%s1 / %s2
 
NEDERLANDS  |  ENGLISH
  • economy
  • iran
  • e-voting
  • 9/11
  • media
  • top stories
  • read
  • news archive
  • by deepjournal
18 December 2006  |     mail this article   |     print   |    |  The Raw Story
CIA approved Iran report but White House blocks former official's Op-Ed based on it
Watch the video

A former Bush official has been blocked by the White House from writing an Op-Ed for The New York Times based on a report which was already approved by the CIA.

On Friday, Flynt Leverett, a former government official who worked on President Bush's National Security Council staff and now serves as a senior fellow and Director of the Geopolitics of Energy Initiative at the New America Foundation, revealed in remarks made at a Center for American Progress panel that the Op-Ed, which includes "stuff that Secretary Powell, Secretary Rice, Deputy Secretary Armitage have talked about publicly" has been blocked by the Bush Administration.

In a letter sent to The Washington Note's Steve Clemons, Leverett points out that his "op-ed is based on the longer paper I just published with The Century Foundation -- which was cleared by the CIA without modifying a single word of the draft."

"Until last week, the Publication Review Board had never sought to remove or change a single word in any of my drafts, including in all of my publications about the Bush administration's handling of Iran policy," Leverett writes. "However, last week, the White House inserted itself into the prepublication review process for an op-ed on the administration's bungling of the Iran portfolio that I had prepared for the New York Times, blocking publication of the piece on the grounds that it would reveal classified information."

"This claim is false and, I have come to believe, fabricated by White House officials to silence an established critic of the administration's foreign policy incompetence at a moment when the White House is working hard to fend off political pressure to take a different approach to Iran and the Middle East more generally."

Leverett blasts the conduct of "the White House staffers who have injected themselves into this process" as "despicable and un-American in the profoundest sense of the word."

According to Leverett's sources, the staffers work for "Elliott Abrams and Meghan O'Sullivan, both politically appointed deputies to President Bush's National Security Adviser, Stephen Hadley."

Here is an excerpt from Leverett's report, "Dealing with Tehran Assessing U.S. Diplomatic Options Toward Iran," as highlighted by Raw Story's managing news editor Larisa Alexandrovna at her blog, At Largely:

#

Unfortunately, the Bush administration is moving at a glacial pace, if at all, toward such an approach. Throughout the administration’s first term in office, the president and his senior national security and foreign policy advisers seemed collectively unable to deal with the imperatives of a comprehensive diplomatic strategy toward Iran. While there have been some tactical adjustments since the beginning of President Bush’s second term, the fundamental strategic deficit in the administration’s approach remains uncorrected.

To be sure, for a year and a half after September 11, the administration pursued a limited tactical engagement with Iran with regard to Afghanistan.

Well before President Bush took office in January 2001, the United States had joined the United Nations’ “6+2” framework for Afghanistan.21 In the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, the Bush administration used the cover of the “6+2” process to stand up what was effectively a freestanding bilateral channel with Iran, with regular (for the most part, monthly) meetings between U.S. and Iranian diplomats.

U.S. engagement with Tehran over Afghanistan provided significant and tangible benefits for the American position during the early stages of the war on terror.

At a minimum, U.S. engagement with Tehran helped to neutralize the threat of Iranian actions on the ground, either by Afghan proxies or by Iranian intelligence and paramilitary assets, which could have made prosecution of Operation Enduring Freedom and subsequent post-conflict stabilization more difficult. More positively, engagement elicited crucial diplomatic cooperation from Iran, both during the war and afterwards. Over years, Iran had cultivated extensive relationships with key players on the Afghan political scene, including important warlords in northern and western Afghanistan.

#

 
-
Article from a later date: Powell tried to push Iran talks in 2003 and was rebuffed, former official says.
____________________________________________________________________________

DeepJournal
Sign up for the free mailing list.
6 February 2010  |  
WHO plays dubious role in Swine flu pandemic
On June 11, 2009 Margaret Chan, the Director-General of the WHO, declared the Swine Flu a pandemic. The declaration of phase six means that emergency procedures are put into motion which bypass established systems designed to safeguard the public health. The result of this is described in part six of this DeepJournal series on the Swine Flu. Conclusion: the vaccine is being tested while being administered to the public. The definition of what a pandemic is, is therefore of great import.
1 February 2010  |  
Government flu advisors not independent
Ab Osterhaus is playing an important role in the affair surrounding the Swine Flu. Through his influence and conflicts of interest, he personifies a system that is now being subjected to investigation from all directions. Soon the investigators will undoubtedly stumble upon SAGE, the strategic advisory group of vaccine and immunity experts for the World Health Organization, or WHO. Osterhaus turns up here as well - he is an expert with SAGE.
31 January 2010  |  
Influence of industry on 'fake pandemic' investigated
Also beyond The Netherlands the question is being raised over whether the large-scale acquisition of vaccines made sense. The Council of Europe began an investigation into this question last Tuesday. 'A number of members of the Council of Europe have expressed exceptionally harsh criticism of the World Health Organization and are asking themselves out loud whether drug manufacturers had too much influence in this decision'.
26 December 2009  |  
How Dutch Minister Klink decided on vaccines with additives - 2
The Netherlands has an ongoing contract with Solvay Pharmaceuticals for the making of vaccines without additives. Then Dutch Health Minister Klink severs - with all of its accompanying financial consequences - the contract with Solvay. He signs new, secretive contracts with GlaxoSmithKline and Novartis, companies that make vaccines with additives - the so-called adjuvants. In The Netherlands everyone is receiving the same vaccine containing adjuvants - whether they are young or old, pregnant or not. What happened that caused Klink to make this decision?
19 December 2009  |  
How Dutch Minister Klink decided on vaccines with additives - 1
In the international battle against Swine Flu different countries use different vaccines to protect their citizens. In the Netherlands vaccines containing additives are being used. Even women 13 weeks pregnant are receiving this vaccine. In arriving at his decision, Dutch Health Minister Klink sought advice from the Health Council of The Netherlands. But he didn't get this advice. And yet he still went ahead and made a decision. Who advised him on this?
Contact - About - Donate - RSS Feeds - Copyright © 2006 DeepJournal, All rights reserved