|
Banned
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Hanxter
Blah Blah Blah
|
Just to highlight your contribution to this discussion, or are you sending a message directed at me? I think I have reacted reasonably, at all times, to you. So, what is this about?
Here is Bush at his best, just the other day, threatening Iran, rehashing his "axis of evil" theme, and lumping Iran with al Qaeda, and the attacks on 9/11:
Quote:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0080410-2.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
April 10, 2008
President Bush Discusses Iraq
....The regime in Tehran also has a choice to make. It can live in peace with its neighbor, enjoy strong economic and cultural and religious ties. Or it can continue <h3>to arm and train and fund illegal militant groups</h3>, which are terrorizing the Iraqi people and turning them against Iran. If Iran makes the right choice, America will encourage a peaceful relationship between Iran and Iraq. Iran makes the wrong choice, America will act to protect our interests, and our troops, and our Iraqi partners....
.....Today, we face an enemy that is not only expansionist in its aims, but has actually attacked our homeland -- and intends to do so again. Yet our defense budget accounts for just over 4 percent of our economy -- less than our commitment at any point during the four decades of the Cold War. This is still <h3>a large amount of money, but it is modest -- a modest fraction of our nation's wealth -- and it pales when compared to the cost of another terrorist attack on our people.</h3>
We should be able to agree that this is a burden worth bearing. And we should be able to agree that our national interest require the success of our mission in Iraq.
<h3>Iraq is the convergence point for two of the greatest threats to America in this new century -- al Qaeda and Iran.</h3> If we fail there, al Qaeda would claim a propaganda victory of colossal proportions, and they could gain safe havens in Iraq from which to attack the United States, our friends and our allies. Iran would work to fill the vacuum in Iraq, and our failure would embolden its radical leaders and fuel their ambitions to dominate the region. The Taliban in Afghanistan and al Qaeda in Pakistan would grow in confidence and boldness. And violent extremists around the world would draw <h3>the same dangerous lesson that they did from our retreats in Somalia and Vietnam</h3>. This would diminish our nation's standing in the world, and lead to massive humanitarian casualties, and increase the threat of another terrorist attack on our homeland.
On the other hand, if we succeed in Iraq after all that al Qaeda and Iran have invested there, it would be a historic blow to the global terrorist movement and a severe setback for Iran. <h3>It would demonstrate to a watching world that mainstream Arabs reject the ideology of al Qaeda, and mainstream Shia reject the ideology of Iran's radical regime. It would give America a new partner with a growing economy and a democratic political system in which Sunnis and Shia and Kurds all work together</h3> for the good of their country. And in all these ways, it would bring us closer to our most important goal -- <h3>making the American people safer here at home.</h3>
|
If President Bush is at all close to accomplishing his "vision", can anyone who supports him and what he says he is doing, answer a few questions?
<h3>Why can the Iranian president preannounce his visit to Iraq, receive an enthusiastic (unprecedented?) official "head of state" welcome from all Iraqi government officials, except sunnis....move from the airport, and around Baghdad with minimal security and in a regular sedan (no armour), stay and sleep outside the green zone, with no US military provided security. Versus, in the same month, Cheney and McCain are observed sneaking into Iraq (no preannouncement of either of their visits)....under extremely tight security...roads pre-swept for IEDs, US troops lining roads, combat helicopters overhead, spending the bulk of their visits in the green zone.....?</h3>
Iran president on landmark Iraq visit - CNN.com
Story Highlights; Ahmadinejad is the first Iranian president to visit Iraq and ... He noted that Iraq has a new government, and is an "independent state." ...
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/...jad/index.html - 78k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this
McClatchy Washington Bureau | 03/02/2008 | Visit by Iran's ...
Mar 2, 2008 ... BAGHDAD — Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Sunday became the first Iranian head of state to visit Iraq in three decades and ...
www.mcclatchydc.com/iraq/story/29212.html - 37k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this
President Ahmadinejad of Iran to make first visit to Iraq in March ...
Feb 14, 2008 ... President Ahmadinejad of Iran to make first visit to Iraq in March. ... A State Department spokesman, Sean McCormack, said the United States ...
www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/14/mideast/iraq.php
<h3>Why did Bush accuse Iran</h3> "to arm and train and fund illegal militant groups"....when the following strongly indicates that Bush himself allowed a US designated terrorist organization, "feed" him false information that he continued to repeat to the American public, and let shape his Iran policy, for years?
