« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Today's Must Read
The Iran-U.S. PR battle is in full swing.
With word that the U.S. plans to offer public proof of Iran's hostile role in Iraq sometime this week, Iran's ambassador to Iraq suddenly agreed to an interview with The New York Times. Call it pre-emption:
[Ambassador Hassan Kazemi Qumi] ridiculed the evidence that the American military has said it collected, including maps of Baghdad delineating Sunni, Shiite and mixed neighborhoods — the kind of maps, American officials have said, that would be useful for militias engaged in ethnic slaughter. Mr. Qumi said the maps were so common and easily obtainable that they proved nothing.He declined to say whether he believed the maps bore sectarian markings or address other pieces of evidence the Americans said they had found, like manifests of weapons and material relating to the technology of sophisticated roadside bombs. But that is not why the Iranians were in the compound, he said.
And Qumi had something else up his sleeve for the U.S. -- following quickly on the Bush administration's confirmation Friday of their new strategy of "kill or capture" for Iranian agents in Iraq --: news that Iran planned to open a national bank in Iraq, "in effect creating a new Iranian financial institution right under the Americans’ noses," and that Iran had made offers of "military assistance" to Iraq.
All this was news to the U.S., it seemed, who would not respond to Qumi's statements until they'd made their way through "official routes."
Comments (39)
Diane wrote on January 29, 2007 10:01 AM:Did you see how CNN and fox wove the name of Iran into the discusssion of who was involved in the violence?
r€nato wrote on January 29, 2007 10:06 AM:Enough times that i wondered why nobody had noticed it before!
...furthermore, they have aerial maps showing buildings which are clearly nuclear weapons research facilities, and cute 3D graphics displaying mobile nuclear weapons labs...
M wrote on January 29, 2007 10:09 AM:...and recently, British intelligence has learned that Iran has tried to purchase yellowcake uranium from Niger...
benjoya wrote on January 29, 2007 10:20 AM:mohammed atta was iranian! he was personally trained by the mullahs!
Mark F. wrote on January 29, 2007 10:26 AM:"Did you see how CNN and fox wove the name of Iran into the discusssion of who was involved in the violence?"
CNN has definitely jumped on the propaganda train. This morning, Barbara Starr did a piece in which she repeatedly made reference to the "mountain of evidence" against Iran. This, one may assume, is similar to the mountain of evidence on Iraq's WMD. Toadies like Barbara Starr should be banned to the basement of the National Enquirer.
Richard L. Adlof wrote on January 29, 2007 10:37 AM:Dude! Sadam just saying that he was considering to trade in Oil-Euros instead of Oil-Dollars once sanctions were lifted got his country destroyed and himself hanged. Potentially providing actual financial assistance and thus showning up the 'Prince from the West' has gotta be worth a battle group or two just outside ones waters . . .
I can think of a half a dozen commitees or so that need to be sending daily supeonas to both elected officals in the Executive Branch and asking for cascading amounts of information.
Th wrote on January 29, 2007 10:44 AM:My favorite part of the Barbara Starr report was when Miles O'Brien mentioned that the Bush administration had no credibility and asked how they would overcome this problem. Starr did not seem to have anticipated that question, but acknowledged the problem.
Heraldblog wrote on January 29, 2007 10:55 AM:Am I crazy, or did the Iranian ambassador just hand the US an exit strategy? Military assistance? Iraqi Shiites are the sworn enemy of al Qaeda, and if memory serves me those were the folks that attacked us on 9/11. An Iranian bank in Iraq? That's how free market capitalism starts. Bush's vision has finally paid off. We have an Islamic ally in the war on terror, and a nascent free market economy. Let freedom ring!
couser wrote on January 29, 2007 10:58 AM:The rear page of the first section of Sunday's New York Times has a very nice map of Baghdad that shows in nicely muted hues the various neighborhoods of the city and their sectarian affiliation.
