FBI: No Palin Investigation

There's been a flurry of speculation over Palin's decision to resign her office. One supposition might now be struck off: an FBI agent flat out denies any investigation into the Governor's dealings:

the FBI's Alaska spokesman said the bureau had no investigation into Palin for her activities as governor, as mayor or in any other capacity.

"There is absolutely no truth to those rumors that we're investigating her or getting ready to indict her," Special Agent Eric Gonzalez said in a phone interview Saturday. "It's just not true." He added that there was "no wiggle room" in his comments for any kind of inquiry. (L A Times)

Pretty unequivocal.

Iran: "Ahmadinejad's useful idiots"

Salon offers a compelling interview with Hooman Majd, an Iranian-American whose father was an Iranian diplomat and whose grandfather was an ayatollah.

Last year sawe the publication of Majd's study of contemporary Iran, The Ayatollah Begs to Differ: The Paradox of Modern Iran. The book examines Iran as,

a country that is fiercely proud of its Persian heritage, mystified by its outsider status, and scornful of the idea that the United States can dictate how it should interact with the community of nations. [. . . .] a country that is deeply religious yet highly cosmopolitan, authoritarian yet with democratic and reformist traditions—an Iran that is a more nuanced nemesis to the United States than it is typically portrayed to be.

It has been well reviewed. But it looks as though Majd's audience doesn't include some important US players. In Majd's view, folks like John McCain, Mike Pence, and Lindsey Graham might find it helpful to study up a bit more on Iran prior to vocalizing support for the anti-Ahmadinejad movement. Salon's Jeanne Carstensen posed a question to Mojd about such actions:

Would you say that the neoconservatives’ extremely vocal calls to intervene on behalf of Mousavi are playing into the hands of the most conservative forces in Iran?

The neocons know nothing about Iran, nothing about the culture of Iran. They have no interest in understanding Iran, in speaking to any Iranian other than Iranian exiles who support the idea of invasions — I’ll call them Iranian Chalabis. It’s offensive, even to an Iranian American like me. These are people who would have actually preferred to have Ahmadinejad as president so they could continue to demonize him and were worried, as some wrote in Op-Eds, that Mousavi would be a distraction and would make it easier for Iranians to build a nuclear weapon and now all of a sudden they want to be on his side? Go away.

I’m not saying Obama is the most knowledgeable person on Iran, but he’s obviously getting good advice right now. He understands way more about the culture of the Middle East than any of the neocons. For them to be lecturing President Obama is a joke. I have criticized Obama; for instance, I criticized him for having a patronizing tone in his Persian New Year message. But right now I think he’s doing a good job. The John McCains of the world, they’re Ahmadinejad’s useful idiots. They’re doing a great job for him.

This is something we've heard, continually, from Iran and from Iranians. How these Americans think they're actually serving the protesters puzzles me. Surely they knew, based on the USA's history with Iran, that the moment they opened their mouths the conservative ayatollahs would use them to discredit the opposition movement, to demonize its leaders, and to punish the protesters as traitors. And no, saying "well, they would have blamed America anyway" is no excuse. What McCain, Pence, Graham, et. al. have done is provided the hardliners with support for their false claims of US involvement.

Iran: The Heir

The L A Times has published an article on Mojtaba Khamenei, son of the Supreme Leader, and the would-be heir to Ayatollah Khamenei's position when he passes away. Analysts have conjectured that Supreme Leader Khamenei's insistence on Ahmadinejad's re-election has everything to do with the planned succession: allegedly, the Khameneis are not "popular in Qom," amongst the men who choose Iran's Supreme Leader (LAT). Mojtaba Khamenei, however, has allies in the Revolutionary Guard and the intelligence service, as does Ahmadinejad, who shares an affinity for "messiani rhetoric and Islamic fervor" with Mojtaba Khamenei (LAT). He could prove to be a useful friend.

