Comments (104)

naomi schiff wrote on February 14, 2007 1:03 PM:

I am astounded that no one brings up The Boy Who Cried Wolf as the operative metaphor.

anon wrote on February 14, 2007 1:04 PM:

It is helpful to remember that the only time George W. Bush is lying is when his lips are moving.

James wrote on February 14, 2007 1:11 PM:

Hold on, hold on. Selling (or giving) weapons to one side or another in a war zone is NOT "an act of war" against US forces or anyone else. If it were, the US would have committed and act of war against the Soviet Union in the 80's; the Soviet Union against the US in the 1960's; even neutralist Sweden would have committed "acts of war" over the years related to their arms exports.

Transferring arms may be a dirty business, but it is not illegal and NOT a casus belli by any stretch of law. It's a pretty common way of buying influence. France was accused of transferring surface-to-air missiles to Angolan rebels in the 90's in exchange for protection from attack against its oil interests in that country; the US, most famously, sold anti-tank missiles to Iran for influence back in the 80's. No one called these "acts of war."

It is what it is, but let's not be moving goalposts around.

annik wrote on February 14, 2007 1:15 PM:

It's a done deal.

eric wrote on February 14, 2007 1:15 PM:

Speaking of the Soviet Union, I'll bet there are quite a few Russian weapons being used in Iraq, as well.

When do we attack?

Phil A. wrote on February 14, 2007 1:15 PM:

I think it's a strong point that most of the U.S. IED deaths are coming from Sunni insurgents. Is there any evidence that Saudi government or citizens are fueling that aspect of the insurgency? Democrats should push this point.

on a sidenote,
Hey Spencer - a colleague of mine who saw you on CSPAN (a while back) said that I look like an older version of you!!
Weird. myspace link above....

Lugo wrote on February 14, 2007 1:15 PM:

Your "alternative explanations" - that the al Quds force might be operating with the approval of the Iranian government, or that "renegade" members of al Quds are selling weapons on the black market - are simply asinine.

Yes, of course the Iranian government has committed an act of war against U.S. troops. This is not even the first time they have done so. But you know what - we're not going to do a damn thing about it.

eric wrote on February 14, 2007 1:18 PM:

"Yes, of course the Iranian government has committed an act of war against U.S. troops. This is not even the first time they have done so. But you know what - we're not going to do a damn thing about it.

Posted by: Lugo"

Yes, I heard Boehner tell us yesterday that this all started with the hostages in the '70's. I am glad you got the talking points!

Paul McNamara wrote on February 14, 2007 1:19 PM:

I know this isn't exactly on point, but I can't help noting that the "Security Code" I've been asked to enter in order to post this comment is "blood." ... Maybe it *is* on point.

John H. Farr wrote on February 14, 2007 1:20 PM:

It is NOT an "emotionally compelling stance," it's just bullshit. Any attack on Iran is immoral unless we're attacked first. THAT's the compelling stance.

jeffs wrote on February 14, 2007 1:20 PM:

Where's Ahmed Chalabi in all this? What's he have to say about Iranian influence?

Wouldn't he be a trusted source?

redford wrote on February 14, 2007 1:23 PM:

Here's a thought....If we weren't in Iraq, those weapons wouldn't be used against our troops.

Hey Doc, I keep getting a sharp pain when I raise my right arm. What should I do?
Doc: Stop raising your right arm.

Too simplistic? No. We have been fighting phantom enemies since the beginning and ShrubCo. has manufactured these boogeymen throughout. Just get out and the phantoms disappear.

That's not to say we shouldn't(nice double negative) do whatever it takes to make our country secure and to get bin Laden.

I'd like to have Rep. Weiner(NY) follow every chickenhawk's spew by saying, "Are you an idiot?" He has a great speaking style and I'm not sure, but I think he and Rep. Wasserman-Schultz are twins.(just kidding) Anyone else notice how similar their speaking styles are?

Old Larry wrote on February 14, 2007 1:24 PM:

"anon" is dead wrong. Bush doesn't lie. He actually believes Cheney.

Kenai wrote on February 14, 2007 1:24 PM:

Clearly, it is time for a resolution directing the President to get permission from Congress before attacking Iran.

Parallel Universe wrote on February 14, 2007 1:25 PM:

James: THANK YOU!!!!! Exactly right.

