I'm just glad that everyone has totally forgotten about the arms depot that was not secured by the invading forces, and was subsequently looted by Iraqis. All those plastic explosives made their way to the insurgency, but no one ever dares mention this.

The administration's semantic battles are only the tip of the iceberg for a Bush White House facing global skepticism over its claims of Iranian involvement in Iraq. For starters, U.S casualties in Iraq are overwhelmingly due to attacks from Sunni insurgents and Al Qaeda fighters, not the Mehdi Army of Shia cleric Muqtada Al Sadr supposedly being armed by Iran. (U.S. briefer claimed that 170 Americans were killed by Iranian manufactured "explosively-formed penetrators" first pioneered by its client Hezbollah in Lebanon.) More puzzling, the evidence suggests that the Iranians are arming both Al Sadr and the U.S.-backed Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq or SCIRI. The head of SCIRI and leader of the largest Shiite faction in the Maliki government, Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim, met with President Bush at the White House in December 2006.

Details here...

Nice to know that the borders in and out of Iran are so open.Weapons in and out,Armed Iranians comming and going,Sadar being able to take vacation in Iran without being checked at the borders.I don't see anything wrong with this do you?

Given that Sunni insurgents are likely to use arms/explosives against Shia fighters, as well as against US troops, I find it unlikely in the extreme that Iran is "supplying weapons to the radical Sunni insurgents of Iraq."

"Okay, we'll give you these EFPs, but make sure you don't use them against our guys...who you're also fighting."

As they have never lied to us before, we should believe them now, right?

Kevin, I believe you have struck exactly the right balance in your discussion/conclusion, at least at this time with the information we have. Two points seem to be left out of the heated discussion of this issue the last couple of days: 1) If Bush et. al. had not made such a hash of Iraq, this would not be an issue; and 2) perhaps a rational diologue with Iran (especially since they have repeatedly affirmatively asked for it) would prevent this problem.

It's certainly possible that the radical Shiite mullahs of Iran are supplying weapons to the radical Sunni insurgents of Iraq, but it's unlikely enough that, at the very least

For you perhaps, but not for me. All the evidence points to Iran arming the Sunnis so they can attack American and allied troops defending the liberation of Iraq. More than that, it looks like they're arming the Sunnis through Hezbollah which means we (and perhaps Israel) might have to declare war on Hezbollah in order to achieve victory in Iraq.

Link

"Since 2005, U.S. military officials have said they suspect that the roadside bombs known as explosively formed penetrators, or EFPs, are coming from Iran."

"EFPs were used extensively by the Iranian-backed Hezbollah movement against Israeli forces in southern Lebanon in the 1990s, and their use in Iraq was detected in May 2004, prompting suspicions that Hezbollah was aiding the insurgency."

Al

....

to bmaz:
Bush and Co don't want to prevent this problem, they want to use it.

Bush doesn't do diplomacy,That's for sissies. War baby war, That's what gets em hard.

Screw it. Lets just get this war on. We could pussyfoot around for the next year agonizing over why people (our leaders, the media, us) are so stupid, and still end up in war, or just get it started.

Oh, it will be utterly catastrophic, and may well bring down civilization as we know when the persion gulf oil fields and pipelines and depots and refineries are all destroyed, but maybe its just time. the system we have built is waddling towards massive failure anyway, we've taken so god awful wrong turns in the past half century towards how society works, and maybe a big collapse is all thats left to clear the way for something better.

Bring on the little apocalypse, there was nothing worth watching on TV anyway.

There is the possibility that Iran has come to the conclusion that nothing they do or say can persuade Bush not to invade. If so, what is the best way to delay it or change the opinion in the United States?

Bush appears to want war with Iran. If he has vague evidence, he will claim it is incontrovertible. If he has none, he will make it up. I don't think that Iran is above reproach here, but I do think that they learned a lesson from Bush's invasion of Iraq -- not the lesson that Bush thought he was teaching, but a lesson nonetheless.

It's time for the Republicans in the House and Senate to remove Bush and Cheney from office. His behavior has damaged our country for decades to come and no one has any excuse to defend it. We have to stop him before Iran.

