Frontline starting now (9pm CDT) on PBS. About the march to war with Iran -- must see!

[scarletwoman]

Heads up!

sw

[scarletwoman]

1. self kick -- because I hope someone else will watch besides me... (nt)

[babylonsister]

2. Thanks for posting! Looks good. nt

[lala_rawraw]

3. thanks for posting...

i was going to watch it... but at this point, i think i am fairly well versed on the topic and just gonna go sleep:)

[gulfcoastliberal]

4. Thanks! Just tuned in. nt

[babylonsister]

5. Great. We totally screwed up their goodwill. Unreal. nt

[scarletwoman]

6. Anybody want to help kick this up so more people will tune in?

It's off to a great start -- laying it all out about how Iran condemned the 9/11 attacks, and helped the U.S. against the Taliban.

sw

[gulfcoastliberal]

K&R -- very important Frontline!

Wow, this is great.

[babylonsister]

7. 9/11 theorists there, too? Who knew? nt

[illinoisprogressive]

8. did the first part get blanked out where you are?

[scarletwoman]

9. Nope. Totally clear signal here. (nt)

[scarletwoman]

10. Tune in now! (nt)

[Breeze54]

11. I'll watch it later on, I'm listening to Reese Erlich interview LIVE instead.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2121022

Reese Erlich, on his new book Iran Agenda: The Real Story of US Policy and the Middle East Crisis.
With the war drums beating against Iran in the last several days, this is an interview you cannot afford to miss!

[bobbolink]

12. K&R Thanks for the notification!

Hope you will post a summary for those who can't tune in.

:hi:

[scarletwoman]

44. My apologies for not responding to your post last night.

I did attempt to offer a bit of a summary downthread -- although not a very good one, I readily admit.

I'm hoping you went to the Frontline link (that was posted downthread) to either view the show online, or read the transcript.

As I stated in one of my other posts on this thread last night, there were no startling revelations in the Frontline program for those of us who have been paying attention all along. What I hope is that this program might have stimulated at least a bit of deeper understanding about Iran among those who HAVEN'T been paying attention.

sw

[scarletwoman]

13. Now covering the letter sent through the Swiss embassy... What a wasted opportunity! (nt)

[babylonsister]

14. Armitage is interesting in this. So many failed opportunities. nt

[scarletwoman]

15. Fascinating. Doing a good job of covering all the many layers, very well done so far. (nt)

[scarletwoman]

16. "Not one suicide bomber in Iraq has been an Iranian..." (nt)

[babylonsister]

17. MEK is our source? Very interesting, and questionable. nt

[scarletwoman]

18. "Questionable" -- a bit of an understatement, dontcha think? But what really killed me was listening

to that evil fuckhead Richard Armitage pontificating about Iran's "drive for hegemony". I mean, good gawd -- can the projection be any more transparent?

Where is Iran's equivalent of the PNAC? Where is Iran's equivalent of our "National Security Strategy" that claims the right to "pre-emptive" war, including the use of nukes on non-nuclear armed countries?

To paraphrase Walter from the Big Lebowski; "Who's the fucking hegemon here?"

It's just so damn absurd... :banghead:

sw

[Blue_In_AK]

36. Oh, yeah, I caught that, too.

I yelled at my TV "PROJECT MUCH, ARMITAGE???"

[Strelnikov_]

23. MEK, Marxist Islamists. Hell, sound like perfect allies to me!!

God, are we screwed.

[babylonsister]

27. Yes. There's no other answer. We'll see. nt

[H2O Man]

19. I wish I got PBS.

I'm hoping to read your impressions of the show here. Thanks!

[Grandrose]

24. What about PBS online?

Not sure, just a suggestion!

[Grandrose]

25. Yes it's there!

PBS Frontline, and thanks for making me check it out!:)

[scarletwoman]

28. I regret that I'm probably going to disappoint you in that regard. I'm too tired to do more than

offer a few generalities.

First off, I do hope you'll go to the PBS website and are able to watch it online for yourself.

The program covered alot of ground and was more informative in one hour than our Beltway-centric corporate media has been in 6 years.

Much as I've come to detest the phrase, the presentation was actually relatively "fair and balanced". Because I've been paying close attention for all these years, there really wasn't anything in the broadcast that I didn't already know -- but for the far greater number of people who HAVEN'T been paying attention, I'm pretty sure that it held some surprises.

There was very little about Ahmedinejad, other than pointing out that OUR government's hard line on Iran has enabled Iran's hardliners to consolidate more domestic political power within their own government.