Is the left wing, liberal, American Press also in
couser wrote on January 29, 2007 11:05 AM:collusion with 'the enemy'?. What sort of underground coded messages are contained in those circles and photos added to the map?
Excuse me
pj in jesusland wrote on January 29, 2007 11:11 AM:I meant above, 'religious orientation', Sunni-Shiite et.al.
Al Qaeda, Iran, Iraqi Shia, Sunnis & Kurds, Syria, Hezbollah, Al Fatah -- they all have different agendas. But lumping them all into the same Axis of Evil is how Bush sells his foreign policy domestically -- creating an image of an enemy that is so large and menacing that nothing but all out warfare can confront it.
Deciding to rush 21,000 troops into harms way while Congress was still out of session makes any opponents of the escalation look like they aren't supporting the troops.
Bush's blinkered and oversimplified approach to Mideast politics is harming American interests. He needs to have the reins of power taken from him ASAP -- Congress needs to stand firm and not let Bush take us into yet another foolish military incursion.
jf wrote on January 29, 2007 11:16 AM:This is bad. It's bad because we've seen it before - there was a tipping point where it was clear no matter what Iraq and Hussein did we were gonna attack. Glenn Greenwald has made notes in his blog about how Rumsfeld, Cheney, and their lapdog pundits would say things to the effect of, "the fact that we haven't found WMDs is proof Hussein has them and is hiding them". It takes a truly warped mind to say and believe that but it was part of the discourse for YEARS.
This is happening again. Sketchy evidence is used as *proof* of Iranian involvement and the lack of better evidence is even more proof of involvement.
These guys have made up thier minds (no surprise there) and the "liberal media" is jumping on board. Pathetic.
Legalize wrote on January 29, 2007 11:30 AM:We never said that Iran had ties to terrorist organizations or that they had weapons of mass destruction.
Rich wrote on January 29, 2007 11:30 AM:Isn't the real problem that Maliki and the majority of the so called democratic government are more closely aligned with Iran than the U.S.? If so, exactly who are we there to support and why?
Cheryl wrote on January 29, 2007 12:03 PM:So at first Bush proudly talked about how it's an all "volunteer army" never mind the back-door draft - the lack of new recruits - BUT attack Iran, NOW, without the manpower would require a miltiary draft.
So what is Bush going to propose - a billion dollar fence along the Iran - Iraq border? Something to go along with his billion dollar military bases, spend, spend, spend? Bush is on a mission to make the GOP irrelevant, and with the exception of Sen. Hagel, (an ant among his fellow grasshoppers) no other GOPer seems to have a problem with leaping off the cliff.
BlueDog wrote on January 29, 2007 12:22 PM:There is an aspect of these stories on Iraq that is, possibly, enlightening. Our country is baring its teeth at Iran, telling it not to interfere in Iraq. We threaten to kill or capture Iranians.
Nowhere in any of these stories is there a discussion of the fact that Iraq is supposed to be a sovereign nation. Nowhere is there a discussion of whether Iranian 'interference' is resented by Iraq or possibly even welcomed.
Are we implicitly admitting that Iraq is a colony?
M. Pasulka wrote on January 29, 2007 12:44 PM:Is it me or is this conversation missing what I think is the main point: Iran has every right to a nuclear program if it so chooses to pursue that course. The United States has steadfastly refused to effectively remove any of its nuclear capability and this administration has exacerbated that by proposing further studies into the effectiveness of smaller nuclear weapons. The United States has also been the biggest contributor to worldwide proliferation, literally giving away enriched uranium to countless nations and allowing them to pursue their own nuclear programs. And now the world is supposed to take the Bush junta seriously when it speaks of the need to end nuclear proliferation? We have a severe credibility problem on our hands, and it's no wonder the world no longer listens when we speak on such matters.
ulla wrote on January 29, 2007 1:01 PM:There is no doupt that the war drums are getting louder in the Bush camp.
ulla wrote on January 29, 2007 1:08 PM:Bush is desperate and that is very dangerous. He is not going to be the loser he's allways been.
