Readers of this blog may not be aware that I am an agent of the Iranian regime. But Rabbi Daniel Zucker, an adjunct professor at Long Island University and long-time apologist for the anti-Iran terrorist organization known as the Mujahadeen-e-Khalq (MEK), has a lenghty and hilarious denunciation of me as such because I had the temerity -- and naivete, apparently -- to point out in a recent piece for AntiWar.com that his beloved MEK is widely considered a terrorist cult.
The back story: late last month two American congressmen, Reps. Bob Filner (D-CA) and Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), held a press conference in Washington, DC to call on the U.S. government to offer support to the MEK in an effort to overthrow the Iranian regime. As I wrote in my piece, the lawmakers’ call was rather astonishing given the fact that the U.S. State Department notes the MEK “was responsible for the assassination of several U.S. military personnel and civilians in the 1970’s. Further, as the Council on Foreign Relations observes, “Until 2003 the MEK received funds, arms, and state sponsorship from Saddam Hussein.” Indeed, during the eight year Iran-Iraq war, the MEK even allied itself with the Iraqi dictator’s regime to kill its fellow countrymen, a fact that I noted in the article likely did not endear them to the Iranian public.
And while the MEK's defenders have claimed the group's designation as a terrorist organization was a political gesture meant to appease the Iranian government, the Council on Foreign Relations suggests a less conspiratorial reason: "its attacks have often killed civilians." In fact, the more one reads about the MEK the clearer it becomes the group's exclusion prior to 1997 from the list of groups considered terrorist organizations by the U.S. government was the actual politically motivated decision.
But according to Zucker, had I done my homework and not relied on “an old State Department report” -- dated April 2007 -- I’d have known that the MEK has “renounce[d] violence” since 2001 and is in fact innocent of all terrorism charges. To bolster his case, he cites the benign-sounding “Iran Policy Committee,” which the website Sourcewatch helpfully points out “is a pressure group meant to influence US government policy towards Iran . . . made up of former White House, State Department, Pentagon and CIA officials.” Many of its principals are also “affiliated to AIPAC and its related think tanks," which should give you a good idea of where Zucker is coming from.
Still, Zucker claims that while the MEK did “indeed receive Hussein’s support”, it came “in the form of asylum from the mullah regime in Tehran”, because Saddam was of course well known for protecting political dissidents (he was just that kind of guy). That the MEK was willing to murder their fellow Iranians -- and helped suppress uprisings among Iraq's Shia and Kurdish populations -- I’m sure was just an afterthought.
“It would behoove Davis to study a little bit of Iranian history, at least of the last 30 years, before venturing to write about Iranians”, Zucker continues, taking me to task for following “the regime line that the [MEK] undermined its credibility with the Iranian masses by fighting against the regime in the Iran-Iraq War. However, he fails to explain how the [MEK] has so many supporters inside Iran that it can continually supply the West with revelations about Iran's secret nuclear and missile programs, as well as extensive lists of Iranian agents in Iraq.”
That fighting against one’s own countrymen in a war that killed hundreds of thousands of people might undermine the MEK’s credibility within Iran is not something I feel needs citation, but what the hell. As the Jamestown Foundation notes -- observing the obvious -- “The [MEK’s] alliance with Iraq's former Baathist regime during the Iran-Iraq war was a huge strategic blunder from which they could never hope to recover. The sight of [MEK] forces aiding the Iraqi war effort turned them into perennial traitors in the eyes of most Iranians. This perception of the [MEK] still persists, more than 15 year after the ending of the war.” Put another way, "the MEK is universally hated in Iran," as Mideast professor Juan Cole succinctly puts it.
As for the MEK’s ability to provide the West with “revelations about Iran’s secret nuclear and missile programs,” I'd just point out that the U.S. intelligence community doesn’t actually believe Iran has a secret nuclear program, as Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair testified to Congress in March and which I’ve pointed out ad nauseam ever since.
It shouldn't come as a surprise that the MEK has thanked Zucker for his slavish devotion to the group by inviting him "to Paris to address the 2005 and 2006 President Maryam Rajavi Freedom Convocations," as he notes in his bio. Rajavi is the leader of the MEK and declares herself "Iran's future president for the transitional period following the mullahs' overthrow."
