"No one dare attack our sacred land": Iran FM's Claim Challenges Relevance of Britain, U.S. as World Powers

One week ago today, the Iranian Navy seized 15 British Navy personnel engaged in searching for smugglers in Iraqi waters. Despite GPS evidence presented by the British government that clearly indicated the British crew was well within established Iraqi waters, Iranian leaders have refused to release the hostages, whom they insist were captured in Iranian territorial waters. Ignoring Geneva Convention policies and British warnings not to do so, the Iranian government produced and distributed videotaped “confessions” in which the hostages “admit” they were in Iranian waters illegally when they were captured. Iran also floated the possibility that the lone female hostage would be released, but has subsequently rescinded that gesture. Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki now insists that Britain must apologize for instigating the incident, and suggested that the hostages may yet be tried in Tehran on charges of espionage. The outcome of such a show trial is not difficult to imagine. Espionage is a capital offense under Iran’s version of Sharia law.

What steps have Britain and the UN taken to resolve this critical situation? Tony Blair demanded the release of the hostages, to which demands Iran responded with increased rhetoric and blunt refusals to comply. To add insult to injury, Iran released to the media a letter allegedly written by female hostage Seaman Faye Turney, in which Turney robotically asks her government to withdraw troops from Iraq. Tony Blair became “livid” at the Iranian attempt to dictate British foreign policy, the refusal to release the hostages, and the obviously forced confessions (hint to future Iranian fake confession writers: British citizens refer to their Parliamentary representatives as MPs, not “representatives”). Blair requested that the UN Security Council condemn Iran for the seizure and issue a resolution calling upon Iran to immediately release the British crew.

In a pathetic display of its own irrelevancy, the UN Security Council, at the behest of such stalwart defenders of international law as Russia, could not agree on issuing a call for the immediate release of the hostages. The UK Times Online reported:

The UN Security Council, voicing “grave concern”, meanwhile called on Iran to allow consular access to the detained British naval personnel and urged “an early resolution of this problem, including the release of the 15”.

Britain originally asked for a tougher three-sentence statement to “deplore” the detention of the British personnel and “support calls” for their immediate release, but this was blocked by Russia and several other members.

“We will not be able to accept a call for the immediate release of the 15 UK naval personnel,” Vitaly Churkin, Russian’s UN envoy, declared during the debate.

The final two-sentence statement was read to the press outside the Security Council chamber, making it weaker than a formal declaration.

Apparently “grave concern” is the extent of the Security Council’s reaction to what under international law is an act of war: forced boarding of a vessel under flag of a recognized nation, compounded by taking uniformed military personnel of a sovereign nation hostage. Whatever one thinks of President Bush personally or politically, it is clear he was justified in his blunt warning to the UN that if it did not take action against Saddam Hussein after 14 of its resolutions had been ignored it would become an irrelevant organization in world affairs. Unfortunately, terrorists have paid close attention to the UN’s reactions to provocations and Iran clearly determined that President Bush was right about the UN’s irrelevancy. Hence the brazen taking of British hostages with little concern that any nations other than Britain and the U.S. would be inclined to interfere.

The west has a tendency to underestimate radical Islamic nations like Iran, whether out of a sense of cultural superiority or sheer ignorance. Iran has proven itself an astute observer of internal politics in America and Britain and has calculated that neither government has the political unity necessary to mount an effective response to this hostage incident. The political climate in America has become so acidic that Iran is certain America will not respond militarily to this provocation against our closest ally.

Democrats begging for immediate withdrawal from Iraq and impeachment of President Bush should consider carefully the words of Iranian Foreign Minister Mottaki:

To a question on probable US military attack on Iran, he said the Americans are now engaged in domestic issues and are not in a position to enter into another crisis.

"No one dare to attack our sacred land," he said.

