portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article commentary united states

imperialism & war

Former Hostages Finger the New President of Iran?

This Stinks of Karl Rove
Let us closely examine the claims and counterclaims of this story that has suddenly appeared after Bush's miserable performance at Fort Bragg.

Former hostages who were taken prisoner by radical students and held for more than 400 days have suddenly identified the Iranian president-elect, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, as one of their captors.

>>>>>their statements>>>>>>

retired Navy Capt. Donald Sharer: "He wasn't a very nice fellow at the time. He called us pigs and dogs. He's very hard-line, he's a guy we are not going to get along with," said Sharer in an interview with ABC's "Good Morning America" "All I can say is I remember the fellow being very cruel-like, stern, a very narrow beady-eyed character. I can't comment on what they are saying politically now. They are probably trying to cover their tracks and make the rest of the world think he was not involved."

Bill Daugherty: "When your country is being humiliated and being embarrassed, the individuals that do that really stick in your mind. You don't forget people who do things like that to you and your family and your country."

retired Army Col. Charles Scott: "As soon as I saw his picture in the paper, I knew that was the bastard," said Scott, of Jonesboro, Georgia. "The new president of Iran is a terrorist."

former Marine security guard, Kevin Hermening: "He was involved in interrogating me the day we were taken captive," Hermening was quoted as saying. He said interrogators sought the combinations for "safes and other things that were locked."


Note that Sharer begins by stating that "he's a guy we are not going to get along with." Basically Sharer is making a foreign policy statement here. If I said that Tony Blair is nasty pederast crawling with scabies and just wants to rape our young boy scouts, would this make the national news? So what is the evidence that Sharer has, just a description: "a cruel-like, stern, a very narrow beady-eyed character." This is ridiculous. It is straight out of a Fu Manchu novel.

And Bill Daugherty carries the foreign policy line farther: "when your country is being humiliated and embarrassed." Is that what he was really thinking about in solitary confinement? not about escape? not about whether or not he was about to be tortured or killed? this smacks of Rove here, pure Rove.

As for Scott: "I knew that was the bastard." Boy Cheney must have loved this line of the script!

And how is it that Hermening comes in, saying that the perp was involved on the day they were taken captive. Here is an interesting interview, done on the 25th anniversary of the first day of the hostage crisis:  http://www.command-post.org/oped/2_archives/016250.html

Please read it carefully.

Harmening cites BOTH Scott and Daugherty (who has written a book on the hostage crisis)! How interesting! In other words these men have a history of speaking on this subject, and they have all suddenly come out with these statements at the same time! How interesting.

Does anyone smell "STENCH OF ROVE" written all over this.
"Mard bar Amrika!" 30.Jun.2005 11:41

shahanshah, aryamehr

Yes...this has all the stink of another Terri Schiavo matter (or gay marriage, or life-before-birth/life-after-death-but none between, or medical canabis, or Torah monuments, or...) smokescreen. This will distract from the "problems" the junta is encountering (neonazicon Bolton nomination run into the ditch, economically-driven conscription crashing, calls for impeachment simmering on the back burner, sagging poll numbers (which they don't pay attention to anyway, you know)...etc.

At any moment Frist and de lay will unfurl their flags and start legislation, getting the hostage witnesses before investigative subcommittees, the runt will be poised to fly back from that miserable little town in Taykshushz to be ready to sign something, flashbulbs popping... This might get them through a month or two during the summer doldrums, $3/gal vacation trip gas prices, while improvised detonations and civilian and GI casualties mount at the nether regions of the Empire.

It will certainly be one more tweak toward the invasion of Iran.
..."it's a deal, then. We give you the chemicals, and you gas Iranian troops."

Hostages were not innocent 30.Jun.2005 11:56


The hostages taken in Iran in 1979 by a mixture of socialist and islamic fanatics were not innocent by-standers.

They were all CIA agents, caught in the middle of shredding thousands of documents.

These documents were all painstakingly glued back together to reveal the extent of our involvement in Iran.

The embassy was turned into the museum of american espionage. It was closed in the mid 1990's and reopened for the 20 year anniversary of the events of 1979 in 1999. It has since been closed again.

