadeh is the president of Strategic Policy Consulting, Inc. He is also a FOX News Channel foreign affairs analyst.
Alireza Jafarzadeh is a well-known authority in issues relating to terrorism, and Islamic fundamentalism in Iraq, Iran, and the Middle East; Iran’s nuclear weapons program; and its internal political developments, including the anti-government demonstrations, the student movement, and human rights.
The international concerns about Iran’s nuclear weapons program has largely arisen from Jafarzadeh’s stunning revelations about 7 major previously secret nuclear sites, including the sites in Natanz, Arak, Karaj, Ab-Ali, and Tehran.
Jafarzadeh revealed the existence of Natanz uranium enrichment facility, and Arak's heavy water facility in August 2002, Ab-Ali centrifuge testing facility near Tehran in February 2003, two additional nuclear sites near Karaj in May 2003, and two other new nuclear sites in Kolahdouz military complex in Tehran, and Ardekan in July 2003. He unveiled the details of Iran’s development of bio-weapons in May 2003, and had previously provided valuable information about the Shahab-3 medium range missile.
On April 27, 2004, Jafarzadeh revealed information that Iran, using some 400 nuclear experts, is now running a secret nuclear weapons program supervised by the military and the Supreme Leader parallel to their overt nuclear energy program. Jafarzadeh had previously unveiled in March, a secret meeting held earlier by Iran’s senior officials where they decided to speed up their nuclear weapons program, while faking cooperation with the IAEA.
He first disclosed the details of Iran’s involvement in the Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, in 1997, and the Jewish Community Center bombing in Argentina in 1993.
In November 2003, Jafarzadeh exposed an extensive covert network of the Iranian regime’s agents who had been involved, for months, in meddling in the internal affairs of Iraq, seeking to derail the political process and establish a sister Islamic Republic in Iraq.
As an accomplished analyst, Jafarzadeh has frequently appeared on major television and radio broadcasts including Fox News Channel, CNN, MSNBC, CBS Evening News, NBC, VOA, NPR, BBC and WABC to discuss Iran’s WMD program and terrorist activities around the world.
Jafarzadeh has published essays in, and been interviewed by, news outlets including New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Baltimore Sun, Chicago Tribune, Washington Times, Los Angeles Times, Christian Science Monitor, USA Today, Philadelphia Inquirer, Boston Globe, Miami Herald, Austin-American Statesman, Time, and Newsweek magazines, Space & Missile, Defense Week, Arms Control Today, and the Financial Times.
Jafarzadeh has lectured in Georgetown University, University of Michigan, and National War College, and has been a frequent speaker at briefings, hearings and luncheons at the US Congress, the United Nations, Chicago Council on Foreign Relations, and the Morning Newsmaker Program at the National Press Club in Washington, DC.
Prior to becoming a contributor for FOX News Channel, and until August 2003, Jafarzadeh acted for a dozen years as the chief congressional liaison and media spokesperson for the US representative office of Iran’s parliament in exile, the National Council of Resistance of Iran.
Jafarzadeh earned his Bachelor’s degree from the University of Michigan, in Ann Arbor, and his Master’s degree in Civil Engineering from the University of Texas, in Austin."
Alireza jafarzadeh Biography
Alireza Jafarzadeh is the president of Strategic Policy Consulting, Inc. He is also a FOX News Channel foreign affairs analyst.
Alireza Jafarzadeh is a well-known authority in issues relating to terrorism, and Islamic fundamentalism in Iraq, Iran, and the Middle East; Iran’s nuclear weapons program; and its internal political developments, including the anti-government demonstrations, the student movement, and human rights.
The international concerns about Iran’s nuclear weapons program has largely arisen from Jafarzadeh’s stunning revelations about 7 major previously secret nuclear sites, including the sites in Natanz, Arak, Karaj, Ab-Ali, and Tehran.
Jafarzadeh revealed the existence of Natanz uranium enrichment facility, and Arak's heavy water facility in August 2002, Ab-Ali centrifuge testing facility near Tehran in February 2003, two additional nuclear sites near Karaj in May 2003, and two other new nuclear sites in Kolahdouz military complex in Tehran, and Ardekan in July 2003. He unveiled the details of Iran’s development of bio-weapons in May 2003, and had previously provided valuable information about the Shahab-3 medium range missile.
On April 27, 2004, Jafarzadeh revealed information that Iran, using some 400 nuclear experts, is now running a secret nuclear weapons program supervised by the military and the Supreme Leader parallel to their overt nuclear energy program. Jafarzadeh had previously unveiled in March, a secret meeting held earlier by Iran’s senior officials where they decided to speed up their nuclear weapons program, while faking cooperation with the IAEA.
He first disclosed the details of Iran’s involvement in the Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, in 1997, and the Jewish Community Center bombing in Argentina in 1993.
In November 2003, Jafarzadeh exposed an extensive covert network of the Iranian regime’s agents who had been involved, for months, in meddling in the internal affairs of Iraq, seeking to derail the political process and establish a sister Islamic Republic in Iraq.
As an accomplished analyst, Jafarzadeh has frequently appeared on major television and radio broadcasts including Fox News Channel, CNN, MSNBC, CBS Evening News, NBC, VOA, NPR, BBC and WABC to discuss Iran’s WMD program and terrorist activities around the world.