Those who start unprovoked wars of aggression hardly have a right to complain when people fight back.

Neal wrote on February 14, 2007 1:27 PM:

Why make these stements:

Waving the bloody shirt, inciting passions.

Makes it possible to call the Democrats who want to leave Iraq as Iranian appeasers.

Shores up calling the Iraq war a part of a wider conflict against evil-doers.

Blames the Iranians for this administration's incompetence.

Makes way for action against Iran by hiding it as a mere extension of the war with Iraq.

Fulfils his pledge to deal with all 3 members of the axis of evil.

Dennis wrote on February 14, 2007 1:27 PM:

Well, Lugo, your country and mine can never make up its mind which side it's on either. Regardless of the various countries involved, we have a whole damned history of bait and switch according to who's in the White House.

And keep in mind that during the Iran/Iraq war, for awhile we sold weapons to both sides.

The fact remains that GWB has used the American military like it's his own private damned army while a pissant congress stands around wringing its hands and crying "Woe is me, woe is me - if I vote against it I might not be re-elected."

You don't have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

JohnW wrote on February 14, 2007 1:29 PM:

When Bush said 'We KNOW for certainty that the EFPs coming in from Iran for attacks on U.S. forces originate with the Qods Forces.."

The reporter should have said; "You said that about Iraq and WMD too."

Mo wrote on February 14, 2007 1:30 PM:

"U.S.: Crashed Copter Was Shot Down in Iraq"
From the AP today.
"The Marine CH-46 troop transport went down northwest of Baghdad on Feb. 7, killing all seven people on board, and an al-Qaida-linked Sunni group claimed responsibility and aired a video."

The video has been on youtube since the 9th (search "sea knight crash"). The clip isn't great, but it is clearly some kind of guided missile. We have our good Saudi friends to thank for that.

workaday joe wrote on February 14, 2007 1:30 PM:

"Clearly, it is time for a resolution"

Close, it's time for mass civil disobedience.

This is it. Either we drag the world into WWIII for the oil and defense folks or we don't.

Ursus wrote on February 14, 2007 1:30 PM:

You, along with most commenters, seem to accept the basic assertion that at least some parts of the EFPs were manufactured in Iran. Evidence of this seems to consist of photographs of parts of these devices. Those parts show writing in the Roman alphabet, serial numbers and dates and some words, in English.

I have not yet seen an explanation of why Iranian ordnance would have marking other than in Persian script with dates from their own calendar. Any why use English? Is ordnance like international air traffic control?

The only explanation I have seen of this oddity is that the ordnance likely did not originate in Iran but came to Iraq by way of Iran. But, if that is the case, then the markings are no evidence at all that the source was Iran.

Am I missing something?

Shouldn't this be the subject of pointed questions?

PrahaPartizan wrote on February 14, 2007 1:32 PM:

Why haven't the Democrats educated the reporters in the MSM in the basic logical theorem that you can't prove a negative. The responsibility for proving the assertion lies with the person trying to make the case. Those arguing the negative need only destroy the positive assertions being put forward. Are the reporters and editors in our media that brain-dead these days to not understand this basic fact? How did they ever graduate from college without having encountered it?

Carol wrote on February 14, 2007 1:33 PM:

Oh, Kenia, how about a resolution to force Bush to follow his constitutionally legally required permission from Congress before he starts a war?

ebw wrote on February 14, 2007 1:33 PM:

Bush is a danger to our nation, as a consequence of his ignorance, mendacity & incompetence.

* His lies vis-a-vis Iran are transparent (to the thinking person).

* His recklessness vis-a-vis "who cares" who provided IED is insane (to the moral person).

* His hypocrisy is astounding (and, obvious to anyone with brains).

Bush places Americans overseas in danger & our nation in peril, because should an American attack a foreigner-- the foreign government can decry "who cares" (whether our U.S. government was implicated)... Bush does not comprehend his own criminal acts.

Bush's disgraceful & childish behaviour at the press conference today is shameful.

Ergo, Bush should be impeached immediately!

Simple wrote on February 14, 2007 1:34 PM:

Why is it that Ahmadinejad is more credible than Bush and he's a f@#king madman.

ebw wrote on February 14, 2007 1:36 PM:

P.S. It is not clear that the IEDs were produced and/or provided by Iran.

