“An Iranian offer to help the United States stabilize Iraq
By on Jan 18th, 2007 at 1:22 pm
“An Iranian offer to help the United States stabilize Iraq
and end its military support for Hezbollah and Hamas was turned down by U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney in 2003,” Lawrence Wilkerson, former U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell’s chief of staff, told BBC last night. “We thought it was a very propitious moment to (strike the deal),” Wilkerson said, “But as soon as it got to the White House, and as soon as it got to the vice president’s office, the old mantra of ‘We don’t talk to evil’…reasserted itself.”
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
45 Responses to ““An Iranian offer to help the United States stabilize Iraq”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Bush
Bush Legacy
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
DADT
Economy
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Franken
Global Warming
Guantanamo
Health Care
International Relations
Iran
Iraq
Justice
Krauthammer
Kyl
LGBT
Limbaugh
McCain
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Public Plan
Race
Radical Right
Rove
Sanford
Sotomayor
Steele
Supreme Court
Terrorism
ThinkProgress
Tiller
Torture
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
"Thanks but no thanks...
...our profit margins are WAY too lucrative to entertain such an uhmmm...
...unprofitable proposition"...
-L'il Dick-
January 18th, 2007 at 1:30 pmBush Regime wants war on Iran, so Dubya will never do diplomacy to end the standoff.
January 18th, 2007 at 1:31 pm"We don't talk to evil, we ARE evil."
January 18th, 2007 at 1:32 pmThey don't look in mirrors over at the Executive branch because they get no reflection. Ghouls. Cheney drinks the blood of ______(you fill in the blank).
January 18th, 2007 at 1:34 pmThis is why you have to stop with the resolutions and just impeach Bush and Cheney. It's because "You don't talk to evil."
January 18th, 2007 at 1:35 pmI thought W was "the Decider." Appears that ol' Dick decides, after all. You'd think, if only for appearance sake, that he'd run it by Jr., no?
What a dick, that Dick. So many missed opportunities because the he and GOP always have to be TOUGH on, well, just about everything. But then TOUGH is where the money is for government contractors.
January 18th, 2007 at 1:35 pmAgain and again, I will ask every Green Party friend I know, how's that "lesser of two evils" working out for you? Is it possible that Nader was lying to you when he said there were no differences between Gore and Bush? Do you feel any responsibility for the world we have today?
January 18th, 2007 at 1:39 pmOne day and I hope soon childish Bush just might Talk instead of pre-emptive strike , But first he needs to grow up
January 18th, 2007 at 1:41 pmWhy is Cheney making these types of positions? Oh wait, I forgot, he is president.
January 18th, 2007 at 1:41 pmEven the Iraq Study Group says to talk ... I cannot understand Bushes Mentality But I does show in the population (30%)
January 18th, 2007 at 1:42 pmWhy on earth would the US engage in diplomacy with Iran or anyone else for that matter? Diplomacy is a sign of weakness which leads to compromise and we all know compromise means defeat because you did not get your way. Geez.
January 18th, 2007 at 1:43 pmRead the Iranian offer for yourself:
http://www.armscontrol.org/pdf/2003_Spring_Iran_Proposal.pdf
From the letter:
Terrorism: US-commitment to disarm and remove MKO from Iraq and take action in accordance with SCR1373 against its leadership, Iranian commitment for enhanced action against Al Qaida members in Iran, agreement on cooperation and information exchange;
Iranian general statement “to support a peaceful solution
January 18th, 2007 at 1:44 pmin the Middle East involving the parties concernedâ€
We don't talk to evil?
January 18th, 2007 at 1:45 pmI know I've seem Cheney muttering to itself numerous times.
Just another lie in the unending downpour of crapola from this thugfest call BushCo.
‘We don’t talk to evil’…
How do they have conversations with each other in the administration, then?
January 18th, 2007 at 1:46 pmThere's a podcast of the BBC program here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/6272661.stm
Dick Cheney's mantra: F*ck peace.
January 18th, 2007 at 1:48 pmIt also amazes me How America will not talk to Syria - - BUT when it comes to sending aledged terrorists on renditions to Syria the Channels are wide open for communication ?????? very strange EH ???
January 18th, 2007 at 1:50 pmIran says military attack impossible but ready for threat
TEHRAN, Jan. 17 (Xinhua) -- A top Iranian nuclear official said on Wednesday that he believed the Western military attack on Iran's nuclear facilities was "highly improbable", but his country was ready to face the threat, the local ISNA news agency reported.
