On CBS’s Sunday Morning, correspondent Kimberly Dozier interviewed former C.I.A. agent Robert Baer, who argued that Iran: "...is empire by proxy. You get people -- it's like Communism. You get people to go along with you and your vision of the world. And they're saying, you know, ‘we can finally drive the United States out of the Middle East.’" Dozier added: "Unless, Baer says, we give President Ahmadinejad and his religious backers what they want."
Baer explained what Iran wants: "First of all, they want to be recognized as a major power in the Gulf...By the United States, by the Europeans. They want to be deferred to on big issues like Iraq and Afghanistan, issues that directly affect them." Dozier asked: "But in a sense, wouldn't the U.S., wouldn't Europe be rewarding them for bad behavior?" Baer replied: "Well, we would be. But does it matter? We have to be pragmatic about this."
Dozier went on to explain: "If we don't negotiate, Baer worries, the United States may find itself in yet another war we can't afford to fight." Baer exclaimed: "And do we really want to take down the most powerful country in the Middle East? I mean, we've just taken down Iraq, the second most powerful country, and it hasn't done a bit of good for anybody in the region." Dozier interjected: "It's a mess." Baer agreed: "It's a mess and it's going to remain a mess. Let's talk them back into the game of nations."
In addition to calling for appeasement toward Iran, Baer also blamed the recent strengthening of Iran on the war in Iraq: "It's been totally a gift to Iran because Saddam and his regime were a dam against Iranian influence. And it was a very effective dam...And we destroyed that old system and we opened it up to Iranian influence and they're going to infiltrate." Dozier concluded: "And Iran is poised and eager, he says, to spread that influence from Iraq throughout the Middle East."
Throughout the segment, Dozier suggested that it was important for the Obama administration to listen to Baer: "...he decided to put lessons learned into a new book, 'The Devil We Know.' Lessons he hopes the new American president will heed...As he revealed in his press conference last Monday, President Obama seems to be considering his options." Sunday Morning host, Charles Osgood, introduced Dozier’s report by declaring: "...with all the straws in the wind now about a new U.S. approach toward Iran, a former spy’s experiences in that country may be just what our new administration needs to hear." Dozier ended the segment by declaring: "It's a provocative idea from a man who's led a provocative life. One who knows how dangerous the world can be from the inside out and is still trying to change it."
Here are the relevant portions of the segment:
9:00AM TEASE
CHARLES OSGOOD: Not all the problems facing the new administration revolve around our domestic economy. Foreign policy issues face the White House too. Including the challenge posed by one particular country in the Middle East. And who better to say, 'I know what to do,' than someone who used to be able to say, 'I spy.' Kimberly Dozier will be reporting our cover story.
KIMBERLY DOZIER: Though he might not look the part, Robert Baer is a spy. At least, he used to be. Is it like 'I Spy'? Is it like James Bond?
DANA BAER: It can be.
ROBERT BAER: It can be, there are days when you feel like James Bond, yeah.
DOZIER: Really?
DANA BAER: Oh yes.
BAER: Yeah.
DOZIER: For two decades he was a top agent with the C.I.A., and now he's speaking out because an old nemesis has him worried.
BAER: My social contacts are all in the Middle East and they told me they're terrified of Iran. They see a new Iranian empire.
DOZIER: A real-life spy story later on Sunday Morning.
9:08AM SEGMENT:
OSGOOD: 'I Spy' is the name of an old TV series you may remember, with all the straws in the wind now about a new U.S. approach toward Iran, a former spy's experiences in that country may be just what our new administration needs to hear. Our cover story is reported now by Kimberly Dozier.
KIMBERLY DOZIER: Where do old spies go to retire? This one came to Berkeley, California. For 21 years, Robert Baer was one of the C.I.A.'s top undercover agents. In fact, so was his wife Dana. I'm having trouble picturing, you both were spies?
ROBERT BAER: We were. We met in Sarajevo. We were doing counter-terrorism.
DOZIER: While Bob did the spying, Dana was his shooter, watching over him with a loaded gun in case of trouble.
DANA BAER: I supported some of the things that he was doing.
DOZIER: Now what does that mean? He says you were a shooter.
BAER: I probably can't say.
DOZIER: They left the C.I.A. more than a decade ago, trading the car chases and shootouts for domestic bliss, California style. Last year, they adopted a little girl from their old stomping grounds in Pakistan. They named her Kyber. Should be enough, right? Not quite yet. Bob Baer is still a man on a mission. He spent much of his time as a spy in a deadly cat-and-mouse game with Iran. And he decided to put lessons learned into a new book, 'The Devil We Know.' Lessons he hopes the new American president will heed.
BAER: Iran is the third rail of international relations. You know, it helped Carter lose his presidency and almost took Reagan down. It took me 15 years to begin to decode the Middle East, and that's living there constantly. And only then did I start to figure things out.
