Qur'an – Bible.

* Religion * Politics * News Networks * Mainstream Media Biased Reporting * Independent Analysis

Archive for the ‘Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’ Category

US Security Agreement Not So Popular.

Posted by QB on June 13, 2008

The Bush regime is trying to sign long term security agreement with Iraqi government to provide legal cover to their occupation as the UN authorization will expire by the end of this year. The US government is facing tough resistance from Iraqi law makers to sign any such deal.

BAGHDAD, Iraq — New U.S. proposals have failed to overcome Iraqi opposition to a proposed security pact, two Iraqi lawmakers said Thursday, casting doubt that an agreement can be reached before this fall’s U.S. presidential election.

The security agreement would provide a legal basis for the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq after the U.N. mandate expires at the end of this year. U.S. negotiators offered new proposals this week after Iraqi lawmakers expressed outrage over the direction of the negotiations, claiming that accepting the U.S. position would cement American military, political and economic domination of this country.

Iman al-Asadi, a Shiite member of the parliamentary committee on legal affairs, said the latest U.S. version “wasn’t satisfactory, to say the least.” Asadi said her committee had recommended to Iraq’s negotiators that they reject the latest draft, the fourth since the talks began in March.

Kurdish lawmaker Mahmoud Othman confirmed Asadi’s comments, adding that “we will not sign” the current proposed agreement.

This is clear indication that Iraqis don’t want US military presence in their country, Bush regime and John McCain are the only ones who wanted to stay in Iraq for 100 years. Iraqi puppet Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki also met with Ahmadinejad last week who oppose US military presence in Iraq as they see threat to their own national security.

Barak Obama plan to withdraw troops within 16 months will be accepted by Iraqi government. Bush went into Iraq killed million Iraqi innocent civilian, destroyed their cities, towns, villages is facing tough resistance from the same people who he liberated. Iraqis want all the occupation troops out of their country.

US if try to force an agreement that will result in the tough resistance from Shias and maybe from Sunnis who are now on US military payroll.

Posted in Ahmadinejad, Barack Obama, Barak Obama, Bush, Iran, Iraq, John McCain, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Middle East, Middle East War, Middle Eastern Politics, Politics, US Politics | 3 Comments »

Bush War Promotion European Tour.

Posted by QB on June 11, 2008

Bush is on his farewell European tour promoting another war this time with Iran. Bush issued warning to Iran to resolve the nuclear issue with diplomacy adding the threat that all the options are on the table. It look like that he might bomb few Iranian sites before the elections evaluate Iranian military strength. Bush know that this will benefit John McCain who does not have any chances of getting elected in November. Bush also know that Democrats does not have the courage to speak against his air strike on Iran because they don’t wanted to be called soft on national security. He will justify his air strikes to eliminate non existent Iranian nuclear weapons which are threat to Israel security and danger for US national security. Ehud Olmert visited White House recently and his Deputy Prime Minister wanted to attack Iran because they believe Iran nuclear program is real threat for Israel safety.

The majority of the US politicians will support his air strikes on Iranian sites getting strong support from Israel. Iranians must be very alert safe guarding their nuclear sites because the chances of getting destroyed by Bush madness.

Barak Obama can’t condemn Bush attack because of the coming elections.

Posted in Ahmadinejad, Barack Obama, Barak Obama, Bush, Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Middle East, Middle East War, Middle Eastern Politics, Politics, Presidential Race 2008, US Politics | 2 Comments »

John McCain – Barak Obama foreign policy.

Posted by QB on May 20, 2008

This is what John McCain foreign policy adviser said on Situation Room talking to Wolf Blitzer. The interview was so confusing that it was hard for me to determine what he is saying. Lehman lies very well stick with majority of Americans who will believe his lies just like CNN BBC propaganda that Ahmadinejad wanted to destroy Israel. Wolf Blitzer is on Zionist mission to promote lies for ground work for Iran invasion. The same propaganda campaign which lead to Iraq invasion, lies lies lies. The truth is that Al Qaeda and Iran can’t be allies because of their sectarian differences. Lehman lies will spread among the ignorant voters as truth voting for this old man John McCain, who is not a straight talking maverick but a liar crocked politician.

John McCain and Barack Obama are clearly going after each other with increasing vigor when it comes to foreign policy, specifically policy towards Iran. Let’s talk about that and more. John Lehman is joining us. He’s one of the foreign policy advisers to John McCain, a former secretary of the navy, 9/11 commissioner.

JOHN LEHMAN, MCCAIN FOREIGN POLICY ADVISER: Thanks very much for coming in, Mr. Secretary.

Pleasure to be here.

BLITZER: All right. Here’s a clip of what Obama is saying about McCain and we’ll talk about it. Listen to this.

SEN. BARACK OBAMA (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: The reason Iran is so much more powerful now than it was a few years ago is because of the Bush/McCain policy of fighting an endless war in Iraq and refusing to pursue direct diplomacy with Iran. They’re the ones who have not dealt with Iran wisely.

BLITZER: All right. Pretty serious accusation from Barack Obama. You want to respond?

LEHMAN: Well, you know, I think he doesn’t understand what the nature of summitry is all about. You don’t go and meet with the head of state until you have something very clear to say. You’ve either got to have a carrot or a stick. We know what Iran’s intentions are. We know they’ve killed a lot of Americans in Beirut and Saudi Arabia and now in Iraq. They trained some of the 9/11 conspirators. They gave them free passage to al Qaeda. What are you going to say if you go to a summit with them? Are you going to say either you stop killing Americans and supporting jihad around the world or we’re going to do something to you? Or do you say, we’ll give you this concession if you please stop being mean to us? That’s a very naive point of view.

BLITZER: Let me ask you, when McCain says that his policies, Obama’s policies meeting with an Iranian leader without preconditions seriously deficient, deficient a strong word, what does he mean by that?

LEHMAN: I think he means that we’ve seen what happens when new presidents go without an agenda to meet with — with adversaries. Senator Obama used the example of President Kennedy meeting with Khrushchev. That was a catastrophe. All historians now see that was a huge mistake to go without an agenda, a clear agenda.

BLITZER: What Senator Obama says, excuse me for interrupting, he says there would be no preconditions at the actual summit meeting but there would be a lot of advance work, a lot of preparations going into the meeting. What’s wrong with that? Why not have the lower level preparations to make sure everybody knows what’s going on but then when you go in, there’s no commitment in advance for preconditions?

LEHMAN: Well, obviously there has got to be preparations. But the point is what deal are you going to make? Are you going to — are you going to just sit down and say, OK, I’m prepared, I know all the bad things you’ve done and can’t we just be friends?

BLITZER: The U.S. meets — the Bush administration has had several meetings with Iran going back to right after 9/11.

LEHMAN: Sure. And we would continue to have discussions and — and very intense communication. But to bring the president in to give the dignity of the presidential office to a meeting with an extremist like Ahmadinejad without a clear deal being pre-negotiated would be a huge mistake.

BLITZER: Would John McCain as president, Secretary Lehman, do anything differently toward Iran or, for that matter, the war in Iraq right now than what President Bush is doing?

LEHMAN: I think very definitely.

BLITZER: Give us a few examples. First of all, how would he deal differently with Iran than the way President Bush is dealing?

LEHMAN: First of all, you have to look at the history of this. We’ve been sitting by and watching Hezbollah supported by the government of Iran blow up our marines in Beirut.

BLITZER: That was back in ’83.

LEHMAN: Right. Then a few years later blow up our Air Force people in Saudi Arabia and then to give training to al Qaeda prior to 9/11 and now to be providing these weapons to kill Americans with these shape charges, providing them to enemies both Shiite and Sunni.

BLITZER: What would he be doing differently towards Iran if he were president as opposed to President Bush?

LEHMAN: Well, I think what you’d see is a much more comprehensive overview of how everything fits together. And not treat everything as episodic. He would certainly not allow Iran to get off Scott free. That doesn’t mean —

BLITZER: He would have a more robust military strategy against Iran than President Bush? Is that what you’re suggesting?

LEHMAN: He would have a fully integrated strategy in which the military options like blockade and other options short of an invasion or a bombing attack would be integrated with the diplomacy in a larger picture?

BLITZER: Isn’t that going to scare a lot of voters out there who think John McCain might be getting ready for another military confrontation with Iran right now?

LEHMAN: No. Because he’s made it clear he’s not advocating an attack on Iran. He’s advocating treating them with the full range of an integrated policy that takes into view exactly what the whole picture in the Middle East is. And not allow them to kill Americans without paying a price. That doesn’t necessarily mean a military attack at all. We have plenty of levers beyond that. And it would be a return to fully integrated foreign policy and national security policy, which we haven’t seen for 15 years.

BLITZER: All right. Secretary Lehman, thanks very much for coming in. Let’s continue this conversation down the road.
Source : CNN Situation Room

Lehman, McCain foreign policy adviser, tried to link Iran to Al Qaeda, linked Iran to 9/11 which are new baseless allegations. There is no proof of Iran was anyway involved in 9/11 attacks like Iraq had nothing to do with that attack. Iran is not training Al Qaeda. Lehman get away easily because Wolf Blitzer did accepted all his allegations without correcting him. Wolf Blitzer Lou Dobbs Aaron Brown Paula Zahn all promoted the Iraq invasion and it look like they want US to attack Iran. These SOBs wants the US troops out of Iraq which proved to be disaster don’t know that it will be the worst disaster for US military and economy if they open another war front.
The following is Barak Obama adviser transcript.