I'm keeping my eyes on a boat called Nimiz.
Nimitz
Dave wrote on January 29, 2007 1:49 PM:And the National Enquirer claims Saddam isn't even dead! I'd beleive that before most anything Bush has to say.
Karen wrote on January 29, 2007 3:25 PM:Where are the Democrats? I want them speaking out against attacking Iran. Loud and clear. No more "I was fooled" or "I voted for war as a last resort" weasels. And I'd like to know what their big contributors are telling them. Thats how we'll know whats really going to happen. Every contributor of more than $200 should have to sign a statement with his/her position on attacking Iran.
john wrote on January 29, 2007 3:32 PM:One story that seems to have been lost in all of this appeared in the Washington Post in October of 2006:
jawboner wrote on January 29, 2007 4:46 PM:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/03/AR2006100301577_pf.html
The title says it all: British Find No Evidence of Arms Traffic from Iran.
This is the only article on this subject that I have seen. If someone else knows of a follow-up piece, I for one would like to see it.
British Find No Evidence Of Arms Traffic From Iran
Troops in Southeast Iraq Test U.S. Claim of Aid for Militias
By Ellen Knickmeyer
Washington Post Foreign Service
Wednesday, October 4, 2006; A21
I checked out the article mentioned above by John @3:32PM--and, of course, it's in the back of the first section.
And will never be found by any WaPo editorial writer.
(C'mon, WaPo, prove me wrong!)
bjobotts wrote on January 29, 2007 5:21 PM:Were it not for the demands of the Democratic Congress & the growing Republican dissent plus a disapproving public, Bush would have already attacked Iran or at least got Israel to do it. I agree with this posted statement: If Bush/Cheney attack Iran without prior written consent of both houses of Congress they will be immediately impeached and removed from office. No excuses. It stops now gentlemen. We want accountability NOW. The surge is to stop immediate sectarian violence...right? Then if Irag & Iran want to work together we should be willing to work with both of them and anyone else who wants to help with reconstruction...right Condi? It's win-win all round as it can get us working with Iran and Israel etc. The diplomatic solution is upon us if we can just get this administration to stand down.
peter miller wrote on January 29, 2007 8:16 PM:The US has been targeting official Iranian diplomatic personnel in Iraq--people who have been invited or approved by the Iraqi government. And the Iraqi government has verbally objected to these attacks.
No one seems to have pointed out that these US actions are blatant denials of Iraqi sovereignty. If the US is right, and the Iraqis are aiding the 'insurgents,' then the Iraqi objections to the US are far more serious an issue than the Iranians themselves.
SeeDee wrote on January 29, 2007 10:01 PM:The one thing about the mass street protests staged by REAL Americans in Washington, D.C. (and elsewhere) last week-end that perturbed me somewhat was the lack of concern about Iran and the plans to expand the idiocy we generated in Iraq.
Understandably, every sane person wants an end to our escapade in Iraq, but, to me, the WORSE danger lies in not raising hell about the Bush/Cheney-Jewish Likudian agenda now propelling events in the White House to attack Iran.
Larry Aaron wrote on January 29, 2007 11:44 PM:Out of Iraq now. Stay out of Iran. I have strongly advocated these positions for more than three years in many hundreds of emails and many dozens of phone calls to media and legislators.
A note to commenter, SeeDee: I agree with your opinions, and I also happen to be Jewish. In your eyes, am I part of your "Jewish Likudian agenda"? Or are you making an accidental racist smear? Or is it intentional?
Check your biases at the door, SeeDee, whether they are conscious or unconscious.
Rusty wrote on January 29, 2007 11:53 PM:Observer Sat or Sunday edition repeated Britain
juliyya wrote on January 30, 2007 12:45 AM:has no evidence.
