From the AP:
After weeks of preparation and revisions, U.S. officials are preparing to detail evidence supporting administration’s claims of Iran’s meddlesome and deadly activities. A briefing was scheduled Sunday in Baghdad.
The Iran dossier, some 200 pages thick in its classified form, was revised heavily after officials decided it was not ready for release as planned last month…
…One intelligence official said the U.S. is “fairly comfortable” that it knows with some precision the origin of those Iranian-made explosives….
…While traveling in Europe on Friday, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said that serial numbers and markings on explosives used in Iraq provide “pretty good” evidence that Iran is providing either weapons or technology for militants there…
…A senior U.S. government official said Saturday that members of Congress were shown proof in December. “I’m convinced from what I’ve seen that the Iranians are supplying and are giving assistance to the people in Iraq who are killing American soldiers,” said independent Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut.
From: Phil
To: Everyone on the Secret Iran War Planning Team
Re: Language, gentlemen, language!
Hi everyone! Phil in Media Affairs here, and I just want to say that everyone’s been doing a super job, just super! Remember, we have to be slowly turned by growing evidence this time. Reluctant warriors. And everyone’s doing a fantastic job. [Except for you, Lieberman. “Convinced?” Wtf!? lol!]
Anyway, it’s time to revisit the list of how you get to the general statement that Iran is messing with our stuff. Note the cross-outs. Those terms are off the table, even after we DO become “convinced” (But not ’til like a MONTH from now, Joe! rotf!)
Okay, here’s how you describe the upcoming intelligence:
- “Pretty clear”
- “I have to say, it looks damned odd at the very least.”
“It’s a slam dunk!”- “Do you smell that? It smells like…”
“What’s we’re giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence.”- “There seems to be some evidence…”
- “Hmm. I want to trust Iran, but…”
“The British government has learned…”“No question…”“Overwhelming evidence.”- “Not-terrible intel seems to say…”
- “Who really knows anything, anyway? That said…”
“We have learned..”- “We think we may have learned…”
“Sources, solid sources…”- Hey, you know what I heard?”
I realize that this might feel a little awkward at first, but you’ll get it eventually. Unless your name rhymes with “Bo Feeberman” [lol! jk! You know we love you!].
Anyway, play nice, have fun, and remember this handy maxim: “If you act certain, you soon will be hurtin’.” Not bad, huh? That’s from Donna in Accounts Payable - the same one who made Tenet that yellow cake for his going away party (remember his face? lmao!). She’s a pistol!
Anyway, best of luck, guys. And remember: Look careful out there.
Cheers,
Phil
Fanny Roborat
44 comments
Benjamin
February 12, 2007 at 12:32 pm
1Thanks Adam for making me smile while I grimace. I fear you are extremely close to the truth.
cooper
February 12, 2007 at 2:11 pm
2Benjamin, that’s what makes it so darn
sadfunny.jerry-the-conservatroll
February 12, 2007 at 2:42 pm
3Adam,
I realize that y’all would hesitate to take anything at face value (for the record I do too) but it seems to me that we should wait until the report is issued and read it before we start taking it apart.
Several things line up to at least ask the question if Iran is messing around.
1) Iranians have been picked up over the last year in raids.
2) Devices are getting much more sophiscated (for example, shaped-charge IEDs, no small technical feat).
3) It’s in Iran’s interest to keep the US tied up in Iraq.
4) Iranian manufactured weapons are being seized.
5) In a Shia/Sunni fight, Iran would historically back the Shia
6) Iran fought a very long and brutal war with Iraq and it’s in Iran’s interest to keep Iraq from settling down and becoming a major player in the region again.
If the report is long on specifics then do we just completely discount it?
Adam Felber
February 12, 2007 at 3:06 pm
4Jerry -
A fair point. And actually I think it’s quite likely that “Iran” is meddling in Iraq. Whether the Iranian government as a whole is behind that meddling, I have no idea. I’m expecting that the evidence will shed only limited light on THAT question, but we shall see.