Joining us now to discuss this and more, Obama’s senior foreign policy adviser, the former Assistant Secretary of State, National Security Council official Dr. Susan Rice.

Thanks for coming in, Susan.

SUSAN RICE, OBAMA SENIOR FOREIGN POLICY ADVISER: Good to be with you, Wolf.

BLITZER: All right. I will play you a little clip of what McCain said today. And then we will discuss. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MCCAIN: Senator Obama has declared and repeatedly reaffirmed his intention to meet the president of Iran without any preconditions, likening it to meetings between former American presidents and the leaders of the Soviet Union. Such a statement betrays the depth of Senator Obama’s inexperience and reckless judgment.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: All right.

I want you to respond, but remember, when — when Senator Obama made that suggestion at one of the debates, even Hillary Clinton said it was naive, not a good idea. Joe Biden disagreed. John Edwards did.

How does Senator Obama defend that decision to meet without preconditions with a leader like Ahmadinejad?

RICE: Well, first of all, he said he would meet with the appropriate Iranian leaders. He hasn’t named who that leader will be. It may in fact be that, by the middle next of year, Ahmadinejad is long gone. There will be elections in Iran.

BLITZER: So, let’s say there is a new leader.

(CROSSTALK)

RICE: But he said Iranian leaders.

BLITZER: But the words “without preconditions…”

RICE: Yes. Let’s talk about that.

The Bush administration and John McCain have for eight years taken the view that we should not deal directly with the Iranians unless and until they meet all of our conditions, meaning suspending their nuclear program. So, in effect, we want them to do everything that we would aim to achieve in negotiations…

BLITZER: But the precondition they put was for the direct dialogue over nuclear issues, they have to stop enriching uranium.

RICE: Right.

BLITZER: That’s the condition they put.

RICE: Before we will talk to them about their nuclear problem, they have to suspend their nuclear problem. That counterproductive precondition…

BLITZER: And, so, what would you do differently?

RICE: Is to talk to the Iranians.

BLITZER: At the highest level, president to president?

RICE: Can I…

BLITZER: Please.

RICE: Please. Thank you.

What Barack Obama has said is, with due preparation, after appropriate diplomatic contacts at lower levels, when it is appropriate time that serves our interests, he is willing to meet with Iranian leaders. He is not prepared to put preconditions on those meetings, like the Bush administration has, demanding that the Iranians do exactly what we seek to compel them to do before we even sit down.

That is naive. John McCain has backed a policy, Wolf, by the Bush administration that has made us less safe. It is Iran that is stronger today as a result of our invasion of Iraq and our failure to…

(CROSSTALK)

BLITZER: Because I believe the question at that debate is, would you be willing to meet during your first year of your presidency without preconditions with leaders in Iran, or North Korea, or Venezuela, Syria, something along those lines.

RICE: He said he would be willing. It doesn’t mean that he will meet all of those leaders. It doesn’t mean he will meet them all in the first year. What he will do, Wolf, is end the foolish and dangerous Bush policy of assuming that by dealing with our adversaries, we’re giving them some gift. Ronald Reagan, John F. Kennedy, Richard Nixon all understood, with respect to the Soviet Union and communist China, that we can advance our interests through principled strong negotiations. It’s only in the Bush administration that…

BLITZER: So, let’s be precise, because what they criticize Barack Obama, not only John McCain, but others, for suggesting that he would meet without preconditions with Ahmadinejad, who only last week on Israel’s 60th anniversary called Israel a stinking corpse. The question that they ask is, what is Barack Obama going to talk with him about?

(CROSSTALK)

RICE: Well, first of all, as I said, it will be the appropriate Iranian leadership at the appropriate time, not necessarily Ahmadinejad.

Secondly, we will talk to them about the issues that we’re most concerned about, their nuclear program, their support for terrorism, the threat they pose to Israel, their nefarious actions in the region, including in Iraq.

The point is to use a combination of serious pressure and sanctions and engagement to see if we can move them to a better place. The Bush administration’s approach is to refuse to negotiate. And what has that left us with, Wolf? An Iran whose nuclear program is steaming full speed ahead, Iran who is supporting Hamas and Hezbollah, who are stronger in the region, Iran who is more influential in Iraq than it’s ever been.

(CROSSTALK)

BLITZER: Here’s the other criticism that they level at — this kind of summit meeting between a president of the United States and a leader of Iran would only add to the prestige of a tyrant like this and making it easier for him to go and do his dirty deeds.

RICE: Well, first of all, you don’t go straight to a high-level presidential meeting. You do the preparation that’s necessary.

It’s not about prestige, Wolf. It’s about, what does the United States need to advance our national security interests and that of our ally Israel? The policy of the Bush administration backed by John McCain was to invade Iraq. That has left us less safe. It’s made Israel more vulnerable. It’s made Hamas and Hezbollah more powerful. It’s made Iran more powerful while it pursues its nuclear program.

That is a very dangerous, failed policy. The alternative is to withdraw responsibly from Iraq and deal with Iran from a position of strength. The alternative is they continue full steam ahead on their nuclear program. And that doesn’t serve our interest.

(CROSSTALK) BLITZER: And just to clear up, there’s no hard and fast commitment he would in fact if he were president meet in that first year with any of these leaders?

RICE: He said he’s willing to meet with these leaders, obviously, after preparation and at the appropriate time and when and as it serves our interests.

These are distortions, Wolf, that John McCain has found convenient because he knows that, if the American people are allowed to focus on his failed policies and that of George Bush, they won’t have a chance in this election. It’s all politics. And they continue to distort Barack Obama’s words and his intentions.

BLITZER: Secretary Rice, thanks for coming in.

Source : CNN Situation Room

Susan Rice was very rudely interrupted by Wolf whenever she try to explain Barak Obama foreign policy. Barak Obama foreign policy is very much understandable than the confused John McCain policy.

Posted in Ahmadinejad, Al Qaeda, Barack Obama, Barak Obama, Bush, Iran, Iran Nuclear Program, Iraq, John McCain, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Middle East, Middle Eastern Politics, Politics, US Politics | 10 Comments »

Bush speech. McCain 2013 predictions.

Posted by QB on May 16, 2008

Bush delivered speech in Israel Parliament saying that who want to negotiate with terrorists and radicals as Nazis terrorists appeasement, clearly taking shot at Barak Obama who wants to get involve with diplomatic negotiations with Iran.

John McCain same day announce his predictions for his first term in office. He said that Iraq war will be won, troops will come home, Iran will give up its nuclear program, Osama Bin Laden will be killed or captured, Taleban will lose their strength and these countries will have the democracy.

These are the most stupid speeches delivered by the President of US and GOP Presidential candidate. How McCain is going to achieve all this when he don’t believe in having any kind of negotiations with Iran? John McCain must be planning attack on Iran. John McCain is old man loosing his bearings who sing “bomb bomb Iran” does not believe in diplomatic talks.

The war in Iraq is already lost, it is now the matter of time when US troops will withdraw. The situation in Iraq look stable because US is paying lots of money to Sunni resistance and it now look like they have cut the same deal with Mehdi Army which will bring down the violence. This does not mean that Iraqis had started to like the US occupation military.

The CIA don’t have any knowledge about Osama Bin Laden whereabouts, how he will get killed or captured? Taleban will not give up their resistance until all the foreign troops withdraw their military from Afghanistan.

These stupid speeches will play important part in US elections because very large group of ill informed voters will vote for John McCain without actually analyzing the facts.

John McCain will not be different than Bush and Osama Bin Laden wants someone like him in White House so they keep the fight alive. I will not be surprise if Osama Bin Laden video release before US election endorsing Barak Obama just like 2004 elections. I am not sure where these Osama Bin Laden tapes are made but these tapes always surface whenever Republicans are in trouble politically.

Osama Bin Laden message, infact hit the air in time, giving John McCain and George W. Bush enough material to scare US citizens for the coming election in November.

Posted in Ahmadinejad, Asia, Barack Obama, Barak Obama, Bush, John McCain, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Middle East, Middle East War, Middle Eastern Politics, Osama Bin Laden, Pakistan, Pervez Musharraf, Politics, Taleban, Taliban, USA | 6 Comments »

US Navy and Iranian Revolutionary Guards Incident. By Farhan Adib.

Posted by QB on January 19, 2008

Few days ago, Pentagon announced that five small Iranian millitary boats threatened three advanced US warships!! at Hormose region of Persian Gulf.
I have seen the films published by Iran and US governments .I do not want to judge about any of them in advance .As a person ,the following questions have raised in my mind. We may be able to make a clear Judgment when reading those questions and the following article which has been written on the Tonkin Gulf incident.
1- Five small and light boats threaten three advanced US military warships. The US commander in charge of the warships was threatened through a radio message that those ships will be exploded by the boats in few minutes!!
2- Why Iran government did not threatened the warships for missile attacks. We all know that many Iranian mobile missile sites are positioned in the region. Why giving the chance to US navy for preparing some evidences through making films from the boats? Wasn’t it more effective to just warn the warships through a radio message? Who could prove the message coming from an Iranian military source? Were Iranian military commanders so stupid to arrange such a scenario?
3- This incident happened when Mr. George Bush was starting his trip to the Arab countries in the region. He had announced his purposes for this trip clearly. One of them was warning those countries about the danger of Iran.
4- Considering item 3 of this report, were the Iranian leaders so careless to present such a beautiful gift to Mr. Bush to prove what he wanted to be proved?
I have read about the Tonkin Gulf incident. That incident started the terrifying Vietnam War in the decade of 1960.

