Iranophobia

Deja Vu All Over Again:

"Some in G.O.P. Say Iran Threat Is Played Down

Some senior Bush administration officials and top Republican lawmakers are voicing anger that American spy agencies have not issued more ominous warnings about the threats that they say Iran presents to the United States. Some policy makers have accused intelligence agencies of playing down Iran’s role in Hezbollah’s recent attacks against Israel and overestimating the time it would take for Iran to build a nuclear weapon.

The complaints, expressed privately in recent weeks, surfaced in a Congressional report about Iran released Wednesday. They echo the tensions that divided the administration and the Central Intelligence Agency during the prelude to the war in Iraq.

The criticisms reflect the views of some officials inside the White House and the Pentagon who advocated going to war with Iraq and now are pressing for confronting Iran directly over its nuclear program and ties to terrorism, say officials with knowledge of the debate. . .

The new report, from the House Intelligence Committee, led by Representative Peter Hoekstra, Republican of Michigan, portrayed Iran as a growing threat and criticized American spy agencies for cautious assessments about Iran’s weapons programs. “Intelligence community managers and analysts must provide their best analytical judgments about Iranian W.M.D. programs and not shy away from provocative conclusions or bury disagreements in consensus assessments,” the report said, using the abbreviation for weapons of mass destruction like nuclear arms.

Some policy makers also said they were displeased that American spy agencies were playing down intelligence reports — including some from the Israeli government — of extensive contacts recently between Hezbollah and members of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard. “The people in the community are unwilling to make judgment calls and don’t know how to link anything together,” one senior United States official said.

“We’re not in a court of law,” he said. “When they say there is ‘no evidence,’ you have to ask them what they mean, what is the meaning of the term ‘evidence’?” . . .

“Analysts were burned pretty badly during the run-up to the war in Iraq,” said Representative Rush Holt, a New Jersey Democrat who sits on the House Intelligence Committee. “I’m not surprised that some in the intelligence community are a bit gun-shy about appearing to be war mongering.”

[color=blue]
“Evidence?” That means "actually exists, or is “actually true” for those of us who are reality impaired.[/color] :slight_smile:

If Iran is so inoccent, why doesn’t it co-operate with the UN? That’s the best way to take the piss out of the Bushites.

I think they are too busy playing the West against itself.

[quote=“TheGingerMan”][quote=“Taichung Social Club”]If Iran is so inoccent, why doesn’t it co-operate with the UN? [/quote]I think they are too busy playing the West against itself.[/quote]TGM -
A very profound statement.
I have often thought that OBL/Iran/Terrs in general, et al. have a very expensive US Public Relations Agency giving them tips on manipulation of the media.

Of course, in any war time situation there are always those who seek personal gratification and gain by second-guessing the aims and actions of those involved.
Done in the name of “patriotism” of course.

Makes 'em look smart ya know…

None of this sounds remotely familiar to any of you guys, of course. :laughing:

Au contraire. It sounds exactly like pre-Iraq posturing - on both sides. Again, the country in question failed to co-operate with the UN, giving George dubya an excuse to take action.

Au contraire. It sounds exactly like pre-Iraq posturing - on both sides. Again, the country in question failed to co-operate with the UN, giving George dubya an excuse to take action.[/quote]

That must mean it’s time for a recitation of the “but Iran is refusing to stop building nuclear bombs just like Iraq refused to let weapons inspectors in” mantra. :slight_smile:

Actually, Iraq didn’t just fail to co-operate with the UN. By refusing to co-operate with the UN, Iraq was in direct violation of the 1991 Gulf War cease fire. Violating a cease fire agreement means hostilities can resume. It’s just too bad the Useless Nations couldn’t bring themselves to enforce their own edicts, especially since this has impacted the war in Afghanistan, with which I am more concerned.

I think we should all just sit back until Iran gives the Islamic Jihad nutbars a tactical nuclear device they can use on Paris or Toronto.

[quote=“Taichung Social Club”]Actually, Iraq didn’t just fail to co-operate with the UN. By refusing to co-operate with the UN, Iraq was in direct violation of the 1991 Gulf War cease fire. Violating a cease fire agreement means hostilities can resume. It’s just too bad the Useless Nations couldn’t bring themselves to enforce their own edicts, especially since this has impacted the war in Afghanistan, with which I am more concerned.

I think we should all just sit back until Iran gives the Islamic Jihad nutbars a tactical nuclear device they can use on Paris or Toronto.[/quote]

Well, there’s the “we don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud” part.

