David Swanson: Iran Lies

[marmar]

Iran Lies
Submitted by dswanson on Sun, 2007-02-11 15:36. Peace and War
By David Swanson

Here's the latest reason they must be telling the truth about Iran and the need for a new war: they lied about the last one. That's right, according to the latest dispatch from the Associated Press,

"No one who has seen the files has suggested the evidence is thin. But senior officials – gun shy after the drubbing the administration took for the faulty intelligence leading to the 2003 Iraq invasion – were underwhelmed by the packaging."

See? It's just the "packaging." They've got solid proof, and they're even being extra careful in presenting it to us, because we were so hard on them last time. In fact, you can tell just how careful these senior officials are being from the fact that in all the articles in all the newspapers, so many of them (or is it all one guy?) are never identified by name.

The New York Times has even abandoned its stated policies in order to rush these careful claims out without naming any sources: http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/NYT_article_appears_to_violate_policy_0210.html

And shockingly, according to one, possibly apocryphal, account, the Times has acknowledged that its reporter Michael Gordon is actually a voice-activated answering machine: http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/18416

This is brought into doubt, however, by an Email exchange one reader had with Gordon this weekend, in which the apparently real reporter explained:

"I am well aware of the controversy over the WMD intel. I think this case is different. The US intelligence community is not on the outside looking in, as was the case with the WMD intel. The US is in Iraq and this largely reflects intelligence gathered on the battefield. At any rate, I spend some time talking to a range of officials on this issue and quoted the intel reports accurately."
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/18432 ........(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.davidswanson.org/?q=node/725

[ShortnFiery]

1. Thanks!

David Swanson's conclusion hits home for me:

"...So, while debunking the fanciful claims of Bush, Cheney, and Gates may be entertaining, we may actually do more good if we brush them aside and point out that it does not matter whether their claims are true or not. Aiding a nation in repelling a foreign occupation is not grounds for war. The U.S. still brags about having done this in France 50 years ago. If Iran were doing it in Iraq now, which no evidence yet suggests, the crime would lie in the foreign invaders' refusal to leave, not in the aide supplied by the Iranians."

Well put!

My view of AMERICA does not mesh with PNAC's delusions of a budding Empire. :thumbsdown:

[ohioINC]

2. Bush is going to provoke them

Sadly the only evidence necassary will be our dead soldiers.