U.S. ties Iranian leader to bombs killing U.S. troops

I think the mullahs in Iran are hoping for a limited confrontation with the United States. The mullahs are playing on iranian nationalism. It could be the only thing that distracts Iranians from an economy with high unemployement and inflation and the overall failure of the theocratic form of government. Believe it or not, alot of the younger people in iran do not even call themselves muslim.

 

Too bad Bush's unwillingness to use standard diplomacy with Iran might have prevented that.

He is really messing things up horribly.

 

I would actually like to see the details of the evidence, not just be told that it was presented. At this point, I don't disagree with your statement but can't agree with it without more detail.

I also don't think you will have many people who will argue that the Iranian government is filled with good people. I am fairly sure, even without the evidence, that if they believed that they could get away with it they would supply arms to insurgents, just as we did when the Soviets were in Afghanistan. It is not an improbable scenario, nor is the fact that they would deny it when confronted with evidence.

I assume you are using this to make the case that we should attack Iran. I think the more important judgement is whether it is possible or likely to achieve a better situation than we have now if we decide to declare war on Iran. Personally, I think the likelyhood is pretty much nil, and I'm having trouble even thinking of possible situations where the results would be favorable.

The line that I remember (probably slightly paraphrased) from 'Jurassic Park' that comes to mind is, "They were so busy asking whether they could do it, that they didn't bother to ask whether it was a good idea."

 

Could be true, could be BS.

Gulf of Tonkin. Iraq's WMDs. We're always gonna buy what they sell, doesn't matter if it's true.

Our administration is hard up enough to cook up information to get us into a war with Iran, so who knows what to believe anymore?

"Iranian officers present info."

For Middle East disinformation, see also Ghorbanifar, or Chalabi. And this administration has plenty of people who'll listen to them and say, Yeah? And then what happened?

"And then some of the officers in Iran handed over tactical nukes to the Iraqis."

"Yeah? Then what happened?"

"The Ayatollah sent some WMD to Chavez. Chavez is hiding the nukes in the a-holes of Venezuelan beauty queen contestants and will detonate them as soon as they set foot on U.S. soil."

"Yeah?!?! THEN WHAT HAPPENED?"

 

things in iraq aren't that bad, basso tolded me so.

 

OK, so what are we going to do about it?

 

Stop This Now: Nameless Accusers, Sourcing

Identify US Officials Presenting Disputed Evidence Against Iran

Why are US officials hiding behind the cloak of anonymity when presenting the most detailed evidence yet that Iran is supplying anti-US forces in Iraq with weaponry?

After weeks, if not months, of US official planning to present a damning "dossier" of incriminating evidence against Iran, and after this same US administration presented us with lopsided, erroneous information about the capability and evil intentions of the Saddam Hussein regime, the best the US government can give us today is incendiary evidence presented at a Baghdad news conference by three US officials who refuse to be quoted by name?


That's disgraceful and unacceptable.

The American people deserve straight talk from identified US officials.

If US officials are so sure of themselves -- their evidence appears credible but is disputed by Iranian officials and others -- then they should agree to be identified publicly and appear on-camera.

Also, the voluminous photographic evidence shared with journalists at the Baghdad news conference should be posted in full on a US government Web site.

But, wait, one of the three supposedly unnamed US officials apparently has been outed by an Iraqi news service, Voices of Iraq, whose report on the Baghdad news conference identified one of the three speakers as Major General William Caldwell, whose portfolio includes public affairs and who holds frequent news conference and grants one-on-one interviews. So, if the VOI report identifying Caldwell is correct, why did every other news organization apparently agree to grant anonymity to the general who's the official spokesman of the US-led Multi-National Force in Iraq? Why would Caldwell insist on not having his name associated with these allegations today?

After the bogus Iraq evidence debacle in 2002 and 2003 -- allegations that led to war, tens of thousands of lives lost, and hundreds of billions of dollars spent -- only a fool would accept as the gospel supposed evidence against another country that's presented by officials who insist on making their allegations anonymously.

