Travelling France

Question:

Today we have a breathless report by Dave Lindorff of "The Nation" which is complete with a former Air Force Colonel who taught at the National War College declaring that a planned naval deployment is "very important evidence" of war planning. Then, of course, there’s the clincher. "This is very serious," said Ray McGovern, a former CIA threat-assessment analyst who got early word of the Navy officers’ complaints about the sudden deployment orders. Show me a sailor who wouldn’t bitch about depolying and I’ll show you an uncommon sailor. But more importantly, don’t forget it’s Ray McGovern saying this. With that as a background, let’s take a look at Lindorff’s opening 3 paragraphs where all the claims are made: As reports circulate of a sharp debate within the White House over possible US military action against Iran and its nuclear enrichment facilities, The Nation has learned that the Bush Administration and the Pentagon have moved up the deployment of a major "strike group" of ships, including the nuclear aircraft carrier Eisenhower as well as a cruiser, destroyer, frigate, submarine escort and supply ship, to head for the Persian Gulf, just off Iran’s western coast. This information follows a report in the current issue of Time magazine, both online and in print, that a group of ships capable of mining harbors has received orders to be ready to sail for the Persian Gulf by October 1. As Time writes in its cover story, "What Would War Look Like?," evidence of the forward deployment of minesweepers and word that the chief of naval operations had asked for a reworking of old plans for mining Iranian harbors "suggest that a much discussed-but until now largely theoretical-prospect has become real: that the U.S. may be preparing for war with Iran." According to Lieut. Mike Kafka, a spokesman at the headquarters of the Second Fleet, based in Norfolk, Virginia, the Eisenhower Strike Group, bristling with Tomahawk cruise missiles, has received orders to depart the United States in a little over a week. Other official sources in the public affairs office of the Navy Department at the Pentagon confirm that this powerful armada is scheduled to arrive off the coast of Iran on or around October 21. War, huh? Could it be anything else? http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Pentagon_moves_to_secondstage_plann… related stories http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Intelligence_officials_doubt_Iran_u… http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Backchannels_used_to_bypass_U.S._govern… Several U.S. and foreign intelligence sources, along with investigators, say an Iranian exile with ties to Iran-Contra peddled a bizarre tale of stolen uranium to governments on both sides of the Atlantic in the spring and summer of 2003. The story that was peddled — which detailed how an Iranian intelligence team infiltrated Iraq prior to the start of the war in March of 2003, and stole enriched uranium to use in their own nuclear weapons program — was part of an attempt to implicate both countries in a WMD plot. It later emerged that the Iranian exile was trying to collect money for his tales, sources say. Advertisement By all credible accounts, the source of this dubious tale was Manucher Ghorbanifar, an Iranian arms dealer who used middle-men and cut-outs to create the appearance of several sources. Ghorbanifar played a key role in the Iran-Contra scandal that threatened to take down the Reagan administration, in which the U.S. sold arms to Iran and diverted the proceeds to Nicaraguan militants. While the various threads of the larger story of Ghorbanifar and his intelligence peddling began in December of 2001, meetings in Paris in 2003 are far more important in illustrating — as a microcosm — the larger difficulties faced in untangling the facts relating to global intelligence trafficking. Tall Tale of Uranium During the spring and summer of 2003, Congressman Curt Weldon (R-PA) made several visits to Paris to meet with a source believed to have important military intelligence information. Unbeknownst to Weldon, the informant, who he would dub simply "Ali," was already peddling a tale of stolen uranium traveling between Iraq and Iran that had been deemed false by most intelligence agencies. As reported by American Prospect and confirmed by intelligence sources, Ali is a pseudonym used to identify a former minister in the Shah’s Iran, Fereidoun Mahdavi. Mahdavi himself is a secretary to Ghorbanifar, the originating source of the uranium fable. The American Prospect’s reporters wrote, "’Ali’ is actually a cipher for Manucher Ghorbanifar, the notorious Iranian arms dealer and accused intelligence fabricator — and the potential instrument of another potentially dangerous manipulation of American policy in the Persian Gulf region." The Washington Post discusses Ali as follows: "’These secrets,’ he says, come from ‘an impeccable clandestine source,’ whom Weldon code-names ‘Ali,’ an Iranian exile living in Paris who is a close associate of Manucher Gorbanifar. Gorbanifar is a well-known Iranian exile whom the CIA branded as a fabricator during the 1980s but who was used by the Reagan White House as a middleman for the arms-for-hostages deal with Iran." According to several intelligence sources on both sides of the Atlantic, the tale that "Ali" tells Weldon and others was as intricate as it was false. "Ali provided information that indicated Iranian intelligence had sent a team to Baghdad to extract highly enriched uranium (weapons grade) from a stockpile hidden by Saddam Hussein," one intelligence source said. Ali asserted that an Iranian intelligence team had infiltrated Iraq prior to the start of the war and stole enriched uranium to use in their own nuclear weapons program, sources say. Ghorbanifar said "the team successfully extracted the stockpile but on the way back to Iran contracted radiation poisoning," one source remarked. Upon learning this information Weldon says that he immediately notified then-CIA director George Tenet. "Tenet appeared interested, even enthusiastic about evaluating Ali and establishing a working relationship with him," Weldon wrote in his book, Countdown to Terror. "He agreed to send his top spy, Stephen Kappes, the deputy director of operations, along with me to Paris for another debriefing of Ali. "On the day of our scheduled second meeting with Ali in Paris, Kappes bowed out, claiming that "other commitments" compelled him to cancel," Weldon continued. "Later, the CIA claimed to have met with Ali independently. But I discovered this to be untrue… Incredibly, I learned that the CIA had apparently asked French intelligence to silence Ali." But according to the Prospect and several sources in intelligence abroad, the CIA did investigate, as did the Department of Defense. According to the Post, the agency tasked then-Paris station chief Bill Murray with investigating the claim, who ultimately found Ali to be a "fabricator." The CIA, understanding Ali to be Ghorbanifar, did not think him a credible source. Intelligence sources and a source close to the UN Security Council tell RAW STORY Murray took Ali (either Ghorbanifar or his agent) to Iraq in order to retrace the footsteps of the alleged mission in which the uranium was stolen from Saddam’s own stockpile and taken back to Iran. In the end, sources say, the entire event proved a wild goose chase because Ali’s earlier clarity all but evaporated. "Soon it became apparent that Ali and his sources were fabricators and were trying to extract large sums of money," one intelligence source said. Murray says he did meet with the source, but was not part of a trip to Iraq. "I did not make any such trip," Murray said. "I met with the source, found that he was not credible, forwarded the information he gave us to Washington, where it was thoroughly analyzed by many people and found not to add anything new to what we knew about Iran. The sensational charges that the source made could not be substantiated." Weldon’s office declined to comment for the record after several extended conversations. RAW STORY delayed the article for a day to give Weldon’s office a chance to comment. The neoconservative movement has long expressed an inherent distrust of the CIA. Many neoconservatives note that the agency undercounted Russia’s nuclear stockpile in the waning days of the Soviet Union, and believe that it routinely underestimates foreign threats. Weldon, who had been led to believe the CIA never opened an investigation into the information he provided, took his case directly to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. Rumsfeld then pressured the CIA to investigate further. "CIA reluctantly, after pressure from Rumsfeld, followed up by detaching one of their weapons experts from the team that was hunting WMD in Iraq," one former CIA officer who asked to remain anonymous said. Sources say that this second investigation resulted in another wild goose chase. The question of motive, however, seems to either have been entirely missed or simply glossed over. Weldon seen caught in web By all accounts, Weldon seems to be more of an innocent bystander taken in by an internationally known con-man and the lure of spook-like activities than an inside player with an agenda or material participant in these events. The Ali composite seems to have used Weldon as a conduit by which to provide the CIA with information. There was good reason to be cautious of Manucher Ghorbanifahr, who, along with his secretary, made up the "cipher" of Ali. The CIA had already had issued two burn notices against Ghorbanifahr as early as 1984 and his role in Iran-Contra as a middleman between the hardline neoconservative and another Iran-Contra figure, Michael Ledeen. In his book, Weldon said he met Ghorbanifahr after being approached by a Democratic congressman. "On March 7, 2003, a former Democratic member of Congress and my good friend Ron … read more »

