• Last week the Bush administration made extraordinary claims about Iran supplying arms to Shiite extremists in Iraq, saying that they were directly responsible for the deaths of 170 American troops. Shortly thereafter, the administration was forced to back off from those claims after the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff disputed the involvement of the Iranian government.  But the administration continues to maintain their assertion that weapons from Iran are killing Americans in Iraq.  And during a press conference, when Bush was questioned about the level of involvement by Iran’s government, he said:

  But here’s my point: Either they knew or didn’t know, and what matters is, is that they’re there. What’s worse, that the government knew or that the government didn’t know?   […]

  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…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.  […]

  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. And we’ll continue do so.

  Of course later during that same press conference, when he was asked about putting financial pressure on Iran, Bush said:

  One of the problems — not specifically on this issue, just in general — let’s put it this way, money trumps peace, sometimes.

  …which may explain an exchange that took place today when White House spokesman Tony Snow appeared on Meet The Press.  Tim Russert was questioning Snow about the claim that Iran, “is a significant contributor to attacks on coalition forces,” given that:

  …data compiled by the Iraq Coalition Casualty Count (icasualties.org), a nonprofit group that tracks US deaths, a staggering 60 percent or more of US deaths have occurred in areas where Sunni insurgents are active. Those insurgents are believed to receive much of their funding and weapons from private donors in Sunni Arab countries, including Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan, not Iran.

  Snow’s response?

  …the president is very honest with people with whom he does diplomacy; but on the other hand, while it might make for sort of good PR, you don’t always call your allies out in public. Sometimes, you’re much more effective dealing privately with them. And the Saudis and the Jordanians and others have a—have been and continue to be and we assume will continue to be, very helpful in trying to fight against these forces of terror.

  Given that this administration will not engage Iran diplomatically, did his spokesman imply that Bush was being dishonest regarding Iran?  And more importantly, would dealing with threats against our troops only be worth “sort of good PR,” because we’re talking about allies?  If Iranians are supplying arms, whether their government is involved or not, Bush “intends to do something about it,” but if there is Saudi or Jordanian involvement, we’ll discuss it privately?  What happened to:

  And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.

  It seems that money does trump peace, never mind protecting the troops.

  

  
  Comments Off

• Frank Rich (subscription required) isn’t buying the diversionary tactics of the Bush administration, either:

  Watching the administration try to get its story straight about Iran’s role in Iraq last week was like watching third graders try to sidestep blame for misbehaving while the substitute teacher was on a bathroom break. The team that once sold the country smoking guns in the shape of mushroom clouds has completely lost its mojo….

  Let’s not forget that the White House’s stunt of repackaging old, fear-inducing news for public consumption has a long track record. Its reason for doing so is always the same: to distract the public from reality that runs counter to the White House’s political interests…. We know what Mr. Bush wants to distract us from this time: Congressional votes against his war policy, the Libby trial, the Pentagon inspector general’s report deploring Douglas Feith’s fictional prewar intelligence, and the new and dire National Intelligence Estimate saying that America is sending troops into the cross-fire of a multifaceted sectarian cataclysm….

  Mr. Bush keeps saying that his saber rattling about Iran is not “a pretext for war.” Maybe so, but at the very least it’s a pretext for prolonging the disastrous war we already have. [emphasis mine]

  Rich also makes the critical point that it was the United State that put Iran in the position of tremendous influence in that very “democracy” those purple-fingered elections created:

  In December the president welcomed a Shiite leader, Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, to the White House with great fanfare; just three weeks later American forces had to raid Mr. Hakim’s Iraq compound to arrest Iranian operatives suspected of planning attacks against American military forces, possibly with E.F.P.’s. As if that weren’t bad enough, Nuri al-Maliki’s government promptly overruled the American arrests and ordered the operatives’ release so they could escape to Iran….

  It gets worse. This month we learned that yet another Maliki supporter in the Iraqi Parliament, Jamal Jafaar Mohammed Ali Ebrahimi, was convicted more than two decades ago of planning the murderous 1983 attacks on the American and French Embassies in Kuwait. He’s now in Iran, but before leaving, this terrorist served as a security adviser, no less, to the first Iraqi prime minister after the American invasion, Ibrahim al-Jafaari. Mr. Jafaari, hailed by Mr. Bush as “a strong partner for peace and freedom” during his own White House visit in 2005, could be found last week in Tehran, celebrating the anniversary of the 1979 Iranian revolution and criticizing America’s arrest of Iranian officials in Iraq.