This post was more about the language used rather than the veracity of the evidence. Also, I’m made nervous by the ghost of the implication that if Iran IS involved, then our best answer is some sort of military action.
To me, that’s the underreported missing link in the whole run-up to Iraq. Not that Iraq was deemed to have WMD’s, but that our government managed to create a false if-then: they convinced a lot of Americans that if it became pretty clear that they DID, then that should trigger an invasion.
This is starting to have a similar smell to me. And if the evidence is NOT a complete and total slam dunk, then we are once again fucking up our diplomatic chances in the interest of bellicose finger-pointing.
Margret Th.
February 12, 2007 at 3:43 pm
5As someone who is terrified each time the US says (in one way or another)…”We have evidence that supports…”
Most of the time I take things at face value and I remember what I once read in a book on history - “The first victim in every war is the truth.”
I never believe what I’m told. In Iceland we have many cases of our government lying to us…most people react “How could they do that to us?” - I usually think - “How dumb to we have to be to believe that they WON’T lie to us?”
This may be a US issue but when you are messing with a nation that is developing some nasty stuff - the rest of the world is wisphering “Don’t piss them off!”
That whole thing on meddling - the pot calling the kettle black ?
gillian
February 12, 2007 at 4:15 pm
6I believe there is still no definitive proof that the government of Iran is behind the EFP’s that are killing our soldiers. Factions within Iran, maybe. The way our government is trotting out these reports of Iranian serial numbers on mortars, but not displaying these mortars - reports given by unnamed government officials, for “background” only - this is just not credible. There have been these rumblings about Iranian involvement for over a year and the administration decides to highlight these claims on the very week that the UN is to vote on further sanctions on Iran; the timing of this charade does strike me of being a bit suspicious. I hope America is ready to shout down the Neo-cons this time. These clowns who have the ears of our leaders really remind me of Curious George - you just have to keep slapping their hands, and then slapping their hands again, whenever they reach out for more trouble.
dee
February 12, 2007 at 4:55 pm
7There’s an old saying in Tennessee — I know it’s in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once — shame on — shame on you. You fool me, you can’t get fooled again.
George W. Bush
September 17, 2002
Truer words were never mangled.
Maximum Bob
February 12, 2007 at 5:41 pm
8If only I could remember where I heard all this before.
David
February 12, 2007 at 6:14 pm
9Let me see here. Bush declared Iran a member of the axis of evil. The administration has made clear its desire for regime change in Iran. The administration views military aggression as an appropriate means of changing a regime it doesn’t like.
This is deja vu Iraq all over again, and an even dumber, deadlier, more catastrophic use of American military power than was the invasion of Iraq, even if we only carry out bombing raids. This administration has a unilateral myopic militaristic agenda, and its only interest in facts is as they serve that agenda. Actual facts, manufactured facts, effing lies - the only thing here, which I think Adam captures so well, is that this time the runup requires a different brand of psy ops - a kindler, gentler brand, if you will.
Sharon
February 12, 2007 at 7:18 pm
10If the invasion of Iraq failed to trigger the Apocalypse and bring Jesus back, then maybe bombing Iran will. The Bushies are so intent on coercing the Second Coming that they don’t care who or what gets in their way, and they certainly don’t care about alienating our allies–we don’t have any left.
hedera
February 12, 2007 at 8:01 pm
11For many years, I’ve made the crack that anyone crazy enough to want to be President is too crazy to be allowed to have it. Not until Dubya and the neocon hordes did I realize that this isn’t a joke. I’m terrified that the asshat actually WILL bomb Iran - and as an Iranian citizen was recently quoted in an article I read, we will all (including the Iranians) then be stuck with the theocrats for another 70 or 80 years…
cooper
February 12, 2007 at 8:18 pm
12hedera, I read that, too and I sure that’s correct. Sharon, that’s how W thinks, alright. Scary.