One of the main spokes-assholes for "our" side on the program was Richard fucking Armitage, who -- with a straight face -- proclaimed that it is "well-known" that Iran has longstanding hegemonic ambitions. I know that irony died a horrible death some years ago, but I still find it shocking that its mouldering corpse is still so regularily abused.

The Iranian spokespersons were intelligent and articulate and utterly rational -- and most of them were dressed in suits sitting in modern office settings.

Part of the program was really a tale of missed chances for opening up a rational relationship between Iran and the U.S. The whole "Axis of Evil" bullshit was really a very negative move -- but you and I and all the other sane people around here already knew that.

Like I say, not much new for those who've been paying attention, but it was very well put-together and definitely covered ground that the non-attention-payers would never know about otherwise. I just really hope that there was a decent-sized viewing audience.

sw

(edited for speeling)

[Solomon]

20. I posted this a couple of days ago. I was more right than I knew.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2110474&mesg_id=2110474

[Grandrose]

21. Excellent report!

What was exceptional, they covered both sides of the conflict and in my mind, both sides appear resolved...for war!
The Bush/Cheney cabal totally botched everything in the Middle East.
Be afraid, very afraid! Everyone needs to watch this program!:(

[Strelnikov_]

22. "The relations between Iran and American won't get better any time soon.

"The relations between Iran and American won't get better any time soon. Leaders in both countries don't see themselves as just politicians. They also see themselves as carrying out the word of God. They've left the ground a bit. And that's very dangerous for the world."

- Mohammad Ali Abtahi, Former Iranian Vice-President


Gee, that was an uplifting close.

[scarletwoman]

26. Yeah, that was pretty heavy. I love that phrase, "left the ground a bit".

It was a very good program, all in all. They covered some things that you NEVER hear about in the regular corporate media. I was very glad that they started out with the facts about how Iran condemned the 9/11 attacks and helped us against the Taliban. I'm betting that most Americans are completely unaware of those things.

sw

[Strelnikov_]

29. Provided more data that jives with my working theory on why Iran

is acting so confident.

My theory is that the dance being played is that we bomb Iran, their leadership digs in, emerges afterward and claims a place of leadership in the Islamic world as having stood up to 'The Great Satan'.

That is why this is so dangerous. If one side or the other goes off script, like the US targeting and threatening the continuity of the regime, there could be an uncontrollable escalation.

As they say, no nation ever started a war thinking they would lose.

[slipslidingaway]

30. Online viewing link...

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/showdown/view/

Hopefully a full trancript will be available.

I missed the beginning, but it did cover some items not normally discussed in the MSM.

I do wish they had covered the IAEA inspections and recent comments by El Baradei.


snip<<

"In this report, FRONTLINE examines how U.S. efforts to install democracy in Iraq have served to strengthen Iran's position as an emerging power in the Middle East.

"You will not find a single instance in which a country has inflicted harm on us and we have left it without a response. So if the United States makes such a mistake, they should know that we will definitely respond. And we don't make idle threats," Mohammad Jafari tells FRONTLINE in his first-ever television interview.

There are increasing signs that the Bush administration is considering military action before it leaves office if Tehran continues to defy U.N. demands that it cease enriching uranium for its nuclear program -- a program the Iranians insist is for peaceful purposes. "The president has said repeatedly that it is unacceptable for Iran to have nuclear weapons," former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton tells FRONTLINE. "If action is not taken in terms of regime change or, if need be, the use of military force, the question of when Iran achieves nuclear weapons is entirely in Iran's own hands. And that is extraordinarily undesirable."

[slipslidingaway]

31. I meant to post the video link to the OP, sorry. And great line

"they've left the ground a bit."

[scarletwoman]

32. No prob -- thanks so much for posting the link! (nt)

[slipslidingaway]

33. A 'Grand Bargain' with Iran

Gareth Porter
November 17, 2006

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/11/17/a_grand_bargain_with_iran.php

snip>>

Few political leaders are aware of the substance of the 2003 Iranian proposal, because major news media have never fully reported it. But that proposal, which is now a matter of public record, responded to U.S. interests on all four issues on which the Bush administration had made public demands on it. The proposal offered to use Iranian influence in Iraq to support “political stabilization and the establishment of democratic institutions and a non-religious government,” disavowing the aim of imposing a Shiite theocracy on Iraq. And it offers “full transparency” to provide assurances that it is not developing weapons of mass destruction.