Why should we believe Bush when he is a pathological liar-- and, lied about Iraq WMDs in order to grab OIL & follow the wishes of the Knesset?

How do we know that the U.S. (and/or Israel) did not plant the so-called "Iran" weaponry?

Would anyone (with brains) really put-it-past this corrupt neo-con cabal to do anything (and, I mean absolutely anything) in order to achieve their sordid, squalid & bloody agenda? (If you think not-- please study recent history!)

Clyde wrote on February 14, 2007 1:37 PM:

There is an alternative explanation for the EFPs that no one seems to have mentioned. They could easily have been planted by the U.S. forces as an excuse for invasion of Iran. Does anyone remember Hitler's excuse for the invasion of Poland? He dressed a bunch of prisoners in Polish uniforms and killed them several miles into Germany and claimed the Poles had invaded Germany.

No one has ever overestimated the degree of deceit and criminality that this Bush/Cheney cabal is capable of.

bjobotts wrote on February 14, 2007 1:39 PM:

What is our congress waiting for? The "mess" becomes more overwhelming each day it continues. Take the power away before Bush attacks Iran not after. Most of the country is screaming for this to stop. Start Impeachment proceedings now. The "worst" presidency in history and he's still in office. This is why we put democrats back in office to rid us of this "mess".

Jemand von Niemand wrote on February 14, 2007 1:42 PM:

Re; James' comment, "Transferring arms may be a dirty business, but it is not illegal and NOT a casus belli by any stretch of law. It's a pretty common way of buying influence... ", I agree.

Apparently it isn't an act of war unless that incompetent, smirking frat-boy sock-puppet says it is.

benjoya wrote on February 14, 2007 1:43 PM:

redford, don't put your hope in anthony whiner. on the house floor yesterday, he prefaced his remarks by saying: we know iran is suppoying weapons that kill US troops." he's a complete POS, the only problem he has with war on iran is that bush will take "credit" for it.

security word for me: wound. how apropos

Simple wrote on February 14, 2007 1:50 PM:

1. Attacks on our troops are overwhelmingly coming from Sunni Nationalists, Sunni Fundamentalists and Sunni Baathists. Al Qaeda is Sunni, not Shiite.
2. It is highly improbable that Iran is giving Iraqi Sunnis anything at all.
3. IF Iran is supplying munitions to the Iraqi Shiites they are most likely being used to blow up Sunnis.

Tell me again why this is an act of war against America?

District Democrat wrote on February 14, 2007 1:50 PM:

I'm getting tired of the use of the obtuse "critics say/some people say" interrogatives that video journalists use.

Whether it's used to perpetuate an opposition's talking point "Some people say you're "X" (where x = a bad thing) or to protect themselves from reprisal for asking a pointed question "critics say you're using the same faulty intelligence ..." it's all BS.

Are there no more Edward R. Murrows? Has journalism become that profit oriented?

Either ask the pointed question or use the critic's name ... A BS question is going to get a BS answer. It's time the WH press corps grew a collective spine.

discodave310 wrote on February 14, 2007 1:50 PM:

"Clearly, it is time for a resolution directing the President to get permission from Congress before attacking Iran."

No, it won't stop Bush from attacking if the issue is framed as he's doing it here which is precisely why its being framed in this way.

yglesias would have made the same point but with alot more personal pronouns

Greg wrote on February 14, 2007 1:51 PM:

What I've not heard anyone say yet, but is another obvious question:

There were scandals we read about just a few months ago related to inability to track the weapons that we, the USA, imported into Iraq. We've also read about infiltration of the Iraqi Army by members of various militia, with whom our Army has also clashed, right? Undoubtedly, some of those weapons have fallen into the hands of individuals who have used them to attack American soldiers.

ergo, what? If we're preparing to make war on Iran we should also prepare to make war on ourselves?

Dennis wrote on February 14, 2007 1:54 PM:

Posted by: PrahaPartizan
Date: February 14, 2007 01:32 PM Why haven't the Democrats educated the reporters in the MSM in the basic logical theorem that you can't prove a negative."

Could it have something to do with the fact that 90% of the MSM are owned and controlled by Republicans? And that's fact!

You don't have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

Supdog wrote on February 14, 2007 1:55 PM:

On why Persian ordnance reflects Roman writing, might I suggest two words?

Iran Contra.

However, like other commentators, I am hardly convinced of this "proof" asserting the materials in question came from Iran...

In the end, I think this is just a dog and pony show. Bush will inevitably order a bombing campaign within a few weeks/months and all of this will become irrelevant because then he will have begun a real war.
Remember, Bush invaded Iraq because he KNEW Hussein had no WMDs. (It is not, nor has it ever been, US policy to attack countries that can launch a significant counteroffensive)

pj in jesusland wrote on February 14, 2007 2:01 PM:

How may of Bush's "plans" for Iraq do 70 percent of Americans have to oppose before we find a way to make it clear we don't just oppose Bush's plan de jour but his fundamental premise for sending US troops to Iraq in the first place?

erica wrote on February 14, 2007 2:05 PM:

You know, I don't agree that it's incumbent on critics to make the case that the attacks on US soldiers AREN'T coming from Iran. It's incumbent on critics to analyze what the information means and to suggest appropriate responses if the administration is not doing so. Taking a yes/no stance ignores the reality of the situation, which is that there are a lot of players doing a lot of things for a lot of different reasons. (Plus as someone pointed out earlier, it's tough to prove a negative.)

If Iranian players are indeed providing these weapons, then questions should be asked about who and why. If the Iranian goal is to further confuse the Americans about who their enemies are while hanging on to the moral high ground in their neck of the woods, they are doing a very good job.

And hey, what's up with the macabre code words?

Dennis wrote on February 14, 2007 2:07 PM:

pj, the only times Americans matter to the government are election times, times of large civil protest, epidemics and the 15th of April. The rest of the time the American voter/public can go to hell.

You don't have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

dc wrote on February 14, 2007 2:11 PM:

Well, at least these are "conventional" weapons. Can somebody tell me if it was an act of war when Rumsfeld visited Sadam and the US gave him nerve gas and other weaponry and intelligence to use against Iran?

dc

sholom wrote on February 14, 2007 2:11 PM:

Why English markings?

The answer is here: http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002556.php

Short summary: it's in English to make it easier to sell, to widen the market.

jen wrote on February 14, 2007 2:12 PM:

Why isn't the question, "So what?" asked. Over, and over, and over again.

biggerbox wrote on February 14, 2007 2:13 PM:

Bush's ability to "know" things may one day become worthy of study by epistemologists. He "knows" things that aren't true, and he "knows" things he himself admits he doesn't have evidence for.

It brings up such interesting questions like, "what is knowledge?" and "how do we know things?"

He's not only the Decider, he's the Knower.

P J Evans wrote on February 14, 2007 2:14 PM:

We sold lots of munitions to Iran before the fall of the Shah. We sold lots of munitions to Iraq during their war with Iran. We sell stuff to the Saudis, to Turkey, and to Jordan (not to mention Israel). Anyone want to bet that none of those are going to turn up in Iraq? They'd all be marked in Roman letters too. (And none of that proves anything about who's supplying the insurgents.)

JB wrote on February 14, 2007 2:28 PM:

Bush didn't answer the significant part of the question - whether he is making a case for war against Iran.

Delia wrote on February 14, 2007 2:31 PM:

Bush's strange ability to "know" things independent of any sort of empirical reality is the source of Colbert's "Truthiness" meme.

And someone wanted to know about the Boy Who Cried Wolf. Here's Oliphant a couple of days ago
http://news.yahoo.com/comics/uclickcomics/20070212/cx_po_uc/po20070212;_ylt=Am40ygDASgSCxAqFuf4jvdM0vTYC

Paul P wrote on February 14, 2007 2:32 PM:

Remember the earlier TPM post asking what the beginning of war with Iran would be prompted by...this seems to fit some of those criteria for fabricated non-event...

WPT wrote on February 14, 2007 2:34 PM:

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

Despite whether or not the Bush Administration is Iran-phobic, the absolute best way to control this whole issue is to open a dialog with Iran.

