View Full Version : Cheney Nixes Iranian Help, Disaster Follows
LONDON (AP) - An Iranian offer to help the United States stabilize Iraq and end its military support for Hezbollah and Hamas was rejected by Vice President Dick Cheney in 2003, a former top State Department official told the British Broadcasting Corp.
The U.S. State Department was open to the offer, which came in an unsigned letter sent shortly after the American invasion of Iraq, Lawrence Wilkerson, former Secretary of State Colin Powell's chief of staff, told BBC's Newsnight in a program broadcast Wednesday night. But, Wilkerson said, Cheney vetoed the deal.
"We thought it was a very propitious moment" to strike a deal, Wilkerson said. "But as soon as it got to the White House, and as soon as it got to the vice president's office, the old mantra of 'We don't talk to evil' ... reasserted itself."
A spokesman for the State Department said Thursday he wasn't aware of any letter from the Iranians to the U.S. government in 2003.
"Far as I know, there's never been an offer from the Iranian Government on those kinds of concerns," said Tom Casey, the state department's deputy spokesman.
Wilkerson said that, in return for its cooperation, Tehran asked Washington to lift sanctions and to dismantle the Mujahedeen Khalq, an Iranian opposition group which has bases in Iraq.
Iran also offered to increase the transparency of its nuclear program, according to Wilkerson.
Wilkerson has been a frequent critic of the Bush administration in general and Cheney in particular, holding the vice president responsible for the mistreatment of detainees and the failure of Iraq's postwar planning. ~link~ (http://apnews.myway.com//article/20070118/D8MNUV9O1.html)
I have made this point in other threads but here is proof of the desire of this administration to only consider a military option for peace in Iraq, ignoring that there are religious and economic options that also need to be dealt with. No wonder the place is such a freakin mess. No wonder Wilkerson is such a critic of how this whole mess has been handled. I am, too.
BoogyMan
01-19-2007, 12:18 PM
I wonder if Hitler offered to help "stabilize" Poland?
Egads ECW, this is ridiculous.
Nice strawman.
It might be ridiculous but it may also be true. Sure sounds like something Cheney would do. Sorry you have trouble believing that your golden boy from Andover Prep and his Wyoming henchman can do anything wrong especially if they don't admit to any of it.
Stoner
01-20-2007, 05:54 AM
WEC is funny with these left wing stories.**He sees one and he can hardly move his fingers fast enough to cut and paste.**Reminds me of my dog when I pull out a bone.**He becomes fixated on it as I wave it in front of him.**Then I throw it and he dashes after it.
Same concept here.
WEC loves these articles that are full of holes, rumors and unnamed sources.**As long as he gets to show the US in some sort of scandal he's happy.
Let's break down WEC's newest lib piece.
1.**Tell me the name of the Iranian that made this offer.**His name seems to be conveniently left out.**Maybe he was one of those "unknown" sources.
2.**Does anyone else besides the blind left find it funny that the offer from the Iranians came unsigned?**Interesting.
3.**I thought this quote was worth bringing attention to.**"A spokesman for the State Department said Thursday he wasn't aware of any letter from the Iranians to the U.S. government in 2003."
4.**Here's another part of the article that seems rather important when discussing wether we were right or not in allegedly denying this request.**The Iranians wanted, in return, us to lift sanctions on them and take out Mujahedeen Khalq, which is Iran's major opposition.**Now the deal becomes more clearer.
5.**Wilkerson, who is alleging these claims, absolutely despises Cheney.**Not exactly your most credible source.
Man, WEC, you're striking out all over the place tonight.**Better hit the batting cage.
please refrain from mocking ECW's name
Alonzo
01-20-2007, 06:17 AM
stoner:
Mujahadeen-e-Khalq (MEK) is the largest and most militant group opposed to the Islamic Republic of Iran. Also known as the People’s Mujahadeen Organization of Iran, MEK is led by husband and wife Massoud and Maryam Rajavi. MEK was added to the U.S. State Department’s list of foreign terrorist groups in 1997 and to the European Union’s terrorist list in 2002 because its attacks have often killed civilians. Despite MEK’s violent tactics, the group’s strong stand against Iran —part of President Bush’s “axis of evil”—and pro-democratic image have won it support among some U.S. and European lawmakers....
What major attacks has MEK been responsible for?
