Comments (36)

Unholy Moses wrote on February 14, 2007 3:12 PM:

" ... Therefore, the actions of that force are the responsibility of that government ... "
--Nicholas Burns

If that's the case, then shouldn't our government be held responsible for Abu Grahib? Shouldn't the loss of every innocent life in Iraq be laid at the feet of Bush, Cheney, Rummy, et al?

Or does that standard only apply to other governments?

NCProsecutor wrote on February 14, 2007 3:14 PM:

No, Moses, not other governments -- just other governments which we oppose.

P J Evans wrote on February 14, 2007 3:18 PM:

So who's responsible for the Sunni militants? Us, or the Saudis? (Why am I getting this feeling that the only way out is through taking up pitchforks and torches?)

Hedley Lamarr wrote on February 14, 2007 3:28 PM:

I just checked Wikipedia and found a new entry under "Pot Calling the Kettle Black" referencing Burns' comments regarding Iran exacerbating the war in Iraq.

Legalize wrote on February 14, 2007 3:29 PM:

Interesting. They're using legalistic language to lie about their intentions, and justify their pending unlawful behavior in a completely different manner this time around.

oldtree wrote on February 14, 2007 3:30 PM:

correct me please: Are we still talking about 81mm mortar shells not made in Iran? or is this something else?

always like it when there is no proof, just buttwipers that say it is conclusive. the cheney of command uses anyone with a mouth to say what they want to be heard, and how.

it must be very difficult teaching the monkey his lines though?

R wrote on February 14, 2007 3:32 PM:

Okay,

I've got a handle on this Administrations rationale. It makes PERFECT sense.

Now, will someone in the press corps ask this question.

"What percentage of the IED's are made up of munitions looted from the Depot's that were UNDER AMERICAN supervision after the invasion?"

"If the hijackers of 9/11 were living in America, does that make the U.S. responsible for their actions? Or do we place blame on Saudi Arabia, as the country of residence for most of them?"

And finally, "If the U.S. allowed Iraq the use of deadly WMD against the Kurds, (indeed supplied the chemical munitions) does that make the U.S responsible for the atrocities?"

Why can't the press corp asked intelligent follow ups?

Oh. I forgot. I thought they were journalists.

Kerryinalaska wrote on February 14, 2007 3:32 PM:

Can anyone stop this bullshit administration from going to war with Iran? Iran is not a present, or future, threat, yet. it is unfricking believable that this cabal will do what it pleases without listening to the people who are against this. A coup has been wrung out on the people of our once great country, a coup engineered and spearheaded by dick chinney, the heart cowboy. What a country. Not. Can we please impeach and imprison these idiots now?

Bigdaddy wrote on February 14, 2007 3:33 PM:

So, then we will be attacking Pakistan? We all know that thier intellegnce service (I think it is the ISI) has supported and continues to support the Taliban.

Jim B wrote on February 14, 2007 3:38 PM:

Um, hold on. Nick Burns is one really upstanding, career diplomat, and the quote you highlighted above does not say what the headline says he said, unless I'm missing something. He said, "If that force is supplying technology for Shiite militants, that government is responsible."

That little word "if" counts for a lot.

Maybe there was another part of his talk in which he flat out said the Iranian government is responsible for the munitions? If so, please highlight that.

SkippyFlipjack wrote on February 14, 2007 3:39 PM:

I disagree that he's going beyond what Bush said -- he's saying exactly what Bush said. When Bush asked "what's worse, ['top echelons' of the iranian government] ordering it and it happening, or them not ordering it and it's happening?", he was in effect saying "someone at some level ordered it, and I don't care who it was." which is exactly what Burns is saying -- regardless of who actually approved it, if anyone within their government is responsible, the government as a whole is responsible.

That Guy wrote on February 14, 2007 3:39 PM:

Or, said another way 2 + 2 = 5.

Richard wrote on February 14, 2007 3:51 PM:

Folks...I was shot with an M-16 while serving in Milli arty district 1 in Vietnam. The manufacture of that weapon was Colt..the guys in Windsor Locks Conn. I never considered the fact VC had their weapons to mutually include collusion between the two. Most of the explosive "Booby Traps" Used by the VC utilized an American 155 or 105 mm howitzer shell as the explosive. I just don't think those Howitzer batteries were in collusion with the VC or was the US Government.
This is really a crap argument. In a combat zone weapons flow like water in the Nile. You can get whatever you want and as much of it as you want. The Black markets are in the open, in your face and cheap!!!! I am sure there are weapons from all over the world in that hot spot as that is where money and guns are hooking up.

