This is the Voice of America?
Top American General Disputes US Military Claim on Iran
The top American military officer, General Peter Pace, declined Monday to endorse the conclusions of U.S. military officers in Baghdad, who told reporters on Sunday that the Iranian government is providing high-powered roadside bombs to insurgents in Iraq. General Pace made his comments during a visit to Australia, and VOA's Al Pessin reports from Canberra.
General Pace said he was not aware of the Baghdad briefing, and that he could not, from his own knowledge, repeat the assertion made there that the elite Quds brigade of Iran's Republican Guard force is providing bomb-making kits to Iraqi Shiite insurgents.
"We know that the explosively formed projectiles are manufactured in Iran. What I would not say is that the Iranian government, per se [specifically], knows about this," he said. "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."
Clue for the reporter or the headline writer here. Failing to confirm a report because you do not have personal knowledge of the same facts is not – in any way, shape or form – "disputing" the report. Pace is saying he does not have personal knowledge of the facts used to draw that conclusion. He is strongly confirming that the weapons are coming from Iran, however, isn't he? What he is declining to confirm is only the conclusion that the Iranian government knows about the matter. But Ahmadinejad refused to deny that Iran was involved just today to Diane Sawyer, didn't he? The AP is playing up other officials who are denying it, but Ahmadinejad refused to answer a direct question from Sawyer.
Clue for the reporter or the headline writer here. Failing to confirm a report because you do not have personal knowledge of the same facts is not – in any way, shape or form – "disputing" the report. Pace is saying he does not have personal knowledge of the facts used to draw that conclusion. He is strongly confirming that the weapons are coming from Iran, however, isn't he? What he is declining to confirm is only the conclusion that the Iranian government knows about the matter. But Ahmadinejad refused to deny that Iran was involved just today to Diane Sawyer, didn't he? The AP is playing up other officials who are denying it, but Ahmadinejad refused to answer a direct question from Sawyer.
Ask your son if *Shiite* insurgents plant IEDs against American troops. That’s not Shiite behavior, it’s a Sunni tactic. Shiite insurgents are busy killing, torturing, and displacing Sunnis.
The Administration knows IEDs upset Americans (quite understandably), so they’re trying to pin the creation of them on Iran and an excuse for a fight.
See I suspect you actually know this, but you’re just towing the administration line. Whatever.
Pretty positive statement their, billy joe bob. You know what “Shiite” behavior is and can perfectly decipher their motivations and actions. Your abilities are awe-inspiring.
Hezbollah used these weapons in Lebanon against the Israelis. Guess they aren’t Shiites now as far as you’re concerned.
And the troops have known for a long time that these are coming from Iran. And it doesn’t matter which religious sect is involved.
See, I suspect you know that but are just toeing (that’s the correct spelling) the “drag the administration down at all costs” party line.
Nice ad hominem attack there (that’s the correct spelling) giaus baltar…
You reject my ‘simplistic’ assessment of Shiite behavior. Check a map of where the IEDs are being planted and see who controls that territory. But maybe that’s simplistic too – fair enough. Isn’t it curious fully support and defend the Iraq occupation, which was based on an equally simplistic big government nation building plan. More proof of “toeing” the administration line.
I’m sure if the troops knew the IEDs were coming from the Saudis we’d hear all about it. And there would be no motivation for Saudis to put Iranian markings on the IEDs. That would be silly. What percent of Fox viewers think the 9/11 hijackers were Iraqis?
You’re wrong about me wanting to drag the administration down “at all costs.” I fully stand behind the tax cuts implemented by 43, because those cuts were based on sound Austrian school economic thinking. On the other hand, nation building and massive deficit spending are not, so I call them on it. Plus I’m against Americans dying for an Iran 2.0. So excuse me for saying the Emperor has no clothes; if only more conservatives had the cojones to acknowledge the 800 pound elephant in the room.
I think I’ve correctly spelled enough colloquialisms to make up for my earlier mistake, but thanks for the correction. That there/their thing can be tricky too..
You really should look up the definition of ad hominem. Pointing out something that I have seen done repeatedly by you and others is not an adhominem.
We can all bicker about whether Iran is directly supplying Sunnis with IEDs that kill our troops in Iraq, and whether there is any evidence to support such an assertion. Such debates are worthy, but I think it’s a little hasty to go right to that stuff before we’ve answered the most important question:
Do we want to go war with Iran?
If the answer is yes, then it doesn’t really matter if the Sunnis are the ones who primarily use IEDs, and the Iranian gov’t isn’t supporting the Shiites, so it doesn’t add up that the Iranian gov’t is supplying weapons that kill our troops. Ultimately, that debate is moot, because if we, collectively, want to start a third war in the Middle East, then we don’t really need a sturdy, accurate, honest justification- we’ll just go do it.
But also, if the answer is no, then again the debate about who’s supplying whom with what types of weapons is a moot debate. If we, collectively, have no desire to go to war with Iran, then we should address these grievances at the negotiating table with the Iranians, not on the battlefield. Further, we should all be working very hard to restrict the Bush Administration from starting a war with Iran, because we, collectively, don’t want it.
So, let’s start with that. Given all that you know today, do you want to go to war with Iran, gaius?
Iran has been at war with us for a good many years. Do I want us to attack them? No. Do I want the West to apply a lot of pressure to get them to back off? Yes. Trying to avoid any confrontation with them will make a real war inevitable and even more ugly.
And believing they will negotiate in good faith right now is the ultimate in wishful thinking. They feel bold enough to send easily traceable weapons into a war zone to kill our troops. Do you not see the problem?