REMEMBER HOW THE NY TIMES helped lie us into war in Iraq...
Monday, September 9, 2002.
U.S.: Iraq Is Hunting for Nukes
By Michael Gordon and Judith Miller
WASHINGTON -- More than a decade after Iraqi President Saddam Hussein agreed to give up weapons of mass destruction, Iraq has intensified its quest for nuclear weapons and has embarked on a worldwide hunt for materials to make an atomic bomb, U.S. officials said Saturday.
In the past 14 months, Iraq has tried to buy thousands of specially designed aluminum tubes, which American officials believe were intended as components of centrifuges to enrich uranium...
Well, they're at it again... only this time the anonymously-sourced, un-substantiated, un-rebutted reporting is on Iran providing the 'deadliest bomb in Iraq'.
From tonight's headline story:
Deadliest Bomb in Iraq Is Made by Iran, U.S. Says
WASHINGTON, Feb. 9 — The most lethal weapon directed against American troops in Iraq is an explosive-packed cylinder that United States intelligence asserts is being supplied by Iran.
The assertion of an Iranian role in supplying the device to Shiite militias reflects broad agreement among American intelligence agencies, although officials acknowledge that the picture is not entirely complete.
In interviews, civilian and military officials from a broad range of government agencies provided specific details to support what until now has been a more generally worded claim, in a new National Intelligence Estimate, that Iran is providing "lethal support" to Shiite militants in Iraq.
Notice the lack of any named source, other than 'US Says'. You won't find one in all three pages of the story. Hell, you won't even find a 'requested anonymity' reference. And if the 'US' is saying it, shouldn't it be on the record?
And if the evidence is so conclusive, why the anonymity? Could it be because of accusations of manipulation of intelligence...
U.S. delays report on Iranian role in Iraq over issue of manipulation of intelligence
WASHINGTON — The Bush administration has postponed plans to offer public details of its charges of Iranian meddling inside Iraq amid internal divisions over the strength of the evidence, U.S. officials said.
U.S. officials promised last week to provide evidence of Iranian activities that led President Bush to announce Jan. 10 that U.S. forces would begin taking the offensive against Iranian agents who threatened Americans.
But some officials in Washington are concerned that some of the material may be inconclusive and that other data cannot be released without jeopardizing intelligence sources and methods. They want to avoid repeating the embarrassment that followed the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, when it became clear that information the administration cited to justify the war was incorrect, said the officials, who described the internal discussions on condition of anonymity.
Or could it just be that, as the LA Times reported: scant evidence found of Iran-Iraq arms link, and the administration knows how to play the NY Times like a harp?
But according the NY Times 'report'...
The officials said they were willing to discuss the issue to respond to what they described as an increasingly worrisome threat to American forces in Iraq, and were not trying to lay the basis for an American attack on Iran.
It must be quite an increase, since the administration and its British ally has been pushing this story since at least October, 2005.
But this isn't about a drumbeat leading to war with Iran. After all, the anonymously-sourced, un-substantiated, un-rebutted report tells us so. And those aircraft carriers and strike forces ordered to the Persian Gulf? Well, that's not part of this NY Times report.
And it's probably just an eery coincidence that the 'deadliest bomb' story is written by the same Michael Gordon who, along with Judith Miller, told the world about the slam dunk intelligence on the aluminum tubes, part of Saddam's 'worldwide hunt for materials to make an atomic bomb'.
UPDATE ONE: 2/10/07 9:19 AM PST
Apparently, the very influential Editor and Publisher monitors DKos. From today's issue:
'NYT' Reporter Who Got Iraqi WMDs Wrong Now Highlights Iran Claims
By Greg Mitchell
NEW YORK Saturday’s New York Times features an article, posted at the top of its Web site late Friday, that suggests very strongly that Iran is supplying the "deadliest weapon aimed at American troops" in Iraq. The author notes, "Any assertion of an Iranian contribution to attacks on Americans in Iraq is both politically and diplomatically volatile."
What is the source of this volatile information? Nothing less than "civilian and military officials from a broad range of government agencies."
Sound pretty convincing? It may be worth noting that the author is Michael R. Gordon, the same Times reporter who, on his own, or with Judith Miller, wrote some of the key, and badly misleading or downright inaccurate, articles about Iraqi WMDs in the run-up to the 2003 invasion.
UPDATE TWO: 2/10/07 9:24 AM PST
The Guardian has inside info on why the war drums are starting to beat so loudly (and remember, this is the same paper with the very first reports of Bush's plan to surge, published weeks before the Iran Study Group made its recommendations):
Target Iran: US able to strike in the spring
US preparations for an air strike against Iran are at an advanced stage, in spite of repeated public denials by the Bush administration, according to informed sources in Washington.
The present military build-up in the Gulf would allow the US to mount an attack by the spring. But the sources said that if there was an attack, it was more likely next year, just before Mr Bush leaves office.
Neo-conservatives, particularly at the Washington-based American Enterprise Institute, are urging Mr Bush to open a new front against Iran. So too is the vice-president, Dick Cheney. The state department and the Pentagon are opposed, as are Democratic congressmen and the overwhelming majority of Republicans. The sources said Mr Bush had not yet made a decision. The Bush administration insists the military build-up is not offensive but aimed at containing Iran and forcing it to make diplomatic concessions. The aim is to persuade Tehran to curb its suspect nuclear weapons programme and abandon ambitions for regional expansion.
UPDATE THREE: 2/10/07 11:49 AM PST
...with a very special hat-tip to DKossian Mash who pointed me to his excellent, earlier diary (hey, it happens) on the same story, and titled How To Start A War.
Read it, and you'll find the money-shot quote that ties everything together. These are the words of Michael Gordon, author of today's NY Times hitpiece, expressing his personal feelings on Iraq, as seen on the Charlie Rose show in January...
"So I think, you know, as a purely personal view, I think it's worth it one last effort for sure to try to get this right, because my personal view is we've never really tried to win. We've simply been managing our way to defeat. And I think that if it's done right, I think that there is the chance to accomplish something." (Emphasis added by Mash)
Thank you, Mash.
UPDATE FOUR: 2/10/07 1:48 PM PST
Another piece of the puzzle fits in place: the timing of the front-page story. Seems there's to be a big U.S. news conference tommorrow in Baghdad, where they will present (begin dark and threatenting theme music)... THE IRAN 'DOSSIER':
U.S. Weighs Divulging Iran-Iraq Proof
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. What is made public probably would be short, and shorter on details than the administration recently had suggested.
No one who has seen the files has suggested the evidence is thin. But senior officials - gun-shy after the drubbing the administration took for the faulty intelligence leading to the 2003 Iraq invasion - were underwhelmed by the packaging...
Government officials familiar with the dossier's documents and slides, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the materials still were classified, said they make a compelling case about Iranian actions in Iraq...
The dossier also details Iran's role in providing Iraqi fighters with the ``explosively formed penetrator'' devices that can pierce the armor of Abrams tanks with nearly molten-hot charges. One intelligence official said the U.S. is ``fairly comfortable'' that it knows with some precision the origin of those Iranian-made explosives...
AND FOR THE 'JUST KILL ME NOW' MONEY-SHOT QUOTE:
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.
=========================
This diary by Spread the Word: Iraq-Nam, a daily blog on Iraq... and increasingly, Iran.