The group has targeted Iranian government officials and government facilities in Iran and abroad; during the 1970s, it attacked Americans in Iran. While the group says it does not intentionally target civilians, it has often risked civilian casualties. It routinely aims its attacks at government buildings in crowded cities. MEK terrorism has declined since late 2001. Incidents linked to the group include:
the series of mortar attacks and hit-and-run raids during 2000 and 2001 against Iranian government buildings; one of these killed Iran’s chief of staff;
the 2000 mortar attack on President Mohammad Khatami’s palace in Tehran;
the February 2000 “Operation Great Bahman,” during which MEK launched twelve attacks against Iran;
the 1999 assassination of the deputy chief of Iran’s armed forces general staff, Ali Sayyad Shirazi;
the 1998 assassination of the director of Iran’s prison system, Asadollah Lajevardi;
the 1992 near-simultaneous attacks on Iranian embassies and institutions in 13 countries;
assistance to Saddam Hussein’s suppression of the 1991 Iraqi Shiite and Kurdish uprisings;
the 1981 bombing of the offices of the Islamic Republic Party and of Premier Mohammad-Javad Bahonar, which killed some seventy high-ranking Iranian officials, including President Mohammad-Ali Rajaei and Bahonar;
support for the 1979 takeover of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran by Iranian revolutionaries;
the 1970s killings ofU.S. military personnel and civilians working on defense projects in Tehran.
http://www.cfr.org/publication/9158/
Then again, fighting terrorists has never been much of a concern for us, unless they bother us that is.
Stoner
01-20-2007, 06:22 AM
You do realize there are 2 sides to a deal, right?
WEC is funny with these left wing stories.**He sees one and he can hardly move his fingers fast enough to cut and paste.**Reminds me of my dog when I pull out a bone.**He becomes fixated on it as I wave it in front of him.**Then I throw it and he dashes after it.
Same concept here.
WEC loves these articles that are full of holes, rumors and unnamed sources.**As long as he gets to show the US in some sort of scandal he's happy.
Let's break down WEC's newest lib piece.
1.**Tell me the name of the Iranian that made this offer.**His name seems to be conveniently left out.**Maybe he was one of those "unknown" sources.
2.**Does anyone else besides the blind left find it funny that the offer from the Iranians came unsigned?**Interesting.
3.**I thought this quote was worth bringing attention to.**"A spokesman for the State Department said Thursday he wasn't aware of any letter from the Iranians to the U.S. government in 2003."
4.**Here's another part of the article that seems rather important when discussing wether we were right or not in allegedly denying this request.**The Iranians wanted, in return, us to lift sanctions on them and take out Mujahedeen Khalq, which is Iran's major opposition.**Now the deal becomes more clearer.
5.**Wilkerson, who is alleging these claims, absolutely despises Cheney.**Not exactly your most credible source.
Man, WEC, you're striking out all over the place tonight.**Better hit the batting cage.
There is one fundamental flaw with your argument: you did not bring anything to counter the post I made. You offered up your opinion, lame as it is, but that doesn't cut it with me. See, when you make a claim, you have to bring proof. You haven't yet with Pelosi and you sure as hell haven't here with this. Is fact, Zo has just bashed half your argument into the ground. I'll bat clean up and finish the job.
!. The name of the person wasn't released because when an offer like this is made thru back channels, they wait to see if the offer is even received well before they commit a name to it so no one person is left holding the ball. If you knew anything about how diplomacy works you would have known that. Since this WH doesn't "do" diplomacy, I am not surprised you were unaware of this.
2. See #1
3. Do you think that anyone in this administration is going to admit to screwing this up and actually keep their job? This smells so fishy I'm surprised you didn't jump out of your chair and yell, "Long John Silvers" when you read it. Of course no one is going to admit to seeing that letter. It's why the guy released it the way he did.
4. See Zo's piece.
5. And Cheney is a credible source himself? The same Cheney who claimed that Saddam had nuclear weapons? The same Cheney who made sweetheart deals behind closed doors with his oil company buddies once he got into office? The same Cheney who sent his chief of staff to out a covert CIA agent becuase he disagreed with what her husband said about our war plans? That Dick Cheney?
Yeah. Riiight.
This guy has credibility until you can come up with more than he doesn't like Dick Cheney. Prove he lied, if you can.
