...let's all remember this article, which points out that the "intelligence" regarding Iran is "ambiguous" at best:
" But three U.S. officials familiar with unpublished intel (unnamed when discussing sensitive info) said evidence of official Tehran involvement is "ambiguous," in the words of one of the officials."
The Bush administration wants to take us into some sort of conflict with Iran by suggesting that Iran is helping kill American soliders in Iraq--and let's not forget that we are in Iraq illegally and for no reason other than to destabilize the Middle East and generate profits for the defense and oil industries.
But there is little or no evidence that Iran is doing this, and any evidence that may be said to exist is ambiguous, meaning of course that the evidence is "open to or having several possible meanings or interpretations." So those who will profit (financially or politically) from war will want to interpret it as indicating that Iran is helping to kill Americans, and those who will suffer from the war (soldiers, their families, and the public) will want to interpret the "evidence" as indicating that Iran is not in fact doing that.
Hmmm...wonder whose motives in that scenario are purer?
This article is precisely the kind of thing that we should point to when the Iran war starts going badly and the neocons say, as they have with Iraq, that "no one could have known that Iran wasn't actually helping Iraqi insurgents." YES, they do know that and they're trying to warn us now, before the conflict starts. Will we listen and make our leaders listen?