(Daniel Zucker, Maryam Rajavi and ALi Safavi)
(Ali Safavi as the commander of Saddam's Private Army in Iraq)
(Maryam Rajavi directly ordered the massacre of Kurdish people)
All kinds of interesting news has been coming out of the USA during the past couple of weeks. Not least the news of large scale organised American support for Mirhossein Mousavi the defeated Iranian presidential candidate. Notably Mr Mousavi served as the Islamic Republic’s Prime Minister in the early years of the Islamic Republic when the same Americans were calling him the henchman of Ayatollah Khomeini, etc.
It is widely believed that this support for Mirhosein Mousavi under the banner of a so-called “green revolution” has been part of a failed coup orchestrated by the regime change advocates who intended to bring a puppet Middle Eastern style “President” to rule Iran. If this had happened, President Obama would be able to make his next message to the Moslem World under the new Iranian flag rather than under the Egyptian flag alongside “President” Mobarak. But it did not happen and perhaps it could not happen taking into consideration obvious facts on the ground, which have been ignored by the USA for the last 30 years.
There are, of course, others who simply believe that the hugely expensive and costly support of the US Government for the “green revolution of the people of Iran” is down to the commitment of the US Government to bringing DEMOCRACY and HUMAN RIGHTS (yes I am talking about the US of A) to countries across the globe. Whichever way you may look at it, I am sure you would agree that the most hilarious, and at the same time, sad position has been that taken by American law makers who advocate support for the same terrorists who have killed American servicemen.
On the occasion of American Independence Day, let us remember the people who lost their lives for their country and wonder at those people who stand today under the same flag only to LOBBY for the murderers of their servicemen.
"… At a Capitol Hill press conference on June 26th, Rep. Bob Filner (D-CA), chairman of the House Veterans’ Affairs Committee, declared the U.S. should explicitly side with Iranian "resistance groups", including the MEK, which he described as a "democratic, non-nuclear, secular group fighting for freedom for all the people in Iran." The U.S. State Department notes that the MEK "advocates the violent overthrow of the Iranian regime and was responsible for the assassination of several U.S. military personnel and civilians in the 1970’s," and that the group maintains "the capacity and will to commit terrorist acts in Europe, the Middle East, the United States, Canada, and beyond …" http://iran-interlink.org/?mod=view&id=6613
"… Lewis Lee Hawkins, the only son of Herman and Mary Webster Hawkins, was born in Chicago, Illinois on 8 August 1930. Herman and Mary would eventually move and raise their family in Plymouth, Indiana… His final assignment came in July 1972 when he was attached to the U.S. Military Assistance Advisory Group to the Imperial Iranian Armed Forces in Tehran, Iran. Annette and Lee joined Lewis in Tehran where they lived in the Abass-Abad neighborhood. On the morning of 2 June 1973, as Lewis was walking from his home to a street corner to be picked up by his driver, two terrorists riding a motorcycle fired at point-blank range and fired two or three shots killing Lewis instantly. Lewis was survived by his wife Annette; three sons, Terry, Ronald, and Lee; his parents, Herman and Mary Hawkins of Rowan, Iowa; and two sisters Mary Duran of Plymouth and Mona Crocker of Belmond, Iowa. His daughter preceded him in death…" http://www.military-heroes.com/lewis_lee_hawkins.htm
For five days Iran has been the scene of demonstration and counter demonstration in favour and against two clearly different candidates. Both, of course, are proven believers in and supporters of the fundamentals of the Islamic Republic (IRI).
The peaceful demonstrations and debates and insistence on achieving demands is clearly on going and while no one doubts that this political struggle will continue even after the Friday prayers led by Ayatollah Khamenei, it is now clear that the advocates of violence and so called revolution or ‘regime change’ have been left out in the cold. The more that time passes the more it becomes clear that this is no "regime change" or for that matter a pro-west or pro-east velvet revolution.
I have always believed that the theory of ‘democracy without democrats’ would emerge as the major factor in the Middle Eastern path to democracy. I believe that democracy will not emerge through democrats lecturing those in power to accept the benefits of democracy. Rather it is the people who are in power who will fight each other to the point that they clearly see that their insistence on the policy of ‘winner takes all’ will not only fail to deliver them ‘everything’, rather it is going to leave both sides with ‘nothing’. I believe this is the point that both sides come to understand that compromise and sharing in order to have something is a better option than losing everything.
At this point of course indigenous democrats can have a role as guides and experts to analyse and explain the ways forward, even though they themselves are probably still experimenting and maturing in this transitional period. There are a few historical examples to back this theory. For example, certain periods in Algerian, Turkish and even Sudan's history where treaties have been achieved to give ‘something’ to each side instead of the ongoing bloodshed and power struggles over ‘everything. Treaties and power sharing of course by no means derive from a belief in democracy; rather they are the starting point toward understanding the benefits of democracy for all parties.