Most important politically for the United States, however, Iranian leaders offered to stop “material support to Palestinian opposition groups…from Iranian territory” as well as “pressure on these organizations to stop violent actions against civilians within borders of 1967.” And it offered to accept the Arab League “Beirut declaration”—a Saudi-sponsored initiative in March 2002 which proposed a comprehensive peace, including the establishment of normal relations, with Israel based on Israel’s withdrawal to pre-1967 war lines.

What Iran wanted in return for these concessions was an end to U.S. “hostile behavior,” including the “axis of evil” tag and its designation as a “terrorist” state, as well as end to commercial sanctions, “decisive action” against anti-Iranian MEK terrorists, especially on U.S. territory, and access to peaceful nuclear and other technologies. Finally Iran wanted recognition of its “legitimate security interest in the region”—a phrase that has been interpreted as referring to security guarantees against U.S. attack and recognition as a party to future security arrangements in the region.

These points leave many questions unanswered, particularly in regard to how the Iranians would propose to provide assurances that it is not going to obtain nuclear weapons. Nevertheless, the proposal suggests a much greater willingness on Iran’s part to take its place in a stable regional order than the U.S. national security elite has believed in the past. A pragmatic search for alternatives to a failed policy would surely require a full exploration of the Iranian offer..."


http://www.tompaine.com/docs/porter_iran_letter.htm

or

http://ipsnews.net/iranletterfacsimile.pdf

[scarletwoman]

35. Many thanks! Much appreciated that you've posted that link! (nt)

[slipslidingaway]

39. YW, I read it at the time, just trying to find some pieces. And then

here in the US at some protests against Iran there are indications the protestors are connected with the NCRI whose leaders were with the MEK. Maybe they are the good guys now??? It sure does get confusing when one tries to connect the dots :)

Appreciate the heads up on the program tonight.


http://www.ncr-iran.org/index.php

[Blue_In_AK]

34. We have been lied to

even more than we thought. What an eye-opener.

[scarletwoman]

37. We have been being lied to for over 60 years. The "enemies" change, but there's ALWAYS an enemy.

That's how the national security state holds onto power.

sw
:hi:

[slipslidingaway]

38. MEK Convention In DC?

http://www.agonist.org/story/2005/4/6/14317/78347

"Our friendly correspondent in DC tells The Agonist today that "The negative publicity generated about this event so far may prevent it from happening all together. People are calling their representatives and even the venue where the event will take place, warning them about the terrorist history of the group."

We are attempting to have an Agonist correspondent cover the event, but in the meantime here is some background on MEK.

Previous updates after the jump.

Update: Laura Rozen has more on MEK

A friend in DC tells me that the Iranian group MEK is planning a major convention on April 14 in Washington. This group is classified as a terrorist organization by the State Department."


http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/mek.htm

Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MEK or MKO)
National Liberation Army of Iran (NLA)
People's Mojahedin of Iran (PMOI)
National Council of Resistance (NCR)
National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI)
Muslim Iranian Student's Society

The fall of Saddam Hussein‘s regime affected the circumstances of the designated foreign terrorist organization Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK). The MEK was allied with the Iraqi regime and received most of its support from it. The MEK assisted the Hussein regime in suppressing opposition within Iraq, and performed internal security for the Iraqi regime. The National Liberation Army was the military wing of the National Council of Resistance of Iran.

....Leadership

Maryam Rajavi is MEK’s principal leader; her husband, Massoud Rajavi, heads up the group’s military forces. Maryam Rajavi, born in 1953 to an upper-middleclass Iranian family, joined MEK as a student in Tehran in the early 1970s. After relocating with the group to Paris in 1981, she was elected its joint leader and later became deputy commander-in-chief of its armed wing. Massoud Rajavi was last known to be living in Iraq, but authorities aren’t certain of his whereabouts or whether he is alive."



National Council of Resistance of Iran
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Council_of_Resistance_of_Iran

[Disturbed]

40. PNAC has Iran on their Hit List.

It is all about control of the territory, resources, natural gas, water & oil flow in the ME. The Nuke situation is a smokescreen.

[Swamp Rat]

41. And their friends, the DLC?

I wonder what they have to say?

