I noted in a previous post that Condoleezza Rice is a bumbling ignorant fool when it comes to the Middle East. She is attempting to somehow wrap up a peace deal between Israel and Palestinians before the end of her boss’s term. This is solely a selfish move, as she is more concerned about her legacy (war war war) than about peace. She has had ample opportunities to force her ideologically driven boss to make the right decisions, but every time, she failed. Well she finally convinced him to throw her a bone, and, as you’ll see, that’s what he did, throw her a bone.
President Bush, who’s largely ignored the risky business of Middle East peacemaking throughout his nearly seven years in office, will take center stage Tuesday at the international peace conference he’s hosting in Annapolis, Md.
He won’t remain there for long, however. Bush plans to head back to the White House after delivering his opening speech to the diplomats and dignitaries at the U.S. Naval Academy, and while surprises are always possible, White House aides said he wasn’t planning to offer new American proposals to resolve the conflict.
Nor is Bush expected to jump into extended post-Annapolis negotiations or head off to the Middle East to pursue peace in the waning days of his tenure.
He’s not going to really participate, get into the nitty gritty details. This may be a good thing, seeing how terrible a leader and diplomat he is.
It’s not only that he won’t really participate, but that he has completely ignored the REAL parties at conflict in the Middle East. Like, for example, orthodox Jews, who are none too happy about making peace with Palestinians. In fact, they, along with their counterparts in Palestine, Hamas, are counter-rallying against this meeting.
In a show of defiance against the U.S.-sponsored peace conference in Annapolis, thousands of Hamas supporters rallied in the streets of the Gaza Strip Tuesday and a second armed Palestinian movement vowed to intensify its attacks on Israel, saying “the only dialogue with the enemy with be with rifles and rockets.”
The demonstration that filled Gaza City’s wide central avenue came a day after thousands of Israelis, also opposed to fresh negotiations to create a Palestinian state, marched from the Western Wall, the holiest place Jews can pray, to Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s residence near this city’s center.
Among them were leaders of at least one party that is part of Olmert’s governing coalition, a sign of the political tremors likely to follow the inauguration of the first Israeli-Palestinian negotiations in nearly seven years.
Israeli and Palestinian rejectionists — the term used to describe those who deny the other’s right to a state nearly six-decades after Israel’s founding — have hampered past negotiations and worked to undermine efforts to implement the few agreements that have been reached.
But the hawks on both sides hold particular power at the moment given the political weakness of Olmert, who is under criminal investigation, ill with prostate cancer, and still criticized for waging a poorly conceived war in Lebanon last year, and Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian Authority president whose electorate is violently divided.
The biggest problem, of course, is that no one bothered to invite Iran to this meeting. Why not? Because the Bush administration is ideologically driven, rather than peace-driven. If the Bush administration truly cared about peace in the Middle East, they would be visiting Tehran, not rattling their sabers at Tehran.
More than four dozen governments, international organizations and financial institutions will be represented when Middle East talks open in Annapolis today. But it is the uninvited guests — Iran and its allies Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah and other militant factions — that may have the biggest impact on the peace talks.
Containing Iran and its regional influence is the ambitious challenge for all the attendees except Syria, a goal officials from many participating nations contend is as important as producing peace in the Middle East.
“Iran will be the 5,000-pound elephant in the room, even though it’s not present,” said former U.S. peace negotiator Aaron David Miller. “It’s in everyone’s calculation and motivation . . . [plus] the impact of Hamas and the role it can play in wreaking havoc with whatever happens in Annapolis. . . . The balance of power is not in favor of peacemakers but in favor of the troublemakers.”
And that there is the key to why this meeting will not accomplish anything. Think back to when Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton got Israel and two of her neighbors to sign peace treaties. Jimmy Carter focused on Egypt and Israel, and Bill Clinton focused on Jordan and Israel. In order for there to be peace between two nations, BOTH nations must be there for conferences that might spell out actions. Iran is nowhere to be found because no one invited Iran. That spells major trouble.
That also sends a signal to Iran that the United States considers Iran’s regime’s days numbered, not worthy enough to consider inviting to a meeting about peace. Think about that for a while.
