Bush Authorizes New Covert Action Against Iran

[journalist3072]

Source: ABC News

Bush Authorizes New Covert Action Against Iran
May 22, 2007 6:29 PM

Brian Ross and Richard Esposito Report:

The CIA has received secret presidential approval to mount a covert "black" operation to destabilize the Iranian government, current and former officials in the intelligence community tell the Blotter on ABCNews.com.

The sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the subject, say President Bush has signed a "nonlethal presidential finding" that puts into motion a CIA plan that reportedly includes a coordinated campaign of propaganda, disinformation and manipulation of Iran's currency and international financial transactions.

"I can't confirm or deny whether such a program exists or whether the president signed it, but it would be consistent with an overall American approach trying to find ways to put pressure on the regime," said Bruce Riedel, a recently retired CIA senior official who dealt with Iran and other countries in the region.

A National Security Council spokesperson, Gordon Johndroe, said, "The White House does not comment on intelligence matters." A CIA spokesperson said, "As a matter of course, we do not comment on allegations of covert activity."







Read more: http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/05/bush_authorizes.html

[MUAD_DIB]

1. Well, if true, then it is an act or war against another nation.

I don't much care for the Iranian theocracy any more than I care for the CorproComunists in China, but the US is now "Open Game" for any retalitory responses from Iran.

Just dumb.

[soothsayer]

7. feh, we've had blackwater troops on the ground fer months

fomenting revolution and whatnot.

[The Doctor.]

22. This may be true Little Mouse...

But many of those 'acts' have been necessary for our national security.

-Not that this administration is concerned with that.

[Dhalgren]

45. I simply do not believe that. I hold every action taken by this government suspect

until proved otherwise. I realize that Iran runs covert ops in the US for its security as does perhaps most other countries and we do likewise, but the US government has proved itself to be a most sinister organization and should never, never be trusted by anyone - domestic or foreign - ever.

[MUAD_DIB]

48. Just how have they been for our necessary national security?

Not to sound naive, but what aspect of trying to overthrow a sovereign state, through covert means, is in our national security?

Wouldn't that just cause more unrest in the region? In addition who would keep that said country from collapse, and possible civil strife, if * were to be successful in brining it down? Are we going to have a draft since we don't have the troops to occupy a country with the landmass about 4 times the size of Iraq? In effect if we bring that country down then there will be more of a problem and a bigger threat to our national security than if we try diplomacy.

Present day Iran is a byproduct of our doing. We disappeared the elected government in the early 50s and installed the Shah on his Peacock Throne. We supported his (helped create) death squads. We gave him military equipment and it did not matter. He was overthrown and what we have today is the result of sad affair of pretending to be a Democracy while not allowing others to share in it: keeping them as vassal states.

The worst thing that * could do right now would be to upset the region any more than it already has.


It is almost as if they really want a self fulfilling prophesy to bring on the end times.



Again. I don't have any love for the theocracy in Iran, but there are better ways of getting what you want without hitting a bee hive with a one foot stick.

[The Doctor.]

54. I didn't mean 'lately'.

During the course of our history, there have been many operations of questionable legality that I assume were somehow important to national security.

Lately we've been tyrannical.

[Zhade]

65. Uh, any examples?

I know you not to be insane, so - can you share which ones you mean, because I can't think of ANY.

[Solon]

66. I do seriously hope you are joking...

right? Because, if not, you are literally delusional. The United States doesn't do shit of questionable legality that's for "national security", we do that type of shit at the behest of corporations. The FIRST covert action against a government by the CIA was the overthrow of Mossedegh in Iran, and he was democratically elected. You know why we overthrew him? Because he siezed his nation's oil reserves away from BP(That's BRITISH Petroleum, not the BS "Beyond Petroleum"), so Great Britain asked us to overthrow the Government of Iran, Truman refused, Ike accepted, and low and behold, we had our first, U.S. caused, Nazi trained SAVAK based, massacres of innocent people. Since then, till about the mid 1980s, its estimated the United States has killed at least 6 million people, all in the interests of Corporations.

