Iran Roundup -- A lot of Juicy Information

Usually I try and incorporate articles into my blog posts, but today has had so many juicy news articles relating to Iran and neoconservatives that I decided that I would do this in a roundup format: List the link, give a general description of what the article is about, plus some personal commentary where necessary.

I'm human dammit (and I had 1 beer just cause it was in the fridge and I'm feeling none to creative. Damn, since when did I become such a lightweight? Honestly.)

First lets start with Iraq, as there is only one in this category

Iraq

Neoconservative suggests hangings for war and escalation dissenters in Congress:

Honestly, how is it that these people can get away with suggesting the death of fellow Americans (in Congress no less) because of their questioning views on the Iraq war and on the current escalation? As Attaturk mentions in his own blog, how is it that John Edwards bloggers came under such scrutiny and pressure due to insensitive and vulgar remarks regarding Catholicism and birth-control, yet a noted neoconservative figure can go around suggesting that Congresspeople opposing the surge are guilty of treason and should be hanged? And this guy is guilty of attributing a quote to Lincoln that Lincoln never said.... What a double standard.

Here, I'll give you a snippet:

First, make-believe quoting Abraham Lincoln (he never said that):

Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged.

Which leads to this...

It is, of course, unimaginable that the penalties proposed by one of our most admired presidents for the crime of dividing America in the face of the enemy would be contemplated -- let alone applied -- today.

Still, as the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate engage in interminable debate about resolutions whose effects can only be to "damage morale and undermine the military" while emboldening our enemies, it is time to reflect on what constitutes inappropriate behavior in time of war. . . .

The Journal has properly warned that Senator Ahab's [the Wall St. Journal's name for Sen. Rockefeller Levin] misbehavior is likely to have implications far beyond the immediate disservice it does to Mr. Feith and those who labored so ably under him. It will likely also have a severely chilling effect on the willingness of policymakers rigorously to challenge, and thereby to improve, the quality of the intelligence they are getting about tomorrow's threats.

If there's one thing that really should be a hanging offense, it is behavior that results in our being even less equipped to deal with such threats than we were before this phase of the War for the Free World began on September 11, 2001.

Where is the outrage? Where is the media beating up this guy for suggesting something so horrible? And why do 2 bloggers on Edwards campaign get days upon days of attention for the remarks on their blog prior to their employment with Edwards?

Iran - The meat

Four former CIA officials conclude Iran conflict will occur:

I'll add that this is merely the opinions of 4 former CIA agents, and shouldn't be construed as some definite fact. Their opinions matter but understand that it is just informed opinion.

Powell tried to push Iran talks in 2003 following Iranian offers:

If you are confused about what offer I speak of, I mean this offer (pdf), in which the Iranians in 2003 agree to open up talks with the US to help it stabilize Iraq (wouldn't that have been great), to increase the transparency of its nuclear programs, to stop its funding for radical groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah, and to recognize the right of Israel to exist.

Condoleeza Rice has been on the record claiming that she never saw such a fax, and that the White House never saw it, but this account puts the lie to that claim. It is clear that Colin Powell tried to sell talks based on this at the White House, and failed. Which means that then NS Advisor Condi Rice, President Bush and Dick Cheney were aware of the offer through then SecofState Colin Powell.... and refused it.

Essentially, Condoleeza Rice lied to Congress when she recently denied ever hearing about this particular offer.

In fact a former aide of Condoleeza Rice has gone on the record and said that Rice 'mislead' Congress on Iran.

--------

The Fishy Iran Explosive Links to US soldier’s deaths

The past two posts have been devoted to this subject. As I mentioned before, it just does not add up. The numbers don't add up, and the logic doesn't add up.

The claims of Iranian direct involvement at the highest levels is very dubious. It simply defies logic that Iran would arm Sunni insurgents -- who are the group’s actually attacking US soldiers. It also defies logic to claim the bombings are from the Shia militias given that they are not at odds militarily at the moment, and in fact some of those Shia groups and militias have had ties and relations with the US and with the Iraqi government which is Shia dominated.

Others and I have put forward other likely explanations given these two improbable ones:

It is well known and not that surprising that Iran supplies Shia groups in Iraq, Sunni insurgents are undoubtably getting their weapons from Sunni Arab states (more likely not from the states themselves but wealthy individuals and rogue officials). That much is no surprise.

Those weapons are entering Iraq, but here is where the logic of the administration gets messed up. Depending on the accounts they believe that Sunni insurgents are being armed directly from Iran (that's so stupid) because they had those weapons. Or they believe that Shia groups are bombing them (not likely) because they also have been found to be in possession of such weapons and some of those groups have ties to Iran.

The alternate explanation deals with the implausibility in each story, and says:

Iraq is awash in weapons and has a thriving and flourishing black market arms market. Sunni insurgent groups and Shia militia groups both get tons of aid from their own benefactors, and often these groups sell some of their surplus or (perhaps need a quick buck) to arms dealers (middle men).

These arms conceivably can then wind up sold to Sunni insurgents who use them to kill Americans. From this, Bush is claiming direct aid from Iran to attackers when it is not likely that.

It doesn't help when Bush tried to muddle the issue and keep it purposely vague:

Josh Marshall:

The Iran innuendo continues. In his press conference today, President Bush said that the U.S. knows "with certainty" that the EFPs coming in from Iran for attacks on U.S. forces originate with the Qods Forces -- a branch of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps. That's nothing new: Sunday's briefing made the same allegation. What came next is:
Bush declares himself deliberately agnostic as to why these Iranian munitions are in Iraq and who the Iranians may be giving them to. This is, however, the central issue at hand: not whether the al Quds force is operating with or without the approval of the Iranian government, but whether the al Quds force itself is actually responsible for arming fighters using the weapons against American soldiers and marines.

At stake is whether or not the Iranian government is pursuing what amounts to an act of war against U.S. troops.

If you saw Bush's press conference, essentially you are led with the impression that it does not matter if the Iranian state is directly involved or not, it should just be enough that there are Iranian weapons in Iraq.

Well, first off the fact that Iran has been sending arms to Shia militias has been well known among us and has been claimed many times before by the administration (nothing new), why is the Bush administration making such a big huff about something that has already been well-known? Well, I think its because they are trying to do something new here. Trying their hand at creating "innuendo" (as Josh calls it) -- based on the evidence or not -- that Iran is involved with the deaths of US soldiers. They are trying to plant that idea in the brains of the American public and the media, and their use of weasel words is more indication that this is the case and that their evidence of Iranian involvement is not really good, even in their eyes. They just want that idea out there floating in the heads of Americans so that they will have the wrong idea about Iranian involvement.

Think about the discredited 9/11-Iraq links: For years after this claim was discredited, majorities of the people continued to believe such a link existed because of subtle attempts to refer to Iraq and 9/11 in the same breath as if related.

So does it matter if Iran is merely arming Shia groups, or if it is arming Sunni insurgents as Bush says?

Yes. One is meddling in Iraq (like just about everyone in the Middle East); the latter implies that Iran has undertaken direct acts of war against the United States by directly causing the deaths of its soldiers. It certainly does matter. One is MUCH more serious.

I'll leave with one more article doubting the credibility of the charges coming from the White House and from (some) in the Pentagon.

Doubts raised on linking of Iran to US deaths

Peace folks, and please...don't drink and blog. Lol

[A Public Service Announcement from the Council For Tightwad Buzzkills]