"This whole business about a new kind of IEDs (EFPs?) being the work of Iran has a similar ring to the pre-Iraq briefings about the late Saddam Hussein's connections with Al-Qaeda, stockpiles of WMD and nuclear weapons."

All of these you would be well to remember the intelligence agency of every country on the planet believed Hussein had.  Although, to be precise, I don't think it was ever contended that he actually had nuclear weapons.

"Obviously, the post-invasion evidence has hardly borne these accusations out."

It's been borne out more than has been admitted.  But don't forget Salman Pak and Ramzi Yousef.   And Ansar al-Islam's connections to Al Qaeda and to Hussein are well documented as far as I know.  If x is connected to y and y is connected to z, that sounds to me like x is connected to z.  But that's just me. 

"Unless there is good evidence that Iran has been passing these 'new' IEDs to Sunni groups, then the charge has the same feel as the Iraq/Al-Qaeda claim - unlikely in principle."

If this is your primary argument I don't think it flies very well.  The whole 'unlikely in principle' argument is extraordinarily weak.  There is no reason at all why an Iraqi/Al Qaeda operational agreement is unlikely in principle.  Haven't you ever heard of "The Enemy of my Enemy is my friend?"

What I find to be unlikely is that a principle as obvious as that one in a world as complex is ours would not be considered by Hussein, Iran, Al Qaeda, whomever.  Is it really your contention that only Western democracies, and that means basically just the US, are the only people in the world to make compromises if necessary?

If that is your argument against the 'pre-war' intelligence on Iran I have to say it doesn't fly.

Would you pin your life on that kind of argument?

I wouldn't.

"These details are glossed over in the service of leaving the public with the impression that Iran is to blame for most American casualties."

That's not the impression I'm getting here.  Of course, you think the mainstream media is in bed with the Bush administration in bringing about each and every thing the Bush administration does.

Last I heard- from the mainstream media- Iran is being tied to about 150 deaths.  Last I heard- from the mainstream media- the US has suffered about 3,000 deaths.  Perhaps the public is not merely uneducated in the issues but also stupid in math.  I think this is just rhetorical gloss on your part.

"And, of course, the nuclear spectre rises up once again."

What do you want?  It rises because it rises.  The US has left the nuclear aspect of this to be handled by the UN and the EU for at least five years now.  The UN has not once disputed Iran's nuclear weapon program... which makes sense, I guess, since  Ahmadinejad has boldly asserted that they have a nuclear program in conflict with Iran's own treaty agreements.

Iran was a signor to the the Non-proliferation treaty.  Iraq was not. 

I think the burden of demonstration here is all on you.  Apparently when  Ahmadinejad says that his country's nuclear exploits are all completely on the up and up you believe him.  You believe him despite the fact that every entity involved in the issue- the UN, the EU, Russian, etc, are deeply concerned that he is LYING.  Yet, it seems as though you want us to believe him.  I think you should give reasons for justifying that.

If your argument is "well, the US intelligence on Iraq was wrong, maybe its wrong here too" I respond... "PLEEEEEEEEEASE don't put it all on the US.  EVERY INTELLIGENCE AGENCY WAS WRONG.  Sure, EVERYONE may have been wrong about Iraq, and EVERYONE may be wrong about Iran.  BUT DON"T YOU THINK IT WOULD ALL BE A LOT EASIER IF IRAQ AND NOW IRAN WEREN"T ENGAGING IN PATTERNS OF DECEPTION?"

I'm reminded of instances where a police officers shoot people brandishing weapons, only to learn that the weapon being brandished was a toy.  You know, they usually let the police officers off in these situations, for the very obvious reason that the police officer is not in a position to know if the toy is real or not (LINK) and they have to act based on the information they have, and if it IS real, then THEY will be dead.

Apparently at international levels, if nations lie out of their teeth and cheat and bribe etc etc it is the fault of the other nations if they act on the best information that they have gleaned from lying, cheating, bribing, weapons brandishing, country's.

I can't keep up in this mad world.