DOZIER: What he's figured out is the time has come for a radical shift in policy. Iran is too smart and dangerous an adversary, he says, to remain our enemy. Iran took American hostages. Iran has backed terrorist attacks on American targets. You're saying see them as a constructive force?
BAER: Look, I liken this paradigm shift to China in the 60's -- end of the '60s, China was going through the cultural revolution. Mao Tse Tung was our -- one of our worst enemies. Yet, Kissinger and Nixon saw the opportunity to change this power around. We sat down and we talked to them and we made a deal, which has worked.
DOZIER: Baer believes Iran is not what it seems on TV. An unpredictable, extremist country driven by religious frenzy. He sees a smart, calculating leadership that presents one face to the world while working through powerful proxies behind the scenes.
...
BAER: When I was last here more than 25 years ago, Iran was one of the United States' greatest allies in the region. Now it is one of our greatest enemies.
DOZIER: It was while filming the documentary that Baer realized something big was happening.
BAER: My social contacts are all in the Middle East and they told me they're terrified of Iran. Not the Iran we see, but the Iran they see. They see a new Iranian empire.
DOZIER: Baer believes that while removing Saddam Hussein from power was necessary, the Iraq war was bungled. You're saying the way the U.S. invaded Iraq has been a gift to Iran?
BAER: It's been totally a gift to Iran because Saddam and his regime were a dam against Iranian influence. And it was a very effective dam. They fought a war for eight years and they stopped the Iranians. And the Iranians were terrified of setting foot in Iraq under the old system.
DOZIER: And now?
BAER: And we destroyed that old system and we opened it up to Iranian influence and they're going to infiltrate.
DOZIER: And Iran is poised and eager, he says, to spread that influence from Iraq throughout the Middle East.
BAER: Iran uses proxies. This is empire by proxy. You get people -- it's like Communism. You get people to go along with you and your vision of the world. And they're saying, you know, ‘we can finally drive the United States out of the Middle East.’
DOZIER: Unless, Baer says, we give President Ahmadinejad and his religious backers what they want.
BAER: First of all, they want to be recognized as a major power in the Gulf.
DOZIER: By the United States?
BAER: By the United States, by the Europeans. They want to be deferred to on big issues like Iraq and Afghanistan, issues that directly affect them.
DOZIER: But in a sense, wouldn't the U.S., wouldn't Europe be rewarding them for bad behavior?
BAER: Well, we would be. But does it matter? We have to be pragmatic about this.
DOZIER: As he revealed in his press conference last Monday, President Obama seems to be considering his options.
BARACK OBAMA: My national security team is currently reviewing our existing Iran policy, looking at areas where we can have constructive dialogue, where we can directly engage with them.
DOZIER: If we don't negotiate, Baer worries, the United States may find itself in yet another war we can't afford to fight.
BAER: And do we really want to take down the most powerful country in the Middle East? I mean, we've just taken down Iraq, the second most powerful country, and it hasn't done a bit of good for anybody in the region.
DOZIER: It's a mess.
BAER: It's a mess and it's going to remain a mess. Let's talk them back into the game of nations.
DOZIER: It's a provocative idea from a man who's led a provocative life. One who knows how dangerous the world can be from the inside out and is still trying to change it.
—Kyle Drennen is a news analyst at the Media Research Center.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Baerly credible. Sadly dim.
February 17, 2009 - 16:34 ET by Jack BauerKimberly Dozier... oh yes, she's so smart she puts the I into Dozer.
And can I just point at an obvious errm, FLAW in this piece of Baer faced illogic...
Why would anyone assume that there is a dichotomy between these two observations? Tney are an extermist Islamic country, driven by religious fanaticism -- and they are quite calculating in pursuing their goals?
Isn't it POSSIBLE Mr Baer that BOTH these scemarios coexist. Just askin'
Sad to say, but when you read about CIA failures like this guy, you know how the 9/11 plot went undetected for SIX years till it happened one bright blue September morning.
Jack...I just read this,
February 17, 2009 - 16:34 ET by bigtimerJack...I just read this, glad I saw your comment before posting.
As usual, you summed it up well for my way of thinking about this.
bt -- thanks -- hope he's
February 17, 2009 - 16:36 ET by Jack Bauerbt -- thanks -- hope he's not related to Brett Baer!
Jack
February 18, 2009 - 01:03 ET by thebutlerdiditI hope he's not related to Brett, but at least all Brett does is report the news, he is not responsible for stuff like, um, safety of our country!!!
As for what Iran wants, that's easy. They want the return of the Mahdi. And all it entails to bring 'em back.
All a Democrat needs is the upper-story window of public attention and the chamber pot of rhetoric. How else to explain the rise of Joe Biden? P.J. O' Rourke
So, Baer, suppose the
February 17, 2009 - 16:38 ET by ThisnThatSo, Baer, suppose the neighborhood bully wants you to mow his lawn every Saturday; and for you to give up your TV, radio, and electricity (global warming, you know); and for you to pay him 20% of your salary each month. And if you don't, he's going to firebomb you house?