Jafarzadeh has published essays in, and been interviewed by, news outlets including New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Baltimore Sun, Chicago Tribune, Washington Times, Los Angeles Times, Christian Science Monitor, USA Today, Philadelphia Inquirer, Boston Globe, Miami Herald, Austin-American Statesman, Time, and Newsweek magazines, Space & Missile, Defense Week, Arms Control Today, and the Financial Times.
Jafarzadeh has lectured in Georgetown University, University of Michigan, and National War College, and has been a frequent speaker at briefings, hearings and luncheons at the US Congress, the United Nations, Chicago Council on Foreign Relations, and the Morning Newsmaker Program at the National Press Club in Washington, DC.
Prior to becoming a contributor for FOX News Channel, and until August 2003, Jafarzadeh acted for a dozen years as the chief congressional liaison and media spokesperson for the US representative office of Iran’s parliament in exile, the National Council of Resistance of Iran.
Jafarzadeh earned his Bachelor’s degree from the University of Michigan, in Ann Arbor, and his Master’s degree in Civil Engineering from the University of Texas, in Austin."
Monday, January 16, 2006
Sharif FarsiWeb - FarsiWeb
Sharif FarsiWeb - FarsiWeb: It is amazing just what the Iranian opposition is capable of. They set up an anti-Govenment front working out of Sharif University.
"Sharif FarsiWeb
From FarsiWeb
Sharif FarsiWeb, Inc. (شرکت فارسیوب شریف، سهامی خاص) is a company established in 2003, based on the then FarsiWeb Project Group of Computing Center, Sharif University of Technology. Distributing and supporting Sharif Linux, consulting technical and legal issues of Free/Open Source Software, and standardizing Persian language issues in information technology are main activies of the company.
Sharif FarsiWeb has been established with help from Cyber7, Sharif University of Technology, and Science and Arts Foundation. Its shareholders are Cyber7 and some of the FarsiWeb team members.
[edit]Contact information
Map of FarsiWeb labs (click to enlarge)Email: info@farsiweb.info
Phone: +98 21 66025705
Address:
Second floor, 25, Mina Alley,
Shahid Sadeghi Street, Azadi Avenue,
Tehran 14588
Iran
The FarsiWeb lab was in Sharif University until August 2005, but has since moved out of the campus. The lab is still in walking distance from Sharif campus. For directions, you can use the map at the right side of this page.
"
"Sharif FarsiWeb
From FarsiWeb
Sharif FarsiWeb, Inc. (شرکت فارسیوب شریف، سهامی خاص) is a company established in 2003, based on the then FarsiWeb Project Group of Computing Center, Sharif University of Technology. Distributing and supporting Sharif Linux, consulting technical and legal issues of Free/Open Source Software, and standardizing Persian language issues in information technology are main activies of the company.
Sharif FarsiWeb has been established with help from Cyber7, Sharif University of Technology, and Science and Arts Foundation. Its shareholders are Cyber7 and some of the FarsiWeb team members.
[edit]Contact information
Map of FarsiWeb labs (click to enlarge)Email: info@farsiweb.info
Phone: +98 21 66025705
Address:
Second floor, 25, Mina Alley,
Shahid Sadeghi Street, Azadi Avenue,
Tehran 14588
Iran
The FarsiWeb lab was in Sharif University until August 2005, but has since moved out of the campus. The lab is still in walking distance from Sharif campus. For directions, you can use the map at the right side of this page.
"
Alireza Jafarzadeh - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Alireza Jafarzadeh - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: "Alireza Jafarzadeh
From Wikipedia, the free "encyclopedia".
Alireza Jafarzadeh is a controversial figure in Iranian politics. Some say he is an expert on Iran and a leading dissident, Others including the US Department of State and the Congressional Record link him to violent terrorist groups. On August 14, 2002, Jafarzadeh drew worldwide attention when he became either a whistleblower or a disseminator of anti-Iranian propaganda by claiming that Iran was running a secret nuclear facility in Natanz, and a dideuterium oxide facility in Arak. Jafarzadeh has gained a degree of credibility in that some of his claims have been shown to be true. This is not to say that many of his claims are later shown to be false.
Jafarzadeh is a Foreign Affairs Analyst for Fox News and is often a guest on Voice of America, andABC Radio Network's John Batchelor Show. He has spoken at Georgetown University and the University of Michigan. He currently heads Strategic Policy Consulting and is reportedly writing a book on Iran’s nuclear weapons program.
Since 1997, Jafarzadeh has also been one of the spokesmen for Mujahedeen-e Khalq group, which is regarded as a terrorist organization by the United States.
- Jafarzadeh's status as a "Scientist" is a subject of dispute. Jafarzadeh has no known scientific training, degrees, or positions that suggest a strong scientific knowledge or range of experience. On Jafarzadeh's own web site he writes, "Jafarzadeh earned his Bachelor’s degree from the University of Michigan, in Ann Arbor, and his Master’s degree in Civil Engineering from the University of Texas, in Austin.""
From Wikipedia, the free "encyclopedia".
Alireza Jafarzadeh is a controversial figure in Iranian politics. Some say he is an expert on Iran and a leading dissident, Others including the US Department of State and the Congressional Record link him to violent terrorist groups. On August 14, 2002, Jafarzadeh drew worldwide attention when he became either a whistleblower or a disseminator of anti-Iranian propaganda by claiming that Iran was running a secret nuclear facility in Natanz, and a dideuterium oxide facility in Arak. Jafarzadeh has gained a degree of credibility in that some of his claims have been shown to be true. This is not to say that many of his claims are later shown to be false.