Response:

  My prediction….take it for what it’s worth…. ‘Round about October, either we will provoke Iran into attacking us (one of our ships on station perhaps?), thus "justifying" a response, or we will "create" a suitable incident, blame Iran, and attack. GWB has made up his mind that Iran must be dealt with, regardless of what they’re *really* doing.  And, we now know that we can’t believe a word he says about them, either. He’s already proven that far too many times! But, I agree that something is up.  There’s too much activity to NOT have something in the works… I feel for our fighting men and women who will once again be thrown into a war….. And folks, this one could be *very* nasty. Think of it this way….ol’ GWB’s got him a big ol’ stick, and he’s a fixin’ to stick it into a hornet’s nest and give it a good ol’ Texas scrubbin’. Mike

Response:

The Librarian posted: (snip).. Don’t you EVER post your source references ?

Response:

courageously avow: >  My prediction….take it for what it’s worth…. >’Round about October, either we will provoke Iran into >attacking us (one of our ships on station perhaps?), thus >"justifying" a response, or we will "create" a suitable >incident, blame Iran, and attack. >GWB has made up his mind that Iran must be dealt with, >regardless of what they’re *really* doing.  And, we now know >that we can’t believe a word he says about them, either. >He’s already proven that far too many times!

He may want to wait until he’s got the pincers on both sides of Iran stabilized so he can focus his resources.  He also has to be sure he has some Western backing because, like Hitler did in Europe, he could be extending his reach more than the rest of the constituents and there supporters will continue to tolerate.  We all know how that turned out for Germany. >But, I agree that something is up.  There’s too much >activity to NOT have something in the works… >I feel for our fighting men and women who will once again be >thrown into a war….. >And folks, this one could be *very* nasty. >Think of it this way….ol’ GWB’s got him a big ol’ stick, >and he’s a fixin’ to stick it into a hornet’s nest and give >it a good ol’ Texas scrubbin’. >Mike

– Ken Wilson

Response:

"Today we have a breathless report by Dave Lindorff of "The Nation" " Billy Bob – that means Today as on the day I posted and it means in "The Nation" a publication easily found by Google. First line of my post lists author and publication. Do you want me to spoon feed it to you too?