I believe the Bushies negotiated the closier for economic incentives, which ties back to Rafsanjani. He was the runner up in the last election and endoresed un-officiall by the west. When bush came into office, he lifted import bans on Iranian pistacchios, apricots and carpets. Guess what, Mr. Rafsanjani owns a large chunk of the orchards that produce pistacchios. Hmmmmmmm......

not that who they elect is any of our business 30.Jun.2005 12:13


Better look at the ears. Ears are like noticable fingerprints. Like that guy in the bogus Osama video where the guy with the wrong ears admitted a part in the 911 attacks.

unfortunately... 30.Jun.2005 13:03


You're definitely correct, Tabrizi, that they weren't innocent people at all, but the American people still believe the BS that surrounded that whole sorry mess. Carter made a huge mistake there, sticking his chest out and not recognizing what was going on because of his ideological narrowmindedness. Then to top it off, he let the neocons of the time prempt his foreign policy with their interference to keep the hostages there until after the elections. Does anyone really believe that the hostages just happened to be released on the day of Reagan's inaugural? Jimmy just stood there and smiled, the JERK.
It was rather obvious to me personally at the time that the intent of those taking the hostages that they didn't really want to harm those people out of spite. Didn't anyone in the US ask why they just simply weren't killed outright? Seems to me that's what a pissed off bunch of radicals intent upon doing the most harm would do. But that wasn't the case, and my bet is that those who did die right away were killed because they resisted the operation.
Jimmy, our great human rights spokesman, knew the shit going down there with the Shah, who was our client. Jimmy knew about the oppression, the torture, of Iran's secret police. So just like all these people who parade their morals in a political setting, what it boiled down to was expediency: amoral, crass, an assumption to reality that is self-fulfilling. It's really too bad he fucked it up so badly. Admitting the mistakes of the US policies of the time, really taking a moral stance, and he probably would have had the hostages back in a week, maybe re-elected, and might have set a peaceful course for the region. He fucking blew it, gave the neocons and their attitudes a stage, and we've been watching the play ever since.
You know, I personally think the script sucks.

Conspiracies everywhere! 30.Jun.2005 13:42

Bison Boy

I hate to be a wet blanket here, but the rumor might just be true. The folks involved in storming the embassy seemed to be well regarded by the Iranian hardliners. It's not at all odd that one of them could have risien near the top of the hardline Iranian faction, and only slightly surprising to think that one of them could have been elected president of Iran. It's been 25 years, after all.

It's plausible. True or not? I don't know. Doesn't much matter. We already knew this guy was not going to be as friendly as Khatami or Rafsanjani.

(And don't fret about invasion. Bush can't invade Iran because our military isn't up to the job right now. Doesn't matter what excuse we have, we can't do it and be assured of winning. We're not going to try.)

Typo Correction 30.Jun.2005 13:55

shahanshah, aryamehr

"Marg bar Amrika"
..."Our Son-of-a-Bitch"

George H W Bush was 30.Jun.2005 15:05

in bed with the

Ayatollahs from the start. Remember the 'October Surprise'? Missles and a birthday cake from Uncle Ronnie, followed by GHW Bush's quick trip overseas and PRESTO: 'freed' hostages just before election day. Whadda coincidence!. What's the difference between a rightwing 'christian' hardiner like Reagan or Bush and a Muslim theocratic dictator like Khomenei? Both Khomenei & the Shah were both dirtbags with zero respect for human life. The Iranian brand of Muslim fundamentalism is the craziest of them all. I remember Iranian students on campus screaming and defending the taking of the hostages. They were truly incapable of ANY discussion with ANYBODY. Iran will always backfire on Westerners because they're even more ruthless and coldblooded than we are. They make the rest of the Arab world look like ancient Socratic Athens in comparison. If Bush messes with them, we're guaranteed a nasty response. Putin armed them very capably. We're really going to suffer huge losses if we screw with them.