I got an e-mail from our pal PeteIVDL. Same ol’ Pete. He’s doing well and still lurks here from time to time. It’s summer there now and apparently Hell is opening a branch office in the Melbourne area.
siobhan
February 12, 2007 at 8:52 pm
13One of the things that irks me these days is the “do you regret your vote” question for presidential candidates (those who had a vote). Well, yeah, I’m sure they do. And the questions about what the candidates and wannabes will do to end it? Equally pointless. They can’t step in now - the idiot get to twist knobs randomly for two more years before they get a shot at the controls. Iraq is a lost cause. Everyone can say what they want about what they would have done and what they’re gonna do, but it’s out of our hands at this point. (Well, not entirely. We can still make it worse - and odds are good that W will find a way to do so - but there’s not much we can do to make it better.)
Anyway. Hindsight is for after hours. Let’s talk about their day job. ASK THEM WHAT THE FUCK THEY’RE GOING TO DO TO STOP THE MORON BEFORE HE DOES IT AGAIN. That’s where they can make a difference. Pelosi’s the next district over, and I let her know that giving everyone five minutes to speak their piece on escalation is fine, but I’d rather they keep us from crossing the border to the next futile adventure. Oh, and since he’s already realized that he’s going down in history as the Worst. President. Ever., even the legacy issue won’t slow him down at this point.
Seeing what’s happening to our country is like having a drowning dream.
Excuse me, I must go drink now.
(Bill gets morphine in the hospital, but I’m making do with some JipJip Rocks Shiraz from PeteIVDL’s backyard.)
hedera
February 12, 2007 at 8:52 pm
14Pete IVDL, if you’re lurking, we miss ya, mate. Speak up and let us know how it all looks from down under.
Dale
February 12, 2007 at 9:47 pm
15I have to say, it looks damned odd at the very least…
There seems to be some evidence…
“Who really knows anything, anyway? That said…”
You sure you didn’t accidentally get ahold of the Administration memo on evolution?
Maximum Bob
February 12, 2007 at 9:55 pm
16ASK THEM WHAT THE FUCK THEY’RE GOING TO DO TO STOP THE MORON BEFORE HE DOES IT AGAIN.
Exactly.
If this comes in a bumper sticker, I’ll take a couple.
Dale
February 12, 2007 at 10:05 pm
17Unfortunately, I think that slogan would only fit on the bumper of a car too large be owned by the sort of person who would have that bumper sticker.
SeattleDan
February 12, 2007 at 10:30 pm
18And, again, our government misses opporunities. The Ayatollah regime is just slightly more popular in Iran as was the Shah’s. But when the US acts in a bellicose way, everyone there curls up into a ball and supports their government…even though no one really likes it. If ever there was a country in the Middle East that would like a more secular, democratic state, it is probably Iran. It has a fairly highly educated populace, many who went to school in the West. But Bush just goes on, like he hasn’t a clue about the internal workings of the government he thinks he’s undermining. What a loser. And Lobster (on bended knee I pray to that great manifestation of the Great One), may we survive the consequences.
David
February 13, 2007 at 7:31 am
19Taught a couple of Iranian students back in the pre-’79 phase of my community college days. Granted they were a highly select group who were here as part of a government effort to further westernize Iran, but I think they did represent an enlightened impulse that is a player in Iranian culture. I agree with SeattleDan’s comments.
Pete IVDL, I’m with the Felbernauts urging you to check in with some of you inimitable commentary. And whassup with Prime Minister Scowling Pissant - has he been taking lessons from The Dickster?
