Daily Kos

Breaking: It's official, we are at non-war with Iran

Tue May 22, 2007 at 11:17:11 PM PDT

My 1st "Breaking" diary!

From the ABCNews website:

Bush Authorizes New Covert Action Against Iran

May 22, 2007 6:29 PM

Brian Ross and Richard Esposito Report:

The CIA has received secret presidential approval to mount a covert "black" operation to destabilize the Iranian government, current and former officials in the intelligence community tell the Blotter on ABCNews.com.

The sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the subject, say President Bush has signed a "nonlethal presidential finding" that puts into motion a CIA plan that reportedly includes a coordinated campaign of propaganda, disinformation and manipulation of Iran's currency and international financial transactions.

"I can't confirm or deny whether such a program exists or whether the president signed it, but it would be consistent with an overall American approach trying to find ways to put pressure on the regime," said Bruce Riedel, a recently retired CIA senior official who dealt with Iran and other countries in the region.  

This is no saber rattling, this is war by other means.

Richard Clarke himself seems to verify the rumor;

"There are some channels where the United States government may want to do things without its hand showing, and legally, therefore, the administration would, if it's doing that, need an intelligence finding and would need to tell the Congress," said ABC News consultant Richard Clarke, a former White House counterterrorism official.

So much for secrecy though.

But actually this is being given a "good news" spin;

Current and former intelligence officials say the approval of the covert action means the Bush administration, for the time being, has decided not to pursue a military option against Iran.

Nothing happening people, just move along.

See, Dick Cheney didn't get his wish;

"Vice President Cheney helped to lead the side favoring a military strike," said former CIA official Riedel, "but I think they have come to the conclusion that a military strike has more downsides than upsides."

Duuuuhh!!

But wait, it may spin out of control;

Still, some fear that even a nonlethal covert CIA program carries great risks.

"I think everybody in the region knows that there is a proxy war already afoot with the United States supporting anti-Iranian elements in the region as well as opposition groups within Iran," said Vali Nasr, adjunct senior fellow for Mideast studies at the Council on Foreign Relations.

"And this covert action is now being escalated by the new U.S. directive, and that can very quickly lead to Iranian retaliation and a cycle of escalation can follow," Nasr said.

My point is this; if we get to know this, what is going on that we do not know is much much greater.

The next war has already started boys and girls. I remember Col. Hackworth said, way before the Iraq invasion started, that the "black ops" were well under way.  A new Gulf of Tonkin or a drone shootdown is upon us any time.  

I also remember reading in the Pentagon Papers about Col. Lansdales exploits in Vietnam well before the war went "hot".

So let's discuss Monica's testimony on the Attorneygate scandal but let's keep an eye on Iran or we will be blindsided.

WHERE ARE YOU GENERAL CLARK!!!????  I know, very busy with the Stop the War in Iran movement.  He seems like the only one that makes sense now.  Specially after Barak Obama seems to have joined the Iran is next chorus.

Poll

War with Iran...

55%201 votes
11%43 votes
3%13 votes
15%58 votes
13%48 votes

| 363 votes | Vote | Results

Tags: Iran, Recommended, war, george w. bush, propaganda, disinformation, cia (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 149 comments

  •  Now the question is... (16+ / 0-)

    Did they tell Congress?

    They already "failed" to tell 'em about one such covert action.

    Which one, and were it was directed we don't know.

    "It's better to realize you're a swan than to live life as a disgruntled duck."

    by Mumon on Tue May 22, 2007 at 11:07:07 PM PDT

  •  NO ONE CAN STOP "COMMANDER GUY" (33+ / 0-)

    Sadly, nobody CAN stop "commander guy".

    Not even a Dem Congress, not even a 20% approval rating, nobody can stop this mad, out-of-control drunk driver from driving the Ship of State into the cliff.  

    "Commander Guy" is all powerful!  He is fueled with the supernatural power of the souls of the thousands he has murdered!  (I'm starting to think there may be something to this)

    What's it gonna take?  An act of God?  Another pretzel?  Cheney and he shooting each other in the face at the same moment?  

  •  Shockwave, perhaps you're already aware of it, (9+ / 0-)

    and maybe not, but since you're pleading for Clark, I've got to plug my political parable about undoing all of Bush's support and why Clark is the best man to replace him. Maryscott Oconnor recently read it and told me that "there's nothing else like it out there." And WWII vet Jim E. Gregg told me, "You made me feel guilty for not paying closer attention to Clark in 04!" And he was a poltical science teacher and advisor to a governor and senator.
    to read it go to http://www.clarkvsbush.com and then click on download.
    It's a story set in the context of a teacher discussing with his class all of the evidence that the Bush administration is as corrupt as they are incompetent and why we probably won't survive if Bush isn't replace in the near future with a real leader, ideally Clark.

  •  Don't count on the Dems in Congress to put a (8+ / 0-)

    stop to this new bout of American aggression, they're too busy trying to please the War Prez.

    We're shocked by a naked nipple, but not by naked aggression.

    by Lepanto on Tue May 22, 2007 at 11:18:43 PM PDT

  •  I think you misunderstand (6+ / 0-)

    If there has been such a finding signed, it's not "war" by any means. It's nothing like the black ops in Iraq before the war, or in Vietnam. It's about supporting and fomenting internal dissent to effect regime change from within. It's economic pressure of the kind that everyone has been urging the US and Europe to put on Iran, to make them feel pain for their provocative behavior -- except that it's going to proceed with unilateral covert actions instead of diplomatic agreements. This isn't the kind of thing that leads to shooting. There won't be American troops in harm's way as a result of this finding, so it doesn't make war any more likely.

    Coming Soon -- to an Internet connection near you: Armisticeproject.org

    by FischFry on Tue May 22, 2007 at 11:23:27 PM PDT

    •  Today I am not as optimistic as you (16+ / 0-)

      Remember, this is what we know, only the tip of the iceberg.  The lies, illegal wiretaps and incompetence of this administration have always exceeded my expectations.

      No this WILL spin out of control.  There will be rogue operations.  This is like a dog whistle to the Dogs of War.

      Dailykos.com; an oasis of truth. Truth that leads to action -1.75 -7.23

      by Shockwave on Tue May 22, 2007 at 11:30:37 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  If there are rogue operations (4+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        brittain33, Shockwave, leevank, kck

        It won't have anything to do with this finding.

        Coming Soon -- to an Internet connection near you: Armisticeproject.org

        by FischFry on Tue May 22, 2007 at 11:42:42 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  True, but look at the BushCo record (4+ / 0-)

          Officially they push all the way to the edge of the envelope, and beyond if there is no push back.

          Unofficially they do whatever they care.

          So if this is what they are doing officially, I am willing to bet that black ops are well under way.

          Dailykos.com; an oasis of truth. Truth that leads to action -1.75 -7.23

          by Shockwave on Tue May 22, 2007 at 11:45:16 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I heard "monetary destabilization" or somesuch (4+ / 0-)

            strategy in the 30 second ABC early morning newsbabble.

            In fact, there were 3 specifics listed, including floating the fleet near the coast, which only points to a Remember the Maine/Gulf of Tonkin type desired result.

            How can we expect to destabilize the petro economy ?  What is the CIA "plan" to do so ?  

            Knowing full well the success ratio of the CIA for the past 50 years, before they mess with economic warfare, I'd like to see a chart.  

            •  Economic warfare... (1+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              Shockwave

              makes me wonder what china is up to. they own us.

              "Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect." Mark Twain

              by dotdot on Wed May 23, 2007 at 06:47:53 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Iran's Petro Economy is already a mess (0+ / 0-)

              They don't have decent refining facilities. They actually import half of the oil they use there. They have issued rationing cards, and plan to start rationing in June or July (can't remember which) -- primarily because they have anticipated that U.N. sanctions may lead to a cut-off of their oil imports. The country floats on something like $30 billion in government subsidies and jobs, paid for from oil revenues. If that goes, either because of restrictions on sales, or a huge cut in oil prices, or because of a fall in value of Iranian currency, what's left of the Iranian economy will collapse.

              [I have to say that they are already contending with huge inflation -- not the hyperinflation that sank South America in the 80s, but it's getting there. Prices change daily. I'm not sure that the U.S. really can increase the pressure in this regard. The Iranians are already contending with substantial inflation pressures.]

              The CIA plan may involve currency manipulation. It may even involve sabotage -- the prime target would be the natural gas pipelines that China has been waiting on for over five years. Maybe it will also involve putting pressures on Iran's date and pistachio exports. Aside from the oil, that is basically the Iranian economy. They've already had to slash Beluga caviar harvests to ensure survival of the species. It's certainly possible to put the squeeze on Iran economically. The question is what will come of that....