And this happened because the local drug dealer (who was keeping this bully in line) was finally arrested and sent to prison?
What do you do? Give in, because it's "pragmatic"? Move out of the neighborhood? Band together to fight him? Call the police?
It's your life, Mr. Baer. Make a decision. Then talk to us about Iran.
You must have failed even the idiot academy.
___________________________________
The challenge is to follow a consistent plan despite inconsistent prices - Sarah Palin, State of the State of Alaska speech
Why not
February 17, 2009 - 16:43 ET by 10ksnookerIt worked so well for Carter.
10snooker... ...and
February 17, 2009 - 16:47 ET by bigtimer10snooker...
...and Zbig.
2 FOOLS A MINUTE...
February 17, 2009 - 21:21 ET by danybhoyJimma & Z-big were an effing disaster, they gave us the Islamic Republic of Iran. All they do is sponser terrorism(no Helen Thomas, not "so called" terrorism)everywhere around the world.
Let us not forget the Clinton years, where we had the police action on terror rather then the war on terror. We were hit a number of times leading up to 9/11, & then Bush took care of things. My advise to Obama & his merry band of tax cheats & appeasers, DON'T SCREW IT UP. You have been handed a military victory, show the people that you can be a trusted Commander in Chief.
As for Iran, I guess it will be up to Israel to take care of buisiness, they are always on the front line of the war on terror, & they will do what they must to survive. The guys at work refer to them as "the kick @$$ tribe", & I think we will see that soon.
"...it's still We The People, Right?" Megadeth
dany... Hear!
February 17, 2009 - 21:33 ET by bigtimerdany...
Hear! Hear!
Another reason I am so hoping Netanyahu (sp) makes it!
That's the correct spelling
February 18, 2009 - 01:05 ET by thebutlerdiditAll a Democrat needs is the upper-story window of public attention and the chamber pot of rhetoric. How else to explain the rise of Joe Biden? P.J. O' Rourke
Hey tbdi... I just caught
February 18, 2009 - 01:37 ET by bigtimerHey tbdi...
I just caught your post here (I've been in and out, you know how that goes)....just wanted to say thanks for letting me know about the spelling.
I really do hope so much he gets in...in oh so many ways, it will be real interesting to watch what happens over time with O and Israel/Iran etc. if he wins.
It is what's best for Israel.
February 18, 2009 - 01:50 ET by thebutlerdiditHopefully he won't have to make any concessions with Livni. The WH would prefer to deal with Livni, rather than the Likud, but the country is still more center-right.
All a Democrat needs is the upper-story window of public attention and the chamber pot of rhetoric. How else to explain the rise of Joe Biden? P.J. O' Rourke
tbdi... I cannot stand
February 18, 2009 - 01:59 ET by bigtimertbdi...
I cannot stand Livni...I have listened to different interviews/videos of her over the years...I agree, of course the WH hopes they have to deal with her.
I wonder if they sent Carville and Greenberg to go back over and run the election again this time for the left.
We shall see...I pray it is for the best.
Livni is a far-lefter. There is a good bit
February 18, 2009 - 02:20 ET by thebutlerdiditof support for the right and the Likud, so hopefully it will go the way it should. For the people of Israel, who deserve to have some strong leadership, and peace.
All a Democrat needs is the upper-story window of public attention and the chamber pot of rhetoric. How else to explain the rise of Joe Biden? P.J. O' Rourke
Police action?
February 18, 2009 - 01:29 ET by JerLet us not forget the Clinton years, where we had the police action on terror rather then the war on terror. We were hit a number of times leading up to 9/11, & then Bush took care of things
Police action? Maybe, but at least there was action. Unfortunately, there was precious little action of any sort against terrorism once Bush took office until after 9/11--at which point he did take decisive steps for which he deserves high marks.
Jer
So terrible
February 18, 2009 - 01:49 ET by CobraManIt's so terrible that Bush did nothing for the 8 months he was in office before the 9/11 attack! I mean, really, Clinton did so much to protect us in the preceding 8 years! Well, if you overlook the first Trade Tower attack, the several embassy bombings, the Cole attack, the maniac shooting at the CIA headquarters with a AK-47, ect, ect, ect.
Also you should overlook the fact that the 9/11 terrorists came into this country when Clinton was in office, even though several of them were on the terrorist watch list, like Mohammad Atta, but, hay, Clinton relaxed the visa requirements which allowed them to enter America so why should HE take the blame? It's all Bush's fault!
Bush Bad! Clinton Good! Right, Jer?
On Edit: I remove the reference to the OK City bombing as that wasn't a terrorist attack, right? That was a "home-grown right wing extremist" attack, right Jer?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities
of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
So, CobraMan... You've
February 19, 2009 - 02:24 ET by JerSo, CobraMan...
