Posted on 03/18/2006 1:26:29 PM PST by strategofr
Bush’s national security adviser Steven Hadley says Iran’s willingness to discuss Iraq is a ploy to divert international pressure from its nuclear program. The American offer, he says, was made months ago. What is interesting is that the Iranians would choose now, in a public way, to embrace the idea and expand it to a broader set of issues. This ploy is designed to divert pressure and drive a wedge between the US and its partners in the nuclear issue, says Hadley.
He was responding to astatement by Iranian nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani that Tehran was willing to hold talks to “resolve Iraqi issues” and help establish an independent government.
About time the Administration decided to set the record straight. It was quite difficult to think we would even consider talks with the Persian goon squads.
Do ya think? LOL
I completely agree.
yeh, its nonsense, unless they want another scenario like N Korea.....the good faith of either is non-existent.
Now that's a shocker. No rocket science there.
Yes. The newspaper headlines were pretty upsetting, practically implying we were already negotiating.
This tactic, as everyone has observed, follows the classic pattern for people who want to "negotiate" with us. I would point out that this pattern, as far as I'm aware, was created by the Soviets in the 20th century.
Personally, I believe that this continuity with 20th-century communism, which becomes more evident in the actions and statements of Iran every day, stems from the fact that the KGB now rules Russia. I realize that they no longer have a communist economic system and I am quite sure they no longer inculcate the mass of Russians with communist ideology (I believe their system is "open" enough that we would have detected this.)
The mistake almost all of us made (1961 KGB-defector Golitsyn excepted), was that when the Soviet Union collapsed, we felt that the Russian attack on United States was over. It is now becoming more obvious every day how mistaken we were. The fact that the KGB is no longer serving the worldwide Communist revolution is no reason for them to stop doing most of the things they have always done. They can still reap benefits for themselves and Russia.
Nor will they sent a flyer out to the legions of "useful idiots" they have cultivated around the world letting them know of the change of status at the top leadership. This is not a problem, because the useful idiots never knew they were serving Russia in the first place. And the high-level traitors, in the U. S., Europe, and elsewhere, can shift gears without a hitch in most instances. They no doubt realized long before 1991 that International Communism was not leading the world toward Utopia. It was, however, feathering their own personal nests quite nicely.
The U.S. is giving Iran ONE last chance here...And the vibes Hadley's getting so far aren't good enough.
Real close to coming to a head.
What I've wanted to know for some time, is where the European and U.S. protesters and Marxists get their marching funds. I know Soros helps some, but it takes a lot more money than he is spending to get the A.N.S.W.E.R. people out in the tens of thousands. Is Russia supplying funding for these efforts? That would answer a lot wouldn't it. It would sure back your premise.
I second all you wrote.
"What I've wanted to know for some time, is where the European and U.S. protesters and Marxists get their marching funds. I know Soros helps some, but it takes a lot more money than he is spending to get the A.N.S.W.E.R. people out in the tens of thousands. Is Russia supplying funding for these efforts? That would answer a lot wouldn't it. It would sure back your premise."
It sure would back my premise. And that is exactly why I am certain it is not the case.
Consider a story about Soviet intelligence I read in a book by Victor Suvorov (GRU defector to Great Britain, started publishing books in the mid-80s.) In World War II, the Germans captured a Soviet agent. They used the information obtained from that agent to capture others---and practically wrapped up the whole Soviet network in Europe.
Ever since then, Soviet intelligence has been filled with innumerable mechanisms for compartmentalization (many of which Suvorov knows about personally from his experience as a GRU agent.)
These people are just as good at intelligence and subversion as the US is in business---and they take it just as seriously as a society as we take business.
In the 30s, 40s, and 50s a number of Soviet agents were apprehended inside the United States. Since then, practically nothing. Yet, when we look at the entire New Left, is almost transparently a Soviet creation. While I haven't done a study of it, I imagine the circumstantial evidence would fill many volumes.
Consider John Kerry. Probably while still in the Navy reserves, he met with representatives of North Vietnam (a Russian client) in Paris during the Vietnam War---technically treason. In 2004, he almost became our President. Did he say anything compromising in these meetings? Did the North Vietnamese surreptitiously take video and audio of the meetings? Do you think?
Hillary was a blazing Marxist---from all appearances lesbian---in the 1960s. She and her husband lived in Russia, I believe it was a couple of years. Then her husband became President and she may very well be our next President.
