The Bush administration tries yet again to realign reality in order to match up with their propaganda.
"We know that the explosively formed projectiles are manufactured in Iran," Pace told Voice of America during a visit to Australia. "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," he continued, "but I would not say by what I know that the Iranian government clearly knows or is complicit."
Pace’s comments came a day after U.S. military officials in Baghdad alleged that the "highest levels" of the Iranian government have directed use of weapons that are killing U.S. troops in Iraq. No information was provided to substantiate the charge. Administration officials yesterday deflected requests for more details, even as they repeatedly implied Tehran’s involvement.
As noted here, Saudi hands are all over insurgent funding, but there’s nary a peep from our "leaders".
Pace’s comments came a day after U.S. military officials in Baghdad alleged that the “highest levels” of the Iranian government have directed use of weapons that are killing U.S. troops in Iraq.
So essentially, you’re calling members of our military liars. This from the same guy that almost literally had a cow when Broder accused a particular audience of not being all that sympathetic to the military.
Quacks like a duck.
Actually you have nothing. Nada. The briefers indicated involvement of the QUD group – a group known to be under the direction of high level Iranian authorities. Are you saying this is a lie. That these men lied? Or that Pace lied? Do you have better data than military intelligence on site? You are so quick with the nasty invective, now back it up. Where was the lie and who lied?
Actually, Oliver never used the word “lie”. He’s just suggesting that the intelligence might have been cooked. Again.
If he’s suggesting the intelligence is cooked again, then he definitly owes his readers a correction from the http://www.oliverwillis.com/2007/02/no_kidding.html“ rel=”nofollow”>last time he suggested it.
How do you explain this…
Austrian sniper rifles that were exported to Iran have been discovered in the hands of Iraqi terrorists, The Daily Telegraph has learned.
More than 100 of the.50 calibre weapons, capable of penetrating body armour, have been discovered by American troops during raids.
The Steyr HS50 is a long range, high precision rifle
The guns were part of a shipment of 800 rifles that the Austrian company, Steyr-Mannlicher, exported legally to Iran last year.
The sale was condemned in Washington and London because officials were worried that the weapons would be used by insurgents against British and American troops.
link
Guess the iranian government just forgot to lock the door or something eh?
whoops…..
The Bush administration has zero credibility and a history of failure when it comes to its saber rattling in the middle east. When reporters, for a change, want to examine evidence and verify it and are told no, it pretty much undermines any case they may try to make.
Hey Pedroid and MotherFugger -
So what then? Do you want to engage Iran (and potentially engage Syria)?
Okay -
Currently, The U.S. – the most technologically advanced armed force in the world – is experiencing a casualty rate of one batallion per month in Iraq alone. Attacks on NATO / U.S. Forces in Afghanistan have increased six fold in the past year.
Even current proposals to significantly increase the troop level in Iraq alone is implausible, even for the short term according to U.S. Central Command Commander Gen. John Abizaid:
“We can put in 20,000 more Americans tomorrow and achieve a temporary effect. But when you look at the overall American force pool that’s available out there, the ability to sustain that commitment is simply not something that we have right now with the size of the Army and the Marine Corps.”
Iran is a nation with a highly trained and very well equipped army- far from moth eaten beserkers armed with with just Kalishnikovs and Jihad on the brain.
And don’t forget: Saudi Arabia, The Arab Emirates, Indonesia, Pakistan, Egypt, Turkey, Tajikistan, Yemen, Libya, Qatar, etc… will certainly get the message if this sabre rattling becomes more than rhetoric.
By all means guys, please ratchet up this brilliant strategy (Just so we can try to forget about Iraq).
Do shut up.
gee, nimmer,
Ever heard of a countryman of yours named Orwell? How do you interpret “realign reality” if not lie. Is there a meaningful distinction between that and lie? perhaps you can explain it. Especially in context? And no satirisation, aged legume!!!!!!
midder, Credibility is a subjective judgment. Does the military have no credibility with the left? They spoke of connections to high level Iranian officials. Is this a lie? ‘Reality re-aligned’?
Did OW maybe jump the shark with this smear?