You've reduced my respective assessments of the two administrations to "Bush Bad! Clinton Good!" Excellent. Look, I don't expect you to be familiar with my numerous past critiques of both Presidents which included favorable and unfavorable opinions of each of them. I call it like I see it. But, it is somewhat bewildering that you can respond to a relatively brief comment of mine and completely disregard the clear, positive language I used in describing George Bush's post-9/11 conduct.
If you consider the 9/11 attacks eight months into the Bush presidency to have occurred too soon to hold him accountable, then surely you would attach the same standards to the first WTC bombing which happened just a few weeks after Clinton first took office. The Cole attack was shortly before Clinton left office and frankly could just have easily been the subject of retaliation by the incoming administration. In my opinion, Clinton failed to properly focus on the burgeoning terrorist threat during his first term, but became increasingly more concerned and proactive during his second term. That is not to say there were no missteps during his final four years in office. As far as the relaxation of visa requirements, I am honestly not aware of when or how Clinton changed the policy. Maybe you can help me out on that issue.
Oklahoma City? I would characterize it as a home-grown terrorist attack, perpetrated by one whom can be reasonably viewed as a "right-winger".
Jer
Crazy is not on the scale - remember?
February 19, 2009 - 03:33 ET by JWFIt goes from left to right.
It is a scale of how much government involvement there is.
Total government involvement - all the way to the left.
No government involvement at all - all the way to the right.
Crazy - not on the scale. Timothy McViegh & Jer - crazy therefore not on the scale.
You have been told this over and over again. Like a small distracted child, you are incapable of learning and interacting with the adult world.
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
Why am I not surprised?
February 19, 2009 - 03:41 ET by JerA disgraceful post from a disgraceful poster.
Jer
Nastiness only makes me love you more.
February 19, 2009 - 03:50 ET by JWFI have told you repeatedly about putting socialists, tyrants, and crazy people on the same side of the spectrum in which the constitution resides.
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
Please note who initiated the nastiness
February 19, 2009 - 04:03 ET by JerPlease note who initiated the nastiness, JWF. It was completely unnecessary. If you wish to engage in civil debate/dialogue--or even needle me a little bit, I'm all for it. But, if you prefer to just jump in firing personal insults, I'm not interested.
Jer
Oh poo.
February 19, 2009 - 04:26 ET by JWFIt just occurred to me.
I did not mean to say you were in the same class of crazy as McVeigh. McVeigh was full on machine tilting batpoo crazy.
You are crazy in the lovable old uncle from It's a Wonderful life way. Now where is the eight thousand dollars you old coot? <slap> <slap>
We know you are a little crazy but hey you are family.
But I'm not going to jail over you old man! Now think!
Sorry if you took it another way.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZvVrqexyT2U
That should help you to understand. Except for the anarchy part. Anarchy is the ABSENCE of government and does not belong on the scale.
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
Okay...that's better.
February 19, 2009 - 04:35 ET by JerOkay...that's better. We'll tussle over the politics later on. A little late in the evening to hash it out now.
Jer
Watch the video first!
February 19, 2009 - 04:42 ET by JWFThen you can sleep.
Now where is that money old man?
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
Okay, I watched it--all 10+
February 19, 2009 - 05:09 ET by JerOkay, I watched it--all 10+ minutes. Now, may please I go to bed? Just for the record, JWF, I have a B.A. in American History with minors in Political Science and Philosophy. However, I will be the first to concede that doesn't mean squat, except to point out that I do have at least a rudimentary knowledge of our system of government, as well as a basic familiarity with the particular viewpoints expressed in the video. It was a very nice presentation, however. I'll have my son watch it when he comes home this weekend.
Jer
Ok.
February 19, 2009 - 05:16 ET by JWFBut tomorrow, we are going to go over where you went and what you did step by step.
Now after you left Bailey Building and Loan, where did you go next...
You bought a copy of the New York Times? Oh lord... hopeless!...
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
Clinton did use a military approach
February 18, 2009 - 02:11 ET by CobraManCome to think of it, Clinton did use a military approach towards terrorism, once, against American citizens. Those Branch Davidians were SUCH a threat to America that an armored assault on their compound was justified, isn't that right, Jer?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
CobraMan and the Waco myth...
February 19, 2009 - 22:50 ET by JerThe actions of the government, while certainly open to criticism in some respects, were clearly more defensible than those of Koresh--a deranged religious pedophile with a God complex who was responsible for the cold-blooded murder of federal agents as well as the deaths of scores of his tragically deluded followers.