"Besides, from what i hear, the current intelligence is that Iran could develop a bomb within 5-10 years.  Hardly clear and present danger - but, as usual, presented as such."

That may be a difference in opinion on what is a clear and present danger.

"Iran suggests that the Bush administration may be committed to another counter-productive and destructive assault on a country which poses no threat to us."

Maybe Iran is no threat to you.  Iran is clearly a threat to US.   Iran is a financial supporter to Hamas, which has openly declared war on the US.  Not that a terrorist organization declaring war on the US means that there is any real danger.  Maybe they're bluffing.  Well, talked myself out of that one.    Iran is a financial and logistic supporter of Hezbollah.

Hezbollah has focused on Israel, but that hasn't stopped them from bombing the Marine embassy in 1983, the Khobar Towers bombing, etc.  These are American targets.  Maybe we should just let Ahmadinejad's Hezbollah (and increasingly, Hamas) wipe Israel off the map, as he has vowed to do.  Then, with all the Jews dead at last the Muslims will just leave us western democracies alone.  That's all they want, honest.  Just every Jew in Israel dead.  That's not too much to ask, is it?

"What does anyone else think?"

You knew what I'd think.

I can sum up my general attitude this way:  If you don't like the direction things are going, call up your rep at the UN and tell him to get off his arse.  If the UN shows itself to be as incompetent in this matter as it was with Iraq (let us not forget the oil for food scandal, shall we, and wonder if maybe Iran is striking up some deal of their own- see Russia, as always) I don't think the US should wait until the 'diplomacy' you urge is revealed to be the farce it was in every other place where the UN engages in diplomacy.

I can see it now- Dannyboy's side wins the day and says there is no clear and present danger because a nuclear weapon is not available for another 5 to 10 years and so we continue to use diplomacy.  7.5 years later, we're still doing diplomacy and Iran tests a nuclear weapons!  A big round of applause for the success of diplomacy, everyone!   

There is not a hint or a suggestion that diplomacy of any kind will work because the UN and the EU does not possess any ... ahem... they don't have a pair... if you get my meaning.  And everyone knows it.  Including Iran, North Korea, Russia, Venezuela, etc.

I would just like to point out the gross inconsistency of you mocking the intelligence in regards to Iran's involvment in Iraq but accepting it in your analysis of the true state of Iran's nuclear program.

As a final note, just to make it quite clear:  I would be more than happy to engage in diplomacy and leave matters in the capable hands of the UN and the EU- if that actually amounted to a full cup of excrement.

I also think that you should call up the Iranian embassy in Britain and beg them to cooperate.  You can be like the negotiater between the madman and the cop.  The madman has given every indication that he has a weapon.  The cop must act as though he does, and as though the weapon is real.  But the cop in this case is the big bad United States of America, and he's crazy, too, right?  So get on the phone:

"Pleeeease.  Don't you understand?  THEY"RE GOING TO KILL YOU.  Just come clean.  Be honest.   Suspend your nuclear program.  Let the EU verify it.  Get what you want via other means.  Stop threatening your neighbors.  Stop killing Americans.  Americans don't like that, and the Americans are a little nuts, you know (see, I'm on your side here, Mr. Ambassador).   They're GOING to KILL you." 

Let me know how that turns out. 

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=23264

I almost forgot.  I found that link near the end of my link hunting and it seems like it does a good job at taking your assertion that "the late Saddam Hussein's connections with Al-Qaeda" not being borne out has to be severely softened.

If only Good Ol Bill Clinton had treated an attack by foreign nationals in WTC93 as a matter for the CIA rather than the FBI (remember, at that time, there was a 'wall' for intelligence sharing between these agencies at the time- all the way up until after 2001), ie, as an act of war rather than a mere criminal matter, quite a few people would still be alive today.

9-11, yes, but also 500,000 Iraqis who allegedly died on account of  sanctions while Hussein milked the UN for all it was worth, etc.

