WHY exactly are we supposed to believe the "intelligence" on Iran is any more honest or accurate

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

than that used to bamboozle the country into invading Iraq?

All these anonymous unsourced stories about Iran's supposed involvement in Iraq that are accelerating in number every day?

The same discredited mouthpieces and reporters simultaneously saying "we weren't lying, we had the wrong info on Iraq" AND promoting belligerence against Iran?!

HOW exactly did the Bush administration and its "intelligence community" re-establish credibility on any of this? Did I miss it?
:shrug:

[ixion]

1. they've never had credibility, IMO

and I'm sure not going to give it to them now. They're lying their ass off, like always.

[Forkboy]

2. Well,they'd never lie twice is why.

Golly.

[saltpoint]

3. Of course we should believe it. Remember the fox and the gingerbread

man?

The gingerbread man couldn't cross the swift river so the fox told him to ride on his nose and he would get him to the other side safe and dry.

No, wait... that didn't work out very well for the gingerbread man, did it?

_ _ _ _ _

Yep. BushCo is lying about Iran.

[The Magistrate]

4. There Is No Reason To Believe Their Statements, Sir

And not many people do.

The odd thing about it is that Iran is involved, but their support is not given to the groups generally attackinmg U.S. forces: those are being aided by Saudi citizens, doubtless with the knowledge, if not the active connivance, of the Saudi government. The Iranians are assisting the Shi-ite groups, particularly the Mahdi Army of Mr. al'Sadr, which are the principal prop of our puppet government in Iraq.

[Buck Rabbit]

18. Are you sure? I believe there principal support is to Al Hakim's

SCIRI and the Badr Corp not the Mahdi. And they are next closest to Maliki's DAWA party.

This is why they are so supportive of the current Iraqi government. Iran's strongest allies in Iraq are the two groups with the most representation in the Iraqi government. They don't want to bring the elected Iraqi government down because they are the very folks they would have picked if they had been running the elections. No?

[Bobbie Jo]

5. Time for another well-placed Olberman "Special Comment."

Are ya listening KO?

[rusty charly]

6. more on this here:

A front page article in Saturday's New York Times which claims that there is "broad agreement among American intelligence agencies" that Iran has been supplying Iraqi Shiite militias with explosively formed projectiles (or EFPs) appears to violate the paper's policy on using unidentified sources.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x172339

[Robbien]

7. Because Dick Cheney said so

The NYT today is saying it is true and that Iran is evil.
CNN today is saying it is true and that Iran is evil.

Of course Fauxnews and hate talk radio is on board.

[radfringe]

52. we need to take it on FEITH....

[EstimatedProphet]

8. They didn't re-establish any kind of credibility

Most people know they are lying. The people that follow them either want to float up in the middle of the air or beat off to the idea of people being killed.

[CrispyQ]

9. They are testing Americas short term memory?

Honestly, I'm as amazed as you that they are doing the same old shit again.

There's an article on Common Dreams (can't remember which one) that mentions "launch & tell." They will act, then they will tell us. Will We the People tolerate that? Or will we go to our jobs cuz we need them to pay the bills. :shrug: I know I need my job. :banghead:

[bdamomma]

10. these neo cons are playing by the same old BS, try to manipulate

the masses to believe that Iran is a threat. These neo cons are just making up their own rules, that WAR is continuous and we will just accept it. Sorry no can do. What total BS they are spewing again.

[Individualist]

11. ...with the aiding and abetting of MSM

People who are interested in facts won't buy into the BS. The only question is how many in this country still believe "if it's on the teevee, it must be true".

[librechik]

12. Thank goodness we have Michael Ware to display appropriate skepticism

at such "old news" reports suddenly unearthed when the prez's numbers go south and they want to scare us.He read that "EFP" report well on CNN earlier today.

[Generator]

13. Yes but now our soldiers

and our years of committment are already there being held hostage. And more troops on the way! SO when the guy in Baghdad holds up the bomb component and says this is stamped IRAN! what are we to believe? And don't we want to stop that? (Yes, but how-don't give me some sensible argument like leaving-that's not what we want!)* For all we know Iran could be sending them over. For all we know someone in our government is paying someone in Iran to send them over. They want their war. And I do not see the congress we have now standing up and stopping it. They can't even talk about it the senate! No, no, no!