Jafarzadeh is a Foreign Affairs Analyst for Fox News and is often a guest on Voice of America, andABC Radio Network's John Batchelor Show. He has spoken at Georgetown University and the University of Michigan. He currently heads Strategic Policy Consulting and is reportedly writing a book on Iran’s nuclear weapons program.
Since 1997, Jafarzadeh has also been one of the spokesmen for Mujahedeen-e Khalq group, which is regarded as a terrorist organization by the United States.
- Jafarzadeh's status as a "Scientist" is a subject of dispute. Jafarzadeh has no known scientific training, degrees, or positions that suggest a strong scientific knowledge or range of experience. On Jafarzadeh's own web site he writes, "Jafarzadeh earned his Bachelor’s degree from the University of Michigan, in Ann Arbor, and his Master’s degree in Civil Engineering from the University of Texas, in Austin.""
Friday, January 13, 2006
FOXNews.com - "Alireza Jafarzadeh, a FOX News contributor, alleged"
FOXNews.com - Politics - White House, Europeans Warn Iran After Nuclear Equipment Unsealed: "White House, Europeans Warn Iran After Nuclear Equipment Unsealed
Tuesday, January 10, 2006
WASHINGTON — In the presence of International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors, Iran on Tuesday unsealed uranium enrichment equipment that the U.N. agency had blocked from use because the Islamic republic was in violation of nuclear non-proliferation rules.
The return to its nuclear program at the plant in Natanz angered U.S. and European officials who say Iran is resuming nuclear research that they believe is part of an effort to build nuclear weapons.
Iran's move is a "serious escalation" of its nuclear standoff with the West, and if it continues to defy world opinion, the U.N. Security Council will have no choice but to impose sanctions, said White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan.
"Any resumption, any resumption of enrichment and reprocessing activities would be a further violation" of previous agreements made by Iran, McClellan said. "Such steps would be a serious escalation of the nuclear issue by the regime in Iran.
"If it continues down this road and the negotiations have run their course, then there is only one option to pursue. And that is referral to the Security Council. And that is what we will be talking with our — are talking about with our — European friends and others," McClellan said.
Iran would be committing a serious mistake if it ignored the international community on its nuclear program, said French President Jacques Chirac.
An IAEA statement issued in Vienna, Austria, said Iran did unseal the equipment, and told the agency the scale of its enrichment work would be limited.
"What we resume is merely in the field of research, not more than that," the deputy head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, Mohammad Saeedi, told a news conference. "Production of nuclear fuel" — which would involve enrichment — "remains suspended," he said.
Saeedi refused to say whether the seals had been broken, calling it a "confidential issue between us and the IAEA."
McClellan said Iran's 18-year history of trying to hide weapons efforts has proven that the international community's worries about Tehran's nuclear efforts are "well founded."
"There is serious concern throughout the international community about the regime's behavior, and given Iran's history of concealing and hiding their nuclear activities from the international community and its continued non-compliance of its safeguard obligations, such concern is well-founded," he said.
Elsewhere in Washington on Tuesday, analysts following Iran's nuclear weapons intentions contended that Tehran never observed a "freeze" in its effort to gain a nuclear bomb and that Tuesday's move will put it even closer to its goal than previously known.
Strategic Policy Consulting chief Alireza Jafarzadeh, a FOX News contributor, alleged that Iran has manufactured as many as 5,000 centrifuges during the two-year timeframe that it claimed its activity was suspended. Jafarzadeh, an Iranian opposition activist who was responsible for exposing the Natanz facility in 2002, said he believes Tehran had pre-positioned these centrifuges for installation at Natanz before the "official" restart announced Tuesday and thus is much closer to weapons production than previously believed.
If Iran chooses to install these centrifuges, "it would put Iran only months away from having a nuclear bomb," he told a news conference held by the Iran Policy Committee.
Despite that threat, though, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said Tuesday that no military intervention against Iran is under consideration.
"This is a matter which has to be solved by peaceful means, but it will involve a good deal of diplomatic and other pressure on Iran. We have shown our good faith in Europe the past two and a half years. I do not believe we could have done more to reach out to the Iranians," he said.
Already, all five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council have each separately sent to Iran a diplomatic communiqué — known as a 'demarche' in international parlance — warning the Islamic Republic that it could face sanctions should it go forward with its nuclear program. The permanent members are the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia and China.
Bush administration officials told FOX News that the communiqués, sent Saturday, are an important step forward in blocking Iran's nuclear ambitions because China and Russia, which have huge economic interests in Iran, have hinted in the past that they would oppose and veto such a referral if brought to the Security Council.
"We are working very closely with Russia, China, France and Britain on sending a clear message to the Iranians," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said.
Each of the permanent Security Council members has veto authority on the 15-member panel that enables them to thwart resolutions. Sources say the five sent separate communiqués because China and Russia repeatedly tried to soften the language of the warning and no consensus could be reached for a joint warning.
While pleased that China and Russia delivered separate warnings to Iran, Bush administration officials say they are very cautious about prematurely assuming that the two nations are willing to get tough with Iran and support sanctions.
"Given Iran's track record on seeking nuclear weapons under the cover of a civilian program, defying the international community, bobbing and weaving, obfuscating, we're ultimately all going to end up in the Security Council on this issue," said McCormack.
But one senior administration official suggested that both China and Russia sent their demarches reluctantly and might in the end oppose a referral or sanctions. Nonetheless, McCormack said the efforts by China and Russia are noteworthy.