Alright, fuck the semantics. Cooked intelligence/lie, potato/potahto. Whatever.
The real question is, do you actually want this war with Iran? What do you think will happen?
Does the military have no credibility with the left?
The military does what they’re told to do, and they’re not going to contradict or undermine the civilian leadership. All militaries serve as an instrument of state policy, and in this case, the state is currently being led by a pack of liars. Maybe that clarifies things?
Dugger | Feb 13, 2007 8:11:45 AM
“Actually you have nothing. Nada. The briefers indicated involvement of the QUD group – a group known to be under the direction of high level Iranian authorities. Are you saying this is a lie. That these men lied? Or that Pace lied? Do you have better data than military intelligence on site? You are so quick with the nasty invective, now back it up. Where was the lie and who lied?”
Deja freaking vu.
you are absolutely right PD
Sort of like Libya getting “the message” after we took out saddam…all of a sudden he wants to play nice.
Thats the point numbnuts…
Dugger and all other asshat little cowards: if you believe anything anyone in this administration says, you’re too fucking stupid to breathe. You defend the indefensible, you lie for traitors, you hate all who are murdered by the people you put in power. You are evil. You are going to hell.
deux, You been in the military? You think Generals etc would outright lie per higher direction and that higher direction comes down to the effect that “this is the way we want it to be and you will lie to make it so.” ?
Mike,
One of your more articulate posts. You’ve elevated to sputtering gibberish. And I may well be going to hell (but not for supporting the saving of brown-skinned lives)- if there is one.
Ah yes, Pedroid. Everyone is going to “play nice” based on that brilliant strategy.
So when that fucks up will you suddenly start to care about “Democracy” for nations that you formerly wanted to glassify on bogus pretenses?
Also you convince yourself (like above) that you’re righteous and actually saving lives by killing people.
Considering the lies and distortions that have come out of the White House and Pentagon for the last 6 years, I ask again: why should I believe them? If someone is a serial liar, the burden of proof is on them.
Dugger | Feb 13, 2007 11:26:56 AM
“Mike,One of your more articulate posts. You’ve elevated to sputtering gibberish.”
Mike is far more articulate, with a better grasp on reality, pedugger, than the one you’ve clearly lost drinking The Decider’s Kool Aid.
In Good news, for a change;
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17117242/
North Korea agrees to nuclear disarmament
Reactor to shut in 60 days in exchange for aid; ex-U.S. envoy rips pact
except for this asshat;
See, guys? Talking to people can actually get things accomplished.
Who knew?
Oliver,
it’s hard to rail about the administration’s credibility when your own is so very much in question.
You think Generals etc would outright lie per higher direction and that higher direction comes down to the effect that “this is the way we want it to be and you will lie to make it so.” ?
Yes. And then when they retire , they can come out and say how fucked up it was.
SaveFarris: The general thrust of the story remains the same, the Bush admin cooked the evidence. To pretend otherwise is to be stupid or Republican.
Oh, God, Farris, let it go, already. They changed the story after Oliver posted. We get it.
Farris, for the love of God.
duros,
“See, guys? Talking to people can actually get things accomplished.
Who knew?”
We don’t quite see the option as being the simplistic: (a) non-violence, nobody gets hurt, good results via talking and (b)violence. The option isn’t really. Theres a time for talking and a time for action. Its knowing which is which thats the puzzler.
Especially when the correction Farris relies on states that: “that Feith’s briefing to the White House in 2002 “undercuts the Intelligence Community” and “did draw conclusions that were not fully supported by the available intelligence.”"
Cherry pick that correction. I guess SaveFarris’ credibility is officially shot now.
And remember Duros, Khaddafi gave up his WMD programs to the British after immense economical and political pressure.
And remember Duros, Khaddafi gave up his WMD programs to the British after immense economical and political pressure.
Which is why, Dugger, Bush’s lack of credibility and poor judgement really undermine US efforts abroad.
The general thrust of the story remains the same, the Bush admin cooked the evidence.
Wrong! The thrust of the story WAS “Administration admits it cooks the books”. After the correction, the story is “Administration Opponent claims books were cooked.”
