You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: 8

PLAYS: 2

(Gen. Zia - Tea and Kleenex - there's a message here)

When this interview was conducted on May 18, 1980, Afghanistan was under Soviet occupation a little over six months. There was also the matter of fifty American hostages in Tehran and the U.S. elections heating up. Zia headed up a military coup that overthrew the legitimate elected government of Ali Bhutto and after staging a rather dubious trial, executed him, much to the shock and horror of the rest of the world. Zia would later die in a helicopter crash, also of dubious circumstances.

I think it would be fair to say that the instability of the region has a long history and having Atomic weapons capabilities makes the stomach turn just a bit faster as a result.

General Zia managed to conduct a one-on-one with Walter Cronkite and offered a few insights that, in hindsight may seem prophetic.

Gen. Zia: “What I am trying to say is, The United States Of America must see the true priorities in this region. If this region has any strategic significance in the minds of the United States citizens, if this region has any significance to the ultimate interests of the United States of America and the free world, then I am afraid the question of hostages should not be viewed on the emotional plain. I very strongly recommend, Mister Cronkite, that we should view the situation in a much bigger perspective. It is a global problem in my opinion. The lives of fifty American nationals is as dear and as valuable to me as it is to any United States citizen. But I say there are much greater things at stake at the present moment, and we should take out the emotional aspects of an election year or of the human aspects of this, this cannot be ignored, I must agree. But I think there are much greater stakes involved in this issue than only the lives of fifty nationals.”

So in retrospect, listening to this interview now and knowing our current situation with Afghanistan and our relationship with Pakistan, it would seem the current problems with the Taliban in the region have been more or less a work-in-progress the last 25 or so years.

Nothing is ever as it seems and nothing ever happens instantly.

As the United States ponders its next steps following this week's multiparty talks with Iran over its nuclear program, many of the cast of characters from Tehran fiascos past are coming out of the woodwork to weigh in once again. On Friday, the pardoned Iran/Contra architect Elliot Abrams emerged on Fox News to suggest that Iranians "would not rally around the flag" in response to a U.S. military strike. Meanwhile, Michael Ledeen surfaced on the pages of the Wall Street Journal to warn "change in Iran requires a change in government." Of course, Ledeen conveniently omitted his own nefarious role in the Iran/Contra scheme of the Reagan administration, a which policy consisted of giving the mullahs in Iran a cake, a Bible - and U.S. arms.

The Iran-Contra scandal, as you'll recall, almost laid waste to the Reagan presidency. Desperate to free U.S. hostages held by Iranian proxies in Lebanon, President Reagan provided weapons Tehran badly needed in its long war with Saddam Hussein (who, of course, was backed by the United States). In a clumsy and illegal attempt to skirt U.S. law, the proceeds of those sales were then funneled to the contras fighting the Sandinistas in Nicaragua. And as the New York Times recalled, Reagan's fiasco started with an emissary bearing gifts from the Gipper himself:

A retired Central Intelligence Agency official has confirmed to the Senate Intelligence Committee that on the secret mission to Teheran last May, Robert C. McFarlane and his party carried a Bible with a handwritten verse from President Reagan for Iranian leaders.

According to a person who has read the committee's draft report, the retired C.I.A. official, George W. Cave, an Iran expert who was part of the mission, said the group had 10 falsified passports, believed to be Irish, and a key-shaped cake to symbolize the anticipated ''opening'' to Iran.

The rest, as they say, is history. After the revelations regarding his trip to Tehran and the Iran-Contra scheme, a disgraced McFarlane attempted suicide. After his initial denials, President Reagan was forced to address the nation on March 4, 1987 and acknowledge he indeed swapped arms for hostages (video here):

"A few months ago I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions still tell me that's true, but the facts and the evidence tell me it is not. As the Tower board reported, what began as a strategic opening to Iran deteriorated, in its implementation, into trading arms for hostages."

Of course, the sad saga didn't end there.