"I think that the Chinese are perfectly capable of delivering their own messages," McCormack said. "What we have been doing, have done and will continue to do, is to continue to work with them, work with the Russians and others so that Iran receives a clear, consistent, unmistakable message from the rest of the world."
One senior official told FOX News that the demarches from each of the five permanent Security Council members urged Iran to resume talks with the EU-3, comprised of Germany, France and the U.K.
The United States is backing a stalled European effort to negotiate with Iran, and supports a separate offer from Russia to perform some of the most sensitive nuclear enrichment tasks on Iran's behalf. Both initiatives would allow Iran to pursue legitimate civilian nuclear energy while reducing the risk that the same technology could be diverted to make weapons.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said it is essential for Iran to quit its ambitions for a while until "a resolution of the problems remaining over the Iranian nuclear program" could be reached.
He said Russia — a longtime ally of Iran — was working to ensure that Tehran maintains its freeze on enriching uranium until talks can be held between Moscow and Tehran over the proposal to move enrichment to Russia.
Negotiations aimed at getting Iran to give up its nuclear aspirations by the EU-3 have been stalled for months as Iran has insisted it has a right to nuclear energy and does not seek weapons. The EU-3 members have all issued strong rebukes against Iran for its announcement that it would resume its nuclear research and development.
French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy called on Iran on Monday to immediately retract its decision to restart nuclear activities. He said the EU-3 would meet on the issue soon.
Douste-Blazy also called Iran's intention to restart nuclear activities linked to uranium enrichment "reason for very serious concern."
"We call on Iran to go back on its decision without delay and without conditions," he said.
German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said earlier Monday that Iran was sending "very, very disastrous signals" on its nuclear program that "cannot remain without consequences for the EU-3's negotiation process."
Javier Solana, the European Union foreign and security affairs chief, told Iran on Saturday that if it resumes its uranium enrichment program, it might doom any further negotiations with the 25-nation bloc about economic aid and other issues.
During President Bush's trips to Europe last year he sought, and aides say received, assurances from the EU-3 that if talks failed, they would support a U.N. Security Council referral for sanctions.
The U.N.'s top nuclear watchdog at the IAEA told Sky News last week that he is losing his patience with Iran. Mohamed ElBaradei makes his next report in March, and administration officials say by that time it will be clear if Russia and China will support sanctions.
FOX News' Carl Cameron and Teri Schultz and The Associated Press contributed to this report."
Tuesday, January 10, 2006
WASHINGTON — In the presence of International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors, Iran on Tuesday unsealed uranium enrichment equipment that the U.N. agency had blocked from use because the Islamic republic was in violation of nuclear non-proliferation rules.
The return to its nuclear program at the plant in Natanz angered U.S. and European officials who say Iran is resuming nuclear research that they believe is part of an effort to build nuclear weapons.
Iran's move is a "serious escalation" of its nuclear standoff with the West, and if it continues to defy world opinion, the U.N. Security Council will have no choice but to impose sanctions, said White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan.
"Any resumption, any resumption of enrichment and reprocessing activities would be a further violation" of previous agreements made by Iran, McClellan said. "Such steps would be a serious escalation of the nuclear issue by the regime in Iran.
"If it continues down this road and the negotiations have run their course, then there is only one option to pursue. And that is referral to the Security Council. And that is what we will be talking with our — are talking about with our — European friends and others," McClellan said.
Iran would be committing a serious mistake if it ignored the international community on its nuclear program, said French President Jacques Chirac.
An IAEA statement issued in Vienna, Austria, said Iran did unseal the equipment, and told the agency the scale of its enrichment work would be limited.
"What we resume is merely in the field of research, not more than that," the deputy head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, Mohammad Saeedi, told a news conference. "Production of nuclear fuel" — which would involve enrichment — "remains suspended," he said.
Saeedi refused to say whether the seals had been broken, calling it a "confidential issue between us and the IAEA."
McClellan said Iran's 18-year history of trying to hide weapons efforts has proven that the international community's worries about Tehran's nuclear efforts are "well founded."
"There is serious concern throughout the international community about the regime's behavior, and given Iran's history of concealing and hiding their nuclear activities from the international community and its continued non-compliance of its safeguard obligations, such concern is well-founded," he said.
Elsewhere in Washington on Tuesday, analysts following Iran's nuclear weapons intentions contended that Tehran never observed a "freeze" in its effort to gain a nuclear bomb and that Tuesday's move will put it even closer to its goal than previously known.
Strategic Policy Consulting chief Alireza Jafarzadeh, a FOX News contributor, alleged that Iran has manufactured as many as 5,000 centrifuges during the two-year timeframe that it claimed its activity was suspended. Jafarzadeh, an Iranian opposition activist who was responsible for exposing the Natanz facility in 2002, said he believes Tehran had pre-positioned these centrifuges for installation at Natanz before the "official" restart announced Tuesday and thus is much closer to weapons production than previously believed.
If Iran chooses to install these centrifuges, "it would put Iran only months away from having a nuclear bomb," he told a news conference held by the Iran Policy Committee.
Despite that threat, though, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said Tuesday that no military intervention against Iran is under consideration.
"This is a matter which has to be solved by peaceful means, but it will involve a good deal of diplomatic and other pressure on Iran. We have shown our good faith in Europe the past two and a half years. I do not believe we could have done more to reach out to the Iranians," he said.
