Bush: "Maybe Iran had a hand in 9/11 instead...."

wow, that's some logic. What about our friends in Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan?

from the CIA factbook:

"[Turkmenistan] achieved its independence upon the dissolution of the USSR in 1991. President NIYAZOV retains absolute control over the country and opposition is not tolerated. Extensive hydrocarbon/natural gas reserves could prove a boon to this underdeveloped country if extraction and delivery projects can be worked out."

"Independent since 1991, [Uzbekistan] seeks to gradually lessen its dependence on agriculture while developing its mineral and petroleum reserves. Current concerns include terrorism by Islamic militants, economic stagnation, and the curtailment of human rights and democratization."

US yanks aid to Uzbekistan, a war on terror ally
By Peter Boehm | Contributor to The Christian Science Monitor
TASHKENT, UZBEKISTAN - Upset with the lack of political and economic reforms in Uzbekistan, the US State Department announced Tuesday its decision not to certify the country, effectively denying the renewal of $18 million in aid.

US involvement in the Central Asian republic deepened shortly after Sept. 11, 2001, as Washington laid plans to overthrow the Taliban. Uzbekistan allowed US forces to be based near its border with Afghanistan; a contingent remains today. The regime in Tashkent has also been a staunch supporter of the US in Iraq.

The Bush administration's decision to slash aid sends a signal abroad that despite the president's "with us or against us" formula, there is a point at which human rights abuses can overshadow military and diplomatic support for the war on terror.

"I think this decision is the result of a battle in the administration between the State Department and the Defense Department," says David Lewis, the International Crisis Group's Central Asia director. "Decisive for this new sign was not so much that the human rights situation in Uzbekistan got slightly worse, but that the pressure was building on the administration to acknowledge it."

The State Department has prodded Tashkent to allow for elections as well as end torture in prisons. The regime has instead launched an aggressive campaign against foreign nongovernmental organizations. Millionaire philanthropist George Soros's Open Society Institute "was invited to leave Uzbekistan," as President Islam Karimov put it. In May, the democracy-building efforts of three other NGOs, including Washington-based Freedom House, prompted the government to threaten them with expulsion as well.

While these moves incensed many in Washington, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's visit to Uzbekistan in February may have sent a mixed signal to the regime. Mr. Rumsfeld thanked the country for its support in the war on terror and stressed that human rights are just one aspect of US-Uzbek relations. Taskent probably inferred that the US was giving military considerations higher priority than human rights concerns, Lewis says.

Despite the aid cut, there is no indication yet that the US will sever military ties beyond the ending of a training program for Uzbek officers. Indeed, Uzbek officials appear unphased by the rebuke.

"I am not disappointed by the State Department's decision," says foreign ministry spokesman Ilkhom Zakirov. "We understand that the full amount of the earmarked $18 million will not be lost, but there will have to be a decision by the State Department on every single development project."

"The military cooperation will continue," Mr. Zakirov added.

In an apparent attempt to mitigate the diplomatic blow, the US undersecretary of state for Europe and Central Asia met with President Karimov on a one-day visit to Tashkent Wednesday.

Uzbekistan's state media have not announced the US move.

"I think that up to now nobody here has heard about the decision," says Uzbek political analyst Marina Pikulina. Far more relevant to everyday Uzbeks, she says, are the recent warming of relations with Russia. "Our business community was very glad about that, because they hope the borders will be opened up."

to·tal·i·tar·i·an

adj.

Of, relating to, being, or imposing a form of government in which the political authority exercises absolute and centralized control over all aspects of life, the individual is subordinated to the state, and opposing political and cultural expression is suppressed: “A totalitarian regime crushes all autonomous institutions in its drive to seize the human soul” (Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.).

iran is a partially democratic country. it is more of a democratic country than, say, pakistan. but this kind of argument adds nothing, produces nothing; it's not the real world that bush is talking about. unfortunately it is the real world that suffers from his policies.

They have lots of natural resources unlike, say, NoKorea.

The fundamentalist voice is a very strong one.

They are developing nukes.

Think they're happy that we took away their little Iraq problem?

http://www.glastonberrygrove.net/mythos/images/droolcup.gif

IT IS HAPPENING AGAIN. IT IS HAPPENING AGAIN.

Do You think Iran was involved in the 9/11 attacks?

Yes 47% 38813 votes

No 53% 43011 votes

Total: 81824 votes

when the result would be a huge US military presence right next door?

Yeah, but having the US next door is the lesser of two evils. Saddam, his greed and willingness to torture grew way out of control. If the hypothesis is right, then the US did the dirty work by getting rid of an evil Iran couldn't handle.

It's a trial balloon to see what the public/press reaction would be. I still kinda think that Syria is going to be next on the list, but who knows.

Hey look at it this way: we'll now have a good place for staging if we want to start bombing Iran.

Bigger, deffer Iran = sucks even worse to be a Kurd

(?)

indeed, i'm curious about what this report is going to say.

In the bleak, absurd, nihilistic sense it's hilarious but it's all rather awful IRL, where many people don't see how moronic/careless/borderline nationalistic this administration is.
-- Gear! (drink_to_remembe...) (webmail), July 19th, 2004 3:38 PM. (Gear!) (later) (link)

i would agree, but as for the nationalism/jingoism, i'm increasingly convinced that a lot of people are well aware, and in full support (insofar as they have any time for this kind of subject).