Continue reading »

From Democracy Now--Fmr. UN Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter Warns Against “Politically Motivated Hype” on Iran Nuke Program:

Former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter joins us to discuss what he calls “politically motivated hype” over Iran’s nuclear program. The Obama administration has warned of sanctions unless Iran allows inspections of a newly disclosed nuclear site. Iran insists the site has been used for peaceful purposes. The row comes just after Iran’s test-firing of medium- and long-range missiles and before Iranian officials are due to hold talks with the US and five other nations in Geneva.

Full transcript at Democracy Now's site.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (46)

PLAYS: (55)

September 28, 2009 News Corp

Heather: McCain makes three GOP senators now openly calling for regime change in Iran.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (50)

PLAYS: (63)

Congressman Pete Hoekstra on MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell Reports talking about our options with Iran now that the Obama administration has called them our for their underground nuclear facilities.

From The Hill--Obama should not have agreed to talks with Iran, Rep. Hoekstra says:

"I think the interesting thing here was the decision that the Obama administration made, perhaps weeks or months ago, that they wanted to enter into these talks with Iran, probably being fully aware that this secret facility existed, and they were willing to move forward unconditionally," said Hoekstra, the ranking member on the House's Permanent Select Intelligence Committee.

"Now ... they're locked in; they have to go on Thursday, so let's see what comes out of that," Hoekstra added.

[....]

"I think that if you put tough economic sanctions on Iran, what a regime like this will do ... is they will make sure it is the Iranian people that will be hurting," he said. "That will then give them the opportunity to go on international television and ... [show the United States] is hurting the Iranian people, and is really not stopping or changing their strategic direction."

But, Hoekstra added, "I'm not sure there are any good options at this point in time."

I wonder how long it will take the neocons to start attacking Pete Hoekstra for saying this?

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (943)

PLAYS: (904)

Considering how well some of our other efforts at "regime change" have gone, does anyone else think it's not such a great idea for two GOP senators to be openly advocating for it on national television?

First up we had Jon Kyl on Meet the Press.

GREGORY: Well, Senator Kyl, is there any doubt in your mind that they're building weapons?

KYL: No. I, I--well, they're trying to build a nuclear weapon. They first of all have to get he fuel to do it. And that's--it's very clear that they are trying to make that fuel. And it's also clear that they are getting closer to the delivery capability, putting that nuclear weapon on top of a missile that could either reach Europe or eventually a place like the United States.

It's clear what their intention is. And the question is, how do you get in there to see fully what they're doing and find a way to stop it? Without international support, it's very hard. But we haven't even exhausted the possibilities for unilateral U.S. sanctions that could also squeeze that leadership to the point that they might--I mean, what we're trying to do here eventually is to get a regime change with a group of people in there that are more representative of the Iranian people, who we really can talk with in a way that might end up with a good result. I think it's very difficult to do that with the current leadership and especially the elected president.

And then Kit Bond on Fox News Sunday.

Continue reading »

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (67)

PLAYS: (134)

From The Situation Room Sept. 24, 2009. Lady McCheney Matalin is still out there trying to say that George Bush's foreign policy made the world a safer place to live. What a completely ridiculous thing to say. Walk is what keeps peace in the world. No, "walk" is called starting wars Mary. Why CNN feels the need to continue to give this woman air time as though she has anything credible to say is beyond me.

BLITZER: Mary, let's talk a little bit about the substance, though. Do the folks and the leaders in Iran or North Korea or the Taliban for that matter or al Qaeda, do they fear President Obama?

MATLIN: Well, absolutely not. And what Paul just said is emblematic of how the Democrats think about foreign policy in general. That's demean our strongest friends our greatest allies, like the Australians, like the Polish, like the Czechs, like the central and eastern Europeans who are working so hard at democracy and just demean any kind of opinion.

Look, this is not some sort of partisan or right wing or Murdoch thought. Since the beginning of time the history of the world is that weakness invites provocation. And we have -- and talking is good and relationships are fine. But our allies need to know that they can rely on those relationships and that there will be consequences for the bad guys when the talk runs out and they're not doing the walk.