I just have to add these great comics on this meeting:
Elizabeth Bumiller is writing a biography about Condoleezza Rice and released an excerpt to the New York Times highlighting an aspect of Ms. Rice’s…well, non-action over the last seven years on peace between Israel and Palestinians. Ms. Bumiller perfectly highlights that Ms. Rice was at the forefront of all the bad decisions regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. She also points out that Ms. Rice pushed Israel to not be so harsh on the Palestinians just before the war in Iraq. After all, we can’t have our coalition be severely hampered by a sideshow.
Then we get to the best part. This is where Ms. Rice shows how inept, how ignorant, and how much of a bumbling fool she really is in regards to the Middle East.
When Ms. Rice became secretary of state in the second term, she told Mr. Bush in a long conversation at Camp David the weekend after the 2004 election that her priority would have to be progress in the Middle East. It was a turning point in more ways than one; Mr. Arafat died a few days later. Although Ms. Rice said in an interview that she had set no conditions when she took the job, her aides said that she had known that her relationship with the president would give her far greater influence to push an agenda, including peacemaking in the Middle East, than Mr. Powell’s.
You’d think that would be enough, but, well…
Accordingly, Ms. Rice spent much of 2005 working on the Gaza withdrawal that she thought would contribute to stability. Instead, it was seen as so emboldening the radicals that in early 2006 Hamas won a landslide victory in Palestinian elections over Mr. Abbas and his governing party, Fatah.
If one paid close attention to what was happening in Israel/Palestine from 2001-2006, one would have surmised that Israel was purposefully pushing Palestinians toward radicalism. For instance, a suicide bomber would blow himself and ten people up in Haifa. Hamas or Islamic Jihad would claim responsibility. What was Israel’s reaction? Why, they would bomb a Fatah police station! What? Huh? Now, why the hell would they do that, when Fatah was trying to rein in groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad? Why would Israel purposefully undermine the very organization that could lead Palestinians toward moderation and possibly peace? See, bombing a Fatah police station sends a particular message to Palestinians. The message is: Israelis don’t really want peace. Stick with the extremists. They are your only hope of survival against the Israelis.
Enter the bumbling Ms. Rice. She continued this foolish stupid policy, completely ignored Arafat and Fatah, and tried to get Abbas elected and in power. But then when Abbas did win, she offered him nothing. This sent another message to Palestinians. The same one: Israel and the West don’t want peace. Stick with the extremists. They are your only hope of survival against the Israelis and the West. See, by raising up Abbas, and then short-shrifting him, Ms. Rice set up the following event:
Ms. Rice, who had heralded the election as a symbol of the new stirrings of democracy in the Middle East, was so blindsided by the victory that she was startled when she saw a crawl of words on her television screen while exercising on her elliptical trainer the morning after the election: “In wake of Hamas victory, Palestinian cabinet resigns.”
“I thought, ‘Well, that’s not right,’” Ms. Rice recalled. When the crawl continued, she got off the elliptical trainer and called the State Department.
“I said, ‘What happened in the Palestinian elections?’” Ms. Rice recalled. “And they said, ‘Oh, Hamas won.’ And I thought, ‘Oh my goodness, Hamas won?’”
She and the Israelis under Sharon set the stage for Hamas to win and then she is surprised that they won. Either she is acting or she is a complete bumbling ignorant fool. I’m going with the latter.
It then gets even worse. Hezbollah, in Lebanon, in a brazen attack, kills several Israeli soldiers and captures two. This set off a wild summer in 2006. What did Ms. Rice do that summer?
Ms. Rice’s credibility was further damaged when she delayed calling for a cease-fire as Israel plunged into a two-front war in Lebanon and Gaza that summer. By the end of 2006, with the peace efforts in shambles and the administration’s time running out, Ms. Rice began to pick up the pieces.
Ms. Bumiller, as a biographer, is being kind to Ms. Rice. She does not mention Ms. Rice’s most unfortunate words:
But I have no interest in diplomacy for the sake of returning Lebanon and Israel to the status quo ante. I think it would be a mistake.
What we’re seeing here, in a sense, is the growing — the birth pangs of a new Middle East.
RICE: And whatever we do, we have to be certain that we are pushing forward to the new Middle East, not going back to the old one.