How many other countries does Bush intend to invade?

It's certainly possible that the radical Shiite mullahs of Iran are supplying weapons to the radical Sunni insurgents of Iraq

Yes, certainly a Shi'a regime that faces its own active Sunni rebel/terrorist opposition would love to destabilize a neighboring Shi'a-led regime with which it is actively developing closer ties and build a strong Sunni rebel/terrorist opposition in that neighboring state. Does that even remotely make sense? Its about as credible as Saudi Arabia shipping arms to the Mahdi Army.

In the final half-hour of his just-concluded radio show, comedian / activist / author Al Franken formally declared his candidacy for the Minnesota Senate seat currently held by Norm Coleman.

Prediction: The media will make this the Senate's marquee race for 2008.

Its about as credible as Saudi Arabia shipping arms to the Mahdi Army.

Of course they don't have to, Bush said it's okay for the Saudis to fund Al Quaeda.

/snark

All the evidence points to Iran arming the Sunnis so they can attack American and allied troops defending the liberation of Iraq.

The only country in the region that has expressed support for the Sunni insurgents and publicly suggested it was considering aiding them is Saudi Arabia, which unlike Iran has a Sunni-led regime with a history of sponsoring anything that opposes the spreading influence of Shi'ite regimes in the region, up to and including naked wars of aggression launched by third parties against Shi'a regimes.

Iran is about the least likely state sponsor of the Sunni components of the insurgency in Iraq, which, after all, are fighting as much with the Shi'a militants outside of the government as with the government or the US, and those Shi'a militant groups tend to have strong recent historical ties to Iran.

Here's another view from Asia Times:

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IB15Ak02.html

Gareh Porter takes the position that these weapons originally came from the black market, but are probably being manufactured in Iraq now. This seems plausible

Scorecard: Bush has been 100% wrong on every aspect of the Iraq debacle,So it would be safe to say he is dead wrong on this also.The scorecard says so.

Don Ho - Do you know what type of primary competition Franken has and/or early polling strength against Coleman. I like Franken but I'm not sure how his run is going to go over in Minn. after Ventura. Thoughts?

"And there should be some explanation of why most of the deaths of US forces from these IEDs are coming from Sunni insurgents who are opposed to the people Iran supports"

Umm, could be because the IEDs the Sunni resistence uses have nothing to do with munitions from Iran? How about - there is effectively ZERO Iranian involvement in Iraq. What's the proof otherwise - claims the Administration makes?

There was more than enough explosives in Iraq already. You "liberal" hawk chinscratchers, as usual, legitimate the frame the Administration creates with their lies, with your "serious" arguments. They're lying, how difficult is that?

Who knows, the administration's subtle and not so subtle hints about Iranian involvement could be true - after all stranger things have happened. But after 6 years and counting that including to the run up to Iraq, they have no credibility with me anymore. They could say the sky was blue and I would still feel the overwhelming urge to look up and double and triple check.

I know 6+ years of living in an alternate universe or just flat out lying/deluding themselves has messed with their mind and their memory, so here is a link to Aesop's "The Boy Who Cried Wolf" if the administration and its apologists need to reaquaint themselves with the moral of the story.

http://www.storyarts.org/library/aesops/stories/boy.html

I like the previous point about Sadr, the formerly known as The Terrorist, being able to come and go at will.

Moving on, why are we accepting it as given, that these display items are actually Iranian weapons? There is a huge Middle East black market in weapons, and China is selling them to anyone with money. So are the arms merchants in Western Pakistan tribal lands, and if nuclear technology is any indicator, so is Pakistan.

Sure it's possible they came from Iran. But what makes us so sure?

I thought about posting a Letter to the Editor in my local newspaper, recommending that anyone who was wrong about Iraq voluntarily abstain from voting next time. Because parsing out these leaders' mistruths is not something the average joe had time to do. Most folk still don't know Shia from Sunni, much less that Iraq didn't bomb us on 9-11.

http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/area_man_guesses_hell_learn

There’s been a certain amount of pop sociology in America, that the Shia can’t get along with the Sunni.