January 18th, 2007 at 1:51 pm@bobcat_grad
"How do they have conversations with each other"
I thought the quality of the decisions they make readily revealed they don't talk with each other. Who needs talking when you are the Decider!
January 18th, 2007 at 1:51 pmWe don't "talk to evil," but we trade with communist China, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. We don't "talk to evil," but we do send people to Syria and Egypt to be tortured.
January 18th, 2007 at 1:52 pm‘We don’t talk to evil’…
How do they have conversations with each other in the administration, then?
Comment by bobcat_grad
With the way this administration has screwed everything they touch, what makes you think Bush's right hand even knows what the left hand is doing? Much less talk to each other.
Bush just wants people to tell him what he wants to hear anyway, discussions are so passe =P
January 18th, 2007 at 1:53 pmIran says ready to hold talks with U.S. under suitable conditions http://www.chinaview.cn 2007-01-16 01:47:40
TEHRAN, Jan. 15 (Xinhua) -- Iran has voiced its readiness to hold talks with the United States under "fair and suitable" conditions, the official IRNA news agency reported on Monday.
"We have no problems in holding negotiations," Iranian government spokesman Gholam-Hossein Elham told a weekly press briefing while commenting on Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's recent remarks that Tehran was ready to hold talks with Washington under "fair and suitable" conditions.
NOW ASK YOURSELF WHY IS BUSH STILL NOT TALKING - He's Immature cant even have a one to one with Ahmadinejad at the UN ....pathetic bush
January 18th, 2007 at 1:54 pmTEHRAN, Jan. 14 (Xinhua) -- Iran on Sunday denied that Iranian navy had clashed with U.S. battleships in Gulf region waters, the local Fars news agency reported.
A senior official of the southern province of Hormuzgan termed such a rumor as "psychological war" against Iran by enemies.
"Such efforts are made to break the Iranians' resolve after efforts in the form of UN Security Council Resolution 1737 to influence Iran's decision through downgrading public morale failed," the official added.
Meanwhile, an informed source in the security department of the Iranian Interior Ministry said that this was hearsay.
On Sunday morning, many Iranian cell-phone subscribers received messages about a military clash between Iranian and U.S. battleships in Gulf waters.
According to Fars, the only operation in the area in the past two days was a clash between Iranian law enforcement police and some smugglers near the Gulf port city of Jask
January 18th, 2007 at 1:55 pmHow do they have conversations with each other in the administration, then?
Comment by bobcat_grad #14
...ever seen that UPS (or is that Overnight- some commercial delivery service) commercial...
...the one with the cave men...(the one is crushed by a HUGE mastadon foot)?
January 18th, 2007 at 2:01 pm#1, big papa, is correct. These guys are making a killing (literally and figuratively), through never-ending wars. Why would you want peace if you can make way more moolah by waging war?
Too bad today's cheerleaders for the "conservatives" never listened to President Eisenhower's farewell address.
January 18th, 2007 at 2:15 pmBecause it is unacceptable to the NeoCons and their PNAC project for new American century. A project which was chaired by William Kristol and co chaired by Robert Kagan...The Doctrine calls for toppling Saddam,change all regimes in the area by force to suit Israels needs...was represented to the Benjamin Natanyahu and the Likudites as a new policy. All people who signed the Doctrine later were involved in shaping this current foreign policy we see now. Cheney,Rumsfeld,Wolofowitz and many others all signed into this doctrine in 1997. Talking to Iran is unaccpetable to the group...even when Bakers/Hamilton Report on Iraq (ISG) suggested that,but later faced a deadend road. Now Kagan is advising the President on ecalating,so the NeoCons get their victory wish,and their eyes on another war with Iran.
January 18th, 2007 at 2:16 pmWell, then, ol' Dick must have blown a heart valve or two when he learned about the arms for hostages deal between the U.S. and Iran.
January 18th, 2007 at 2:20 pmCheney wants war not peace. We are being used. An agressor will say anything to not talk only wage war. Did Hitler talk with the Jews? No. Why? Because his goal was death and destruction not peace. Anyone who wants peace will always listen and talk THEN judge if force is needed. Someone that is unwilling to talk is doing so only because they want war. The Dick must go. Impeach him first.