The birth pangs of a new Middle East?
This is how ignorant and lame Ms. Rice is on the Middle East. Not only was she wrong about Hamas, not only was she wrong about Hezbollah, but both have increased their positions of strength and influence since she got “involved.” Israel lost its aura of invincibility by “losing” to a ragtag group of terrorists. Oh and Israel still has yet to get back its two soldiers.
Just keep all this in mind when Ms. Rice attempts any future “talks on peace” in the Middle East. She is more worried right now about her “legacy” than actually about making peace in the Middle East.
If she truly would want to make peace in the Middle East, her first visit as of right now, should be to Tehran.
“In any country, if you don’t have countervailing institutions, the power of any one president is problematic for democratic development,” Rice told reporters after meeting with human-rights activists.
“I think there is too much concentration of power in the
KremlinWhite House. I have told the RussiansAmericans that. Everybody has doubts about the full independence of the judiciary. There are clearly questions about the independence of the electronic media and there are, I think, questions about the strength of the DumaCongress,” said Rice, referring to the RussianAmerican parliament.
If you read the account of what happened it is quite damning to Blackwater. The question now remains, will anyone actually make them pay for their murderous crime? Or will the State Department let them go free? After all, Ms. Rice, they are your employees. You pay their salaries. Will you let their crimes go or will you ensure they are punished?
Well, this won’t go over well for those who back Blackwater, but Blackwater employees fired first in last week’s incident according to a video.
Time to fire a lot of people Ms. Rice. Time to hold them accountable and charge them with the murders they committed. Remember, they were working for the United States of America while they killed these civilians. If they are immune from prosecution, what does that say about the standards of this country?
This is normally called terrorism when done by our “enemies.”
Man, that’s gotta hurt that poor legacy of hers, but the Pope denied Condoleezza Rice an audience over foreign policy.
The latest request was made during the summer. The US secretary of state Condoleeza Rice indicated to the Vatican that she urgently needed to meet Benedict XVI. She was on her way back into the viper’s nest of the Middle East and it would have been no bad thing to meet her counterparts with the credentials of a papal audience. Ms Rice had hoped that the audience could be fixed for early August at Castelgandolfo, the papal summer residence, when Benedict XVI returned from Lorenzago in the Dolomites, but she was told the Pope was on holiday. She insisted but to no avail. Vatican diplomats were adamant and “Benedict XVI is on holiday” continued to be the official reply.
Ah, it seems the reason was because Ms. Rice was not too kind to the Vatican way back in 2003 on the war in Iraq.
No one will say so officially but the refusal may also have been prompted by Ms Rice’s stance in 2003, when she was Mr Bush’s national security adviser. On the eve of the Iraqi conflict, it was Ms Rice who said bluntly that she did not understand the Vatican’s anti-war stance. She treated John Paul II’s envoy, Cardinal Pio Laghi, with a coolness that bordered on disrespect when he was sent to Washington on 2 March 2003 on a desperate mission to avert military intervention. Clearly, the incident has not been forgotten.
Payback’s a bitch, Ms. Rice.
In an interview with the New York Times, Ms. Rice talks about her future (even though she still has 18 months of work), and bemoans that her legacy will forever be tainted by failure. Well, duh, Ms. Rice. It might be because of, well, what you did:
In the Palestinian territories, she engineered a political boycott of the militant Islamist group Hamas after it won legislative elections, which she had pushed for, in 2006. In Pakistan, while continuing to express support for elections, she has scrambled for ways to keep Gen. Pervez Musharraf, a military dictator who took power in a 1999 coup, in office. And she made little mention of democracy during a visit to Egypt and Saudi Arabia in July, and did not meet with any political dissidents, citing time pressures and a full schedule.
So you tell Palestinians that they must elect leaders and then when the Palestinians do exactly what you tell them, you boycott their chosen leaders. It doesn’t make your legacy look good, Ms. Rice.
What would help your legacy, Ms. Rice, is to talk to those you don’t like, the Iranians, the Syrians, and elected Palestinian officials, including those of Hamas. How do you even expect to make peace between Israel and Palestinians if you totally ignore millions of Palestinians? That just doesn’t make any sense.