Bush will never bomb Iran. Stop your delusional fantasies, liberal tiddlywinks.

Bill Kristol 3:37PM:

You think the Shia get along with Sunni? Don't give me this crap that Sunnis are the ones initiating all the death squad activity.

"All the evidence points to Iran arming the Sunnis so they can attack American and allied troops defending the liberation of Iraq."

At first I thought this was obvious nonsense, since the Sunnis attack Iranian-backed militias as well as US troops, and even the government of Iraq consists largely of pro-Iranian Shiites.

On the other hand, you have to admit that it would make as much sense as present US policy, which seems to involve ginning up support for starting a war with Iran while enforcing pro-Iranian Shiite hegemony in Iraq . . .

Speaking of Iran and bombs, has no one heard that al Qaeda set off a bomb in Eastern Iran killing 11?

I don't expect that will get much press from the MSM, since it merely muddies the whole "Iran supports terrorists" meme that is essential for the neocons' continuing war against Muslims.

Kevin--Bush doesn't seem to know, only to further his political ambitions and protect his pitiful legacy. It is significant that General Pace had a differing opinion, i.e., not rubber-stamping this president's talking points. Not long ago it was said that the military might save us from him.
On today's televised press conference, it was very telling that Mr. Bush answered a question about Iraq's civil war by saying he didn't know, he was living in the beautiful white house, and hadn't visited there. It seemed the height of delusional thinking to me, and I am in the business.
Like some pampered, out of touch aristocrat. If he was confused that the reporter's question was about Iran-- thinking he had not visited Iran-
it is just as worrisome.
we're doomed

Regarding Franken and Ventura - I think Jesse could have been elected a second term as Govenor if he wanted it. The fundies and the press were the only two groups that really hated him. He was closer to a democrat than a republic so the republic party members disliked him more than the democrats did.

To summarize I don't think Jesse poisoned the well for any other celebrities to run in Minnesota.

The Bush Administration, which went to war early on with its "Axis of Evil" has lost on all fronts and is in the process of surrender.

Not only that, it now is losing in Afghanistan as well.

No longer can there be any doubt that as President Bush winds down his Presidency and prepares to leave office he will leave the situation enormously worse that when he took office.

It will remain for someone else to go about picking up the pieces and attempting to undo the damage of what must stand as the most colossal foreign policy failure in American history.

Would someone ask Bush how much a gallon of milk cost? That ended it for his Father.

Spencer Ackerman runs down the various possibilities for how and why Iranian explosives have been found in Iraq:

Personally I'd like to see some discussion of how and why American explosives have been found in Iraq, and of how the American regime is arming and funding various Shiite militias and death squads....but then again, we go to war with the lackey news media we have, not the competenet and questioning news media we wish we had....

consider wisely always --

Oh. oh. I had heard Bush say he hadn't been there and decided that in his own mind he could not tell the difference between Thanksgiving in Camp Pendleton or the Green Zone.

But that he may still confuse Iran for Iraq and not know where the civil war was because he doesn't know there is one?

We are doomed.

As he keeps saying "It's a complex situation ..."

Too much so for him.

competenet

It does rather undercut my snide tone, of course, to have misspelled "competent"....this spellin' is hard work....

Ed Henry from CNN, always alert in the white house briefing room, says the administration is not on the same page about the explosives, and Bush seemed to be pulling back about this today.
All of the talk about intelligence is reminding people of the talk prior to the run-up to the Iraq war, Ed explains.
The Republicans in the House who spoke today signed up for their speeches opposing his policy of escalation. Even as a reporter asked Bush about republicans, members of his own party were clearly breaking ranks with him--a number of them. Ha ha. "It is time for a surge in diplomacy," one said.
And Libby's attorneys just rested their case,
were warned not to play games by not letting Libby testify. They cannot add anymore testimony now. It might be a bad call by Libby's guys, but who knows. They can't have another crack at Tim Russert either. The jury will likely have the case next week. There is a God, and he likes Patrick Fitzgerald...

