Browse By

MEK Mystery Deserves Investigation

Yesterday morning, one of our readers alerted us to an article written by former weapons inspector Scott Ritter and published by the Arab news service Al Jazeera. In that article, Scott Ritter charges that the United States government is already at war with Iran. Part of Ritter’s charge is that the Bush Administration is conducting military espionage within Iranian borders. Much more shocking is the claim by Ritter that the USA is supporting a terrorist group in Iran called Mujahideen-e-Khalq (shortened to MEK for friendliness to English-speaking tongues).

Is the MEK a terrorist group? Well, the U.S. State Department says so. The MEK is on the USA’s official list of terrorist organizations. That means that it would be a serious crime for any American to give any support to the MEK. For the President of the United States to provide support to the MEK would certainly be an impeachable offense.

There are also charges that the MEK is responsible for recent bombings in Iran, bombings that killed and injured large numbers of civilians, just like the bombings this week in London. For President Bush to give preachy statements condemning the terrorism in London even while providing logistical and financial support to acts of terrorism in Tehran would be a betrayal of all his promises to the American people, exposing the War on Terror as a crass sham.

Serious charges, Mr. Ritter. But what are the established facts?

  1. Mujahideen-e-Khalq (MEK) is a recognized terrorist organization
  2. There are serious allegations, supported by unnamed sources, that the Bush Administration is supporting the MEK
  3. The MEK is accused by the Iranian government organizing bombings that killed and injured large numbers of Iranian civilians, but the MEK denies responsibility
  4. The MEK’s involvement in other destructive explosions aimed at causing chaos and political disruption is not disputed
  5. Well over 100 members of Congress who count themselves as allies of President Bush have asked that the MEK be removed from the State Department’s list of official terrorist organizations so that it would no longer be illegal for the American government to support the MEK
  6. Even as President Bush claims that he is waging war against terrorists everywhere, Bush has taken to referring to members of the MEK as “dissidents” in his public speeches, neglecting to mention that they are, in fact, officially recognized as terrorists

In all these established facts, there is no absolute evidence that the Bush Administration is waging war against Iran and supporting the terrorist organization Mujahideen-e-Khalq. However, there strong indications that that American support for an Iranian terrorist group is taking place.

The information that is available right now is not sufficient to support all of Scott Ritter’s shocking claims, and by going so far as he does in those claims, Ritter is putting his reputation in serious jeopardy.

However, the facts do all point in the direction of foul play on the part of President Bush. When a such an impression of criminal activity in the White House is created, it is the right and the duty of the United States Congress to exercise its constitutional right to oversee the activities of the Executive Branch, and conduct an official, public investigation into the matter.

The American people have the right to know whether the Bush Administration is using their tax dollars to support a known terrorist organization in the Middle East. Congress needs to call Bush Administration Cabinet members to testify about American government links to the MEK, and needs to subpoena all documents from the White House and Pentagon relating to the MEK.

If no congressional investigation is launched, then this story will continue to grow, especially overseas. The failure to address charges that the Bush Administration is supporting a terrorist organizations will be interpreted as a sign that the Bush Administration has something to hide, and will contribute to the continuing disintegration of America’s reputation in the world.

22 thoughts on “MEK Mystery Deserves Investigation”

  1. HareTrinity says:

    The Bush Administration always acts like it has something to hide.

  2. Trackback: Where We're Bound
  3. Zero Haven says:

    Err, yeah. There is no ABSOLUTE evidence of a lot of what’s going on, but hundreds of years ago without absolute evidence of germs people were still getting sick.

    Hare, did you catch BBC Radio 5 recently? Peter Power (formerly of the Yard) was telling the audience that at the exact same time the London bombings were taking place, his company was running a 1,000 person drill of the London Underground being bombed. The exact same locations, the exact same times, and then magically the drills became real.

    This is almost the exact same thing that happenend in the US 4 years ago. You’d have to be pretty retarded to think these are just ‘coincidences’ despite the lack of ‘absolute’ facts.

    JCliff, it’s not our reputation we have to worry about being disintegrated.

  4. Tom says:

    This administration gets more bizarre every week. It’s like the religious right is using Bush to create World War __ (put in whichever roman numeral you think we’re up to now, since some think the Cold War was III), in the hopes that J. C. will return in time to save them (as opposed to all of us), and the Jews will be converted, and all the other Apocalyptic apocrypha on the agenda will happen. See, then that will make them soooo important in God’s eyes since THEY caused his return and all . . .(oh brother, where art thou?)

  5. Ralph says:

    Whoopie-doo, Ritter. That’s old news.

    U.S. support for the terrorist MEK has been open knowledge for months. I refer you to 2/9/05 “Bush Harbors Terrorists,” citing a San Francisco Chronicle article of the same day:

    “The key tool in this strategy is the Mujahedeen-e Khalq, an Iranian guerrilla force that has 4,000 fighters housed in a U.S.-guarded military base north of Baghdad. This group, known as MEK, is supported by some Washington neoconservatives and liberals, as well as by many European lawmakers, but nonetheless has been designated since 1997 as a terrorist organization by the U.S. State Department.” (San Francisco Chronicle, 2/9/05)

    There it was, America. Clear as day, in an American newspaper, not Al Jazeera. Bush is harboring terrorists, and we’ve known it for five months! Golly gee, didn’t catch that on the crawl over at Fox News? Wonder why…

  6. HareTrinity says:


    How exactly do some people think that the Cold War was a WORLD War?

    It was mostly Russia and America, with a hint of Cuba and a few others, wasn’t it? Not exactly a global event.

  7. Jim says:

    and Vietnam
    El Salvador
    all of Europe


  8. HareTrinity says:

    Well, Germany was only involved because it was partially owned by the USSR and US, and the US did some showing of power in getting food to them and such.

    Vietnam and Korea didn’t necessarily count as part of the Cold War. They were other wars that happened at the same time.

    It’s stretching it enough to call WW1 a “world” war, as I recall, let alone the Cold War.

  9. Ralph says:


    If you were old enough to remember the “iron curtain” that divided Europe, you wouldn’t be talking like that. Please do some reading and learn about history.

    At its peak in the 1980’s, Russia and the United States were each aiming over 10,000 hydrogen bombs at each other. Potential effects of over 20,000 thermonuclear warheads all going off on the same day–gee, maybe…global!

    You’re just plain wrong about Vietnam and Korea. The U.S. fought those wars very explicitly to “contain communism”–no bones about it. Who’s telling you they “weren’t part of the Cold War?” That’s just bull.

    The Vietnam War spilled over in a huge way into Laos and Cambodia. Nicaragua and El Salvador spilled over into Guatemala and Honduras, etc.

    One in four East Germans (that’s right, 25% of the population) was an informer for Stasi, the secret service. Bet you didn’t know that. Think of it. Friends spied on friends, wives spied on husbands, children spied on their parents. Do a little thought experiment: list your twelve closest friends and family members, then pick three of them randomly. Assume you just discovered they’ve been spying on you for a totalitarian police state for years. Now tell me what that does to an entire society, and how long it takes the scars to heal. Yes, it was at the behest of Russia, but East Germans did this to East Germans.

    The cold war wasn’t just about what Russians did to Americans. It was about millions and millions of terrible things Poles did to Poles, Salvadorans did to Salvadorans, Laotians did to Laotians, Angolans did to Angolans, Hondurans did to Hondurans, etc., etc.

    Millions of families and hundreds of nations around the world still bear deap wounds from the Cold War. It was a massive global tragedy.

    But hey, good news! “We won!” So just slap a big ol’ happy face on the whole thing, don’t bother learning about it, and flush it down the memory hole. You have no idea how delighted I am to watch a whole generation of young folks forget about history instead of learning from it.

    ‘Cause hey, no big deal if you fail to learn from history, right?