Quote:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/51715
TERROR WATCH
Michael Isikoff and
Mark Hosenball
Terror Watch: Consider the Source
The State Department says Mek is a terror group. Human rights watch says it's a cult. For the White House, Mek is a source of intelligence on Iran.
May 18, 2005 | Updated: 3:27 p.m. ET Oct 16, 2007
.....Despite the group's notoriety, Bush himself cited purported intelligence gathered by MEK as evidence of the Iranian regime's rapidly accelerating nuclear ambitions. At a March 16 press conference, Bush said Iran's hidden nuclear program had been discovered not because of international inspections but "because a dissident group pointed it out to the world." White House aides acknowledged later that the dissident group cited by the president is the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), one of the MEK front groups added to the State Department list two years ago.
In an appearance before a House International Relations Subcommittee a year ago, John Bolton, the controversial State Department undersecretary who Bush has nominated to become US ambassador to the United Nations, was questioned by a Congressman sympathetic to MEK about whether it was appropriate for the U.S. government to pay attention to allegations about Iran supplied by the group. Bolton said he believed that MEK "qualifies as a terrorist organization according to our criteria." But he added that he did not think the official label had "prohibited us from getting information from them. And I certainly don't have any inhibition about getting information about what's going on in Iran from whatever source we can find that we deem reliable......
|
Quote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...080101453.html
Iran Is Judged 10 Years From Nuclear Bomb
U.S. Intelligence Review Contrasts With Administration Statements
By Dafna Linzer
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, August 2, 2005; Page A01
A major U.S. intelligence review has projected that Iran is about a decade away from manufacturing the key ingredient for a nuclear weapon, roughly doubling the previous estimate of five years, according to government sources with firsthand knowledge of the new analysis.
The carefully hedged assessments, which represent consensus among U.S. intelligence agencies, contrast with forceful public statements by the White House. Administration officials have asserted, but have not offered proof, that Tehran is moving determinedly toward a nuclear arsenal. The new estimate could provide more time for diplomacy with Iran over its nuclear ambitions. President Bush has said that he wants the crisis resolved diplomatically but that "all options are on the table."
The new National Intelligence Estimate includes what the intelligence community views as credible indicators that Iran's military is conducting clandestine work. But the sources said there is no information linking those projects directly to a nuclear weapons program.....
|
<h3>Why did Bush and Cheney, et al surpress the NIE finding on Iran, for a year, and continue to proclaim the exact opposite of the NIE's conclusions ?</h3>
Quote:
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/12/03/iran-white-house/
<a href="http://thinkprogress.org/2007/12/03/nie-iran/">Despite Knowledge That Iran Halted Nuke Program</a>, White House Continued To Warn Of False Threat»
The National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) released today concludes that “in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program.” It adds that “Tehran had not restarted its nuclear weapons program as of mid-2007,” and the country is “less determined to develop nuclear weapons than we have been judging since 2005.”
The assessment, which relies on <a href="http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/20071203_release.pdf">data collected through Oct. 31</a>, was <a href="http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=39978">reportedly completed in 2006</a>, but was blocked by administration officials who wanted it to be more in line with Vice President Cheney’s hardline views.
As The Washington Monthly’s Kevin Drum notes, the NIE’s “basic parameters were almost certainly <a href="http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_12/012623.php">common knowledge in the White House”</a> at least by last year, when the document was finished. Yet even in the past two months, the administration has continued to push its faulty, inflammatory rhetoric and claim that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons. Some examples:
“The problem is Iran, and Iran has not stepped back from trying to pursue a nuclear weapon, and — or reprocessing and enriching uranium, which would lead to a nuclear weapon.” [White House spokeswoman Dana Perino, <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/10/20071026-6.html">10/26/07</a>]
“We talked about Iran and the desire to work jointly to convince the Iranian regime to give up their nuclear weapons ambitions, for the sake of peace.” [Bush, <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/11/20071107-5.html">11/7/07</a>]
“We’re in a position now, clearly, especially when we look at Iran, where it’s very, very important we succeed in our efforts, our national security efforts, to discourage the Iranians from enriching uranium and producing nuclear weapons.” [Cheney, <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/11/20071109-11.html">11/9/07</a>]
“We are convinced that they are developing nuclear weapons.” [Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman, <a href="http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2007/12/03/iran/index.html">11/13/07</a>]...