“Engaged in domestic issues” is a euphemism for blind bush hatred in Congress. Non-binding resolutions criticizing the new “surge” in Iraq; over dramatized investigations into U.S. Attorney firings the President was constitutionally empowered to conduct; adding non-military pork funding to the Iraq War appropriations bill; and inserting ill-advised provisions into that bill to establish a withdrawal date from Iraq are precisely the “domestic issues” Mottaki and the Mullahs count on to tie the hands of our Commander in Chief. Conservative radio hosts and bloggers frequently use the term “embolden our enemies” when referring to the effects of the Democrat controlled Congress’s efforts to shackle President Bush’s executive war powers. Mottaki’s comments are proof that our enemies are indeed emboldened by this Congress and that bravado resulted in the hostage incident now upon us.

Britain is in a less rancorous but equally tenuous political position, as Prime Minister Blair is in effect a lame-duck leader until replaced in the next UK election. His liberal party has cut military expenditures so significantly during his tenure that France now has a larger Navy than Britain, which once ruled the seas. In fact, Belgium’s navy is now approximately the same size as Britain’s. Britain has been slowly reducing its military presence in Iraq, and other than typical criminal investigations did virtually nothing in response to the London Subway bombings in 2005. It is easy to see why Mottaki feels very confident that no nation dares to attack Iran. Even though Iran is known to be the world’s largest supplier of terrorist financing and equipment, to date no nation has taken direct action against it except the U.S. and then only under Republican presidents.

Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, interviewed on the Sean Hannity radio show yesterday, expressed some hope that the hostage incident can still be resolved diplomatically, but that is the politically correct answer one would expect from the nation’s head diplomat. Hannity reminded Secretary Rice of President Reagan’s response in 1987 when the Iranian Navy attempted to mine the Persian Gulf, in which commercial oil and military vessels of various nations were operating. President Reagan considered the Iranian mining strategy a danger to American and international interests and without begging for UN permission or sanctions or written resolutions, President Reagan ordered military strikes against the Iranian ships laying the mines. After several of Iran’s naval vessels were sunk, Iran stopped its mining operations. When Iran resumed mining the Gulf in 1988, Reagan again ordered military action that resulted in significant losses to the Iranian Navy. The mining stopped and was not resumed again. Some regimes only respond to, and respect, force. Iran is governed by such a regime.

The U.S. and Britain now face a moment of decision in which the global relevancy of both nations may hinge on their response to this Iranian provocation. If Britain takes no action beyond becoming “livid” or pleading with the UN Security Council to merely “condemn” the action, Britain will certainly be targeted by terrorists for increasingly brazen attacks. If the U.S. fails to take decisive action on behalf of its dearest ally and continues being distracted by partisan sniping, it may suffer a similar fate.

President Bush warned the UN about becoming irrelevant, and Bin Laden referred to America as a “paper tiger.” Perhaps both were right. The only thing that today’s Democrats become angry enough to go to war over is paper: resolutions, appropriations bills, and hanging chads. The War on Bush has spanned more than 6 years, and the only two casualties have been the world image of the President of the United States, and the unity of the American people in the face of grave danger from terrorists. It is difficult to determine who is more gleeful over President Bush’s low approval ratings, liberals or emboldened terrorists.

Foreign Minister Mottaki’s confidence that no one dares attack Iran may be premature. According to an unnamed U.S. government source quoted in the New York Sun today:

“The Iranians are going to be shocked to find out how badly they have miscalculated," this official said. "Remember, Jimmy Carter is not the president of the United States these days."

444 days is a long time to let an act of war go unpunished. It is fitting that Carter was nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize, because from 1979 to 1981 he contributed a great deal to the “peaceful” seizure of the U.S. Embassy and Embassy staff in Tehran through his spineless non-response to that act of war. It is no coincidence that the man whose face is circled in the picture at right with a U.S. Embassy hostage is the same man who orchestrated the kidnapping of the British crew last week: Ahmadinejad. Britain and America should hope history is not repeated in the current hostage incident. In that context, one week has already been too long to let an act of war go unpunished.