              Coming Soon -- to an Internet connection near you: Armisticeproject.org

              by FischFry on Wed May 23, 2007 at 07:29:28 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  'WILL BE rogue operations'? (5+ / 0-)

        I think this "finding" may well be a case of Bush/Cheney doing a legal CYA for prior illegal authorizations of now ongoing covert ops - an attempt to muddy the legal waters for future congressional committee investigations.  So it may or may not indicate an escalation of those operations.  However, there seem to be enough Dems who are hawkish about Iran (and, therefore, wouldn't give a shit whether prior authorizations were legal or not) that it may not matter much.

        OTOH - regardless, I agree with you that such operations have huge potential to spin the situation with Iran out of control and into a "hot" war.

        Some folks prefer a map and finding their own route. Others need someone to tell them where to go.

        by sxwarren on Wed May 23, 2007 at 03:44:15 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Recycling Reagan's Iran veterans..... (9+ / 0-)

          From the ABC blotterlink:

          http://blogs.abcnews.com/...

          Also briefed on the CIA proposal, according to intelligence sources, were National Security Advisor Steve Hadley and Deputy National Security Advisor Elliott Abrams.  

          "The entire plan has been blessed by Abrams, in particular," said one intelligence source familiar with the plan. "And Hadley had to put his chop on it."

          Abrams' last involvement with attempting to destabilize a foreign government led to criminal charges.

          He pleaded guilty in October 1991 to two misdemeanor counts of withholding information from Congress about the Reagan administration's ill-fated efforts to destabilize the Nicaraguan Sandinista government in Central America, known as the Iran-Contra affair. Abrams was later pardoned by President George H. W. Bush in December 1992.

          Glad we have a handle on "leadership" in this newest enterprise...

      •  my only hope is that the admiral (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        Alohaleezy

        in charge of centcom said about a war w/Iran 'not on my watch'.

        "The Universe is change; our life is what our thoughts make it." Marcus Aurelius

        by Mosquito Pilot on Wed May 23, 2007 at 04:06:50 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  "Iran's provocative behavior" ??? (20+ / 0-)

      what, is Iran conducting black ops in the US?
      The "provocative behavior" seems to be coming from US. Big surprise, ha? We're the Good Guys, and, by definition, the Good Guys are never the aggressors... buried in our own BS, that's what we are.

      We're shocked by a naked nipple, but not by naked aggression.

      by Lepanto on Tue May 22, 2007 at 11:51:26 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Iran provoked us by developing peacefully (30+ / 0-)

        for more than 25 years, never invading any neighbours, getting 98 percent of its children educated, investing its oil money in universal healthcare, and electrifying more than 95 percent of all villages.  We can't put up with such naked aggression any longer!

        "Am I not destroying my enemies when I make friends of them?" - Abraham Lincoln

        by LondonYank on Tue May 22, 2007 at 11:54:25 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  But our infallible intelligence services... (8+ / 0-)

          ...are at it again.

          From the same article;

          The covert action plan comes as U.S. officials have confirmed Iran had dramatically increased its ability to produce nuclear weapons material, at a pace that experts said would give them the ability to build a nuclear bomb in two years.

          This sounds like fake intelligence all over again.

          I am sure Shulskyand Feith have their hand on this.

          Dailykos.com; an oasis of truth. Truth that leads to action -1.75 -7.23

          by Shockwave on Wed May 23, 2007 at 12:02:37 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  no, our intel folks had it right. (5+ / 0-)

            Cheney, feith, rummy and Rice played with the intel until they could make if work.

            And, just last week, we learned that in 2001, 2002, the CIA warned against invading Iraq - because of the near certainty of an out of control insurgency there in response to an invasion.
            That prediction was ignored by Cheney, Rice, and others because "it painted too bleak a picture to be believable."

            THAT IS THE REALITY. These guys ignore facts and make shit up as they go along. They ignore the reality about Iran, to our eventual destruction. This will be a horrible weekend.