Please read the following article written on this issue. It has been copied from the following address:

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2008/011108a.html written by Ray McGovern
on January 12, 2008 under the title CIA, Iran & the Gulf of Tonkin.
Let’s read it together:
When the Tonkin Gulf incident took place in early August 1964, I was a journeyman CIA analyst in what Condoleezza Rice refers to as “the bowels of the agency.”
As a current intelligence analyst responsible for Russian policy toward Southeast Asia and China, I worked very closely with those responsible for analysis of Vietnam and China.
Out of that experience I must say that, as much as one might be tempted to laugh at the bizarre theatrical accounts of Sunday’s incident involving small Iranian boats and U.S. naval ships in the Strait of Hormuz, this is—as my old Russian professor used to insist—nothing to laugh.
The situation is so reminiscent of what happened—and didn’t happen—from Aug. 2-4, 1964, in the Gulf of Tonkin and in Washington, it is in no way funny.
At the time, the U.S. had about 16,000 troops in South Vietnam. The war that was “justified” by the Tonkin Gulf resolution of Aug. 7, 1964, led to a buildup of 535,000 U.S. troops in the late Sixties, 58,000 of whom were killed—not to mention the estimated two million Vietnamese who lost their lives by then and in the ensuing 10 years.
Ten years. How can our president speak so glibly about 10 more years of a U.S. armed presence in Iraq? He must not remember Vietnam.
Lessons from Vietnam and Iraq
What follows is written primarily for honest intelligence analysts and managers still on “active duty.”
The issuance of the recent National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran was particularly welcome to those of us who had been hoping there were enough of you left who had not been thoroughly corrupted by former CIA Director George Tenet and his malleable managers.
We are not so much surprised at the integrity of Tom Fingar, who is in charge of national intelligence analysis. He showed his mettle in manfully resisting forgeries and fairy tales about Saddam Hussein’s “weapons of mass destruction.”
What is, frankly, a happy surprise is the fact that he and other non-ideologues and non-careerist professionals have been able to prevail and speak truth to power on such dicey issues as the Iranian nuclear program, the upsurge in terrorism caused by the U.S. invasion of Iraq, and the year-old NIE saying Iraq is headed for hell in a hand basket (with no hint that a “surge” could make a difference).
But those are the NIEs. They share the status of “supreme genre” of analytic product with the President’s Daily Brief and other vehicles for current intelligence, the field in which I labored, first in the analytic trenches and then as a briefer at the White House, for most of my 27-year career.
True, the NIE “Iraq’s Continuing Program for Weapons of Mass Destruction” of Oct. 1, 2002, (wrong on every major count) greased the skids for the attack on Iraq on March 19, 2003. But it is more often current intelligence that is fixed upon to get the country into war.
The Tonkin Gulf events are perhaps the best case in point. We retired professionals who worked through the Tonkin Gulf incident are hopeful that Fingar can ensure integrity in the current intelligence process as well.
Salivating for a Wider War
Given the confusion last Sunday in the Persian Gulf, you need to remember that a “known” in the form of a non-event has already been used to sell a major war—Vietnam. It is not only in retrospect that we know that no attack occurred that night.
Those of us in intelligence, not to mention President Lyndon Johnson, Defense Secretary Robert McNamara and National Security Adviser McGeorge Bundy all knew full well that the evidence of any armed attack on the evening of Aug. 4, 1964, the so-called “second” Tonkin Gulf incident, was highly dubious.
But it fit the president’s purposes, so they lent a hand to facilitate escalation of the war.
During the summer of 1964, President Johnson and the Joint Chiefs of Staff were eager to widen the war in Vietnam. They stepped up sabotage and hit-and-run attacks on the coast of North Vietnam.
Defense Secretary Robert McNamara later admitted that he and other senior leaders had concluded that the seaborne attacks “amounted to little more than pinpricks” and “were essentially worthless,” but they continued.
Concurrently, the National Security Agency was ordered to collect signals intelligence from the North Vietnamese coast on the Gulf of Tonkin, and the surprise coastal attacks were seen as a helpful way to get the North Vietnamese to turn on their coastal radars.
The destroyer USS Maddox, carrying electronic spying gear, was authorized to approach as close as eight miles from the coast and four miles from offshore islands, some of which already had been subjected to intense shelling by clandestine attack boats.
As James Bamford describes it in “Body of Secrets:”
“The twin missions of the Maddox were in a sense symbiotic. The vessel’s primary purpose was to act as a seagoing provocateur—to poke its sharp gray bow and the American flag as close to the belly of North Vietnam as possible, in effect shoving its 5-inch cannons up the nose of the Communist navy. In turn, this provocation would give the shore batteries an excuse to turn on as many coastal defense radars, fire control systems, and communications channels as possible, which could then be captured by the men…at the radar screens. The more provocation, the more signals…
“The Maddox’ mission was made even more provocative by being timed to coincide with commando raids, creating the impression that the Maddox was directing those missions and possibly even lobbing firepower in their support….
“North Vietnam also claimed at least a twelve-mile limit and viewed the Maddox as a trespassing ship deep within its territorial waters.”
(pp 295-296)
On Aug. 2, 1964, an intercepted message ordered North Vietnamese torpedo boats to attack the Maddox. The destroyer was alerted and raced out to sea beyond reach of the torpedoes, three of which were fired in vain at the destroyer’s stern.
The Maddox’s captain suggested that the rest of his mission be called off, but the Pentagon refused. And still more commando raids were launched on Aug. 3, shelling for the first time targets on the mainland, not just the offshore islands.
Early on Aug. 4, the Maddox captain cabled his superiors that the North Vietnamese believed his patrol to be directly involved with the commando raids and shelling. That evening at 7:15 (Vietnam time) the Pentagon alerted the Maddox to intercepted messages indicating that another attack by patrol boats was imminent.
What followed was panic and confusion. There was a score of reports of torpedo and other hostile attacks, but no damage and growing uncertainty as to whether any attack actually took place. McNamara was told that “freak radar echoes” were misinterpreted by “young fellows” manning the sonar, who were “apt to say any noise is a torpedo.”
This did not prevent McNamara from testifying to Congress two days later that there was “unequivocal proof” of a new attack. And based largely on that, Congress passed the Tonkin Gulf resolution bringing 10 more years of war.
Meanwhile, in the Trenches
By the afternoon of Aug. 4, the CIA’s expert analyst on North Vietnam (let’s call him “Tom”) had concluded that probably no one had fired on the U.S. ships. He included a paragraph to that effect in the item he wrote for the Current Intelligence Bulletin, which would be wired to the White House and other key agencies and appear in print the next morning.
And then something unique happened. The Director of the Office of Current Intelligence, a very senior officer whom Tom had never before seen, descended into the bowels of the agency to order the paragraph deleted. He explained:
“We’re not going to tell LBJ that now. He has already decided to bomb North Vietnam. We have to keep our lines open to the White House.”
“Tom” later bemoaned—quite rightly: “What do we need open lines for, if we’re not going to use them, and use them to tell the truth?”
Two years ago, I would have been tempted to comment sarcastically, “How quaint; how obsolete.” But the good news is that the analysts writing the NIEs have now reverted to the ethos in which “Tom” and I were proud to work.
Now the analysts/reporters of current intelligence need to follow suit, and we hope Tom Fingar can hold their feet to the fire. For if they don’t measure up, the consequences are sure to be disastrous.
This should be obvious in the wake of the Tonkin Gulf reporting experience, not to mention more recent performance of senior officials before the attack on Iraq in 2003.
The late Ray S. Cline, who was the current intelligence director’s boss at the time of the Tonkin Gulf incident, said he was “very sure” that no attack took place on Aug. 4. He suggested that McNamara had shown the president unevaluated signals intelligence which referred to the (real) earlier attack on Aug. 2 rather than the non-event on the 4th.
There was no sign of remorse on Cline’s part that he didn’t step in and make sure the president was told the truth.
We in the bowels knew there was no attack; and so did the Director of Current Intelligence as well as Cline, the Deputy Director for Intelligence. But all knew, as did McNamara, that President Johnson was lusting for a pretext to strike the North and escalate the war. And, like B’rer Rabbit, they didn’t say nothin’.
Commenting on the interface of intelligence and policy on Vietnam, a senior CIA officer has written about:
“… the dilemma CIA directors and senior intelligence professionals face in cases when they know that unvarnished intelligence judgments will not be welcomed by the President, his policy managers, and his political advisers…[They] must decide whether to tell it like it is (and so risk losing their place at the President’s advisory table), or to go with the flow of existing policy by accentuating the positive (thus preserving their access and potential influence). In these episodes from the Vietnam era, we have seen that senior CIA officers more often than not tended toward the latter approach.”
“CIA and the Vietnam Policymakers: Three Episodes, 1962-1968,” Harold P. Ford
Back to Iran. This time, we all know what the president and vice president are lusting after—an excuse to attack Iran. But there is a big difference from the situation in the summer of 1964, when President Johnson had intimidated all his senior subordinates into using deceit to escalate the war.
Bamford comments on the disingenuousness of Robert McNamara when he testified in 1968 that it was “inconceivable” that senior officials, including the president, deliberately used the Tonkin Gulf events to generate congressional support for a wider Vietnam War.
In Bamford’s words, the Joint Chiefs of Staff had become “a sewer of deceit,” with Operation Northwoods and other unconscionable escapades to their credit. Then-Under Secretary of State George Ball commented, “There was a feeling that if the destroyer got into some trouble, that this would provide the provocation we needed.”
Good News: It’s Different Now
It is my view that the only thing that has prevented Bush and Cheney from attacking Iran so far has been the strong opposition of the uniformed military, including the Joint Chiefs.
As the misadventure last Sunday in the Strait of Hormuz shows, our senior military officers need all the help they can get from intelligence officers more concerned with the truth than with “keeping lines open to the White House” and doing its bidding.
In addition, the intelligence oversight committees in Congress seem to be waking from their Rip Van Winkle-like slumber. It was Congress, after all, that ordered the controversial NIE on Iran/nuclear (and insisted it be publicized).
And the flow of substantive intelligence to Congress is much larger than it was in 1964 when, remember, there were no intelligence committees as such.
So, you inheritors of the honorable profession of current intelligence – I’m thinking of you, Rochelle, and you, Rick – don’t let them grind you down.
If you’re working in the bowels of the CIA and you find that your leaders are cooking the intelligence once again into a recipe for casus belli, think long and hard about your oath to protect the Constitution. Should that oath not transcend any secrecy promise you had to accept as a condition of employment?
By sticking your neck out, you might be able to prevent 10 years of unnecessary war.

Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, the publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in Washington, DC. He was an Army infantry/intelligence officer, then a current intelligence analyst at CIA, and is now on the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).

Posted in Ahmadinejad, Bush, Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Middle East, Middle East War, Middle Eastern affairs, Middle Eastern Politics, Politics | 1 Comment »

World did not change in one week.

Posted by QB on December 8, 2007

There is no change during my one week absence, I was able to watch some news at my hotel room and Hugo Chavez Constitutional Amendment Referendum defeat was big surprise and I was wrong predicting that Hugo Chavez will win the “Yes” vote. The people who voted “No” don’t want him to run for President for the third time will the losers by electing typical politician who will stop Hugo Chavez social reforms, will work to protect the interest of elite class.

Putin party did win the Parliamentary election with huge majority, don’t know the numbers and have no time to find that out by reading one week news archives. I have only today and tomorrow which is Sunday morning again will be leaving.

The most interesting news what US NIE on Iran nuclear program. The reaction from Bush regime is disgraceful who still insists that Iran is the biggest threat to world peace. John Bolton the former UN Ambassador believe that the intelligence agencies has under estimated  Iran nuclear program to compensate their report on Iraq WMD. Bush still believe that Iran is dangerous with the knowledge of building developing nuclear weapons. This is really the most stupid statement made by the only super power of the world. What is the Bush and Dick plan for Iran? Do they wanted to brainwash all the Iranian scientists who had the knowledge to build nuclear weapons?

The NIE confirmed what ElBardei said that they don’t have proof of Iran’s secret nuclear program which become problem for the Republican Presidential candidate who wanted to be tougher than Bush on Iran including Democrat Hilary Clinton, she wanted to use limited Nuclear Weapons on Iranian Nuclear facilities to stop the development of nuclear weapons which which they are not building. Saddam Hussein told the world that Iraq does not any Chemical or Nuclear Weapons and he too was telling the truth like Ahmadinejad.

The US if really wanted peace stability in the world than the American politicians have to learn to trust the other governments, stop interfering in their internal affairs, stop the policy of regime change.

Posted in Ahmadinejad, Asia, Bush, Iran, Latin America, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Middle East, Middle East War, Middle Eastern affairs, Middle Eastern Politics, Politics, Putin, Russia, South America, Venezuela, Vladimir Putin | 2 Comments »

Iran Nuclear Program. US and Europe on confrontation course.

Posted by QB on November 28, 2007

The IRNA reported that Britain France Germany see that Iran is co-operating with IAEA on nuclear inspections but these countries still insist to impose tougher sanctions. The British Prime Minister wanted to impose tougher sanctions with the same old claim that Iran is building nuclear weapons. The France President and German Chancellor wanted the tougher sanctions as well and urging Russia China to co-operate.

This does not make sense, how the morons leaders of Britain France Germany reached to the conclusion that Iran is building nuclear weapons because IAEA did not find any evidence of Iran secret nuclear program and they have issued very positive report on inspections. The Bush regime still accuse Iran of interference in Iraq without providing the proof. Iraq Shiite leader Abdel Aziz al-Hakim dismissed US claims by saying that Iran is the friends of Iraqi people and the US government did not provided any solid proof of Iran’s interference in Iraq. 

The problem is that Bush the mentally retarded person is incharge of US military and WMD who might make another mistake of attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities. Then there are plenty of Democrats and Republicans Presidential hopeful who are trying to portray themselves tougher than Bush on Iran promising to use limited nuclear weapons to make sure that Iran will not get the nuclear weapons. This is all madness, when people ignore the facts and escalate the issue for political reasons. The US might make another blunder of attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities to please Zionists Israelis and Evangelicals which will make the whole Middle East the battle ground.

Posted in Ahmadinejad, Britain, Bush, France, Germany, Iran, Iran Nuclear Program, Iran Uranium Enrichment, Iraq, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Middle East War, Middle Eastern affairs, Middle Eastern Politics, Politics, US Politics | 1 Comment »

Israel – Palestine Peace Conference.

Posted by QB on November 27, 2007

The US is hosting Israel Palestine peace conference in Annapolis which is step in the right direction and it is very encouraging that Saudi Arabia first time agree to sit down with Israel in any peace conference. This is the one positive step taken by Bush regime in seven years. The peace is possible with serious discussions.

Ahmadinejad is holding his own peace conference in Iran with Hamas, don’t have much details.

Posted in Ahmadinejad, Bush, Israel, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Middle East War, Middle Eastern affairs, Middle Eastern Politics, Palestine, Politics, US Politics | Leave a Comment »

Iran Nuclear Program and IAEA Diplomacy.

Posted by QB on November 23, 2007

The Iran Nuclear Program is still an issue because IAEA inability to come to conclusive decision. IAEA did reported Iran’s co-operation but also added that Iran might have secret nuclear weapon program putting restrictions on UN inspectors for two years, the IAEA is trying to please the US and its allies with creating doubts. The IAEA is free to do the inspections and come up with the conclusive answer otherwise this issue will become the next excuse for another bloody destructive war.

The Saddam Hussein government did co-operated with IAEA by allowing them to inspect all their suspected sites without notice and the UN agency did not find any active nuclear or chemical weapons program in Iraq. The IAEA report was diplomatic saying that they did not find any active nuclear program in Iraq but also added that they still have questions related to chemical inventory. The Saddam Hussein Iraqi government did provide them the documentation that they have destroyed these chemicals. The Bush regime used UN ambiguous report, spin it for their political purposes claiming that Saddam Hussein is dangerous for US and Israel who is not co-operating with IAEA and US will destroy the WMD by force.

“The report gives a clean bill of health on Iran’s nuclear activities for the past 20 years. With ambiguities removed on the basis of this report, there remains no legal reasons for discussions about Iran at the U.N. Security Council,” the official IRNA news agency quoted Mohammed Saeedi as saying.

The IAEA report on Iran’s Nuclear Program is very much similar to Iraq, which Bush regime can use to air strike the Nuclear facilities, if the US government go to that limit of stupidity. The IAEA inspectors are in Iran and they can keep inspecting any Iranian sites which they believe are suspicious and come up clear report that Iran Nuclear Program is according to NPT, failed in doing so will start another useless war. The IAEA must not get involved in too much politics diplomacy trying to please both sides, honestly report what they have found and clearly tell the world what they did not find. They had no proof of Iran’s secret Nuclear Program so why make it a issue.

Posted in Ahmadinejad, Bush, IAEA, Iran, Iran Nuclear Program, Iraq, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Middle East War, Middle Eastern affairs, Middle Eastern Politics, Politics, Saddam Hussein, US Politics | 1 Comment »

US Politicians and American Policies.

Posted by QB on November 16, 2007

The Bush regime is sending envoy to meet Pervez Musharraf to end the emergency rule and hold fair and transparent elections in January. The Bush regime also wanted Pervez Musharraf to be tough on their war on terror without realizing that is the main reason of Pervez Musharraf unpopularity loosing support of people. The Bush regime wanted the democracy and continue the war on terror which is not possible whoever get elected in January elections.

There was CNN Democrats Presidential debate last night where the front runner did not answer single question with honestly and intelligently, Hilary Clinton, Barak Obama, John Edwards responses were confusing, talking what people wanted to hear. Wolf Blitzer, the most biased dishonest person, was the moderator, completely ignorning Presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich who had the clear plan to bring stability to US, restoring America’s image in the world. Dennis Kucinich is the only Presidential candidate who had pointed out  that the US policies are the main cause of Anti Americanism in Middle East and Muslim countries where they see these wars against Islam.

The front runners Hilary Clinton, Barak Obama, John Edwards with Chris Dodd, Joe Biden were answers on Iraq, Iran and Pakistan were similar to Bush regime promising not to let Iran build nuclear weapon, put more pressure on Pervez Musharraf to be tough in their war on terror, keep Afghanistan and Iraq under US occupation. Hilary Clinton might get the nomination of Democratic party because majority of Democrats believe that she has the best chances of beating Republican candidate in next general elections, just like when the Democrats nominated the wrong Presidential candidate John Kerry. Hilary Clinton might get the nomination but she will lost in next year elections.

The IAEA report on Iran Nuclear Program was due on Wednesday, which maybe made public which I have not read it yet. Bush regime and Britain Brown is wasting no time promising to be tough on Iran.

