Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (55779)	7/23/2004 1:22:50 AM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 793840

David Warren - Iran A significant barrier was crossed when President George W. Bush spoke aloud, Monday, about the possibility of an Iranian role in the 9/11 attacks on the United States. By doing so, he was responding -- in a language that the ayatollahs would understand -- to escalating threats and provocative behaviour from Iran. No matter who is President after November, it appears the U.S. and Iran are now on course for another history-making collision. The movement of known Afghan-Arab Jihadis through Iranian territory from Afghanistan, both before and after the U.S. invasion, is now so well established in fact that even the CIA has acknowledged it. But as ever, it is nearly impossible for the CIA or any other Western intelligence service -- who do not have their own agents in the field, and thus rely entirely on second-hand information -- to confirm much beyond that. I fear Mr. Bush is about to repeat a mistake he made in his approach to war in Iraq. This is to develop a case for war, based on narrow, legalistic arguments. As we discovered before, during, and after the invasion of Iraq, this concedes most of the debate to nitpickers in the media and the political opposition: an especially hard course when we remember that agencies like the CIA have proved entirely incompetent in establishing the facts upon which legalistic arguments can be based. Iran itself has been doing a better job of establishing a casus belli. With the sort of arrogance made visible even to Canadians in the recent "trial" of suspects in the murder of Zahra Kazemi, the regime's officials from Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei down have been making bellicose declarations against America, Israel, and the West generally. "Today we have in our possession long-range smart missiles which can reach many of the interests and vital resources of the Americans and of the Zionist regime in our region," writes Yadollah Javani, political head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards in the daily Kayhan, which has become the Iranian "Pravda". General Javani was echoing remarks made by Ayatollah Khamenei in Hamadan a week earlier, in more Koranic language. "The entire Islamic Middle East is now a volatile and tangled trap, and will be set off by the smallest bit of silliness," Javani declares. "Indeed, the White House's 80 years of exclusive rule are likely to become 80 seconds of Hell." Translations on the excellent MEMRI website (see Internet) flesh out such threats. Recent announcements include: the recruitment and training of thousands of Iranian volunteers for suicide attacks against U.S. and other targets in Iraq; the resumption of work on Iran's long-range Shihab 4 and 5 missiles, capable of reaching targets in Europe and the U.S.; and references to a "master plan" to eliminate "Anglo-Saxon civilization" with missiles and martyrdom, mentioning "29 sensitive targets". These threats are not uttered from a cave in the Hindu Kush. They are official Iranian state announcements. The ability of the Western media to ignore them is astounding. They come at a time when the ayatollahs are taking a much more aggressive and meddlesome role in the political and economic development of Central Asia, in direct challenge to U.S. and sometimes even Russian interests; when they are flexing their muscles through fleet manoeuvres in the Persian Gulf; and -- the crucial issue -- when they are racing to become the second Islamic power after Pakistan to flourish nuclear weapons. The United Nations ' IAEA has effectively conceded its inspectors can no longer keep up with reports of nuclear developments in the country. In the face of these realities, we continue to hear absurd suggestions from European governments and the U.S. State Department that the West must "engage in dialogue" with the Iranian regime. But there is no way to "nuance" with an enemy who is openly committed to destroying us, and who fields factual queries with undisguised contempt. Moreover, the growing arrogance of the ayatollahs portends a nuclear power that will try to wield influence with the subtlety of a North Korea. Canada's own "angry gerbil" response to the insulting handling of the Kazemi trial is, obviously, not going to influence Iranian behaviour. What might, is a show of force sufficient to plausibly counter-threaten the existence of the ayatollahs' regime. This could count on the multiplier effect, of inspiring renewed efforts by the Iranian people to complicate the regime's life: for its popularity at home after a quarter-century of Islamic Revolution is extremely low. Once again, the U.S. is the only power in a material position to act, in defence of the West. The confrontation being inevitable, the sooner it happens the better. David Warren

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (55779)	7/23/2004 1:25:11 AM
From: KLP	Respond to of 793840

In Unusually Public Campaign, CIA Plans to Study Report, but Also Sees Flaws By Katherine Pfleger Shrader Associated Press Writer Published: Jul 22, 2004 ap.tbo.com WASHINGTON (AP) - In an attempt to rebut a rash of criticism in recent weeks from commissions detailing intelligence failures, the CIA fired off a strong rebuttal of the Sept. 11 commission's finding that the intelligence community assembled an insufficient counterattack to the al-Qaida threat. It is rare for the CIA to bring roughly 40 reporters into its headquarters to talk about current events. But responding to the Sept. 11 commission report's varied criticisms, a senior CIA official briefed that many reporters, acknowledging the agency was unable to determine the time, place and method of attack on Sept. 11, 2001, or to capture mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed before he planned and managed the attack. But, the official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity, that agency had regularly reported on threats to civil aviation, despite implications otherwise in the report, and had told Presidents Clinton and Bush that Osama bin Laden was a danger. The official also rebuffed suggestions that the CIA did not share information with the FBI or State Department about two of the hijackers who ultimately crashed into the Pentagon. Also this month, acting CIA Director John McLaughlin spoke out publicly about the Senate Intelligence Committee's highly critical report on the intelligence that led to the invasion of Iraq. Then, he acknowledged mistakes, but said the intelligence community is making changes to prevent similar situations. Some of the Sept. 11 commission's reforms would mean sweeping changes for the intelligence community. The report calls for creating a new Cabinet-level head of the 15-agency intelligence community, rather than leaving the CIA director as the top custodian. It also says the CIA director should improve analytic capabilities, develop a better language program and improve human intelligence gathering. And, it says that clandestine and covert paramilitary operations should be directed and executed by the Defense Department, because the U.S. can't afford to build two separate capabilities for carrying out secret military operations. AP-ES-07-22-04 1941EDT 888888888888888888888