"irrefutable evidence" Iran arming Taliban, claims U.S. Undersecretary of State Burns

[Roland99]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/06/13/iran.taliban/index.html

The United States has "irrefutable evidence" that Tehran is transferring arms to Taliban fighters in Afghanistan, a top U.S. diplomat told CNN Wednesday, noting that NATO forces have intercepted some of the arms shipments.

"There's irrefutable evidence the Iranians are now doing this and it's a pattern of activity," U.S. Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns told CNN.

"If you see the Iranians arming Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza and the West Bank and, of course, arming Shia militants inside Iraq itself. It's very violent and very unproductive activity by the Iranian government."

...

"It's certainly coming from the government of Iran. It's coming from the Iranian Revolutionary Guard corps command, which is a basic unit of the Iranian government," Burns said.

Mr. Burns photographed just after the press conference

[liberal N proud]

1. Didn't they have irrefutable evidence that Saddam had WMD's?

Their lips are moving, they lie.

[johnfunk]

6. "Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

"We're making remarkable progress in Iraq."
"Our economy is booming."
"The President choked on a pretzel."

[ck4829]

2. "Wait, wait, wait. This time it IS true! Honest. Guys, come on, where are you all going?"

Have these guys ever heard of the boy who cried wolf?

[ProfessorGAC]

10. Yeah. We're Supposed To Believe Them This Time, WHY?

They've been wrong about everything so far. Exactly what would motivate us to believe them now?
GAC

[Zodiak]

3. Another lie

Why do I know?

Everything else they have said is a lie. Military experts disagree with this assertion, and we have not been privvy to any evidence outside of a picture of a mortar with western lettering on it.

But WE have been financing incursions into their territory (by Al Queda associted groups, I might add) that has led to the death of Iranian soldiers. I see no mention of that in the article.

Their propaganda is comepletely transparent to those of us who have been paying attention to the news over the last two years. But they will get their war on regardless.

Think of it as the "Art of Kahn-Li" in Dune....they go through the formal diplomatic motions of going to war knowing what the foregone conclusion is. They are just following the script in full knowledge that Americans are helpless to this process, but we are the ones who pay in blood.

[Raven]

4. Here is another article on this.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/061307J.shtml

[Roland99]

12. And heres some interesting info on Nicholas Burns. Seems the neocons don't like him?

Or at least they didn't like him much...


http://www.nowpublic.com/aei_having_trouble_with_the_administration

Rice also appointed Nicholas Burns her undersecretary of state
for Policy, the same position promised him by the Kerry administration. After
Robert B. Zoellick stepped down as deputy secretary of state on July 7, 2006,
Rice sought to promote Burns, but the White House personal office vetoed his
nomination.

Active Appeasement
Our Iran Policy
By Michael A. Ledeen
http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.24989/pub_detail.asp

It looks more and more to me that David Frum’s sensitive political nose was right, that the Bush administration is looking for an exit strategy, and that the strategy requires only a bit of verbal cooperation from the friendly mullahs in Tehran. If they will promise to behave, and “work with us to guarantee security” in Iraq, we will get out of their way, abandon the Iraqis to their doom, and leave the life-and-death question of how to deal with Iran to the next administration.


There does not seem to be any forceful effective opposition to this course within the administration. Baker is no fool; he would not be making such statements to the Times unless he were confident of consensus. And indeed, in the London Telegraph we see that our brave democracy advocates in the State Department have been trying to set up the mechanism for our surrender:

The Bush administration made secret overtures to former Iran president Mohammed Khatami during his visit to the United States last month in an attempt to establish a back channel via the ex-leader.

American officials made the approach as part of a strategy to isolate Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Mr Khatami's hard-line successor, by using the former president as a conduit to the Iranian people.

They also hoped that Mr Khatami would report his conversations to senior members of Iran's theocratic regime who are wary of the current president. Diplomatic sources said that “third parties” were authorised by Nicholas Burns, the US under-secretary of state responsible for relations with Iran, to talk to Mr Khatami in a step towards “engagement” with senior Iranians.

This needs a bit of deconstruction. The most important sentence is the last. It tells us that the secretary of State (Burns, like Baker, is no fool; he would not authorize talks with the mullahs without Condoleezza Rice’s say-so) has approved (still more) talks with the mullahs. Notice also that there is no reference to the celebrated nuclear question. This is all about “engagement,” which is a baby step this side of “normalization.”

Perhaps Burns has been "turned"??

[Toots]

5. Undeniable so says the gospel of truth "Big" Dick Cheney.."Big time"

:shrug: Wolf wolf wolf wolf please come help there's a wolf.....

[bullimiami]

8. theres a wolf alright

"The sky is falling, the sky is falling"

[ChairmanAgnostic]

7. Let's see, the Taliban are spiritual partners of Osama bin Hidin

a Saudi wahabi who detests Iranians even more than Americans.
Iran, after 9/11, pledges to support the US in its upcoming battle in Afghanistan and promises to recognize Israel without conditions, AND only seeks normalization of their relationship in return. Condi, George, Dick and Don reject the proposal.

Now we are to believe that Iran has changed the entire country's faith to an opposing sect, and wishes to cooperate with their sworn enemies? On the word of an undersecretary that rushed to India to ink a nuke deal that the entire world believes is a disaster in the making?

Burns was pushing an attack on Iran as early as 2006, asking for increase in funding to destabilize Iran, calling for global unity against Iran and claiming that Iran was the biggest source of terror in the middle east.

To say that Burns is merely a talented diplomat pushing the company line is like saying the ocean is wet. He repeatedly pissed off the French while he was in NATO, he has close ties to Israel, and he is deeply involved in the neocon expansion of war people current infecting the State Department.

[triguy46]

9. Hm... the old credibility meter needle isn't moving... n/t

[jwirr]

11. Apparently the fundies do not teach the "wolf, wolf" story in their

Sunday School classes.

[Eugene]

13. Cheney and Powell claimed to have "irrefutable evidence" that Saddam had WMD's.

And look here! Iran is violating a UN mandate.
The Bushies are following the same case for war
script they used in 2002.

[leftofthedial]

14. mobile Taliban-arming trailers of death

nukular centerfyoojiz and aluminum tubes--not the kind they use in the Internets

More irrefutable evidence from the makers of "Irrefutable Evidence One: WMD in Iraq"