Posted in Afghanistan, Ahmadinejad, Al Qaeda, Al Qaida, Asia, Bush, CNN, Dennis Kucinich, Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Middle East War, Middle Eastern affairs, Middle Eastern Politics, Mullah Omar, Musharraf, Osama Bin Laden, Pakistan, Pervez Musharraf, Politics, Presidential Race 2008, Taliban, US Politics, Wolf Blitzer | 6 Comments »

Consequences of Attack on Iran for US.

Posted by QB on November 15, 2007

The military expert told Congress that Iran attack will have dire consequences for both sides. This was my point of view since the beginning that Iran attack will be suicide for US military and the country. The Iranians will face more deaths and destructions because of US air power and WMD, but they have to defend their country and honor if attacked.

What would happen if the U.S. launched a shock and awe style attack against Iran?

Members of Congress today put that question to top military strategists. The answer — dire consequences for both sides.

Let’s turn to CNN’s senior Pentagon correspondent, Jamie McIntyre — Jamie, not a very optimistic scenario.

What did they say?

JAMIE MCINTYRE, CNN SENIOR PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Well, right Wolf. You would expect a debate over the pros and cons of attacking Iran to have a mixed reaction. But this panel on Capitol Hill found basically very few pros and a lot of cons.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MCINTYRE (voice-over): Even with its military stretched to the limit in Iraq, the U.S. retains the ability to launch punishing air strikes against Iran — targeting both terrorists and nuclear facilities.

But what would the air war accomplish?

Not much, according to military strategists who testified before a House subcommittee on national security.

COL. LAWRENCE WILKERSON (RET.), FORMER ADVISER TO COLIN POWELL: The more widespread strikes, while devastating — they would be — would solidify a nation of 70 plus million people — a great number of whom are under 35 years of age — a nation that is anything but solidified. And the uniting factor would be nationalism and a visceral hatred for America.

COL. SAMUEL GARDINER, U.S. AIR FORCE (RET.): We can destroy three to five years of construction. We know how long it took to build those. But the effect on the nuclear program, we may accelerate it. As a strategist, I would say you don’t take military action when you don’t know the outcome.

MCINTYRE: In fact, the strategists argue, going to war with Iran would just reinforce the belief it must have nuclear weapons to protect itself.

PAUL PILLAR, FORMER CIA OFFICIAL: Many would see the U.S. action as a blow not against proliferation of weapons, but against a Muslim country with a regime that Washington doesn’t happen to like. So the dominant global consequence, in my judgment — especially in the broader Muslim world — would be an increase in anti-Americanism.

MCINTYRE: The experts predict the ranks of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard would swell, its support of terrorism would increase and any moderates would be undercut. Still, some experts argue the military option should not be taken off the table because without it, Iran simply has no incentive to compromise.

ILAN BERMAN, AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY COUNCIL: Iran is not likely to bend to sanctions if it thinks all it has to do is weather sanctions and then there’s nothing else is coming down the pike. One of the world’s most dangerous regimes should not be allowed to acquire the world’s most dangerous weapon.

(END VIDEO TAPE)

MCINTYRE: But even the lone voice in favor of maintaining the military option as a threat called it “deeply flawed and dangerous” and says it has to be weighed very carefully about the situation of living with Iran as a nuclear power — Wolf.

BLITZER: All right. Source Link : CNN – Situation Room Transcript.

You can read my posts on Iran ME/Iran

Posted in Afghanistan, Ahmadinejad, Al Qaeda, Al Qaida, Asia, Bush, CNN, Iran, Iraq, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Middle East War, Middle Eastern affairs, Middle Eastern Politics, Politics, Taliban, US Politics, Wolf Blitzer | 8 Comments »

Bush determined to invade Iran.

Posted by QB on November 1, 2007

The Bush regime is busy building up case to invade Iran from the very beginning of Iraq invasion and occupation. The Bush regime declared victory in Afghanistan and Iraq when Taliban left Kabul and Saddam Hussein went into hiding too soon expecting smooth occupation of these two countries. The Americans did not understand my point of view when I said that this is not victory, this is actually the beginning of very long bloody battle ahead in Afghanistan and Iraq. The resistance in Afghanistan and Iraq took few months in getting organized and stated their attacks on occupation military. These resistance groups were called “terrorists”, “people who hate freedom and democracy”, “dead enders”, “Saddam Hussein loyalists” by Bush and Dick instead of accepting the truth that they are the groups who are resisting the illegal criminal occupation of their countries. The vast majority of politicians Republicans as well as Democrats believe what Bush regime was saying as they don’t have the courage wisdom and intelligence to tell the truth, all because Afghanistan, Iraq wars had the over 70% support of American people. When resistance keep getting strong Bush regime started blaming Pakistan supporting Taliban and Iran get the blame for all Iraq violence. The Bush regime never admitted that it was their stupid plan which put US into such a big mess, it was Rumsfeld, Wofowitz stupid assumption that US troops will be greeted as liberators with flowers by Iraqis and the war will only cost 50 billion dollars, the Iraq occupation will be financed with Iraq Oil export.

That is now all history, the present day situation towards Iran is very similar to pre Iraq invasion, lies are broadcast by CNN and all mainstream news networks, Iran nuclear issue is over blown ignoring the facts, US military and Bush regime blaming Iran for Iran creating violence in Iraq, and the biggest propaganda lie spread by CNN and all mainstream media that Iran is threat for Israel, Ahmadinejad statement is completely taken out of context where he called the elimination of current government to elimination of Israel.

The Bush regime insists to have all option open including military attack which is supported strongly by all front runners Presidential candidates of both parties Democrats and Republicans. The US legislators are so stupid that they pass non binding resolution declaring Iran Revolutionary Guards as foreign terrorist organization with huge majority of 77 votes in Senate and they don’t have 60 votes to override Bush veto of Children Health Care bill, stem cell research bill, which are more important issues than passing non binding resolutions.

The other important figure in US politics is Osama Bin Laden and 9/11, which is very big issue with the conservative Republicans. All the Republicans are running on platform to fight Osama Bin Laden “terrorists” by keeping Iraq Afghanistan under permanent occupation, and than there are Democrats who are trying to prove to Americans that they are more tough on Osama Bin Laden “terrorists” with promising to use limited nuclear weapons in Iran, US troops incursion into Pakistan North Frontier Province.

There is one Iranian who very correctly pointed out that 52% Americans support attack to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons, he was right, I had the old polls.

Amid the political parrying, a Zogby poll released this week showed a slim majority of the American public would support an attack to prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapon. Some 52 percent said they were either somewhat or very supportive, while close to 42% said they were not very or not at all supportive. The poll of 1,028 likely voters has a 3 percentage points margin of error.

The Head of Iran Revolutionary Guard Corp Mohammad Ali Jafari warned US against invading Iran, promising to strike back with crushing response. He also predicted that Iran will be worst quagmire for US than Iraq and Afghanistan.

The front runner Presidential candidates Hilary Clinton, Barak Obama, John Edwards, Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, John McCain are promising to attack Iran to stop them from building nuclear weapon, which according to them will make the world one happy peaceful family. The Iran if attacked will respond aggressively to defend their country and honor, they will be happy to die for what they believe is their right to develop peaceful nuclear program for energy purposes. The war will not be restricted to Iran and US, if attacked, it will cover the whole region, Iranians will hit the US military bases in Iraq, Afghanistan, Qatar, Kuwait, UAE which is US Naval base, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia.

The war will weaken US allies Saudi Arabia, Jordan, UAE, Kuwait, Bahrain governments, which will benefit the opposition groups to gain control by revolution, if there are any such groups exists in these countries.

Posted in Afghanistan, Ahmadinejad, Al Qaida, Asia, Barak Obama, Bush, Dennis Kucinich, Iran, Iran Nuclear Program, Iran Uranium Enrichment, Iraq, Israel, John Edwards, John McCain, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Middle East War, Middle Eastern affairs, Middle Eastern Politics, Mitt Romney, Musharraf, Osama Bin Laden, Pakistan, Pervez Musharraf, Politics, Ron Paul, Rudy Giuliani, Taliban, US Politics | 6 Comments »

Iran condemn new sanctions. ElBaradei interview with Wolf Blitzer.

Posted by QB on October 29, 2007

“”The United State’s newly-unveiled illegal measures against Iranian nationals as well as military, financial and other institutions once again disclosed the U.S. unilateral approach which is doomed to failure due to its illegitimate and hegemonic nature,”” the statement released Saturday said, in reaction to a new set of sanctions against the Islamic Republic announced by the U.S. on Oct. 25, 2007.“”Without doubt, labeling independent countries and their national institutions as terrorist runs counter to the most basic principles of international law, international relations and the UN Charter,”” it added.“”It is clear that despite the massive misleading political and propaganda campaign organized by the U.S. and its proxies, the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) is a crucial component of Iran’s military force. In fact, by sanctioning the popular IRGC, the U.S. is targeting the entire Iranian nation,”” the statement noted.“”As recurrently reaffirmed by the International Atomic Energy Agency officials and reports, Iran’s nuclear program is completely peaceful and there is no evidence of the slightest diversion from a peaceful path. The U.S. has failed to provide any evidence to substantiate its ‘proliferation concerns’ over Iran’s nuclear activities.””


The dispute between the United States and Iran ratcheted up even higher this past week with the Bush administration’s tough new sanctions against Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps and three key Iranian banks. The goal, to try to deter Iran from building nuclear arms, something Iran denies it is even pursuing.

Joining us now from New York for a “Late Edition” exclusive is the man who’s been monitoring Iran’s moves on the nuclear front. Mohamed ElBaradei is the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Dr. ElBaradei, thanks very much for joining us. Welcome back to “Late Edition.”

