CIA said to step up operations in Iran as hawks seek to tie Iraq bombs toTehran

[Roland99]

CIA said to step up operations in Iran as hawks seek to tie Iraq bombs to Tehran
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Eyeing_strike_Bush_Administration_shifts_Iran_0824.html

In an effort to build congressional and Pentagon support for military options against Iran, the Bush administration has shifted from its earlier strategy of building a case based on an alleged Iranian nuclear weapons program to one invoking improvised explosive devices (IEDs) purportedly manufactured in Iran that are killing US soldiers in Iraq.

According to officials – including two former Central Intelligence Agency case officers with experience in the Middle East – the administration believes that by focusing on the alleged ties between IEDs and Iran, they can link the Iranian government directly to attacks on US forces in Iraq.

The US military has provided credible evidence that the specialized IEDs known as explosively formed penetrators (EFPs), which have been killing US troops in Iraq, appear to have been manufactured in Iran. Intelligence and military officials caution, however, that there is nothing tying the weapons directly to the Iranian government, nor is there a direct evidentiary chain of custody linking the IEDs to Iran.

“There is clear evidence that someone in Iran is manufacturing the EFPs,” said a source currently working with military and intelligence joint operations in the Middle East, who wished to remain anonymous due to the sensitive nature of the topic. “They have a distinctive signature. These devices are being used against US troops, Sunnis, and even some Shi'as.”

Just like the shift away from Al Qaeda and bin Laden in 2001/2002 toward Iraq (and the various reasons for that, too), the warmongering, neocon chickenhawks WILL take us to war over Iran. And the little ugly duckling Democrats in Congress are too weak-kneed to stop them.

Here we go again!!

:banghead:

[aquart]

1. More likely tied to Saudi Arabia.

[madrchsod]

2. hillary will deal with it

she said she was the best to handle just about anything:sarcasm:

[EVDebs]

3. Will Congress' do a new AUMF for Iran or will they use the Sept 2001 AUMF

re terror and "...as he determines..." meaning Bush has extra-Consitutional powers which Congress has abdicated ?

Sept 2001 AUMF
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/sept_11/sjres23_eb.htm

""SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.""


The (as) 'he determines' language is the scariest part of this, yet the WPA of '73

http://www.policyalmanac.org/world/archive/war_powers_resolution.shtml

embedded requires "CLEAR" (truthful) "SITUATIONS" and "CIRCUMSTANCES" in order to proceed (see section c, below); the lack of clarity in the entire Iran situation now reveals the flawed logic Congress has used to further enable this administration. It's time Congress stand up and think for itself. Sen Warner seems to be learning this as he's mentions 'revisiting' the Iraq AUMF from Oct 2002. This one from Sept 2001 needs revisiting too,

""(c) The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.""

[Roland99]

4. That should have become null and void once sovereignty was handed over to Iraq.

I still shake my head that that shitty piece of "legislation" made it thru.