Fellow addicts of contemporary films from Iran and Kurdistan know what that border terrain looks like and have seen travel through the "porous" political boundaries. I hope someone, puh-lease!, is out there filming any attempts of "coalition" forces to secure them! Oh, and the centuries-old black markets in just about everything. Anyone who thinks we just need to get organized and close those borders should come down here to Texas (if you can't make it to Kurdistan) and see how porous the border is with Mexico. Not just people but more notably arms and drugs evade all our "high-tech" monitoring.

Speaking of Iran and bombs, has no one heard that al Qaeda set off a bomb in Eastern Iran killing 11?

Most reports I've seen have suggested that the Sunni insurgents involved are homegrown Iranian Sunni groups that are, despite resenting what they see as mistreatment of Sunnis by the Shi'ite regime, are still Iranian nationalists, not at all in line with the goals of al-Qaeda.

While the SMH article claims that "officials" (presumably Iranian officials) have previously painted the head of the group involved as linked to al-Qaeda, its not hard to see how the propaganda interests of the Iranian regime are served by such an association even if it is false, so I would be relunctant to accept Iranian government claims on this as true.

I don't expect that will get much press from the MSM, since it merely muddies the whole "Iran supports terrorists" meme that is essential for the neocons' continuing war against Muslims.

Well, whether al-Qaeda is involved or not, it certainly makes it hard to accept that Iran would be promoting Sunni radicalism in the region; and doesn't fit into the simple narratives that the media can cope with when it comes to the Middle East.

PW--Last night, in the wee hours of the morning maybe, I saw where Iraq troops, bolstered by US forces, were now protecting borders, including Iran. They had a map drawn.
Maybe I was dreaming.

Stefan--your mis-spell did not detract from your illustrous post. I think you are a hero on this blog. Your expertise, in fact, drew me here to posting.

How do they know who is doing what,Is it Al-Qeada,Insurgents from Sunni or Sheia,Or Iranians.My guess is they have no clue as to what is going on over there.

Stefan is one of the key reasons I came back after my initial visits, and one of the first people I interacted with too, CWA. By the way, I am very pleased you joined our little blog-party. :)

PW - have you seen a stunningly beautiful film from Iran titled Secret Ballot? I rented it and then I bought it. Fabulous movie.

The boyos from Noraid would have been some pissed if the Armalites bought with their 'charity' money turned up in the hands of the Ulster Freedom Fighters, let me tell you.

Greetings, Global Citizen. Good to see you. I used to look here, and think--wow, that Stefan is smart. Thanks--am glad to be here. Am home two days now due to icy weather. My trees and shrubs are taking a beating. Luckily there is Political Animal to take my blues away.

If as reported, Saudis are funding the insurgents and since so many of the 9-11 perpetrators were Saudi, when can we expect George W. Bush to give a collective Medal of Freedom to Saudi Arabia?
I note that none of those armaments that the Bush regime claims came from Iran have any Farsi markings. They all look like they could have come from an American factory. If in case those are Iranian weapons, since Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan armed the Mujahadeen against the Soviets, no doubt Iran feels that they are merely following America's fine example.

Thanks, consider wisely and Blue Girl, etc. I really enjoy both of your postings as well. I've actually been posting quite little the last few months (press of work, busines travel and vacations) and so feel I'm just catching up with the latest developments.

I got the storm that you are dealing with first, so my satellite dish isn't installed at the new abode yet, so I'm still off-line except on campus. Should be back by Saturday. I have not been two full weeks without internet access since I got a CompuServe account about 20 years ago. I didn't realize just how important being connected is until I wasn't. I know that my family will be glad when the technicians arrive! I'm making them crazy!

We have missed you Stefan, and been delighted when you could join in the fun. Welcome back!

Iran is to Iraq
as
Iraq is to Afghanistan.

When you are a war criminal psychopath...
dropping bombs on brown children is just a fun thing to do.

Beats blowing up frogs any day of the week.

Anyone eles see the quote from GWB back when his dad was President? His neo-cons where pissed that dady didn't use his political capital to change things for the rich folks,And then saying if he had the chance he would invade Iraq gain politcal capital then change things to favor the rich.The man is sick in the head.

