Patty cake, patty cake, Baker's Man...

Bush picks Zoellick as new World Bank Chief

[SNIP]

... reputation among foreign policy types across the world ... something we badly need," former secretary of state James Baker, who has worked closely with Zoellick, told Reuters by telephone. Baker acknowledged that Zoellick does not have extensive...

[SNIP]

Wolfowitz is out, Baker's man is in

IT IS ALL CONNECTED YOU CAN NOT VIEW WHAT IS HAPPENING HERE IN ISOLATION

FOLLOW THE CHAINS OF NAMES

CONNECTIONS: ROBERT ZOELLICK

Evil Counselor~ by BabbaZee 2002

World Bank Chief Zoellick: Bush's Quiet Idealist

[SNIP]

But 53-year-old Zoellick knows what he wants -- which is to say, he knows what his superior in Washington wants.

The crisis manager's right-hand man

He is, after all, an old friend of the Bush family -- and he shares its conviction that the United States is the only qualified world power today. Zoellick, who grew up as a descendant of German immigrants in Illinois, was one of the protégés of James Baker, the Bush clan's perennial crisis manager and the Secretary of State under George H.W. Bush. As Baker's right-hand man, the junior diplomat hammered out the foreign policy conditions of German unity during the "Two Plus Four" talks in the summer of 1990.

[SNIP]

For Your Reference:

November 9, 2006

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush's choice to take over the Defense Department is already involved in planning for the future of the war in Iraq as a member of a high-level commission reviewing U.S. strategy.

Bush tapped Robert Gates, who served as director of the Central Intelligence Agency during his father's presidency, on Wednesday to replace embattled Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who stepped down amid heavy criticism of his management of the war.

The 63-year-old Gates is a member of the Iraq Study Group, a bipartisan, congressionally-established panel led by former Secretary of State James Baker, a longtime Bush family confidante; and Lee Hamilton, the former chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and vice chairman of the 9/11 commission.

The panel is working to finish its assessment of the increasingly unpopular conflict and is expected to recommend changes in the U.S. strategy there.

Members already have held extensive high-level meetings with Bush, Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki and numerous other U.S. and Iraqi military officials. (Watch reaction to 'new face' at Pentagon -- 2:05)

On another contentious issue, Gates has called for direct talks with Iran's government.

LINK

[SNIP]

FYI: PDF: THE IRAQ STUDY GROUP REPORT


See Also:



HERE




HERE




HERE




HERE




HERE





HERE




Aww....Hell, just read the whole blog....

FOR YOUR EDIFICATION AND BACKGROUND: RELATED LGF THREADS FROM 2006

Iraq Study Group: Selling Israel Down the River

Wed, Dec 6, 2006 at 8:43:29 am
The Truth Laid Bear has the Iraq Study Group document in linkable form. The sections dealing with Israel are especially troubling, but not surprising given Baker’s history. All these recommendations stem from a basis of complete fantasy, in which Israel’s Arab neighbors are genuinely interested in peace and all we ...

Iraq Study Group Will Call for Pullout

Thu, Nov 30, 2006 at 6:39:34 am
The Iraq Study Group, according to the New York Times, is going to recommend retreat with honor. Or withdrawal with dignity. Something Vietnam-flavored, for the new, not-at-war America. 15 Brigades Would Gradually Stand Down Under Plan. WASHINGTON, Nov. 29 — The bipartisan Iraq Study Group reached a consensus on Wednesday on ...

Iraq Study Group to Pressure Israel?

Wed, Nov 29, 2006 at 4:34:46 pm
Here’s a troubling report at the New York Sun on what we can expect from the Baker-Hamilton study group: Baker Panel Aide Expects Israel Will Be Pressed. WASHINGTON — An expert adviser to the Baker-Hamilton commission expects the 10-person panel to recommend that the Bush administration pressure Israel to make concessions ...

More to come....

Crocker Shit

GENOCIDAL THEOCRASSHOLE

I still have not found a transcript of the deer in the headlights Crocker presser I saw on CNN very early yesterday morning, but when I do I'll add it here.

RYAN CROCKER

PAY VERY CAREFUL ATTENTION TO THE LANGUAGE.. in this case and in ALL THINGS.

Here is what I meant:

If you understand boxing ....there is a ring generalmanship involved in being an effective fighter.

In other words, he who controls the ring with his body dictates the parameters and the space of the fight itself - the person showing ring generalmanship determines the size and shape of the battle and where it will be fought, how much room the opponent has to move, and various other factors.

You can read this sort of ring generalmanship in language if you are looking for it.

Try it out. You tell me who is controlling this ring:

HE WHO CONTROLS LANGUAGE CONTROLS THOUGHT

It is not for no reason Uncle Chom is a linguist...

Briefing With U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan C. Crocker on His Meeting With Iranian Officials

5/28/07

Via Teleconference

OPERATOR: Hello, and welcome to today's teleconference. At the request of the company, this conference is being recorded. Mr. Casey, you may begin.