We have been tyrannical since well before the turn of the 20th century, look up Smedley Butler for pre-WWII interventions, again, for U.S. Corporations.

[Lobster Martini]

2. What's a "nonlethal presidential finding"? An idea that isn't dead yet?

That would be a first.

[journalist3072]

3. I could be wrong but I believe that

It means Bush is not authorizing the CIA to kill anyone inside Iran (such as their leader). For example, President Clinton issued a "finding" which authorized the CIA to capture or kill Osama bin Laden.

This is different in that Bush is basically undertaking a propaganda war against Iran. On ABC News tonight, they were saying the United States has already started dropping negative articles about Iran's leader, inside Iran. They are minipulating Iran's currency, etc.

[Lobster Martini]

9. Thanks for clarifying. I didn't know that term. n/t

[journalist3072]

11. No problem at all....Here is a link to a Washington Post article

That further explains what is meant by a lethal finding:

"A kind of real-world version of James Bond's license to kill, a lethal finding--which must be approved by Congress--gives the CIA authority to launch a covert operation that could result in fatalities. A lethal finding comes with two significant restrictions born of past disasters: the CIA may not plot to assassinate foreign leaders, and its propaganda may not suggest that the United States will back a revolution with military force. The former ban was imposed after the CIA's botched assassination plots against Fidel Castro were revealed in the 1970s; the latter is known as Budapest rules, after America's failure to come to the rescue of the CIA-inspired revolt in Hungary in 1956."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/iraq/stories/newsweek032398.htm

[fed-up]

4. suspicious timing of this release-AFTER Dems CAVE in on Iraq nt

[IndianaGreen]

10. Bush is not afraid of the Democrats. He has nothing but utter contempt for Dems.

As long as impeachment is off the table, what does he have to fear from the Democrats. Bush already controls the courts thanks to years of having Federalist Society judges put on the federal bench by Republican and Democratic Presidents.

[StarryNite]

14. bush has no reason to fear

the Democrats in Washington. They are proving to be good little boys and girls who do just what they are told.

[Donnachaidh]

5. where is this NEW?

Seymour Hersch<sp> wrote about this WEEKS ago. Bush has been doing this for MONTHS.

ABC decide to act like reporters this week? :sarcasm:

[Malikshah]

6. It's 1953 all over again-- listen up Eliz Hasselbeck, Giuliani and all those

too stupid to breathe asswipes who don't realize that *this* sort of crap is what causes attacks on us.

[truthisfreedom]

8. *shrug* I think all presidents do this from time to time. He's just desperate.

Nobody in his administration is going to get anywhere with those people after they've defined them as "axis of evil" members and brought religion into their policy. It's ridiculous. The neocons are fruitcakes.

[LynnTheDem]

12. What would happen if ANY OTHER NATION on the planet announced they were

doing covert "black" ops in the USA to "destabilize the US government"?

Oh yeah, we know exactly what would happen.

But it's ok when WE do it.

Funny how the rest of the planet doesn't agree.

[anotherdrew]

13. not much "black" or "covert" about it anymore. IMPEACH NOW!

they're going to want the blood of the folk who leaked this...

[anotherdrew]

16. not that we even have the votes to do it anyway

screw it. I'm done. not my president, not my country. All these years of effort add up to squat.

[calimary]

19. Yeah, you know it. Whenever I call, at this point, I keep asking

"is it high-crimes-and-misdemeanors yet?"

"Have we seen ENOUGH CRIME yet?"

"Can we IMPEACH, YET??????"

Yes, sometimes it makes me wonder why I knocked myself out last year working for these people. But frequently there soon appears a reminder in some thread or post that somebody offers here - about how painstakingly a case has to be made in light of present "...but we don't have the votes" conditions. Evidently, as one DUer here put it, they're taking so much time because they're trying to dot ALL "i's" and cross ALL "t's" and block ALL the exits before they proceed. I hope TO GOD that's what's happening. Because sometimes, I get mightily discouraged.