I have been watching with interest as the tone of media reports have changed from describing a ‘coup d’etat’ and the expectation of violence, to describing the gatherings of demonstrators as "pro-government" and "opposition". Yesterday the BBC, Aljazeera and many other outlets consciously or unconsciously referred to Ahmadi Nejad as "the president" and Mirhossein Mousavi as "the head of the opposition".
That reminded of my history books and the long ago days that Tories and Liberals in Britain were representing the very different interests of very different sectors of British society. From there emerged the left side and the right side of Parliament with political parties sitting on each side. The unwritten constitution of the British establishment accepted the voting system, the way the government was to be elected and the way the opposition and the government would "struggle" to represent the interests of their constituents.
Looking at the current prominent political figures in Iran on each side I can’t help envisaging the emergence of political parties in Iran (there are no actual political parties at this moment of time in Iran even though some groups may call themselves ‘parties’).
I also believe that even if Mirhossein Mosavi would have been the name coming out of the ballot boxes (I neither endorse nor reject the possibility of vote rigging but I certainly believe that both sides have enough support and constituencies to be heard), the recent demonstrations and political struggles in Tehran and other Iranian cities would have been inevitable. It is no longer about "who takes everything". This time it is about "rejection of the theory of winner takes all". I have heard this too many times that the political struggle in western countries is over representative seats in parliament but the same struggle in the Middle East is over the necks and heads of candidates. I see clearly that Iran is emerging one step (and a very big step) closer towards a more pluralistic political system in which various politicians will be fighting over seats rather than each others’ necks. More importantly, the winners and the losers of every period will have to accept the rights of their opponents not because they are lover of democracy but rather because they have matured to see they have no other choice.
Irrelevant of the short term results of the power struggle during the next few weeks, there is no doubt about the big leap the Iranian nation has taken in her journey toward a real democracy. A big leap for the people of Iran and an irreversible huge falling backwards for the advocates of ‘regime change’ by foreign interventionist forces and supporters of terrorist groups like Mojahedin Khalq Organistion (aka: Rajavi cult; which lost it's backer Saddam Hussein in 2003), Jondollah (the group affiliated to mass murderer Abdolmalek Rigi who is based in Pakistan) and Pejak (the Turkish PKK paid to relocate to the Iranian border for carrying out sabotage).
This weekend the Mojahedin Khalq cancelled its planned event in Paris. Instead, the cult is recruiting people through false associations and groups in order to take advantage of the current unrest in Iran. The idea is to bring Maryam Rajavi to Brussels to jump on the bandwagon of unrest. Anyone who knows anything about Iran will recognise this as an attempt by advocates of regime change to destroy the progress of democracy in Iran. These people will deploy terrorists to undermine the real opposition and democracy movement inside Iran.
Following the AIPAC meeting, Senator John Kerry, a Democrat, said that Washington is not in a 'regime change mode'.
"Our efforts must be reciprocated by the other side: Just as we abandon calls for regime change in Tehran and recognize a legitimate Iranian role in the region, Iran's leaders must moderate their behavior and that of their proxies, Hezbollah and Hamas," said Kerry, who currently chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Irrelevant to any position taken, observers are aware that this is a government which has been happy to host the head of Jondolla terrorist group on a "Voice of America" programme in which Jondolla was presented as a democratic alternative to the Iranian government.
This is a government whose CIA is holding regular meetings in Soleimaniyeh to create and develop FTOs to target Iranian people.
This is a government which has established offices in London, Dubai and Frankfurt under the Patriot Act in order to recruit people who travel to Iran to meddle in the internal affairs of the country.
This is a government with a long and continuing history of support for Saddamists in Iraq in the hope that they can be paid to foment and maintain hostilities against Iran.
By far the most blatant example of this is that from 2003 until now the US has desperately tried to keep together what is left of the Mojahedin-e Khalq at Ashraf terrorist camp (the MKO is on the US’s own list of terrorist entities) against the wishes of the Government and people of Iraq and against the human rights of the people inside the camp. The US has shown clear resistance in front of the Government of Iraq and the families of victims of this terrorist cult to the process of dismantling and disbanding it. The US has 25 soldiers stationed at the camp, plus five US citizens inside it. They have prevented families from freely visiting their relatives at the camp, they have interfered in the Iraqi process of dealing with individuals and imposing law and order in the camp and have interfered in the process of human rights organisations getting in and helping people individually.