1watt wrote on February 14, 2007 2:40 PM:

The newest troubling development is the November 2006 release of an audit, conducted by the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, revealing that of more than half a million U.S. weapons legally transferred to Iraq, the serial numbers of only 2 percent of these weapons were recorded, resulting in “major discrepancies” in records of the weapons’ whereabouts. According to the Inspector General’s report, the United States purchased 370,000 weapons at a total cost of $133 million. These weapons range from pistols and assault rifles to heavy machine guns and rocket launchers. But the Special Inspector General’s report highlights a problem the U.S. is now facing: the United States has no idea what happened to the majority of weapons it brought into the country. What we do know, however, is that these weapons are being used to perpetuate the violence and continued instability throughout Iraq.

more: http://tinyurl.com/2h253b

BigUnit47 wrote on February 14, 2007 2:44 PM:

Weren't Roosevelt and Churchill involved in lend-lease in the course of the run-up to WW2, to provide equipment/munitions to the Allies vs. the Nazi invasion of western Europe? Certainly they might have found plenty of American-made paraphernalia on the battlefields of France...and doesn't the US have a (incredibly shrinking) "coalition" that "brings their own" to this ghastly "party"? Isn't this a WAR, where it's assumed whoever's fighting will do whatever they need to do to "win"? That includes the Kurds, Shi'a, Sunni, and any others who have engaged...

Just because our wayward executive branch wants to pick a fight doesn't mean they're able to define the precise rules of engagement...

r€nato wrote on February 14, 2007 2:45 PM:

As has been pointed out above, the US supplied Stinger missiles to the mujahideen in Afghanistan, for use in shooting down Soviet choppers. It's what turned the tide of the Afghani insurgency - the Afghans made road travel unsafe, and then with the Stingers they denied safe transit via helicopter to the Soviets.

It wasn't even 'rogue US arms dealers' who were responsible for the Stingers - it was US government policy to supply arms to the Afghans.

Yet the USSR never considered this an act of war against it by the US. Proxy wars happen all the time and are never considered acts of aggression between the nations supplying the combatants.

They are just running the same old playbook. It's all they've got. Their number is up. No one is buying it this time. All you have to do is read the daily headlines about Iraq to remember where that kind of thinking got us before.

John Fullerton wrote on February 14, 2007 2:50 PM:

The lack of resolve on behalf of both the Republicans and Democrats to end U.S. imperialism in the Middle East is explained simply by the idiom: where the politics are low, the stakes are high. The stakes are the profits to be made with supporting the agenda of the war-mongering
White House AND Congress.

Convince me that I am wrong.

Aunt Deb wrote on February 14, 2007 3:04 PM:

Well, gosh. Do I only get two choices?? Where's the third door?

But seriously folks, what's worse -- us ordering torture from on high and it happening or us not ordering torture from on high and it happening?

lestatdelc wrote on February 14, 2007 3:07 PM:

"They are just running the same old playbook. It's all they've got. Their number is up. No one is buying it this time"

I realyl wish I could believe that. But the cynic in me is mortified that more than enough will buy it.

Mark F. wrote on February 14, 2007 3:08 PM:

This is the same guy who, when asked by Diane Sawyer to respond to the fact that no WMD were found in Iraq replied, "So? What's the difference?"

King George will not be denied.

ghostscript wrote on February 14, 2007 3:08 PM:

erica: "It's incumbent on critics to analyze what the information means and to suggest appropriate responses if the administration is not doing so."

Sounds like a case for Doug Feith.

Hedley Lamarr wrote on February 14, 2007 3:24 PM:

Why does this man continue to push for the destruction of Iraq, our armed forces, our treasury, and our reputation?

putanm wrote on February 14, 2007 3:28 PM:

More questions should be asked about weapons originating in Saudi Arabia that go to Sunni forces fighting the US. You know, Saudi Arabia - where most of the 9/11 hijackers were from.

But such questions don't matter. King George has a date with destiny. Once we're in a bigger war, he will seize more powers. That's what it's all about.

NCBlueneck wrote on February 14, 2007 3:49 PM:

Bush's ability to "know" things may one day become worthy of study by epistemologists. He "knows" things that aren't true, and he "knows" things he himself admits he doesn't have evidence for.

It brings up such interesting questions like, "what is knowledge?" and "how do we know things?"

He's not only the Decider, he's the Knower.

Posted by: biggerbox
Date: February 14, 2007 02:13 PM
_______________________________________________
Brings to mind the mideaval debate: "How many angels can dance on head of a pin-head"?