Or do you disagree with the conclusions (regarding responsibility) reached by the Danforth commission after its exhaustive investigation of Waco? Since your comment suggests you haven't even glanced at the Report, here is a summary of its findings: [my emphsis in bold]
The government of the United States and its agents are not responsible for the April 19, 1993, tragedy at Waco. The government:
(a) did not cause the fire
(b) did not direct gunfire at the Branch Davidian complex, and
(c) did not improperly employ the armed forces of the United States
Responsibility for the tragedy of Waco rests with certain of the Branch Davidians and their leader, Vernon Howell, also known as David Koresh, who:
(a) shot and killed four ATF agents on February 28, 1993, and wounded 20 others
(b) refused to exit the complex peacefully during the 51-day standoff that followed the ATF raid despite extensive efforts and concessions by negotiators for the ...FBI
(c) directed gunfire at FBI agents who were inserting tear gas into the complex on April 19, 1993
(d) spread fuel throughout the main structure of the complex and ignited it in at least three places causing the fire which resulted in the deaths of those Branch Davidians not killed by their own gunfire, and
(e) killed some of their own people by gunfire, including at least five children.
But, by all means, hold on tightly to your myths. Otherwise, they might float away into oblivion.
Jer
JER...
February 18, 2009 - 05:57 ET by danybhoyOk Jer, here are a few things...
There was no legal way for intel & law enforcement to communicate with each other. Jamie Gorelick's wall of seperation, if you recall, was the reason we could not "connect the dots". Then she effed things up at Fannie Mae, but that's another story for another time...
I also remember that Bush43 had trouble getting people he wanted confirmed by Congress to various possitions in Bush43's administration, so a number of these people had almost no time to put policies in place that could have protected us...
High marks, Let me explain something, we were not hit after 9/11 for the rest of W's time in office. On 9/11, you could have gotten VERY LONG odds if you tried making that bet. Almost everyone figured we would get hit again on the homeland, it was'nt if, it was when, & it NEVER HAPPENED.
"...it's still We The People, Right?" Megadeth
danybhoy...
February 19, 2009 - 20:18 ET by JerThere was no legal way for intel & law enforcement to communicate with each other. Jamie Gorelick's wall of seperation, if you recall, was the reason we could not "connect the dots".
Granted, this is a hotly disputed issue, but I believe that those who have examined the matter in depth--including the 9/11 commission [and yes I'm quite aware Gorelick sat on the commission] have concluded the allegation is largely a red herring, and that Gorelick had simply tried to clarify the pre-existing policy regarding information-sharing between agencies. She did not erect a wall proscribing communication, and certainly did not prevent dot-connecting which could and should have been performed. But, don't misunderstand, I am by no means implying that it could have been easily done, or that an even more conscientious effort would have assured detection of the developing 9/11 plot.
I also remember that Bush43 had trouble getting people he wanted confirmed by Congress to various possitions in Bush43's administration, so a number of these people had almost no time to put policies in place that could have protected us...
The adminstration's failure was that there was no policy--aside from amorphous long-range strategies--to be put in place which would have afforded more immediate protections. The pre-9/11 focus was on missile defense and Iraq--not terrorism.
High marks, Let me explain something, we were not hit after 9/11 for the rest of W's time in office. On 9/11, you could have gotten VERY LONG odds if you tried making that bet. Almost everyone figured we would get hit again on the homeland, it was'nt if, it was when, & it NEVER HAPPENED.
No need to explain. I agree entirely with your statement.
Jer
have concluded the
February 20, 2009 - 08:51 ET by BDhave concluded the allegation is largely a red herring,
BD... Again, it's my
February 20, 2009 - 14:19 ET by JerBD...
Again, it's my understanding the limitations on inter-agency communications pre-existed Gorelick's guidelines.
In any event, it would have been nice if GOD and Ashcroft had made the changes pre-9/11.
Jer
The Gorelick position
February 20, 2009 - 15:01 ET by BDThe Gorelick position formalized the arrangement that prohibited information exchange.
While Information exchange prior to her tenure was sporadic, it was not fully prohibited.
The improvment in the system caused by the Ashcroft position was that FBI came to the table fulltime due to the decision made to put the nation on a war footing rather than a judicial footing as had been the case pre-9/11.
No longer would the prosecutability of a person hinder efforts to destroy his "Evil Efforts."
This is a case the left cannot abide since they continue to see the GWOT as a law enforcement function. (They watch WAY TOO MUCH "Law and Order", and have too many jobs as attourneys.)
BD,
February 20, 2009 - 15:10 ET by R D HelmThe Gorelick position???
LOL-When I looked over at the recent comments section, that was all I saw.
Ewwww.
-Dave
Our clueless political leaders are about to drive us all over a cliff. The time to HITM is now-before we go over.
That position has nothing
February 20, 2009 - 15:24 ET by Hunter12That position has nothing to do with fawning over the Goracle, climate psuedo-scientist, and the way the MSM treats his every pronouncement. Where but in the light of America's left can a divinity school dropout get more credence than Doctors of Climatology with 50 years experience?
"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last." - Sir Winston Churchill
Dave...