HERE'S THIS 30.Jun.2005 17:51


The US war with Iran has already begun
author: Scott Ritter
As we speak, American over flights of Iranian soil are taking place, using pilotless drones and other, more sophisticated, capabilities.
Sunday 19 June 2005 - Americans, along with the rest of the world, are starting to wake up to the uncomfortable fact that President George Bush not only lied to them about the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq (the ostensible excuse for the March 2003 invasion and occupation of that country by US forces), but also about the very process that led to war.

On 16 October 2002, President Bush told the American people that "I have not ordered the use of force. I hope that the use of force will not become necessary."

We know now that this statement was itself a lie, that the president, by late August 2002, had, in fact, signed off on the 'execute' orders authorising the US military to begin active military operations inside Iraq, and that these orders were being implemented as early as September 2002, when the US Air Force, assisted by the British Royal Air Force, began expanding its bombardment of targets inside and outside the so-called no-fly zone in Iraq.

These operations were designed to degrade Iraqi air defence and command and control capabilities. They also paved the way for the insertion of US Special Operations units, who were conducting strategic reconnaissance, and later direct action, operations against specific targets inside Iraq, prior to the 19 March 2003 commencement of hostilities.

President Bush had signed a covert finding in late spring 2002, which authorised the CIA and US Special Operations forces to dispatch clandestine units into Iraq for the purpose of removing Saddam Hussein from power.

The fact is that the Iraq war had begun by the beginning of summer 2002, if not earlier.

This timeline of events has ramifications that go beyond historical trivia or political investigation into the events of the past.

It represents a record of precedent on the part of the Bush administration which must be acknowledged when considering the ongoing events regarding US-Iran relations. As was the case with Iraq pre-March 2003, the Bush administration today speaks of "diplomacy" and a desire for a "peaceful" resolution to the Iranian question.

But the facts speak of another agenda, that of war and the forceful removal of the theocratic regime, currently wielding the reigns of power in Tehran.

As with Iraq, the president has paved the way for the conditioning of the American public and an all-too-compliant media to accept at face value the merits of a regime change policy regarding Iran, linking the regime of the Mullah's to an "axis of evil" (together with the newly "liberated" Iraq and North Korea), and speaking of the absolute requirement for the spread of "democracy" to the Iranian people.

"Liberation" and the spread of "democracy" have become none-too-subtle code words within the neo-conservative cabal that formulates and executes American foreign policy today for militarism and war.

By the intensity of the "liberation/democracy" rhetoric alone, Americans should be put on notice that Iran is well-fixed in the cross-hairs as the next target for the illegal policy of regime change being implemented by the Bush administration.

But Americans, and indeed much of the rest of the world, continue to be lulled into a false sense of complacency by the fact that overt conventional military operations have not yet commenced between the United States and Iran.

As such, many hold out the false hope that an extension of the current insanity in Iraq can be postponed or prevented in the case of Iran. But this is a fool's dream.

The reality is that the US war with Iran has already begun. As we speak, American over flights of Iranian soil are taking place, using pilotless drones and other, more sophisticated, capabilities.

The violation of a sovereign nation's airspace is an act of war in and of itself. But the war with Iran has gone far beyond the intelligence-gathering phase.

President Bush has taken advantage of the sweeping powers granted to him in the aftermath of 11 September 2001, to wage a global war against terror and to initiate several covert offensive operations inside Iran.

The most visible of these is the CIA-backed actions recently undertaken by the Mujahadeen el-Khalq, or MEK, an Iranian opposition group, once run by Saddam Hussein's dreaded intelligence services, but now working exclusively for the CIA's Directorate of Operations.

It is bitter irony that the CIA is using a group still labelled as a terrorist organisation, a group trained in the art of explosive assassination by the same intelligence units of the former regime of Saddam Hussein, who are slaughtering American soldiers in Iraq today, to carry out remote bombings in Iran of the sort that the Bush administration condemns on a daily basis inside Iraq.

Perhaps the adage of "one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist" has finally been embraced by the White House, exposing as utter hypocrisy the entire underlying notions governing the ongoing global war on terror.

But the CIA-backed campaign of MEK terror bombings in Iran are not the only action ongoing against Iran.

To the north, in neighbouring Azerbaijan, the US military is preparing a base of operations for a massive military presence that will foretell a major land-based campaign designed to capture Tehran.

Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld's interest in Azerbaijan may have escaped the blinkered Western media, but Russia and the Caucasus nations understand only too well that the die has been cast regarding Azerbaijan's role in the upcoming war with Iran.

The ethnic links between the Azeri of northern Iran and Azerbaijan were long exploited by the Soviet Union during the Cold War, and this vehicle for internal manipulation has been seized upon by CIA paramilitary operatives and US Special Operations units who are training with Azerbaijan forces to form special units capable of operating inside Iran for the purpose of intelligence gathering, direct action, and mobilising indigenous opposition to the Mullahs in Tehran.

But this is only one use the US has planned for Azerbaijan. American military aircraft, operating from forward bases in Azerbaijan, will have a much shorter distance to fly when striking targets in and around Tehran.

In fact, US air power should be able to maintain a nearly 24-hour a day presence over Tehran airspace once military hostilities commence.

No longer will the United States need to consider employment of Cold War-dated plans which called for moving on Tehran from the Persian Gulf cities of Chah Bahar and Bandar Abbas. US Marine Corps units will be able to secure these towns in order to protect the vital Straits of Hormuz, but the need to advance inland has been eliminated.

A much shorter route to Tehran now exists - the coastal highway running along the Caspian Sea from Azerbaijan to Tehran.

US military planners have already begun war games calling for the deployment of multi-divisional forces into Azerbaijan.

Logistical planning is well advanced concerning the basing of US air and ground power in Azerbaijan.

Given the fact that the bulk of the logistical support and command and control capability required to wage a war with Iran is already forward deployed in the region thanks to the massive US presence in Iraq, the build-up time for a war with Iran will be significantly reduced compared to even the accelerated time tables witnessed with Iraq in 2002-2003.

America and the Western nations continue to be fixated on the ongoing tragedy and debacle that is Iraq. Much needed debate on the reasoning behind the war with Iraq and the failed post-war occupation of Iraq is finally starting to spring up in the United States and elsewhere.

Normally, this would represent a good turn of events. But with everyone's heads rooted in the events of the past, many are missing out on the crime that is about to be repeated by the Bush administration in Iran - an illegal war of aggression, based on false premise, carried out with little regard to either the people of Iran or the United States.

Most Americans, together with the mainstream American media, are blind to the tell-tale signs of war, waiting, instead, for some formal declaration of hostility, a made-for-TV moment such as was witnessed on 19 March 2003.

We now know that the war had started much earlier. Likewise, history will show that the US-led war with Iran will not have begun once a similar formal statement is offered by the Bush administration, but, rather, had already been under way since June 2005, when the CIA began its programme of MEK-executed terror bombings in Iran.

Scott Ritter is a former UN weapons inspector in Iraq, 1991-1998, and author of Iraq Confidential: The Untold Story of America's Intelligence Conspiracy, to be published by I B Tauris in October 2005.
Repost from Uruknet  http://www.uruknet.info/?p=12776&hd=0&size=1&l=x  http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/7896BBD4-28AB-48BA-A949-2096A02F864D.htm

... 30.Jun.2005 18:54

this thing here

whether the new leader of iran is or isn't the same man involved in taking the hostages seems to me irrelevant.

what the bush admin. is going to do about it, THAT is the question.

why make this allegation if it doesn't lead to anything? because this is a very very serious allegation. and if it's just a trial ballon, it's one hell of a big, armored one.

if in fact the war against iran has already begun, what a perfect excuse the bush admin. NOW has for going after the government of iran. for doing the exact same thing they did in in iraq, "regime change". because that's what they want the most, to destroy and wipe clean the government of iran, especially the religious hardliners.

and now, perhaps they have their perfect fake reason, their patsy, their excuse? i can see them selling it (through the parrot press): "the new leader of iran was the same guy involved in the hostage taking? why, we can't let that stand. that's unnacceptable to us." and i'm sure you can see where this is going. once that ball gets rolling....

WTF difference would it make? 30.Jun.2005 19:54

human being

This is such a silly, calculated-to-snow-the-ignorant, stunt.


looks just like 01.Jul.2005 21:37