As if that is any big surprise to anyone who has closely followed the utterly inept Ms. Rice as she does a dog and pony show across the Middle East. But yet again, she has failed to produce any result from her current trip to the Middle East. Sure the Saudis are going to gobble up the $20 billion dollars of advanced weaponry; after all we’re just giving it away with nothing to show in return.
Has there been a worse Secretary of State than Condoleezza Rice?
There are more warning signs from Iraq that Iraq is getting even worse. The first is the news that fourteen American soldiers were killed in the past 48 hours or so. That violence was among other bombs going off, including mortars on the Green Zone.
The second warning sign is Iraq’s Vice President has attempted to quit, and Shi’ite leaders are losing much confidence in Maliki and the Americans. This is very serious, because if the Shi’ites bolt from the government, well, what do you have left?
The third warning sign is US embassy workers lack any kind of Arabic language skills, forcing Condoleezza Rice to make the State Department fill positions in Iraq first. The reason this is a warning sign is because it just won’t happen. The United States will not be able to fill positions at their massive embassy in Baghdad with competent professionals who would have even the most basic understanding of Iraq and the Arab world. It really is tragic.
Heed these warnings, America. Iraq is an utter disaster and the longer we stay there, the worse it is going to get. These are not the fruits of good laborers.
Republicans and the Christian Right should be well familiar with this particular verse from the Bible, Matthew 7:15-20:
15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
By their fruits, ye shall know them. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit. A corrupt tree brings forth evil fruit. Any Christian knows this parable. What does this mean for our world today? Let’s look at the fruits of the Bush administration and the Republican party.
A failed state. The Fund for Peace and Foreign Policy magazine have released their annual report of the world’s failed states. Iraq is the second worst failed state in the world, only two points better in the rankings than the world’s worst failed state, The Sudan. We’re now well over four years into our war in Iraq. Let’s put that in perspective. World War II, if started on March 20, 2003, would have ended last December or so. What is worse about this is that unlike The Sudan, America has pumped billions of dollars into Iraq with so little to show for it.
That is not to say that all failing states suffer from international neglect. Iraq and Afghanistan, the two main fronts in the global war on terror, both suffered over the past year. Their experiences show that billions of dollars in development and security aid may be futile unless accompanied by a functioning government, trustworthy leaders, and realistic plans to keep the peace and develop the economy. Just as there are many paths to success, there are many paths to failure for states on the edge.
So I ask you, Americans, and especially Christian conservatives, what do these fruits tell you about the tree from which they come? Now some of you may say, the tree really is terrorism. The answer to that is, no. The tree is America. We entered Iraq with the supposed intent to recreate the Middle East, and Iraq itself. After four years, what are the fruits of our labors? An utterly failed state. Jesus said, evil fruit cannot come from good trees.
By their fruits, ye shall know them.
Recently a US airstrike killed seven children along with many others. More than one hundred die in three days of heavy fighting. The Taliban (living over in neighboring Pakistan) continue to plague the Americans now SIX YEARS after we attacked them. Six years. And they are still around? Afghanistan is ranked as the 8th worst failed state in the world, behind only The Sudan, Iraq, and a bunch of African states.
By their fruits, ye shall know them.
The Bush administration continues to support the highly corrupt and repressive military dictator, Musharraf, regardless of how much he punishes reformers in Pakistan. Pakistan is ranked as the 12th worst failed state in the world. Only Haiti, Central African Republic and Guinea separate Pakistan from her neighbor Afghanistan.
By their fruits, ye shall know them.
Poor, poor Lebanon, the world’s pawn, played by all parties against her own will. Israelis bomb her to the stone age. Hezbollah is a parasitic virus, destroying the country from within. Syria assassinates her leaders. The United States sacrifices her democracy on the altar of supposed Israeli preference (though if the United States were smart, they would have reined in Israel last summer, because it is in Israel’s best interest to have a stable country to her north. Now because of their idiotic bombing campaign, Lebanon is failing). Lebanon is ranked as the 28th worst failed state in the world.
Not a state (and apparently not ever going to be a state), this is probably the worst of Bush’s failures. Is it really in the best interest of our ally, Israel, to have a failed non-state as her neighbor? Is it really in Israel’s best interest to have 1.4 million starving raving lunatics in a 25 mile strip of land right on her border? Is this Condoleezza Rice’s idea of “birth pangs?”