MOHAMED ELBARADEI, IAEA DIRECTOR-GENERAL: Thank you very much, Wolf, for having me.

BLITZER: I want you to respond to this overall threat that the U.S. perceives comes from Iran, and listen to how President Bush the other day phrased it. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: If you’re interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon. I take the threat of Iran with a nuclear weapon very seriously.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: Is Iran, Dr. ElBaradei, building a nuclear bomb?

ELBARADEI: Well, Wolf, let me say three facts to put the Iranian nuclear issue in proper perspective. We are not talking about Iran today having a nuclear weapon as Secretary Rice said recently. Second, even if Iran were to be working on nuclear weapons, according to John Negroponte and Mike McConnell, they at least few years away from having such weapon.

Thirdly, what we are doing right now is, through the IAEA and the European Union, Javier Solana, is to try to make sure that we control the nascent enrichment capability in Iraq and create the conditions for Iran and the European, particularly the U.S., to go into negotiation.

So we are not talking about Iran having today a nuclear weapon. We are trying to make sure that the future intention of Iran is peaceful, and that’s really what we are talking about. Risk assessment of possible future intention by Iran, if they have the technology to develop nuclear weapon.

I say that because at this stage we need to continue to work through creative diplomacy. We have the time. Because I don’t see any other solution, Wolf, except through diplomacy and inspection.

BLITZER: Well, what about the — whether it is a few years down the road before they actually have a nuclear bomb, do you believe there is a clandestine, secret nuclear weapons program right now under way in Iran?

ELBARADEI: We haven’t seen any concrete evidence to that effect, Wolf. We haven’t received any information there is a parallel ongoing active nuclear weapon program.

What we have seen in the past that certain procurements that have not been reported to us, certain experiments. And that’s where we are working now with Iran to clarify the past and the present, but I have not received any information that there is a complete active nuclear weapon program going on right now.

And I think what — if you hear carefully what is being said about Iran, that Iran might — we suspect that Iran might have the intention, but I don’t think I have seen anybody saying Iran today is working actively on a weapon program. And if there are such information, I would be very happy to receive it and go for it — after it.

BLITZER: So, what you’re saying is the United States government has not provided you hard intelligence evidence that Iran is secretly working on this kind of nuclear weapons program.

ELBARADEI: We have information that there has been maybe some studies about possible weaponization. But we are looking into these alleged studies with Iran right now, and that’s why we have said that we cannot give Iran a pass right now, because there is still a lot of question marks.

But have we seen Iran having the nuclear material that can readily be used into a weapon? No. Have we seen an active weaponization program? No.

So there is a concern, but there is also time to clarify these concerns. And we should remember, Wolf, that this has — it’s a question of distrust that has been going on for over — almost half a decade. So, the earlier we go to the negotiation mode between the U.S. and Iran, the better we can resolve the issue.

Sanctions have been applied and sanctions probably will continue to be applied, but as I have said before, and I think everybody agrees that sanctions alone will not lead to a durable solution. Even the security council is saying a durable solution has to be through a comprehensive package deal with Iran, where we discuss not only the nuclear issue but regional security, trade, technology. So, the earlier we use creative diplomacy to move toward such initiation of negotiation, the best for everybody.

BLITZER: Well, let me be precise, because what U.S. officials increasingly are saying now — and you certainly hear this from the Israelis as well — is there is a difference between actually having a nuclear bomb or having the knowledge to build a nuclear bomb.

And they’re increasingly speaking about this threshold of once they have the capability of doing it, it is almost like actually doing it. Do you differentiate between those two points?

ELBARADEI: I do, Wolf. Because having the capability — there are at least 13, 14 countries who have the capability to enrich uranium. Because it is used also for peaceful purposes to develop fuel for power reactor.

That is, frankly, a lacunae, a loophole in the system right now, and I’ve been calling for a number of years, including also President Bush and others, that we need to make sure that no one country should be able to have the enrichment capability or having the capability to also produce plutonium, because you are not very far from having a nuclear weapon should you decide to do that.

However, you know, having the enrichment capability and having a weapon is the wrong way to go. Iran right now has a nascent technology. What we are trying to do right now is keep that technology capability under an inspection. It is under an inspection.

Which I urge Iran to suspend these activities to build confidence. I make sure that we have robust inspection. But until we go into the negotiating mode, until we discuss the global insecurity in a hotbed of stability which is the Middle East, I think we will continue to go into this gradually to a confrontation.

I very much concerned about confrontation, building confrontation, Wolf, because that would lead absolutely to a disaster. I see no military solution. The only durable solution is through negotiation and inspection.

BLITZER: Because the rhetoric coming from Washington, from top Bush administration officials, seems to be heating up. This is what the vice president, Dick Cheney, said last Sunday. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DICK CHENEY, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The Iranian regime needs to know that if it stays on its present course, the international community is prepared to impose serious consequences. The United States joins other nations in sending a clear message: We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon.

(END VIDEO CLIP) BLITZER: Is that kind of rhetoric helpful or hurtful to what you’re trying to achieve? ELBARADEI: Wolf, it is clearly a question of distrust between Iran and most of the international community, at least the west, the U.S. in particular. And to build confidence, you will not be able to do that through just exchanging rhetoric. You need to go and create a condition to go to the negotiating table.

My fear that if we continue to escalate from both sides that we will end up into a precipice, we will end up into an abyss. As I said, the Middle East is in a total mess, to say the least. And we cannot add fuel to the fire.

Nobody wants Iran to have nuclear weapons. Nobody wants any country to have nuclear weapons. I think when you see Kissinger and Shultz and Perry and Sam Nunn saying we need to go toward abolition of nuclear weapons, I think everybody now, it should be a wakeup call. We cannot continue to rely on nuclear weapons — anybody — because it has become decreasingly effective and increasingly hazardous.

BLITZER: Because the U.S. position is — you know, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice reiterates it. The U.S. will have negotiations with Iran, direct negotiations, but first the Iranians must stop enriching uranium. Is that a mistaken policy on the part of the U.S. government?

ELBARADEI: Well, this is the U.S. policy. I can’t really pass judgment on it. All I can say, Wolf, the earlier we go into negotiation, the earlier we follow the North Korean model, the better for everybody. Negotiation stopped with North Korea from five years. They ended up with nuclear weapons. They ended up with a nuclear test.

You resume negotiation, now we see a positive result. I always compare between the Korean model and the Iraq model. And I believe that these security or insecurity issues can best — can only be resolved through negotiation.

BLITZER: Here’s what you said back in May in an interview with the BBC on May 8th. You said “you do not want to give additional argument to some of the ‘new crazies’ who want to say let us go and bomb Iran.” Who were you referring to when you spoke about the, quote, “new crazies”?

ELBARADEI: Well, I’m referring, Wolf, to anybody who is saying, “Let us use force right now,” because I believe we still have ample time for diplomacy; and, B, I believe that force is in no way a solution to the problem.

This is an issue of security and trust. You can only resolve that through negotiation. Using force can usually, in most cases, exacerbate the situation rather than improve it. It could even accelerate a drive by Iran, even if they are not working on a nuclear weapon today, to go for a nuclear weapon.

So we can talk about use of force as and when we exhausted diplomacy, as and when we have no other alternative, as and when we think this is the best option. But we are far, far away from that stage.

And I would hope that we should continue to stop spinning and hyping the Iranian issue because that’s an issue that could have a major conflagration, and not only regionally but globally.

BLITZER: Ahmadinejad — Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the president of Iran, when he addressed the United Nations General Assembly on September 25th, he said, “All our nuclear activities have been completely peaceful and transparent. I officially announce that in our opinion, the nuclear issue of Iran is now closed.”

Is that true, that all of their nuclear activities have been completely peaceful and transparent?

ELBARADEI: This is by no way the case — in no way the case, Wolf. The file is not closed. We are still very actively trying to reconstruct the history of Iran program to make sure that the past and present activities are exclusively peaceful.

I have a team today in Iran working hard with the Iranian authorities to clarify the past. I need to make sure that the past and the present is clean, and then we need to work with them, the international community, to build confidence about their future intention. And that’s why I’m saying we need diplomacy and — but also we need an inspection and they need to work in tandem.

BLITZER: As you know, the Israelis, in early September, bombed some sort of facility in Syria that was suspected of being a nuclear reactor, maybe a nuclear reactor built on a North Korean model.

I know you’ve seen these pictures. You’ve seen the before and the after. What’s your conclusion? Was this a nuclear reactor that the Syrians were building in their country based on a North Korean model?

ELBARADEI: Wolf, I’m very distressed, frankly, about this Syrian bombing because nobody — there had been chatter for the last few years. John Bolton three years ago went to testify before Congress and said there is concern about Syria.

And yet, until today, we have not received information about any nuclear-related activities, clandestine nuclear-related activities in Syria. The bombing, again, happened, and we never, until today, received any piece of information.

That to me is very distressful because we have a system. If countries have information that the country is working on a nuclear- related program, they should come to us. We have the authority to go out and investigate.

But to bomb first and then ask questions later, I think it undermines the system and it doesn’t lead to any solution to any suspicion, because we are the eyes and ears of the international community. It’s only the agencies and inspectors who can go and verify the information.

If Syria were working on a nuclear program, a clandestine program, then we’d obviously be able to draw the consequences. But today I don’t know where to go. I didn’t get any information. I contacted the Syrians. They said this is a military facility, has nothing to do with nuclear. And I would hope if anybody has information before they take the law into their own hands, to come and pass the information on.