As for proliferation and chairing a U.N. committee, great. Oh, isn't that wonderful? It's the U.N. that wouldn't enforce 17 of its resolutions against Saddam in the first place, so big deal. He's chairing and talking in another instance.

But the proliferation security initiative of the Bush administration was responsible for quantum leaps in the reduction of proliferation and including the disarmament of Libya, the capture and detention...

Continue reading »

Thanks to the BBC, the missile defense debate can be greatly simplified.

Here's what Bush proposed and what the neocons are hyperventilating over the ending of plans for:

And here's the coverage of the AEGIS ship-based system proposed by Obama:

As you can see, coverage against actual, rather than imaginary, threats is marginal at best, and under the Bush plan was almost non-existent - unless you're worried about Russian missiles. "A better missile defense for a safer Europe," my ass. Contrary to both Bush and Obama's statements, the Russians were right to be "paranoid" about missile defense all along.

Recall, too, that Iran has no current nuclear weapons program according to both the IAEA and US intelligence. It would take at least three to five years for it to develop a nuclear-tipped missile from the day it kicks IAEA inspectors out, if it ever does.

We should be asking whether we need such a multi-billion boondoggle at all.

Crossposted at Newshoggers

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (64)

PLAYS: (93)

September 14, 2009 C-SPAN

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: 520

PLAYS: 434

The BBC has a remarkable interview with the mother of Neda Agha Soltan, the 27-year-old Iranian woman whose death June 20 was captured on video, and who became an important symbol of the growing resistance to the mullahs' regime.

The conclusion of the interview is deeply bittersweet:

I don't want people to forget her. People - Iranians - have all been very supportive. They come to me and congratulate me for having had such a brave daughter.

And now I want you to do something for me. I want you, on my behalf, to thank everyone around the world, Iranians and non Iranians, people from every country and culture, people who in their own way, their own tradition, have mourned my child… everyone who lit a candle for her - every musician, who wrote songs for her, who wrote poems about her… you know, Neda loved the arts and music. I want to thank all of them.

I want to thank politicians and leaders, from every country, at all levels, who remembered my child.

Her death has been so painful - words can never describe my true feelings. But knowing that the world cried for her… that has comforted me.

I am proud of her. The world sees her as a symbol, and that makes me happy.

Neda has become a symbol not just of the struggle in Iran, I think, but of the sacrifices being made by young people around the world working for justice. It may be a small consolation, but her daughter's spirit is with us all.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (54)

PLAYS: (82)

August 01, 2009 CNN

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (85)

PLAYS: (210)

Fareed Zakaria got into a little spat over the weekend when he interviewed via satellite Tehran University Professor Mohammed Marandi. Zakaria grew exasperated with Marandi's efforts to minimize the brutal crackdown in Iran. Marandi blamed opposition leader Mousavi for causing civil unrest within Iran after the election, and the United States and other western countries for urging Iranians to riot, in the hope of regime change. Zakaria compared Marandi to the 1980's era Soviet officials who "spoke perfect english, where everything was fine" until it all collapsed, asking if he too will one day be viewed as a "mouthpiece for a dying repressive regime."

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1120)

PLAYS: (1268)

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told NBC's Meet the Press that the US is doing everything possible to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. "We're going to do everything we can to prevent you from ever getting a nuclear weapon, but your pursuit is futile," she said.

Meet The Press:

MR. GREGORY: Let me turn to another hot spot, and that is Iran. A big headline this week, again, with your words: "Clinton's `Defense Umbrella' Stirs Tensions." The headlines goes on, "Suggests U.S. Will Have to Protect Allies From Nuclear-Armed Iran." You were in Bangkok on Wednesday, and this is what you said that got this started.(Videotape, Wednesday)

SEC'Y CLINTON: We want Iran to calculate what I think is a fair assessment, that if the United States extends a defense umbrella over the region, if we do even more to support the military capacity of those in the Gulf, it's unlikely that Iran will be any stronger or safer, because they won't be able to intimidate and dominate as they apparently believe they can once they have a nuclear weapon.(End videotape)

MR. GREGORY: Did you mean to suggest that the U.S. is considering a nuclear umbrella that would say to nations in the Arab world that an attack on you, just like NATO or Japan is an attack on the United States, and the United States would retaliate?