Already, all five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council have each separately sent to Iran a diplomatic communiqué — known as a 'demarche' in international parlance — warning the Islamic Republic that it could face sanctions should it go forward with its nuclear program. The permanent members are the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia and China.
Bush administration officials told FOX News that the communiqués, sent Saturday, are an important step forward in blocking Iran's nuclear ambitions because China and Russia, which have huge economic interests in Iran, have hinted in the past that they would oppose and veto such a referral if brought to the Security Council.
"We are working very closely with Russia, China, France and Britain on sending a clear message to the Iranians," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said.
Each of the permanent Security Council members has veto authority on the 15-member panel that enables them to thwart resolutions. Sources say the five sent separate communiqués because China and Russia repeatedly tried to soften the language of the warning and no consensus could be reached for a joint warning.
While pleased that China and Russia delivered separate warnings to Iran, Bush administration officials say they are very cautious about prematurely assuming that the two nations are willing to get tough with Iran and support sanctions.
"Given Iran's track record on seeking nuclear weapons under the cover of a civilian program, defying the international community, bobbing and weaving, obfuscating, we're ultimately all going to end up in the Security Council on this issue," said McCormack.
But one senior administration official suggested that both China and Russia sent their demarches reluctantly and might in the end oppose a referral or sanctions. Nonetheless, McCormack said the efforts by China and Russia are noteworthy.
"I think that the Chinese are perfectly capable of delivering their own messages," McCormack said. "What we have been doing, have done and will continue to do, is to continue to work with them, work with the Russians and others so that Iran receives a clear, consistent, unmistakable message from the rest of the world."
One senior official told FOX News that the demarches from each of the five permanent Security Council members urged Iran to resume talks with the EU-3, comprised of Germany, France and the U.K.
The United States is backing a stalled European effort to negotiate with Iran, and supports a separate offer from Russia to perform some of the most sensitive nuclear enrichment tasks on Iran's behalf. Both initiatives would allow Iran to pursue legitimate civilian nuclear energy while reducing the risk that the same technology could be diverted to make weapons.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said it is essential for Iran to quit its ambitions for a while until "a resolution of the problems remaining over the Iranian nuclear program" could be reached.
He said Russia — a longtime ally of Iran — was working to ensure that Tehran maintains its freeze on enriching uranium until talks can be held between Moscow and Tehran over the proposal to move enrichment to Russia.
Negotiations aimed at getting Iran to give up its nuclear aspirations by the EU-3 have been stalled for months as Iran has insisted it has a right to nuclear energy and does not seek weapons. The EU-3 members have all issued strong rebukes against Iran for its announcement that it would resume its nuclear research and development.
French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy called on Iran on Monday to immediately retract its decision to restart nuclear activities. He said the EU-3 would meet on the issue soon.
Douste-Blazy also called Iran's intention to restart nuclear activities linked to uranium enrichment "reason for very serious concern."
"We call on Iran to go back on its decision without delay and without conditions," he said.
German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said earlier Monday that Iran was sending "very, very disastrous signals" on its nuclear program that "cannot remain without consequences for the EU-3's negotiation process."
Javier Solana, the European Union foreign and security affairs chief, told Iran on Saturday that if it resumes its uranium enrichment program, it might doom any further negotiations with the 25-nation bloc about economic aid and other issues.
During President Bush's trips to Europe last year he sought, and aides say received, assurances from the EU-3 that if talks failed, they would support a U.N. Security Council referral for sanctions.
The U.N.'s top nuclear watchdog at the IAEA told Sky News last week that he is losing his patience with Iran. Mohamed ElBaradei makes his next report in March, and administration officials say by that time it will be clear if Russia and China will support sanctions.
FOX News' Carl Cameron and Teri Schultz and The Associated Press contributed to this report."
UBERLIN, Germany (CNN) - "Alireza Jafarzadeh offered no proof"
U.S. Backs Europe Over Nuclear Iran: "U.S. Backs Europe Over Nuclear Iran
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted GMT 1-12-2006 20:18:7 Send to Printer Printer Friendly Email This Link Reader Comments
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BERLIN, Germany (CNN) -- Britain, France and Germany have called for the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog to refer Iran to the Security Council over the country's atomic ambitions.
In Washington, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the United States strongly supports the move and joins the European Union "and many other members of the international community in condemning the Iranian government's deliberate escalation of this issue."
Iran broke U.N. seals on its nuclear enrichment facility this week, insisting it only wants to develop a civilian nuclear power program in accordance with international law. But several Western countries fear Tehran is intent on developing a nuclear bomb.
Foreign ministers from the European Union's three biggest nations -- the so-called EU3 -- met Thursday following Iran's moves to restart its nuclear program.
"Our talks with Iran have reached a dead end," German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier told reporters after meeting with his British and French counterparts, Jack Straw and Philippe Douste-Blazy, and EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana.
Straw said the group decided to call for an emergency session of the board of governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to vote on referring Iran to the U.N. Security Council.
The ministers did not say exactly what action should be taken by the Security Council, which could impose sanctions.
The decision by the EU3 marks the end of more than two years of diplomatic efforts to convince Iran to abandon its nuclear program.
Rice said Iran's action "demonstrates that it has chosen confrontation with the international community over cooperation and negotiation."
"As a result, the IAEA board of governors must go forward with a report to the U.N. Security Council so that the council can add its weight in support of the ongoing IAEA investigation," she added.
Meanwhile, officials in London and Moscow said envoys from the EU3 would meet counterparts from China, Russia and the U.S. next week in London to discuss the issue further.