True, the massive transmission of American military secrets during the Clinton administration went to China---not Russia. However, I believe China and Russia have been closely allied since about 1957---albeit in secret. My source for this idea is Anatoly Golitsyn, who was a high level KGB agent present at the 1957 to 1960 meetings where 1) the Soviets reconciled themselves with communist movements throughout the world in the aftermath of Stalin---who had alienated everyone of them through his desire for complete dominance and 2) the Soviets and Chinese decided to continue their dispute, but as a charade for the benefit of the West.
Hence, I assume the Chinese passed a good percentage of this information onto the Russians. This is not to say that I think the Russians and Chinese are so close that they share each piece of stolen information. It just seems clear to me that it would be the Russians who own Bill and Hillary. In this sense, the whole Clinton Presidency would be Russian- related.
However, the the Russians do not want to be directly involved with the operation of this type (hence the Chinese cut out). Again, that famous caution.
The person who probably has the answer to your question here would be David Horwitz. He has a web site devoted to connections particularly between various Americans and communism and Islamacism, sorry, I can't remember the name of it but it is easy to pick up. Of course, Front Page Magazine is the name of his main web site, where you can catch a link.
"So iow, is it just a matter of bombing Iran sooner rather than later?
The U.S. is giving Iran ONE last chance here...And the vibes Hadley's getting so far aren't good enough.
Real close to coming to a head."
I am not so sure. It seems to me that Bush is having a pretty tough time psychologically right now. In addition, I have an unsettling feeling that his relationship with Cheney may not be as close as it was---a development I would view as a disaster.
Consider the recent flap about the ports. Setting the issue of right and wrong completely aside, considered the level of skill involved in Bush's handling of this issue. It is frighteningly low.
Honestly, I'm very concerned about exactly where the administration is right now. I hardly need to add that the pressures are immense.
Thanks for the additional comments and points to ponder.
You mentioned the two year stint in the Soviet Union. What was your basis for that comment? I hadn't heard anything along those lines before.
thanks.
"You mentioned the two year stint in the Soviet Union. What was your basis for that comment? I hadn't heard anything along those lines before."
I am having trouble verifying this, and starting to suspect I may be wrong. but I will keep looking.
I was definitely wrong about there being no early connection between the Clintons and Chinese intelligence. See my post that covers the subject:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1598954/posts
When Huang was operating out of the White House, Clinton said he'd never really met the guy and knew little about him. Clinton had known Huang for twenty years in Little Rock. The press swallowed.
Do you mean that Bush would not be able to take decisive action without Cheney? Just curious.
I was partly wrong. He was there by himself, apparently, not with Hillary, in the 1970s. Apparently, it is covered in his book.
"There is an interesting story in the book. Clinton once lived, when he studied at Oxford -- his room neighbor translated Khrushchev's memoirs. This was the first time he got acquainted with Russia, with the political situation in Russia. Later, in 1970 he visited Russia. I am not sure that this fact is well known. Actually, he followed Lenin's track from Finland to Moscow by rail."
"I have to say that Clinton doesn't write too much about Russia, but nor does he write too little. Not much because he immediately refers the reader to Talbott who has already been published in Russia, his man who dealt with Russia throughout his eight years of presidency and his former room-mate in the students dormitory who was translating Khrushchev's memoirs. That was Strobe Talbott who in fact introduced Clinton to Russian culture and Russian literature. He himself wrote a thesis on Tyutchev. And Clinton in his early years at university studied the whole of classical Russian literature.
"So when he crossed the border of the Soviet Union for the first time on the eve of 1970, following the same route as Lenin, the churlish Communist border guard, who naturally wanted to know if he was bringing pornography into the Soviet Union, discovered only Tolstoy's and Dostoyevsky's books in his bag.
In general I must say that the bit connected with his first experience of Russia in 1970 is the biggest chunk of the memoirs connected with Russia. Russia, the then Soviet Union, produce a powerful impression on him. He writes about a kind KGB man with whom he had heart-to-heart talks and a card with the address of his only contact in Moscow, a female student from the Lumumba University which whom he met at various parties in our capital. Anyway, it's obvious that this is a more vivid impression in his life than the subsequent meetings with Russian leaders and the summit meetings that he had with Yeltsin or Putin."
CDI Russia Weekly
http://www.cdi.org/russia/316-16.cfm
"Do you mean that Bush would not be able to take decisive action without Cheney? Just curious."
I am not saying something quite that specific. I believe that Bush relies on Cheney to a very high degree and that, in general, he would not perform as well if the relationship was impaired.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.