Vagueness in Politics Signals Shallowness and Danger

There is something that differentiates a truly great presidential contender from a shallow presidential pretender: Specificity versus vagueness. Among the current 2008 presidential candidates of both parties, whether officially announced or “exploring the possibility,” the old saying “some guys have it, and some guys don’t” is quite applicable as it applies to the specificity versus vagueness litmus test. For far too long, America’s voters have allowed candidates to woo them with generalities and clichés rather than demanding that candidates present detailed solutions for the problems facing our nation. An analysis of the differences between vagueness and specificity among candidates or undeclared but likely candidates follows:

Vagueness:
Governor Bill Richardson (D-NM) believes that the world needs to eventually rid itself of nuclear weapons. Addressing the Nitze School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University this week, Richardson told the audience that the world needs the U.S. to lead “a new Manhattan Project to stop the bomb- a comprehensive program to secure all nuclear weapons and all weapons-usable material, worldwide.” According to the AP article, Richardson’s goal for his “new Manhattan Project” would be to “secure nuclear materials in Russia and dangerous areas of the world so they can't get into terrorists' hands.” On the surface this sounds like a sensible idea, and it surely sounded plausible to his idealistic audience, but as with most pie in the sky statements from political candidates, Richardson’s plan to secure all nuclear weapons and nuclear material throughout the world is full of nobility but devoid of detail.

Not explained, for instance, is this perplexing dilemma: how would Richardson propose to demand that the Pakistani government, with the assistance of the IAEA, round up and secure all nuclear material located in that county? Remember, this is the same Pakistan that uniformly refuses to allow U.S. and NATO special forces units to cross the Afghanistan-Pakistan border and rout out the al Qaeda and Taliban elements that are flourishing unmolested in that mountainous region and have made nearly 20 attempts to assassinate Musharraf.

If Musharraf will not allow us to hunt Bin Laden in the area we believe he is located, it is naïve for Richardson to believe Musharraf would allow international inspectors to scour that same area in an attempt to detect nuclear material or weapons. The Pakistani government has proven too weak to confront the Taliban or al Qaeda with anything approaching consistency, and the two terrorist groups operate with relative impunity in their safe haven inside Pakistan. If nuclear material was detected in these terrorist camps and mountain hideouts, would the Pakistani government confront the terrorists, take the nuclear material or weapons by force, and then secure them for the IAEA to examine? The prospects for such an outcome are bleak indeed. It is far more likely that Pakistan would not risk international embarrassment or condemnation by exposure of the lax safeguards at its nuclear facilities. Pakistan is only one example. The former Soviet states are another matter entirely.

Richardson either knows that his “new Manhattan Project” sounds like a world changing, creative idea with no chance of becoming reality because other nations will never cooperate, or he is counting on admiring audiences to be too busy fawning over him to ask for details of his plan.

Richardson added to his credentials for vagueness in the question answer session after his speech. According to the AP article:

Richardson laid out the plans for his first days in the White House. The first day, he would get out of Iraq. The second, he would announce a plan to drastically cut U.S. dependence on foreign oil. On the third day, the issue would be global warming. . . .

Richardson apparently plans to withdraw from Iraq on day one of his presidency, with no details of a postwar plan for Iraq or for whether he would still withdraw from Iraq if the war had turned and the Iraqis were progressing toward securing their own country from the terrorists. Like most anti-war devotees, “end the war” slogans come easily and arouse emotion, but are intentionally vague about the repercussions of losing a war. On day 2 of his presidency, Richardson “would announce a plan” to cut our dependence on foreign oil. A suggestion to Richardson: You will never see the inside of the White House as anything but a guest if you run on this “I have a plan for oil dependence but I won’t tell you what it is until you elect me” platform. If Richardson actually has a specific plan for weaning America from foreign oil, let him present it publicly so it can be scrutinized.