If you are so pathetic you can't get my name right, what else will you get wrong? Everything else. There ARE two sides to deal: the correct side (us) and your side.
You know you remind me of my neighbor's dog when I go outside to bring him a bone. He becomes fixated on it as I wave it in front of him.**Then I throw it and he dashes after it. He gets halfway there and then stops suddenly to lick his ass furiously for 30 seconds. He forgets what he was going after, turns around and comes trotting back to me smelling of shite.
Same concept here.
CheesyMuslim
01-20-2007, 11:34 AM
Sorry bout that,
1. But I have to agree with Stoner here.
2. He can't prove something to be wrong, if there's no signed documents from your original post.
3. There's nobody to go after in your post.
4. Its a fabrication.
5. Stoner bonged you with his bong.
Regards,
SirJamesofTexas
1. But I have to agree with Stoner here.
2. He can't prove something to be wrong, if there's no signed documents from your original post.
3. There's nobody to go after in your post.
4. Its a fabrication.
5. Stoner bonged you with his bong.
Bringing proof is a real bitch with the neocons on this board. Everybody's whining about the shots being taken at The Gang That Can't Shoot Straight (Chimpy & Company) but nobody will Google up some proof to back up what they are whining about. If you want to express your opinion, go right ahead. But when you make claims and proof is required, you fail miserably. Stoner never banged anyone with his bong. He crawled up inside of it and fell asleep.
Guitarmitch
01-20-2007, 08:43 PM
I thought this thread should be in the humor section. Than I realized you actually believed that Iran would be sincere in offering to help.
Elrathin
01-20-2007, 08:45 PM
This whole presidency should be in the humor section if it wasn't so pathetically true.
I thought this thread should be in the humor section. Than I realized you actually believed that Iran would be sincere in offering to help.
Iran has their own motivations for "helping." There is no denying it. But if their motivations coincide with your goals and you turn them down because of your politics, how stupid does that make you? Especially when the whole thing blows up in your face because you were too ideologically challenged to accept help that you needed? Come on.
Stoner
01-20-2007, 10:48 PM
I thought this thread should be in the humor section. Than I realized you actually believed that Iran would be sincere in offering to help.
Makes you glad ECW isn't in charge, huh.**Kind of politician that would just blindly accept any deal offered regardless of the conditions and how lopsided the deal is.
If those were the actual terms Cheney was very wise in deciding the way he did.
Then again this thread came from ECW so Lord only knows how valid it is. Probably out of the moveon.org catalog.
BoogyMan
01-21-2007, 12:48 AM
Nice strawman.
It might be ridiculous but it may also be true. Sure sounds like something Cheney would do. Sorry you have trouble believing that your golden boy from Andover Prep and his Wyoming henchman can do anything wrong especially if they don't admit to any of it.
ECW, if you would EVER present your invective in terms of "might be" as you did in this post I could take your commentary much more seriously. However, you presented it as some kind of proof for an argument that the article cannot substantiate.
Makes you glad ECW isn't in charge, huh.**Kind of politician that would just blindly accept any deal offered regardless of the conditions and how lopsided the deal is.
If those were the actual terms Cheney was very wise in deciding the way he did.
Then again this thread came from ECW so Lord only knows how valid it is.**Probably out of the moveon.org catalog.
Actually the thread idea came from a story from the AP and reported by CNN. This just tells me that not only do you not bother to bring citations to prove your usually bogus claims but you can't be bothered to read the citations that are provided. This means that you are talking just to hear yourself talk, not that you have anything of importance to contribute. Even chess brings a citation on occasion. Kind of makes you the Forum's interrupting child in a room full of adults.
If I were in charge I would send you to your room without your dope and make you wait there until your thought processes cleared up.
It might take a couple of years but I am a very patient man.
Nice strawman.
It might be ridiculous but it may also be true. Sure sounds like something Cheney would do. Sorry you have trouble believing that your golden boy from Andover Prep and his Wyoming henchman can do anything wrong especially if they don't admit to any of it.
ECW, if you would EVER present your invective in terms of "might be" as you did in this post I could take your commentary much more seriously.**However, you presented it as some kind of proof for an argument that the article cannot substantiate.
And you didn't rip me a new one? You're slipping, amigo. http://planetsmilies.net/not-tagged-smiley-11364.gif (http://planetsmilies.net)
vBulletin® v3.7.0, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.