Found some of it here, check BradBlog's post 23:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2854113#2854120

Schmuck's gonna get us in another war before he's through (or before somebody takes his red button away).

[tchunter]

15. well if we do invade Iran, we'd only need like 300 troops...

has someone made that joke here yet?

[Roy]

17. Is that a joke.... or the Bush, Cheny mindset?

[Dhalgren]

46. What's the difference?

[scarletwoman]

18. This may be news to Brian Ross & abc, but it's certainly not news to me or many others.

It was back a couple years ago when the big news "leak" was about how Special Forces were already deployed in Iran, engaging in covert ops.

If ABC News is pushing this story, it's because someone at the top wants it out. If anything, it's just a crude attempt at psyops aimed at the Ahmedinejad regime.

Iran liberals and reformers and dissenters have been repeatedly pleading for years for the U.S. to stop meddling in Iran's internal politics. The message is always the same: "Your meddling makes it enormously more difficult for us to achieve anything, because we will always be accused of working for U.S. interests, instead of Iran's."

These Iranians know very well that no benefit will accrue to the people of Iran if the U.S. achieves its goal of "regime change" in their country -- any more than any benefits have accrued to the people of Iraq.

sw

[ClintonTyree]

43. ...."it's because someone at the top wants it out".

BINGO! Bush is trying to provoke Iran into doing something about it, something he can then point to and say, "they started it, we must protect the interests of the United States. Therefore, I've ordered a full-scale bombing campaign"........., you can guess the rest.

I hope no one believes that the PNAC agenda has been forgotten, that they've given up on their quest for total domination in the middle east. These boys are alive and well and STILL ready to push their imperial objective come hell or high water: and time is running out for them so they must move quickly, and brashly.

Yes, they want this out in the news and the corporate stenographers of the MSM are all too happy to oblige. Anything they can do to aid and abet this criminal administration is just OK with them.

[ohio2007]

20. not exactly a secret anymore now is it ?

unless it's misinformation to egg on the Iranian citizens being squeezed by the mullahs

[MadMaddie]

21. It's not exactly covert if we all know about it is it?

Just askin...

[StClone]

23. So we are messing around in Iran, this will turn out

like all the other CIA affairs...it'll come back to haunt us.

[madeline_con]

24. Yep, in the news. Covert as hell. n/t

[anotherdrew]

25. so - has Iran declared war yet? this sure seems like grounds...

something is way wrong for this to be coming out I think, after all the purging, still there are people leaking covert, "secret" shit? Maybe bush's people leaked it themselves, I don't know but this seems like a major line's been crossed here. I'd expect Iran to take this to the UN and demand sanctions or something.

[ariesgem]

26. Bush Authorizes New Covert Action Against Iran

Source: Abc News

The CIA has received secret presidential approval to mount a covert "black" operation to destabilize the Iranian government, current and former officials in the intelligence community tell the Blotter on ABCNews.com.

The sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the subject, say President Bush has signed a "nonlethal presidential finding" that puts into motion a CIA plan that reportedly includes a coordinated campaign of propaganda, disinformation and manipulation of Iran's currency and international financial transactions.

"I can't confirm or deny whether such a program exists or whether the president signed it, but it would be consistent with an overall American approach trying to find ways to put pressure on the regime," said Bruce Riedel, a recently retired CIA senior official who dealt with Iran and other countries in the region.

A National Security Council spokesperson, Gordon Johndroe, said, "The White House does not comment on intelligence matters." A CIA spokesperson said, "As a matter of course, we do not comment on allegations of covert activity."



Read more: http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/05/bush_authorizes.html

[rwenos]

27. Here we go again

These crazy fucks will not be happy until the entire Middle East is in flames. It's really mind-boggling.

609 days to go.

[southerncrone]

28. Oh, S**T!

x(

[Skink]

29. The economic hit men didn't work so they send in the cia...

Then it's war.