...UPDATE: Secretary of Defense Robert Gates recently said, “It would be a <a href="http://www.newsweek.com/id/73362">strategic calamity</a> to attack Iran at this time.”
|
<h3>Why did Bush administration officials and Foxnews have such close ties to a terrorist organization spokesperson, Alireza Jafarzadeh, a man totally discredited in both the 2005 and 2007 NIEs on Iran?</h3>
Quote:
http://web.archive.org/web/200209301...3579.asp?cp1=1
Ashcroft’s Baghdad Connection
Why the attorney general and others in Washington have backed a terror group with ties to Iraq
By Michael Isikoff
NEWSWEEK WEB EXCLUSIVE
Sept. 26 (2002)— When the White House released its Sept. 12 “white paper” detailing Saddam Hussein’s “support for international terrorism,” it caused more than a little discomfort in some quarters of Washington.
THE 27-PAGE DOCUMENT—entitled “A Decade of Deception and Defiance”—made no mention of any Iraqi ties to Osama bin Laden. But it did highlight Saddam’s backing of the Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MKO), an obscure Iranian dissident group that has gathered surprising support among members of Congress in past years. One of those supporters, the documents show, is a top commander in President Bush’s war on terrorism: Attorney General John Ashcroft, who became involved with the MKO while a Republican senator from Missouri.
The case of Ashcroft and the MKO shows just how murky fighting terrorism can sometimes get. State Department officials first designated the MKO a “foreign terrorist organization” in 1997, accusing the Baghdad-based group of a long series of bombings, guerilla cross-border raids and targeted assassinations of Iranian leaders. Officials say the MKO—which originally fought to overthrow the Shah of Iran—was linked to the murder of several U.S. military officers and civilians in Iran in the 1970s. “They have an extremely bloody history,” says one U.S. counterterrorism official.
But the MKO, which commands an army of 30,000 from bases inside Iraq, has tried to soften its image in recent years—in part with strong backing from politically active Iranian-Americans in the United States. The MKO operates in Washington out of a small office in the National Press Building under the name the National Council of Resistance of Iran. According to the State Department, the National Council of Resistance is a “front” for the MKO; in 1999, the National Council itself was placed on the State Department terrorist list. But National Council officials adamantly deny their group has earned the terror label and have aggressively portrayed itself to Washington lawmakers as a “democratic” alternative to a repressive Iranian regime that itself is one of the world’s leading sponsors of terrorism. “You’re talking about a really popular movement,” <h3>says Alireza Jafarzadeh, the National Council’s chief Washington spokesman, who insists that the MKO “targets only military targets.”</h3>
Only two years ago, these arguments won sympathy from Ashcroft—and more than 200 other members of Congress. When the National Council of Resistance staged a September 2000 rally outside the United Nations to protest a speech by Iranian President Mohammed Khatami, Missouri’s two Republican senators—Ashcroft and Chris Bond—issued a joint statement of solidarity that was read aloud to a cheering crowd. A delegation of about 500 Iranians from Missouri attended the event—and a picture of a smiling Ashcroft was later included in a color briefing book used by MKO officials to promote their cause on Capitol Hill. Ashcroft was hardly alone. Among those who actually appeared at the rally and spoke on the group’s behalf was one of its leading congressional supporters: Democratic New Jersey Sen. Bob Torricelli.
That same year, Senator Ashcroft wrote a letter to Attorney General Janet Reno protesting the detention of an Iranian woman, Mahnaz Samadi, who was a leading spokeswoman for the National Council of Resistance. The case quickly became a cause celebre for the MKO and its supporters in the United States.
U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service agents had arrested Samadi at the Canadian border, charging her with failing to disclose her past “terrorist” ties as an MKO “military commander”—including spending seven months in a MKO military-training camp inside Iraq—when she sought political asylum in the United States several years earlier, according to court documents obtained by NEWSWEEK.