It seems rather selfish for a presidential candidate to claim to hold the solution to our foreign oil problems in his hands but refuse to share it with the American people unless they vote for him. I suppose there is no provision in McCain-Feingold banning Richardson’s electoral extortion, and that is a pity. Of course, Richardson’s best defense would also be the most likely explanation for his vagueness: He has no such specific and viable plan to announce or he would have done so already to differentiate himself from his opponents. Perhaps Congress could subpoena him to testify about his miraculous oil plan. Then he could testify under oath whether he does or does not have a plan to announce on day 2 of his rapidly fading presidency.

Specificity:
On Monday, as part of a “talk with the candidates” format segment, potential candidate Newt Gingrich appeared on the Sean Hannity radio show. The former Speaker of the House took questions from callers and from Hannity, and was specific, as usual, in his responses. For example, Hannity asked Gingrich what, if anything, the U.S. and its allies could do to convince Iran to release the 15 sailors Iran illegally captured last week. Gingrich began by reminding the audience that Iran had committed an act of war by seizing the British vessel and crew in international waters, and had furthered the aggression by releasing video footage of the captured sailors, in violation of the Geneva Convention. Rather than give the vague and meaningless political diatribe about diplomacy and sanctions, none of which have encouraged Iran to halt its nuclear weapons program, Gingrich offered a very specific and simple plan for bringing the Mullahs and Ahmadinejad to their knees economically.

Newt Gingrich pointed out that Iran exports enormous amounts of crude oil, but only has one functioning oil refinery to produce gasoline for Iran’s civilian and military needs. Iran imports most of its gasoline for domestic consumption from foreign suppliers, which transport the gasoline to Iran through commercial shipping channels. Gingrich stated that the single Iranian refinery is located on the coast, within easy striking distance of our carrier groups, and its destruction would significantly impact Iran’s economy and military capability, due to loss of fuel for its tanks and planes. To tighten the economic noose, our carrier groups already in the region could blockade Iran’s ports, effectively preventing Iran from receiving any refined gasoline from foreign sources until the British crew and vessel are released.

The thinking behind this proposed course of action was specific and infused with a clear grasp of the need for a decisive, yet measured, response to Iran’s aggressive act of war against our primary ally. Most GOP presidential candidates talk tough about Iran; Fred Thompson in particular verbalizes what many conservatives instinctively feel about Iran and its behavior. Yet Thompson’s Law and Order “let’s kick their butts” type of appeal is long on bravado but short on specifics. Gingrich’s policy ideas are second to none and combine bellicosity and intellect into definable and specific courses of action.

All candidates have flaws, and Gingrich is no exception, as he has admitted publicly. However, it would be refreshing and ultimately beneficial for our nation if all candidates would, or could, talk specifically about their original ideas and policy positions like Gingrich. Generalities and vague statements like “we must reform Social Security” or “I want to keep America safe from terrorists” should never be tolerated by an American voter, or from our sound bite media. What do these statements mean? How far is a candidate willing to go to keep America safe from terrorists? Is that too far or not far enough? Decisions can only be made when there are specific criteria from which to choose.

If a candidate cannot be specific, we should assume he has no actual ideas or deeply held beliefs, as he is likely waiting to see what the polls indicate before taking a position on any issue of consequence. Vagueness in politics, like shallow waters, should require posted warning signs, lest the unsuspecting voter or swimmer eagerly dive in headlong and encounter danger.

One Voice Policy, Not FBI Cover-Up, Holds Smoking Gun in Reuters Story

Media outlets eager for more alleged examples of impropriety by members of the Bush administration are breathlessly reporting that an FBI agent was silenced by senior FBI leaders for commenting about the Congressional “investigation” into the Justice Department firings of 8 U.S. Attorneys in December. According to a Reuters report yesterday, Dan Dzwilewski, FBI Special Agent in Charge of the San Diego office, told a San Diego newspaper in January that the firing of U.S. Attorney Carol Lam would negatively impact ongoing investigations and that it was Dzwilewski’s opinion that the firing was done for political reasons. Lam had successfully prosecuted Republican Representative Randy “Duke” Cunningham in a corruption case in 2005.