BLITZER: So what you’re suggesting, Dr. ElBaradei, is neither the Israelis nor the U.S. government — or for that matter, any other government — gave you any hard evidence to back up this claim that this was a North Korean modeled nuclear reactor.

ELBARADEI: Or any evidence at all. Not only hard evidence, Wolf.

BLITZER: I know you’ve seen some commercial satellite photos though of the before and after. Are there any conclusions you can draw based on what you’ve seen in those satellite photos?

ELBARADEI: These are commercial satellite photos that we procured ourselves, has not been providing to us. And we’re still investigating them. We’re still comparing the pre and after.

But in addition to us buying commercial photos, I would very much hope that countries will come forward if they have information so we’ll do — go through a due process.

BLITZER: We’re almost out of time, but based on the commercial photos that you’ve seen from these satellite reconnaissance, are there any conclusions that you and your team have been able to come up with?

ELBARADEI: Not at this stage, Wolf. Not at all.

BLITZER: All right, and so it would be premature to allege that North Korea was proliferating in cooperation with the Syrians? Is that what you’re saying as well?

ELBARADEI: That’s correct.

BLITZER: Because I want to play a little clip of what the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, Peter Hoekstra, told me here on “Late Edition” last Sunday. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. PETER HOEKSTRA, R-MICH.: If North Korea or if Iran or other countries were involved in Syria, it, again, will be an indicator of what kind of agreement they will make and whether they would be willing to adhere to the agreements that they make in public.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: Because he certainly seemed to be concerned, and he’s among a handful of members of the U.S. Congress who have been briefed by the Bush administration on what the Israelis did in Syria. He seems to suggest that you can’t trust the North Koreans at all because they’ve been cheating on their promises. I take it you’re not willing to go that far by a long shot. ELBARADEI: I can’t because I don’t have any evidence to support that assumption, Wolf.

BLITZER: Would you like the Israelis to brief you on what they know?

ELBARADEI: Absolutely, or anybody who has information. But you can’t trust anybody. We don’t work on the base of trust. But we — as President Reagan said, “trust and verify.”

And what I want very much is to be able to verify whether Syria, in fact, were working on a nuclear power program in a clandestine way or not. And the only way to do that is get information and to go out and verify.

BLITZER: You have a lot of credibility in these areas, Dr. ElBaradei, because before the war starred with Iraq and the removal of Saddam Hussein, you were contradicting the Bush administration’s insisting there was absolutely no evidence that Iraq under Saddam Hussein was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program.

Do you feel vindicated as a result of that, as you go into this next round of fears that Iran may be developing some sort of nuclear weapons program?

ELBARADEI: Well, Wolf, I don’t necessarily feel vindicated. I feel relieved that we discovered that Iraq did not have nuclear weapons. I feel also that people now should listen to us, because we have no hidden agenda. All we want to do is bring the facts out.

We should not take decisions that has to do — that crucial to war around peace before we are able 100 percent to make sure that the information on the basis we are working are accurate and professional.

BLITZER: Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei is the director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Dr. ElBaradei, thanks very much for joining us. Good luck to you and your entire team.

ELBARADEI: Thank you very much, Wolf. Keep well. Source Link : Wolf Blitzer – Late Edition.

Read it your self to get the facts how Bush Dick Rice are doing what they did with Iraq. Dick still insists that Saddam had the WMD.

Posted in Ahmadinejad, Bush, CNN, George W. Bush, IAEA, Iran, Iran Nuclear Program, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Middle East War, Middle Eastern affairs, Middle Eastern Politics, Politics, US Politics, Wolf Blitzer | 5 Comments »

US Military Attack Action Against Iran.

Posted by QB on October 28, 2007

The drumbeat by Bush regime is getting louder and louder saying the same lies which we heard before the invasion on Iraq. CNN and the mainstream media is busy creating false fears of Iran nuclear program which is in very initial stages is no threat at all for US Europe or Israel. The mainstream media criminally ignoring the facts that Iran uranium enrichment program has produced low grade uranium which can’t be used in nuclear weapons. The mainstream media never reported that Israel has stockpile of nuclear weapons which can blow up the whole Middle East, if Iran has couple of nuclear bombs that does not make them threat for US Israel and European countries. The Iranians are intelligent enough not to use the nuclear weapons because they don’t wanted to get destroyed by Israel carpet nuclear bombing.

The US military did not have a clear victory in Afghanistan and Iraq fighting with Resistance Groups who has outdated weapons and homemade explosive devices and Iran Military is well equipped well organized with the capability to cause the damage beyond American imagination. Iran’s has rockets which can hit the US military bases in Afghanistan, Iran, Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain, UAE, which they will do without any hesitation if attacked. Iran’s government will strengthen Hamas, Hizbollah, Taliban and Iraqi Resistance Groups in response to US military attack.

The following is interesting article posted by Maureen Dowd, which could be a satire or maybe is the actual interview by Tim Russert of Dick.

Dick Talk to Tim Russet.

Tim Russert talked to Dick. Following is the link of that interview.

Interview of US Vice President Dick by Tim Russert.

Posted in Afghanistan, Ahmadinejad, Al Qaeda, Al Qaida, Asia, Dennis Kucinich, George W. Bush, Hamas, Hizbollah, Iran, Iran Nuclear Program, Iran Uranium Enrichment, Iraq, Israel, Lebanon, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Main Stream News Network, Middle East War, Middle Eastern affairs, Middle Eastern Politics, Osama Bin Laden, Politics, Taleban, Taliban, US Politics, War on Terror | 1 Comment »

The Mixed Reaction from Iran on Sanctions.

Posted by QB on October 27, 2007

The reported reaction on latest US sanctions from Iran is showing division with new Nuclear negotiator believe that these sanctions will not hurt Iran. Iran’s new chief nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili on Friday brushed aside the latest US sanctions saying they would have no effect on the country’s nuclear policies, the ISNA news agency reported.

“These sanctions are nothing new. Sanctions have been imposed on us for 28 years. The new sanctions, like all those before, will have no effect on Iran�s policies,” Mr Jalili said at Tehran airport on his return from talks in Rome with European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana.

“The sanctions will only isolate the US on the international stage,” he said.

The Iran reformist party is criticizing Ahmadinejad government for not dealing with the nuclear issue effectively leading to these sanctions. The reformists argue Iran should return to suspending enrichment, the policy under Mohammad Khatami, the former president, who attended the meeting. The Islamic Iran Participation Front warned of an escalating crisis with the international community, calling for a review of Tehran’s nuclear policy.

At a meeting of the party attended by 200 people, Mohsen Mirdamadi, the party’s secretary-general, said: “The government should refrain from its adventurous policies.”

This is very clear division but the Reformist party and Iran Pan Islamic party know that Amhadinejad is dealing Iran nuclear issue according to policies set by Khemeini because he has the final authority to make decision on Iran nuclear issue. The Reformists and Iran Pan Islamic party should also understand that abandoning their nuclear program will never satisfy US and its European allies, they will find new accusations against Iran pushing them to the corner until they give power to someone like Hamid Karzai Nouri Al Maliki Pervez Musharraf.

There is no statement from Ahmadinejad or Khemini on the latest sanctions but CNN reported that Iran military mocked US and Israel with parade with creating US flags and David cross. Also reported from Pentagon that US military has start developing 30 thousand pounds bunker buster bomb in preparation of Iran invasion, but the Chief of Staff also said that Iran crisis must be resolved with negotiations not military confrontation.

Posted in Afghanistan, Ahmadinejad, Bush, George W. Bush, Iran, Iran Nuclear Program, Iran Uranium Enrichment, Iraq, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Middle East War, Middle Eastern affairs, Middle Eastern Politics, Pakistan, Pervez Musharraf, Politics, US Politics | 7 Comments »

Bush must be send to mental hospital . Hugo Chavez.

Posted by QB on October 26, 2007

Hugo Chavez latest criticism said that it is US policies which are rising the price of Oil and Bush must be admitted into mental hospital. Hugo Chavez said Oil prices are rising because of US foreign policies with threatening oil producing countries, he predicted that Oil prices will rise to USD 100 barrel if US keep threatening oil producing countries. Hugo Chavez warned US not to invade Iran because the result will be worst than Iraq, he blamed Bush for leading world towards nuclear WWIII. He want Bush immediately admitted into mental hospital.

Hugo Chavez is the new breed of Head Of State who doesn’t care much about diplomacy. But what he said is true.

Posted in Bush, George W. Bush, Iran, Latin America, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Middle East, Middle East War, Middle Eastern affairs, Middle Eastern Politics, Politics, US Politics, Venezuela | 2 Comments »

Bush regime drop sanctions WMD on Iran. Iran response update.

Posted by QB on October 25, 2007

The Bush regime finally dropped “Sanctions” destructive WMD unilaterally on Iran, these sanctions are the hardest since 1979. The US sanctions are the most cruel punishment for the common people of that country, sanctions only hurt the poor people not the ruler class and elite class. The US sanctions has make the lives miserable for Cubans from last 50 years, the North Koreans are suffering from these sanctions, Iraqis suffer 14 years with US imposing sanctions, without producing any positive results except hatred towards US by the people whose lives become miserable.

The US State Department was lecturing Turkey not to take any unilateral action against Kurdish terrorists is now imposing unilateral sanctions on Iran. Hypocrisy. The purpose of this sanction is to isolate Iran and destroy their economy financially which will not work because China, Russia, Pakistan and India has huge interest doing business with Iran which is needed for their growing economies.