That you can’t see the difference is astounding, but not altogether unexpected.
Theres a time for talking and a time for action. Its knowing which is which thats the puzzler.
Well, that narrows it down.
It’s still good news, I don’t care who you know.
Does anyone see the lack of logic in assuming that Pres. Bush must be lying since we’re talking about military intervention in another Middle Eastern country?
I’m reminded of when parents don’t let their children go to the store themselves anymore, because the last time they bought candy with the change, instead of bringing it all home.
Surely, you can argue for against involvement in Iran, without bringing Bush’s credibility into it?
Give it up, Farris.
This is from the text of the very correction that has you all hot and bothered:
The Post got the two reports all balled up because they use similar language.
view
Of course you are right. But, you see, it really isn’t Iranian policy at all that they are thinking about. Its getting Bush. Their concern re Iran will evaporate even faster than their earlier (Plame -time) ‘concern’ for outing intelligence agents once Bush is gone.
Does anyone see the lack of logic in View from a Bridge’s post? His logic seems to be, Bush lied before therefore he probably isn’t lying now.
A better analogy would be the parents that no longer send their kids to the store to buy eggs because not only did they keep the change, they bought crack instead of eggs.
There are many arguments against attacking Iran, but the chief arguments for attacking Iran all come back to Bush’s and his administration’s judgement, track record and credibility, both of which are poor from a historical view.
Shorter Pedugger: Nu-uhhh!
There are many arguments against attacking Iran, but the chief arguments for attacking Iran all come back to Bush’s and his administration’s judgement, track record and credibility, both of which are poor from a historical view
Sorry, but that’s nonsense.
Now, you’re saying, “If Bush is for it, I’m against it.”
If intervening in some way in Iran has merit, then it has merit. If it does not, it does not.
Even back in 1970, when anti (Vietnam) war was strong, and the left never stopped hating Nixon, was anyone foolish enough to say, “Invading Cambodia is a bad idea. After all, Nixon thinks it’s a good idea.”
And, BTW, you’re analogy doesn’t hold up. It just means that the child shouldn’t buy crack; not that he shouldn’t go to the store.
Consider this syllogism:
B lied and it resulted in a bad ending.
B is probably lying now.
Therefore, it will result in a bad ending.
It doesn’t work.
fixing italics
again, fixing italics
The key really is that since Bush and his administration have lied heavily and often about this very subject, they’ve got to actually break their backs to convince anyone the second time.
Fool me once, won’t get fooled again and all that.
“Invading Cambodia is a bad idea. After all, Nixon thinks it’s a good idea.”
Even though it was true?
Consider this syllogism:
B lied and it resulted in a bad ending.
B is probably lying now.
Therefore, it will result in a bad ending.
It doesn’t work.
No, actually, that works for me.
Setting aside the “non-demonstrable” lie label ( so that dugger doesn’t have a seizure), the Bush administration has been so wrong, so many times about so much that, yes, the entire admin’s credibility is suspect. Not because I hate them, but because they have been so wrong, so often about so much.
But you don’t think so?
OOOkay then.
Their concern re Iran will evaporate…once Bush is gone.
Absolutely correct.
The military doesn’t lie? How’s about these for a start:
Pat Tillman
Abu Ghraib
Haditha
White phosphorus
Flight recorder video
The military is as vulnerable to poor leadership as the presidency. Calling those supine military officials on their inadequacies or outright falsehoods is no more “anti-military” than questioning this administration’s disastrous foreign policies is unpatriotic.
Now somebody explain to me why the Iranians would aid the Sunnis, and only within the last few months?
Isn’t this all a tad hypocritical? We sell arms to anyone with a valid checking account, invade countries on a whim we deem “dangerous,” and flout just about every international nuclear treaty in existence . Yet here we are, with troops stationed on both sides of Iran, tossing around constant heated rhetoric about the “axis of evil,” there are nuclear powers on all sides (Israel, Pakistan, and India), and with several carrier groups in the Gulf, actually complaining that Iran might be getting involved in regional matters involving a a bordering country occupied by an arguably hostile foreign army.