This round is moving along at a faster clip than even I expected. :slight_smile:

Not fast enough for me.

That would be the ‘warmonger chorus.’ Right on cue.

It’s like a well-tuned orchestra. :slight_smile:

warmonger:

Main Entry: war·mon·ger
Pronunciation: 'wor-"m&[ng]-g&r, -"mä[ng]-
Function: noun
: one who urges or attempts to stir up war

Stir, stir, stir and double stir.

Peace! Peace! Gentlemen We must preach Peace!

Bush: B-2 Flights Over Tehran for ‘Peaceful Purposes’
(2006-08-26) — Just hours after Iran opened a new plant capable of making plutonium “for peaceful purposes”, U.S. President George Bush assured his Iranian counterpart that any B-2 bombers that appear over Tehran in the near future would also serve peaceful purposes.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad cut the ribbon on the new heavy-water nuclear plant Saturday as part of a month-long Iranian tribute to the effectiveness of the United Nations.

Mr. Bush hailed Iran’s “transparent diplomacy” and said, “I called President Ahmadinejad today to congratulate him, and I told him that if he happens to notice one of them Stealth bombers going over his town at about 600 miles per hour, he can be assured that the pilot has only the best intentions in his heart for world peace.”

“There’s nothing like the B-2 when it comes to giving peace a chance,” Mr. Bush added.
B-2’s for Peaceful purposes

Here’s another heavy-water reactor in the Muslim world which will produce about 200 kg of weapons grade plutonium per year and is a lot farther along than any Iranian operations.

It’s also in Osama bin Laden’s backyard but that doesn’t register as a concern in the fevered minds of Iranophobia sufferers.

I have always said we need to deal with Iran and Syria because why? My biggest fear is who? Pakistan. I am fully aware of their nuclear programs but we are gaining more with carrots and the threat of sticks with the Musharaf regime. I do not see the same level of cooperation from Iran so… guess what I support?

I don’t know- I keep asking, but I never get any answers.

While you were out of touch (with reality):

Nuclear weapons in the hands of Al Qaeda – one assassination away:

"Nuclear Pakistan more dangerous to US than Iraq: John Hamre

Former United States deputy secretary of defence and strategic affairs expert, John Hamre, on Tuesday said Pakistan posed a bigger threat to the US than Iraq as there are radical elements inside President Pervez Musharraf’s government who are trying to remove him.

“Having radical forces like the Taliban access to the nuclear weapons is a very worrisome prospect and, in my view, far more immediate a problem than is the problem in Iraq,” John Hamre said in the Conferderation of Indian Industry’s Ninth Partnership Summit in Hyderabad."

"Pakistan sponsors more terror activities than all other nations in the world combined. Paradoxically, because it is so terrifying, Pakistan manages to stay off the terrorist-state blacklist. The United States pressures Musharraf to do something, and he makes a feeble show of it, but nothing happens. We dare not push him harder because Pakistan is such a cauldron of Islamic fanaticism that we fear his fall from power; his replacement could be an anti-Western fanatic with atomic weapons."

Our worst nightmare on the verge of becoming true in Pakistan while neoconservatives obsess with Iran:

"In his death and the manner in which it was carried out, Sardar Akbar Bugti is likely to become a martyred hero for Baloch nationalism and nationalists elsewhere in Pakistan - rather than the anti-government renegade and reactionary tribesman Islamabad would like to portray him as.

Bugti, the Sardar or chief of more than 200,000 Bugti tribesmen, was killed along with more than 35 of his followers when the Pakistan Air Force bombed his hideout in the Bambore mountain range in the Marri tribal area. . . .

India accuses Pakistan of continuing to arm and finance Islamic extremists in Kashmir and funding anti-government and Maoist movements in other parts of the Indian sub-continent.

Afghanistan accuses Pakistan of arming and giving sanctuary to the Taleban and its leadership.

Pakistan denies both charges.

[b]There is an ever-deepening political crisis in Pakistan which the death of Bugti will only exacerbate.

Many people say that the country is rapidly unravelling [/b]with Mr Musharraf refusing to give clear-cut guarantees about free and fair elections next year, while he insists on running again for another five-year term as president even as he remains army chief. . . ."

here is one decent reference to the Iran “issue”, updated regularly:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=War_in_Iran

an interesting essay found here:

http://www.counterpunch.org/