January 18th, 2007 at 2:25 pmThe Midas Touch had everything the King touched turning to gold.
The Fecal Factor has everything Bush decides turn to shit.
Think about diplomacy here. Who will do the talking? Bush? He can't finish a complete sentence with any continuity.
Rice? She can't pronounce more than 3-4 words without stammering of prolongin 'uhhh'.
Cheney? His idea of diplomacy includes 12 ga. shotguns.
Bolton? I won't even go there.
Kissinger? This tired old fart should just stay out to pasture.
Kristol? Right. Constipated & Conservaslave.
You see, this isn't an American government as we know it. It's a lot of rich Neosluts vying for a New World Order.
Diplomacy was never in the picture. War & mayhem is the standard.
Impeach. Imprison. Impale.
January 18th, 2007 at 2:28 pm#11 -Mark, but we did negoiate with the Communists of The Soviet Union. Diplomacy is not a 'sign of weakness' as you suggested, and there is no proof that it will lead to any 'compromise...and a defeat'..Nixon opened door by talking to China..and now 40% of products comes from China..even Christmas decorations..just check any nearby WALL MART...Talking does not mean defeat...!!!
January 18th, 2007 at 2:34 pmMark: "Diplomacy is a sign of weakness which leads to compromise and we all know compromise means defeat because you did not get your way. Geez."
Mark, as usual, you're 180 degrees off. Diplomacy is a sign of strength. Choosing aggression over diplomacy is a sign of weakness.
“If there is one principle more deeply rooted in the mind of every American, it is that we should have nothing to do with conquest. â€
–Thomas Jefferson
January 18th, 2007 at 2:42 pmSo what did Dick think about Iran-Contra? Found this here:
Seems Dick may have shed a tear for the death of the Iran-Contra affair.
January 18th, 2007 at 2:43 pm#29, #30 My post was sarcasm. I was referring to the Bush administration only. I know we have negotiated with our enemies in the past, both real and perceived. This administration has always struck me as a "my way or the highway" type of organization. If true it goes along way towards explaining why Bush loves sycophants and boot lickers. And it helps to explain his failure after failure when it comes to business. Why should anyone expect this administration to talk to anybody? We've had six years of seeing what Bush means by saying he is a uniter. When he says that he really means...you can join my position and I will accept you, if you want any input shut the hell up and do it my way any way because I am a uniter. Sadly though this mindset has permeated the republican party to such a point that it no longer seems to be a rational entity. The rank and file eat up the chest puffing and posturing. Heck when they discuss Iraq they almost always talk about having the stomach for the fight or losing our face, losing our will, emboldening the enemy, all image issues, they never discuss having the brains for the problem or having any sort of non-violent solution.
January 18th, 2007 at 2:55 pmDid you hear the latest breaking news on Iran and Russia? Russia is supplying Iran with multiple missile systems to protect the nuclear reactor sites. WOW!!
January 18th, 2007 at 3:28 pmDid you hear the latest breaking news on Iran and Russia? Russia is supplying Iran with multiple missile systems to protect the nuclear reactor sites. WOW!!
January 18th, 2007 at 3:29 pm#32...Mark.....Right on the mark.
January 18th, 2007 at 3:31 pmHalliburton provided Iran with much of its Nuclear technology.
January 18th, 2007 at 3:36 pmI wonder how much dick's companies have made since 2003.
January 18th, 2007 at 4:06 pmSend this to your Rep in Congress (the Honorable thing may stick in your craw, but try it anyway):
Honorable Mr. NNN:
I wish to refer you to the following link, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6274147.stm, which chronicles a lost and excellent opportunity to address the Iran issue some four years ago. If, as the administration insists, Iran has fueled the attacks on US servicemen, this represents a clear failure to help protect our troops by not engaging in normal and necessary diplomacy. This level of arrogance and incompetence can be measured in the deaths and disabilities of our servicepersons. I demand the Senate brings Mr. Cheney to the floor to discuss his involvement and decisions in this matter.
Thank you for your action in this matter,
January 18th, 2007 at 4:15 pmI absolutely agree with #38. After the tragic attack of
January 18th, 2007 at 5:34 pmsept. 11, there was a huge vigil in Terhan to show sympathy for America. Cheney's interests coincide with the folks who invented Shock and Awe (aka the Merchants of Death). Back in 2003, they were thinking Cakewalk. Arrogance for sure....but is it incompetence or EVIL. ?? A trillion dollar pricetag for this war...but where has this money ended up??? Bob Dylan had it right in his song Ma$ters of War.