Maximum Bob, I’ll take a case of the bumper stickers. They’d be terrific for plastering on stop signs, sidewalks, and my S-10. Might have to modify it slightly to F@&%. Also might make it W - The Moron in honor of those W - The President stickers.
jerry-the-conservatroll
February 13, 2007 at 7:38 am
20Apparently they are showing the mortars, and several other interesting items, at least to the Bahdad press corps. http://billroggio.com/archives/2007/02/evidence_of_iran_sup.php (full disclosure - Bill Roggio is a embedded blogger and supporter of the war)
The BBC has some of the slides used in the briefing attended by Roggio here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/6353025.stm
I don’t think you are going to find a memo signed by the Ayatollah himself but it definitly doesn’t look good. The question becomes, what do you do with the information? Do you use it as leverage in the upcoming UN sanctions meetings? Given the timing I would suspect this is the most likely scenario.
I’ve really tried to understand this and I’m open to to being persuaded, really I am. But they are already pissed off. They’ve been pissed off since 1948. They were pissed off in 1978. They are in a continual state of pissed off. I scares the crap out of me to think they could develope a nuclear arsenal because they are pissed off.
The MAD policy worked because both the US and the USSR were ultimately rational actors. Do you honestly believe that the government of Iran is a rational actor? If no, then allowing Iran to possess a nuclear weapon capablitly is not an option. The state of Israel will see a detonation. Israel will respond. The world as we know it ceases to exist because of the rapidly spiraling conflict. If yes, then do you believe the US is a rational actor? If you answer no to this question, then you can’t allow Iran to possess nukes either becuase it would give that crazy, moronic cowboy in the White House all the excuse he needs.
Ulwan
February 13, 2007 at 10:09 am
21Looks like General Peter Pace’s recent remarks speak to the Adams point in his comment above.
Aaron
February 13, 2007 at 10:27 am
22A question for Jerry regarding his point 6: Given point 5, are you sure that it is (or that Iran thinks it is) in Iran’s interest to keep Iraw unstable? Aside from the obvious problem of drawing the military affections of the US, it seems to me like Iran would be better off having a stable Shia-dominated government that they can attempt to run by proxy.
Anyway, y’all might be interested in this talk from a site I run at University of Chicago:
http://chiasmos.uchicago.edu/events/postel.shtml
Reading ‘Legitimation Crisis’ in Tehran”
January 11, 2007
A talk by Danny Postel, Senior Editor of openDemocracy, an online global magazine of politics & culture. The Iran depicted in the headlines is a rogue state ruled by ever-more-defiant Islamic fundamentalists. Yet inside the borders, an unheralded transformation of a wholly different political bent is occurring. A “liberal renaissance,” as one Iranian thinker terms it, is emerging in Iran, and in his pamphlet Reading ‘Legitimation Crisis’ in Tehran, Danny Postel charts the contours of the intellectual upheaval.
Aaron
February 13, 2007 at 10:28 am
23That should be “keep Iraq unstable,” not “keep Iraw unstable.”
GW
February 13, 2007 at 4:48 pm
24What? Did you guys say something? I’m sorry, I’ve had the Cartoon Network cranked up really loud all day.
David
February 13, 2007 at 6:20 pm
25I think you were actually on to something, Aaron. It all seems pretty raw to me.
Jenn
February 13, 2007 at 6:41 pm
26Aaron, in response to your question to Jerry, yes, it is certainly in Iran’s interest to keep Iraq unstable. Iran is building a propoganda machine both internally and externally. Internally, Ahmadenijad has a populist movement budding quite remeniscent of Hitler’s tactics of WWI and Chavez’s tactics of today. The essence - America is trying to forestall, if not blockade, the rising of Iran to a major world power. To the people, he asserts that the lack of nuclear power plants block Iran’s otherwise natural path to a booming economy, an arguement well-aimed at a proud people who lament the loss of their historically respected and advanced culture, and who also, consequently, suffer under the massive strain of unemployment for a country where the population has more than doubled in the past 20 years. America, of course, as Israel’s closest ally as well as a zionist nation in our own right, outright opposes Iran obtaining nuclear technology SOLELY as a means of oppressing Iran. You also must realize that the people, though highly intelligent and well-educated, are living with state-controlled media. Satellite tv is virtually non-existent.