Once the US stops these activities then it can claim it is not in ‘regime change mode’. If Senator Kerry or Nicholas Burns or any other ‘we have changed now it’s your turn’ pundits in the US have any doubt about the veracity of these activities or if they believe they are not perceived – particularly by Iraqis – as a continuation of ‘regime change policy’, then please feel free to contact me and I can appraise them further to this information.
Tension deepens over intent to close Iraq's Camp Ashraf
The camp is the last place belonging to the MEK Iranian opposition group, and concerns are growing over potential violence if Iraq moves forcefully to shut it down
... The stakes are so high, say Western officials, because Camp Ashraf, which before the war had its own tanks and mortars, has been central to the wider organization. "Camp Ashraf is the last place they have," says one Western official. "You have to ask – what is the MEK without it?" ...
(Protesters at the gates of Camp Ashraf in April demonstrate against what they call as siege of the camp by Iraqi authorities)
Baghdad - Baghdad - Fifty miles from the Iranian border, a potentially deadly drama is quietly unfolding as the Iraqi government grapples with the fate of several thousand Iranian opposition members who refuse to fade into history.
The opposition Mujahideen al-Khalq (MEK) has been closely watching the protests next door in Iran over charges of a rigged reelection of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. But their interest isn't in whether the Iranian leader gives in to calls for a recount. It's their belief that the protests could somehow topple the entire system of Iran's religious leadership.
"We are witnessing the beginning of the end of the oppressive clerical regime," the Paris-based organization quoted one of its supporters as saying.
The prospect of a change in Iran's government is viewed by many to be as unlikely as the MEK's hope that Iraq will change its mind about shutting down a camp that has been a major irritant in Iranian-Iraqi relations.
In recent weeks, the leadership of Camp Ashraf, the former main military base of the MEK, has accused Iraqi riot police of entering the camp north of Baghdad and threatening some of its 3,400 residents.
Western officials familiar with the case say Interior Ministry rapid deployment forces stopped outside the main gate in what appeared to be a show of force, without going into the camp.
They say, though, that the standoff could very easily turn violent, given the combination of Iraqi troops not known for their restraint and an extremely disciplined organization intent on creating an international incident.
In 2003, several MEK protesters in Paris set fire to themselves to protest the arrest of the organization's leader.
The stakes are so high, say Western officials, because Camp Ashraf, which before the war had its own tanks and mortars, has been central to the wider organization.
"Camp Ashraf is the last place they have," says one Western official. "You have to ask – what is the MEK without it?"
Funded and armed under Saddam Hussein
The sprawling camp, with its manicured gardens and tree-lined streets, is a holdover from Iraq's bitter conflict with neighboring Iran, including eight years of war. Under Saddam Hussein, the MEK was funded and armed – launching extensive attacks on Iran from Iraqi soil.
With the fall of the Iraqiregime in 2003, the MEK was disarmed by US forces. The Iraqi government, which along with the United States considers the MEK a terrorist organization, says its members have no legal right to be here and has asked them to voluntary return to Iran or to third countries that might take them.
"Without legal status here, they don't exist," says one Western official. "It is an impossible situation."
In a measure of the persistence of the MEK's lobbying efforts targeting government officials, as well as the sensitivity of the issue, all of the officials who spoke about the subject asked to remain anonymous. The Iraqi committee in charge of the issue declined all requests for comment.
The MEK itself, which routinely issues statements accusing Iraqi authorities of trying to kill its members, did not respond to specific questions about plans to relocate the residents.
About 100 of the camp's 3,400 residents are believed to have dual nationality. Another 1,000 have been residents of other countries. Despite the MEK's listing as a terror group by the US and Iraq, the residents of Camp Ashraf are not individually considered terrorists.
Relocation offers are hard to come by
But in line with comments by the previous head of Iraq's National Security Council describing MEK members here as "brainwashed" and potentially dangerous, persuading other countries to accept more than a few of them has been a very tough sell.
The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has given about 250 former camp residents refugee status, but so far only a handful of them have been accepted by any country for resettlement, officials say.
About 600 of the camp residents have left voluntarily since 2003. The Iraqi government has said it plans to move the remaining individuals to another region of Iraq, farther from the Iranian border, but has not yet told camp leaders where it intends to relocate them.