When Senator Diane Feinstein’s (D-CA) staff contacted the FBI San Diego office regarding Dzwilewki’s comments, her staff was advised by that office that Dzwilewski had indeed made such comments to the San Diego Union-Tribune, but according to Senator Feinstein, as quoted by Reuters, “they also said they'd been warned to say no more." The media, believing this to be a smoking gun likely to further damage Bush administration credibility, presented this story under the gripping headline, “FBI agent told to keep quiet over attorney firings.” What should be the response of wise news observers? A shrug of the shoulders and a dismissive “so what?”

A more accurate headline would have been, “All FBI Agents, and for That Matter All Agents or Officers of All Agencies in Government, Including the Military, are Told to Keep Quiet About, well, Everything.”

Before I explain why this Reuters “silencing” hype should be downplayed, it will be helpful to provide the context by including Dzwilewski’s comments about Lam’s firing as they appeared in the San Diego Union-Tribune on January 13, 2007:

I don't think it's the right way to treat anybody. What's the decision based on?” Dzwilewski said. “I don't share the view of whoever's making the decision back there in Washington that they'd like her to resign. I feel Carol has an excellent reputation and has done an excellent job given her limited resources”. . . .

Lam's continued employment as U.S. attorney is crucial to the success of multiple ongoing investigations, the FBI chief said.

As for the reason for any pressure to resign, Dzwilewski said: “I can't speak for what's behind all that, what's the driving force behind this or the rationale. I guarantee politics is involved.”

Every government agency I have dealt with in my career, at all levels local, state, and federal, have a “one voice policy” that employees agree to abide by during their term of employment, and for many agencies that policy extends even into retirement or separation. Government and military departments and agencies have Public Affairs or Media Relations sections through which the “one voice policy” is expressed. I have never attended a briefing or participated in an operation or assignment where all participants were not reminded that they are not authorized to talk to the press, or represent the department or agency to the media. The reasons for a “one voice policy” are numerous, but all boil down to a single theme: the agency’s or department’s public image is critical to success; we all have our own opinions, but we do not all have access to “need to know” information, thus our personal opinions should not be published in the media, where they can taint the agency’s or department’s public image.

No one familiar with government or military protocols should be surprised that the FBI and presumably its parent Department of Justice warned the FBI San Diego office not to talk to the media about the firings or Dzwilewski’s comments. The warning, however, does not provide any smoking gun evidence of a cover-up or conspiracy. Instead, the warning was likely nothing more than a stern reminder, given the current anti-Bush witch hunt culture rampant in Washington these days, to utilize the “one voice” policy of the FBI as agreed by all employees, even special agents in charge.

The example of Special Agent Dzwilewski is a perfect example of why “one voice” policies exist. Dzwilewski, despite his senior position as an FBI Special Agent in Charge in San Diego, did not attend the Justice Department meetings and briefings at which the decisions to fire the 8 Attorney Generals were made. He also was not privy to the thought process that went into the decisions. His published comments quoted above clearly confirm that he disagreed with the reasoning behind Lam’s firing but did not know what that reasoning was. That did not stop him from “guaranteeing” that the firing was motivated by politics. Thus his opinion regarding Lam’s firing, even if proven later to be accurate, is missing the key ingredient of firsthand knowledge because he had only heard Lam’s (or the media’s) side of the story. The legal term for that is “conjecture based on hearsay”. The media term most applicable to that is “a ratings boost”.

Dzwilewski should have referred the San Diego Union-Tribune immediately to the FBI’s or Justice Department’s public affairs or equivalent sections rather than entangling himself in a political spider web designed to cocoon and paralyze the Bush administration. With no firsthand knowledge of the deliberations prior to the decision to fire these 8 attorneys, he was uniquely unqualified to speak, even unintentionally, as an FBI spokesman. Biting the hand that feeds you is unwise, and Dzwilewski bit his current employer and its parent department simply by opening his mouth and sharing his opinion.