Senator Ashcroft saw the case differently. In his May 10, 2000, letter to Reno, the Missouri lawmaker expressed “concern” about the detention, calling Samadi a “highly regarded human-rights activist” and a “powerful voice for democracy.” (As part of a later settlement with the INS, Samadi admitted her membership in MKO but denied that she personally participated in any “terrorist activity.” While her grant of political asylum was revoked, the INS dropped its deportation proceedings and she was permitted to remain in the United States.)
<h3>Alireza Jafarzadeh, the National Council’s top Washington lobbyist, said he had “several” meetings with Ashcroft aides</h3> about the matter and that he “certainly” viewed the Missouri senator as a supporter of his group. But backers of the MKO acknowledge the real lobbying was done by Iranian-Americans in Missouri who wrote letters and made repeated phone calls on Samadi’s behalf. How much Ashcroft got personally involved isn’t clear. A Justice Department spokeswoman told NEWSWEEK that Ashcroft’s letter to Reno was the result of a “straightforward, constituent-type inquiry,” adding that the current attorney general would never “knowingly” back any terrorist group. When he signed the joint statement with Bond that was read at the National Council rally at the United Nations, Ashcroft did not “intend to endorse any organization,” the spokeswoman, Barbara Comstock, said. “He was supporting democracy and freedom in Iran,” she said. Comstock said Ashcroft currently has “no problem” prosecuting all U.S.-based terror groups, including the MKO.
Ashcroft isn’t the only one now distancing himself from the MKO. The Senate’s most aggressive promotor of the MKO for years has been Bob Torricelli, who in recent years has circulated numerous letters among his colleagues—including one as recently as last year—describing the MKO as a “legitimate” alternative to the repressive Iranian mullahs and urging that the group be taken off the State Department terrorist list. Torricelli told NEWSWEEK he saw his support for the group as a way of putting pressure on the Iranian regime. “They [the MKO] were the only game in town,” he said. But Torricelli also said last week said he would no longer push the group’s cause after getting hammered over the issue by his GOP opponent, Doug Forrester, who accused Torricelli of receiving more than $100,000 in campaign contributions from Iranian-Americans who supported the group. (Torricelli aides say the amount is exaggerated and that others, including some leading Republicans, have also received contributions from some of the same Iranian-Americans.) As a result of the September 11 attacks and new concerns about any allegations of terrorism, Bond also has put his backing for the group “in abeyance,” an aide said.
Much of the new skittishness among MKO’s congressional backers also stems from the decision by the Bush White House to emphasize the connections between MKO and Saddam. It isn’t the first time this was done. Former Clinton administration official Martin Indyk, who served as assistant secretary of State for Near Eastern affairs in 1997, told NEWSWEEK that one of the reasons the group was put on the terrorism list in the first place was part of a “two-pronged” strategy that included ratcheting up pressure on Saddam. Like the Bush White House, the Clinton administration was eager to highlight Iraqi ties to terrorism and had collected extensive evidence of Saddam providing logistical support to the MKO in the aftermath of the Iran-Iraq War. (The MKO’s headquarters are located on a heavily guarded street in central Baghdad.) But the United States could find no other hard evidence linking Saddam to terror groups, Indyk said. “That was about all we had on [Saddam] when it came to terrorism,” Indyk told NEWSWEEK.
National-security adviser Condoleezza Rice said in an interview Wednesday on PBS’s “The NewsHour” that the United States had new evidence from “high-ranking detainees” that Iraq has provided “some training to Al Qaeda in chemical-weapons development.” But a top U.S. law-enforcement official recently cast some doubt about the strength of the evidence connecting Saddam and Al Qaeda, telling NEWSWEEK there is far more substantial evidence that Iran was harboring top Al Qaeda leaders.)
The other “prong” in the Clinton strategy that led to the inclusion of the MKO on the terrorist list was White House interest in opening up a dialogue with the Iranian government. At the time, President Khatami had recently been elected and was seen as a moderate. Top administration officials saw cracking down on the MKO—which the Iranians had made clear they saw as a menace—as one way to do so. Still, Indyk said the basic decision to label the MKO as terrorists could be justified anyway. “Yes, they’re bad guys,” he told NEWSWEEK. “But no—they’re not targeting us.”