Russia, which is building a nuclear reactor in Iran, also has expressed "deep disappointment" over Iran's decision, The Associated Press reported.
A Foreign Ministry statement outlining a phone call between Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Rice said both sides shared "a deep disappointment over Tehran's decision to leave behind the moratorium on all activities tied with uranium enrichment, resuming research work in this sphere."
The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal reported that during the call, Lavrov told Rice that Russia would abstain, rather than vote against, efforts to move the issue from the IAEA -- the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog -- to the Security Council.
China, which imports significant amounts of Iranian oil, said it hoped Iran would return to talks on the nuclear dispute and urged all parties to exercise restraint.
"We hope Iran can do more to promote mutual confidence between itself and the EU3, and return to negotiations," Reuters quoted a spokesman for China's foreign ministry, Kong Quan, as saying. 'Small-scale' enrichment work
Iran's move was announced Tuesday by Mohammad Saeedi, deputy head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization, who said: "Nuclear research officially resumed at sites agreed upon with (U.N.) inspectors."
He said Iran was not resuming the production of nuclear fuel, a process that would involve uranium enrichment.
"We differentiate nuclear fuel production with research and access to technology," he said. "Suspension of nuclear fuel production will be continued in the country."
But Mohammed ElBaradei, the head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog, told his agency's governing board that Iran intended to begin "small-scale" uranium enrichment work, Reuters said.
"Iran plans to install a small-scale gas ultracentrifuge cascade in its pilot fuel enrichment plant at Natanz," a Western diplomat told Reuters, reading from ElBaradei's report to the 35-nation board of the IAEA.
Citing the report, the diplomat said that Iran planned to feed a small amount of uranium hexafluoride into centrifuges -- machines that purify uranium for use in nuclear power plants or weapons -- as part its research work on the devices
The diplomat's comments came as one of Iran's former opposition leaders claimed that the country had secretly produced 5,000 centrifuges at its underground facility in Natanz.
Alireza Jafarzadeh offered no proof. But he added that Iran was also constructing centrifuge cascade platforms at the facility. If Iran possesses the necessary knowledge, the centrifuges could be mounted on the platforms and used to produce highly enriched uranium.
Once the machines are fully operational, Jafarzadeh said, Iran would be "only months away from having enough fissile material for at least one nuclear bomb."
Jafarzadeh -- who would not divulge his source, saying only that it was within the Iranian regime -- called for an emergency meeting of the IAEA board of governors to send the issue of Iran's non-compliance to the U.N. Security Council. Diplomat: Centrifuges corroded
On Thursday, a Western diplomat who is close to the IAEA told Reuters that Iran had completed the removal of U.N. seals on its nuclear fuel research sites but would need time to refurbish machinery before it could start enriching uranium.
The diplomat said the Iranians would probably have to rebuild their entire cascade of enrichment centrifuges.
"There's a lot of humidity, corrosion. It's going to take a long time," Reuters quoted him as saying.
This is the second time that IAEA seals have been removed in Iran. In August, researchers unsealed equipment at its Isfahan plant and resumed uranium conversion activities.
Uranium conversion is a first step towards uranium enrichment, which could lead to the manufacture of nuclear weapons.
Iran's hard-line conservative government insists its nuclear programs have peaceful aims, and it has the right to restart nuclear facilities and enrich uranium for the production of nuclear energy.
Other nations, however, including the U.S., fear Tehran's true goal is to produce nuclear weapons.
Those fears have been reinforced by recent comments by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has said Israel should be wiped out.
Iran vowed Thursday to press ahead with the nuclear program despite the threat of U.N. referral.
"Unfortunately, a group of bullies allows itself to deprive nations of their legal and natural rights," AP quoted Ahmadinejad as saying.
"I tell those superpowers that, with strength and prudence, Iran will pave the way to achieving peaceful nuclear energy," he said. "The Iranian nation is not frightened by the powers and their noise."
Ali Larijani, Iran's chief nuclear negotiator, told CNN's Christiane Amanpour in an interview that Iran doesn't want to get into enrichment on any large scale, and insists its activities are for research purposes only.
Larijani said he hopes sanctions are not pursued, as Tehran believes room for negotiation with the West remains.
CNN Chief International Correspondent Christiane Amanpour and Berlin Bureau Chief Chris Burns contributed to this report.
© 2005, Assyrian International News Agency. All Rights Reserved. Terms of Use. "
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted GMT 1-12-2006 20:18:7 Send to Printer Printer Friendly Email This Link Reader Comments
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BERLIN, Germany (CNN) -- Britain, France and Germany have called for the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog to refer Iran to the Security Council over the country's atomic ambitions.
In Washington, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the United States strongly supports the move and joins the European Union "and many other members of the international community in condemning the Iranian government's deliberate escalation of this issue."
Iran broke U.N. seals on its nuclear enrichment facility this week, insisting it only wants to develop a civilian nuclear power program in accordance with international law. But several Western countries fear Tehran is intent on developing a nuclear bomb.
Foreign ministers from the European Union's three biggest nations -- the so-called EU3 -- met Thursday following Iran's moves to restart its nuclear program.
"Our talks with Iran have reached a dead end," German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier told reporters after meeting with his British and French counterparts, Jack Straw and Philippe Douste-Blazy, and EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana.
Straw said the group decided to call for an emergency session of the board of governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to vote on referring Iran to the U.N. Security Council.