Rather than comment on it at the moment (busy night), I'll leave you with another link. This one leads you to a profile of Mojtaba Khamenei at The Guardian, which describes him as "one of the driving force" behind the bloody crackdowns. Key quote:

"There has been a lot of talk lately that this is all about Mojtaba and the succession," said Ali Ansari, an Iran analyst at St Andrews University.

"He may be securing the position for the long term, and protecting it. The argument is that he is protecting his future."

So this all might be about re-establishing a ruling dynasty, if you will. According to rumor (let me re-emphasize: rumor) Rafsanjani and the clerics of Qon will be weighing in on the matter soon, possibly by Friday, when Ayatollah Khamenei will again lead prayers.

Added: The New York Times's Neil MacFarquhar offers a fine, but disconcerting, overview of Ahmadinejad, the Khameneis, and the anti-democratic brand of Islam they endorse.

AWOL in Argentina

Four days after he'd vanished into thin air, South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford contacted people to let them know he was fine. He was hiking. After staying away for a few more days, Sanford returned to explain that he'd been visiting the woman with whom he's having an affair.

The media is focusing on the story's salacious elements (not only did he cheat, but he was cheating on Father's Day, etc.), and Sanford has held a news conference to admit to moral failings and to prostrate himself before the state's "people of faith." A South Carolina Republican appeared on CNN to publicly give Sanford the benefit of a doubt, because "life has its problems." Fair enough. We all fall down, and infidelity is not exactly a rare activity.

What's not being addressed, and what seems infinitely more significant to me, is that not only did Sanford up and disappear for nearly a week, but he up and disappeared out of the country. We're not talking Cancun or Toronto--he went to Argentina. Again, a state governor left the country (heck, left the continent) for a week without telling anyone where he was going or how he might be reached. He deserted his state, and he should step down.

I'll close with this, which might offer some insight into Sanford's mindset:

Heading to South Carolina from Georgia this morning, Sanford said: "I don't know how this thing got blown out of proportion." (LA Times).

Added: The entirety of the news conference shows that some reporters did ask Sanford about his disappearance (rather than focus explicitly on the affair).

Also, CNN's resident curmudgeon Jack Cafferty did a fine job airing views similar to my own. In fact, his featured question at the moment asks whether Sanford should be removed from office. Some of the comments are a hoot.

The Downing Street Memo: No One-Off

It emerged over the weekend (but largely missed because of media coverage of the Iran crisis), but it seems that the infamous "Downing Street Memo," which alluded to the manufacturing of the Iraq, has a successor, which pretty much confirms that the war was manufactured. A second secret memo has been released that must have both Bush and Blair cringing, for it further clarifies how the men, and their cabinets, considered how they might go about prompting a war with Iraq.

Excerpts from the "Downing Street Memo," 23 July 2002.
(full facsimile of the document at the Times)

John Scarlett [Director General of BSIS] summarised the intelligence and latest JIC assessment. Saddam's regime was tough and based on extreme fear. The only way to overthrow it was likely to be by massive military action. Saddam was worried and expected an attack, probably by air and land, but he was not convinced that it would be immediate or overwhelming. His regime expected their neighbours to line up with the US. Saddam knew that regular army morale was poor. Real support for Saddam among the public was probably narrowly based.

C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.
[. . . .]
The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.

The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.

So it's established that in summer 2002 Blair and Bush had decided on war, were trying to find a justification for striking Iraq, and that "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy" of war. This is well-known. Old news.

Well, it turns out that in January 2003 (when Rumsfeld had originally wanted to begin attacks), Bush and Blair again reviewed their plans. The problem was that no WMDs had been found, nor was it likely that they might be found. So they had to explore different ways to "legitimize" invading Iraq. A five page memo, from 31 January 2003, records their planning. From The Guardian:

Bush told Blair the US had drawn up a provocative plan "to fly U2 reconnaissance aircraft painted in UN colours over Iraq with fighter cover". Bush said that if Saddam fired at the planes this would put the Iraqi leader in breach of UN resolutions.