What? Stabilize Iraq?
January 18th, 2007 at 5:48 pmWhat? Me Worry?
Alfred E. Bush.
Comment by DoubtingThomas #38
Doubting...
...you'll receive an automated reply...
...(especially from Repulsivescum conned'self-servative officials)...
...with clever little retorts like:
..."We are where we are"...
..."Playing the blame game isn't helpful"...
..."We need to move forward"...
And if you're really lucky they'll ask...
..."Do you have a plan to get us out of this mess?"
January 18th, 2007 at 7:19 pm...we will, however, offer you state of the art anti air missiles, if you help the contras deal crack in the United States.
signed
cheney, reagan, george bush sr
January 18th, 2007 at 9:27 pm[...] And We Still Have Not Put This Behind Us “An Iranian offer to help the United States stabilize Iraq and end its military support for Hezbollah and Hamas was turned down by U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney in 2003,†Lawrence Wilkerson, former U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell’s chief of staff, told BBC last night. “We thought it was a very propitious moment to (strike the deal),†Wilkerson said, “But as soon as it got to the White House, and as soon as it got to the vice president’s office, the old mantra of ‘We don’t talk to evil’…reasserted itself.†ThinkProgress [...]
January 19th, 2007 at 5:03 amBluedog
China "evil?" What are you talking about? Oh and don't quote any US government documentation please.
January 19th, 2007 at 5:59 am[snip ]
A bunch of crap from Texas Young Rethuglicans. The pack of inbred gunhumping jackassses who recently brought us the "Al-Queda/Nancy Pelosi" nativity scene.
Ah here we are , a disgraceful and hamhanded attempt at the typical right wing straw man arguments.
I'm ashamed to say, I'm from the same state as these people.
Let me just break down a few of the idiocies you were so kind to cut and paste in this forum.
Calls for increased security after a terrorist attack are “political opportunism,†but calls for more gun control after a criminal’s spree killing is “a logical solution.â€
Please compare the number of americans killed by terrorists to the number
of americans using killed by one of thier gun weilding fellow americans
http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html
30,000 firearms deaths per year in america... thats almost one 9-11 EVERY MONTH....
0 deaths from terrorism last year... you do the math
Disarming innocent, law-abiding citizens helps protect them from evil, lawless terrorists and other thugs.
I don't think anyone is saying we shouldnt have any guns. I think we are saying we should keep guns out of the hands of the angry, the inbred, the wife abusers, the mentally handicapped, and the alchoholics. Which pretty much excludes 90 percent of the people who feel the need to own guns.
Every religion should be respected and promoted in public schools the name of diversity, so long as that religion isn’t Christianity.
Rrrriight.. in the world of small minded republicans "respect" = "promotion".
In truth, every religion should be respected, and none should be promoted by public funds. While the exact words "separation of church and state" don't appear verbatim in the constitution, the subject was discussed heavily by the founding fathers and their intent to keep the dangerous disease known as organized religion out of politics was more than apparent.
The best way to support our troops is to criticize their every move. This will let them know they’re thought of often.
Few people criticize the troops themselves. They do what their told and criticizing them would be in a sense, merely killing the messenger. We arent that stupid. We are criticizing their coward in chief. Theres a difference. Apprently your version of supporting the troops is backing politicians who send them into a war of choice with insufficient armor so millionaires can have tax breaks, and dont want to see the troops come home, except in body bags, until we have a stable iraq democracy, even if that democracy soon become an islamic theocracy..
Oh , and by the way, a majority of "the troops" currently think this war is loopy and think we should leave... I bet your wondering why a majority of the "the troops" don't support themselves...
Minorities are blameless for the hatred of the racist; women are blameless for the hatred of the rapist; but America is entirely at fault for the hatred of Islamofascists.
wow, I dont even know what to say to something this stupid..... This is america, anyone is free to hate anyone they want.. theres a difference between hating someone and say, hating someone and then killing half a million people with the same skin color as the people you hate who have nothign to do with them whatsoever.
your "logic", and I use that term as liberally as possible when parsing your statements, is that .00001 percent of some religious group who hates you justifies starting a war that will end up killing millions of people simply because they lived in a country who had a mean leader and they had the same skin color as the .00001 percent of the populace who attacked us.
and that somehow you biblehumping neandethals are as justified for starting the iraq war as black people are for hating the klan. or starting the iraq war makes as much sense as women hating rapists..ooooookkkkk...
