LAT: U.S. backpedals accusations against Iran

[DeepModem Mom]

U.S. backpedals accusations against Iran
By Borzou Daragahi and James Gerstenzang, Times Staff Writer
February 14, 2007

WASHINGTON -- U.S. officials from President Bush to a top general in Iraq said Wednesday that there was no solid evidence that top officials in Iran had ordered deadly weapons to be sent to Iraq for use against American soldiers, backing away from claims made at a Baghdad presentation by military and intelligence officials earlier this week....

***

Critics in recent days have accused the administration of overstating claims of official Iranian involvement in Iraq's violence. On Sunday, U.S. officials in Baghdad who spoke on condition of anonymity alleged that Iranian officials at the "highest levels" of the government in Tehran, including Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, were behind the smuggling of a deadly type of explosive devices used against U.S. forces in Iraq.

But during news conferences in Washington and Baghdad on Wednesday, Bush and Maj. Gen. William B. Caldwell IV, the chief military spokesman in Baghdad, appeared to step back from that claim, just as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Peter Pace did in an overseas interview earlier this week.

Caldwell characterized the recent statements about Iranian weapons in Iraq as a diplomatic endeavor to convince Iranians to stop the flow of such weapons....

The controversy surrounding the weapons claims revolves around the nature of wartime intelligence work, which often requires making conclusions based on classified information, confidential sources, circumstantial inferences and historical patterns rather than the type of evidence that may prove a court case.

At a presentation Sunday, U.S. officials showed reporters weapons found in Iraq they said had been made in Iran. But they spoke on condition of anonymity and barred reporters from bringing cameras or recorders. The unusual secrecy, amid several ongoing Washington probes into abuses of intelligence in the run-up to the Iraq war, raised as many questions about U.S. motives as Iranian actions....

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iran15feb15,0,6007741.story?track=mostviewed-homepage

[Straight Shooter]

1. Now that Cheney doesn't have to take the stand, they're lowering the level of Iran hysteria.

Wow. What a co-inky-dink.

I still don't trust those snakes, though. :nuke:

[Miss Chybil]

2. Cheney never HAD to take the stand. He might have been called

as a defense witness and I don't think they would have considered calling him, if he were going to be a hostile witness. The only reason they backed off their claim is because it wasn't true and the press actually called them on it - unlike they did prior to invading Iraq.

If you watched Bush's speech today, he said even though he has no "proof" the Iranian government ordered the weapons be sent to Iraq, it doesn't matter to him. He's "going to do something about it." So, in other words, he doesn't need proof. If they - the high levels of Iranian government - didn't know about the weapons, they should have. It's kind of like saying Saddam needed to prove he didn't have something they said he did. It's convoluted bullshit and means nothing because Bush is going to do what Bush wants to do no matter what.

[Straight Shooter]

5. I know he never "had" to take the stand, but I think they were sweating it.

Fitzgerald could have subpoenaed him, for that matter, but it would have been a risky move. Too little to gain, too much to lose. I don't know if, in this trial, Fitzgerald would have been required to file a motion before the Court before he could actually subpoena the Dick, and I don't know how Judge Walton could justify granting it.

I didn't see the press conference. I read about some obnoxious comment that "money trumps peace."

You are right, it's all convoluted bullshit, always has been and always will be with the bush administration, but I hope we find out that bush is not going to do what bush wants to do no matter what. The right wing noise machine is a bit out of kilter, and things may not turn out according to his schemes.

[northzax]

7. right

once again, we admit other countries have more control over their military than we do. the Iranians are supposed to know about any minor weapons sales, but our leadership doesn't know about torture of prisoners are places like Abu Grhaib, I mean who can know that sort of thing?

[Miss Chybil]

10. And "Which is worse? Knowing, or not knowing." Snicker. snicker.

You're right. I wish somebody would ask George his own question.

[Dover]

3. So now false accusations and lies are considered "diplomatic endeavors"?!

Is that what the WMD lies were?

The Iranian Ambassador to the U.N. probably was a bit more accurate in his terminology when, last night on Charlie Rose, he called the munitions 'found' by Bushco in Iraq completely fabricated. And the date stamp on those munitions that were supposed to have been manufactured in Iran was printed day/month/year, in that order, which is NOT how Iranians nor much of the world write the date. It is a Western date notation. Is that just a U.S. 'diplomatic endeavor'?

[Old and In the Way]

4. Actions of Distractions.

How could our top generals not be in concurrance on this? Wouldn't this DoD presentation have declassification codes and clearance information? Who's the anonymous source? How can someone, unnamed but speaking on behalf of the USG, be making accusations that could lead to war with another country?

This was probably timed to take the edge off the Iraqi Escalation Resolution....but I'm sure this is the 1st of new administration strikes on the War on Truth.

[AlCzervik]

6. Iraqi's are killing each other with or without Iran's help, deal with that

Bush, thats whats going on so stop trying find a strawman.

[Zhade]

8. I'm diggin' this whole "military says nope" thing.

Keep it up, guys, so we can bring you the hell home already!

[Doondoo]

9. lies stacked on top of more lies