The president expressed hopes that an Iraqi defector would be "brought out" to give a public presentation on Saddam's WMD or that someone might assassinate the Iraqi leader. However, Bush confirmed even without a second resolution, the US was prepared for military action. The memo said Blair told Bush he was "solidly with the president".
[. . . .]
Paraphrasing Bush's comments at the meeting, Manning [the document's scribe], noted: "The start date for the military campaign was now pencilled in for 10 March. This was when the bombing would begin." [it actually began 10 days later--20 March]
[. . . .]
The memo notes there had been a shift in the two men's thinking on Iraq by late January 2003 and that preparing for war was now their priority. "Our diplomatic strategy had to be arranged around the military planning," Manning writes [essentially a repetition of ""the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy"]. This was despite the fact Blair that had yet to receive advice on the legality of the war from the Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, which did not arrive until 7 March 2003 - 13 days before the bombing campaign started.

There have been rumors and allegations about the run-up to the war, but to have it presented so clearly, and cynically, is pretty gobsmacking. If they were aware that Iraq had no WMD, what in God's name was the point of the entire enterprise in the first place? They cannot hide behind "well, our intelligence failed" now. We've evidence of the cock up. It wasn't the intelligence. It was them.

No more sweeping under carpets. Let's have this out.

Ed McMahon, 1923-2009

Ed MacMahon died in hospital this morning. He'd had a hard time since Johnny left The Tonight Show, but he always seems to retain the nation's affection. His last years were hard--much misfortune--but others rallied 'round. He will be missed.

(I could continue about how, when staying over at my late grandmother's house, I had to sleep on the sofa in the living room. Every weekday night, she'd sit on the carpet in front of The Tonight Show playing solitaire. It was her only "alone time" of the day. I was supposed to be asleep, of course, but I would draw the blanket right up to my eyes, and from that vantage, I'd watch the show, and my grandmother. I'll always associate Johnny and Ed with Grandma, and now I've gone all maudlin. Anyway, thanks Ed.)

Iran: Rafsanjani Set to "Outflank" Khamenei

This, if true, is huge news. According to EurasiaNet, Iran's hardliners sense "that a shoe is about to drop."

Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani -- Iran’s savviest political operator and an arch-enemy of Ayatollah Khamenei’s -- has kept out of the public spotlight since the rigged June 12 presidential election triggered the political crisis. The widespread belief is that Rafsanjani has been in the holy city of Qom, working to assemble a religious and political coalition to topple the supreme leader and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Apparently, the hardliners in Khamenei's camp are more worried about Rfsanjani than about the popular uprising. And so they should:

Now that Ayatollah Khamenei has become inexorably connected to Ahmadinejad’s power grab, many clerics are coming around to the idea that the current system needs to be changed [. . . .]

A reformist website, Rooyeh, reported that Rafsanjani already had the support of nearly a majority of the Assembly of Experts, a body that constitutionally has the power to remove Ayatollah Khamenei. The report also indicated that Rafsanjani’s lobbying efforts were continuing to bring more clerics over to his side. Rafsanjani’s aim, the website added, is the establishment of a leadership council, comprising of three or more top religious leaders, to replace the institution of supreme leader. Shortly after it posted the report on Rafsanjani’s efforts to establish a new collective leadership, government officials pulled the plug on Rooyeh.

We'll know more later in the week. As it stands. Mousavi has called for a nation-wide strike on Tuesday the 23rd. More demonstrations are planned for the upcoming days, ostensibly as a display of mourning for the victims of the past week's brutalities.

Iran: Global Protest Thursday

From NiacINsight:

Mousavi’s facebook page just announced that they want to hold global solidarity demonstrations on Thursday “for the martyrs that have been lost so far in our fight for justice.” In Tehran, the demonstration will be held at Imam Khomeini Shrine, according to the announcement.

Considering the number of rallies in support of the opposition movement, there ought be no problems attracting significant numbers of people to a local demonstration Thursday.