Eerl4 wrote on February 14, 2007 3:52 PM:

Firstly, Following Burns's logic, IF elements of the Iraqi defense force are supplying munitions to militia groups then will the Maliki administration be held equally culpable? Secondly, perhaps I just haven't seen it yet but has Bush Corp actually shown any evidence regarding the proliferation from Qods to Shiite groups or is this another case of "Would we lie to you?"

Rory wrote on February 14, 2007 3:54 PM:

Q. Mr. President, between [fill in beginning date] and [fill in concluding date] the U.S. supplied money and weapons to forces opposing the government and armed forces of [fill in the nation]. Those forces used our assistnace to kill and injure soldiers and citizens of [same nation]. Should [same nation] have made war on the U.S. on account of that?

A. Huh?

John Telesar wrote on February 14, 2007 3:58 PM:

Using BushCo logic:

1. The Soviet Union was supplying weapons to the Nicaraguan rebels. .

2. Therefore, the Soviet Union was aiding and abetting
acts of agression against the United States.

3. Therefore, the United States should attack the Soviet Union for its agressions against the United States in
Nicaragua.

Of course, the biggest weapons exporter in the world today IS the United States.

Wandering Mind wrote on February 14, 2007 4:04 PM:

Let's try a comparison of this alleged Iranian policy to:

1. The Chinese/Russian supply of weaponry to North Vietnam, and

2. The U.S. (via the CIA) supply of weapons (e.g. stinger missiles) to the mujahadeen in Afghanistan in the 1980's.

In neither case did the government against whom those weapons were used declare war on the supplier.

So, even if Iran is doing this, it is not necessarily a smart idea to attack them for it.

drbill wrote on February 14, 2007 4:28 PM:

We don't believe you. Keep lying like you did. Just change the q to an n and you have Iran. How stupid do you think we all are? We are not all stupid neo-con supporters that follow the Bush crime family over the cliff.

Will we attack Saudi Arabia for sending money and weapons to the Sunni's in Iraq?????The helicopers being shot down are in Sunni held areas. That means SA is killing our troops, not Iran.

We need more RepubliCONs for the surge. Sign up today or STFU.

Jimmy Two Times wrote on February 14, 2007 4:42 PM:

How much control does Tehran have over gas prices in the U.S.? If Bush attacks Iran, would gas prices in the U.S. go up to $5 per gallon overnight? I've heard it argued in the past that war with Iran would never happen for this very reason. Is this true?

PrahaPartizan wrote on February 14, 2007 4:43 PM:

John Telesar, you've got it wrong re Nicaragua. The Soviet Union was supplying weapons to the recognized government of Nicaragua. The US was supplying weapons to the rebels, illegally I might add even under the US's own laws. It supported rebels who committed acts of terrorism against the recognized government of Nicaragua and civilians of that nation. Under Dubya's doktrine the Soviet Union would have been legally justified in attacking the terrorist regime in Washington.

Bush, Father of Islamistan wrote on February 14, 2007 4:44 PM:

As in the last twenty plus years, Iran has aided members of the SCIRI and Al-Dawa in order to kill Sunnis.

Since March of 2003, thanks to Boy George, the SCIRI and Al-Dawa have been using oceans of American blood and treasure to father a Shiite fundamentalist republic in Iraq by ethnically cleansing the Sunnis.

Now, Boy George wants to protect the Sunnis whom he just deposed?

WTF?

Feith is not the `dumbest fu**ing person on the planet'.

John Emerson wrote on February 14, 2007 4:48 PM:

If the Bush administration is able to lie their way to an Iran war after it's known that the Iraq war was based on lies, the US is finished as a democracy. The evidence is that that's what they're planning to do.

Apparently the media is still on board. They are part of the Bush team, and not dupes.

Some people say that the war can't happen because it doesn't make military sense, but the fallacy of that argument is obvious. Bush and Cheney are like cornered rats, and they're capable of anything.

Will the Democrats come through? Are there any sane Republicans? The smart money says no.

jimbo92107 wrote on February 14, 2007 5:10 PM:

These people are bound and determined to attack Iran, so that George and pals can have their final wag-the-dog distraction from all their domestic crimes.

Logic and evidence ain't got nothing to do with it. First they are going to frame the Iranians, and then they're going to bomb the shit out of them.

luci wrote on February 14, 2007 5:12 PM:

unless the democrats grow a spine real quick. the bush crime cartel is gonna screw things up for decades to come.

dave t wrote on February 14, 2007 5:13 PM:

Hmmm. why is Colt, then, not liable for how many deaths in the United States each year. what is it the wingers say... guns don't kill people... these creeps would like to have it both ways.

DEJ wrote on February 14, 2007 5:17 PM:

And thus the problem becomes clear. Because the Bush administration has been dishonest in the past, and because their dishonesty was disseminated by half told stories and manipulated data, now, no reporter worth their salt is willing to believe anything but solid proof, which is surely lacking here. The worst damage caused by this administration is the damage to the institution of presidency.

bartkid wrote on February 14, 2007 5:48 PM:

>I'll resist the temptation to draw an organizational chart, for obvious reasons.

I knew that PowerPoint presentation was missing a certain je ne sais quoi.

Richard wrote on February 14, 2007 6:53 PM:

There was some talk that Iran doesn't have the 81mm mortar in its arsenal. I dunno if this is true or not. Anyone got the correct poop on that?

For a bunch that told us we were not planning to go to war with Iran, Bush sure sounded like we were today. A lot of "war pResident talk from a guy who was an AWOL drunk when we was in.

1watt wrote on February 14, 2007 7:06 PM:

http://tinyurl.com/2h253b

William Morkill wrote on February 14, 2007 9:41 PM:

No Saudi fingerprints on IEDs in Iraq? Not one question on this during the Bush news conference.
But as Bush said, "Money trumps peace," especially when it's Bush money and Saudi Royal money via the Carlyle Group.

stephen miller wrote on February 15, 2007 12:48 AM:

Looks like Bush-Cheney have already initiated the program v. Iran.
Note that Bush's job in this is to sell it to the country- he's the educator, the decider, the commander in chief; he catapults the propaganda.
Others do their part. Cheney, from the shadows.
It's a full court press. Even if George screws up and fails to bring along the press and pundits, the train will roll right on nevertheless...

thepeoplechoose wrote on February 15, 2007 12:49 AM:

It has been thoroughly established that the Bush administration has seldom, if ever, given anyone outside the WH the straight story on even the most insignificant thing. And in many cases the 'straight story' was a totally fabricated presentation the reasons for which can be most readily described in criminal terms.

Frank wrote on February 15, 2007 10:27 AM:

Yep, Bush is working hard to get into another war. No revealed diplomacy with Iran to discuss alleged weaponry "findings" our soldiers are getting killed by. That glaring omission reveals his hypocritical support of our troops in Iraq.

Bush's stunning remark about our constitution being "only a god damned piece of paper" should be remembered as his operative frame of reference when assessing what our glorious "decider" will decide about Iran.

Richard L. Adlof wrote on February 15, 2007 12:34 PM:

These ham-handed one-trick ponies are farging idiots:

Rather than telegraphing they gotta hand filled with crappy cards, declaring they 'call' while sliding their entire stack o' chips into the kitty, they shoulda shut up and allowed Saudi Arabia to finance another 'Twin-towers' like incident.

It is like they wanta be caught and stopped. Have they grown a collective subconsicous? Are the puppets trying to reveal the hand up their arse?

Maybe the American gotta understand . . . AND send these bastards to rehab to get them off their oil and gun power snides.

Sam Thornton wrote on February 15, 2007 1:42 PM:

We should be flattered and grateful that Dear Leader still has such profound respect for democracy and the rule of law that he finds it amusing to spend time lying in public to us before doing what he damn well pleases.

scioto wrote on February 15, 2007 10:49 PM:

I wish someone would challenge the administration that if Iran is such a threat, why the vice-president did business with them. I don't know why this wasn't an issue in the 2004 election - if the situation were reversed I don't think the GOP would fail to make it an issue.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/22/60minutes/main595214.shtml

“These three companies, as far as we were concerned, appear to have violated the spirit of the law,” says Thompson. “In the case of Halliburton, as an example, they have an offshore subsidiary in the Cayman Islands. That subsidiary is doing business with Iran.”

That subsidiary, Halliburton Products and Services, Ltd., is wholly owned by the U.S.-based Halliburton and is registered in a building in the capital of the Cayman Islands – a building owned by the local Calidonian Bank. Halliburton and other companies set up in this Caribbean Island, because of tax and secrecy laws that are corporate friendly.

Halliburton is the company that Vice President Dick Cheney used to run. He was CEO from 1995 to 2000, during which time Halliburton Products and Services set up shop in Iran. Today, it sells about $40 million a year worth of oil field services to the Iranian government."