Speaking of Iran and bombs, has no one heard that al Qaeda set off a bomb in Eastern Iran killing 11?. . .
Posted by: Disputo on February 14, 2007 at 4:04 PM | PERMALINK

Why not?

Al Qaeda completely succeeded in their goal of creating a sectarian war in Iraq, by bombing the mosque in Samara last February. Now they are going to try to goad Iran into this as well.

Expect provocations in Saudi Arabia, JOrdan, and Turkey.

Seems as if both the Bush administration and Al Qaeda have the same goal, of broadening this war into a regional conflict.

Well, if I don't vacate the premises, someone is going to put me to work. Besides, if I leave now, the sun is still up and the mercury is still above zero.

Later all.

Iraq, Iran, black market in weapons? Who knew?

Except anybody who has paid the slightest attention.

fostert: Gareh Porter takes the position that these weapons originally came from the black market, but are probably being manufactured in Iraq now. This seems plausible

BBCNews also reported a similar idea yesterday.

Bottom-line for me: You have to be an idiot or an obedient boot-licker to believe what comes out of the Bush-Cheney WH.

"For you perhaps, but not for me. All the evidence points to Iran arming the Sunnis so they can attack American and allied troops defending the liberation of Iraq."

Errr, Al, the article you linked to says:

"U.S. military officials presented evidence Sunday that Iran is supplying Shiite insurgents with weaponry to attack U.S. forces, including an advanced and particularly deadly form of explosive device that has claimed the lives of 170 coalition personnel since 2004."

On the other side, it'd be surprising if the Iranians weren't supplying one or several of the factions with arms. Whoever comes out on top of the Rumsfeld-Bremer chaos in Iraq, the Iranians will want them to believe they owe Tehran a favor. It's what we'd do (and will probably eventually do) in their position.

Yes, Blue Girl -- it's one of my favorites.

Consider Wisely -- was that a hand drawn map?.. in pencil...? dated 1923 by any chance?

PW--It was a map of the Middle East, had continuous green lines of demarcation around the borders-- specifically by Iran and possibly by Syria.
I thought it looked ambitious. I assumed it was probably bullshit propaganda since I had recalled Iran's borders were impossible.
I was just outside trying to knock a mountain of ice from the bushes--I must have fifty. Some are over 15 feet high. Anyone know if you are better off leaving the ice on, and potentially having the branches break from the weight, or beating them lightly to break up the ice. Guess I'll find out in the spring. My poor sycamore and maple trees look screwed too.

Kevin says, "Wait and see." Yes, we should wait and see who is behind the Qods who are importing these weapons.

However, we shouldn't wait to deal with those who are actually bringing the weapons in. We need to find a way to stop them right now. I like Maliki's decision to close the borders with Iran and Syria. But, I don't know now tightly they can be sealed.

Does anyone know if Iraq has the capability to prevent Qods from brining bombs from Iran into Iraq?

If the Iraqis do have the ability to seal their borders, can we bring some of them to this country to conduct training courses for the Immigration and Naturalization Service? :)

JohnJohn--here is a source for the quote on political capital made by GWB about his dad.

http://www.gnn.tv/articles/article.php?id=761

It's ridiculously easy to beef up the border with Iran. You just need a Permanent Marker, or some paint. --'Mmmm.. a little thicker here.. mmmm happy little trees.. ahh... that's good.'

There are untold tons of armaments and munitions floating around that entire southwest Asia region that to afix the blame on one potential source in particular is simply madcap, no more or less.

Further, we should also recall that because we failed to deploy sufficient numbers of troops in the run-up to the invasion in March 2003, we failed to secure any of the Iraqi military stores during our photo-op race to Baghdad, and it's been estimated that over 250,000 tons of various ordinance were looted by God only knows who.

Some final thoughts about our nation's perhaps-inevitable confrontation with Iran, and then I'll sign off:

Iran at 80 million people is three and one-half times the size of Iraq, and has a standing army of one million men under arms. And if we'd like to include with that another 750,000 troops belonging to Iran's nominal ally, Syria (we won't get into the large air force and 2,000 tanks that might accompany them) -- thanks to this administration's insane simultaneous threats to that country -- the American people better understand that our military now finds itself in an extraordinarily precarious position, both tactically and strategically.