So how does all this relate Iran’s desire for an unstable Iraq?
1.Iran is looking to rebuild the modern Persian empire.
2. Nuclear power puts Iran on a whole new playing field with the international community, and in some ways, equally important - the middle eastern community.
3. As long as we have our hands tied in Iraq, as long as our international political capital continues to be comprised (as it is with every news report that procreates the perception of America’s mighty military can’t control this “insurgency”), as long as our military is being stretched and our public support both abroad and domestic continues to diminish, Iran can continue to build nuclear technology and expand it’s influence in the region, and no one is going to do anything about it.
Question: Regardless how solid the evidence, what would it take for the American public or the international community to believe it? Yes, Iraq was a disaster. Doesn’t mean Iran is innocent.
Aaron - Yes, we need to pursue other our diplomatically, but if American doesn’t have the political capital or mililitary strength to invade Iran and no one else has really stepped up to the plate, what is Iran’s incentive to cooperate?
Mojo
February 13, 2007 at 7:58 pm
27Response to Jerry (apologies in advance if this runs long):
1) Iranians have been picked up over the last year in raids. And then they’re being released. Seems like a stupid thing for us to do if they’re really the ones getting all our soldiers killed.
2) Devices are getting much more sophiscated (for example, shaped-charge IEDs, no small technical feat). First, devices and tactics have both been growing steadily more sophisticated throughout the entire war. That’s what happens in a prolonged insurgency - the insurgents who live get better. Second, shaped-charge IEDs actually are a very small technical feat. I remember Red Army Faction attacks using that technique clear back in the 80s and 90s. I could build one myself. Third, the percentage of IEDs which are EFPs is small and is being exaggerated. (Note that nobody official is willing to give both a number and their name.) Finally, “advanced” IEDs are being encountered in relatively equal numbers in both Shiite and Sunni areas but if Iran was the source, you’d expect them only in Shiite areas (see your number 5).
3) It’s in Iran’s interest to keep the US tied up in Iraq. Yes. And I think that has prompted Iran to provide some support to the insurgency; just nothing like the amount being implied.
4) Iranian manufactured weapons are being seized. The vast majority of these were manufactured prior to 2003. Many date back to the Iran-Iraq war. Some were known to be in the Iraqi armories which were looted after we invaded. Some of those of recent production were taken from Iran by groups which operate on both sides of the border (like some Kurdish groups). Again, I think that a small percentage really are being provided by the Iranian government. But the quantities are insignificant to the overall insurgency. As nearly as I can determine, it seems that the insurgents are primaily using weapons produced by the following countries (in descending order): Iraq, home-made explosives, US, China, Russian, Iran, former Warsaw Pact countries (now NATO).
5) In a Shia/Sunni fight, Iran would historically back the Shia Yes. Which is why it’s so strange that “Iranian” weapons and “Iranian” tactics keep showing up in Sunni groups. If you go back, you’ll find that the first reports of EFP IEDs in Iraq were attibuted to al Qaeda, a Sunni group.
6) Iran fought a very long and brutal war with Iraq and it’s in Iran’s interest to keep Iraq from settling down and becoming a major player in the region again. An unstable Iraq is not in Iran’s interest. A weak Iraq is in their interest. Shiite dominance of the major portions of the Iraqi government is in their interest. Having the US stuck fighting a Muslim insurgency is wonderful for them. But chaos in Iraq is not good for them. The flow of weapons and fighters across the border (such as it is) goes both ways. Dominating the Iraqi government is much less useful to them than it could be because the Iraqi government doesn’t control anything. The most likely outcome to continued chaos in Iraq is for the country to split into three parts and that result is also bad for Iran. In the North they’d have a PKK haven working tirelessly to build a greater Kurdistan taken partly from northern Iran. In the center they’d have a desperately poor Sunni state whose citizens would universally blame Iran for their woes. It would be like the West Bank times a million. Only in the south would they have a congenial government. But a stable Iraq would have a government which would be nearly as friendly to Iran but which controlled the whole country and with none of the negatives.