Good one!
And it’s been said before, but it bears repeating, the Sauds deserve a lot more scrutiny than Iran. At least if you are talking about dealing with terrorism.
It’s an argument that was made before the last presidential election: Bush doesn’t have the credibility to lead if action is required. Maybe some other country will have to step up because I doubt the international community will listen to Bush.
But the point ‘view’ is earnestly making, one with which I agree, is that you guys are saying nothing about Iran. Should we/ shouldn’t we. Merely stating that if Bush is involved and recommends something, do the opposite won’t cut it. That might look cute on a leftist web site, but it doesn’t substittue for mature thought. If, if, Bush is wrong, what is right? Do nothing re Iran? Where you going to get your intel – if as Bill and OW infer, the military is lying and will lie again? Do these ‘liars’ suddenly get honest if a Dem is elected? OW may be a choice (now, in fairness, he does ‘know’ OBL is in Pakistan and and that all we need to do is invade and kill – problem solved)?
Jeebus, Fugger. You wrote this:
But did you even read the article that Oliver linked to? Pace just completely backed off the assertions made just the day before. At that time, as the article notes, intelligence officials provided no “to substantiate the charge.”
Furthermore, “Administration officials yesterday deflected requests for more details, even as they repeatedly implied Tehran’s involvement.”
Soi the administration is implying the involvement of the government of Iran, providing absolutely no proof for this assertion and Gen. Pace just came out today to confirm that there is no way of knowing if the Iranian government itself is involved or even knows about what’s happening.
You totally ignore all this, however, and demand that Oliver come up with proof of a lie. Dugger, you idiot, Pace just contradicted what the White House said yesterday. So who’s lying, the White House or Pace? That’s the question.
Then you wrote: “Does the military have no credibility with the left?”
But Dugger, the military, in the form of Gen. Pace is contradicting the message that the White House is sending out. In his post above, Oliver is taking Pace’s side against the White House.
Jesus you’re an idiot.
“Do nothing re Iran?”
Dugger, you idiot, as per Gen. Pace, we cannot prove that the Iranian government is involved in anyway with the funneling of weapons to Iraq.
You are demanding action before there’s any proof. Pace certainly doesn’t know if the Iranian government is involved. He said it explicitly: “It is clear that Iranians are involved, and it’s clear that materials from Iran are involved,” he continued, “but I would not say by what I know that the Iranian government clearly knows or is complicit.”
Are we supposed to invade Iran or start assassinating Iranian government leaders without any proof of their involvement? Are you fucking crazy?
Dugger writes:
“Where you going to get your intel – if as Bill and OW infer, the military is lying and will lie again?”
But again, Dugger, you total moron, Pace is saying that there is no proof that the Iranian government is involved or even knows about the funneling of weapons to Iraq.
Only the White House is implying the opposite. The White House has zero credibility and Oliver was clearly attacking the Bush administration itself and not the military. As he wrote:
“The Bush administration tries yet again to realign reality in order to match up with their propaganda.”
You’re an idiot.
We knew OBL was in Pakistan right after Tora Bora, who knows where he is now, but we didn’t dare go into Pakistan then – we let him get away because we needed to invade Iraq.
The White House is saying Iran provided weapons to insurgents.
Gen. Pace says he doesn’t think so.
I’m juxtaposing those two opposing statements and asking why we should believe people (the administration) who lie every time their mouths are open. One thing you need to learn about me and what I write here: you never have to “infer” anything. I say what I think and mean what I say.
Christ Dugger, many of the anti-war left have talked about Iran, since before the Iraq invasion, as a more serious threat than Iraq. The problem we have now is that with our troops pinned in Iraq, Bush has seriously damaged America’s ability to deal with Iran. The best you guys have now is some Clintonesque bombing that will serve only to radicalize the Iranian population against us, and seriously endanger our troops in Iraq. Not to mention, probable condemnation from the international community.
All because the Bush Administration is diplomatically challenged.