  10. IceyMaster says:

    Hare apparently loves to speak wildly about her poor assumptions of historical events, without having much understanding of them. I’ve seen it now several times. I’m glad you at least call her on it. She really needs to follow the old expression: “be sure brain is engaged before putting mouth into gear”.

  11. Ralph says:

    You know, Icey, ignorance is really screwing us.

    What percentage of the U.S. population do you figure knows that it’s been out in the news for months that Bush is harboring the MEK, or that the MEK is a terrorist organization?

    2%? 3%?

    How the hell do you run a country when only 3% of the people know what’s going on?

    Ok, maybe I should ask, how the hell do you run a GENUINE DEMOCRACY when only 3% of the people know what’s going on? ‘Cause totalitarian hellholes work GREAT that way!

    If people don’t start paying attention to something more than who J-Lo’s married to this month or Tom Cruise hopping around on furniture, democracy in America is screwed.

  12. IceyMaster says:

    I agree that our ignorance is growing even faster than our apathy. (I don’t know how much, and I don’t care…)

    I’ve seen several shows that pull people off the street and ask them some simple “duh” questions and I’m amazed at how often they can’t say who the vice president is or who their Senator is, etc. Are they staged comments? I wonder, but I’m sure they can cull plenty of ignorant slobs from the general populace. I do pay good tax money to support people who supposedly have knowledge to run the government, but they are all so corrupt universally, that I have lost all faith in them. I have a picture outside my office of Saddam receiving the keys to the city of Detroit in 1980, so who you support depends on a lot of things, especially timing. Remember how the Soviets fought the same enemy in WWII as us. Funny how things change, yet still stay the same.

    We still have plenty of media, and a genuine free expression of thought and ideas via the internet and email, so I’m not too worried yet about being crushed by a dictator. However, the Bill Clinton years show that the general population is more concerned abut how they’re doing economically than what is really going on in government. It’s amazing with the economy as it was that people still supported Bush enough to win again.

    I’m still not sure that I take this article, with it’s lack of real evidence presented as “truth”. And I know what axe he is grinding, but it will be interesting to see how it plays out.

  13. HareTrinity says:

    Thanks, but I DO know about it, Ralphy, and I don’t appreciate the sarcasm and ageism.

    The “Cold War” was not a period of time, it was the tension between the USSR and the US.

    Communism was an issue in the US at the time, and that’s why they got into the fuck-up that was Vietnam, but that was only loosely linked to Russia. Russia was one of the reasons for the concern, but not the only reason.

    The Vietnam War was a SEPARATE war.

    And although America had “enough nuclear bombs to blow up the whole of Russia twice”, they weren’t being AIMED at the rest of the world, and nuclear weapons had yet to be classed as a GLOBAL threat.

    Most countries stayed out of the Cold War because WW2 had stripped them of any bloodlust they had.

    And yes, I passed History. During a breakdown, with a B.

  14. Ralph says:


    I wouldn’t trust Scott Ritter on Al Jazeera as my only source either. But he’s not the only source on this. Did you check out the San Francisco Chronicle article referenced on 2/9/05 by There’s more out there on this, and it’s been out there for a while.


    My apologies. I thought you were just young, naive and uninformed. And it would be wrong of me to call you a retard. Many people with mental disabilities make sincere efforts to understand the world they live in, and to compare you with them would be profoundly unfair–to the retards.

    No, you belong to that class of people far worse than idiots or fools–the willfully ignorant ideologues who despise learning and try to promote policy based on hallucinatory distortions of world history. Kinda like George W. Bush.

    Even after someone takes the trouble to inform you that you’re wrong, you stubbornly cling to ignorance. People like you make me worry about humanity’s future.

    It’s abject ignorance to say the Cold War was “just” about Russian and the United States. Yes, those were the two biggest players, but it was also about two little things called “communism” and “capitalism.”