In short, our potential adversaries have the capacity to hutour deployed forces in the region vary badly. Our entire position in the Tigris-Euphrates River Valley could very quickly become untenable should open warfare ever break out in the Persian Gulf region, and Iran directs its initial efforts to first closing off the Gulf by blockading the 40-mile wide Straits of Hormuz. Our already-beleaguered military could find themselves under virtual siege, with their supply lines to the West cut.

Also, the Iranians could very rapidly put military pressure upon the inadequate number of NATO forces currently in Afghanistan, should they so choose -- but I think that unlikely, since they would hardly want to court a general war with the entire NATO alliance.

For those amongst us who believe in the absolute battlefield supremacy of our nation's armed forces -- and you know who you are -- I would suggest that you keep in mind the possible historical analogy to the military lessons to be learned from Poltava, Borodino, Stalingrad, and Dien Bien Phu. In all four instances, the invading force -- initially well-armed and supplied, and full of confidence and bravado -- eventually found itself far from home, tired, exposed and all-too-frequently cut off from its lines and base of support, thus dooming each invaders' respective mission to catastrophic failure.

Should the Bush administration get its way on Iran, we may well soon find ourselves compelled to mount an unprecedented military relief effort for our forces in the region, the success of which would depend in no small part upon the U.s. Air Force's and U.S. Navy's collective ability to maintain absolute control of the Persian Gulf itself and the airways above it, and keep open in perpetuity the Straits of Hormuz to western shipping.

It could be done, for sure, but for how long? Suppose the Iranians decide to wait us out, and apply just enough military pressure to ensure maximum long-term deployment of all U.S. military resources to maintain our country's presence in a region that's half-a-world away. Does our military have the current capacity to endure such a sustained mission, given its present state and obvious limitations?

These are just a few possibilities that can happen to military enterprises that are ill-conceived in purpose and mishandled in mission.

And if I can think of all this stuff off the top of my head, I would hope that Democratic members of Congress are also considering the possibilities and pitfalls of the military absurdity being proposed by this delusional administration.

Aloha.

It doesn't really matter because I just heard W say he doesn't care if the Iranian government was involved or not.

Donald: insightful & well-thought-out points, all.

however, i agree with Mazurka. the administration is amazingly proud; it won't relent on any bad idea. So, it'd be naive to imagine they will behave like reasonable people.

Maybe Cheney will step down because of Plame-gate and various other inquiries by Congress. Maybe Bush will be impeached. Maybe these two things will happen before we attack Iran, because nothing else will stop Mr. Bush.

(in post-script, maybe it'd be a good idea to hand Iraq over to Iran, like Lebanon was handed over to Syria for so many years. Iran has a chance of establishing law-and-order, while US & Iraq do not. So, maybe the plan is to attack Iran, take out the nuclear facilities, and then precipitously lose, forcing Iran to inherit the Iraq problem... maybe this is what Chaney is thinking. A fools errand for the troops.)

note: the above postscript is not insightful or well-thought-out. For starters, even Iraqi Shia's don't want Iran meddling in Iraq, to say nothing of the Kurds or Sunni's.

The key weapons are the missiles used to shoot at our helicopters. Whatever they are, they're new to the theatre. Would not surprise me if Iran sold them to the Sunnis, since they are mostly useless against Shiites (no Shiite Air Force to shoot at).

Stefan: "Personally I'd like to see some discussion of how and why American explosives have been found in Iraq, and of how the American regime is arming and funding various Shiite militias and death squads."

Yes. Your post brought to mind my recent reveries about Bush's 'outrage' that one country should support a particular faction in another country's civil war. Remember Iran Contra? Hypocrisy continues to masquerade as truth in the American empire...

The U.S. General Staff continues to go along with President Bush and Vice President Cheney on the Middle East despite its better judgment.

Just when can we expect the General Staff to exercise its better judgment?