February 20, 2009 - 15:32 ET by JerI would imagine Gore's "lick" position is just like his other positions. It varies, as long as he's on top.
Jer
Gore's positoin also
February 20, 2009 - 16:29 ET by BDGore's positoin also prevents information exchange - specifically that which contradicts his own views.
That is why he has fought for "Quick Change" for the past few years, so information contrary to his position does not have time to Coalesce.
You're correct, Jer
February 18, 2009 - 13:15 ET by TeddyYou're correct, Jer. Billy Jeff did take action!
"Operation Merlin" for example.
http://www.californi...
Or to quote Laura Ingraham, "Whoopsy"
As for Baer-assed, he's the kind of guy that Timmerman warns us about in his book, Shadow Warriors.
Teddy... Thanks for the
February 19, 2009 - 19:26 ET by JerTeddy...
Thanks for the link. The CIA may have blundered? Not exactly precedent-setting. That said, it's not that I don't respect Mark "The Great One" Levin's intelligence. Indeed the size of his intellect is only exceeded by the enormity of his ego and the depth of his bias. I think I'll await the details of "Operation Merlin"--and Clinton's putative involvement--from a more objective source.
Jer
Huh?
February 17, 2009 - 16:46 ET by CobraMan"And do we really want to take down the most powerful country in the Middle East?"
Why would we want to take out Saudi Arabia? Iran is NOT the most powerful country in the Middle East, they're just the most MILITANT! When it comes to wielding influence in the Middle East, Saudi Arabia is the most powerful nation, followed by Egypt.
Someone need to put the intelligence back into the Central Intelligence Agency.
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
Thye second most what?
February 17, 2009 - 16:52 ET by CobraMan"I mean, we've just taken down Iraq, the second most powerful country"
The second most what? Saddam and his government couldn't get the support of ANY of the rest of the Middle East in ether the Persian Gulf War OR Operation Iraqi Freedom! How "powerful" can a country be when NO ONE will support them in war?
No wonder Baer is an EX CIA agent, he's DUMB!
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
Key thing to note is that
February 17, 2009 - 18:06 ET by BDKey thing to note is that CIA Analysts think POLITICALLY, not TACTICALLY or STRATEGICALLY.
That's their biggest fault
February 17, 2009 - 19:13 ET by CobraManApparently they can't even do that right. Iraq was hardly a powerful country, strategically, tactically, OR politically. France had a bit of an interest, but that was financial and not political in nature. Not that it helped Saddam in any way.
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
If this Baer guy is any indication of the current...
February 17, 2009 - 17:42 ET by R D Helm...line of thinking in the CIA, this nation is in even deeper trouble.
-Dave
Our clueless political leaders are about to drive us all over a cliff. The time to HITM is now-before we go over.
Wasn't this guy part of our inteligence problem?
February 17, 2009 - 18:23 ET by c5then"For two decades he was with the CIA"... (1987 - 2007?) So it was on his watch that the islamic millitants formed up and attacked the US with little or no response from the Clinton administration (1992-2000), and also partially his fault that everybody was "sure" that Saddam had WMDs.
Why is anybody even listening to his ideas on Iran, let alone giving them credence?
Hey, I got the wrong "CHANGE"!
Alan Keyes / Sarah Palin - 2012
CIA and State Dept. filled with idiots
February 17, 2009 - 18:59 ET by jefflebowskiI recently spoke with a guy who just retired from the State Dept. and he was as big a moron as the CIA guy in this. Those organizations are filled with PC liberals who are weak. Things are falling rapidly.
Angry White Dude
www.angrywhitedude.c...
Jeff: The CIA analysts
February 18, 2009 - 08:48 ET by BDJeff:
The CIA analysts and State Department Intelligence analysts are quite similar since they effectively share the same gene pool. That being weebee's from Poly Sci departments from prestigious eastern schools.
I think it also goes further. They share real estate together (Embassies, DC, etc) and have common interests.
Thus they are trained similarly and have similar weak positions regarding national security.
I will never forget (or forgive) the CIA guy who I got into a heated discussion with who disputed my point that the ultimate goal of a nations intelligence agency is the success of that nations military in time of war during a conference. He said there were more important things than that- but would not specify what they were. I always assumed he was speaking of promoting a leftist ideaology but woul dnot be drawn out on it.
I wonder if Bare was
February 17, 2009 - 19:39 ET by Jack BauerI wonder if Bare was involved in this...
Robert Baer....incredibly brave man..not so sharp here
February 17, 2009 - 21:06 ET by PaarlHello
i knew Baer at Georgetown university in the early 1970s...a real cut up...a bright guy..a partier of the first order...a renown streaker..(he rode his motorcycle through Lauringer Library in the alltogether). His career in the CIA was exemplary...brave beyond doubt..he went undercover in Lebanon and Syria and Iran..his arabic and Farsi were flawless even, I understand when totally sh-tfaced. Where he went and what he did was beyond rescue had he slipped or erred.