We deserve better from the US government. We deserve better from the western news media.

http://www.iraqslogger.com/index.php/post/1326/Stop_This_Now_No-Name_Allegations_Sourcing

 

Was it an act of war when we gave weapons to the Afghans to fight the Russians? Was it an act of war when we gave weapons to Israel to fight Egypt, Syria, and Lebanon? Was it an act of war when the Russians gave weapons to fight North Vietnamese during the Vietnam War?

Also as disturbing as this info is what can we do about it? We have no troops to fight in Iraq, Afganistan and Iran.

As big of a mistake as it was to invade Iraq invading Iran would be that much larger.

 

Evidence Grows That White House Planned To Release Cooked Intel On Iran

The New York Times today published a front-page story by Michael Gordon which recites administration claims about Iran’s involvement in Iraq “without the slightest questioning, investigation, or presentation of ample counter-evidence.” Greg Mitchell notes, via Glenn Greenwald, that it was Gordon “who, on his own, or with Judith Miller, wrote some of the key, and badly misleading or downright inaccurate, articles about Iraqi WMDs in the run-up to the 2003 invasion.”

The Times story comes even as evidence grows that the administration planned to release contained cooked intelligence in a “briefing” on Iranian involvement in Iraq .

In little noted comments on Feb. 2, National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley acknowledged that the Iran briefing was held back because it was “overstated” and not “focused on the facts.”

But a new report in the National Journal states that it was the intelligence community, not the White House, that demanded the briefing be “scrubbed” of overstated claims:

Despite the intelligence community’s intervention, there is still no guarantee that the intel on Iran that is eventually made public will be factual or comprehensive. As yesterday’s report on Douglas Feith reinforced, senior administration officials are perfectly willing to work around intelligence professionals to obtain the “facts” that justify their ideology.

http://thinkprogress.org/

 

of course it did

Key Iraq war hawk had 'inappropriate' intelligence activities: report

WASHINGTON (AFP) - An investigation has concluded that top Pentagon official Douglas Feith, one of the main architects of the US invasion of Iraq, engaged in "inappropriate" activities involving important intelligence reports ahead of the war, a senior US lawmaker has said.

Senator Carl Levin (news, bio, voting record) said in a statement that the classified Pentagon report was a "devastating condemnation" of Feith's Department of Defense office, which had a key role in drumming up domestic and international political support for invading Iraq in 2003.

The report by the Defense Inspector General concluded that Feith, the former undersecretary for defense for policy, had issued intelligence assessments on the relationship of Iraq and al-Qaeda that were at odds with what the wider US intelligence community concluded, Levin said.

"The office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy developed, produced and then disseminated alternative intelligence assessments on the Iraq and al-Qaeda relationship, which included some conclusions that were inconsistent with the consensus of the intelligence community, to senior decision-makers," the unclassified summary of the report said.

The report said that Feith's office "was inappropriately performing intelligence activities of developing, producing and disseminating that should be performed by the intelligence community."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070209/wl_afp/usiraqpolitics_070209081038

 

the people trying to sell this iran war are the same liars who lied us into the iraq war. they have zero credibility. its a total joke.

 

One could say that threatening regime change and placing troops on your doorsteps are acts of war also. Right now hardliners on both sides are looking for an excuse for confrontaton that while being very bad for Iran will not be great for us either.

 

*sigh*

basso go read page two, paragraph two titled "Results" of the two page declassified report from the Department of Defense.

http://www.npr.org/documents/2007/feb/dod_iog_iraq_summary.pdf

better yet, I'll post it here so all can see...

Results: The Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy developed, produced and then disseminated alternative intelligence assessments on the Iraq and al-Quida relationship, which included some conclusions that were inconsistent with the consensus of the Intelligence Community, to senior decision makers. While such actions were not illegal or unauthorized, the actions were, in our opinion, inappropriate given that the intelligence assessments were intelligence products and did not clearly show the variance with the consensus of the Intelligence community. This condition occurred because of an expanded role and mission of the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy from policy information to alternative intelligence analysis fort Policy and did not provide “the most accurate analysis of intelligence” to senior decision-makers.

 

Bomb Bomb Bomb
Bomb Bomb Bomb
Bomb Iran
Because We Can

The fool must use his tool. God told him and he must obey.