            What we call god is merely a living creature with superior technology & understanding. If their fragile egos demand prayer, they lose that superiority.

            by agnostic on Wed May 23, 2007 at 05:00:00 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Made possible by halliburton.. n/t (1+ / 0-)

            "Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect." Mark Twain

            by dotdot on Wed May 23, 2007 at 06:49:20 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Two things (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        Shockwave
        1. Iranian Uranium(Not to be confused with Nigerian Uranium)
        1. Alleged involvement in aiding the Shia in Iraq.

        Saying the Iraq "Surge" worked is like saying Thelma & Louise had a flying car.

        by JML9999 on Tue May 22, 2007 at 11:54:30 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  you know (3+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        LondonYank, Alohaleezy, Owllwoman

        My favorite Dönner restaurant down the street is an Iranian family run joint.  Great food and they are really, really nice people.  I find myself saying sometimes that not all Americans think you are demons, though our government behaves that way.  I hope buying a dönner is not aiding and abetting the enemy, if it is, that German citizenship is looking better everyday.

        It looks just like a Telefunken U47...you'll love it! - with leather...?

        by Jeffersonian Democrat on Wed May 23, 2007 at 01:46:46 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Iran funds terrorism all over the world. (0+ / 0-)

        Hezbollah has been raising funds in the US for years and has training camps in south america.

        This is not to mention that Iranian funded Hezbollah killed 200+ marines in lebanon, captured and tourtured our CIA station cheif in beruit for 444 days before dumping his body on the street.  Oh yea, and they kidnaped and made a jihadi snuff film of a marine LTC serving as a "blue hat" on the UN peacekeepers as well.  He was brutally tortured, and hung.  We found his body in a trash bag on the side of the road.  I almost forgot about the bombing in Saudi Arabia where a bunch of US servicemen and women were killed when Hezbollah bombed it too.

        All of this is BEFORE they directly support those who kill our soldiers in Iraq and (now it seems) UK soldiers in Afghanistan as well.  Hezbollah has been threatening to attack europe and america directly if anything happens in Iran.  Why would they do that if they weren't Tehran's "boys"?

        Intel is pretty solid that Hezbollah doesn't do much without approval of Tehran.

        Now we want to stand by and let them have nuclear weapons... god help us all when they do.

        My freedom is more important than your good idea. - Bumper Sticker

        by Captain Infidel on Wed May 23, 2007 at 06:18:14 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  And this is different from the (2+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          Love and Death, dinazina

          U.S policy how? We've tortured thousands of innocent people and killed hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians for what?

          "Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect." Mark Twain

          by dotdot on Wed May 23, 2007 at 06:51:31 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  as opposed to us? (0+ / 0-)

          just what the hell do you expect Iran or Hezbo'allah to do?

          sit down and be bombed like good Arabs.

          how man ycountries have we invaded int he past 50 years? how about Iran?

          How many terrosist attacks has the US undertaken?  Iran?  Hezbo'allah?

          The world will end not with a bang, but with a "Do'oh!"
          "America is a free speech zone."

          by Love and Death on Wed May 23, 2007 at 06:58:11 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yea, as opposed to us... (0+ / 0-)

            just what the hell do you expect Iran or Hezbo'allah to do?

            Not to commit mass murder for starters.  Then it'd be nice to not kidnap people... then I'd like them to stop giving .50 cal sniper rifles, EFP IED's, surface to air missles, mortar, training, money, etc to insurgents in Iraq...

            sit down and be bombed like good Arabs.

            Who has bombed Iran?  Who has bombed Hezbollah other than Israel in retaliation for Hezbollah shooting rockets over into Israel or in an attempt to get their soldiers back that Hezbollah took while they were patrolling on the Israeli side of the boarder?

            how man ycountries have we invaded int he past 50 years? how about Iran?

            How many people are free today because of this country?  How many countries have we taken in war and set free to pursue their own destiny?  Interesting how you come up with 50 years... because it limits the discussion to better support your POV.  Have we made mistakes, yes, we are not perfect.  But we have stood up for the 'free world' for a hundred years.

            How many terrosist attacks has the US undertaken?

            I won't even justify that with a response.  But at least now I know where Rosie gets her talking points...

            Iran?  Hezbo'allah?

            A lot more than us.

            I have friends who are dead because of weapons knowingly and willingly supplied by Iran.  I seriously can't believe everyone here is willing to make excuses for the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism.  