The Patriot Act is a horrific compromise of Constitutional rights, but anti-Second Amendment laws and Franklin Roosevelt’s Presidential Order 9066 must be regarded “reasonable precautions.â€
For those of you who arent history buffs, PO 9066 was when we put the jap-americans in interment camps... no, that is widely regarded as a pretty horrdenous error actually, much like the consitution shredding, separation of powers destroying Patriot act is now. But frankly, the PO was more justified that the PA, because WWII was a REAL war, as opposed to some war against an imaginary conspiracy of well organized jihadists with super-scary power and global reach. Since the turn of the century, slipping in bathtubs has killed more americans than terrorists have. Should we declare war on bathtubs?
And as far as your second amendment crap, see my above discussion of how you are exponentially more likely to be killed by a gun weilding american than you are some foreigner.
Bush’s toppling the Saddam regime was a “diversion,†but Clinton’s lobbing a couple of cruise missiles at Iraq in the thick of the Lewinsky sex scandal was “sending a message.â€
The iraq war wasnt a "diversion", its pretty much the only thing these people know how to do... wage war so their war profiteer buddies can make money. And by the way genius, Clinton lobbed the missles at Sudan... not that lobbing a few missles is an event of anywhere near the magnitude of starting a war. Its the equivalent of comparing throwing a snowball at a bus to launching an rpg at a bus. Clinton threw a snowball at a bus for a distraction. Bush launched an RPG at a bus for a distraction.
Poverty is the cause of all terrorism…which is why the leaders of al Qaeda are typically U.S.-educated and were raised in wealth and luxury.
wait, no, by your logic flooding the screens of the world with dead women and children, and sexually humiliated men has nothing to do with making more terrorists.. that makes more sense...
A president who lies under oath [about a blowjob] is okay, but a president who references sixteen words from an allies’ intelligence report [as false justification for scaring the country into a disastrous war] should be dragged through the streets naked.
blowjob. war. only an inbred idiot of enormous mangitude would even begin to compare these two.
Government should limit itself to the powers named in the Constitution, which include banning Second Amendment rights and shopping the courts for judges sympathetic to causes that wouldn’t pass in any legislature.
No, wait, everyone in the government should limit themselves to doing exactly what the president says, as long as the president says we are at war, even though every facet of that war is classified, so we never have any way of knowing if we have won that war, or how winning is defined, or even if the president is lying to us to keep his war powers and his war profiteers profit margins up. You know what lies are.. right? like.. "I did not have ssex with that woman" or "we know where the weapons are" or "we know without a doubt that saddam has weapons of mass destruction".
“The People†in the First Amendment means The People; “the People†in the Fourth Amendment means The People; “the People†in the Ninth Amendment means The People; “the People†in the Tenth Amendment means The People; but “the People†in the Second Amendment (ratified in 1791) means the National Guard (created by an Act of Congress in 1903).
Another example of attempting to selectively interperet things so literally it makes your head swim. The founding fathers certainly meant for everyone is america to be protected under the constitution. I really, truly, dont think they when they said "the people's right to bear arms", they meant that every psychopath, drunk, inbred, criminal, retarded person, wife beater, or sexual predator (like the ones you elect to congress) should be armed. If you interpret literally your equivocation of every mention of "people" in the constitution you would in fact be implying that psychopaths and criminals have the right to have guns. H3ll, even prisoners are "people" in "we the people".. should they get guns too?
Althought, honestly, I suspect that you people are very much in favor of keeping guns in of the hands of the inbred, the chronically angry, the mentally challenged, and the alchoholics and wifebeaters. Without those groups I doubt there would be many people left who even cared if they had guns or not, and there certainly wouldnt be many people left in the republican party.
Any time you pointy headed nazis want to debate, you just ooze your way over from SMU or UT or whereever your spore colony is located, head on over to Texas Weslyan School of law and challenge the Txwes Dems to a debate. I promise, you wet eared little mental midgets will have you a3ses handed to you.
January 19th, 2007 at 6:52 am