I'm kind of curious about the report. I mean, I know I'm supposed to be so I guess I will.

But how long until the CIA and the Bushies and everyone else start arguing about who said what and who was misquoted and who got what wrong makes it all a matter of, as usual, choosing who you want to believe. (JOE WILSON TO THREAD,PLS)

And that part I said about staging for a bombing run was only half a joke.

x-post: amateur!st I agree with most of what you've said here, though I have a hard time reconciling the seeming apathy of many Americans, as evidenced by low voter turnouts, declining newspaper readership, etc., with a feeling as intense as (what I understand as) nationalism. There's an extremely vocal contingent of "my country right or wrong," but I'm wary of confusing them with the general mood of the U.S. body politic.

oh come on now, we're not THAT racist

-- amateur!st (amateur!s...), July 19th, 2004.

I would agree, if not for the fact that many in the current administration have ties to a l'il thing from the good ol' 1980s called Iran-Contra.

well, i wasn't really going after any alleged racism among iranians against arabs. i was thinking more about cultural differences b/w saudi arabs and iranians -- which is similar to the sunni/shiite difference (yes, i do know that iraqi arabs are also shiites).

anyway, my comments may (probably?) reflected my own ignorance of iran than anything else. no offense meant if any was taken, and please correct me if i am wrong (seriously).

Republicans turning their gaze to Iran? I've been waiting for this ever since Nightline was invented.

or the case that the US gov. staged the whole 9/11 on its own killing its own citizens to make a case for taking out iraq (and iran?)

i think US should go for Hungary next, then Lithuania, then Poland, Denmark, Netherlands, Belgium and France?

One thing that surprised me about the Iraq invasion was that I always figured that the U.S. would rather have a Hussein-led Iraq as a buffer between Iran and Israel, and that a dictator in Baghdad would always be easier to deal with than an unruly democratic parliament in terms of realpolitik. Doubtless this was part of the calculation that left Hussein in power after the first Gulf War. Now there seem to be early signs that the things Kissinger types would fear -- a large influx of Iranians and dispossessed Iraqi Shiites returning to Najaf and the marshes, Kurds attempting to exercise some control over the natural resources in the North (there was an extraordinary statement put out by the infant Iraq Oil Ministry over the weekend that all oil development pacts must be signed with the "legitimate" interim government and not the Kurds, who apparently have been talking with companies about the fields in and around Mosul, Kirkuk), the arrival of foreign terrorist organizations, etc. But I suppose that's the crucial difference between Kissingerian realism and neoconservatism.

(also - I'd want nuclear weapons if I thought the world's bully was sizing me up for invasion.)

Pandora's box is open. Iran is going to matter a lot for the forseeable future. If anything, Kerry had better start planning for it now. If he's president, he's going to be the one dealing with this bag of shit.

there hasn't been any demonstrable difference in overt US foreign policy towards Iran since the Shah was deposed (covert is another matter, alluded to above), so I would say it does matter, very emphatically.

Anyway, fascinating Iran timeline, tied in to U.S. support of Iraq. Fundamentalists take over Iran after Islamic revolution. U.S., fearing the spread of same, supports secular Iraq in boondoggle war with neighbors. Millions die. Iranian leaders, seeing so many men vanish, decree that Iranian women should have more children. Those children grow into a massive class of unhappy Iranian Gen-xers (as it were) who protest the current manifestation of Iranian theocrats. Hence, Iran becomes one of the only nations that had not just pro war protests vis a vis Iraq, but also demonstrations imploring the U.S. to invade Iran next!

Anyway, I find Iran to be fascinating, and as as a cultural entity remarkable ('specially when it comes to film). It also has a vast and educated middle class, and otherwise makes its distant middle east neighbors really look like shit. Hope to visit one day ...

...acting CIA Director John McLaughlin...
http://www.dwponline.com/rock/images/mclaughlin.jpg
?????????????????????????????????????????????????

and my point is there is no demonstrable difference, sans covert 1980s stuff, between Democrats and Republicans when it comes to American policy towards Iran. So there is no "it" that is not "going to matter."

Iran aren't going to nuke the US

it should be abundantly clear by now that a country doesn't have to have nuclear weapons to be considered a rival or even an issue of concern to the US (see also: Iraq). Additionally, a country can have nuclear weapons and the US will give them the equivalent of a free pass (see also: Pakistan - not justifying this, but it is what happened).

Also, Iran is being very secretive about their current nuclear program, and that should be of concern to every country, even the dovish ones (it bothers the heck out of me, and I was against the Iraq war).

Only if you think that Bush is seriously considering (ie. planning, not just making blustery public statements) invading Iran. I don't think he is. The conditions in Iraq being what they were allowed for invasion, and they were far different conditions than what is the case in Iran now.

But it makes you wonder: if we had assloads of docs showing Iran's involvement in 9/11--think satellite photos a la 1962--would Americans demand action against Iran?

Maybe those are the docs that Sandy Berger "lost".

I pray to Allah that you are being facetious.

Iran has been a longtime sponsor of terrorism plus it is more probable to have weapons of mass destruction.

Iran almost certainly does have WMD, but really I was countering Don's suggestion that it was behind 9/11. Not that I can say it definitely had no involvement, but: three countries for one terrorist strike...