Tom Scudder wrote on February 14, 2007 3:55 PM:

Ursus: I honestly don't know a lot about the specific situation in Iran, but in a lot of Arabic-speaking countries, people routinely use Western-style numbers ("arabic numerals") on things like license plates, technical documents, written reports, et cetera. I've read a number of reports where the only latin characters were the numbers, and maybe a few acronyms.

ShorelineCT wrote on February 14, 2007 4:11 PM:

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/14/cnns-ed-henry-presses-bush-on-contradictions-in-iran-intelligence/

ED_HENRY: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to follow up on Iran one more time. Are you saying, today, that you do not know if senior members of the Iranian government are, in fact, behind these explosives?

That contradicts what U.S. officials said in Baghdad on Sunday. They said the highest levels of the Iranian government were behind this. It also — it seems to square with what General Pace has been saying, but contradicts with what your own press secretary said yesterday. What…

BUSH: Can I — let me — I can’t say it more plainly: There are weapons in Iraq that are harming U.S. troops because of the Quds Force. As you know, I hope, the Quds Force is a part of the Iranian government. Whether Ahmadinejad ordered the Quds Force to do this, I don’t think we know. But we do know that they’re there. And I intend to do something about it. And I’ve asked our commanders to do something about it. And we’re going to protect our troops.

ED_HENRY: But given some of those contradictions, Mr. President…

BUSH: There’s no contradiction that the weapons are there and they were provided by the Quds Force…

ED_HENRY: What assurances can you give the American people that the intelligence this time will be accurate?

BUSH: Ed, We know they’re there. We know they’re provided by the Quds Force. We know the Quds Force is a part of the Iranian government. I don’t think we need who picked up the phone and said to the Quds Force, Go do this, but we know it’s a vital part of the Iranian government.

What matters is, is that we’re responding. The idea that somehow we’re manufacturing the idea that the Iranians are providing IEDs is preposterous. My job is to protect our troops. And when we find devices that are in that country that are hurting our troops, we’re going to do something about it, pure and simple.

Now, David says: Does this mean you’re trying to have a pretext for war? No. It means I’m trying to protect our troops. That’s what that’s means. And that’s what the family members of our soldiers expect the commander in chief and those responsible for — responsible for our troops on the ground.

Delia wrote on February 14, 2007 4:24 PM:

Remember when it came right down to it, in 1939, the Wehrmacht dressed some Polish prisoners of war in German uniforms, shot them and left them lying on the German side of the border. Then they claimed that Poland had invaded Germany. It's always possible to manufacture an excuse, even if no one believes you.

toimeme wrote on February 14, 2007 4:49 PM:

How many AMERICAN/western weapons are used against American forces in Iraq? Is the President gonna take out Cheney for that?

jimbo92107 wrote on February 14, 2007 4:58 PM:

Maybe the Iraqi WMD's were under his podium. Why didn't reporters suggest he look there?

Funny how Bush doesn't care if the Iranian government was behind supplying Sunni (!) insurgents with IED's.

Shiias supplying Sunnis? Anything odd about that?

Anonymous wrote on February 14, 2007 5:01 PM:

This has gone beyond infuriating. The Iran talk is just to divert our attention from Iraq. The tricks are getting very old.

DallasNE wrote on February 14, 2007 5:13 PM:

The argument over the source of weapons is so specious. Less than a month ago 5 Americans were killed near Najaf. We later learned that they were killed by people wearing American uniforms, carrying American weapons and spoke English.

As far as the Iranian made weapons in the hands of Sunni insurgents, we know that Hezbolla knocked out several Israeli tanks with weapons like this. The guess is that some of those Hezbolla weapons have filtered back on the black market through Syria and into Iraq.

Even if a direct link could be established between Iran and shipment of weapons into Iraq it still would not be cause for starting a war with Iran. When we provided the Stinger missiles to Afghanistan rebels fighting the Soviet Union in their occupation of Afghanistan the Soviet Union did not launch an attack against the United States.

Rather than fear and smear we need clear thinking and a workable strategic plan. Right now we have an excess of fear and smear and next to nothing in the way of clear thinking or a workable strategic plan. That will only come with a change in administrations.