            My freedom is more important than your good idea. - Bumper Sticker

            by Captain Infidel on Wed May 23, 2007 at 03:24:39 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  well, (9+ / 0-)

      'This isn't the kind of thing that leads to shooting.'

      Until someone shoots. And when they do .. BOOOOOM!

      Ever watch The Bedford Incident?

      "You know what the real fight is? The real fight is the definition of what is reality." Bernie Sanders

      by shpilk on Tue May 22, 2007 at 11:55:42 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  It is technically an act of war... (10+ / 0-)

      ...under international law.

      "Great men do not commit murder. Great nations do not start wars". William Jennings Bryan

      by ImpeachKingBushII on Tue May 22, 2007 at 11:58:28 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Fisch, if you want to believe that ,its OK (5+ / 0-)

      It will come down to bombs and slaughter because that is what makes bush feel like a man. I just have pity for the Iranian People. They are innocent and they are going to die. All because bush wants their oil to rule the World. It just makes me sick.

      "Though the Mills of the Gods grind slowly,Yet they grind exceeding small."

      by Owllwoman on Wed May 23, 2007 at 03:13:40 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Fomenting dissent more than 'supporting'. (2+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      Canadian Reader, LondonYank

      It seems to me that the level and nature of dissent among Iranian citizens has been intentionally misinterpreted and overstated, especially (but not exclusively) in US media, to create the impression that there is a huge percentage of Iranians who are chafing under fascistic social oppression and who would be willing to overthrow Ahmedinejad and the Guardian Council by force if only they had sufficient support from outside.  I have my doubts.

      There is certainly dissent.  There is apparently widespread dissatisfaction with Ahmedinejad over his insane sabre-rattling.  However, an Iranian President can't claim anywhere near the authority to effect such threats as even a "normal" US President would possess.  So, this dissatisfaction probably rises, particularly among Iran's growing middle class, to the level of annoyance.

      Apparently most of the internal dissatisfaction, again especially among Iran's growing middle class, with Ahmedinejad is related to his failure to deliver on campaign promises to fight economic corruption and implement economic reforms.  This may also be the primary objection on the part of Iranian citizens to some, but not necessarily all, of the members of the Guardian Council - which is almost certainly not the monolithic entity it is often portrayed as being and probably not nearly as unified regarding domestic and foreign policy as our own Republican Party.

      This is not to say that the Guardian Council isn't generally oppressive.  This is also not to say that there there is NO unrest or that there are ZERO Iranians who would advocate forceful regime change, just that my guess is that it might be the same percentage as US citizens who would advocate the forceful removal of the Bush/Cheney Administration, or maybe less.  However, the Iranian voices we're allowed to hear most belong to that minority and to Chalabi-like expats who are misportrayed as being representative of the majority of Iranians.

      If the Bush Admin and the Neocons were really interested in "reforming" Iran to their liking, they'd make far more progress by sending in covert teams of Wall Street financial wizards to show the corrupt members of the Guardian Council more subtle ways to rape the population financially than by sending in covert military teams.

      Some folks prefer a map and finding their own route. Others need someone to tell them where to go.

      by sxwarren on Wed May 23, 2007 at 04:45:34 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  How is this different (0+ / 0-)

      than what Iran has been doing in Iraq to us for the least few YEARS?  

      every time I brought it up, everyone here just says "well we did that to the russians in afghanistan".  I'm not a fan of moral equivalency (esp when it comes to war) but besides that... this, to me, seems to be even a "kinder, gentler" way than how Iran executes their foreign policy (ie through kidnapping, violence through their proxy terrorist organizations like Hezbollah and shia militias in Iraq, or even their support of the sunni milita and talaban, which has now even come out of the UK media.)

      Yea, why would sunni and shia blah, blah.  I spent my last tour in Iraq inside Iranian artillery range.  Their fingerprints on violent attacks were everywhere.  You may not want to believe it, but I do, not so much from what I read in the paper, but from the stuff we were seeing over there.

      THIS is exactly how we need to combat Iran.  Attack their economy, back dissidents... sounds smarter than the Rumsfield/Wolfowitz plan for Iraq.  Invading Iran would be stupid and appeasing them is not going to work.