MR. CASEY: Okay, thank you, everyone, for joining us. Sorry it's taken us a few minutes to get to you. Appreciate you joining us on Memorial Day and appreciate having with us as well Ambassador Ryan Crocker from Baghdad. As you know, he has met today with his Iranian counterpart to discuss some of the common concerns and issues that the United States and Iran have related to Iraq. And I'll just turn it over to you, Ryan, let you make a couple of introductory remarks, and then we'll go right to questions.

AMBASSADOR CROCKER: Thanks, Tom.

[SNIP]

I would repeat what I said earlier, that I would call these discussions businesslike. At the level of policy and principle, the Iranian position, as articulated by the Iranian Ambassador, was very close to our own: support for a stable, secure, democratic, federal Iraq that is able to control its borders, is at peace with its neighbors and is bringing prosperity to its citizens. Though again, on that level, there was fairly broad agreement.

[SNIP]

We told the Iranians today that their support for armed militia groups that are challenging the authority of the Iraqi Government and attacking coalition soldiers needs to stop, and we were quite, quite clear on that point.

The final thing I'd say before I go to your questions is that the Iraqi side indicated that they would want to issue an invitation for another meeting sometime in the near future. Once we receive that invitation, obviously we'll give it close consideration, but nothing was fixed in this meeting with respect to a follow-on meeting. And with that, I'm happy to take your questions.

Our first question comes from:

QUESTION: Sue Pleming, Reuters. Yes, hello. I wonder, do you think that this meeting marks a sort of a change in your relationship, in the relationship between the United States and Iran? And did you discuss at all that the next meeting could be at a ministerial level or higher than the envoy level?

AMBASSADOR CROCKER: Thank you for asking that. The subjects and focus of the meeting was Iraq and how the United States and Iran can help and support the government and people of Iraq in improving conditions here, particularly security conditions. There was no other item on the agenda; nothing else was discussed.

AGAIN ......because we were ordered very clearly before hand we were not allowed to speak on any other subject. ORDERED and ALLOWED. Yes.

[SNIP]

QUESTION: What was the -- you said the mood was businesslike. I mean, is this someone you think you can do business with? Do you think that they will act on the requests that you made in terms of trying to reduce violence and stopping support for militias?

AMBASSADOR CROCKER: Well, that is what we need to see. Again, we were quite clear on what we see on the ground and quite clear in describing how damaging we believe it is to Iraq's own efforts to establish security and stability, and that it needs to stop. So we'll obviously be watching closely to see what the results are.

QUESTION: Thanks.

OPERATOR: Thank you. Our next question comes from:

QUESTION: Jonathan Beale, BBC. Thank you, Ambassador. You said no other issues were discussed, so I take it that you didn't raise the issue of the Iranian Americans who have been arrested by Tehran. And also, I'd just like to ask you when you said that when you told them that their policy was inconsistent with their actions, was there any acknowledgement that there was an inconsistency there, that they had been involved in supporting militants -- militia in training and arms?

AMBASSADOR CROCKER: On the first, you're right; the meeting was exclusively about Iraq. We're dealing with the issue of the detained American citizens via the Swiss Government, which is our diplomatic -- formal diplomatic channel to the Iranians. And through that channel, we've made it clear that the Iranians should let these private citizens go; they are not a party to any policy differences between our governments. But that was not on the agenda here in Baghdad today.

And remind me -- it's been a long day -- what the second part was?

QUESTION: The second part was about -- you mentioned the inconsistency between the states policy of Iran and their actions. I think I'm just trying to get to whether there was any acknowledgement that there may have been inconsistency, any acknowledgement that they were involved in supporting militants.

AMBASSADOR CROCKER: No, there was no acknowledgment. In fact, there was very little comment on the issue from the Iranian delegates. They reserved their right to respond at some point in the future, but made no detailed response during our discussions today.

QUESTION: Thank you.

OPERATOR: Thank you. Our next question comes from:

QUESTION: Eli Lake, New York Sun. Hi, Ambassador Crocker. I wanted to ask if you could get into any more detail about the presentation that you made to the Iranians. And also, can you give us a sense -- I mean, there have been talks with the Iranians on and off for a long time at certain levels in Iraq. What gives you -- do you have any sense of -- are more optimistic that this time they'll stop what you say they are doing?

AMBASSADOR CROCKER: Well, on the first part, I laid out the fact that we have solid evidence linking Iran to the support of armed militant groups that are attacking our soldiers, Iraqi security forces and innocent civilians. We made clear we are aware that Iraq is supplying -- Iran is supplying such groups with arms and ammunition and explosives, including explosively formed projectiles; that we know this, that we know the Revolutionary Guard's Quds Force is the lead instrument in pursuing this policy, and that they need to stop this behavior that is killing our soldiers, Iraqi soldiers and innocent Iraqis.

This was not a presentation of judicial quality evidence. It was simply making it clear to the Iraqi -- the Iranians that we know what they're doing. They already presumably know what they're doing, so this was a way of making it clear that we know what they're up to.