Response:

> He may want to wait until he’s got the pincers on both sides of Iran > stabilized so he can focus his resources.  He also has to be sure he > has some Western backing because, like Hitler did in Europe, he could > be extending his reach more than the rest of the constituents and > there supporters will continue to tolerate.  We all know how that > turned out for Germany.

Maybe you could go into more detail on how Hitler’s "constituents" stopped tolerating his military adventures and thus brought about his downfall, as historians seem to have missed that interpretation of WWII. On second thought, no, don’t do that.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> He may want to wait until he’s got the pincers on both sides of Iran > stabilized so he can focus his resources.  He also has to be sure he > has some Western backing because, like Hitler did in Europe, he could > be extending his reach more than the rest of the constituents and > there supporters will continue to tolerate.  We all know how that > turned out for Germany. >Maybe you could go into more detail on how Hitler’s "constituents" stopped >tolerating his military adventures and thus brought about his downfall, as >historians seem to have missed that interpretation of WWII. >On second thought, no, don’t do that.

Don’t get him started.  He’ll start telling you about how Adolf Hitler the artist was misunderstood, and not as bad as GWB.

Response:

adolph hitler was a bad artist no matter what else you think of him

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >  My prediction….take it for what it’s worth…. > ‘Round about October, either we will provoke Iran into attacking us (one > of our ships on station perhaps?), thus "justifying" a response, or we > will "create" a suitable incident, blame Iran, and attack. > GWB has made up his mind that Iran must be dealt with, regardless of > what they’re *really* doing.  And, we now know that we can’t believe a > word he says about them, either. He’s already proven that far too many > times! > But, I agree that something is up.  There’s too much activity to NOT > have something in the works… > I feel for our fighting men and women who will once again be thrown into > a war….. > And folks, this one could be *very* nasty. > Think of it this way….ol’ GWB’s got him a big ol’ stick, and he’s a > fixin’ to stick it into a hornet’s nest and give it a good ol’ Texas > scrubbin’. > Mike

Fantasize on, pal. He’s politically dead meat in a stinky stick. D.C. won’t back him and the populace is a red cunt hair from a 1968 re-do. This time, there’s no domestic National Guard left to send in. Keep your lazier eye on the economic bad news en route. That’s the REAL story. That fuckwad’s gaming of the pentagon for the media is just a diversion. What people REALLY care about is their wallet. The End.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> He may want to wait until he’s got the pincers on both sides of Iran > stabilized so he can focus his resources.  He also has to be sure he > has some Western backing because, like Hitler did in Europe, he could > be extending his reach more than the rest of the constituents and > there supporters will continue to tolerate.  We all know how that > turned out for Germany. > Maybe you could go into more detail on how Hitler’s "constituents" stopped > tolerating his military adventures and thus brought about his downfall, as > historians seem to have missed that interpretation of WWII. > On second thought, no, don’t do that.

35% is not a majority. but combine that with some hysteria and some SS the you can produce a 90% majority. In a lot of ways this story reminds me of the way Bush enflamed Congress to give him over 90% vote to attack Iraq. Also the way he is oving to consolidate power into the executive branch. anyway for your edification meet the German Resistance http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Academy/1148/july2.html try to ignore the music and below a short version of how Hitler came to power using fear and then terror. Hitler foiled all attempts to gain a majority in parliament and on that basis convinced President Hindenburg to dissolve the Reichstag again. Elections were scheduled for early March, but on February 27, 1933, the Reichstag building was set on fire. Since a Dutch independent communist was found in the building, the fire was blamed on a Communist plot to which the government reacted with the Reichstag Fire Decree of February 28, which suspended basic rights, including habeas corpus. Under the provisions of this decree, the Communist Party and other groups were suppressed, and Communist functionaries and deputies were arrested, put to flight, or murdered. A key element of Hitler’s appeal was his ability to convey a sense of offended national pride caused by the Treaty of Versailles imposed on the defeated German Empire by the Western Allies. Germany had lost economically important territory in Europe along with its colonies and in admitting to sole responsibility for the war had agreed to pay a huge reparations bill totaling 32 billion mark. Most Germans bitterly resented these terms but early Nazi attempts to gain support by blaming these humiliations on "international Jewry" were not particularly successful with the electorate. The party learned quickly and soon a more subtle propaganda emerged, combining anti-Semitism with an attack on the failures of the "Weimar system" and the parties supporting it. Having failed in overthrowing the Republic by a coup, Hitler now pursued the "strategy of legality": this meant formally adhering to the rules of the Weimar Republic until he had legally gained power and then transforming liberal democracy into a Nazi dictatorship. Some party members, especially in the paramilitary SA, opposed this strategy and Ernst R