"The closer we get to that eventuality, the more tense it will become," says one official, saying whether or not violence broke out would depend on the instructions residents received from the MEK leadership.
In interviews at Camp Ashraf in April, camp residents, under very tight control by the organization and with their contact with family outside restricted, said they would never leave the camp, the only home many of them have known for more than a decade.
One former resident's legal limbo
Camp leaders provided reams of documents listing the residents under Geneva Conventions as protected persons during the fighting in 2003. But that does not address the current issue of the residents' lack of legal status in a country that is no longer at war with Iran or under attack by the US.
Some of those who have made the difficult decision to leave Camp Ashraf have found themselves in limbo.
In a hotel in Baghdad's Green Zone in May, an MEK member who had left was waiting for travel documents to be reunited with her daughter whom she had given up 17 years ago at the age of 2.
The woman, who said she did not want to give her real name for fear of Iranian retribution, asked us to call her Zahra. She had been at MEK camps in Iraq for 21 years and had sent her Baghdad-born daughter to be raised by other MEK members abroad after the organization decided to break up families, believing that such attachments hampered their members' commitment to the cause.
"It is difficult for other people to understand. All of us in the camp are political people" dedicated to the overthrow of the Iranian regime, she said.
Zahra was given refugee status in Sweden after being imprisoned in Shiraz as a teenage protester in the 1980s. She said she left Camp Ashraf because it had been difficult in the past year to get physical therapy or pain medication for an injury sustained during a military operation shortly after she arrived in Iraq.
"They [the camp leadership] said to me, 'You can go if you want to,' " she said.
Officials privately said that after Zahra began lobbying on behalf of the MEK with Iraqi members of parliament opposed to the government's decision to close the camp, she was moved across town to a much smaller hotel where several other MEK members are being held while they await documents to leave the country.
In a phone call from her new hotel room, she said she was prevented from leaving the hotel and had gone on a hunger strike. The German Embassy said it was following her case, and other officials said her health did not appear to be in danger.
Iraqi government guards posted in the lobby of the hotel prevented access to her and would not allow the hotel phone to be used to call her room, saying she needed permission from more senior Iraqi officials to talk to anyone.
"It's part of the problem.... The Iraqi government has not decided how it wants to deal with individuals," says one Western official, noting that resettlement to a third country often took months or years. "They have to give them an incentive to want to leave the camp."
Iran airs Washington backed Mojahedin Khalq Terrorists confessions
Also the Audio tape of terrorists' contacts with their HQ in London
The terrorist Mujahedin Khalq Organization (MKO) has reportedly played a major role in intensifying the recent wave of street violence in Iran.
Iranian security officials reported Saturday that they have identified and arrested a large number of MKO members who were involved in recent riots in Iran's capital.
According to the security officials, the arrested members had confessed that they were extensively trained in Iraq's camp Ashraf to create post-election mayhem in the country.
They had also revealed that they have been given directions by the MKO command post in Britain.
Street protests broke out after defeated presidential candidate Mir-Hossein Mousavi rejected President Ahmadinejad's decisive win in the June 12 election. His supporters have staged a series of illegal rallies ever since.
Iran's deputy police commander, on Saturday, warned against the mass gatherings, asserting that those who engage in any such actions would be severely reprimanded.
Earlier on Saturday, MKO leader Maryam Rajavi had supported the recent wave of street violence in Iran during a Saturday address to supporters in Paris.
Rajavi had reportedly described the MKO terrorists as the real winners of the Iranian election.
The Mujahedin Khalq Organization is a Marxist guerilla group, which was founded in the 1960s.In the past two decades, MKO leaders have been resettled in the northern outskirts of Paris.
The terrorists are especially notorious for taking sides with former dictator Saddam Hussein during the war Iraq imposed on Iran (1980-1988).
The group masterminded a slew of terrorist operations in Iran and Iraq -- one of which was the 1981 bombing of the offices of the Islamic Republic Party, in which more than 72 Iranian officials were killed.
A 2007 German intelligence report from the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution has identified the MKO as a "repressive, sect-like and Stalinist authoritarian organization which centers around the personality cult of [MKO leaders] Maryam and Masoud Rajavi".
Anne Singleton, an expert on the MKO and author of 'Saddam's Private Army' explains that the West aims to keep the group afloat in order to use it in efforts to stage a regime change in Iran.