    The United States wasn’t just fighting Russia, it was fighting “global communism.” That’s what the Cold War was to the United States–a struggle against global communism. That’s why they fought openly in Korea and Vietnam and covertly in Nicaragua, El Salvador, etc. Now, if you want to persist in saying that’s not true, go ahead. But you’re worse than an idiot if you do.

    Over 20,000 thermonuclear weapons weren’t a “global” threat? Since you know so much about these things, I’m sure you’re aware that after the Chernobyl disaster, Lap herders hundreds of miles away in northern Scandinavia were exposed to dangerous levels of radiation via reindeer milk. So perhaps you could explain to me how 10,000 thermonuclear warheads going off in the United States would NOT be a threat to Canadian cattle ranchers?

    And while you’re at it, perhaps you could explain how the following countries were NOT affected by the Cold War:

    El Salvador
    (to name a few)

    Your willful ignorance of history and shrill, deluded ideology is a disgrace to your generation.

  15. HareTrinity says:

    Affect them maybe, but didn’t involved them.

    Maybe me and all the people who refer to the Cold War as the Cold War, NOT WW3, are wrong, or, then again…

    Maybe there’s a good reason it’s not called WW3.

    I still think it’s pushing it to call WW1 AND WW2 “world” wars; they didn’t INVOLVE the whole world.

    Affects? Well, me dropping a pencil has an effect on the WHOLE UNIVERSE; I wouldn’t really call it a global event now; would you?

    And if Russia had bombed only central America it wouldn’t have touched Canada.

    IF. That’s right, they DIDN’T, being a potential threat to countries may get them to join a war but it doesn’t make them part of the war.

    They go through it here:

    Some big posts supporting my view. The “War on Terror” isn’t a world war, and neither was the Cold War; they weren’t big enough.

    HAD any nuclear weapons been used during the Cold War I’d gladly agree with you, but they were NOT.

    In fact, there were for the Cold War no large scale face-offs as in WW1 and WW2.

    Plus, wars are ALWAYS a pretty damn awful thing for those involved, and I think the names are what they’re labelled with regardless of what you might consider them.

    If they’d called the Cold War the Icecream War it probably would have stuck. But they didn’t. They called it the Cold War; a time of the arms race and tension and subtle threats. Not a world war.

    That you sunk to name-calling so early on isn’t a good sign, you know.

    I was alive during the end of the Cold War, thanks. And, guess what; barely a mention of it, not even when the Berlin Wall fell (which I watched on live TV). The WW2 was still a hot topic, but the Cold War was… Well, COLD.

    Maybe YOU should read the history books. Look it up.

    “COLD WAR”, not “World War III”.

    And if you’re going to be an ass on what counts as a world war, I’ve said it before; WW1 would probably be knocked off early on, in which case the Cold War would be WW2 and I’d still be right. Maybe you should think through your lectures before you inform me that, in all your years of experience, I’m a sub-retard.

  16. HareTrinity says:

    By the bye, you can’t fight communism any more than you can fight terror; they’re concepts, not an actual enemy.

  17. IceyMaster says:

    It looks from some of the above that you can’t effectively fight ignorance either, but some people still try…..

  18. Ralph says:


    If you want to mince words, fine. Please explain how the following countries were not “involved” in the Cold War:

    El Salvador

    You can’t explain how they weren’t “involved” any more than you can explain how they weren’t “affected.” You’re just splitting hairs to avoid the point.

    Why would the Russians bomb central America instead of the United States? What are you talking about?

    If the Sovirt Union only bombed the United States, it “wouldn’t have touched Canada?” Really? If thousands of U.S. cities (including several like Seattle, Buffalo, and Detroit, which are all right next to Canada) were engulfed in massive radioactive fireballs, the radioactive smoke and ash “wouldn’t have touched Canada?” Really?

    Do the words “fallout” or “nuclear winter” mean anything to you? Look them up.

    And it’s delusional to assume that only the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. would have been included if the Cold War went nuclear. What about the hundreds of medium-range nuclear weapons both sides had deployed in Europe. But I’m sure you knew all about them.