Bahh. Frame and OW. You’re both wrong. Sunday the military briefed on the devices and cited their connection to an Iranian group with high level governemnt ties. Pace says he can’t cite speciic Iranian government knowledge (this is not a contradiction). The White House said the Iranians are involved – which all admit is true.
So, your point would be……… ?
“The White House said the Iranians are involved – which all admit is true.”
BZZZT. Wrong. Did you read the article OW linked to, Dugs? Are you an idiot?
From the article:
According to Pace there is no evidence that anyone in the Iranian government, high or low, knows anything about this or was involved in anyway. Again, as Pace said: “We know that the explosively formed projectiles are manufactured in Iran,” Pace told Voice of America during a visit to Australia. “What I would not say is that the Iranian government, per se, knows about this.”
Now you are demanding a military response against the Iranian government for something that the Iranian government may not be involved with at all. Are their rogue elements in the Iranian government running weapons to Iraq? Maybe. Who knows. No one has yet to offer any conrete proof that anyone in the Iranian government is involved and there is absolutely no evidence that there are official, high ranking Iranian government members involved.
But here’s what did Tony Snow say yesterday:
Pace’s comments today mean that Tony Snow, and this administration, is full of shit.
It goes without saying that you are, yourself, full of shit when you omit the crucial words “Iranian government” from your comment that “The White House said the Iranians are involved.”
You see Duggger, the White House didn’t say that “Iranians” are involved. They are strongly implying that the “Iranian government” is involved. Big fucking difference, especially if you want to engage in any kind of “mature thought” about what our response should be.
Just more idiotic spinning and deception from the right.
And might I add, the defense intelligence analyst who linked the weapons to this elite Iranian military outfit provided absolutely no evidence to support that claim. None whatsoever.
Well, framey, old bean, how do you ’splain dis:
USA Today Sunday:
In a briefing, U.S. officials showed reporters part of a device they described as a sophisticated roadside bomb, along with mortar shells and rocket-propelled grenades they said were made in Iran. Later, one of the officials, an intelligence analyst, said it would be impossible to find a “smoking gun” conclusively proving Iranian government involvement.”
Note WaPo paraphrased that portion of their report. This USA Today article says the miltiary spefically denied saying there was a provable gov. connection.
So Pace was right and the military was right. (And Dugger)
Dipshit. Total dipshit. From the article you cite:
So it’s impossible to come up with a “smoking gun” but there’s “pretty good evidence” that “the highest levels of the Iranian government” are involved. That is not what Pace is saying.
Pace is saying that it looks like Iranians might be involved but that there is no evidence and no reason to believe that the Iranian government is involved in anyway.
Context is not your friend Dugger, neither is it a friend of this administration, which is quite clearly trying to massage its way into another war.
I’ll just point out again that the briefers presented reporters with absolutely no conrete evidence to support any of their claims, aside from a bunch of slides. Remember Colin Powell at the UN? He had slides too.
Dugger, I would also direct you back to TOny Snow’s comment:
White House spokesman Tony Snow offered similar responses. “Let me put it this way,” he said. “There’s not a whole lot of freelancing in the Iranian government, especially when it comes to something like that.”
He is clearly implying that the Iranian government itself is involved. As per Pace, there is absolutely no evidence to base that claim on. How do you want to justify Snow’s comments then?
What a dumb point. In other words, Dugger, there is no evidence that the Iranian government is involved and that your statement “The White House said the Iranians are involved – which all admit is true.” Is false. So you prove yourself wrong and …
Dugger claims victory!!!!
midder, You disappoint me. You re smarter than this, I’m sure. You do understand one assertion is ‘Iranians’ and the other is the Iranian government, right?
frame,
Where did you get this:
“no reason to believe that the Iranian government is involved in anyway. ”
You made that up. Pace didn’t say it.
Dugger,
PAce said this:
Now would you like to suggest that Pace does not have access to all the relevant intelligence on this matter? Because what Pace said is that according to everything he knows, the Iranian government knows anything about how Iranian equiptment has ended up in Iraq.
In other words, Pace has seen no evidence to suggest that the Iranian government is involved in any way shape or form.
Now would you like to address the meaning of Snow’s comments now or do you want to dodge that too?