Bottom line. I think Iran is playing games in Iraq and providing some support to insurgents. But I think the extent of that support is being wildly exaggerated and setting policy as if they were a major factor in the war is guaranteed to lead to a bad result.
K. Trout
February 13, 2007 at 8:11 pm
28Since I’ve been following the Scooter Libby trail, it’s become obvious that Scooter is taking one for the VP and I must say that Dick Cheney is not showing Scooter enough love for all his devotion to the cause. I once wrote a story called “The First District Court of Thankyou”. This was a court you could take people to, if you felt they hadn’t been properly grateful for something you had done. If the defendant lost his case, the court gave him a choice between thanking the plaintiff in public, or going into solitary confinement on bread and water for a month. I believe that if Scooter would sue, Cheney would lose the case and, since a proper Neocon does not admit mistakes or weaknesses, Dick would take his bread and water (plus his nitroglycerin tablets and spare pacemaker lithium batteries) and jump down the rabbit hole that is his undisclosed location.
Boomer
February 13, 2007 at 8:26 pm
29I remember that story, Mr. Trout. It was in one of the “men’s magazines” years ago, sandwiched between 2 porn stories. I admit to reading that ilk of literature, but only for the science fiction, hunting, and car repair articles. I swear.
SeattleDan
February 13, 2007 at 8:50 pm
30Nicely done, Mojo. It’s a sinkhole and always has been.
siobhan
February 13, 2007 at 9:48 pm
31What is the difference between a sinkhole and a rathole? (does Fanny know?)
And how do rabbit holes fit into the equation? (per K Trout, I guess they have something to do with ass holes?)
SpottedDog
February 13, 2007 at 11:33 pm
32I would be very surprised if there weren’t a large number of countries supporting the insurgency in Iraq. It is a great way to keep the lone superpower pre-occupied. And by large number of countries I mean not only Iran, China and Russia but purported allies in Europe and other places as well. And by support I mean just enough money, encouragement, and arms to keep things interesting for the U.S. It is in nobody’s interest except those in power in the United States for the United States to be the pre-eminent power in the world. Iraq is a prominent weak point and, I think, it would be foolish of other countries not to exploit it. Not to expect them to is niave.
cooper
February 14, 2007 at 4:03 am
33Well put, SpottedDog, and a very compelling argument, especially for the Chinese and Japanese, who are giving the US all the financial rope W’s wanted to wage his crusade and will be (are) in the perfect position to apply the chokehold whenever it suits them.
Dave D
February 14, 2007 at 5:12 am
34Iranian manufactured weapons are being seized.
And how many people around the world are killed every day with American manufactured weapons? Does that make the US government responsible in all of those deaths? (Although Jerry would likely say “No”, I’m sure others would disagree. It is disgraceful that the US is the largest arms dealer on the planet.)
Is it much of a surprise that Iran might be ‘meddling’ in Iraq? They are neighbors with a common border; what happens in Iraq affects Iran. i would say that we have been ‘meddling’ in Iraq much more than Iran possibly could; and we certainly are *not* neighbors, with not an inch of common border.
Hell if Russia were to decide that it is intolerable to allow Mexico to continue to develop WMDs (which they *know* will eventually be used against them) and they invaded, destroying the nations government, infrastructure, society, and anything resembling civilization don’t you think *we* would be ‘meddling’, supporting the insurgency that would arise? With our common border, wouldn’t it be in our interest to attempt to influence the outcome? Hell we did it in Afghanistan which (again) has no common border.
I would be very surprised if Iran weren’t ‘meddling’. They would seem to have at least as much right as we have.
Murray
February 14, 2007 at 7:05 am
35You have to ask yourself, why is the Bush government taking this tact, of accusing Iran of feeding the insurgency.