What about all the American weapons being used by the insurgents? An audit last year revealed thousands of missing American weapons, including machine guns and grenade launchers. If American weapons are being used to kill American soldiers, are we prepared to declare Bush the enemy?

Would not surprise me if Iran sold them to the Sunnis, since they are mostly useless against Shiites (no Shiite Air Force to shoot at).

That is as likely as Syria selling missiles to Israel in order to attack the U.S.

It is a painfully uninformed claim, ostensibly based on wishful thinking and the need for a scapegoat to divert attention from the this disastrous endeavor.

The Shia in Iran are not going to arm their mortal enemies who waged war on them for ten years against their spiritual brethren with whom they've reestablished strong trade, security, and fraternal ties.

Further, a disintegrating state on Iran's border is dangerous for their own stability no matter how you look at it. The possibility of an Iranian revolution that overthrows the Supreme Council for which the Bush adminstration sacrifices chickens to Ba'al every night has no more likely cause than an uprising by minorities in Iraq spilling over into Iran.

The key weapons are the missiles used to shoot at our helicopters. Whatever they are, they're new to the theatre. Would not surprise me if Iran sold them to the Sunnis, since they are mostly useless against Shiites (no Shiite Air Force to shoot at).

Where did you get this about missiles? All I have read suggests that the copters are being downed with gun fire, the difference being that the insurgents are using better intel and tactics.

I hadn't heard of this. There's a story on the Reuters website according to which

"... a former aide accused Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice of misleading Congress on the issue. Flynt Leverett, who worked on the National Security Council when it was headed by Rice, said a proposal vetted by Tehran's most senior leaders was sent to the United States in May 2003 and was akin to the 1972 U.S. opening to China."

The story is at http://tinyurl.com/3aezbg

And yes, good to hear from Stefan again.

Given the number of non-radical mullahs in Iran (and since you call yourself a non-believer in a later post, you must agree to some extent, Kevin Drum) I find it hard to believe that you're serious, Kevin Drum.

Concerning Iranian support of Iraqi insurgents; perhaps the supreme leader could go on television and say, when (and if) faced with evidence that contradicts his denial of any such support: "My heart and my best intentions still tell me that's true, but the facts an the evidence tell me it is not."

I'd like to thank cmdicely for a comment above that illuminated the Bush administrations tactics in presenting a case against Iran.

"Yes, certainly a Shi'a regime that faces its own active Sunni rebel/terrorist opposition would love to destabilize a neighboring Shi'a-led regime with which it is actively developing closer ties and build a strong Sunni rebel/terrorist opposition in that neighboring state. Does that even remotely make sense? Its about as credible as Saudi Arabia shipping arms to the Mahdi Army."

It's the Chewbacca Defense, rotated 90 degrees!

"ex-liberal" wrote: Yes, we should wait and see who is behind the Qods who are importing these weapons

No, we should wait until we have better proof than Bush's word that the Qods are, in fact, importing these weapons at all.

Your bullshit disclaimers aside, "ex-liberal," your fervor to promote any propaganda in line with the neocons' warmongering agenda is obvious, and exempts your comments from anything but contemptuous dismissal.

That dog won't hunt this time, "ex-liberal." No one's buying what you and Bush are selling. No one, but no one, mistakes you for an honest commentator. There is no, but no, US national security issue at stake here, and no phony-baloney PowerPoint presentation is going to fool anyone but cultists like you into believing otherwise.

The American people are not going to get fooled into expending their blood and treasure to take down yet another of Israel's strategic rivals this time. Too bad for you, "ex-liberal," you dishonest, bloody-minded cretin.

Where did you get this about missiles? All I have read suggests that the copters are being downed with gun fire, the difference being that the insurgents are using better intel and tactics.

The US military claims that most of the recent shoot-downs have been by small arms fire, but that earlier the insurgents have used a variety of shoulder-launched missiles to bring down aircraft. But as to the most recent Sea Knight incident, they have claimed that "some sophisticated piece of weaponry" was involved that was more than a machine gun, which suggests either a missile or some kind of anti-aircraft artillery; I would be more inclined to suspect the former.