“You do understand one assertion is ‘Iranians’ and the other is the Iranian government, right?”
Um, Dugger, it’s pretty clear that you’re the one who doesn’t understand the distinction as you keep blurring the lines yourself. This administration is asserting that, per Tony Snow, that the Iranian government knows all, sees all and directs all. Pace has directly contradicted that assertion.
But you blur the two, first attacking Oliver for calling the military liars. He clearly didn’t. Second by selectively quoting the administration to drop every reference to the Iranian government itself.
You’re a total hack.
Well, framey, old bean, how do you ’splain dis:
I dunno. Somebody’s yard sale?
Doesn’t this quote kill Dugger’s argument stone dead?
Quit while you’re ahead, Dugger. Or better still, just quit.
I see Dugger, I must have got lost since this entire Post is based on:
“Pace’s comments came a day after U.S. military officials in Baghdad alleged that the “highest levels” of the Iranian government have directed use of weapons that are killing U.S. troops in Iraq.”
And you want to play semantics again.
Dugger declares victory!!!
Americans were involved with the Oklahoma city bombing, maybe we should have bombed ourselves?
Americans were responsible for at least 8,000 deaths in Bhopal India. India has nukes, maybe they should plan to nuke us.
frame, Very simply. Pace said he couldn’t verify the Iranian government knew. You said that he said there was no reason to believe the Iranian government was involved. Big difference. You got it wrong. (There are plenty of reasons to suspect the Iranian government knew, but he can’t verify). Be big and admit you were wrong.
midder
Since you’re catcalling from the sidelines. The lead here contends disconnect between the two sets of data: what was said in the DOD briefing Sunday and what was said by Pace. I have merely pointed out that WaPO said one thing while USA Today said another (both liberal papers. The USA Today report squares with what Gen Pace said. Also Wapo gave a paraphhrase of what was said and also did not quote. Then frame misstated what the General said.
The Washington Post is a liberal paper. Okay, I had to type that out just to make sure I read it right.
“Pace said he couldn’t verify the Iranian government knew. You said that he said there was no reason to believe the Iranian government was involved. Big difference.”
Bullshit. Pace said he had seen no evidence to suggest that the Iranain government was involved at any level in the smuggling of arms into Iraq. He has, in other owrds, no reason to beleive that the statements of the Bush administration, such as Tony Snow’s are true.
Now, Dugger, will youplease explain how Snow’s statement — “Let me put it this way,” he said. “There’s not a whole lot of freelancing in the Iranian government, especially when it comes to something like that.” — jibes with Pace’s statement?
Someone is full of shit and I’m going to put my money on Snow. As per Pace, there is absolutley no evidence supporting Snow’s claim. But Snow went ahead and said it anyway. Why do you think that is?
“Then frame misstated what the General said.”
Bullshit again. Go back and read my comments asshat. I have quoted Pace dirctly a number of times while you dance around the semantic difference between “Iranians” and “Iranian government.”
You also danced around the fact that the briefers on Sujnday said that Bush administration official Defense Secretary Gates was quoted in the USA Today article as saying that the US had “good evidence” that the highest levels of the Iranian government were involved. The briefers themselves said they had such evidence, although it would be difficult to find a smoking gun. That’s a lot different than what Pace said.
Pace said he has seen no evidence to suggest that the Iranian government was involved at any level.
Just keep dancing dipshit.
Oh, and just so we can see how much of an asshat you really are Dugger please reconcile the following statement:
And this:
All we need now is for Dugger or pedro to come back and say that if we wait for a “smoking gun” it could be a mushroom cloud, and it’s deja vu all over again.
frame
When you ‘answer’ your own posts with increasingly incoherent and emotional posts, its time to take a deep cyber breath.
Now.
Your mis-characterization of Pace’s remarks has his affirming NO Iranian gov involvement (”no reason to believe”). Read your words. Whereas Pace said he didn’t know if the Iran Gov was involved. As Ricky Ricardo would have said: You escrewed it up, muchacho!
And as to Tony Snows quote: Snow is inferring its quite feasible that the government is involvement since there is very little etc. I would think if he wanted to say the government was involved he would have said the government is involved.
