All I think it's evidence of is that once an organization gets on the official terrorist list, it's not that it's hard to remove it, but rather, many who actually see usefulness in the group may not want to  remove it in order to have some leverage over them.

There's really not much new here on the MEK story. That's why Seymour Hersh put it as New Yorker daily blog post, rather than writing a full article, like an "update" on a long running saga.  (Comparing Greenwald with Hersh here is actually a good example of why I respect Hersh but Greenwald not very much--it's the hyperbole thing where every news item is both a major story and an outrage.)

Anyone who followed the MEK story during the Bush years will not be surprised  by any of this. It was clear from just facts about Camp Ashraf and similar dealing,  their protection, that they were no longer considered a terrorist group. Just as most terrorism experts never considered the designation serious, based on a few attacks. What they are is a kooky, dangerous and untrustworthy cult, everyone in terrorism circles knows this and has said it, and knows the CIA has long known it too. That's where the criticism should come in, that in playing with them, our government plays with fire. The continued terrorist designation is no doubt partly continued for plausible deniability purposes, because: they're nuts--they might just decide to do some terrorism again, if spurned and angry, in a bigger way this time.

Actually,what I still find a little shocking in post-Bush MEK news is that of Howard Dean's lobbying for them. Not that I was ever under any mistaken impression that Dean wasn't a hawk. To me, he always seemed very clearly to be foreign policy hawk. (Mho, many Deaniacs had the same fatal flaw of many Obamamanics: self-deludedly seeing a dove because their man happened to be against the Iraq war, when if you listened to both candidates speeches, read their position papers, and checked their records, they were clearly hawks.) What I don't get about Dean's working for them is why he is so proud of it and a fervent worker  on their behalf. Can't he find a better paying lobbying position than them? I don't believe that, I'm sure he could find other more sensible contracts paying the same or more. He's a smart guy, and they are for the most part a bunch of kooky cultists, far worse in that realm than say, a lot of Christianist nuts, more like the followers of Jim Jones or the Heaven's Gate group . What's that all about, Howard, really? Why this job and why the devotion? Call me puzzled (Save me the human rights outrage explanation, I don't buy that, really I don't--ask someone who has escaped from Maryam Rajavi's crazy rule about human rights.)