Okay, so they can trace the explosives to Iran, or so they say. Then based on their ability to trace these things. How much of the explosives that are being used actually came from the Iraqi stockpiles that were left unguarded in 03? Did these same explosives end up crossing the border into Iran and are now coming back?
That article "Deadliest bomb" ..."US says" is worthy of the worst of Judy Miller. Not one named source, only "US intelligence agents" or, "some in the US Military" and further useless pap as sources for "breakng news". The Iranian "agents" are supplying ONLY Shia insurgents, militia, whatever, and they are responsible for the deaths of, "In the last three months of 2006, attacks using the weapons accounted for a significant portion of Americans killed and wounded in Iraq, though less than a quarter of the total, military officials say".
Apparently, the answer to why Iran-backed militias are attacking US troops, which I certainly haven't heard many reports of, is that they don't want us coming into their neighborhoods. I'm sure glad the Bush surge will not result in US troops living in and kicking down doors in Shia neighborhoods!
It seems the reason it MUST be the Iranians is because the Iraqis lack ability for, "manufacture of the key metal components required sophisticated machinery, raw material and expertise that American intelligence agencies do not believe can be found in Iraq"
In other words, in the non-PC spirit of a 1930s, crpto-fascist literary series, Doc Savage "There's White brains behind this, Doc!"
But rest assured, the greatest minds of military intelligence are on the case. As proof positive that we're right, ” Gen. Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said last week. “It is instructive that at least twice in the last month, that in going after the (IRANIAN?) networks, we have picked up Iranians.”
Posted by DeminNewJ at February 10, 2007 07:55 AMThe overwhelming number of US troop deaths in Iraq have come in sunni areas---those are the "insurgents" or "terrorists" (can't keep the labels stright) trying to kill Americans, and to date the military has never made claims that shi'ia militias were killing Americans, other than our intentional run-in with Sadr's Mahdi Army sometime in 2004, I believe.
This Iranian IED story is complete illogical bullshit, and shi'a militia violence against US forces has (so far) been an extremely marginal aspect of our occupation. They approve of our doing their dirty work for them by going after the sunni insurgents.
But so what, Deadeye Dick's regime has decided to start making its "case" for war against Iran, and that ever-liberal NYT has to begin carrying the filthy sewer water up the hill for Bloodthirsty Bushco. What must the 24/7 corporate cable "news" networks be doing with this propagandistic nonsense?
Lies, deception and misdirection are an essential component of agressive imperialism and militarism.
Posted by euzoius at February 10, 2007 08:10 AMWhat I find remarkable is the US media's near-complete inability to do basic due diligence on these kinds of claims.
The single worst IED incident that I'm aware of occurred near Haditha on the 2nd August 2005, and resulted in the deaths of 14 marines. The attribution was to triple-stacked anti-tank mines, not an EFP.
Posted by dan at February 10, 2007 08:18 AMThe propaganda effort is in full swing. I found a planted story the other day - you have to read the whole AP article to see the entire picture of the scam.
I'll bet you could pick through any alarmist article on Iran and find all sorts of "an unnamed source says," but no real names for those "inside" sources. There's also subtle misinterpretations of the facts to give a misleading impression, this article was one of the best, in that respect, that I've seen in a while.
It's exactly how they sold the Iraq war, which is stupid, since people are a little more leery this time around. Besides, it's a pretty obvious and half-assed effort, compared to the last one. Like they're not even trying.
They've already decided (and said publicly) they don't need approval from Congress, otherwise Rice would have formally answered Jim Webb's repeated requests for a definitive yes or no on the question "Does this president believe he has the authority to attack Iran without Congress's permission?" As far as I know, she still hasn't said yea or nay. I'm really curious what the answer is, too. Seems kinda important right about now.
Posted by iamcoyote at February 10, 2007 08:35 AMLet's see same script different country.
After reading about the Libby trial and how they produced talking points to manipulate the media. I came up with what I imagine would be a partial memo Dick wrote to his COS (David Addington and his media mouthpiece) at the direction of Mary Matalin (his former pr spokesman) and the need to Get the word out!
Dick's (Partial) To Do List for waging War against _____________.( Fill in country here). For this memo, It is labeled
Waging War with Iran.
On backround ony.
1. Plant stories with gullible err, I mean responsible stenograph eeerr I mean journalist discussing the deadly weapons they possess.
- Action Plan, talk to people at the NYT (Michael Gordon) and discuss the IED bomb parts from Iran found in Iraq.
2. Link Iran to Al Quaeda, any connection whatsoever.
-Action Plan, Get this story out to competing newspaper journalist.
(I imagine next we'll be hearing about how Amadinejad treated them in a local hospital soon).
*(this is only a partial To Do List, other steps to be taken deal with hyping imminent nuclear capability threat, centrifuges and tubes purchased etc- get the Poodle on board, maybe even some fake documents for the purchase of yellocake.)
Wow, that article is a masterpiece of weasel wordsmithing.
"According to American intelligence agencies, the Iranians are also believed to have provided ..."
NOT 'have provided', as in 'we have proof, it's an objective fact.' Rather it's 'believed to have provided.' People believe in space aliens, but I'm not going to base my foreign policy on it. The President 'believed' that the tax cuts wouldn't create a deficit, too.
"some of these weapons said to have been made in Iran were carried into Iraq in recent years."
'Some'? What percentage? How many? 'Said to have been made in Iran'? Were they actually made in Iran, or just 'said to have been'? Who said? If I 'say' this computer was made in Iran, when it was actually made in Japan and California, does that count? 'Carried into Iraq' by whom? From where? Albanian arms merchants from Mozambique? 'In recent years'? Oh, so like maybe not this week, or this year? Maybe it's been there for a while?