“The briefers themselves said they had such evidence, although it would be difficult to find a smoking gun.”
And of course, this also, frame, is completely illogical (they have evidence, but not a smoking gun???????). Think, then type.
Where to even start with your continuing bullshit.
Dugger, ever heard of circumstantial or hearsay evidence? It ain’t “smoking gun” evidence. The briefers on Sunday had nothing concrete but they nevertheless asserted with utmost confidence the highest levels of the Iranian government were involved in smuggling weapons to Iraq. They then turned around and told reporters they could should not expect “smoking gun” evidence of their assertion, just know that it’s true.
Pace’s comments totally contradict that assertion and totally contradict the comment made by Snow who was clearly suggesting that the Iranian government knows and approves of the weapons smuggling.
As per Pace, there is no evidence that the Iranian government is involved in anything nefarious inside Iraq.
Continuing to suggest that Pace, Snow and the briefers are all in accord is ludicrous wingnuttery at its finest.
“Snow is inferring its quite feasible that the government is involvement …”
Let point out this specific example of your bullshit spin. Dugger, Snow was not inferring that it is “feasible” the Iranian government is involved, he’s saying they ARE in FACT involved. Here’s what he said:
Snow’s a hack for not saying directly what he thinks but your a hack for suggesting that he’s only raising the possibility. He isn’t. He wants to plant the suggestion that Iran is actually doing what the administration says it is doing. As per Pace, again, there is no evidence that this is the case.
frame said the briefers said:
“asserted with utmost confidence the highest levels of the Iranian government were involved in smuggling weapons to Iraq’
Whereas USA Today said the same people said, same day:
“Later, one of the officials, an intelligence analyst, said it would be impossible to find a “smoking gun” conclusively proving Iranian government involvement.”
Waste deep in the big muddy, amigo. I think the answer is to further out.
And Snow did not say the government was involved – no matter how many time syou say otherwise. If he wanted to say that he would have said it – pure and simple. His remarks suggests he wouldn’t be surprised if they were involved.
You’ve lost this one. The record is right in front of you. You are having to pretend people are saying things.
Yay! We don’t need to invade Iran!
No, Dugger, you’ve lost. It’s just your pathological inability to comprehend the idea that you might be wrong about something that’s keeping you posting.
nimmer,
I’ve been wrong many times and admit it. Here, I’m right. And I notice you still avoid addressing WW II casualties verus Iraq. I’m not surprised. There is no good answer for you.
Because the whole question is incurably fucking stupid and deserves nothing but derision, that’s why. Shut the fuck up about WWII, you god damned moron.
Duger you’re an ass.
Here’s the bottom line, the brieferson Sunday said they believed that the highest levels of the Iranian government were involved in directing shipments of weapons to Iraq but that reporters should not expect to see “conclusive evidence” proving this.
Pace said, the next day, that he has seen ZERO EVIDENCE, to indicate that the Iranian government knows anything about weapons going to Iraq.
So on one hand you have unidentified people claiming government responsibility without providing any proof and other you have the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff saying he has seen no evidence of the Iranian government’s involvement period.
Add to this Tony Snow’s suggestion, that wink, wink, nudge, nudge, we all know how the Iranian government works, and you have someone trying to spin shit into gold, or, at least, another war, and it ain’t Pace.
“And I notice you still avoid addressing WW II casualties verus Iraq. I’m not surprised.”
Classic. Dugger up against the wall (one he built himself through his own idiocy) and now he shifts topics to some other headache causing lunacy that has seized his brain.
“Iraq must be going well because less people have died than in World War II,” or some such nonsense.
What a moron.
“If he wanted to say that he would have said it – pure and simple.”
No Dugger he wouldn’t have. Because he knows there’s no fucking evidence, as per Pace, proving that the Iranian government is involved. So what does he do? He dances the dance and hopes the press will bite.
“All I can say is that the Mullahs know all and see all.” wink wink.
You’re a total idiot.
I’m pretty sure most of the dead people from WWII would think the Iraq invasion to be stupid. Question addressed.