I once worked an assignment with a Roswell, New Mexico Police detective who, despite appearing to be a normal, intellectually sound individual, insisted that aliens did in fact crash a spaceship in a Roswell field in 1947, and that our government arrived on scene, seized the alien craft, and continues to this day to conceal this fact from the American people. For the first hour or so, I believed he was joking, playing a corny but quaint prank on his government guest. After more than 8 hours of observing his behavior and studying his body language and voice inflexions, it was obvious to me that he truly believed the alien story (he was old enough that he could claim to have witnessed the government’s arrival and seizure of the spacecraft) and he openly shared it not just with me but with anyone who would listen.

This detective had an opinion about something, but that did not make it fact. Most people have a crackpot opinion about something, and many people have wild opinions of government conspiracies. Likewise, Dzwilewski had an opinion about Lam’s firing, but unlike the Roswell detective, Dzwilewski was not authorized to openly share that opinion with anyone who would listen, especially the news media, as explicitly explained in the “one voice” policy.

FBI Director Robert Mueller apparently felt similarly. During his grilling by Senator Feinstein over this alleged “silencing” of Dzwilewski, the FBI Director explained:

I do not believe it's appropriate for our special agents in charge to comment to the media on personnel decisions that are made by the Department of Justice.

Mueller captured the essence of the “one voice” policy in this sentence. First, he rebuked his Special Agent in Charge in San Diego for violating the “one voice” policy with the media, and consequently reminded all special agents in charge that they are not authorized to comment to the media. Mueller’s statement extends the reminder of the “one voice” policy to the entire FBI, including himself, by implying to Senator Feinstein that personnel decisions made by the Department of Justice are not an FBI matter and thus only the Justice Department, not the FBI, should comment on the motives, political or otherwise, for the firings.

The media spin on this aspect of the U.S. Attorney firings is nearly as hyperbolic as the media’s overall portrayal of the firings as a scandal. The Wall Street Journal editors recently published an insightful brief comparison of the Bush administration’s and Clinton administration’s firings of U.S. Attorneys. In that summary, the editors reminded readers that Bill Clinton fired all 93 U.S. Attorney’s upon taking office in 1993 and claimed that he was following precedent set by White House predecessors. This was, of course, historically inaccurate. More sinister though was the fact that among those fired was a U.S. Attorney investigating the White Water investment scandal in which Bill and Hillary Clinton were intimately involved. Another fired U.S. Attorney in that group was preparing to indict House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dan Rostenkowski, who later was convicted for mail fraud and pardoned by Clinton. No scandal in that, according to the media at the time.

Attorney General Gonzalez fired 8 out of 93, and the Democrats in Congress are now conducting hearings and investigations into the reasons for the firings. Never mind that all U.S. Attorney positions are political appointments and those who accept them serve at the pleasure of the President, please don’t cloud the issue with facts, as that would take away this “scandal” from the Democrats and the collusive media.

This Congressional “gotcha” investigation will likely continue until the media finds a better story. There remains the possibility that some kind of smoking gun evidence will arise and implicate highly placed administration officials. If there was any impropriety in the firings, punishment should be swift and appropriate. The fact that Bill Clinton fired 93 U.S. Attorneys, including two investigating Democrat scandals, without the media raising an eyebrow should not serve as an excuse if evidence is ever presented that this administration acted similarly. Moral equivalency is always wrong, and both parties should be striving to outdo each other in integrity and ethical behavior rather than living down to the low bar of expectations set by a previous administration.

Despite Reuters’ action thriller headlines about agents being “told to keep quiet,” the only smoking guns found in the San Diego FBI office appear to be at the firearms range.

