So says Seymour Hersh of The New Yorker. Story here. Original TNY article here. Interview with Hersh on the issue here.
Is this true?
If it is – OK, this is getting just too bizarre, even by the standards to which we have grown accustomed since January 2001. It’s like the Iran-Contra scandal on LSD.
Or does anyone here care to defend this as a rational decision?
Supposedly there are several members of Congress who are fervent supporters of the Mujahidin e-Khalq, a certified terrorist group and personality cult who happen to be fighting against the Iranian government. Nevermind the people they’ve killed using terror tactics, as long as they’re anti-Iran.
So, no, I’m not surprised. And I think it’s only going to get more convoluted and weirder.
What’s that you say? American foreign policy is supporting murderous thugs we agree with to fight murderous thugs we disagree with while we talk about democracy and freedom and make some money on the side? That’s crazy talk. Only some crazy terrorist hugging hippie communist nazi would say something like that.
Well, I’d rate it as rational ( stupid and vile, but rational ) by Bush Admin standards. It makes much more sense once you realize that Bush and friends have never cared at all about Al Qaeda except as a bogeyman; they do care about Iran. If hurting Iran means strengthening Al Queda they won’t care, and they might even look at that as a benefit. More terrorism makes Al Qaeda a better bogeyman.
We’ve been suporting an international terrorist org against Iran for a whil now, the Sazeman-e Mojahedin-e Khalq
This organization has been allowed to raise funds in Washington DC with the help of Bush’s defense policy advisors. They had a fundraiser in the Daughters of the American Revolution Constitution Hall of all places.
What many people fail to appreciate is that there are Good Terrorists and Bad, Bad Terrorists. We onlt hang out with the Good Terrorists, so it’s okay.