Why are these failed states so important to the world? The Foreign Policy magazine states it well in their introduction:
It is an accepted axiom of the modern age that distance no longer matters. Sectarian carnage can sway stock markets on the other side of the planet. Anarchic cities that host open-air arms bazaars imperil the security of the world’s superpower. A hermit leader’s erratic behavior not only makes life miserable for the impoverished millions he rules but also upends the world’s nuclear nonproliferation regime. The threats of weak states, in other words, ripple far beyond their borders and endanger the development and security of nations that are their political and economic opposites.
These are the fruits of the Republican philosophy to the world. These are the fruits of neo-conservatives. These are not the fruits of good trees. These must be cast into the fire, metaphorically speaking. We must do what needs to be done with these kinds of philosophies, let them pass the way of the dodo bird, to be a relic of history, never to be seen again. At least, if Americans want a better world.
Well well well…remember the days when conservatives were crowing over how France and Russia were evil for participating in the oil-for-food scandal? Not to mention of course Kofi Annan’s son? Yeah, they had a field day with that one, reinforcing their beliefs that the UN was of da devil! Well, we learned last week that Chevron also participated in the oil-for-food scandal, yeah, the Chevron from America. And guess who was an important executive for Chevron in those days? Why none other than Condoleezza Rice.
Hullabaloo is proud to present another episode of “Imagine If This Were A Democrat” this week starring Condoleeza Rice:
Chevron, the second-largest American oil company, is preparing to acknowledge that it should have known kickbacks were being paid to Saddam Hussein on oil it bought from Iraq as part of a defunct United Nations program, according to investigators.
According to the Volcker report, surcharges on Iraqi oil exports were introduced in August 2000 by the Iraqi state oil company, the State Oil Marketing Organization. At the time, Condoleezza Rice, now secretary of state, was a member of Chevron’s board and led its public policy committee, which oversaw areas of potential political concerns for the company.
Ms. Rice resigned from Chevron’s board on Jan. 16, 2001, after being named national security advisor by President Bush.
Our show will take you back in time to a world where the entire political and media establishment rose up in horror at the merest rumor of impropriety among the president’s advisors and cabinet — to a time when editorial writers would have thundered about the unacceptability of a former National Security Advisor and current Secretary of State having even been remotely associated with such illegality and malfeasance. Indeed, in that era, it would have been considered inconceivable that someone under such a cloud could possibly be allowed to continue to represent the nation abroad in times of such great peril. Calls for resignation would be loud and boisterous.
So let’s see, Chevron participates in the oil-for-food scandal and hides this from the world. Rice is the public policy committee chair “which oversaw areas of potential political concerns for the company,” and stayed silent. Huh…
Do regular Republicans realize just how badly their leaders are wrecking their party? Why do they still show such strong support for these criminals?
Iran and Britain had a tense face-off over disputed waters. Where was Condoleezza Rice trying to find a peaceful resolution to the problem? She was oddly silent, wasn’t she, over these past two weeks. Not a peep (that I can recall seeing or hearing) from her on the crisis. I wonder, does she really know what her position as Secretary of State does? Was she this inept and out of touch as the Provost of Stanford?
Can anyone find something substantive that she has done vis a vis this standoff? I’ve looked, but I cannot seem to find anything.
Israel has been considering Syria’s overtures of peace (because peace is in Israel’s best interest), but the United States has told Israel, don’t even think about it!
The United States demanded that Israel desist from even exploratory contacts with Syria, of the sort that would test whether Damascus is serious in its declared intentions to hold peace talks with Israel.
In meetings with Israeli officials recently, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was forceful in expressing Washington’s view on the matter.
The American argument is that even “exploratory talks” would be considered a prize in Damascus, whose policy and actions continue to undermine Lebanon’s sovereignty and the functioning of its government, while it also continues to stir unrest in Iraq, to the detriment of the U.S. presence there…..
….When Israeli officials asked Secretary Rice about the possibility of exploring the seriousness of Syria in its calls for peace talks, her response was unequivocal: Don’t even think about it.
