Bi-Partisan Congress OK Funds For Covert Military Operations In Iran

[Better Believe It]

May 2, 2008
A CounterPunch Exclusive
Democrats Okay Funds for Covert Ops
Secret Bush "Finding" Widens War on Iran
By ANDREW COCKBURN

Six weeks ago, President Bush signed a secret finding authorizing a covert offensive against the Iranian regime that, according to those familiar with its contents, "unprecedented in its scope."

Bush’s secret directive covers actions across a huge geographic area – from Lebanon to Afghanistan – but is also far more sweeping in the type of actions permitted under its guidelines – up to and including the assassination of targeted officials. This widened scope clears the way, for example, for full support for the military arm of Mujahedin-e Khalq, the cultish Iranian opposition group, despite its enduring position on the State Department's list of terrorist groups.

Similarly, covert funds can now flow without restriction to Jundullah, or "army of god," the militant Sunni group in Iranian Baluchistan – just across the Afghan border -- whose leader was featured not long ago on Dan Rather Reports cutting his brother in law's throat.

All this costs money, which in turn must be authorized by Congress, or at least a by few witting members of the intelligence committees. That has not proved a problem. An initial outlay of $300 million to finance implementation of the finding has been swiftly approved with bipartisan support, apparently regardless of the unpopularity of the current war and the perilous condition of the U.S. economy.

Please read the entire article at:
http://www.counterpunch.org/andrew05022008.html

[ben_meyers]

1. If this is true, and I have my doubts,

I for one will never support the Democratic Party again.

That being said, I don't trust the source or the author, he has no sources and if it happened 6 weeks ago someone has to have said something.

[PDJane]

2. Well, there are a few others reporting on this......

Like Seymour Hersch.

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/01/24/050124fa_fact

And McDermott spoke in the house:

http://www.house.gov/mcdermott/sp070523.shtml

[Igel]

3. Hersch certainly isn't.

"The Coming War" is from January 2005. Why the New Yorker site seems to say it's from early May '08 is a mystery to me. But a casual reading says it's old--Rumsfeld playing a larger role in the second term is a prediction, and a strange one to make these days.

McDermott's piece is from a year ago. He's also not citing anything he knows because of his position, unless his position is simply one of a somebody who goes to the ABCnews.com site.

But the OP says that * signed something 6 weeks ago. It's reporting something *new* and frightening, not something a year old.

In other words, so far there's only one source reporting this.

[Better Believe It]

4. Let's See Who Else Picks Up On This

It sure wouldn't surprise me.