But Baer has the affliction that affects many who work in intelligence or diplomacy and that affliction is a variant of Stockhom syndrome where agents (all types not just 'spies') of the United States begin, over a long time, to advocate for the power or cause that they are involved with on behalf of the United States..It is not merely trying to use 'local knowledge' to beef up the approach of the USA but a complete reversal of roles. It is one of the reasons that diplomats are rotated quite often and a major 'discovery process' of the intelligence recruitment and training.
This is where I think Baer is...I haven't spoken with him for 25 years. Like all our heroes in the armed forces and intelligence he has a chance now to speak and bloviate a bit after 3 decades of enforced silence. While you and I can disagree with his approach i presume his local knowledge is probably astounding.
Incidently i spent some time in Iran and the Middle East {and Rhodesia of course ;>) } over the years and Iran is the big enchilada in the Persian gulf region....just 'tour' Iran through the internet and you will see that. Dozens of outstanding universities and engineering departments of all types in all of them...just one aspect of that country.
One place where Baer is really wrong is thathe has a 2005 outlook on Iraq and the supposed Iranian dominance of Iraq...uh uh..no no no no!!!
It looks like Iraq is a spectacular success and Iraqi nationalism as opposed to shiite religiosity has won and we are all better off for it.Bushes success and Petreus's rescue of victory from the jaws of defeat will be the singular event that could change that whole region..Remarkable...and much to Baer's consternation and the left in this country it is the Iraqi success that could undermine the clerics in Teheran....who woulda..coulda know this just 2 years ago/
Paarl of Rhodesia
Bush Did
February 17, 2009 - 23:20 ET by CobraMan"who woulda..coulda know this just 2 years ago"
Bush knew it two years ago. That's why he stood resolute in the face of huge Democrat resistance to everything he did, especially his policies for Iraq. Looks like he was right all along. I wonder what History will say about that in 25 years or so?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities
of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
yes...you are right..Bush
February 17, 2009 - 23:26 ET by Paarlyes...you are right..Bush and company did lean into the wind..was resolute and succeeded....I was expressing my own surprise at the astonishing turnaround and success
successful counterinsurgencies/counterrevolutions are a rarity and generally take a long time ...witness El Salvador and nicaragua..both took a long long time..
Paarl
The speed was astonishing
February 17, 2009 - 23:35 ET by CobraManThe speed of it all was astonishing to me. I thought that the rebuilding of a functioning Iraq government would take several decades and not 4 years. They actually did it faster than we did following the Revolutionary War, and even the Civil War as post Civil War reconstruction took at least 10 years to accomplish! It seems we learned a lot from post WWII Japan and Europe and the reconstruction process that took place there.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities
of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
Paarl
February 18, 2009 - 01:09 ET by thebutlerdiditGreat posts. Very informative.
All a Democrat needs is the upper-story window of public attention and the chamber pot of rhetoric. How else to explain the rise of Joe Biden? P.J. O' Rourke
Paarl... Wow, thank you
February 17, 2009 - 23:41 ET by bigtimerPaarl...
Wow, thank you for all of this information about Baer and how things work behind the scenes with the CIA etc.
I have watched him on and off for years now here and there on various shows, and before congress if memory serves me right, he has always been one that is hard to figure out at time, depending on the venue, then you really can't...not like you can with most people.
Anyway, I really enjoyed this information and your post...and I sure as heck agree with you about Iraq and "We will not Falter", President Bush...Petreaus and all our brave military, along with others who fought....and those that gave all.
He never, ever backed down...I too wonder how this will be written in history...(I imagine that will depend on who the so-called historian is...I hope an honest one.)
Interesting. Did you know
February 18, 2009 - 05:23 ET by Jack BauerInteresting. Did you know that there were only three CIA personnel in Iran in 1978. And none spoke Farsi? Thank you Jimmy Carter.
I'm sure most of us here don't doubt the guts and bravery of CIA agents -- but the people who've led them. Especially the politicians. My God, when you think of what the Iranians did to the kidnapped CIA Beruit chief William Buckley. The hideous torture he endured for months -- before his murder,
Pains me to say but for much of the time it seems to be Lions led by donkeys, to steal a WW1 metaphor.
That's right folks. Iran filmed their torture and murder of a CIA AGENT and posted it to Langley. Sure, Obama can do business with these thugs.
Just to expand, IMHO the Iranians are absolutely ruthless masters of psychological warfare. And the US has been acting like its whaever for a long time, under many administrations. Iran should have been cauterized along time ago.
I think he's campaigning for
February 17, 2009 - 21:07 ET by BKeyserI think he's campaigning for Panetta's under-secretary- should be a perfect fit...
I should get a job with the CIA.
February 18, 2009 - 05:05 ET by JWFHell, I am privy to no intelligence and I know more than this boob.
