“to Iran-Contra,” a former National Security Council aide told me. “And much of what they’re doing is to keep the agency out of it.” He said that Congress was not being briefed on the full extent of the U.S.-Saudi operations. And, he said, “The C.I.A. is asking, ‘What’s going on?’ They’re concerned, because they think it’s amateur hour.”

----

Seems like Negroponte resigned because to stay would be too much like living déjà all over again and he wanted no part of repeating past history.

Last November, Cheney flew to Saudi Arabia for a surprise meeting with King Abdullah and Bandar. The Times reported that the King warned Cheney that Saudi Arabia would back its fellow-Sunnis in Iraq if the United States were to withdraw. A European intelligence official told me that the meeting also focussed on more general Saudi fears about “the rise of the Shiites.” In response, “The Saudis are starting to use their leverage—money.”

for war materials and weapons. as you point out, saudi fingerprints seem all over this 'plan' and it's not like they don't have a reason to care about all that shia controlled oil.

it makes perfect sense to me, because i know that the bush administration is all about one thing only- making money for its members and their crony friends. warfare, cheating and stealing are the only way they know how.

So let me get this straight: The 9-11 attacks were ordered by a Sunni Muslim from Saudi Arabia. Bin Laden and 15 of the 19 9-11 hijackers were Sunnis from Saudi Arabia. Al Qaida is a strictly Sunni organization, and they are allied with the Sunnis in Iraq, who are responsible for 90 percent of American military casualties.

Knowing all that, BushCo is now allying itself with the main source and sponsor of al Qaida against the majority Shiia Muslims in Iraq in order to stymie the Shiite Muslims in Iran, who _purportedly_ are responsible for less than 10 percent of American military casualties in Iraq.

Is there a clever Arab saying that covers this? "My main enemy is my friend if I help him destroy my natural ally?" Something like that.

This strategy is more convoluted, twisted and slimy than a ball of snakes mating in a swamp. The only thing that could account for such a self-defeating course is that the goal has nothing to do with protecting America from al Qaida. Bush is now assisting al Qaida with all the force of the U.S. military.

In a comfortable house in Pakistan, Osama bin Laden smiles broadly. Things are going well for the leader of al Qaida. His enemies are now actively helping him destroy his competitors in the Middle East. This is what happens when you oppose a geopolitical chess master with people whose main expertise is cheating at Monopoly.

"Death before being dishonored any more." - Col. Ted Westhusing

Rice vows talks if Iran halts nuke plans

WASHINGTON — Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the U.S. would hold direct talks with Iran if Tehran suspended its nuclear program. Iran's president, however, pledged to move ahead with enrichment activity that Washington contends masks weapons development.

"I am prepared to meet my counterpart or an Iranian representative at any time if Iran will suspend its enrichment and reprocessing activities. That should be a clear signal," Rice said in Washington.

Earlier Sunday, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad comparing his nation's nuclear drive to a train without a reverse gear or brakes. "We dismantled the rear gear and brakes of the train and threw them away sometime ago," he was quoted on the radio as telling Islamic clerics.

Iran says its energy program is peaceful.

Vice President Dick Cheney said last week on his trip to Australia that the United States believes "it would be a serious mistake if a nation such as Iran became a nuclear power." He reaffirmed the Bush administration's policy that "all options are on the table" to deter Tehran.

Rice said the Iranians "don't need a reverse gear. They need to stop and then we can come to the table and we can talk about how to move forward." She contended Ahmadinejad's stands are isolating his country.

"I have no doubt that the Iranian people want to be like other people, capable of carrying out their freedom of having greater pluralism in their politics. All of that is important."

more

Meaning and motive

Investigative journalists like Seymour Hersh should question the agenda of their unnamed sources and the accuracy of the information they provide.

Richard Norton-Taylor

February 27, 2007 11:30 AM | Printable version

Seymour Hersh is an American journalist with an extremely good track record. He exposed the My Lai massacre during the Vietnam war and was among the first to report on the abuse of Iraqi prisoners in Abu Ghraib. Now he writes in the New Yorker magazine that President Bush has told the Pentagon to draw up a plan for "a possible bombing attack on Iran".

A special planning group had been set up, he says, charged with creating a contingency bombing plan that could be implemented, on orders from the president, within 24 hours. His source was a "former intelligence official".

When Hersh talks people sit up and take notice. His New Yorker article was a topic of discussion on the Sunday TV chat shows in the US. He is believed.

The trouble is we do not know who his source was, what his motives were. Did he have an agenda?

US journalists explain, sometimes in the most prolix way, why they cannot name their sources. Their copy is studded with such phrases as "according to an official who was speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorised to talk to the media ... " Maybe British reporters should follow suit. For there is a problem, particularly when anonymous sources are attached to provocative and sensitive issues concerning military plans and claims based on intelligence.

It is, of course, hardly surprising the sources are anonymous. Any government official would be sacked - and, in Britain, liable to criminal prosecution under the Official Secrets Act, if he or she was discovered to be the source of unauthorised leaks.

Journalists are receptacles - of information and disinformation alike. We do not need to share the motives of our sources but at the same time we must be wary of making blind assertions based on their say-so. It boils down to a question of judgment - and trust. Trust, that is, in the reliability of the source.

Do journalists writing on intelligence issues question sufficiently the motives of the source? Alas, no. Just look at the reporting, mainly in prestigious US newspapers, of the claims about Iraq's weapons programme.

There are two constraining pressures which may help the reader. Serious journalists want to make and preserve a reputation for accuracy, at least not as someone who flies kites. Second, I would like to think, we would soon - or sooner or later: witness the New York Times' mea culpa about its reporting on Iraq before the invasion - discard a source whose information proved to be wrong. And that would not be in a good source's interest.

Sometimes the only criterion available, especially reporting on defence and security matters, is plausibility. Actually, that President Bush has ordered a bombing plan for Iran that can be implemented within 24 hours may not be very surprising. Is its disclosure designed to frighten the Iranians or those, in the US and elsewhere, opposed to military action against Iran? For Hersh, I trust, the motive of the source is not as important as its accuracy.

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/richard_nortontaylor/2007/02/a_spooky_tale.html

Julie Hirschfeld | Washington | February 27

AP - The United States and the Iraqi government are launching a new diplomatic initiative to invite Iran and Syria to Syria to a "neighbors meeting" on stabilizing Iraq, Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice said Tuesday.

"We hope that all governments seize this opportunity to improve their relations with Iraq and to work for peace and stability in the region," Rice said in remarks prepared for delivery to a Senate committee. Excerpts were released in advance by the State Department.

The move reflects a change of approach by the Bush administration, which previously had resisted calls by members of Congress and by a bipartisan Iraq review group to include Iran and Syria in diplomatic talks on stabilizing Iraq.