[stillcool]

30. Hasn't that been the policy...

for the last 30 years or so?

[WildClarySage]

31. And ABC News

is the first step in this plan...

[EVDebs]

32. The CIA's old network

at least under the Wm. Casey era. Peter Jennings found that out real fast.

[rucky]

33. Hell, I figured they've been doing this for years.

What took the Presidential so long for approval, anyways?

[19jet54]

36. Your right....

... just politics for those out of the loop :)

[TrogL]

34. How can it be covert

...if it's all over ABC and DU?

[CGowen]

39. open secret n/t

[Dhalgren]

47. It was leaked on purpose...

[Whoa_Nelly]

35. ITMFA!

ARRRGH! :nuke:

[IndianaGreen]

37. This is what the Israel Lobby wants, war in Iran!

This is what those Democrats that told AIPAC that "all options are on the table" meant to say: war in Iran!

Just as the Iraq war had bipartisan parents, so will the war in Iran.

[sweettater]

40. I'm glad someone around here

has the guts to say it. The Israeli Lobby, dominance and control of the Middle East, that is what it is all about. And we are there to help them accomplish this feat. Wake up people!

[ShortnFiery]

52. Then our spineless Democratic representatives best send THEIR children because they can't have MINE.

:grr: Make them (warmongering representatives) send their own loved ones. I want all our troops out of the entire Middle East Arena.

WHAT PART OF "IT'S NOT OUR NEIGHBORHOOD" DO THEY NOT UNDERSTAND?!? :grr:

TROOPS OUT OF THE MIDDLE EAST NOW!!!

[Solly Mack]

38. secret/covert but publicly announced and getting widespread play

LMAO

[madrchsod]

41. they have been doing this since the time they over threw

the first elected leader in the 50`s. everyone knows they have never stopped. although i`ll be long time gone,someday iran and the rest of the middle east will be of little concern, the precious juice will will be gone

[muriel_volestrangler]

42. Well, there's one portion of the article that doesn't come directly from the government

"The entire plan has been blessed by Abrams, in particular," said one intelligence source familiar with the plan. "And Hadley had to put his chop on it."

Abrams' last involvement with attempting to destabilize a foreign government led to criminal charges.

He pleaded guilty in October 1991 to two misdemeanor counts of withholding information from Congress about the Reagan administration's ill-fated efforts to destabilize the Nicaraguan Sandinista government in Central America, known as the Iran-Contra affair. Abrams was later pardoned by President George H. W. Bush in December 1992.

In June 2001, Abrams was named by then National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice to head the National Security Council's office for democracy, human rights and international operations. On Feb. 2, 2005, National Security Advisor Hadley appointed Abrams deputy assistant to the president and deputy national security advisor for global democracy strategy, one of the nation's most senior national security positions.

I can't imagine they like the criminal record of the Bush regime's high-level operatives to be brought up a lot. Nor that they used to send arms to Iran, when it suited them.


Here's a thought experiment: What if an Iranian news agency announced that Iranian spies were working to destabilise the dollar, and steal money from the SDI program? I suspect Bush and Cheney would take it as an act of war, and send in bombers within 72 hours. There'd be a lot of people (Fox News, most of the people who supported the Iraqi invasion, in fact) screaming for it. So, think what the Iranian leaders will do with this news. The USA has now told Iran they're trying to destabilise its currency. That practically forces the leaders to react - they've put themselves in the position of standing up to the Americans, and that means they have to react. They will capture some people, and execute them as terrorists funded by the USA, whether or not they are, soon. They will also be unable to negotiate with the USA about Iraq. How can you negotiate with someone who is trying to defraud you at the same time? They might even drop some hints that they are pursuing nuclear weapons after all. I mean, when the USA is openly trying to overthrow your government, you need all the methods of retaliation you can get, don't you?

[ClintonTyree]

44. "The White House does not comment on intelligence matters."