Iran is the third rail of international relations.
There is a reason we have not taken on Iran in 30 years despite them being very busy killing our soldiers, sailors, marines, airmen, CIA and embassy personnel.
A. Straights of Hormuz - 25% or more of the worlds oil flows through here. It is probably the most strategically important chokepoint on the planet.
B. Until recently, they share a border with the USSR. Remember them? The guys with the itchy trigger fingers that had all those nukes. Oh and they are still friendly with Russia, the country that ended up with all the nukes when the USSR broke up.
C. It is a BIG mountenous country. Not just a 2 day drive up from the desert to take them over.
I liken this paradigm shift to China in the 60's.
Bad analagy. see above entry about killing our soldiers, sailors, marines, airmen, CIA and embassy personnel. China to my knowledge has not been so busy killing us lately. See wikipedia entry for Korean War.
My social contacts are all in the Middle East and they told me they're terrified of Iran.
If Iran was MY neighbor, I would be terrified too. Statements like this make this guy smart?
It's been totally a gift to Iran because Saddam and his regime were a dam against Iranian influence. And it was a very effective dam. They fought a war for eight years and they stopped the Iranians.
Effective dam. Saddam Hussein was probably the worst military tactician EVER. To say he had a better army than Iran would be a terrible misnomer. Iran had no army. Saddam Hussein decimated the Iranian army and stopped inexplicably short, within miles, of Iran's only real oil field, and only refinery. Then went on to have an 8 year stalemate. Iran's only real weapon during this time? WAVES OF HUMAN BODIES. Almost none of them possessing real weapons. Then Saddam went on to use chemical weapons and still could not win. The only reason this went on for 8 years was because both sides were nothing but bumblers.
As far as us invading Iraq being a gift to Iran. HAH! The most powerful nation on earth with the best equipped, best trained military on earth has moved in and camped on your EAST and WEST. And now that military is EXPERIENCED way way way EXPERIENCED. Somebody puh-lease put that on my wish list this christmas, my enemy camping out on both sides of me.
Iran uses proxies. This is empire by proxy.
Ah. He almost got something right. Iran does use proxies. You know why? Because they do not have the technology, money, or wherewithal to field an ACTUAL ARMY. And those proxies, tiny Israel goes in every few years and stomps the hell out of them. Some empire huh?
And do we really want to take down the most powerful country in the Middle East?
Yes. Yes we do.
I mean, we've just taken down Iraq, the second most powerful country, and it hasn't done a bit of good for anybody in the region.
CORRECT! Well, except for the Iraqi people, the Afghans, Kurds, Israelis, Kuwaitis, the Iranians themselves, Saudi Arabians, and the U.S peoples. Except for all of them, not a damn bit o' good.
It's a mess and it's going to remain a mess.
CORRECT! No, wait. War's over. Iraqi's have elected themselve a government. We have trained them an Army, built schools, bridges, infrastructure etc. No, not so much a mess any more.
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
I just want to know...............
February 18, 2009 - 05:13 ET by old croWho in Duh1's administration "outed" this spy and his wife, the shooter spy. They need to be prosecuted.
"Carter Country"
February 18, 2009 - 09:25 ET by jmtSo, not only does left want to take us back to the economy of the Carter years, they also want a return of detente - you know, where we let any little hoodlum put on airs and act like he's a big wig just because we have to be "pragmatic".
It was that attitude that lead to the rise of Islamistic Iran and the 444 days.
jmt
http://www.jmichaelt.org
Most troubling
February 18, 2009 - 09:31 ET by UpNorthis that Baer appears to fit the profile of the CIA "analyst" who tells the PC bosses what they want to hear. The ones who tell them what's actually going on get ignored, retired or chained to a desk in records. His whole world view appears to reflect what the Obamunist wants to hear, not what is reality.
"Constructive dialogue", under this administration means a return to the Carter years and all the wonderfulness that entails.
Why Liberals Constantly Fail
February 18, 2009 - 15:40 ET by Radioman"Negotiate" means to talk, talk, and talk somemore. This, of course, is the liberal way of solving differences among countries. Liberals in the past, they would tell you , failed because the dialogue didn't take into consideration all of the needs of the offending countries. Those who talked to Hitler didn't understand his needs or the low self-esteem Germany had fallen into after World War I. If only they had a talker like our celebrity-president. Liberals don't accept the concept of evil and will always resort to talk or "negotiations" because man is basically good and we must humble (prostrate) ourselves and admit our failures in understanding their unique perspective. Only then can we hug and celebrate the goodness of man. This approach is a trap and is like a shoot out where one of the dualists is always firing blanks. To have a loaded gun would show bad faith! Evildoers, unfortunately, only understand strength and the strong moral purpose that gives meaning to any and all talks between us and the ruthless, evil tyrants that have been... and always will be a part of humankind.
http://www.chalktalk-talk.blogspot.com