In terms of contacts, you know, there have been very brief contacts here in Baghdad in March at a working level meeting of neighboring countries and others, and a brief contact when I was in Sharm el-Sheikh but -- earlier this month. But essentially, we have not been in direct discussions with the Iranians.

Whether that will actually produce results, I think right now is up to them whether they choose to align their behavior on the ground with their stated policy, because right now it isn't.

QUESTION: Can I just follow up? Can you say what groups you said they were providing the explosives to and can you say whether you're -- when you say armed militant groups attacking our soldiers and coalition forces, are you referring to groups that we would consider Sunni groups?

AMBASSADOR CROCKER: We believe that the Iranians have variously supported both Sunni insurgent groups that are attacking us, as well as radical Shia groups such as some elements of the Jaish al-Mahdi.

QUESTION: Barbara Slavin of USA Today. Hi, Ryan.

QUESTION: Thanks for doing this. I wanted to ask, the way you portray this is you say it's not bilateral. I mean, did we do this really just because the Iraqis were urging us to do this? Did we agree to do this because the Iraq Study Group proposed it? Why now, when there had been a reluctance to have these kinds of meetings so much in the past?

And also just on the atmospherics, was there anyone in the room that you had met before? How would you compare this with the talks that you conducted that were not publicized back in 2001 and 2002? Did you speak in English? Did you eat together?

AMBASSADOR CROCKER: Okay. On the first, we see these talks as growing out of the neighbors conference initiative, that you remember in March there was a brief direct exchange here in Baghdad. We had another brief direct exchange in Sharm el-Sheikh in which we discussed the possibility of sitting down more formally. The Iraqis made clear that they thought that would be a good step, so we've done it. But again, the progression is it flows out of the neighbors conference initiative. That got started in March and so here we are at the end of May having this meeting. As I noted, the Iraqis did urge it and that's obviously -- we take their positions on this and other matters, obviously, very seriously. But it really fits in, I think, to the neighbors conference initiative.

No, I had not previously met any of the members of the Iranian delegation. The talks that we had had previously on Afghanistan were, I think, you know, less formal in nature. They were under UN auspices rather than any governmental auspices, and I think for those reasons maybe a little less formal in their nature than we were today.

NO ANSWER AT ALL ON BAKER, DIPLOBABBLING TURNSPEAK ALL OF IT

QUESTION: Did you speak in English? Did you break bread together?

AMBASSADOR CROCKER: We -- well, we drank tea together. How's that? Actually, a variety of languages; English, Farsi and Arabic were all in play at various times.

[SNIP]

QUESTION: And if I could just follow on that, you said you'll be watching to see what action is taken. What are you anticipating or what will you specifically be watching for?

AMBASSADOR CROCKER: Well, what we would obviously like to see and I think the Iraqis clearly would like to see is action by Iran on the ground to bring what it's actually doing in line with its stated policy. Its stated policy is very close to our own. Their actions don't support the policy. That's what we'd like to see change: the support for the militants and so forth that I was describing earlier.

QUESTION: Thank you.

OPERATOR: Thank you. Our next question comes from:

QUESTION: Zane Verjee, CNN. Thank you, Ambassador Crocker. Could you give us a little bit more detail on what this idea of a three-way mechanism is that Iran proposed to you in the meeting? What specifically did they propose? Can you give us details about that?

And secondly, was there any more ground that you wanted to cover in this meeting but you didn't?

AMBASSADOR CROCKER: The Iranians proposed a security mechanism to deal with issues relating to security, and that's about all the detail that there was. My comment at the time was that that sounded very much like the meeting that we were sitting in, since we had agreed that since we had reasonably good alignment at the level of policy and principle, the area that required our focus was security both because it is a critical concern for Iraq and because there we obviously have differences. So it was not apparent to me exactly what the distinction was between what they were proposing and what we were already doing.

And again, you'll have to forgive me. I have managed to forget the second part of your question.

NO ANSWER ON TRILATERAL MECHANISM AND THE SPECIFIC LANGUAGE USED, JUST MORE DIPLOBABBLING DISSEMBLING.

[SNIP]

QUESTION: Were you disappointed with the extent of their response, at least detailing to you their own perceptions, for example, on the security mechanism? Would you characterize it that way? Were you a little bit disappointed?

AMBASSADOR CROCKER: I wouldn't say I was disappointed. I think it would not have been reasonable to expect that going into this meeting that a single meeting was going to produce instant, measurable, positive results. I just don't -- I didn't think that was realistic before and therefore I'm not particularly disappointed now.

I was, you know, again, somewhat encouraged that the Iranians took the opportunity to lay out their policy in positive terms. And again, as I said, it matched pretty closely to our own. They obviously could have come at this in a variety of different ways, you know, many of them negative. They didn't do that. They led with a positive policy declaration. So, you know, I found that, you know, somewhat encouraging. I wouldn't make a huge amount out of this single meeting and what was said in it either positive or negative. Again, what really counts is what actually happens that affects for the better security in Iraq.

[SNIP]

MR. CASEY: Okay, I think we've got time maybe for just one more here, so why don't we take the last question.

OPERATOR: Thank you. Our next question comes from:

QUESTION: Guy Dinmore, Financial Times. Ambassador, thank you very much. Guy Dinmore from the FT here. At the weekend, Muqtada al-Sadr gave this very powerful speech, his first appearance in some months. Can you say whether or not you discussed his role in Iraq and his relationship with Iran? And did the Iranians raise at all what they have said in public, which is that they have accused both U.S. and British forces of also destabilizing Iran across the border by supporting anti-Iranian elements? Thank you very much.

AMBASSADOR CROCKER: Let's see. Working back to front, no, the Iranians did not raise in this meeting their public accusations of the last day or so.

With respect to Sadr, they did not address him at all. I addressed the problem of Iranian -- specifically Quds Force -- support for radical elements in the Jaish al-Mahdi. As you know, Guy, the Sadrist movement is a highly diversified one, not to say fragmented, and it is by no means clear to me, for example, that Muqtada al-Sadr has control over some of these elements in Jaish al-Mahdi. But it's pretty clear to us that the Iranians do.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR. CASEY: Okay. And I think with that, Ambassador Crocker, thank you again very much for taking the time to talk with everyone today. And to all of you out there, thanks for joining us and I hope that we all enjoy the rest of Memorial Day weekend. Talk to you all later.

AMBASSADOR CROCKER: Thanks, Tom. Thank you, all.

Following are excerpts from a public address delivered by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, which aired on various Iranian TV channels on May 24, 2007:

Esfahan TV (Iran)

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: Look at the Zionist regime. For 60 years, is has been turning an entire people into refugees. It attacks them on a daily basis. They kill the women and children in their homes. Not only do some of the superpowers keep silent, without protesting, but they even smile in approval and in support. Along they came and occupied Palestine, turning the Palestinian people into refugees, oppressing them for 60 years in order to...

Crowd chants: Death to Israel... Death to Israel...

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: They did this in order to establish a safe base, from which they would get all the peoples of the region under their rule. But thanks to your movement and the sacred fighting of the martyrs, Islamic revival and monotheistic belief have spread throughout the world, and today, the Palestinian people is uprising. In your presence, I would like to address a few words to the occupying Zionist regime and its supporters. Listen very carefully. I would like to tell you that if you think that just like 60 years ago, the Palestinian people and the peoples of the region are asleep, you are wrong. Today the peoples have awoken. If you believe that by oppressing the Palestinian people, and by bombing and terrorizing the Palestinian leaders, and by trying to "calm things down" in Palestine, as you call it, you can prepare the ground for a renewed attack against courageous Lebanon in the summer – let me tell you that you are severely mistaken.

Let me tell you that if this year you repeat the despicable mistake of last year, the ocean of the rage of the peoples of the region will surge and will eradicate the Zionist regime.

Crowd chants: Allah Akbar

Allah Akbar

[...]

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: With the grace of God, we have almost reached the end of the path where we can take complete advantage of all nuclear capabilities. We are very near the summit. The resistance of the enemies grows weaker every day. If last year, they could place obstacles in our path to the level of ten units – this year, with God's grace, and thanks to your unity and steadfastness, they could not even do this to a level of two units. If last year, the strength of the Iranian peoples was to the level of ten units - let the world know that this year, our strength has reached a level of over 100 units.

[...]

They want to intensify their sanctions now. They said 50 individuals are banned from traveling, and now they want to say 500. Let them say 70 million... What do we care... We don't want to travel to their countries anyway. When have we ever asked to travel to Western countries? If they don't want to sell us their merchandise – fine. To hell with them. We're happy they won't sell it to us. They have been pressuring us for 28 years. Has this harmed us in any way? They still don't understand that if they had not pressured us, and if they had given us all these products – we wouldn't be where we are today in terms of progress. We would lag behind by 20 years.

[...]

Now they are mustering all their power, in order to cause some commotion – some resolution, some pressure, some uproar... But let me tell you that with the help of God, they are done for. Like a battery about to run out, they muster the remainder of their power but Allah willing, nothing will happen. We've passed that. Wait one month, two months, three months... Allah willing, as soon as possible, we will pass that. Their situation is much worse than one can imagine. Their foundations are shaking. Nobody is with them. They though that if they used threats, people here would withdraw voluntarily. When they used threats nobody withdrew. When they used their fist – it boomeranged back at them. What's left for them to say? A few months ago, they threatened us militarily. Do you remember? They specified the date. They said: "On March 27, at 5 a.m., we will bomb these 20 sites." From this position of making military threats, they've got themselves to the point where they want to have talks with us, and they say: "It wasn't us making threats."

VIDEO at LGF

History's Garbage Dump - can we ground our gear, Sarge?: The War Within and the War Without.

Fantastic Essay at History's Garbage Dump today by FASTAC_6 / American Soldier.

Read it all.

And stay tuned ....later on I'll post my follow up on our new partner in the broader stratum of diplobabbling trilateral mechanisms and dhimmified whoredoms of doom , Iran.




The War Within and the War Without

We are at war. Our enemies are within and without. Without, we have the global islamic jihad against Western Civilization. Within, we have the traitors on the left.

The Uncivil War

Sedition

: incitement of resistance to or insurrection against lawful authority

Traitor

1 : one who betrays another's trust or is false to an obligation or duty

2 :

one who commits treason

Treason

Article III.

Section. 3.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

Public acts of treason abound. Sedition comes easier to some than breathing. The seeds planted in the 1920s and earlier, that sprouted in the '50s, '60s, and '70s, now blossom in the likes of Schumer, Fonda, Kennedy, Clinton, CAIR, Maher, Carter, Murtha, Kerry, Gore; the list goes on. Politicians, actors, reporters, commentators, musicians, Fifth Columnists.......those who believe their 15 minutes of fame somehow endows them with a better understanding of how your life should be run. While I can't fathom most of their motivations, I do know that they are bent on the destruction of America as we have known it; the America of free speech, free worship, freedom to to aspire and to achieve. They are willing to sacrifice the freedom of our children and grandchildren for their grievously flawed view of the world.They villify the Commander-in-Chief, do their utmost to undermine the morale of the men and women who are their sole defense against a hostile world, work to destroy the economic and political systems that allows them the luxury of protest, actively provide aid and comfort to our enemies. They espouse a world without borders, therefore with no nations. No United States of America.

I had thought that we were at risk of civil war, and wrote about it here. I now believe that a Civil War is underway. It is currently low-intensity, waged largely in the MSM, in Congress, in universities, and on the Internet. The potential for it to become full-scale increases with every passing moment. On March 17, an engineered flashpoint in DC will provide the most immediate danger of open conflict. An open Civil War in the United States while a World War rages around us will most likely result in the end of the United States. At the least, it will end America's days as a world power, and render us susceptible to to the whims of others.

The World War

Some people suggest that the Cold War was World War III, and that we are now engaged in World War IV. One historian of my acquaintence suggested recently that World War II never really ended. What is clear is that we are fighting a World War. The War is global. There are no front lines. The War has come here to America. We have the smoking holes of Ground Zero, the Pentagon, and a field in Pennsylvania. Thousands of Americans dead in one day in America with our enemies jubilantly dancing in the streets in celebration. There are hot spots- Iraq being the most intense. Afghanistan, Iraq, Israel, and other battle zones are not wars, they are campaigns in a much larger war. This distinction seems to be lost on most of the MSM, a large portion of Congress, pretty much the whole of Hollyweird, and a largish chunk of the public.

The islamic world is determined to establish a worldwide caliphate with domination of all others. This is no great secret. It is written about extensively by moslems around the world. It is preached in mosques every week throughout the moslem world. It can be seen in tapes of speeches, on international television, on the internet.

The desire for domination is a jealous one. It tolerates no other views. A Jewish State in Israel, Buddhist statues in Afghanistan, pork served at meals in British schools, synagogues and churches freely attended, women free to define their own lives, children free to learn all of the knowledge that our civilization has amassed; in the eyes of our enemies all the freedoms and rights we take for granted are anathema.

There is no compromise with this desire for domination. It is either them or us. I believed initially that the islamist enemy would gow tired of dying. Now I think that the war will end when they're all dead, or we're all dead. Many talk about the peaceful majority of moderate moslems. I have written about this before. The most telling thing about this majority's moderation is its deafening silence and inaction in the face of war and terror. This majority would most likely cheer the advent of a global caliphate. The only thing that could convince me otherwise would be the majority rising up, re-inventing islam, denying support to islamist murderers, and actively combatting them wherever they arise. And then opting to coexist peacfully with those of differing faiths.

I post this essay as a work in progress. I may edit it some in the coming days, but I felt an urgency to publish. March 17th is around the corner. Worldwide, the situation appears to deteriorate by the hour. Some days I have the sense that this must be what it was like to observe events in Europe and Asia in the 1930s. My hope is that some who are unaware of the world situation, or cling to irrational ideas, may choose to explore events more fully. Perhaps even to act in the preservation of our society. I haven't cited sources here. There is documentation aplenty on the internet. If one raises a topic at littlegreenfootballs, one even gets free and rigorous fact-checking.

On the other hand, the impending Clinton/Obama Administration may quietly end America by 2010.

Most of what I've said will cause many people to call me a paranoid old crank. If that can still be said in 5 years, I'll be happy to sit down and discuss it with you over a beer at the corner bar. Or mosque. Whichever is standing there.

Links to some previous posts not cited above:

http://herbertsobel.blogspot.com/2006/07/end-game.html

http://herbertsobel.blogspot.com/2006/07/public-treason.html

http://herbertsobel.blogspot.com/2006/07/cair-anti-american-chutzpah.html

Addendum:

On 4 NOV 79, Iranians stormed the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, capturing and holding prisoner dozens of American citizens for well over a year. In most times and places throughout history this act would be considered an unmistakable act of war. The usual response to such an act would include the immediate use of as much military force as was available.

This is how Jimmah "Dimmah" Carter chooses to remember the outcome:

The Hostage Crisis in Iran

On November 4, 1979, Iranian militants stormed the United States Embassy in Tehran and took approximately seventy Americans captive. This terrorist act triggered the most profound crisis of the Carter presidency and began a personal ordeal for Jimmy Carter and the American people that lasted 444 days.

President Carter committed himself to the safe return of the hostages while protecting America's interests and prestige. He pursued a policy of restraint that put a higher value on the lives of the hostages than on American retaliatory power or protecting his own political future.

The toll of patient diplomacy was great, but President Carter's actions brought freedom for the hostages with America's honor preserved.......

http://www.jimmycarterlibrary.org/documents/hostages.phtml

From where I stand, a state of war has existed between Iran and the U.S.A. since 1979. The discovery of Iranian arms and personnel in Iraq or Syria should come as a surprise to no one.

Iran has also made its unequivocal declaration to destoy Israel, a clear declaration of war.

American Ambassador Crocker "agrees broadly" with Genocidal Theocracy

Ambassador Ryan Crocker said “Trilateral Mechanism” three times during the press conference following his “positive” meeting with Iran this morning.

Made me wonder just what a “Trilateral Mechanism” is, and where the term originated….

BEHOLD!

I. Introduction

This Trilateral Action Plan for Israeli-Palestinian Roadmap Phase I

Implementation complements the Baker Institute's Israeli-Palestinian Working Group Policy Paper of February 2005.

It is focused on what needs to be done following the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza and part of the Northern West Bank and during the upcoming period when the Israelis and Palestinians are preparing for elections, which should conclude in the spring of 2006.

It is our hope that decision makers, under current political circumstances, will take these suggestions under serious consideration in order to secure Phase I implementation of the Roadmap and to then launch consultations with the parties, under United States leadership and within the framework of the Quartet, on Phase II and III implementation of the Roadmap.

A separate Baker Institute Report will be prepared in the spring of 2006 on this issue by the

Baker Institute's Rabin Fellow, Dr. Yair Hirschfeld.

(A prominent academic in Israel, Dr. Hirschfeld was a key architect of the Oslo Accords in 1993 -bz)

FULL REPORT (PDF)

Welcome to Baker Street!

BTW here's the money quote from that report:

2. The creation of a Joint Operation Room to facilitate the resumption of security coordination on the local level and create a trilateral mechanism to prevent Israeli action in Jenin and other regions that might jeopardize public legitimacy for the PA

BACKGROUND:

Ryan Crocker ~ From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ryan Crocker / Connections

Ryan C. Crocker ~ Short Carreer Bio

Oh, LOOK.

He went "native Bedouin" back in the day. How Lawrence of Arabia.

I'll bet he has a swell anti-war scarf from Urban Outfitters stashed somewhere in his closet.

WASHINGTON, Jan. 5 — When Ryan C. Crocker was trying to improve his Arabic in the late 1970s, he traveled to Jordan, made contact with a desert tribe and settled in for some hands-on training a little different from the standard State Department regimen.

“He wound up being a shepherd for a week or two, chasing down stray sheep and living with the Bedouin,” said Frederic C. Hof, a retired Army officer and author on the Middle East who recalls reading Mr. Crocker’s official report on the trip when they were in language training

[SNIP]

SOURCE LINK

I want you to pay very close attention to the language in this piece and I will insert links as I merit valuable:

U.S.: Broad agreement with Iran about Iraq

U.S. envoy says Iran must end support for militants

BAGHDAD - The United States ambassador in Baghdad said he and his Iranian counterpart agreed broadly on policy toward Iraq during four-hour groundbreaking talks on Monday, but insisted that Iran end its support for militants.

During a meeting that U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker described as businesslike and focused solely on Iraq,

BECAUSE THEY DIRECTED US EXPLICITLY AS TO WHAT WE CAN AND CAN NOT SAY IN ADVANCE

the American said Iran proposed setting up a “trilateral security mechanism” that would include the U.S., Iraq and Iran. Crocker said the proposal would need study in Washington.The U.S. envoy also said he told the Iranians their country needed to stop arming, funding and training the militants. The Iranians laid out their policy toward Iraq, Crocker said, describing it as “very similar to our own policy and what the Iraqi government have set out as their own guiding principles.”

He added: “This is about actions not just principles, and I laid out to the Iranians direct, specific concerns about their behavior in Iraq and their support for militias that are fighting Iraqi and coalition forces.”

Historic talks

The Baghdad talks were the first of their kind and a small sign that Washington thinks rapprochement with Iran is possible after more than a quarter-century of diplomatic estrangement that began with the 1979 Islamic revolution.

Crocker said the Iranians wanted to propose a second session. “We will consider that when we receive it,” Crocker told reporters in the U.S.-controlled Green Zone. “The purpose of this meeting was not to arrange other meetings.”

Crocker said Iranian Ambassador Hassan Kazemi Qomi did not raise the subject of seven Iranians now in American custody in Iraq.

HE did not raise it. Like it is entirely up to HIM. (see the end of this post)

“The focus of our discussions were Iraq and Iraq only,” Crocker said.

In the course of the meeting, Ali al-Dabagh, a government spokesman, told reporters that the session was proceeding cordially. “There are good intentions and understanding and commitment between the two countries,” al-Dabagh told reporters.

Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in his Own Words

Ahmadinejad's Letter to the American People

The talks were held at Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s Green Zone office. Al-Maliki did not attend the meeting, but the prime minister greeted the two ambassadors, who shook hands, and led them into a conference room, where the ambassadors sat across from each other.

Future meetings possible

Before leaving the room, al-Maliki told both sides that Iraqis wanted a stable country free of foreign forces and regional interference. The country should not be turned into a base for terrorist groups, he said. He also said that the U.S.-led forces in Iraq were only here to help build up the army and police and the country would not be used as a launching ground for a U.S. attack on a neighbor, a clear reference to Iran.

“We are sure that securing progress in this meeting would, without doubt, enhance the bridges of trust between the two countries and create a positive atmosphere” that would help them deal with other issues, he said. Speaking in Tehran, Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said Monday the talks could lead to future meetings, but only if Washington admits its Middle East policy has not been successful.

“We are hopeful that Washington’s realistic approach to the current issues of Iraq by confessing its failed policy in Iraq and the region and by showing a determination to changing the policy guarantees success of the talks and possible further talks,” Mottaki said.

Monday’s talks, as predicted, had a pinpoint focus: What Washington and Iran — separately or together — could do to contain the sectarian conflagration in Iraq. “The American side has accusations against Iran and the Iranian side has some remarks on the presence of the American forces on Iraqi lands, which they see as a threat to their government,” al-Dabagh said. But much more encumbered the narrow agenda — primarily Iran’s nuclear program and Iranian fears that the Bush administration will seek regime change in Tehran as it did against Saddam Hussein in Iraq.

Underlying issues

Washington and its Sunni Arab allies, on their side, are deeply unnerved by growing Iranian influence in the Middle East and the spread of increasingly radical Islam. Compounding all that is Iran’s open hostility to Israel. Other issues clouding the talks included U.S. Navy exercises in the Persian Gulf last week and tough talk from President Bush about new U.N. penalties over the Iranian nuclear program.

The United States says Iran is trying to build a bomb; Iran says it needs nuclear technology for energy production. Further complicating the talks, Iran said Saturday it had uncovered spy rings organized by the United States and its Western allies Iran accuses the U.S. of improperly seizing five Iranians in Iraq this spring. The U.S. military is holding the five. Iran says they are diplomats; Washington contends they are intelligence agents. The U.S. also has complained about the detention or arrest of several Iranian-Americans in Iran in recent weeks. State Department spokesman Tom Casey said that issue was not on the U.S. agenda for Monday

SOURCE LINK




April 26, 2007 ~ U.S.: Administration Seeks To Engage Iran, Syria On Iraq

WASHINGTON, (RFE/RL) -- For months, the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush has resisted the idea of holding talks with Iran and Syria, which he accuses of mischief in the Middle East, particularly in Iraq.

But this week, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, urged Iran and Syria to attend next week's talks on stabilizing Iraq. The meetings will be held on May 3 and 4 in the Egyptian resort city of Sharm el-Sheikh.

Rice said in an interview published on April 22 in Britain's "Financial Times" newspaper that Iranian Foreign Minister Manuchehr Mottaki would miss what she called an "opportunity" if he couldn't attend next week's meeting.

The next day, Crocker, speaking in Baghdad, echoed Rice, stressing the importance of getting all Iraq's neighbors to discuss how to stabilize the country.

"What happens in Iraq doesn't occur in a vacuum," he said. "There is a region; there are neighbors; there is an international community. And over the next couple of weeks, I think we all are going to be very busy looking at both the regional and the international aspects of Iraq's situation with the conferences that will convene in Sharm el-Sheikh at the beginning of May."

Iraq has invited its neighbors to the meetings, as well as the permanent members of the UN Security Council and the G-8 industrialized nations. Iran has yet to accept the invitation, leading both Rice and Crocker to urge it, as well as Syria, to attend.

Until now, Washington has said it has nothing more to say to Syria about how it believes Damascus should behave. And it says it won't talk to Iran until it suspends uranium enrichment.

Some observers view the statements by Rice and Crocker as a shift in U.S. policy, and perhaps an opportunity for U.S. diplomats to discreetly probe Iranian and Syrian counterparts about eventually holding direct talks.

James Aborezk, who represented the U.S. state of South Dakota in the Senate from 1973 to 1979 and was the first American of Arab descent to serve in the U.S. Congress, has long been a critic of Bush's conduct of the war in Iraq.