SEC'Y CLINTON: Well, I think it's clear that we're trying to affect the internal calculus of the Iranian regime. You know, the Iranian government, which is facing its own challenges of legitimacy from its people, has to know that that a pursuit of nuclear weapons, something that our country along with our allies stand strongly against. We believe as a matter of policy it is unacceptable for Iran to have nuclear weapons. The G-8 came out with a very strong statement to that effect coming from Italy. So we are united in our continuing commitment to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. What we want to do is to send a message to whoever is making these decisions that if you're pursuing nuclear weapons for the purpose of intimidating, of projecting your power, we're not going to let that happen. First, we're going to do everything we can to prevent you from ever getting a nuclear weapon. But your pursuit is futile, because we will never let Iran--nuclear-armed, not nuclear-armed, it is something that we view with great concern, and that's why we're doing everything we can to prevent that from ever happening.

Continue reading »

Join this unprecedented wave of global citizen activism in solidarity with the people of Iran. On July 25, participate in an event in one of more than 105 cities around the world. Find out how else you can help.

http://united4iran.org

Note: the song used in the video above is by Dj Spooky and features Sussan Deyhim a renowned Iranian singer. It's available as a free download, here. "Azadi (The New Complexity) is a song based on a very old poem by Rumi, one of the poet laureates of Iran’s ancient tradition of poetry. The word Azadi itself simply means Freedom".

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (822)

PLAYS: (1282)

Huckabee seems to have forgotten that most militaries have something a little larger than muskets to fight with these days. He apparently thinks arming the Iranians to the hilt and turning Iran into the wild, wild west would make things better over there. I don't think arming the citizens with guns is going to do them a whole lot of good trying to go up against that country's military force. They'd just be getting out bigger weapons to slaughter them with and more of them would end up dying. And while we're on the subject, just who do you think Jesus would arm Huck?

Huckabee: Well across America we celebrate this day as our nation’s 233rd birthday, and what a wonderful country. We ought to never take for granted our freedom, nor forget the depth of sacrifice for those that have given it to us. Just watch the events in Iran and breathe deep the air of freedom that you have. And we know the shot that murdered the twenty six old Neda Agha-Soltan has been called the shot heard round the world.

That’s a reference of course to Ralph Waldo Emerson’s poem commemorating the battle at the Concord Bridge in 1775, which begins:

By the rude bridge that arched the flood,
Their flag to April’s breeze unfurled,
Here once the embattled farmers stood,
And fired the shot heard round the world.

But there’s a huge difference between these two shots. A difference not just in hundreds of years and thousands of miles. The shot that took Neda was for brutality and darkness. It was fired not just to stop her young heart, but to destroy the demand for dignity and fairness. The Battle of Concord ended differently from the battle and the events five years earlier when Americans had thrown snowballs at the British and five Americans ended up dead. That confrontation became known as the Boston Mascare.

Now what’s the difference between a masacre and a battle? Well I’ll tell ya’. Guns. Some of us fail to understand that our 1st Amendment right to speak and assemble is meaningless without our 2nd Amendment right to bear arms. We don’t make the connection sometimes.

Without the 2nd Amendment there are no battles, just masacres. That’s why I don’t understand some people in groups who are so gung-ho on the 1st Amendment, but the 2nd Amendment, not so much. Some don’t seem to believe that we have an indivdual right to bear arms and the founding fathers wanted to make certain that what ever happened in this country, we would be prepared to protect our freedom like the Minutemen, and not be reduced to pathetic victims throwing snowballs or chunks of cement like the poor souls in Iran.

Forewarned about the danger of tyranny is forearmed against it. Unarmed, is simply dead. As long as evil exists the shots will continue to be heard around the world and as free men and women, we need to do everything we can to ensure that they echo the Battle of Concord, and not the masacre of Tehran.