Articles in a global information gateway reported two related items today. First, an article in Sobhe Sadegh, the "mouthpiece" of Iran's Revolutionary Guard, the Pasdaran, threatened that the Guard would abduct U.S. troops in retaliation for U.S. kidnapping of 5 Iranian officials kidnapped recently in Erbil, unless Washington releases them. They also said that they'd retaliate against any further kidnapping of Iranian nationals in Iraq. Could this be the gift George Bush has been seeking?
Second, it's reported that Iran's supreme leader Ali Khamenei in a Tehran meeting with the Russian foreign minister called for an alliance between their respective countries to "stop U.S. ambitions to conquer the region" ... and "rule the world." Khamenei also suggested they create a cartel similar to Opec based on their ownership of an estimated 50 percent of the world's natural gas reserves between them.
SeeDee wrote on January 30, 2007 3:04 AM:Mr. Aaron, I would hope that your sensitivities are not too bruised...my apologies, if that is the case.
However, I DO NOT include all (or even most) Jews in the bloc of those who support the policies advocated by Natanyehu and associates. And, another thing, you can take all the umbrage you wish, but I grow weary of those Jews who automatically start shouting 'anti-Semitic', and 'racist', and 'biased' at everyone who utters any word of dissent with ANY policies of the State of Israel.
I happen to have strongly supported the re-establishment of the State of Israel, post WW II, (I even thought it should have happened in the 1920's or '30's) and, by and large, the most recent conflict excepted, have hoped for Jewish victories in their struggles with recalcitrant surrounding Arab States.
Do you think it is ultimately healthy for the Jewish minority in this country to continue a habit of pointing the finger of accusation at every person who speaks a dissenting word of ANY Jewish deed?
For your further info, given the six-decades long dependence of the State of Israel on the U.S., given our many intercessions in the U.N. on Israel's behalf, given the large amounts of military air GIVEN to Israel, I sorta feel like EVERY American, Jewish or otherwise, has a right to express an opinion on their foreign policies.
Again, sorry if you were offended, but you need to brush the 100-pound chip off your shoulder.
MP wrote on January 30, 2007 12:54 PM:hear, hear, seedee.
i'm bored of every criticism of israel and its policies being equated to anti-semitism by the american jewish community. they have completely stifled any real debate of america's proper role in the middle east. it is time to stop the hystreics and allow the conversation to begin, for such a debate is sorely needed here.
Travis wrote on January 31, 2007 6:52 AM:I love you!!!!
Sten2483 wrote on May 7, 2007 8:37 PM:[url=http://bignaturals.adultmister.com/de/Sexygirl.htm]Sexygirl[/url] * [url=http://bignaturals.adultmister.com/fr/Sexygirl.htm]Sexygirl[/url] * [url=http://bignaturals.adultmister.com/Sexygirl.htm]Sexygirl[/url] Sexygirl | Sexygirl | Sexygirl http://bignaturals.adultmister.com/de/Sexygirl.htm http://bignaturals.adultmister.com/fr/Sexygirl.htm http://bignaturals.adultmister.com/Sexygirl.htm
Asya wrote on September 29, 2007 1:23 AM:Hi, nice page.!
look on my pages:
associate international news profit
ok.. bitte
Asya wrote on September 29, 2007 1:23 AM:Hi, nice page.!
look on my pages:
associate international news profit
ok.. bitte
Oleg wrote on September 30, 2007 1:53 AM:Hi, nice page.!
look on my pages:
dedicated organization policy profit public
ok.. bitte
Oleg wrote on September 30, 2007 1:53 AM:Hi, nice page.!
look on my pages:
dedicated organization policy profit public
ok.. bitte
Savelea wrote on October 2, 2007 6:02 AM:Hi, nice page.!
look on my pages:
dedicated organization policy profit public
ok.. bitte
norest wrote on November 1, 2007 5:33 AM:How come that the people of USA cannot keep control of their own leaders? Even manage to elect Mr. Bush twice? Who is to blame? Mr. Bush or the people?