Lala Publishes Excerpt of What May Be Blocked Leverett Article on Iran!

[Cheney Killed Bambi]

Someone sent Larisa Alexandrovna what appears to be the the Leverett article on Iran that the White House is blocking, even though it was cleared by the CIA

The White House has been blocking a New York Times op-ed by Flynt Leverett:

"Middle East analyst Flynt Leverett, who served under President Bush on the National Security Council and is now a fellow at the New America Foundation, revealed today that the White House has been blocking the publication of an op-ed he wrote for the New York Times. The column is critical of the administration’s refusal to engage Iran."

Today a reader sent in a document that given the date, may be the op-ed or at least what the op-ed is based on that is being blocked. I don't know if this is it, but but here it is for your reading pleasure: Dealing with Tehren.

Remember, this was cleared as not threatening to national security. So why is the NYT sitting on it?

http://www.atlargely.com/2006/12/is_this_what_th.html

Click the link to see the excerpt of the article.

For background, go here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2926774&mesg_id=2926774

[lala_rawraw]

1. download the file fast... before my blog

is removed

[Jack Rabbit]

2. Thank you Lala

It's long past time we went Pentagon Papers on them.

That is heroic.

Now I'll go make my coffee and I'll start reading it.

[lala_rawraw]

3. and I am suddenly detained... promise to get me out

[Jack Rabbit]

8. I assume you mean

If I am suddenly detained.

We'll be watching Raw Story for news of your whereabouts.

Keep posting here. We will want to hear from you. Often.

[EST]

9. Pdf downloaded.

Thank you.

[Junkdrawer]

12. Direct link to pdf...

http://larisaunplugged.typepad.com/atlargely/leverett_diplomatic.pdf

[Hissyspit]

24. "The file is damaged and could not be repaired"?

Never got that PDF warning before!

[Junkdrawer]

25. Mine was fine. Try deleting your copy and trying again. n/t

[Hissyspit]

26. Yeah, I figured. I just thought it was funny.

Thanks.

[sam sarrha]

5. already had that figured out..

[Junkdrawer]

4. Strange. The main blog page loads, then the linked page aborts....

Press the browser stop button after the initial page load and you can read it...

The Bush Record

"Unfortunately, the Bush administration is moving at a glacial pace, if at all, toward such an approach. Throughout the administration’s first term in office, the president and his senior national security and foreign policy advisers seemed collectively unable to deal with the imperatives of a comprehensive diplomatic strategy toward Iran. While there have been some tactical adjustments since the beginning of President Bush’s second term, the fundamental strategic deficit in the administration’s approach remains uncorrected.

To be sure, for a year and a half after September 11, the administration
pursued a limited tactical engagement with Iran with regard to Afghanistan.

Well before President Bush took office in January 2001, the United States had
joined the United Nations’ “6+2” framework for Afghanistan.21 In the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, the Bush administration used the cover of the “6+2” process to stand up what was effectively a freestanding bilateral channel with Iran, with regular (for the most part, monthly) meetings between U.S. and Iranian diplomats.

U.S. engagement with Tehran over Afghanistan provided significant and
tangible benefits for the American position during the early stages of the war on terror.

At a minimum, U.S. engagement with Tehran helped to neutralize the
threat of Iranian actions on the ground, either by Afghan proxies or by Iranian intelligence and paramilitary assets, which could have made prosecution of Operation Enduring Freedom and subsequent post-conflict stabilization more difficult. More positively, engagement elicited crucial diplomatic cooperation from Iran, both during the war and afterwards. Over years, Iran had cultivated extensive relationships with key players on the Afghan political scene, including important warlords in northern and western Afghanistan. "

[NVMojo]

28. if you are using IE's new browser, right click on the pdf link to pen in new tab

not new window. Mine repeatedly crashed the window til I did the tab.

[sam sarrha]

6. its already gone..

[Cheney Killed Bambi]

7. It's still there

I just clicked and I got it.

The article doesn't look like a NYT op-ed though. It's a much longer 34 page document.

[lala_rawraw]

10. well, as I said, it may be what the op-ed is based on...

but if you look at the date and all of his other analytical documents that have run, this would appear to be the one. i don't know.

[Cheney Killed Bambi]

14. OK

I edited the title of this post so that it is more accurate.

[sam sarrha]

13. must be the bad Road Runner program.. hasn't worked right since se got it

[rodeodance]

11. basically says NOT to bomb IraN-----needs diplomacy.