These so-called “breifers” aren’t from Team B by any chance, are they?
You know, the MSU Dept. of the Pentagon?
What a bizarre thread…
One side seems to want to use what they see as a pattern of behavior to indict Iran.
The other side wants to use what they see as a pattern of behavior to indict….the US military!
Side A has circumstantial evidence that Iran is supplying weapons to the Iraqi insurgency — but not enough to conclusively say that the Iranian government is orchestrating it.
Side B says that the military has lied in the past and, thus, must be lying now as well — although they also can’t say conclusively that the US military is lying.
Genuinely weird stuff.
The big question to those on Side B: you say that there’s no justification for any action against Iran because the evidence isn’t conclusive.
Fair enough. But what if it becomes conclusive? What would your suggested course of action be then?
Food for thought.
“The other side wants to use what they see as a pattern of behavior to indict….the US military!”
You’re an absolute asshat. If you re-read Oliver’s original post you will see that he is not impugning the integrity of the military, he is impugning the integrity of the Bush administration which has a recent history of distorting intelligence to promote a war it wanted to have.
Second, if you have been paying any attnetion at all you will note that the report by defense department briefers on Sunday that “shipments of weapons and ammunition to Iraq’s Shiite militias were being directed at the highest levels of the Iranian government” has been widely contradicted not only by Pace but now, as of yesterday, by the president
himselfhimself, who said that “he said he did not know whether Iran’s highest officials had directed the attacks.”
That directly contradicts what his own press secretary said just days before when he implied that the Iranian government knew and approved of the shipments.
Let me just quote from the article linked to above:
Now according to your assessment, Pace is indicting the US military. You wanna stand by that?
This administration has a track record of overstating its case — uranium from Niger, anyone? — and then backing away from those overstatements even as asshat morons continue to spread them around the blogs and the mainstream media.
Did you see the reporting that CNN did after the Sunday briefing? It was
insane.
In my mind, the only thing that forced the administration to reverse course this time and start backing away from the claims made on Sunday were Pace’s comments on Monday.
And Side A is not being as limited in its claims as you suggest. Dugger is suggesting that PAce did not contradict what the briefers said on Sunday, attempting to have his cake and eat it too, much like the administration. He has, further up the thread, advocated a military response to that “evidence” even as different people high up in our own government are contradicting one another.
Which brings us to your food for thought. Why don’t we take one thing at a time, hey, big fella?
With the current media and this administration, “responses” and “solutions” have a way of outstripping reality rather quickly. Why don’t we get the evidence first this time round and then start talking about a response.
The current debate should be about what we can prove. Not what we should did if we ever could prove anything. You see how the later sort of clouds the issue?
Now there is evidence that EFPs are being made in Iraq. THe Sniper rifle story has been refuted by the manufacturer, is there anything else?
But Midder, what if the EFPs were being manufactured by the highest levels of the Iranian government and what if the sniper rifle story hadn’t been refuted, how should we respond then? Think about it …
Hmmmm, in that case we should, dammit, I can’t think. We should invade Uruguay so we can open another entirely new front on the war on terror?
“If you re-read Oliver’s original post you will see that he is not impugning the integrity of the military,”
In your dreams. Those were military briefers Sunday that OW thinks are making up a case for war. He is impugning them.
“Those were military briefers Sunday that OW thinks are making up a case for war.”
You are truly an idiot. The first line from Oliver’s post:
Of course you also have to totally overlook that Oliver is quoting Pace approvingly, Pace, who also happens to be a part of the military and a much higher ranked member of the military at that.
You also still have to overlook that Bush himself has repudiated what the military briefers said on Sunday. Bush said he did not know whether the highest levels of the Iranian government were involded. But Dugger, the briefers said that they knew and had evidence that the highest levels of the Iranian government were wrong.
Face it. This administration has used the defense department’s resources to distort intelligence in the past to make their case for war. Here you have a situation where unidentified military briefers made claims that no one, not the Joint Chief of Staff or the President is now willing to back up or confirm.
Why do you think that is Dugger? Assuming you can think at all.