"With a new Administration in the White House a pre-emptive strike on Iran looks unlikely. Instead the MKO's backers have put together a coalition of small irritant groups, the known minority and separatist groups, along with the MKO. These groups will be garrisoned around the border with Iran and their task is to launch terrorist attacks into Iran over the next few years to keep the fire hot," she explains.
"The role of the MKO is to train and manage these groups using the expertise they acquired from Saddam's Republican Guard," Singleton added.
A May 2005 Human Rights Watch report also condemns the MKO for running prison camps in Iraq and committing human rights violations. According to report, the outlawed group puts defectors under torture and jail terms.
Confessions of arrested MKO members in recent disturbances
I was trained in camp Ashraf how to set fire to buses and attack the military bases According to Political correspondent of Fars News Agency, after confessing to direct communication with MKO terrorist group, the two arrested members of MKO in recent disturbances in Tehran stated that they had been trained by this terrorist cult for launching terrorist operations and creating unrest and insecurity in Iran after the elections. One of these MKO elements in detention said during confessions: I was trained in Camp Ashraf which is the MKO headquarters in Iraq for 3 months and learned how to use weapons, burn down buses and attack the military bases. The other detained member also pointed to his direct communication with MKO base in England and said: Some one named Zohre constantly called me from London and followed up issues such as burning governmental centers and armed struggles and I did what he wanted me to do. Detained members of MKO terrorist group in recent disturbances expressed a wide range of information that specifies the details behind much recent unrest. More detailed reports in this regard would b publicized in near future. Translated by Habilian Association
Tehran – Agents of the terrorist group Mujahedin Khalq Organization (MKO) have been found and arrested among the agitators of Tehran streets in the past few days.
Arrested people have confessed that after being trained in Iraq, they have infiltrated into Iran and that they were guided and supported by MKO operation room in Britain.
Iranian television broadcast their confesses and their telephone conversations with a number of leaders of that group in which they ordered them for sabotage like setting fire on buses, gas stations, attacking the Bassiji barracks and demolishing public properties.
The commanding headquarter of the group which supports and finances terrorist actions in Iran and Iraq is located in the outskirt of Paris, France.
The British government removed the group's name from the terrorist group list last year, so that they could expand their centers to guide operations in the country.
On June 20, 2009, the Fox News Channel devoted the entire day of live programming to coverage of the unrest in Iran. For supporters of the Iranian communist MEK (MKO, PMOI, NCRI, Rajavi Cult, or Pol Pot of Iran) terrorists, there was no need to watch their Sima Azadi television channel via satellite. Throughout the day, the Fox News Channel provided favorable coverage for the communist terrorists. Some examples were:
During the 11:00 – 11:30 AM (PST) segment, Fox News Channel showed MEK supporters in front of the White House waving their communist flags. The panelists for this segment, Charles Krauthammer and Courtney Kealy, failed to identify or to condemn the supporters of the communist terrorists. These terrorists have murdered American military officers, Rockwell International employees, and large numbers of Iranian and Iraqi civilians. In September 2002, former President George W. Bush’s White House published a background paper for Bush’s remarks at the United Nations listing the MEK as a pretext for the Iraq War. In 2003, American and coalition forces attacked and killed some of the MEK terrorists at Camp Ashraf, Iraq.
In a later segment, Congressman Darryl Issa (Republican—California) commented that empowerment of people has changed Communist China for the better!
During Shepard Smith’s segment, Smith showed a video of the MEK rally in Paris, France and identified them as the PMOI. The only negative reference to the MEK occurred when Amy Kellogg speculated that the MEK might be responsible for a possible suicide bombing at Ayatollah Khomeini’s shrine in Tehran. Shepard Smith neither responded nor indicated that PMOI and MEK are two names for the same communist terrorist organization.
During Geraldo Rivera’s segment, former Senator Rick Santorum, who was a strong supporter of the MEK in the United States Senate, noted that former Senator (and now Vice President) Biden had originally opposed the Iran Freedom Support Act.
Then, Geraldo Rivera showed video of Maryam Rajavi’s MEK rally in Paris, France and interviewed Fox News Channel Foreign Affairs Analyst, who headed the NCRI office in Washington, DC until the Federal Government closed the office.
In 2007, Fox News Channel viewers could claim to have been duped by relying upon the Fox News Channel for news. Now, Fox News Channel viewers have no excuses. Those who rely upon the Fox News Channel as a source of accurate news are traitors to all Americans who fought or died fighting communists. Americans do not need to look to Iran or to the Middle East in search for America’s worst enemies. America’s worst enemies are in America.