      My freedom is more important than your good idea. - Bumper Sticker

      by Captain Infidel on Wed May 23, 2007 at 06:06:41 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  asdf (2+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        Canadian Reader, Shockwave

        It would help if you understood the propaganda cycle and how it gets played. There's an IAEA meeting this week to discuss the Iran dossier and these meetings, along with UNSC meetings, are always accompanied by a concerted burst of "Iran the dangerous enemy" stories in the Western Press. If the cycle continues as per its usual course, there will be a story in either the Times or Telegraph this weekend about Israeli attack planning. The only thing that surprises me after nearly three years of this cycle is how poor most people's memories are and how incapable they are of making the timing connection.

        The Telegraph and Guardian front-pagers of earlier this week are repeating the standard fodder of Iran being responsible for all the ills in Afghanistan and Iraq.

        Back in 2004 and early 2005, the standard scapegoat for all the ills in Iraq was Syria - well, I guess they've given up on blaming them, and have turned to blaming Iran. Mostly it's classic political-military CYA and denial of responsibility - the violence in Iraq is part civil war, part struggle for power in the post-Baath vacuum and part nationalistic resentment at foreign occupation. Whilst it's convenient to blame external actors for the woes that the US finds itself in, I think that most people understand that the dynamics are internally generated and that the overwhelming bulk of the violence is perpetrated by Iraqis.

        Are the Iranians involved in Iraq? Of course they are - they're next door neighbours, who actually suffered a Western-supported invasion from Iraq in the past, and have to be involved as a matter of national security, political advantage, statecraft; all the neighbours of Iraq are involved there in some way, shape or form. The big headache for the US is that the current Iraqi government wants an entente cordiale with Iran - which is problematic and reflects the utter incompetence of the Bush administration in failing to implement a regional security architecture to account for the post-Baath reality that they created. The Shia and Kurdish elements in the Iraqi government are all long-standing allies of Iran and are sufficiently smart to understand that the US has a long track-record of being exceptionally fickle; all they have to do is think back to last summer and the rather sickening US betrayal of the Siniora government during the Israeli-Hizbullah war. It's not exactly a surprise that they will seek to maintain relationships with Teheran ( home to them at a time when the US was supporting Saddam against them ) and work out security and defence relationships. This, inevitably, includes weapons, political, financial and intelligence support.

        Where were you stationed in Iraq? And how many times were you actually shelled by Iranian artillery? What are the fingerprints? How many Iranians did you round up in Iraq who were actually mounting attacks against you? What was the stuff that you saw that convinced you of this?

        •  here is what I can say (0+ / 0-)

          how many times were you actually shelled by Iranian artillery?

          None, but they were shelling the Kurds to the north of us.  That was given as an example of "proximity" to not just the boarder, but also to Iranian military units.

          What are the fingerprints?

          • Iranian military ID cards on the bodies of Insurgents killed attacking US troops
          • How about the fact that the the EFP technology was developed for Hezblollah by Iran.  Not only are the parts of the IEDs made in Iran... many times the entire EFP IED is made in Iran.  Making a bomb is like signing your name, no one does it the same way.  we have found and disarmed bombs in Iraq that match the bomb "signature" of those in shipments we have intercepted coming across the Iranian boarder.
          • a British helicopter was shot down in Basra (very near the boarder) by an Iranian made Surface to Air missle.
          • oh and there was the case of the .50 cal sniper rifles... here , kinda hard to deny that one...

          How many Iranians did you round up in Iraq who were actually mounting attacks against you?

          None actually mounting attacks at the time... but there was more than one with definate links to Iranian military/government.  Some of this happened very close to Irbil which, if you remember, was where Iran was using their consulate to supply/support the Iraqi insurgency...  More than that I won't say as I don't feel like violating my security clearance to make a point online.  In fact, there is very little here you can't read online or find on the news.  Unlike ABC and the NYTimes, I believe each individual doesn't get to choose what is classified and what is not.

          You just don't believe it because this administration has zero credibility anymore.  

          What was the stuff that you saw that convinced you of this?

          • discussion with the locals
          • discussions with officers of other American and Iraqi units
          • all of the above...

          My freedom is more important than your good idea. - Bumper Sticker

          by Captain Infidel on Sat May 26, 2007 at 10:05:31 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Meh. You've bought the bullshit (2+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        Shockwave, kyril

        that the US "needs" to "do something" about Iran.

        You don't have the moral high ground here. You don't get to use WWII language like "appeasement". In this scenario, you're the Germans.