'Assessments by American intelligence agencies say there is no indication that there is any kind of black-market trade in the Iranian-linked roadside bombs, and that shipments of the components are being directed to Shiite militants who have close links to Iran.'No black-market trade in the assembled roadside bombs, or no black-market trade into components? How hard have they looked for one, since they don't seem interested in non-Iranian channels? Shipments are being directed? Do they have the mailing labels?
I can't go on. This isn't journalism. It's a political document.
Posted by biggerbox at February 10, 2007 09:45 AMHow can anyone believe anything this administration says about Iran given their track record of Iraq. Yea, I know that Iran is led by religous fanatics (as we are here) but they would have to be insane to provoke America to attack them. It would mean complete destruction of their country. I don't put anything past Bush/Cheney and their neocon as@#$*& cronies as far as "intelligence on Iran" goes and I would hope that the Congress will begin to have the guts to stop any bid to start another war in Iran based on administration "facts".
Posted by chris at February 10, 2007 10:19 AM"It seems the reason it MUST be the Iranians is because the Iraqis lack ability for, "manufacture of the key metal components required sophisticated machinery, raw material and expertise that American intelligence agencies do not believe can be found in Iraq"
Now wait just a f&cking minute. Weren't they sophisticated enough to have WMD? Hey you numbskulls, you can't have it both ways.
Posted by Judith at February 10, 2007 10:22 AMI thought that this bonehead "journalist" named Michael R. Gordon had left the New York Times like Judith Miller. Apparently not.
But read this very insightful article at Editor & Publisher's website on this very sorry, shitty article..
The URL link
http://www.rawstory.com/showarticle.php?src=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.editorandpublisher.com%2Feandp%2Fnews%2Farticle_display.jsp%3Fvnu_content_id%3D1003544369
Raw Story is also reporting a "hot" lead (perhaps a story upcoming) that the New York Times violated its own "unattributed source" rules when they published this piece of crap.
No Iranian attacks please.
But...
On "Truthout.org" they have been reporting of AF support crews (in the hundreds as well as low thousands) showing up in Romania and Bulgaria, along with fighter jet crews for F-16, F-16, and A-10 attack planes...for apparent cross-flight attacks into Iran...
So maybe King Chimpy and Darth "Vader" Cheney do want to go over the cliff, like in that film Thelma and Louise...but they will take the REthuglican Neocon Koolaid drinkers with them...
But they may also take everyone else with them, as well...
I don't want my nation to be destroyed.
Posted by Troubled American at February 10, 2007 10:52 AM"manufacture of the key metal components required sophisticated machinery, raw material and expertise that American
I thought we had bombed all of the simple metal lathes and chunks of steel stock in Iraq to smithereens. Don't tell me the Iraqis still have metal lathes and pieces of steel! Gad!
Posted by phidipides at February 10, 2007 11:02 AMtime to nuke iran and get them out of the picture
Posted by BOB at February 10, 2007 11:22 AMYeah, great "thinkin'", BOOB. That'll really get 'em out of the picture...
Militarist Authoritarians, BushAmerica's Finest.
Posted by euzoius at February 10, 2007 11:35 AMGordon makes it clear that he has multiple sources for his story. He clearly points out that he had cross-checked the story with intelligence analysts who had been skeptical about previous claims of Iranian involvement. And he points out that these skeptics have changed their minds after being presented with new damning evidence, which dispells all doubts.
Posted by soMebodY at February 10, 2007 11:53 AMTo somebody,
As in "No Doubt" said by Cheney.
The problem with this Iran "intelligence" is the same as the pre-war Iraq "intelligence", it, we have no way of verifying.
-Mark Robert Gates
please my blogs:
Loki Epona Phoenix' Phases
Democratic Party Idealog'
Wellness Empowered
While there may be "multiple sources" for this story, there's no indicaton whatever that Gordon didn't simply talk to just those officials that Bushco presented to him. Very weird that he can't even identify the supposedly numerous agencies these "informants" are in.
And certainly there's no indication that Gordon independently "cross-checked" the story with any intelligence official who was not part of the spoon feeding by Bushco.
This only "dispells (sic) all doubts" of those who already are dying to believe.
Posted by euzoius at February 10, 2007 02:03 PMI believe the War Powers Act requires approval of Congress unless we are attacked first. This was passed because Tricky Dick would not stop the Viet Nam War. Don't you feel great when a moron has his finger on the nuclear trigger.
Posted by JohnT at February 10, 2007 02:18 PMOk, now I'm confused. This is the same Michael Gordon who co-authored COBRA II with Bernie Trainor and who also complained loudly and often about Judy Miller yet co-authored a book together on bio-weapons??? What is going on here?
Posted by mainsailset at February 10, 2007 02:26 PMGosh, I haven't read anything about the capture and killing of 5 US servicemen that "must have been" carried out by Iranian agents because of the sophistication of the attack.
Fuckers.
The "shaped charge" or "self forging projectile" weapon dates back to at least the German "Panzerfaust", through the Bazooka, to the M72 and the RPG. Its not rocket science.
The RPG round is no bigger than a wine bottle, yet it is good for 300mmm of armor, as are its equivalents.
All you need is a copper cone, you back it with plastique and a detonator. The explosion forces the copper into a hypersonic jet of liquid copper which penetrates steel like a steam hose penetrates Ice.
Its not rocket science and no Iranian involvemnt is necessary, just a humble tinker with a sheet of copper.
Posted by walrus at February 11, 2007 01:32 AMAgain, IF Iranian fighters or materiel are making it across the border, it's because Bushco has failed to seal it for nearly 4 years.
Boob, YOUR comments provide encouragement to the Islamists fighting us; I mean, besides promoting genocide.
Posted by bartcopfan at February 12, 2007 07:25 AM