___________________________________________________
Will Marshall

Democratic Leadership Council: Cofounder
Progressive Policy Institute: President
Project for the New American Century: Letter Signatory

Affiliations

Progressive Policy Institute: Cofounder, President
Democratic Leadership Council: Cofounder
U.S. Committee on NATO: Former Board Member
Committee for the Liberation of Iraq: Former Board Member
Project for the New American Century: Signatory to various letters

____________________________________________________

(snip)

A core member of a neoconservative-like vanguard within the Democratic Party establishment, Marshall has been instrumental in creating organizations that have worked to move the party to the right on everything from foreign to economic policies. With Al From, in 1985 Marshall cofounded the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), an important bastion of center-right Democrats that was once chaired by Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-CT). In 1989, Marshall founded the PPI, a think tank that is affiliated with the DLC. Marshall and From were both staffers for Rep. Gillis Long (D-LA), who was the chairman of the House Democratic Party Caucus in the early 1980s. Marshall served as Long's speechwriter and policy analyst and was also senior editor of the 1984 House Democratic Caucus policy blueprint, “Renewing America's Promise.”

Marshall helped establish the DLC in the wake of Walter Mondale's landslide defeat. The DLC has aimed to create a “New Democrat” movement to shift the party toward the center-right on domestic, economic, and foreign policy issues. Part of the DLC's success can be attributed to the agenda-setting capacities of the Progressive Policy Institute, which was often referred to as “Bill Clinton's idea mill.” The PPI was responsible for many of the Clinton administration's initiatives, including the national service agency AmeriCorps.

(snip)

Marshall was one of 15 analysts who co-wrote the PPI's October 2003 foreign policy blueprint, “Progressive Internationalism: A Democratic National Security Strategy.” Using language that closely mirrors that of the neoconservative-led Project for the New American Century (PNAC), the PPI hailed the “tough-minded internationalism” of past Democratic presidents such as Harry Truman. Like PNAC, which in its founding statement warned of grave present dangers confronting America, the PPI strategy declared that, “Today America is threatened once again” and is in need of assertive individuals committed to strong leadership. The authors' observation that, “like the Cold War, the struggle we face today is likely to last not years but decades,” echoes both neoconservative and Bush administration national security assessments. As the “Progressive Internationalism” authors explain, the PPI endorsed the invasion of Iraq “because the previous policy of containment was failing, because Saddam posed a grave danger to America as well as to his own brutalized people, and because his blatant defiance of more than a decade's worth of UN Security Council resolutions was undermining both collective security and international law.”

The PPI has a vision of national security that extends to fostering democracy and freedom around the world in “the belief that America can best defend itself by building a world safe for individual liberty and democracy.” It's likely that PNAC itself would heartily agree with this PPI comment: “While some complain that the Bush administration has been too radical in recasting America's national security strategy, we believe it has not been ambitious or imaginative enough.”


(snip)

Marshall's credentials as a liberal hawk have been well established by his affinity for other PNAC-associated groups, including the U.S. Committee on NATO and the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq. Marshall served on the board of directors of the U.S. Committee on NATO alongside such leading neoconservative figures as Robert Kagan, Richard Perle, Randy Scheunemann, Paul Wolfowitz, Stephen Hadley, Peter Rodman, Jeffrey Gedmin, Gary Schmitt, and the committee's founder and president Bruce Jackson. At the request of the Bush administration, Jackson also formed the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, which, with former DLC chairman Joseph Lieberman serving as co-chair with Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), aimed to build bipartisan support for the liberation, occupation, and democratization of Iraq. Marshall, together with former Democratic Sen. Robert Kerrey of Nebraska (who coauthored “Progressive Internationalism”), represented the liberal hawk wing of the Democratic Party on the committee's neocon-dominated advisory board. Other advisers included James Woolsey, Eliot Cohen, Newt Gingrich, William Kristol, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Joshua Muravchik, Chris Williams, and Richard Perle.

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1295

_____________________________________________


Project for a New American Century (PNAC)
A Complete List of PNAC Signatories and Contributing Writers

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/charts/pnac-chart.php

[slipslidingaway]

43. Thanks, just glanced over the link, again it highlights why we

have to move past the D = good and R = bad idea.

[slipslidingaway]

42. Agree and before PNAC there was A Clean Break document

written in the mid 90's, any familiar names?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Clean_Break:_A_New_Strategy_for_Securing_the_Realm

"...According to the report's preamble,<1> it was written by the Study Group on a New Israeli Strategy Toward 2000, which was a part of the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies. Former Assistant Secretary of Defense Richard Perle was the "Study Group Leader", but the final report included ideas from James Colbert, Charles Fairbanks, Jr., Douglas Feith, Robert Loewenberg, David Wurmser, and Meyrav Wurmser...:

[Disturbed]

45. The RWing wants a War on Iran.

They actually believe that Iran can be conquered. Yes, they are that stupid.