  And let’s not forget the need to refocus the nation’s attention away from the severe lack of Humvee armor kits that protect the troops from those supposed Iranian devices, as well as from the deplorable state of health care returning injured troops face.

  There can be no question that keeping this administration out of Iran means ending the occupation in Iraq. In the meantime, Congress should be closing any and all loopholes in the Iraq AUMF Bush will exploit to attack Iran. Under the circumstances, it’s hard to believe in the Rubber Stamps in the Senate would object to preventing a third war in the Mideast.

  

  
  Comments Off

• Is John McCain really this clueless, is he delusional or is he just stupid?  Here is his take on the escalation:

  I don’t know what the other options are because if we fail here I think it’s going to be very difficult to maintain the support of the American people. And when the American people don’t support a war … then we aren’t able to maintain a foreign endeavor.

  Which part of of all the polls saying that say the American people oppose the escalation, think this war was a mistake and disapprove of how it is being waged, is he missing?

  

  
  Comments Off

• After months of accusations, this weekend the Bush administration finally unveiled their proof that Iran has been supplying weapons to Shiite extremists in Iraq.  Of course that proof was in the form of anonymous spokesmen, and photographs or videotaping of the evidence was forbidden, but hey, you go to press with the information you’re spoonfed, not the information you’d like.  And so it was reported that:

  …officials displayed mortar shells, rocket-propelled grenades and a powerful cylindrical bomb, capable of blasting through an armored Humvee, that they said were manufactured in Iran and supplied to Shiite militias in Iraq for attacks on U.S. and Iraqi troops.

  Buried in the article was the fact that, “…officials offered no evidence to substantiate allegations that the “highest levels” of the Iranian government had sanctioned support for attacks against U.S. troops,” but during yesterday’s White House press briefing, was this exchange:

  Q What direct evidence do you have that Iranian leaders authorized the smuggling of weapons into Iraq?

  MR. SNOW: What I first would do is just point you back to the briefing. What they have are a number of serial numbers, and so on. I’d just take you back to the transcript on that. If you’re looking for the granular evidence, that’s what they presented.

  Q But that wasn’t direct evidence linking Iran –

  MR. SNOW: Let me put it this way: There’s not a whole lot of freelancing in the Iranian government, especially when it comes to something like that.

  But apparently the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Peter Pace didn’t get the memo:

  We know that the explosively formed projectiles are manufactured in Iran. What I would not say is that the Iranian government, per se, knows about this.

  It is clear that Iranians are involved, and it’s clear that materials from Iran are involved, but I would not say by what I know that the Iranian government clearly knows or is complicit.

  So, is Iran supplying Shiite extremists with weapons?  We still don’t know.  But whether they are or not, what the administration isn’t addressing is the fact that the majority of U.S. casualties come as the result of attacks by Sunni insurgent groups.  Who’s supplying them?  But perhaps the answer to that question doesn’t further the war rhetoric against Iran.

  

  
  Comments Off

• Krugman reads the writing on the wall, and comes to the conclusion that I’ve been arguing for a few weeks: if Bush is going to attack Iran he’s going to do it through Iraq:

  So the administration has always had it in for the Iranian regime. Now, let’s do an O. J. Simpson: if you were determined to start a war with Iran, how would you do it?

  First, you’d set up a special intelligence unit to cook up rationales for war. A good model would be the Pentagon’s now-infamous Office of Special Plans, led by Abram Shulsky, that helped sell the Iraq war with false claims about links to Al Qaeda….

  Next, you’d go for a repeat of the highly successful strategy by which scare stories about the Iraqi threat were disseminated to the public.

  This time, however, the assertions wouldn’t be about W.M.D.; they’d be that Iranian actions are endangering U.S. forces in Iraq. Why? Because there’s no way Congress will approve another war resolution. But if you can claim that Iran is doing evil in Iraq, you can assert that you don’t need authorization to attack — that Congress has already empowered the administration to do whatever is necessary to stabilize Iraq. And by the time the lawyers are finished arguing — well, the war would be in full swing.

  How do we prevent a war with Iran? End America’s occupation of Iraq.

  

  
  Comments Off

RSS Feed