Fudging the Info

This is the exact same BS that landed us in Iraq. From TPM Muckraker:

"The New York Times provides the history of U.S. concern over Iran's role in Iraq, reporting that in July, 2005, the U.S. sent a diplomatic protest to Iran over the use of allegedly Iranian-made explosives (EFPs) being used against coalition troops in Iraq by Shiite groups.
Somehow these concerns culminated in the U.S. military's infamous, anonymous EFP press briefing in mid-February.


It was a long road. But let's focus in on one thing. It's always been a credible allegation that Iran would in some fashion be supplying its Shiite proxies in the civil war, but let's set that aside. That's not the allegation that the U.S. made in that briefing and immediately thereafter. Rather, the administration clearly made a choice to focus on the evidence that Iranian manufactured weapons were being used in Iraq and stay silent on the crucial detail of who they were being used by. The briefing referred to Iranian support of generic "extremists," without specifying Sunni or Shiite.

The reason for this choice was clear: the vast majority of U.S. casualties come at the hands of Sunni insurgents, not Shiite. But suddenly Iran was elevated to being the major enemy there. Soon senior State Department officials were claiming that Iran is "the most disruptive, negative force in the Middle East." Move over, Al Qaeda."

Got that? This is what I love about the right wing, to them Clinton getting oral sex in the oval office is a impeachable scandal, but Bush landing us in a war without justification after misleading (the nice word for lying) is excusable. John Edwards deciding to continue on his candidacy for President after disclosing his wife has cancer is a 'political' decision, but Rumsfeld and Cheney fudging the info to make Iran look as if it's the number one bad guy in Iraq--that's leadership.

Excuse me while I get sick and then look for flight deals to Amsterdam.