[catmandu57]

14. I'll hold the ball this time Charlie Brown

I only hope that there are enough people awake this time to call bullshit. The last time these bastards ran this game people were wondering through a fog, the air is clearing now, but, we know how much they respect public opinion.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

15. It seems as long as there's no military draft, and as long as most people have a job and a roof

over their heads and are not starving, the nation will simply shrug as Tehran is bombed.

[vincent_vega_lives]

16. So I presume the general consensus here is that

Iran would never covertly assist the Iraqi insurgents against the US Military?

Any particular reason why?

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

17. I didn't say they wouldn't do that. But there is clearly a "surge" of unsourced

anonymous DoD officials feeding stories to the media, unverifiable, that Iran is doing this.

It seems an obvious attempt to drum up support for military action against Iran, in exactly the same pattern and type of propaganda as that used to drump up support against Iraq, which turned out to be essentially all false.

My point is, credibility has been lost. The burden of "proof" is much greater, or should be.

[vincent_vega_lives]

19. The armored Humvees that are being penetrated

by sophisticated EFP (Explosively Formed Projectile) devices are not anonymous.

The Administration's credibility has no effect on what's acctualy happening in Iraq.

Of course, they could be coming from Syria too.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

20. Whose say so aside from DoD reps do we have that Iran is the only country making EFPs?

You will forgive the understandable skepticism from this corner.

If you choose to take everything the DoD and the Bush administration say at face value, good luck to ya.

[vincent_vega_lives]

24. did you READ my post

apparently not. And I don't need to take the DoD's word or the administraton to understand whats actually going on in Iraq.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

26. What IS going on there?

[vincent_vega_lives]

27. Evidence of EFP devices have been in Iraq since 2004

Its just lately that a batch was captured prior to use.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

35. The information still all comes from the Bush administration and their DoD mouthpieces.

The credibility is lacking, based on recent track record.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/13/world/middleeast/13weapons.html?ex=1329022800&en=440b2180d0b983de&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

[vincent_vega_lives]

36. So soldiers in Iraq are a "mouthpiece" ?

The Bush administration are not the source of this information.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

37. These anonymous ones? Yes. Interesting that you use the exact same ploy as the Bush

administration mouthpiece Zelikow, his quote at the end of the article sums it up. Bush and Cheney are hiding behind the troops instead of Colin Powell this time, "don't you trust our (anonymous) troops?":

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/13/world/middleeast/13weapons.html?ex=1329022800&en=440b2180d0b983de&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

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.

...


The administration’s scramble over how to present its evidence started in January, after President Bush accused Iran of meddling in Iraq. Iran’s ambassador to Iraq, Hassan Kazemi Qumi, demanded that the United States present its evidence, and Mr. Khalilzad, the American ambassador in Baghdad, responded that America would “oblige him by having something done in the coming days.”

That set Bush administration officials racing to produce a briefing that would hold up to scrutiny. Military officials in Baghdad developed the first briefing, a wide-ranging dossier that contained dozens of slides about Iranian activities inside Iraq, which was then sent to Washington for review, administration officials said.

But after a careful vetting by intelligence officials, senior administration officials, including National Security Adviser Stephen J. Hadley and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, concluded that there were aspects of the briefing that could not be supported by solid intelligence. They sent the briefing back to Baghdad to be shored up, a senior official said.

...

Philip D. Zelikow, who until December was the top aide to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, said American politics and the increased unpopularity of the war in Iraq is obscuring the larger issue of the Iran evidence, which he described as “abundant and so multifaceted.”

“People have lost their moorings,” Mr. Zelikow said. He said the administration was trying to overcome public distrust by asking, in essence, “Don’t you trust our soldiers?”

[vincent_vega_lives]

39. Have a look for yourself

http://www.realcities.com/multimedia/nationalchannel/archive/mcw/pdf/Iran_in_Iraq.pdf

These are not improvised explosive devices typically used by Iraqi insurgents. They come from an outside source.

Again I ask. Why do most people here think Iran would NOT be doing this covertly?

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

44. What is the source of the Powerpoint slides?

[vincent_vega_lives]

47. Multi-National Force - Iraq

http://www.mnf-iraq.com/

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

48. You honestly don't understand, after the Colin Powell U.N. presentation

(with pictures!), aluminum tubes, yellocake, "we've found the WMD" (Bush re: trailers) etc. why most people, including myself, would be skeptical about any such information whose only source is the U.S. government either via Bush or the DoD?

You honestly don't think any skepticism is warranted?

[vincent_vega_lives]

49. That was the CIA not DOD

and those analysts fully believed what they were selling...unfortunately. And so did Colin Powell.

PS: the trailers were never claimed to be WMD, but mobile labs.

I think skepticism is warranted, but not outright disbelieve ONLY because Bush is president. You may not believe this but some things outside this country happen without his approval, and other nations are not all peace loving and without agendas of their own. He's just the President, not a super villian.

[Richard Steele]

50. That document proves nothing, beyond how GULLIBLE it's authors believe us to be.

"These are not improvised explosive devices typically used by Iraqi insurgents.
They come from an outside source. "

Iran has a very modern munitions industry; they sell munitions
to over 50 other nations.

The EFP devices shown there sure as hell don't look like
they were made in any modern factory. They look pretty
darned "home-made" to me.

And EFPs are amazingly simple devices. A quick sketch of
one on a napkin, that listed the important measurements
would be enough to allow almost ANYONE to build one.
A few pounds of any common explosive and a few basic
hand tools is all it takes, once you have diagram to follow.

To ASSUME they "came from an outside source", we must first
assume that Iraqi "insurgents" are incapable of using hammers
and hacksaws...or that they are somehow not allowed to use
anything better than whatever they were using to begin with.

IIRC, the Sicilian mafia used an EFP or two for some assassinations
back in the '80s. That fact was "proof" that Iran was helping
them, I suppose?

There are many other GLARING problems with the "evidence" in that
PDF; errors of fact, errors of logic, errors of foolish assumption.

Fine ham abounds. :patriot:

[vincent_vega_lives]

41. The 170 US and 17 UK soldiers that have been killed

by EFP devices are not anonymous.

[vincent_vega_lives]

38. Oh BTW must add Sen John Kerry

and other Democrats to the "Administration".

[wiggs]

21. While I believe that decades of planning and investment has led to

the unfortunate circumstances we're in (media control, corporatism, PNAC, RW ideology), I'm not sure that it matters anymore if the public believes the bamboozle or not. They've managed to make it this far on lies, misinformation, criminal deceipt, bribing, strong-arming, and secrecy and now they are in position to pull the trigger on the prize: Iran. Approval ratings don't matter now with respect to the Iran decision. Non-binding congressional resolutions don't matter re Iran (they do matter in a different way, but not WRT Iran). Protests and marches won't affect their decision. Powerfully-written op-eds will not change this administration's policies.

Congress COULD affect the course of the path we're on but, sadly, relying solely on them for oversight and doing what's right could very well lead to disappointment.

CIA and military, I would imagine, could work behind the scenes and affect policy. I hope they are. But I also remember the CIA and Pentagon purges wherein non-believers were forced out.

So...it's amazing (to me and probably to them) they are still in office in this position of ultimate power but at this late date it's hard for me to believe that they care if we believe them or not. They don't need credibility; they need a little more time.

[HuffleClaw]

22. we're not

its the same game plan, but on fast-forward. by the time this new set of lies is debunked it will be too late.

[rusty charly]

23. Juan Cole:

This NYT article depends on unnamed USG sources who alleged that 25 percent of US military deaths and woundings in Iraq in October-December of 2006 were from explosively formed penetrator bombs fashioned in Iran and given to Shiite militias:

' In the last three months of 2006, attacks using the weapons accounted for a significant portion of Americans killed and wounded in Iraq, though less than a quarter of the total, military officials say.'

This claim is one hundred percent wrong. Because 25 percent of US troops were not killed fighting Shiites in those three months. Day after day, the casualty reports specify al-Anbar Province or Diyala or Salahuddin or Babil, or Baghdad districts such as al-Dura, Ghaziliyah, Amiriyah, etc.--and the enemy fighting is clearly Sunni Arab guerrillas. And, Iran is not giving high tech weapons to Baathists and Salafi Shiite-killers. It is true that some casualties were in "East Baghdad" and that Baghdad is beginning to rival al-Anbar as a cemetery for US troops:

http://www.juancole.com/2007/02/nyt-falls-for-bogus-iran-weapons.html

[symbolman]

25. IT IS TIME TO IMPEACH THE MEDIA, CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS ON WAR PROPAGANDA, NOW!

I'm deadly serious, we need a good grass roots org on this, let's get the word out to BLOGS everywhere, they can take the lead, and DEMAND Congressional Hearings on MEDIA Complicity, shilling for war for PROFIT..

Sheer Propaganda, brain washing of the american Public, and there's plenty of PROOF.

[SeattleGirl]

28. I find it impossible to believe anything this fucking administration

say. ANYTHING. They've lied so many times that if they told me the sky was blue on a cloudless, sunny day, I'd be convinced they were lying.

[Skittles]

29. it kills me, Mayberry

those lying, thieving, bastards have f***ed up EVERYTHING they've ever touched and yet we are supposed to still find them credible? What the F*** kind of alternate universe are we living in ???

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

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

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/13/world/middleeast/13weapons.html?ex=1329022800&en=440b2180d0b983de&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

[Guaranteed]

30. Because this time, it's coming from the Sunnis and Al Qaeda!

MUCH more credible than that Shiite crap from last time.

[Jonathan50]

31. I've been lurking on this really great military blog for quite a while now

It's called intel dump http://www.intel-dump.com and it's mostly military officers and ex officers.

The truly remarkable thing is how liberal most of them sound, they are absolutely disgusted with the Decider and think that Iraq is a lost cause.

These folks are remarkably intelligent and remarkably well informed, many of them have served in Iraq and there appear to be several intel officers posting there.

Below is the link to a thread discussing EFPs among other things. I have excerpted a couple of comments and posted them under the link.

I would strongly urge anyone who is interested in what is going on in Iraq to read the thread linked here and many more on intel dump, I find it fascinating reading the inside view from people who largely share my view of politics.

http://www.intel-dump.com/posts/1171050024.shtml

bigTom, you are pretty close here. Iran has very tightly controlled the use of EFPs, I believe their intent was to keep them "under the radar", as they have been for the last two years. It is only after nearly three years of EFPs in Iraq and over 170 Soldiers killed (as per a Pentagon announcement today) that we are finally talking publically about the problem. I have personally been intimately involved with EFPs. An important thing to understand about them, no Sunni use them. They are a Shia weapon and I suspect they will stay that way because Iran doesn't want to army any potential adverseries to the Shia controlled Iraqi government.


I also won't go too deep in answering your question for obvious reasons (I am trying to only rely on open source intel), but EFPs are not very easy to make. They are very precise in construction and require professional machinery. There are other parts of the EFP that are even more complex such as the arming device. The "easy part" that people speak of is the assembly and you have all of the manufactured components.

[Jonathan50]

32. Kick because I really want people to go and take a look

I really think liberals should take a look at intel dump http://www.intel-dump.com/ , you will be suprised at how liberal the military officers and retired military officers posting there sound.

Start with this thread about the "new strategy" in Iraq, you will find it ripped apart by experts in military strategy and tactics.

http://www.intel-dump.com/posts/1171050024.shtml

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

46. I'm reading the comments here, and it's pretty good, thanks for this.

[Edweird]

34. Because this time they REALLY MEAN IT....

no, I"M SERIES!!!11!! They REALLY REALLY MEAN IT. Honest!:eyes:

[RedStateShame]

40. In other words: WOULD YOU BUY A WAR FROM THIS MAN?

[gravity]

42. I doubt they can convince the American public this time

Congress will be a whole lot more reluctant to go to war a second time given the failure and incompetence of the Iraq invasion.

The bad thing would be if they were actually telling the truth this time like the boy who cried wolf.

[myrna minx]

43. I think that you need to report to the nearest hypnotism spiral

for reeducation. :hi:

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

45. LOL

[Warren DeMontague]

51. We're not the target audience. nt

[Hubert Flottz]

53. Bush don't care if you believe it or not...

He will do as he pleases, no matter what anyone believes of says.

[salin]

54. Why, indeed.

While there is the same blind, echoing the admin, media - there is also a LOT more skeptical reporting this time around.