I was working on some Iraq related posts today and newsnow.co.uk was full of articles about discoveries of even more Iranian weapons in Iraq etc and on and on ... then tonight, the FT runs with the Fallon story ... it's odd to see this amount of discord played out in public, eh? or at least mighty confusing.

For once I hope Rice wins.

Spooks refuse to toe Cheney's line on Iran

All of this, of course, is the result of our not having an open, due process, Constitution-focused leadership in Washington, D.C. Cheney's efforts to cloak everything in secrecy, and his obsession with conquest so nicely parodied as Lord Cheney in Doonesbury, should have every America shuddering in revulsion. So the move for impeachment has great merit if to no other end than to keep Lord Cheney busy and, just possibly, for him to make some little slip to demonstrate his willingness to allow millions, if necessary, to die in order to achieve his goals.
Hats, off then, to Admiral Fallon.
The next question is who is really qualified, by international and domestic experience, to manage ("manage" being the properly focused term) the United States of America. I have narrowed it down, to my own satisfaction, to Joe Biden.
Hillary is obsessed with being the queen bee. Obama lacks the requisite experience. The bottom line on Hillary and Obama is they very likely cannot win because of gender and race (We've made progress, but we're not there yet.). The smart money may be on John Edwards due to his possible appeal to southern voters, but his focus has been largely domestic. Richardson would be satisfactory as VP. So we then have Kucinich, Dodd and Biden. Kucinich is simply too far to the left, which everyone already knows. Dodd is super solid and probably could make an excellent president, and his presentation puts people to sleep, his charisma being very low key and personal.
Biden tells it like it is, puts it all up front, and stands for a Constitution-based, due process government. He is a solid campaigner, understands the work, and has the solid support of his family. I find him quite charismatic. His foreign policy experience is phenomenal, including extensive travel to trouble spots over the years to see things first hand and talking to the people affected by U.S. actions.
Thanks to Admiral Fallon.
Now, folks, do some actual homework on the candidates and think about management of the nation in a responsible manner under the Constitution, and start talking up Joe Biden.

Channing
Ventura CA USA

here.

Nov 29, 2007

White House squabble on releasing Iranians
By Gareth Porter

WASHINGTON - Recent statements by the US military that Iran had pledged to stop supplying weapons to Shi'ite militias in Iraq and that this alleged flow of arms may have stopped in August were part of a behind-the-scenes struggle over whether the George W Bush administration should make a gesture to Iran by releasing five Iranian prisoners held since January.

When US military experts found evidence that recently discovered weapons caches probably dated back to early 2007, it strengthened the hand of those in the administration arguing for

the release and weakened the position of Vice President Dick Cheney and General David Petraeus, who sought to scuttle any release by insisting that there was no evidence that Iran had changed its alleged policy of destabilizing Iraq.

The issue of releasing the five Iranians kidnapped by US troops in Irbil in January has divided the Bush administration since last spring. In early April, after Iran released 15 British sailors and marines, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice argued that the Iranians should now be released, but Cheney insisted that the United States should hold on to them.

The cases of the "Irbil five" were scheduled to be reviewed again in October, and the issue was so sensitive that it was understood that the decision would be made by the White House, as reported by the Washington Post on October 3.

During September and October, officials of the Shi'ite-dominated government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki were pressing for the release of the Irbil five, according to Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari. They were arguing that Iranian policy had helped bring about the six-month ceasefire declared by Muqtada al-Sadr on August 29 and thus a reduction in attacks by units of his Mahdi Army.

In the context of this behind-the-scenes debate, Petraeus told reporters on September 30 that Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad had "pledged he would stop the flow of weapons, the training, the funding and the directing of these militia extremists ..."

That claim of Iranian admission of guilt about masterminding Shi'ite militia attacks was contradicted by the accounts given by aides to Maliki that the Iranian leaders had pledged in their meetings with him in August to do more to police the Iran-Iraq border to prevent weapons from entering Iraq from Iran.

Having focused the issue on whether the Iranian weapons flow had slowed, Petraeus asserted that he had seen nothing that was "statistically significant, much less evidence" that there had been "a real reduction in the assistance provided".

Petraeus' arguments appear to have represented the response of the Cheney faction to the Iraqi government assertion that Iran had helped reduce the level of Shi'ite militia attacks.

Lieutenant General Raymond Odierno, who is responsible for daily operations in Iraq, did not hide the fact that Petraeus opposed the release of the Irbil five. In a meeting with Washington Post editors and reporters on October 3, he declared, "Militarily, we should hold on to them."

According to a report in the Los Angeles Times on October 31, "some State Department officials" were continuing to urge the release of the Irbil five. In an October 25 meeting with journalists, Ambassador Ryan Crocker noted the ceasefire ordered by Muqtada, but said it was "unclear to us what role, if any, Iran might have played in it ..."

On July 24, after a meeting with his Iranian counterpart, Crocker had told reporters the United States held Iran responsible for Shi'ite militia attacks in Iraq, citing an increase in indirect fire attacks launched from Muqtada's stronghold Sadr City in particular. That implied that a reduction in attacks would be regarded as evidence of a change in Iranian policy.

Furthermore, Zebari had been arguing to both Crocker and the US military that the Iranians had indeed played a key role in the ceasefire decision. Zebari revealed that Iraqi government argument when he told Reuters on November 6 that Iran had been "instrumental in reining in the militias and the Mahdi Army by using its influence" and called Iran's relationship with the militias "part of the security improvement". The same argument was repeated by Maliki spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh at a lunch with reporters on November 17.

Although Muqtada had his own reasons for declaring a ceasefire with the US military and his Shi'ite rivals, the Iranian leaders no doubt urged him to reach a new accord with Maliki and the Shi'ite parties supporting his government. Iran has tried to maintain good relations with all major Shi'ite factions.

With the fate of the Irbil five still undecided, Odierno was asked by a journalist at a November 1 press briefing whether the reduction in attacks by Shi'ites was related to the alleged reduction in Iranian support. Although he acknowledged Muqtada's ceasefire announcement, Odierno explained the slowing of attacks as primarily the result of successful US military operations against the Mahdi Army.

Odierno mentioned a "huge EFP [explosively formed penetrator] cache" just discovered the previous week and an "initial assessment" that it may have been there since early 2007. But he said it was "unclear ... whether they have slowed down bringing in weapons and supporting the insurgency or not. I'll still wait and see."

But within a few days, the White House had decided to override the Petraeus-Odierno view of Iranian policy in conjunction with deciding to release two of the Irbil five.

more