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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: mishedlo who wrote (60783)	12/19/2006 12:05:34 AM
From: regli	Respond to of 116555

Former NSC official says administration censored him latimes.com By Paul Richter, Times Staff Writer 5:30 PM PST, December 18, 2006 WASHINGTON -- A former National Security Council official charged Monday that the White House, seeking to silence his criticism of its Middle East policies, had sought to heavily censor a commentary he wrote. Flynt Leverett, former senior director for Middle East affairs at the Council and a former CIA analyst, said the White House ordered a CIA censor board to excise parts of the 1,000-word op-ed on U.S. policy toward Iran that he had offered to the New York Times. Leverett, who has criticized the administration for failing to deal directly with Tehran, said the CIA board wanted to remove references to prior American contacts with Iran. Leverett contended that the events he wrote about were not secret. He said the agency's action "was fabricated to silence an established critic of the administration's foreign policy incompetence at a moment when the White House is working hard to fend off political pressure to take a different approach." Leverett said that in discussing the case with a CIA official, he was told that "The White House has equities (in the issue)," meaning that potentially classified material was of concern to the White House. During an appearance before reporters and others Monday, he speculated that senior NSC officials, such as deputy national security advisers Elliott Abrams or Meghan L. O'Sullivan, had authorized their subordinates to intervene. But U.S. officials said the move was taken by lower-level staff members at the CIA and NSC, without involvement by higher-ups. "There was nothing political here," a White House official said, addressing Leverett's charges. Tom Crispell, a CIA spokesman, said the agency's review of Leverett's commentary remained an open case. He said that often in such cases, the writer and the agency can come to an agreement on language in a way that will convey what the writer wants to convey without compromising sensitive material. Sometimes this can be accomplished by quoting the public comments of public officials, for example, he said. "More often than not the issues are worked out," he said. Leverett said there were two key paragraphs that the CIA staff wanted to excise. The first concerned U.S. cooperation with Iran concerning Afghanistan around the time of the Sept. 11 attacks. The second dealt with an offer by the Iranians to the United States in early 2003 to discuss the possibility of a "grand bargain" that would settle several key disputes between the two countries. He said both episodes have been discussed publicly, including by senior officials including former Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and his former deputy, Richard Armitage. "There is no basis for claiming that these issues are classified and not already in the public domain," he said. Leverett, who worked at the NSC during President Bush's first term and is now with the New America Foundation, a liberal-leaning think tank, said he has written a variety of publications on Iran and often had spoken publicly on the Middle East since leaving government. But until last week, the CIA publications review board "had never sought to remove or change a single word in any of my drafts." He said his op-ed was distilled from a much longer article that has not been challenged by the agency. Leverett maintains that the United States lost a promising opportunity to resolve its issues with Iran in 2003, when Tehran made the overture. He said that any deal Washington, D.C., makes now will be on far less favorable terms, since Iran has gained strength in the region, and the United States is tied down in Iraq.