Blame it on Bill.  That's what I do.  :)

"Right, because Ronald Reagan and George Bush, Sr., had broken down that "wall" and Clinton put it back up, right?"

No, I don't think that wall existed until Clinton.  Gorelick, in particular.

"The fact is that the people responsible for the WTC93 incident were captured and thrown in jail under Clinton's watch."

Right.  A judicial matter.  That was my point.  If it had been treated as an act of war, as it was, by foreign agents, and the CIA was involved, who knows what information we'd have today linking Iraq with Al Qaeda.  I think its obvious that Clinton didn't want to deal with that potentiality.   Hey, who knows what else we'd know if Sandy Burglar hadn't stolen docs from the national archive, too!

"And how many have died since we invaded?"

But these would all still be alive if action had been taken earlier, wouldn't they?

Fact of the matter is that this probably all goes back to the first Bush administration and the every panzy UN for not taking out Hussein in the first Gulf War.  That was definately a huge mistake.   

"Nobody really knows, because we haven't really been counting Iraqi dead bodies."

Although, if we had been fighting this as though it were a real war, the casualties would have been far less and the fighting, even this lingering nonsense, would have been over already.   I would just like to see what Eisenhour and Patton and Monty would think about our modern ways of carrying out 'wars.'  Our wars are so compassionate- they would rather have hundreds of thousands of dead spread out over three years than ten thousand dead in a decisive use of force.

"Of course you do.  You're a rock-solid Republican."

You wish. 

"GW could be caught screwing donkeys on the Whitehouse lawn, and you'd still blame it on Bill.  After all, he set a bad example for future presidents."

Well, I disagree with GW on his immigration policies, I think he could do a lot more to put in judges that are principled enough to stick to the words on the paper, and a number of other issues.  The truth is that in 1992 I was a liberal democrat. 

Who knows, maybe I would have remained one if Clinton hadn't been such a poll monkey, hadn't panzed out in Somalia, hadn't stabbed the unions in the back, and oh yea, hadn't been poking the interns and then lying about it through his teeth- all the while, of course, the other dems going right along with it all.

Anyway, back to the point:  the evidence is quite clear that there were connections between Al Qaeda and Iraq going all the way back to WTC93.

I wonder how WW2 would have turned out if Roosevelt had viewed Pearl Harbor's 3,000 dead as merely a 'criminal act.'  A lot more people died in WW2 than in the current conflict.  Perhaps you think Roosevelt should have indicted the Emperor?  If ever there was a war about oil, it was WW2's pacific theater.

"Wow.  When SntJohnny comes out of the woodwork he comes out with a bang."

Yea, you suckered me. 

"That

The man owns a pit bull and carries a .45 in his waistband at all times.  This bothers me slightly. 

Anyway, i'm on night shifts at the moment, but i will get back to your extensive post (and your over-simplified after-thought analogy) early next week.

Take it easy,
Dan

Johnnyboy,

All you have to do is provide examples of intelligence agencies that thought otherwise.  That's how you deal with an assertion like the one that I made.  I trust I don't have to argue that "Pacific Island Fasdfjaf's intelligence agency really doesn't count"

Actually the FIA had some pretty valid points.   

Of course, you know very well that this is not how it works.  Intelligence agencies do not all

I thought this was positively hilarious:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article1530527.ece

"Last week it was revealed that Colonel Amir Muhammed Shirazi, another high-ranking Revolutionary Guard officer, had disappeared, probably in Iraq."

"Other members of the Quds Force are said to have been seized in Irbil, in the Kurdish area of northern Iraq, by US special forces."

Naturally, we must be skeptical, because do we really believe that Iran has operations in Iraq?  Really?  That is why Iran is here threatening retaliation.  They want us to *think* that they are operating in Iraq- to justify their retalitation- and at the same time *think* that they are not- in order to mock those beating the war drums (allegedly) for insisting that Iran is already at war with the US and Britain.

I hope so as more opportunities for employment will open.

*cracks knuckles*

*ducks*   

"Of course, you know very well that this is not how it works.  Intelligence agencies do not all