    The fall of communism in eastern Europe and the collapse of the Soviet Union might not have been a big deal to you personally, but try prancing around Lithuania saying that. Let me know how that goes.

    You say I should look this up in the history books. OK. Can you refer me to a credible history textbook that clearly and persuasively explains how the end of the Cold War, the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the fall of communism in eastern Europe was NOT a big deal historically? Didn’t think so.

    Just because it is absurd to fight communism by bombing Cambodia, or fight capitalism by invading Afghanistan, doesn’t mean you can’t do it. The U.S. and the Soviet Union did this kind of thing repeatedly in dozens and dozens of countries throughout the world, overtly, covertly, and by proxy–killing millions and millions of people. That’s what the Cold War was.

    For some reason, you just refuse to come to grips with this. Every time you open your mouth, things just get weirder and weirder. You have left reality behind.

    Care to explain how you can “join a war” without being “part of the war?”

    How exactly would you be right about anything if WW I were not a world war, WW II were WW I, and the Cold War were WW II?

    I’ll admit, there’s not much point in asking you to think all this through. Obviously, you have left the reality-based world far behind. You’re way off in la-la land, and you just think what you think.

    You’ve got every right to be a willfully ignorant ideologue, if that’s what you want to be. Go ahead and think what you think, regardless of reality. There’s not much anybody else can do. Personally, I’ve had about enough of trying.

  19. HareTrinity says:

    No, you’re just not being very convincing. Probably largely to do with your insults and heavy sarcasm; in case you weren’t aware, that puts people off agreeing with you even if you ARE convincing them.

    Yes, I would count the Cold War as world war if nuclear weapons had been used in it. Welcome to the real world, Ralphie; they weren’t.

    And if the US at the time had given money to Australia just to show off to the USSR, would that make Australia part of it? No, it’d just be being used as part of a statement about power.

    And I’ve taken it to the forums now, by the way. And as Jim’s already pointed out; it was an unofficial war (which probably explains the lack of actual warfare considering the potential scale of it all), so YES, I’d say the Cold War wasn’t THAT big.

    Things don’t have to be a war to be big, you know. I think some of the biggest events to happen so far during the existence of humans have been hygiene, the civil rights movements, and the discoveries of things that now are part of our daily lives (electricity, light bulbs, computers, etc).

    Indeed, I wouldn’t say that the Greeks first noticing static electricity on amber (“electric” comes from the Greek “like amber”) was a global event, because there was no global community until recently, but it did later have global affects.

    I didn’t mean to dis the Cold War by saying it wasn’t a world war, I just don’t think it was “anyone’s business” (politics-wise, possibly due to the lack of global community around the time) other than that of a few countries.

  20. HareTrinity says:

    [NOTE: Not that I think it shouldn’t be a global issue when ANY country starts threats to use nuclear weapons, just that it wasn’t treated as a global issue. As that little political cartoon around the time that the Cold War started that shows the Arms Race as a race; France and Britain were only jogging, it was the US and USSR who were really getting uptight over it, symbolising the growing tension between those two countries.]

  21. IceyMaster says:

    Give up, Ralph. When this woman gets a point made up in her mind, no amount of sensible argument and attempts to convince her will change it. I don’t blame you for getting exasperated and becoming a little sarcastic. Your comments, while not 100% absolute, in my opinion, are nevertheless far more substantial than the “hands over the ears” arguments that she is making. It’s sad to see people so insistent on clinging to a bad belief.

  22. Ralph says:


    Let’s just put this to rest.

    You know I don’t pull punches or suffer fools, and I can take it as well as dish it out. You dish pretty heavily too, so I figured you could take it.

    You might want to consider how an opponent in a debate is able to emotionally manipulate you into distorting your arguments.


    Checked out more info. on the MEK yet?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Psst... what kind of person doesn't support pacifism?

Fight the Republican beast!