Miniter's Anonymous Sources Place British Crew, Negotiations with Iran in Jeopardy

In an exclusive report by Pajamas Media’s (PJM) Washington Editor Richard Miniter, 2 “anonymous sources” have claimed that the U.S. is holding 300 Iranians with ties to Iranian intelligence agencies, all of whom were captured in Iraq while conducting operations against U.S. troops. All previous official U.S. government reports had acknowledged the military was holding only 5 Iranian intelligence operatives in Iraq. The sources further advised Miniter that these Iranians have been and continue to be interrogated, and the U.S. military has refused to release these prisoners despite pressure from the CIA and State Department to do so.

Ordinarily, a report that the U.S was holding Iranian intelligence operatives captured in Iraq would hardly raise an eyebrow, as it is common knowledge that Iranians have been funneling weapons, personnel, and other means of support to terrorist “insurgents” fighting U.S. troops in Iraq. However, Miniter’s exclusive report comes when tensions between the U.S., Britain, and Iran are anything but ordinary.

Last Friday’s seizure by the Iranian Navy of a British vessel and 15 British sailors and marines, which according to the official British statement occurred in Iraqi, not Iranian, waters, raised the already high probability of conflict to a dangerous level. The British are outraged by the incident and Ahmadinejad’s decision to move the British personnel to Tehran, threatening to put them on trial based on “confessions” obtained through interrogation of the 14 men and 1 woman in custody. The EU, feckless as it is at times, has united in its condemnation of Iran’s actions and issued a joint statement urging Iran to release the prisoners.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair has warned Iran that he expects the British crew to be released within days and no longer. Adding to today’s tension, the presidents of Russia and China urged Iran to comply with U.N. Security Council demands for inspections and regulation of Iran’s nuclear program. The Security Council, to demonstrate its resolve, voted Saturday to impose new sanctions on Iran. Iran responded today by ignoring the Security Council warning, resuming payments to Russia for nuclear fuel, and took the additional step of suspending cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the entity charged with monitoring nuclear non-proliferation.

In this climate, with Iran simultaneously and blatantly ignoring the Security Council, the IAEA, and the EU, and anxious ongoing negotiations over the British crew and nuclear arms, Miniter’s anonymous “diplomatic and military sources” chose a remarkably poor moment to loosen their lips to report information that was sensitive if not overtly classified. The motivation for such a disclosure appears to have been related to State Department and CIA desires to sidestep General David Petraeus, commander of the Multinational Force in Iraq. Petraeus is leading the “surge” strategy to secure Baghdad and other Iraqi cities, and one key feature of the Petraeus plan was obtaining authorization to capture and hold foreign (non-Iraqi) operatives suspected of participating in terrorist attacks in Iraq. As Miniter points out, Iraqi law authorizes this counterterrorism tactic, thus Petraeus is actively enforcing the will of the Iraqi people.

According to Miniter’s report, the State Department and the CIA do not want this strategy enforced quite so strongly, and have argued that releasing the captured Iranian intelligence operatives will give the U.S. leverage in negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program. Thankfully, General Petraeus has held firm. Miniter reported:

The Pentagon received “considerable pressure” from officials in the State department and CIA to release some or all of the Iran-linked prisoners to facilitate discussions between Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Iranian officials. Apparently, Gen. Petraeus sharply disagreed, saying that he intends to hold the prisoners “until they run out of information or we run out of food,” according to our sources who heard these remarks through channels.

The two sources requested anonymity, citing the sensitivity of the intelligence and developing events with Iran.

This brief excerpt from Miniter’s report contains a modern day Patrick Henry “give me liberty or give me death” style statement of determination by general Petraeus, but it also contains a modern day Benedict Arnold style statement of treason by Miniter’s anonymous sources.

State Department employees or military personnel requesting anonymity from a reporter because the intelligence they are revealing is sensitive is no different than a previously undiscovered rapist requesting anonymity from a reporter because rape is a crime and the rapist wants to avoid arrest and prosecution. In both cases, felonies have occurred. The number of Iranian intelligence operatives being held, the fact that they are being interrogated, and General Petraeus’ gritty promise to continue holding and interrogating them, are all pieces of information that were never intended to be distributed outside of officially classified channels.

