Bush 'spoiling for a fight' with Iran - Guardian Unlimited

[helderheid]

Bush 'spoiling for a fight' with Iran

Simon Tisdall
Tuesday January 30, 2007
Guardian Unlimited

US officials in Baghdad and Washington are expected to unveil a secret intelligence "dossier" this week detailing evidence of Iran's alleged complicity in attacks on American troops in Iraq. The move, uncomfortably echoing Downing Street's dossier debacle in the run-up to the 2003 Iraq invasion, is one more sign that the Bush administration is building a case for war.

Nicholas Burns, the senior US diplomat in charge of Iran policy, says Washington "is not looking for a fight" with Tehran. The official line is that Washington has made a conscious decision to "push back" against Iran on a range of fronts where the two countries' interests clash. Primarily that means Tehran's perceived meddling in Iraq, where its influence with the Shia-led government and Shia majority population appears to be increasing as Washington's weakens.

State department spokesman Sean McCormack claimed this week the administration has a body of evidence implicating Iran in sectarian attacks against Iraq's Sunni minority. "There is a high degree of confidence in the information that we already have and we are constantly accumulating more," he told the New York Times.

CIA and Pentagon officials are also touting intelligence that "Iranians are smuggling into Iraq sophisticated explosive devices, mortars, and detailed plans to wipe out Sunni Arab neighbourhoods," the paper said. Officials would make a "comprehensive case" this week. But President George Bush has already acted on information received. He confirmed yesterday that he has ordered US forces in effect to kill or capture Iranian "agents" targeting Americans in Iraq - as happened earlier this month when five Iranian officials were detained in Irbil.

Much more
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldbriefing/story/0,,2002232,00.html

[htuttle]

1. Another 'secret intelligence dossier' from Blair/Bush?

Did they "sex it up" this time, too?

Say no more, say no more! A nod's as good as a wink to a blind bat!

[ShortnFiery]

5. Iran doesn't have to sneak in ANY munitions, those treasure troves

of ammo dumps that our soldiers were not of sufficient numbers to secure is where the lion's share of IEDs are coming from. Besides Iran is their immediate neighbor. WHY ARE WE NOT TALKING TO IRAN AND SYRIA? Just because the Neo-Cons believe them to be "the evildoers" doesn't stop making them NEIGHBORS.

Hell, if you want to come down to it, Iran has just as much right to get involved as we do.
HELLO?!? Iraq and Iran share a BORDER!

:wtf: is wrong with the American People who think that we have *any right* to shape sovereign countries in order to FORCE them to be friendly to the USA? IMO we've already FAILED on that score.

We need to stop meddling in M.E. affairs. It's NOT our dance. :grr: Sure, we should re-dedicate our diplomats to help solve the Israeli-Palestinian crisis, but NOTHING MORE. Why? It's not our part of the world, you moronic Executive Branch. :grr: :nuke:

[Norquist Nemesis]

2. Yes, he is! And he's worse than a fool to be doing it!

Iraq's Shiia majority that comprises the Government is going to side with Iran. Unless some seriously drastic action is taken by Congress ASAP, we're screwed for generations.

[ShortnFiery]

6. Just because Iraq and Iran negotiate and are Shite does NOT make

them one homogeneous state. BOTH Iranians (Persians) and Iraqis (Arabic) have their own customs and culture BEYOND the Shia Religions.

NO, we're not screwed if we choose detente, and TOUGH but FAIR negotiations, i.e., don't allow the USA corporations to have a monopoly on the energy and reconstruction. The forgoing is what's it's all about.

I have had the honor of living within a country of the in the Middle East for 10 months. Please consider trusting me on this: The Iraqis would fight to the last citizen to repel an Iranian take-over. Again, let me emphasize ---> both countries are fiercely nationalistic.

[Norquist Nemesis]

10. You misunderstood

No where did I say they are homogeneous. And I fully agree that we should be talking with Iran and engaging the region rather than handing it over to US corporations. No doubt, the Iraqis would resist an Iranian takeover; but that's not what I was referring to.

IIRC (but am unable to find on a quick google search :( ), quite some time ago as the Iran rhetoric was just beginning to be ratcheted, a top level Iraqi government official publicly stated that Iraq would side with Iran if the US invaded/attacked them. We also have Talabani (again, IIRC, it was him) who stated that Iraq and Iran had "reached an Agreement" and specifically part of that agreement was security. This was a day or two before the highly publicized meeting between Bush and Maliki, but we've yet to hear details just exactly what Iraq and Iran have agreed to.

With what is occurring now, it's almost like they've pulled out the Iraq Regime Change PR Strategy, changed the 'Q' to 'N', and injected steroids based on the fact that it's not going to take three months to get the troops into the region. Last night was the "Breaking News!" that Iran is 'suspected' to have been responsible for the Karbala incident...the same incident that is now being highly played out as the kidnapping and killing of the soldiers, just by coincidence happening after the US takes five Iranians from what was in the works to be an Iranian consulate. Hmmmmm...

[ShortnFiery]

3. Remember, Rummy re-staffed the Pentagon with spring-butts General s and

Porter Goss and his hacks purged the CIA and replaced the highest tiers of the leadership with unskilled republican operatives.

Because of all their purging and restaffing with "good ole' Bush and authoritarian lovin' boys and girls, both the leadership of the Pentagon and CIA are "on the same page" of war profiteering as far as their imaginations can take them.

Doctor Strangelove? Yes! BushCo. may possibly bring about the end of human existence within the next year - IF - we don't get our REPRESENTATIVES to stop the killing and maiming, redeploy our troops out of the cities and insurgent hell holes. :nuke:

[rocktivity]

7. "Spring-butt" generals?

As in being so eager to jump to the beck and call of the Commander-In-Chump that they seem to have springs in their butts?

:rofl:
rocknation

[ShortnFiery]

8. You got that right!

I went through a physical training program that prepares guys (still don't let us gals) for attending Ranger School. The forgoing little league R.O.T.C., but real Ranger led training; being married to a Jarhead 18 of the 20 years he was active duty; three weeks of Airborne School at Fort Benning Georgia; and four years of Active Duty Army when I was a young woman, have resulted in my vocabulary coming across as crass (colorful slang) at times.

In other words, IMO, the Army and USMC troops I've had the pleasure of being acquainted with -have no loved lost for all the political ass-grabbing that often goes on between the Generals and their Civilian Leadership in Washington. :blush:

You must admit, colorful terminology serves to concisely convey a point. :shrug:

[rocktivity]

4. Candiate for this year's "You Call This NEWS?" award

They're back--it's Poodle and The Chimp! That loveable duo who brought you "WHAT Downing Street Minutes?"--it's not their fault that they weren't looking for a fight with Iraq, either!

:eyes:
rocknation

[Rob H.]

9. Fine. Fly him over there, strap a parachute on him, and shove him out of the plane.

We'll see if he's still "spoiling for a fight" when he lands.