CIA CENSORS NYT OP PIECE! (W/Pics)

[Cult]

Edit: Please move to...I don't know, General discussion? It's more than 12 hours old....Sorry mods!


Link!

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/22/opinion/22precede.html


<snip>

HERE is the redacted version of a draft Op-Ed article we wrote for The Times, as blacked out by the Central Intelligence Agency’s Publication Review Board after the White House intervened in the normal prepublication review process and demanded substantial deletions. Agency officials told us that they had concluded on their own that the original draft included no classified material, but that they had to bow to the White House.

Indeed, the deleted portions of the original draft reveal no classified material. These passages go into aspects of American-Iranian relations during the Bush administration’s first term that have been publicly discussed by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice; former Secretary of State Colin Powell; former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage; a former State Department policy planning director, Richard Haass; and a former special envoy to Afghanistan, James Dobbins.

</snip!>

Hooray, facism for all!

Seriously though, fuck this shit. I can't put my feelings any more eloquently than that.

-E!

[Donkeykick]

1. This most definitely...

tells me a lot. If the CIA says it is OK to publish, than why is the White House stopping free thought? :wtf:

[Kagemusha]

4. Because PR is part of the war too.

And this isn't good PR for the White House.

We act like they ought to have a better reason. Perhaps they should, but I doubt they do.

[grasswire]

2. important stuff, thanks

I never would have known this if you hadn't posted it.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

3. eloquent, precise, succinct and accurate.

what more do we need in a post?

[depakid]

5. One more thing to put on the Congressional agenda

Seems like our representatives are going to be putting in some overtime next year....

[Laughing Mirror]

6. Well the Old Gray Lady NY Times has proven itself so reliable at taking dictation of WH propaganda

and disseminating it so far and wide, so I don't know why it minds being edited and censored by that same White House.

[UpInArms]

7. thanks for the post - this is important - hope it stays in LBN

eom

k&r

[Tuesday_Morning]

8. Raw Story: Redacted Iran op-ed revealed

Here's RAW STORY's best informed guess at what might hide behind the redactions...a redaction by redaction explanation.

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/The_redacted_Iran_oped_revealed_1222.html

<snip>

RAW STORY has examined these sources and has attempted to connect the previously published materials to the redacted paragraphs in the op-ed. What the information reveals is a series of events in which US-Iran dialogue broke down. In the aftermath of 9/11, the cooperative spirit around the world sparked by America's victimhood encouraged Iran to collaborate with the United States in its effort to topple the Taliban in Afghanistan. But the goodwill that might have been sustained by those early negotiations was undermined by a series of disputes between the US and Iran.

<snip>

[philly_bob]

13. My reading of RAW STORY interpretation.

1. After 9/11, U.S. had great chance for cooperation with Iran.

2. U.S. blew it.

3. Probably most of the Middle East doesn't trust the Bush Administration's word on any treaty or deal.

[progdonkey]

9. some of it you can piece together very easily...

and it's plain as day that the redactions are for political purposes of have nothing to do with national security.

For instance:

In December 2001, xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Tehran to keep Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, the brutal pro-Al Qaeda warlord, from returning to Afghanistan to lead jihadist resistance there. xxxxxxxxxxxx so long as the Bush administration did not criticize it for harboring terrorists. But, in his January 2002 State of the Union address, President Bush did just that in labeling Iran part of the “axis of evil.” Unsurprisingly, Mr. Hekmatyar managed to leave Iran in short order after the speech. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx the Islamic Republic could not be seen to be harboring terrorists.

It's quite obvious that it should be "the Bush Administration (or some representative)" lobbied Tehran, etc.... "Iran agreed" so long as, etc.... (Next is a random guess because it's so long) "Iran wanted to assure that," the Islamic Republic, etc....

So, Iran was perfectly happy to work diplomatically with the US when it came to al-Qaeda, only Iran distrusted (correctly, as it turned out) that the Bushies would treat Iran fairly, by not saying that Iran was "harboring al-Qaeda terrorists." When Bush added Iran to the "Axis of Evil," Iran responded by letting Hekmatyar go, because they saw that Bush was failing to hold up his side of the bargain and was using the deal against Iran.

The only threat releasing this info poses to National Security is that it shows other countries that they shouldn't accept any diplomatic overtures from George Bush, because he's less trustworthy than even the Mullahs of Iran.

[Kurovski]

10. K&R!(nt)

[Judi Lynn]

11. Deeply interesting. Isn't it sad this is what's running our nation, and ruining the lives

of so many, many people?

You'd never expect something this underhanded, cheap and tyrannical from a U.S. President.

[Judi Lynn]

12. Welcome to D.U., Cult!

:hi: :hi: :hi:

[Cult]

15. Thanky!

Much love to all the Dems out there, wishing everyone a great weekend...I'm spending it in the ATL as the kids call it these days...

-E!

[Phrogman]

14. Bushco's trying their hardest to start WW 3

Putting everything they've got into it.