The ministers did not say exactly what action should be taken by the Security Council, which could impose sanctions.
The decision by the EU3 marks the end of more than two years of diplomatic efforts to convince Iran to abandon its nuclear program.
Rice said Iran's action "demonstrates that it has chosen confrontation with the international community over cooperation and negotiation."
"As a result, the IAEA board of governors must go forward with a report to the U.N. Security Council so that the council can add its weight in support of the ongoing IAEA investigation," she added.
Meanwhile, officials in London and Moscow said envoys from the EU3 would meet counterparts from China, Russia and the U.S. next week in London to discuss the issue further.
Russia, which is building a nuclear reactor in Iran, also has expressed "deep disappointment" over Iran's decision, The Associated Press reported.
A Foreign Ministry statement outlining a phone call between Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Rice said both sides shared "a deep disappointment over Tehran's decision to leave behind the moratorium on all activities tied with uranium enrichment, resuming research work in this sphere."
The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal reported that during the call, Lavrov told Rice that Russia would abstain, rather than vote against, efforts to move the issue from the IAEA -- the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog -- to the Security Council.
China, which imports significant amounts of Iranian oil, said it hoped Iran would return to talks on the nuclear dispute and urged all parties to exercise restraint.
"We hope Iran can do more to promote mutual confidence between itself and the EU3, and return to negotiations," Reuters quoted a spokesman for China's foreign ministry, Kong Quan, as saying. 'Small-scale' enrichment work
Iran's move was announced Tuesday by Mohammad Saeedi, deputy head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization, who said: "Nuclear research officially resumed at sites agreed upon with (U.N.) inspectors."
He said Iran was not resuming the production of nuclear fuel, a process that would involve uranium enrichment.
"We differentiate nuclear fuel production with research and access to technology," he said. "Suspension of nuclear fuel production will be continued in the country."
But Mohammed ElBaradei, the head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog, told his agency's governing board that Iran intended to begin "small-scale" uranium enrichment work, Reuters said.
"Iran plans to install a small-scale gas ultracentrifuge cascade in its pilot fuel enrichment plant at Natanz," a Western diplomat told Reuters, reading from ElBaradei's report to the 35-nation board of the IAEA.
Citing the report, the diplomat said that Iran planned to feed a small amount of uranium hexafluoride into centrifuges -- machines that purify uranium for use in nuclear power plants or weapons -- as part its research work on the devices
The diplomat's comments came as one of Iran's former opposition leaders claimed that the country had secretly produced 5,000 centrifuges at its underground facility in Natanz.
Alireza Jafarzadeh offered no proof. But he added that Iran was also constructing centrifuge cascade platforms at the facility. If Iran possesses the necessary knowledge, the centrifuges could be mounted on the platforms and used to produce highly enriched uranium.
Once the machines are fully operational, Jafarzadeh said, Iran would be "only months away from having enough fissile material for at least one nuclear bomb."
Jafarzadeh -- who would not divulge his source, saying only that it was within the Iranian regime -- called for an emergency meeting of the IAEA board of governors to send the issue of Iran's non-compliance to the U.N. Security Council. Diplomat: Centrifuges corroded
On Thursday, a Western diplomat who is close to the IAEA told Reuters that Iran had completed the removal of U.N. seals on its nuclear fuel research sites but would need time to refurbish machinery before it could start enriching uranium.
The diplomat said the Iranians would probably have to rebuild their entire cascade of enrichment centrifuges.
"There's a lot of humidity, corrosion. It's going to take a long time," Reuters quoted him as saying.
This is the second time that IAEA seals have been removed in Iran. In August, researchers unsealed equipment at its Isfahan plant and resumed uranium conversion activities.
Uranium conversion is a first step towards uranium enrichment, which could lead to the manufacture of nuclear weapons.
Iran's hard-line conservative government insists its nuclear programs have peaceful aims, and it has the right to restart nuclear facilities and enrich uranium for the production of nuclear energy.
Other nations, however, including the U.S., fear Tehran's true goal is to produce nuclear weapons.
Those fears have been reinforced by recent comments by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has said Israel should be wiped out.
Iran vowed Thursday to press ahead with the nuclear program despite the threat of U.N. referral.
"Unfortunately, a group of bullies allows itself to deprive nations of their legal and natural rights," AP quoted Ahmadinejad as saying.
"I tell those superpowers that, with strength and prudence, Iran will pave the way to achieving peaceful nuclear energy," he said. "The Iranian nation is not frightened by the powers and their noise."
Ali Larijani, Iran's chief nuclear negotiator, told CNN's Christiane Amanpour in an interview that Iran doesn't want to get into enrichment on any large scale, and insists its activities are for research purposes only.
Larijani said he hopes sanctions are not pursued, as Tehran believes room for negotiation with the West remains.
CNN Chief International Correspondent Christiane Amanpour and Berlin Bureau Chief Chris Burns contributed to this report.
© 2005, Assyrian International News Agency. All Rights Reserved. Terms of Use. "
"Alireza Jafarzadeh’s claim could not be verified"
Britain threatens UNSC action on Iran -: "Britain threatens UNSC action on Iran
1/11/2006 3:00:00 PM GMT
"Iran has already manufactured as many as 5 000 centrifuge machines," Jafarzadeh claimed
The British Prime Minister Tony Blair calls on the UN Security Council to take action against the Islamic Republic following its announcement of resuming nuclear fuel research.
On the other hand, former Iranian President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani said any sanctions would be futile.
"Adopting harsh measures like imposing sanctions cannot bring about the desired outcome," Rafsanjani said during a sermon at Tehran’s University marking the Muslim Eid ul Adha festival.
Blair vowed Wednesday to refer Iran’s nuclear dossier to the Security Council for possible sanctions.
"I think the first thing to do is to secure agreement for a reference to the Security Council, (if) that is indeed what the allies jointly decide as I think seems likely," Blair told parliament.
"Then ... We have to decide what measures to take and we obviously don't rule out any measures at all," he added.
Opposition figure claims Iran has 5,000 centrifuges
Citing what he said was intelligence from the Iranian opposition and sources within the Iranian nuclear programme, an exiled opposition figure alleged on Tuesday that Iran has secretly built thousands of centrifuge machines for its atomic plant at Natanz, Agence France Presse reported.
However, Alireza Jafarzadeh’s claim, which came hours after Iran resumed sensitive nuclear research after a two-year suspension could not be verified- If confirmed, according to analysts, it would enflame the current standoff over Iran's nuclear programme.
With its latest move, Iran is risking censure by the UN Security Council.
"Iran has already manufactured as many as 5 000 centrifuge machines ready to be installed in Natanz, which is a clear breach of its agreements with the IAEA and the EU," Jafarzadeh said at a news conference, adding that the Islamic Republic had been continually building underground centrifuge cascade installation platforms at Natanz.
Information released in 2002 by Jafarzadeh, former spokesperson for the Iranian opposition in Washington, was the first outside glimpse into Iran’s nuclear activities which triggered International Atomic Energy Agency scrutiny.
"The 5 000 centrifuge machines are going to be installed in underground cascade halls ... all of this has been going on while supposedly the program has been under freeze," he claimed.
Yesterday Iran announced removing UN seals on its nuclear-enrichment facility, triggering worldwide criticism specially the U.S., the Europe Union and Japan, who see the move as defiance of demands that Iran suspends its nuclear program and could provide justification for it to be referred to the UN Security Council for possible sanctions.
"If the regime in Iran continues on the current course and fails to abide by its international obligations, there is no other choice but to refer the matter to the Security Council," White House press secretary Scott McClellan said.
Also Russia and China which have blocked an IAEA resolution to refer Iran to the UNSC, expressed frustration with Tehran because of its latest move.
Meanwhile, chief of the UN nuclear watchdog, Mohamed ElBaradei voiced exasperation, saying: "I am running out of patience."
This increases the risk of a UNSC referral more than anytime during the more than three-year IAEA probe into Iran's nuclear activities."
1/11/2006 3:00:00 PM GMT
"Iran has already manufactured as many as 5 000 centrifuge machines," Jafarzadeh claimed
The British Prime Minister Tony Blair calls on the UN Security Council to take action against the Islamic Republic following its announcement of resuming nuclear fuel research.
On the other hand, former Iranian President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani said any sanctions would be futile.
"Adopting harsh measures like imposing sanctions cannot bring about the desired outcome," Rafsanjani said during a sermon at Tehran’s University marking the Muslim Eid ul Adha festival.
Blair vowed Wednesday to refer Iran’s nuclear dossier to the Security Council for possible sanctions.
"I think the first thing to do is to secure agreement for a reference to the Security Council, (if) that is indeed what the allies jointly decide as I think seems likely," Blair told parliament.
"Then ... We have to decide what measures to take and we obviously don't rule out any measures at all," he added.
Opposition figure claims Iran has 5,000 centrifuges
Citing what he said was intelligence from the Iranian opposition and sources within the Iranian nuclear programme, an exiled opposition figure alleged on Tuesday that Iran has secretly built thousands of centrifuge machines for its atomic plant at Natanz, Agence France Presse reported.
However, Alireza Jafarzadeh’s claim, which came hours after Iran resumed sensitive nuclear research after a two-year suspension could not be verified- If confirmed, according to analysts, it would enflame the current standoff over Iran's nuclear programme.
With its latest move, Iran is risking censure by the UN Security Council.
"Iran has already manufactured as many as 5 000 centrifuge machines ready to be installed in Natanz, which is a clear breach of its agreements with the IAEA and the EU," Jafarzadeh said at a news conference, adding that the Islamic Republic had been continually building underground centrifuge cascade installation platforms at Natanz.
Information released in 2002 by Jafarzadeh, former spokesperson for the Iranian opposition in Washington, was the first outside glimpse into Iran’s nuclear activities which triggered International Atomic Energy Agency scrutiny.
"The 5 000 centrifuge machines are going to be installed in underground cascade halls ... all of this has been going on while supposedly the program has been under freeze," he claimed.
Yesterday Iran announced removing UN seals on its nuclear-enrichment facility, triggering worldwide criticism specially the U.S., the Europe Union and Japan, who see the move as defiance of demands that Iran suspends its nuclear program and could provide justification for it to be referred to the UN Security Council for possible sanctions.
"If the regime in Iran continues on the current course and fails to abide by its international obligations, there is no other choice but to refer the matter to the Security Council," White House press secretary Scott McClellan said.
Also Russia and China which have blocked an IAEA resolution to refer Iran to the UNSC, expressed frustration with Tehran because of its latest move.
Meanwhile, chief of the UN nuclear watchdog, Mohamed ElBaradei voiced exasperation, saying: "I am running out of patience."
This increases the risk of a UNSC referral more than anytime during the more than three-year IAEA probe into Iran's nuclear activities."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)