        Digest that for a bit. Stop thinking you're the good guys. You invaded Iraq in an unprovoked war of aggression. Your presence there is illegitimate in the extreme. If Iran is funneling help to one or more factions in the Iraqi civil war that you touched off, you know what? Maybe you should be glad. Because the only way Iraq is ever going to stabilize is if the following two things happen, in this order:

        1. American forces go home. They leave Iraq completely. No fortified bases, no embassy bigger than Luxembourg. Gone.
        1. One faction, or a coalition of allied factions, wins the ongoing civil war decisively.

        So if Iran helps one side win -- you don't really care which side -- they're working towards something you really need to have happen.

        The eventual winners of the civil war, whoever they are, won't be feeling friendly toward the US, but that's life. You can't create friendship by killing 600,000 people. It doesn't work. The best you're going to get is a stable, hostile government in Iraq... with enough sense not to attack you back for revenge. Something, in fact, rather like the current government of Iran, which would have left you completely alone despite your many past interferences in their internal affairs, if you hadn't started that raging civil war next door to them.

        After a generation or so, if the US stops acting like international assholes, your descendants might be able to reach out and establish an amicable relationship with whatever government the Iraqis end up with.

        Folly is fractal: the closer you look at it, the more of it there is.

        by Canadian Reader on Wed May 23, 2007 at 07:15:06 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I see... (0+ / 0-)

          well for first off... Saddam bluffed on the WMD's, we called, he lost.  Sorry, not feeling sorry for him.  Did we make mistakes, yes, but by in large many soldiers actually believe we did the world a favor by disposing Saddam (and many Iraqis I know agree).

          It is hardly "Illegitimate" at all.  How many UN resolutions did Saddam willfully violate?  What consequences were there for him?  None... yea the people suffered, but you think he cared?  This was was a failure of the UN.  They made demands and threats... then failed to follow through on any of them.  What good is a world governing body that won't uphold standards? (unless it's Israel, then watch out).  What good is a world body that gives equal weight to the voice of North Korea, Saudi Arabia and Iran as they do to that of Canada or Australia?  How about threatening to shoot down Israeli planes over lebanon while watching Hezbollah truckloads of arms cross from syria?  Did they stop them from rearming?... No.  Once again, if there is something horrible going on in the world today... somewhere nearby, the UN is standing there WATCHING.  Your right we should pull back.  From the UN, from Bosnia, Kosovo, Somalia, Saudi, Japan... everywhere except maybe guam and Bulgaria.  Lets let the rest of the world fund the UN, the peacekeeping and the defense of europe/japan/korea/persian gulf for a while.  You really think you and europe can afford to pay all your entitlement programs AND spend the $$$$$$$$$$$ to fund all this stuff that we do?  I'm sure Saudi Arabia has some cash for you... you just need to let them build a few thousand more wahabbi mosques in your country.

          But we won't pull back... why?  Because we have done that before and we had to go to Europe and bail their asses out (at the huge cost of american lives) because they are too paralized and PC to stand up for themselves against brutal thugs and dictators.

          If Iran is funneling help to one or more factions in the Iraqi civil war that you touched off, you know what? Maybe you should be glad.

           Maybe you should tell that to the widows and children of those killed by Iranian supplied weapons... I'm sure they have a different POV.

          As for your two point plan to Iraqi peace you're giving the big "thumbs up" for ETHNIC CLENSING.  As long as you know that, then that is cool.

          I was always told you can ask me to do something then shut up and let me do it... or you can do it your damn self.  I say it's time to let Canada/EU stand up for the "free world" for a bit.  Maybe then we can focus on our own issues.

          My freedom is more important than your good idea. - Bumper Sticker

          by Captain Infidel on Sat May 26, 2007 at 09:15:42 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Yes, this is great (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Shockwave

    Cheney wanted to turn the desert into glass, but for the grace of God, we'll hit them with some tasers and pepper-spray and other nonlethal presidential findings.  Great news.

    In God we trust. All others must pay cash.

    by yet another liberal on Tue May 22, 2007 at 11:26:38 PM PDT

  •  9 new Warships (13+ / 0-)

    Covert stuff has been going on for years, so this isn't all new.  They are NOW simply being more public with their action.

    To top it off...  9 Warships are parading past Iran in, apparently, a rare daylight display (we better not have any convenient "incidents"):

    http://www.alertnet.org/...