Just when you thought the Iran crisis was over

Well, I thought the Iranian mess had ended a little too easily.  It seems I may have been right.  If you read between the lines of this story you see that Poodles is sowing the rhetorical seeds for Iran Crisis II, Bite of the Poodle (the first one was "Bark of the Poodle").  We are being offered the insinuation that "elements" linked to the Iranian regime maybe, just possibly, were linked to the four British deaths.  Hmm... elements like, say every Iraqi Shiite maybe?  I mean with family ties, religion and tribal affiliation who isn't going to be "linked" in some way to Iran? Of course we have this, which sounds like reasonable talk.

"Now it is far too early to say that the particular terrorist act that killed our forces was an act committed by terrorists that were backed by any elements of the Iranian regime, so I make no allegation in respect of that particular incident," Blair said.

More below...

But take note of the "too early" remark.  This sounds a lot like the propaganda machine, having played the hostage crisis card without much effect may be shifting back to the "evidence" gathering phase of bullshitting.  In other words, in the next few days expect talk of the Iranian Connection, with Fox probably leading the way with lots of action movie music and sound effects.  Soon, it will be discovered that the bloody hand of Ahmadinejad was all over this.  And since the dead cannot simply be released from Hades as an Easter surprise this thing can fester as long as the propagandists want it too.

We simply must start bombing North Viet... er, Iran to stop them from supporting these attacks!

•  Your Post Would bring a wry smile

   if the tragic truth  you observe weren't so hideous.

  by Boxer7 on Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 09:50:15 AM PDT

  •  Tip Jar

    Thanks. I hope I'm wrong about all this.

    by Event Horizon on Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 09:54:38 AM PDT

•  If they're really set on war with Iran

  any excuse - even an invented one - will do.

  by Lepanto on Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 09:55:13 AM PDT

  •  But you need "evidence" first

    It's pretty clever really.  The US seems to be using Britain as proxy here.  Maybe they realize that the American intelligence system has little credibility left after Iraq.  Let the British dig up the needed evidence and then we can all go off to a beautiful new war together.  It'll be like a trans-Atlantic group hug, but with more blood and scattered body parts of course.

    by Event Horizon on Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 10:00:11 AM PDT

  •  "Elements of the Iranian regime" --

    like oxygen, nitrogen, carbon -- nope, nothing false there. Fire when ready.  

    by zashvil on Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 10:06:51 AM PDT

•  boy they're really stretching

  What exactly do Blair and Bush think they're going to get out of a war with Iran?

  by sunshineonthebay on Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 09:59:01 AM PDT

  •  Bush

    gets a way out of attorney-gate, Iraq-war-crimes-gate, torture-gate, this-gate and that-gate.  For a while anyway.  But the BushCo time horizon has always been about the same as that of a typical CEO (next three months).  They're part of that class after all.  Not sure what Blair gets since I don't know the British system that well.  Something tells me the "rally round the chief" shit doesn't fly in the UK when a war starts.  Blair does seem to act against his own interest a lot of the time.  That's why they call him the Poodle after all.

    by Event Horizon on Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 10:05:24 AM PDT

  •  Oil,Oil,Oil,Oil,

    and more oil. Their plans to rule the World depend on getting hold of the Iraq and Iran and Africas oil. Then they will put OPAC out of business. They will be able to control the rest of the World if they control the Oil.

    by Owllwoman on Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 11:31:25 AM PDT

•  Here's an example of warmongering

  the excerpted portion doesn't give you the full flavor of how this guy throws in every reason plus the kitchen sink on why we need war with Iran now and why it won't cost us anything.  The sailors are the excuse, as the writer admits that they will probably be the first casualities.

  http://pajamasmedia.com/...

  Jules Crittenden is an editor and columnist for the Boston Herald.
  Emphasis added

  ******

  Therefore, it is time to take this opportunity to reduce Iran’s capacity to make war. Its nuclear sites, its military facilities. The roads and bridges it uses to transport the materiel and personnel of its demonic foreign policy. It is an opportunity the Iranians are giving us, on a platter. It is not clear to me why we are not taking it.

  ***************

  We’ve already seen that a nearly evenly divided Congress, incapable of taking definitive action, not only can but must be ignored. The Congress that cannot uphold its own votes has no mandate to dictate terms to the president, particularly in perilous times that call for strong leadership. The American people I talk to, many of them no great fans of our president and our ongoing state of war, are exasperated with the Iranians and with Iraq. President Bush can explain it all after he launches the attack. The road to victory in Baghdad runs through Teheran, and Teheran is doing everything it can to block that road. We need to engage Iran, just as the Iraq Study Group correctly stated. Just not in the manner that strangely myopic group advised.

  **********

  by Inland on Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 10:12:55 AM PDT

  •  The people need lebensraum!

    Our Glorious Leader knows that we must soon invade and liberate the people of Poland, for their own good, before the Forces of Evil™ can strike against our brave soldiers...

    It all sounds so familiar somehow.

    by ibonewits on Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 10:22:43 AM PDT

    •  'Lebesraum'. Isn't that the new sedative from

      Pfizer?

      by sxwarren on Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 10:56:18 AM PDT

  •  holy shit n/t

    by Euroliberal on Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 11:19:39 AM PDT

•  I think the only reason we haven't already

  invaded Iran is because of Bush's uncertainty about how far he can push the issue with this congress.  

  It doesn't occur to any of them that we can ill afford to fight WWIII, they keep trying to create the opportunity to invade Iran anyway.

  by nupstateny on Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 10:26:38 AM PDT

•  The language -

  We get "hostages" for "POWs" and "terrorism" for "act of war". It's always language that goes first - bullets are easy once you've transformed the culture field so that compromising and dealing become impossible.

  by RandomSequence on Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 10:33:44 AM PDT

  •  Meanwhile, the five Iranian diplomats kidnapped

    in Irbil are always called "prisoners," never "diplomats."

    by lysias on Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 12:15:48 PM PDT

•  What 4 British deaths?

  I know about the 15 hostages, of course, but not about 4 deaths.  Can someone fill me in?  Thanks.

  by rainmanjr on Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 11:50:37 AM PDT