Because invading Iran on the premise of stopping the production of nuclear weapons would need congressional support. Even those morons know THAT won’t happen.
But if Iran is helping in the current war, than hitting back is merely a part of it. So, no need to get those pesky congress people involved.
Could the colossally incompetent Bush Administration make a bigger mistake than the one we are stuck in?
Only if they believe that God works in mysterious ways, that God still speaks directly to W, and that in the long run, all will work for the good of those who trust in the Lord.
God, we’re screwed!
David
February 14, 2007 at 8:52 am
36And without the kiss, Murray, unless the kiss of death counts.
cooper
February 14, 2007 at 10:05 am
37Well, Curious George did say in his news conference today that he’s listening to the voices again. Not good.
dee
February 14, 2007 at 10:35 am
38I was spared actually hearing his voice, but this is from the transcript:
We talked about the fact that our coalition troops that are heading into Baghdad will be arriving on time. In other words, I’m paying attention to the schedule of troops deployments to make sure that they’re there so that General Petraeus will have the troops to do the job — the number of troops to do the job that we’ve asked him to do.
We talked about the coordination between Iraqi and coalition forces. And I would characterize their assessment as: The coordination’s good. In other words, there’s good conversation, constant conversation between the commanders of the — of our troops and their troops.
And this is from the “prepared remarks” prior to the actual questions. Sweet Jesus on a biscuit I wonder who got bounced from admission to Yale to make way for this maroon.
Aaron
February 14, 2007 at 10:48 am
39Does anyone else suspect that General Petraeus was chosen for his post largely because his name sounds like a character in Gladiator?
tim
February 14, 2007 at 1:01 pm
40Iraq, Iraq, Iraq! Don’t you people realize that ANNA NICOLE SMITH IS DEAD?!?!? I’d like to state unequivocally that I am not the father of her baby, but I’ll be taking a DNA test just to be sure.
George
February 14, 2007 at 5:30 pm
41Yes Aaron, I was thinking the same thing.
David
February 15, 2007 at 7:49 am
42No, no, no! Anna Nicole Smith is not dead! Have you people forgotten the Elvis died hoax, for chrissake?
Mieke
February 16, 2007 at 1:05 am
43Oh no, they have a whole new tack. It’s “we might smell a rat, but we might not- we don’t care, you’re going down.” Literally, now…
Bush and Tony Snow in the past few days:
GEORGE W. BUSH: What we don’t know is whether or not the head leaders of Iran ordered the force to do what they did, but, here’s my point, either they knew or didn’t know, and what matters is that they’re there. What’s worse? That the Government knew or that the Government didn’t know?
and Mr. party line TONY SNOW: What’s more frightening, the notion that they are freelancing or that they’re not?
I’m actually enjoying this new party line, because at some point someone’s gotta remember Abu Ghraib or Al Qa’qaa. I mean, weren’t prisoners tortured and 340 tons of explosives looted on our watch, while that was shrugged off as the fault of individuals in the U.S. military and our government knew nothing? Their words may come back to haunt them. Oh, who the hell am I kidding. Anna Nicole’s dead husband will turn up alive and the father of her baby, and as Wolf Blitzer turns to his correspondent live in Florida, the U.S. army will start loading bombs onto planes.
They have been hell-bent on getting Iran (and Syria, which is next) since the day we went into Iraq, and they will not stop beating the drum.
Eh…I blogged at length about this, so the rest of my rant can be found there (litura.com).
David
February 16, 2007 at 5:51 am
44Unfotunately, Mieke, your rant is dead on, as will be a lot of people if these bastards get their way. Maybe we could just have Iraqis, Iranians, and Syrians all start wearing Star Trek expendables outfits, or at least the Middle Eastern equivalent thereof. Oh, that’s right, Middle Eastern garb and Muslim beards already qualify.
Angry David (a nod to my alter ego Angry Bob)