[sam sarrha]

15. Im sure that is why Kerry and friends are out finding who ot start to talk to.. after * nailed

the door shut

[hlthe2b]

16. Man, I hope they used all resources available...

to avoid the source of these articles (or the ISP) to be traced...I have no doubt, if they are "real," that Larissa may end up with multiple "visitations." from our Police State Enforcers.

[lala_rawraw]

19. i am not worried, CIA cleared it... political arrests are not

going to be tolerated. and i hope you will all come get me out should these guys come get me. somehow, i don't think they will. they could have for other, more sensitive stories, such as Plame/Iran. I was worried then. i am not too worried about this. i may be wrong. so that is why i say, if they come and lift me, then take to the streets and get me out.

[hlthe2b]

20. Hopefully... And, after reading this, it might be embarrassing...

but otherwise I don't get why they would be so overreacting.

[Cheney Killed Bambi]

17. We should ask Steve Clemons

What he thinks. He's been following this story pretty closely.

[lala_rawraw]

18. i left him a msg...

we will all know soon enough, but given the amount of certain IP traffic reading it right now, I am thinking this must be it. but really, i have no way of knowing for sure right now. i was so worried about getting it out, that I did not try to do an article on it, where it would take time to confirm this as the piece. that said, given the date, the name, the topic, and the other things he has written, this appears to be it. and yes, it says NO on Iran.

[lala_rawraw]

21. Update: This is it!

Clem actually did a blog on it last night...which maybe how my tipster got the document. Here is his take on it,and full credit for having the balls to run it... as usual, I tip my hat for Steve:)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-clemons/flynt-leverett-blasts-whi_b_36523.html

[file83]

23. So now it is the alternative media that delivers the information the MSM will not...

...another HUGE milestone for alternative media!! Viva la Internet!!!

[lala_rawraw]

29. it has always been the case...

Downing Street Memos, pre-war bombings, iran contra, etc. they don't like the internet though, me thinks... wonder where i got that idea:)

[KoKo]

32. Thanks, Lala.....folks might want to read the comments after Steve's

post, too.

:thumbsup:

[Gregorian]

22. Does anyone actually think Iran would nuke America?

One sentence from the first paragraph tells me more than anything about our dealings with the middle east.

"The threats that Iran poses to U.S. interests..."

When one looks at things that way, everything makes sense. They aren't a threat to the continental US. But they are a threat to our interests. And this raises a very interesting question about imminent threats. To Bush, an imminent threat is something that exists outside of our borders. Pull a 9-11, and it suddenly feels like a true imminent threat, although isn't.


But the reality is that no one in their right mind, or any mind for that matter, would nuke America. I'd rather kiss a rattle snake.


It's my obtuse rambling for the morning. I'm, as usual, probably five years behind everyone. But I'm just saying what I see.

[htuttle]

33. "The flag follows the dollar, and the soldiers follow the flag" -- Maj. Gen Smedley Butler

"The threats that Iran poses to U.S. interests..."

The term 'US Interests' meaning, as always, 'US Corporate Interests'. Exxon has a lot more say as to where and when the US goes to war than you and I do. Our country has been run this way for a hundred years or so, although remarkably, we aren't really allowed to talk about it in the public sphere, lest you be labeled an anarchist/communist/miscreant of some kind.

In the last 100 years, I think the only war that can possibly be considered a defense of actual US territory was WWII (due to Pearl Harbor). Every other war last century was waged for 'US Interests'. This century is starting to look the same way -- the only difference being that the corporate interests providing motivation for war nowdays are often chartered 'offshore', have most of their employees working 'offshore', barely pay any US taxes, and can really only be considered 'US Corporations' in the historical sense.

[NVMojo]

27. Read it! It makes perfect sense as to why the Iraq report directs the US

to secure the Iraqi oil fields for foreign investment ...translate: Saudis! At the expense of Iran and others. Oil, oil, oil!!

[kineneb]

30. thanks, downloaded and saved

add me to the "information revolution"
;-)

will print for friends w/o computer access...

[bleever]

31. K&R.

:patriot:

[liam_laddie]

34. Mr. Leverett to be on Diane Rehm Wednesday 12/20

Diane just mentioned this...(11:43 a.m. Monday 12/18)

[Norquist Nemesis]

35. Today, 12:15 EST, CSPAN---Be there!

:thumbsup: