AFP: "Bush sees possible US-Iran talks on Iraq" -- Well, not really.

[Sparkly]

"Bush sees possible US-Iran talks on Iraq" -- One of those headlines that makes you think, "Really?!?" at first, and then "No way -- what did he *really* say?"

Wed Apr 25, 3:57 AM ET

WASHINGTON (AFP) - US President George W. Bush said Tuesday that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice might have bilateral talks with her Iranian counterpart at a conference on Iraq next month in Egypt.

Wow. Seems like something that should have its own focus, rather than "as long as we're bumping into each other at this conference..." But, whatever it takes, right? But wait...

"I'm more than happy to send our representatives to a regional conference, all aiming at helping the Iraq government gain credibility in the international community," he said.

"What I'm not willing to do is sit down bilaterally with the Iranians."

Oh. Silly me! So what's with the "bilateral talks" with Iranians at the conference?

"The message, of course, is going to be, you know: 'Don't send weapons in that will end up hurting our troops, and help this young democracy survive,' That's the message of Condi to the Iranians," said Bush.

In other words, more talking AT them. That'll work. I'm sure they've never heard that "Stop it, stop it right now" idea before. Because what else can the pooooor United States do with Iran? We're just one little superpower.

Turning to the dispute over Tehran's atomic program, Bush told PBS he would "seriously consider" bilateral talks "if I thought sitting down with the Iranians would -- in a bilateral context -- would end up causing them not to have a nuclear weapons.

"I don't believe a discussion with Iran alone, and at this moment in time, would yield the result we want," the US president said.

"I feel confident that a more effective message to the Iranians is one in which the United States is a part of a chorus, as opposed to singing solo," said Bush.

He doesn't believe we're strong enough (or his administration is capable enough) of effective talks with Iran -- so much so that they won't even try it. They can't really discuss Iraq with Iran unless the discussion would get Iran to step down its nuclear program and they don't think Iran will do that. So how else can they get Iran to cease its nuke development? Oh of course:

"There is no change in our policy -- Iran needs to suspend its enrichment-related activities if it wants to enter into negotiations," said Gonzalo Gallegos, a department spokesman.

:eyes:

(Edited to add link: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070425/pl_afp/usiraniraqdiplomacy_070425072708)

[Tom Rinaldo]

1. Bush wants "regime change" in Iran, and nothing less

They want diplomacy off of the table as soon as possible, so of course they define diplomacy in terms that no Iranian government could ever accept.

There was an amazing story in Free Republic that I found while doing a Google search. Need more hard facts about how the Bush Administration is setting it for U.S. State certified terrorists to take down the Iranian government? Check this out. It makes the case FOR us on this one:

With Friends Like These (MEK, Iran & USA)
September 2005

An Iranian group has killed American civilians, allied itself with Saddam Hussein, and holds a spot on the State Department’s terrorist watch list. So why might it become America’s newest friend in the Middle East? Hint: Tehran...

...Decades later, Iran is still a rogue state. But some say that it’s time to rethink the MEK. "I say the enemy of my enemy is my friend," says Raymond Tanter, a former Middle East analyst on Reagan’s National Security Council, now Washington’s leading MEK booster. "They have eyes and ears on the ground. And they can provide us with human intelligence that we just don’t have."

That presence on the ground, and its clear opposition to Iran, is winning the MEK support in Washington. President Bush recently called the MEK a "dissident group," a clear hat tip, and several U.S. legislators want the MEK removed from the terrorist list, which would allow it to raise money in the United States. MEK fundraisers have challenged the group’s terrorist status in court, so far without success. The Iran Freedom Support Act, a House bill clearly intended to help the group, was introduced in April by longtime MEK backer Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen. It remains tied up in committee. MEK supporters on Capitol Hill are likely waiting on the State Department’s official revocation (or reaffirmation) of the group’s terrorist status, expected to take place in early October...

...For now, the Bush administration seems to be trying to have it both ways. At a 2004 House International Relations subcommittee hearing, John Bolton, now U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, said that while the MEK is a terrorist organization, he didn’t think that it "prohibited us from getting information from them."

...Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf has granted permission for the MEK to operate from the Baluchistan province of Pakistan, which borders Iran. This decison suggests to some that there is a possibility that the CIA may be deploying the MEK in western Afghanistan as well, to the provinces of Herat and Farah, thus doubling the length of Iranian border open to infiltration. As with Pakistan, the MEK is familiar with that terrain, having infiltrated western Afghanistan in the early 1980s.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1495002/posts


Here is a link that gives more info on the MEK:

Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MEK or MKO)
a.k.a. The National Liberation Army of Iran (NLA, the militant wing of the MEK), the People's Mujahedin of Iran (PMOI), National Council of Resistance (NCR), the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), Muslim Iranian Student's Society (front organization used to garner financial support)
http://www.siteinstitute.org/bin/display_groupbackground.cgi?Category=Groups&ID=23


Here is the MEK listed on the official U.S. list of terrorist organizations:
http://www.espionageinfo.com/Te-Uk/Terrorist-Organization-List-United-States.html

Here are Bush's comments upon signing the Iran Freedom Support Act
in September 2006:

"I applaud Congress for demonstrating its bipartisan commitment to confronting the Iranian regime's repressive and destabilizing activities by passing the Iran Freedom Support Act. This legislation will codify U.S. sanctions on Iran while providing my Administration with flexibility to tailor those sanctions in appropriate circumstances and impose sanctions upon entities that aid the Iranian regime's development of nuclear weapons.

I applaud the efforts of Chairman Richard Shelby, Ranking Member Paul Sarbanes, Rick Santorum and Bill Nelson in the Senate and Chairman Henry Hyde, Ranking Member Tom Lantos, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, and Gary Ackerman in the House. I look forward to signing this bill into law, which will facilitate America's support for the Iranian people in their efforts to build a just, free, and peaceful society."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060930-4.html


In political talk, Governments are legitimate, "regimes" are not. Bush will "support Iran's people" by seeking regime change in Iran.


The problem is too many Democrats are going along with this type of talk. Recently Democrats stripped forcing Bush to come to Congress for authorization to attack Iran out of their Iraq War Funding legislation:

"Dems abandon Iran war authority provision"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17590680/

I am supporting the efforts of StopIranWar.com to educate the American people on why the United States must enter into unconditional unrestricted real and direct diplomatic discussions with Iran on the full range of middle east issues that concern both nations, rather than continue to pound the drums for war. VoteVets.org has done some great work in the past breaking down barriers to reach "middle of the road" voters, and they are one of the main groups pushing this initiative. I've found StopIranWar.com helpful at breaking through to some people who have an anti-Iran mindset and can not get past reports of Iran causing trouble for the United States. It drives home common sense and so far just shy of 40,000 people have signed the petition. Those of us supporting this drive are really trying to make a statement, and also use this petition drive as a way to "change the channel" and get people talking about preventing war with Iran rather than how inevitable it is. It is a way to take this issue public that even people who are convinced Iran is our sworn enemy can hopefully relate to:

Here is the link for StopIranWar.com:
http://www.stopiranwar.com/

[Tom Rinaldo]

2. I'm bumping this so more folks can see this Freeper story

I was so amazed to find it there.

[Sparkly]

3. Thanks -- and very interesting about MEK

They're always saying they want some uprising within Iran to overthrow that regime, but would they really support the MEK in doing it, and would they like the results if that happened? I think they'd rather use the government as their excuse for attacking Iran, but if it helps to shriek about "terrorists" I expect they'd use the MEK in that way, too.

It's unfortunate so many here are fired up about elections already, yet seemingly disinterested in what's brewing with Iran.