The US Presidential candidates for 2008 are saying what their voters wanted to hear. Mitt Romney want to take military action with some bombardment to prevent Iran getting nuclear weapons. Barak Obama believe that sanctions are necessary. John Edwards is criticizing Hilary Clinton vote on declaring Iranian Revolutionary Guards as terrorists organization blaming her giving way for Bush regime to start military offensive against Iran just like he did in Iraq.

These morons are completely ignoring the facts that Iran is not doing high grade uranium enrichment which can be used in nuclear weapons. They are also ignoring the facts that Iran is in very initial stage of its nuclear program and will will take atleast decade to build nuclear weapon, if they want one, which Iranian deny, also there is no evidence from the IAEA inspections that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. These corrupt politicians again are trying to scare common American voters to get into power.

“Why worsen the situation and bring it to a dead end by threatening sanctions or military action,” Putin said in a veiled reference to the U.S. push for harsher international sanctions against Tehran.“Running around like a madman with a razor blade, waving it around, is not the best way to resolve the situation,” the Russian leader said.

Putin is showing his support for Iran and he is advising Bush to adopt diplomacy. Right approach great leadership.

Bush regime closest allies Britain applauded the US sanctions, France and Germany back these sanctions. They are stupid, this is my prediction that this new sanction will backfire, Iran will take be more determined than ever to keep its nuclear program alive. Iran economy will not collapse because of China, Russia, Pakistan and India and also the Latin American countries Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Cuba.

“Other countries support and praise us regarding Iran’s cooperation with the agency,” Larijani said in comments carried by Iran’s ISNA news agency after his return from talks with European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana in Rome.“But America’s behaviour shows that it doesn’t make any difference whether Iran cooperates with the agency or not. Well, if that is the case, you should expect something else from Iran,” he said, adding that European states had urged Iran not to respond to the “bullying behaviour of (some) countries”.

Larijani was replaced as chief nuclear negotiator on Saturday but remains on the Supreme National Security Council, which helps make policy. He attended the Rome talks in that capacity with the new chief negotiator, Saeed Jalili.

“With this behaviour, the Americans are only isolating themselves,” Jalili said of the sanctions, according to the official IRNA news agency. New U.S. sanctions could push Tehran to rethink its cooperation with the United Nations atomic watchdog, Iran’s former chief nuclear negotiator said on Friday.

Ali Larijani was speaking a day after Washington branded Iran’s Revolutionary Guards a proliferator of weapons of mass destruction and imposed new sanctions on the country, which it accuses of trying to develop atomic weapons.

Iran denies the charge and has agreed to clear up long-standing suspicions about its nuclear goals with the U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency. But it has refused to halt sensitive atomic work as demanded by the U.N. Security Council.

This is what happened before the Iraq war, the lies, the UN dramatic presentation by creep Collin Powell, main stream media broadcasting Bush regime propaganda to scare Americans, main stream media is reporting lies that Ahmadinejad wants to destroy Israel by completely ignoring what he actually said. The Israel allegation was also used against Saddam Hussein that he is the main sponsor of terrorism by awarding suicide bombers money. We already watched this movie. Bring something new and intelligent.

Posted in Ahmadinejad, Bush, George W. Bush, Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Middle East, Middle East War, Middle Eastern affairs, Middle Eastern Politics, Politics, US Politics | 7 Comments »

Iran – Bush next target.

Posted by QB on October 19, 2007

The Bush crazy, insane, psychopathic, and brain damaged is focused on Iran nuclear weapon which does not exist at all and if Iranian decided to build Nuclear Bomb it will take ten years to build. US European allies wanted to impose tough sanctions on Iran outside UN Security Council, Ehud Olmert rushed to Russia to talk to Putin. The Bush corrupt regime used all sorts of fear tactics before the invasion of Iraq, they used sounds bites like “mushroom cloud”, “danger for Israel Security”, “helping suicide bomber in Palestine” for Saddam Hussein to achieve their goal of invading Iraq. Bush believe that Iran nuclear program will lead to WWIII which is the most stupid assumption, there were plenty of journalists in that press conference who did not tell him that Iran is no threat to world peace, it will be US European and Israel who will start the WWIII, if these governments take military action against Iran.

The best course to take on Iranian Nuclear Program to let the IAEA do their work. There is no proof of any wrong doing by IAEA on Iran Nuclear Program, its the paranoid leaders of US Germany France UK trying to make it a big issue.

There is no way US or its European allies with Israel can get away with military action on Iran Nuclear facilities without facing the fierce response from Iran, the stupid military action will lead to WWIII. The whole Middle East will be the battle ground with Iran attacking its military bases in Qatar, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait, Afghanistan, Iraq and Hizbollah Syria and Hamas will join the fight by attacking Israel. Death and destruction will be the result with no clear victory for any country. The US has to nuke the whole Iran for complete victory.

This is interesting that Bush regime was blaming Iran for supplying weapons to Talibans, Afghanistan puppet government deny these charges by saying that they don’t have the proof that Iran is supplying these weapons. The Foreign Minister also said that Iran is Afghanistan’s neighbor friend who has major role in reconstruction of his country.

Changed the first line with Ric suggested words for Bush (Grumpy Lion) who will be taking time off from blogging and concentrate on his writing. Ric when finish and publish his novel will be best seller, I am sure,

Posted in Ahmadinejad, George W. Bush, Iran, Iran Nuclear Program, Iraq, Israel, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Middle East, Middle East War, Middle Eastern affairs, Middle Eastern Politics, Politics, US Politics | 10 Comments »

Bush – Iran Nuclear Weapon lead to WWIII.

Posted by QB on October 18, 2007

Bush suppose to talk to the reporter on domestic issue on Wednesday instead he talked about Iran Nuclear Weapons. The moron said that Iran Nuclear Weapon could “leads to WWIII”,

“I’ve told people that if you’re interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing” the Iranians from gaining the means to make nuclear weapons, he said.

Who are these people? I believe are the American people, who have become paranoid by Bush regime fear mongering that they will immediately believe what he is saying because they are brain washed by government and mainstream media propaganda. The recent poll taken recently show that majority of Americans want military action against Iran without realizing the consequences of such attack. Bush statement is complete lie again, it is the US government and its European allies, who will be lead to WWIII. Putin is right advising direct talks to solve the issues with Iran. Bush again is hiding the truth by not telling the people that Iran is ten years away from developing nuclear bomb, if they are wanted to develop nuclear weapon, Iran insists that their nuclear program is for peaceful energy purposes. IAEA blasted US Intelligence report. Bush repeated the biggest propaganda lie that Ahmadinejad wanted to destroy Israel. The fact is that media has overplayed this “Wipe off the map” propaganda ignoring Ahmadinejad actual sentence which was “The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time”, the Imam in this sentence was Khomeini. CNN Fox News and the European print media spread rumors instead of actual news with biased to achieve the goals of Zionist. The majority of Americans and European believe that Ahmadinejad wanted to “Wipe Israel off the map” is excellent example of twisting the facts. Ahmadinejad called for regime change in Israel not the destruction of people and country. Putin support Iran peaceful nuclear program.

The US and its European allies stupid polices will lead to WWIII. This is what Fidel Castro said couple of days back, Fidel Castro is right that Bush policies the world to disaster. It is great to know that Fidel Castro think like me which is an honor from oldest revolutionary leader alive.

Posted in Ahmadinejad, Bush, Fidel Castro, George W. Bush, Iran, Iran Nuclear Program, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Middle East, Middle East War, Middle Eastern affairs, Middle Eastern Politics, Politics, US Politics | 7 Comments »

Putin – Iran assassination plot a bid to ‘wreck’ visit.

Posted by QB on October 18, 2007

Vladimir Putin on his assassination plot in Iran were to “wreck” his landmark visit to Iran. The chances are that CIA and Mossad release this news to stop Putin trip to Iran, or maybe it was Bush and Ehud Olmert the main minds behind this “suicide killing” news. Putin is intelligent enough not to cancel his visit to Iran.

“It was nothing other than an attempt to wreck the visit,” Putin said Thursday during a televised question-and-answer session, referring to a report ahead of his visit to Tehran on Tuesday that suicide bombers were planning to assassinate him there.“It’s harmful for international relations because direct dialogue with states where there are problems are always more productive and a quicker path to success than the path of threats, sanctions or even force,” Putin said.Putin’s comment echoed the reaction of Iran’s foreign ministry, which dismissed the report of the plot as an attempt by “enemies” to break up relations between Russia and Iran.“The reports in some media are completely without foundation and part of a psychological war waged by enemies to disrupt relations between Iran and Russia,” foreign ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini told AFP.

Bush must learn diplomacy from Putin. The majority of Democrats and Republicans also need to learn the foreign relations and diplomacy, all they have to do is borrow some common sense as none of them have his ability. The Presidential candidates have no common sense, common sense is missing in the Congress, Bush cabinet doesn’t have any common sense. All they how to talk tough threatening the whole world. USA has become the menace of the world. This is because the majority of Americans elect the corrupt charismatic lairs for the highest level of their government.

Putin bluntly commented that US wanted to seized the Iraqi Oil.

President Vladimir Putin, in his latest jab at Washington, suggested Thursday that the U.S. military campaign in Iraq was a “pointless” battle against the Iraqi people, aimed in part at seizing the country’s oil reserves.

Posted in Ahmadinejad, Bush, George W. Bush, Iran, Iran Nuclear Program, Israel, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Middle East, Middle East War, Middle Eastern affairs, Middle Eastern Politics, Politics, Russia, US Politics, Vladimir Putin | 6 Comments »