So the question is, does the United States really want peace in the Middle East? I’m sure supporters of Bush will spin this by saying, “you can’t reward bad behavior,” blah blah blah and so on, but is the United States the parent of the world? Is that really its role? It really sounds silly when you hear this from an American. Seriously. And it certainly doesn’t do anything to turn a possible enemy into a probable friend (or at least at peace).
If the United States doesn’t want Israel to even consider an exploratory attempt at communicating with Syria, it shows that deep down there is some other plan the United States has for Syria, and it is not peace.
Israel launched a destructive war on Lebanon, in an attempt to weaken Hezbollah and return the soldiers Hezbollah captured in a brazen attack. However, Israel’s 34 day war went so poorly that while Hezbollah-run cities were demolished, Hezbollah’s standing both in Lebanon and in the Arab world skyrocketed. And now, today, Hezbollah demonstrated strongly against the Lebanese government, further weakening Lebanon’s democratic government.
Is this the “birth pangs” Ms. Rice was talking about last summer would come of supporting Israel’s bombardment of Lebanon?
Yet again, another example of the ineffectual Ms. Rice. This time though, she’s reflecting her boss, Mr. Bush, who desperately needs Egypt in his pocket on Iraq. So what is Mr. Bush sacrificing in order to get Egyptian…er Mubarrak approval on Iraq? Bush is sacrificing democracy in Egypt.
The irony would be funny if it weren’t tragic.
This statement from this article in the New York Times probably sums it up best on describing Condoleezza Rice’s tenure in both the National Security Council position, and the Secretary of State position:
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice flies home on Friday, after a quick trip across the Middle East and Europe, with just enough progress to shield herself from criticism that the trip was a bust.
That about sums up Ms. Rice.
You guys gotta read this…..
Who here is not yet dumbfounded at this administration?
A new article delves into this question: just what has Condoleezza Rice done as Secretary of State? Is it her intervention that stopped the Israel-Lebanon War? Has she accomplished anything in stopping Iran’s pursuit of nuclear technology? Has she done anything to stop North Korea’s belligerence? Has she done anything to solve The Sudan genocide? Has she done anything to stop this war between Somalia and Ethiopia? Has she gotten the insurgency in Iraq to come to a political table and participate in governing Iraq? Just what exactly has Condoleezza Rice done as Secretary of State?
Moreover, just what did Condoleezza Rice do as National Security Adviser?
And was she this inept as Provost of Stanford?
Let me tell you, we’re lucky that we have such few conflicts to deal with right now…
See, Bush is selling a message. Facts that do not fit this message must not get out, or the message will fail. What is the message? That Iran is bad, and that Iran does not wish to work with the world, so the best option is war. That is the message the Bush administration wishes for America to see. They do not want America to know, or better said, remember, that Iran actually has cooperated with the United States in places like Afghanistan. That would be detrimental to their efforts to paint Iran as intractable and evil. Plus, it would make people ask why publicly the Bush administration states that it does not wish to talk with Iran, while in the back they do so anyways.
What is this all about? This is about Flynn Everett, who has written an op-ed for the New York Times. It was cleared through the CIA, but the White House got a hold of the document and redacted their own lines, things they don’t want America to see, mainly that Iran was cooperative with the United States in securing Afghanistan’s western border, and other help. The New York Times went ahead and published the op-ed with the redacted lines in black, so the whole world could see just what Bush did not want you to see. Mr. Everett writes a second piece to go with the op-ed explaining the portions that the White House redacted.
Indeed, the deleted portions of the original draft reveal no classified material. These passages go into aspects of American-Iranian relations during the Bush administration’s first term that have been publicly discussed by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice; former Secretary of State Colin Powell; former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage; a former State Department policy planning director, Richard Haass; and a former special envoy to Afghanistan, James Dobbins.
National security must be above politics. In a democracy, transparency in government has to be honored and protected. To classify information for reasons other than the safety and security of the United States and its interests is a violation of these principles. It is for this reason that we will continue to press for the release of the article without the material deleted.
What is the administration afraid of? If the truth sets us free, and freedom is the administration’s utmost drive…well…why is it then so secretive? What does it not want Americans to remember about Iran? Why now?