Saturday, February 10, 2007

IRAN: WHO TO BELIEVE? WHAT HAPPENED TO "evidence of official Tehran involvement is 'ambiguous'?"

Why does Robert Gates now want to convince us that Iran is involved in helping Iraqi insurgents when the NIE that just came out said that evidence of such is "ambiguous" at best?

This story from yesterday has an "yellowcake/Zarqawi in Baghdad" type of feel to it:

"I think there's some serial numbers, there may be some markings on some of the projectile fragments that we found" that point to Iran, he said.

Gates' remarks left unclear how the U.S. knows the serial numbers are traceable to Iran and whether such weapons would have been sent to Iraq by the Iranian government or by private arms dealers.

I thought "we weren't planning to attack" and "not planning a war with" Iran. I mean, this is ludicrous. The headline for the story quoted above is:

"Gates:Bombs Tie Iran to Iraq extremists"

So you read the story thinking it'll be some explosive (pun intended) revelation. Instead, it's just Gates going "I think" and "we may." The article also says that:

National security officials in Washington and Iraq have been working for weeks on a presentation intended to provide evidence for Bush administration claims of what they say are Iran's meddlesome and deadly activities.

Didn't we just find out yesterday that Feith's office manipulated intel on Iraq in just this exact matter? That intel on Iraq had many caveats that made the info ambiguous, just like this about Iran:

" But three U.S. officials familiar with unpublished intel (unnamed when discussing sensitive info) said evidence of official Tehran involvement is "ambiguous," in the words of one of the officials."

Are we gonna fall for this again? Are we really?

No comments: