"We found plans for attacks, phone numbers affiliated with Sunni bad guys, a lot of things that filled in the blanks on what these guys are up to," the official said.Notice the sources. Try googling for this, you won't find the usual litany of stories. Maybe the administration has been leaning on the news media to keep this quiet due to ongoing plans, supported by earlier news like this. Of course, believing the media would keep such a thing quiet qualifies one for the nut hatch. More likely it's being kept hushed so as not to interfere with the Democrats' big entrance and the vague notion their Iran plan appears to be based on retreating from Iraq.
Looking back to 2003, Michael Ledeen certainly seemed to have a good handle on the situation. He's been one of the leading advocates for cleaning house in Iran, not necessarily via the military, but by some means. He's often called some sort of neocon monger or Israeli shill nut, but facts are facts, so perhaps his latest piece deserves serious attention.
In a similar vein, Glenn Reynolds today asked:
It's been obvious that Iran is behind much of the internecine slaughter in Iraq. I don't understand why we haven't been returning the favor by fomenting insurrection in Iran -- or what made the mullahs so confident that we wouldn't. I continue to wonder if they've managed to deter us from significant action, somehow.Being just a shotgun blogger I can go further than Ledeen or Reynolds without fear of losing advertisers or reputation, which currently stands at none. So here goes--in light of this smoking gun it's not real hard to make a leap from the various attacks during the 90s, to the 9/11 attack, to the laptop plans. Sure, the left will quickly counter that Iran is simply reacting to Bushitler's fascist warmongering by protecting their interests, which might make a flicker of sense if not for the various acts of war they've committed against us, ignored in totality by the preceding four presidents.
Consider this for just a sec--if Bush knew from the outset that Iran was involved in 9/11 such a fact would require him to actually do something about it, even if we weren't "ready to do anything about it" yet (see Bob Woodward, Bush at War, page 248-249).
So, while we quietly build military forces in the region (with a complete lack of howling cacophony from the usual suspects) everyone in the world continues to focus on Saddam's hanging, Pelosi's new gavel and Cindy Sheehan's demands to "redeploy and investigate". Meanwhile, the news that Iranian al Quds forces are caught red handed in Iraq committing acts of war is downplayed. Add the recent disappointing election results and a possible dead Ayatollah and it might signal a thumpin' of sorts is in the wind.
MORE 1/4/07
Discussion is beginning to pop, which probably means nothing will end up happening. For the record, I don't consider my an "Iran hawk". 40,000 extra troops ain't gonna invade Iran and take their capital, so if there's a military strategy it's airborne, with troops in place to hold the Iraqi fort. Or something nobody has even considered. And look who's back in the news, as if on cue.
One more thing. If you feel like pulling out the tin foil hat, put this story about Bush opening people's mail, particularly this comment:
Bush cited as examples the need to "protect human life and safety against hazardous materials and the need for physical searches specifically authorized by law for foreign intelligence collection."in context with the Anthrax letter attacks of 2001 and the developing Iranian situation. Are we having fun yet?
MORE 1/5/07
Iran has begun rattling their for-peaceful-purposes-only nuclear sabre while the North Korean gargoyle again threatens to show his butt. All out of the blue, or do the remaining Axis of Evil powers feel some sort of sudden heat?
WHY THEY FIGHT 1/5/07
As told by Captain Jamil Hussein. Does Michelle Malkin know this yet?
(HT A View from the Porch)
No comments:
Post a Comment