Indyk’s comments lend partial support to one of the main contentions of MKO and its congressional supporters: that geopolitical strategy—a tilt toward Iran—was an important factor in the State Department decision to accuse MKO of terrorism. “They wanted to appease the Iranian regime,” said Jafarzadeh, the National Council of Resistance lobbyist.
Still, the Justice Department appears only to be stepping up investigations into MKO members. Early last year, the FBI broke up a ring of Iranians who were raising money at the Los Angeles airport under the guise of helping suffering children when, according to a court complaint, they were routing the funds to the MKO. (A federal judge recently tossed the case out of court, but the Justice Department is appealing.) <h3>Then, last December, FBI agents showed up at the home of Jafarzadeh. Armed with a search warrant, the agents hauled away boxes of documents, including files on the group’s dealings with members of Congress. One in particular must have gotten the agents’ attention. It was labeled ASHCROFT. </h3>
|
<h3>Why is foxnews still employing fomer terrorist organization spokesman, Alireza Jafarzadeh, allowing him to quote the current NCRI spokesman and other MEK terrorists, in a frequent series of articles still regularly published on the foxnews site?</h3>
Alireza Jafarzadeh attempted to refute the newly released 2007 NIE on Iran, with this. He's in the same position, spokesman for the NCRI/MEK/MKO, that he was in for twelve years, before the US closed his DC office...only now he is paid by foxnews to distribute his terrorist organization's propaganda:
Quote:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,...fnc/world/iran
Dissident: Iran's Top Commanders Are Nuclear Weapons Scientists
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
By Sharon Kehnemui Liss
WASHINGTON — Twenty-one commanders of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps are the top scientists running Iran's secret nuclear weapons program, says the man who exposed Iran's nuclear weapons program in 2002.
On top of that, the U.S. National Intelligence Estimate published last week saying Tehran shut down its weaponization program in 2003 failed to mention that the program restarted in mid-2004, said Alireza Jafarzadeh, an Iranian dissident and president of Strategic Policy Consulting.
The scientists working on the alleged civilian nuclear centrifuge program are IGRC commanders, said Jafarzadeh, who was providing a list of names to the press on Tuesday. But their intention is not a nuclear energy source for civilians.
"It's the IRGC that is basically controlling the whole thing, dominating the whole thing," Jafarzadeh told FOXNews.com. "They are running the show. They have a number of sites controlled by the IRGC that has been off-limits to the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) and inspectors, including a military university known as Imam Hossein University. ... That site has not been inspected. They have perhaps the most advanced nuclear research and development center in that university."....
|
<h3>How can there be any doubt that Alireza Jafarzadeh was and still is a spokesman for a terrorist organization? :</h3>
Quote:
http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/rm/2003/20072.htm
On-the-Record Briefing
Ambassador Cofer Black, Coordinator for Counterterrorism
Remarks at On-the-Record Briefing on the Release of the Annual Patterns of Global Terrorism 2002 report
Washington, DC
April 30, 2003
....QUESTION: What does the State Department think about the ceasefire that was signed between the MEK and the U.S., U.S. CENTCOM, in Iraq?
Since this group is still on the terrorist list, as I understand it, Americans are not supposed to deal with them at all. And that's always been kind of a -- there is a problem in Washington, D.C., because they keep an office open here.
So can you tell me how this squares with the MEK's terrorist status?
AMBASSADOR BLACK: Sure, I'll be happy to, happy to try. The Secretary has recommended that the President determine that the laws that apply to countries that support terrorism no longer apply to Iraq. The President's determination to provide greater flexibility in permitting certain types of trade with and assistance to Iraq; thus, we can treat Iraq like any other country not on the terrorist list.
I think it's important to underscore some facts here. MEK is designated by the U.S. Government as a Foreign Terrorist Organization. This organization mixes Islam and Marxism in their battle to establish what they claim would be a secular state in Iran.
Until the recent war in Iraq, they were allied with the government of Saddam Hussein and received most of their support from this regime. They have assisted the Hussein regime in suppressing opposition within Iraq, and performed internal security for the Iraqi regime. MEK, or as some recently referred to as the People's Mujahedin, has also attacked and killed Americans.