Aborezk said he's surprised the administration is urging Iran and Syria to attend the Sharm el-Sheikh meeting, given that Bush has been, to use his word, "adamant" about not talking to representatives of the two countries.

"My guess is that Bush is desperate to get out of Iraq, saving his own ego, which is why he's staying in there so long anyhow," Aborezk said. "And he's looking for any way that anyone can help him get out."

Steven Welsh studies international security issues at the Center for Defense Information, a private policy research center in Washington. He says there are two important reasons that he doesn't believe there's been a shift in Washington's approach to Iran and Syria, particularly Iran.

"Over time, they've taken pains to distinguish between the Iraq issue and the issue of Iran developing nuclear weapons, for one thing," Welsh said. "The second point is [the meeting at Sharm el Sheikh is] a multilateral framework with Iran so that it doesn't simply get reduced to a U.S.-Iranian matter, but rather have the focus be squarely on building peace in Iraq and building Iraqi sovereignty and stable nationhood for Iraq."

Welsh says that if Iran were to be a subject, and not merely a participant, in the Sharm el-Sheikh talks, it should be scrutinized for any contributions it may have made to the sectarian violence in Iraq.

"Everyone thinks that engagement of all relevant parties is important, but I think that there's also the question of Iran being held to account to try to understand exactly what the Iranians are doing with respect to Iraq," Welsh said. "And I think it's important that that be a concern of the international community and not just a U.S.-versus-Iran matter."

Welsh recalls that in December, former U.S. Secretary of State James Baker, one of the leaders of the Iraq Study Group of leading U.S. foreign policy advisers, urged the Bush administration to try to engage all of Iraq's neighbors, including Syria and Iran, in an effort to come up with a local solution to stabilizing Iraq.

And Welsh notes that Baker remarked there was a good chance that Iran or Syria might not joint the talks in good faith -- or might not join them at all. But at least, Baker said, the United States could say it tried to engage them.

TIME/CNN Blog: May 4, 2007 7:27

Conversations: U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker

Posted by Scott MacLeod | Comments (3) | Permalink | Trackbacks (0) | Email This

You don't have to be an Iraq war supporter, or an I'm-not-going-to-cut-and-run guy like George Bush, to be very concerned about a precipitous American withdrawal from Iraq. As Colin Powell said, You break it, you own it. As the Republican presidential candidates were debating Iraq and other issues Thursday night, I was asking U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker about whether the momentum for a withdrawal was undercutting American influence with the key Iraqi players. In short, Crocker (seen here giving a television interview at the Iraq conference in Sharm el Sheikh), is worried about it.

As I mentioned in a previous blog item, I've known Crocker for 25 years or so and consider him, as do his colleagues in the State Department, to be one of the finest diplomats in the American foreign service. Crocker knew my question wasn't partisan and that I wasn't trying to drag him into the domestic political wrangle over Iraq. Nevertheless, he started out cautiously by underlining this, saying, "First, I want to separate this completely from the U.S. political system and debate."

Crocker went into what has become a stock U.S. answer, that the debate is helpful in the sense that it concentrates Iraqi minds on the need to take advantage of U.S. security support (to "buy time" for national reconciliation, for example) while it lasts.

"To an extent, I think the debate is helpful because it makes it clear to Iraqis in and out of the government that there IS a problem here. That an administration that has put so much into the effort is under fire back home, and therefore, if you want us to be able to continue on in this effort, you gotta help by showing that the effort is registering some success."

Then, Crocker spoke about a darker flip side of the effect that the U.S. domestic pressure for withdrawal could have in Iraq:

"The concern I’ve got is that at a certain point the Iraqis may start to make different calculations. They know they are Iraqis. They’re going to be there no matter what. And Iraq is going to be there no matter what. If they come to the conclusion that the United States involvement is definitely a finite affair, and maybe much sooner rather than later, then my concern is that they start making calculations based on where they need to be to protect their vital interests, like their lives, the day after we’re gone. Because they are still going to be there. If they start calculating that way, I think it makes it even harder to get meaningful compromise and reconciliation. I have no evidence to suggest that is currently the case, but it is one of the things that worries me as I watch this go through."

One of the main components of national reconciliation is a dismantling of the Iraqi sectarian militias. I asked Crocker if the withdrawal talk didn't feed the militia mentality, the notion that you need an armed group made up of your own kind because you can't trust the national army to protect you. As Lebanon and other countries have learned, once you have entrenched militias and a weak central authority, you have a civil war that is hard to end.

"I’m afraid it does, yeah," Crocker replied.

The point is that whatever the merits of the invasion and occupation, it makes an enormous difference to the future of Iraq how the U.S. handles its exit. The risk is that bad American decisions will be made on the basis of inflamed domestic politics rather than on what is in the best, calculated interests of Iraq as well as the U.S. You can argue that Bush should not have let it come this far. Now it's important not only to examine the past mistakes but pursue a constructive way forward.

--By Scott MacLeod/Cairo