Miniter’s sources knew that divulging this information to Miniter was a criminal act, as anyone with a government access clearance receives explicit training as to the permitted uses of the material they will see or hear. Even if one were to argue that he/she merely heard a supervisor talking and thus was not aware of the official classification level of the information when he/she provided it to the media, the anonymous source would still be in violation for not verifying that the information was NOT classified. Under ordinary peacetime conditions, such divulgence of sensitive information may have repercussions over time. During a war, in this case 2 wars in Iraq and the War on Terror, such loose lips are truly despicable and can immediately harm the war effort.

What of the motive for leaking this Iranian prisoner information now? The most likely motive appears to be a strategy by the State Department to publicly expose the imprisonment and interrogation of Iranians by the U.S. and thus gain their release through public outcry. General Petraeus, rightly, will not order their release unless ordered to do so by the civilian command structure of the military. That civilian command all too often is swayed by public opinion rather than what is working and what is right. The leaked information about the 300 Iranians will sway public opinion in some countries, and was thus sensitive situational intelligence unlawful to share outside of official channels.

The most disgusting aspect of this leak is its timing, while negotiations are underway regarding the potentially lengthy imprisonment and show trials of the British crew held in Tehran. Leaking information about the Iranian intelligence operatives held by the U.S. appears to be an effort by State to deflate world anger against Iran, particularly within the EU, which had finally united on an issue other than anti-American bitterness. With this treasonous divulgence, Iran can point to 300+ Iranians held by the U.S. in Iraq and use that fact to justify its seizure of the British vessel and crew. It will be much more difficult for the U.S. and Britain to secure solidarity on the prisoner issue from potential and existing allies now that the moral relativism card will be played.

I fully expect to hear Ahmadinejad’s next typical speech in which he vows to wipe Israel off the map, turn America into a nuclear fireball, and then slips in “and by the way, you captured 300 of my innocent Iranian faithful brothers engaged in nothing but prayer in Iraq, and we seized only 15 of your violent infidel marines so clearly in our territorial waters. I ask the world, who is worse?”

Having written a post last week titled “Government Droning too much to Media About Drones,” in which I urged government agencies to return to adherence to the phrase “loose lips sink ships”, it is a sad irony that only a few days later diplomatic and military sources leaked sensitive information during a moment of intense confrontation with Iran over hostages and nuclear weapons programs. The stakes could not be higher, and the need for integrity in keeping sensitive information within official channels has likewise never been greater. Loose lips really can sink ships, but in the case of the HMS Cornwall, loose lips may sink negotiations for release of a ship and her crew.

Spy The News! Poll Results: Media Coverage of U.S. Military

The results are in from last week's Spy the News! poll, which asked readers "What American Media Outlet is Most Negative in its Coverage of the U.S. Military?"

Here are the results of our poll:

CNN 31%

CBS 23%

MSNBC 15%

NBC 15%

Wash. Post 8%

L.A. Times 8%

Receiving no votes:

ABC, Time, Newsweek, Fox News

CNN's "victory" in this poll, undoubtedly the result of aired footage of sniper attacks on U.S. troops that outraged the military and military families, was particularly convincing because CNN's 31% exceeded #3 MSNBC and #4 NBC combined. Perhaps CBS's second place finish ahead of NBC can be attributed to Katie Couric's much publicized move from NBC to CBS. After all, Couric's statement that America brought 9/11 upon itself, made while Americans were still dying in the Twin Towers on 9/11, showed her true stripes. NBC may have helped itself enormously by dumping Couric on CBS.

There will be no Spy the News! poll this week. In the meantime, readers are encouraged to submit their poll question requests via email to bewisenews@yahoo.com. The topic requested most by readers will be the focus of the next poll.