<h3>The MEK and its many aliases, including the political NCRI, are designated as Foreign Terrorist Organizations.</h3> The United States Government does not negotiate with terrorists. MEK's opposition to the Iranian Government does not change the fact that they are a terrorist organization. We understand the agreement on the ground in the field is a prelude to the group's surrender. Commanders make tactical decisions to end conflict with enemy combatants successfully.
There's a lot of activity in various areas underway in Iraq -- of which this is one -- I would refer you to CENTCOM and their briefers to get better insight to the decision-making and the actions of our commanders, coalition commanders on the ground.
This is a pretty special group. They are a Foreign Terrorist Organization. They are not well liked in Iraq; they could not be put with the general prisoner population. They are following the orders of the coalition commanders, and their situation will be addressed in the coming days and weeks.
|
<h3>Doesn't the following article demonstrate that the US is guilty of exactly the same thing that Bush accuses Iran of doing:...</h3>"arm and train and fund illegal militant groups" ? Can anyone argue that the US policy is much more estranged from the POV of the Iraqi majority than it is in common with it?
Can you make any case that Bush's opinion and goals are not hypocritcal, contradictory and unrealistic? Witness the cooperation described in the following article, of the US military with a US state dept. designated terrorist organization, an organization unwelcome in Iraq in the opinion of the Iraqi government, so that:
Quote:
....[Mek] have hosted dozens of visitors in an energetic campaign to persuade the State Department to stop designating the group as a terrorist organization.
Now the Iraqi government is intensifying its efforts to evict the 3,800 or so members of the group who live in Iraq, although U.S. officials say they are in no hurry to change their policy toward the MEK, <h3>which has been a prime source of information about Iran's nuclear program.</h3>....
|
...during a time when Bush or Cheney, or both, as well as those in charge of US intelligence agencies, including Sect'y of Defense Bob Gates, had to know that the "prime source of information about Iran's nuclear program" coming from MEK and NCRI, and from foxnews mouthpiece, Alireza Jafarzadeh, <h3>conflicts with the determinations about Iran contained in both the 2005 and 2007 NIEs.....</h3>
Quote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...301782_pf.html
Iraq Intensifies Efforts to Expel Iranian Group
Though Labeled Terrorist, MEK Has Updated U.S. on Tehran's Nuclear Program
By Ernesto Londoño and Saad al-Izzi
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, March 14, 2007; A10
BAGHDAD -- For three years, thousands of members of a militant group dedicated to overthrowing Iran's theocracy have lived in a sprawling compound north of Baghdad <h3>under the protection of the U.S. military.
American soldiers chauffeur top leaders of the group, known as the Mujaheddin-e Khalq, or MEK, to and from their compound, where they have hosted dozens of visitors in an energetic campaign to persuade the State Department to stop designating the group as a terrorist organization.</h3>
Now the Iraqi government is intensifying its efforts to evict the 3,800 or so members of the group who live in Iraq, although U.S. officials say they are in no hurry to change their policy toward the MEK, <h3>which has been a prime source of information about Iran's nuclear program.</h3>
The Iraqi government announced this week that roughly 100 members would face prosecution for human rights violations, a move MEK officials contend comes at the request of the Iranian government.
"We have documents, witnesses," Jaafar al-Moussawi, a top Iraqi prosecutor, said Monday, alleging that the MEK aided President Saddam Hussein's campaign to crush Shiite and Kurdish opposition movements at the end of the 1991 Persian Gulf War. Moussawi said the criminal complaint would implicate MEK members in "killing, torture, [wrongful] imprisonment and displacement."
The group denied involvement in Hussein's reprisals.
"These allegations are preposterous and lies made by the Iranian mullahs and repeated by their agents," it said in a statement issued this week.
The case highlights the occasional discord between the U.S. and Iraqi governments on matters related to Iran. While the U.S. government has accused Iran of supplying Iraqi Shiite militias with sophisticated weapons that it says have been used to kill American troops, Iraq's Shiite-led government has expanded commercial and diplomatic ties with its majority-Shiite neighbor.
"This organization has always destabilized the security situation" in Iraq, said Mariam Rayis, a top foreign affairs adviser to Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, adding that the MEK's continued presence "could lead to deteriorating the relationship with neighboring countries."....
|
Last edited by host; 04-13-2008 at 04:49 PM..
|