No stinking shit! :eyes: Since there's not an iota of intelligence within the White House it would be rather difficult for them to comment on it, n'est pas?

The White House doesn't communicate very much and when they do it's all lies anyway. There's a reason they're the most secretive administration ever: they have the most to hide.

[Acadia Blue]

49. One disaster is not enough for little b. He will destroy eveything he can.

[nitestar41]

50. OMG If this is true...

We may as well just Paint a GIANT bullseye on our collective butts... There are times when I truly believe that Bush is trying to bring about Apocalypse. I'm becoming truly afraid of the madmen that control our nation.

I have a mostly "Lase Faire" view point... IMO our problems really started when we stuck our noses where it didn't belong.

[ShortnFiery]

51. Tell me why the Congress is not *duty bound* to Impeach this CRIMINAL Unitary Executive Branch?

:grr: Our Congress is filled with SYCOPHANTS of The Military Industrial Complex.
DAMN THEM! :grr:

[Guaranteed]

53. How in any rational world could this even be true.

But something in me tells me that it is.

[sakabatou]

55. WHYYYY?!

:banghead:

[Heidi]

56. Kick.

:kick:

[G_j]

57. Bush set to launch CIA ops to topple Iran mullahs

Source: Independent.ie

Bush set to launch CIA ops to topple Iran mullahs
Sunday May 27 2007


TIM SHIPMAN

PRESIDENT GEORGE W Bush has given the CIA approval to launch covert "black" operations to achieve regime change in Iran, intelligence sources have revealed.

Mr Bush has signed an official document endorsing CIA plans for a propaganda and disinformation campaign intended to destabilise, and eventually topple, the theocratic rule of the mullahs.

Under the plan, pressure will be brought to bear on the Iranian economy by manipulating the country's currency and international financial transactions. Details have also emerged of a covert scheme to sabotage the Iranian nuclear programme, which United Nations nuclear watchdogs said last week could lead to a bomb within three years.

Security officials in Washington have disclosed that Tehran has been sold defective parts on the black market in a bid to delay and disrupt its uranium enrichment programme, the precursor to building a nuclear weapon.

A security source said the presidential directive, known as a "non-lethal presidential finding", would give the CIA the right to collect intelligence on home soil, an area that is usually the preserve of the FBI, from the many Iranian exiles and emigres within the US.



Read more: http://www.independent.ie/world-news/north-america/bush-set-to-launch-cia-ops-to-topple-iran-mullahs-685321.html

[aquart]

58. Which must be why American-Iranians are being arrested in Iran.

And now the CIA is being allowed to investigate INSIDE the United States????? Bush really is trying to provoke a war with Iran. I say, give him standard troop body armor and send him out there.

[monktonman]

59. here we go again.

What happens when Iran captures itself a few hostages?
Pugs will demand we go in there and make up for Carters short comings.

[IndianaGreen]

60. Nixon was impeached for using CIA to spy on Americans in America

Now Bush is doing the same thing, while Pelosi & Reid block any attempt to impeach the war criminal. Enabling tyranny is also a crime!

[anotherdrew]

61. we need to destabilize and topple bush - peace with Iran is totally possible

the bloody killers who thrive on murder want war, it's time to end their grip on power and send them to the hell they belong to.

NEVER AGAIN a preemptive war - now more than ever, it must be said.

[ribrepin]

62. I expect the same hight level of competence that the Bush administration usually exhibits

Think Iraq and Katrina.

[OneBlueSky]

63. yeah . . .that'll work . . . uh huh . . .

given BushCo's demonstrated level of incompetance in virtually everything they've attempted, I don't think the mullah's have a whole lot to worry about . . .

[cliss]

64. GOOD point.

As I was reading my way down the thread, I started to get nervous. Worried about new involvements. As if we aren't bogged down in enough catastrophes already.

But then I realized ~wait a minute ~ it's Bush. I forgot all about the clowns in the White House.

What have they succeeded with, so far?