NYT Says 'Skeptics' Doubt the Iran Hype Their Rag Has Been Presenting Since Saturday As 'Proof'

[bigtree]

February 13, 2007

Skeptics Doubt U.S. Evidence on Iran Action in Iraq

By HELENE COOPER and MARK MAZZETTI

WASHINGTON, Feb. 12 — Three weeks after promising it would show proof of Iranian meddling in Iraq, the Bush administration has laid out its evidence — and received in return a healthy dose of skepticism.

The response from Congressional and other critics speaks volumes about the current state of American credibility, four years after the intelligence controversy leading up to the Iraq war. To pre-empt accusations that the charges against Iran were politically motivated, the administration rejected the idea of a high-level presentation, relying instead on military and intelligence officers to make its case in a background briefing in Baghdad.

Even so, critics have been quick to voice doubts. Representative Silvestre Reyes of Texas, the Democratic chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, suggested that the White House was more interested in sending a message to Tehran than in backing up serious allegations with proof. And David Kay, who once led the hunt for illicit weapons in Iraq, said the grave situation in Iraq should have taught the Bush administration to put more of a premium on transparency when it comes to intelligence.

“If you want to avoid the perception that you’ve cooked the books, you come out and make the charges publicly,” Mr. Kay said.

Administration officials say their approach was carefully calibrated to focus on concerns that Iran is providing potent weapons used against American troops in Iraq, not to ignite a wider war. “We’re trying to strike the right tone here,” a senior administration official said Monday. “It would have raised the rhetoric to major decibel levels if we had had a briefing in Washington.”

In Australia, however, Gen. Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters that he “would not say” that Iran’s leadership was aware of or condoned the attacks. “It is clear that Iranians are involved, and it’s clear that materials from Iran are involved, but I would not say by what I know that the Iranian government clearly knows or is complicit,” according to an account posted on the Voice of America Web site.

story: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/13/world/middleeast/13weapons.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&ref=middleeast&pagewanted=print


http://journals.democraticunderground.com/bigtree

[SoCalDem]

1. That's what happens when people cry wolf too many times n/t

[PSPS]

2. The use of 'Skeptics' is a slur meant to marginalize debate

The NYT is still cheerleading for the fraud. Amazing.

[Cobalt-60]

4. Just another Corporate Shill

Their credibility was flushed the last time they lied for Bushco.
It's birdcage lining now.

[muriel_volestrangler]

7. 'Slur'? It's a badge of honour

Visit http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=247

[Amonester]

3. Since it is clear that the Bu$che junta has lost ALL credibility now...

they clearly R a danger to the national security (albeit, they always were...).

Can we impeach them all now? Can We?? (Of course, we should... Long overdue...)

[The_Casual_Observer]

5. That was proof? All it proved is that is was possible for somebody

to put 2006 on some mortar shell & claim it was from Iran, and that all the usual dumb ass shit for brains would buy into it.

[Edweird]

6. Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know the drill,

I know they're lying. So that makes me a troop hating, America despising, commie pinko wacko dirtbag that should be shot on sight. great. :eyes:

[Garbo 2004]

8. The same NYT that belatedly printed a mea culpa about its own lack of skepticism and critical

analysis regarding the Iraq/WMD claims printed in its pages? Have they forgotten Judy "aluminum tubes" Miller so quickly?

[Jacobin]

9. heh

[bigtree]

10. the Iranian wolves are eating all the sheep!

lol!