Evergreen wrote on February 14, 2007 6:25 PM:

Some US bullets are made in China...ergo China is responsible for the middle east problems?

And remember that even US uniforms are being used by some of our attackers....so perhaps the enemy, as they say, is us?

And what about Saudi Arabians supplying millions $$$ to the Sunni's for war supplies?

All the world is involved in the OIL Wars for pete's sake.

Stop sending our kids to a futile death, develope alternative energies, get the corporations out of our government, get our tax dollars out of the military industrial complex and rebuild America for Americans. No more America by and for the Corporations please!!!

Michael Steinberg wrote on February 14, 2007 9:27 PM:

Members of Congress, we know that insurgents have used Iraqi Army uniforms to gain access to locations where they have killed and injured members of our military. Our intelligence has proved that these uniforms were produced only in the United States, and co0uld only have been supplied by agents of the United States government. We cannot allow this to continue. For this reason, with heavy heart, I ask you for authorization to take all military actions I deem necessary to protect American soldiers from the threat created by the United States....

victoid wrote on February 14, 2007 10:29 PM:

Sure there are Iranian armaments being used in Iraq, and some are killing and wounding American troops. But how many Soviet-era weapons are there in insurgent and militia hands? Enough to kill more than 170 of our troops? What is the provenance of other arms from the glut of weaponry on the global black market? Does anyone know?

One source that we do know of is from the post-inavasion looting of massive weapons caches in Iraq itself. Our failure to secure these sites has surely resulted in exponentially more American combat deaths than from any Iranian-sourced arms.

(Al-Qaqaa, Baqouba and Muthanna are three locations cited in this article): http://www.veteransforamerica.org/index.cfm/Page/Article/ID/2330

melior wrote on February 15, 2007 2:28 AM:

Acting all outraged about this now seems kinda silly after the Bushies were leaking reports widely before the midterm elections that "secret forces" from the US were already inside Iran.

They think people don't remember their last helping of crap?

chabuka wrote on February 15, 2007 3:52 PM:

So let me get this straight in my mind..Bush blames the Iranian "government" either way...guilty by either knowing or not knowing..(kind of like the WTC attack over here..?.."we were completely unprepared" "we just never dreamed"..blah, blah, blah...don't blame us!! Blame those burger flippin' morons in private security) So does that mean that Bush blames Iran for NOT spying on its citizens, running rough shod over them, by NOT encroaching on civil liberties..as HE does..? You still think you live in a Democratic Republic...?

grrr wrote on February 15, 2007 5:11 PM:

They are going to do it. Bush/Cheney/Rove have already made up their mind. Maybe this will be a blessing. After they order the attack, the argument for impeachment will be unassailable. Congress will have to impeach them.

Maybe we will even get the criminal prosecution that these disgusting traitors to our nation thoroughly deserve.

If our Congress does the right thing and holds Bush/Cheney/Rove accountable, we'll actually have a chance to get our national dignity back.

greensmile wrote on February 16, 2007 9:52 AM:

naomi: the way we say it is "the boy who cried wolfowitz"

Spencer reports "...IEDs are coming from Sunni insurgents who are opposed to the people Iran supports -- a fact that some believe points to the black market...." and I think "some believe" understates the obvious strengths of this view.
This is a cogent listing of details for why we should demand an order of magnitude greater deliberation and proof from an administration of known liars before we go killing Iranians.

Beyond the bits of overblown factoids, please consider the moral calculus behind finding excuses to widen a war by cherrypicking the perfectly predictable consequences of starting the war in the first place. You who are against the warring don't need evidence any more than sonofabush does...he knows what he wants, you know what is right.

greensmiles html wrote on February 16, 2007 10:03 AM:

[note to TPMmuckraker webmaster: I understand the need for the precaution of filtering out html tags. Not every poster here is our friend and some will hack rather than rebutt or have no cause but their own malice or greed. But since most comment tools do allow linking, it would be a kindness if you more prominently announced that TPM is an exception. Thanks for reading this.]

In my previous comment, I wanted to link to my own post that tries to expand and explain that first sentence in the last paragraph of the comment:
http://pithingcontest.blogspot.com/2007/02/iq-could-also-stand-for.html

James wrote on February 16, 2007 10:42 AM:

The stupidity of Bush and the compunded stupidity of the reporters who buy his garbage!

