Rick, your statement makes no sense in the context of the story you quote which clearly states one of the purposes of the CIA’s covert operation was “manipulation of Iran’s currency.” Unless it’s your contention only the mullahs spend Iranian currency.

This reminds of a BBC special I saw a while back talking about the neocon movement. Founded by Leo Strauss, at its foundation, is the notion of building a modern mythology for America to rally around.

Back during the early years of the Reagan administration, some officials wanted to push Reagan away from his belief the Soviets held similar interests of all people and could be reasonably bargained with. A book - I forget its title - was very popular at the time linking the Soviets to most of the world’s terrorists. They sold that thesis to William Casey, director of the CIA, who sold it to Reagan.

The irony is most of the facts linking the Soviets and the terrorists were sourced back to CIA black ops disinformation. Even when Casey was confronted with the truth he preferred the lies.

So your argument - as with the neocons back then - is lying for a good cause is okay. Hey, in the case with Reagan it led to an arms race which helped topple the Soviets, clearly a good thing.

But it could put US negotiators (or their surrogates) in a position of sitting across the table from the Iranians only to have them throw all this back into our faces.

How like is a CIA campaign of propaganda, lies, and currency manipulation likely to have the desired result of them giving up nuclear ambitions? How much more likely is it to have the exact opposite effect by increasing their paranoia and desperation?

The story was likely leaked by government officials horrified by the stupidity of the plan. Given the track record of the incompetent Bush administration who can blame them?

Lets hope the ABC story forces something smart out of the Bushies though I’m not at all optimistic.

As a registered voter I am demanding that you instigate a criminal investigation into the ABC leaking of covert action authorized by the current administration against Iran.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/05/bush_authorizes.html#comment-70457046

Both the actions of the anonymous sources and those of ABC in publishing this story clearly rise to the level of treason and US constitutional law requires that it be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

I called for it earlier today. As of 6pm I had over 200 emails in response mostly demanding that ABC fire Brian Ross and Richard Esposito for reporting the story that has placed in service ops lives in danger (yes, this true), and endangered our Natio…

1. The U.S. Military is fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq!

2. There is no civil war in Iraq!

Now, I just need to make sure I watch for these stories tomorrow morning with Diane Sawyer!

Just one of the differences between a Democracy and a Theocratic Dictatorship!

Frankly, I don’t think the anti-Bush faction of the IC that were most likely responsible for previous leaks is responsible for this one since it would be counter-productive to their alleged goals. More likely, imo, is that it’s from individuals who did not like the fact that covert action was put ahead of military confrontation. If covert action gets torpedoed then a military solution to Iran becomes more likely.

While I’m in two minds as to whether the public interest in knowing what your government is doing outweighs the obvious security issues with publishing in this case, I doubt very much that the Iranians watched ABC and thought “By Allah’s Beard! The Americans don’t like our nuclear program and they are working to undermine us! Why did we not know about this?”

Enemies they may be, downright stupid they aren’t.