Wasn't that US and Bush who speeded up the shipments of "cluster bombs" to Israel, via UK airports as the refueling points, WHILE Israel was bombing Lebanon's Civilian infrastructure and killing innocent people?

I wonder why that was not such a prominent news item or even the slightest of blame?

But now, let me see, "the machining on the tail of one roadside bombs, shows that an Iranian dog relieved itself on it!"
"The evidence is indisputable and is 100% proof of the Iranian President's involvement, because 5 years ago, before he became a president, he called Bush a Rabid dog and this at the time that there was an Iranian alsation in Tehran!"

Now who dares to challenge that!

jimmy@hotmail.com wrote on April 26, 2007 12:14 PM:

penis abrasion

dmitry@gmail.com wrote on April 29, 2007 10:06 AM:

Generic Cialis. Buy Generic Cialis

rice@gmail.com wrote on April 29, 2007 11:31 PM:

Generic Viagra. Buy Generic Viagra

nikolas@gmail.com wrote on April 30, 2007 2:08 PM:

hello

harry@gmail.com wrote on May 1, 2007 2:51 AM:

hello

clar@gmail.com wrote on May 6, 2007 2:27 PM:

hello

dofyatk qwfe wrote on May 29, 2007 5:19 PM:

xcjfmlhw nadik hqeb mnej yzapm olmy vgdub

fztjcy efwsp wrote on May 29, 2007 5:20 PM:

xbou fmtxup gpqcwafi gubojkcfz hpnbakw urxd yhugkjdi http://www.vxftgaeod.mciv.com

xsawr noqweumi wrote on May 29, 2007 5:21 PM:

whcnx rpafjcdu naqtkiyec tymnclxr rltou kdqxj jbnyxsifl [URL=http://www.vxomcjn.meuizyak.com]ewobk vcpnfh[/URL]

wsgrj ulkhtscx wrote on May 29, 2007 5:22 PM:

yzheplif thgaxysun wdhcesa iemwaq jqfkncid swmtka jitnor [URL]http://www.kqvu.jqhluka.com[/URL] etjpwx zetfy

oeblla wrote on June 25, 2007 6:11 AM:

Strip Poker

qtqmiw wrote on June 25, 2007 7:45 PM:

Strip Poker

jjbyjw wrote on June 27, 2007 11:54 AM:

Viagra

avbdko wrote on June 28, 2007 6:41 AM:

Viagra

makpgi wrote on June 28, 2007 8:50 PM:

Levitra

fbobni wrote on June 30, 2007 4:08 PM:

Discount Viagra

vzygcd wrote on July 1, 2007 4:18 AM:

Party Poker

lobdng wrote on July 1, 2007 6:37 PM:

Adult Poker

cfzaga wrote on July 1, 2007 9:06 PM:

Strip Game

xgpwut wrote on July 2, 2007 12:00 PM:

Order Viagra

oabrup wrote on July 5, 2007 8:54 PM:

Buy Levitra

GeorgeBush30 wrote on July 25, 2007 3:07 PM:

when was billy talent born brandy taylor brandy talore brandy dahl as blood runs black ians zoo links reed dollaz lou bega emmy rossum g324fa4-sdf3-67bd5-v4dm-qp7fi-vqu91c
darwin adwards

kilka wrote on July 31, 2007 12:51 PM:

gmc trucks here www.gmctruck.fora.pl
gmc from america www.gmctruck.fora.pl
real gmc www.gmctruck.fora.pl

and www.emeraldring.fora.pl rings

Aurora Snow wrote on August 12, 2007 1:54 PM:

Aurora Snow

Alaura Eden wrote on August 12, 2007 1:57 PM:

Alaura Eden

tgryzhijchertvs wrote on September 13, 2007 7:18 PM:

WOW, my fatcher boght a new computer for me today!

Anonymous wrote on September 18, 2007 3:30 PM:

boxes.chrysanthemum folks canonic pedant Stendhal carbonizes?- Tons of interesdting stuff!!!

Alesha wrote on September 29, 2007 4:42 AM:

Hi, nice page.!
look on my pages:
associate career international profit

ok.. bitte

free music for ipod wrote on October 7, 2007 11:01 PM:

Hi, there!..2ba406bf08131cdc0432262ca3dcc480