Just as I suspected! MSNBC: Guess who's trying to infiltrate Iraq?

[bush_is_wacko]

The administrations LATEST push for war with IRAN! I think we all knew this was coming!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6999382/site/newsweek/

<snip>
Feb. 28 issue - Fresh intel suggests that Tehran is trying to expand its influence over whatever government emerges in postelection Iraq. According to U.S. officials familiar with the latest intelligence, the Iranian government has been secretly directing its agents inside Iraq to plant themselves in influential positions throughout the Iraqi government—into agencies that handle economic affairs, like the ministries of Oil, Public Works and Finance, as well as departments like the Interior Ministry that handle national security. The Iranians also are directing their agents to infiltrate Iraqi security agencies on the "working level" by taking jobs in regional or local government offices and particularly local police forces. According to the most pessimistic U.S. analysts, the ayatollahs' ultimate goal: "Taking over the government of Iraq." A less pessimistic view is that the latest intel merely shows an ongoing campaign of "classical espionage" by Tehran against Iraq.
<<end snip>>

COULD THIS ADMINISTRATION BE ANY MORE PREDICTABLE?

[sasquatch]

1. You know what the sad part is?

The dumb fucking Bush supporters will buy this crap hook, line and sinker.

[bush_is_wacko]

2. Without a doubt! Gannon/Guckert scandal has to be pounded

into them full force. I hope the Dem's realize this is their LAST chance! Chimpy already thinks he has their approval for anything considered within the "war on terror." My guess is he won't even bother to inform the Congress, he'll just start dropping bombs!

[Dr.Phool]

5. I don't think he even has to inform Congress anymore

I think the war resolution they passed doesn't specifically mention Iraq, and leaves it to the presidents (I hate having to call him that)
discretion.

They would have to repeal the resolution. I really see that happening. Not!

[PurityOfEssence]

11. Actually, the Dems inserted language to make it specific to Iraq

For all the vilification of the Dems over the IWR, they DID use their leverage to make it specific to Iraq. Junior wanted it to be a blank check.

Now, quibbling over "hot pursuit" or de facto "invasion" by Iran may give them a pretense to trigger action, but Congress has to be consulted should it widen into anything else.

Remember: the IWR was ginned up just before the '02 mid-term elections, while the drumbeat of fear politics were kicked to a high tempo. Also, the information given to legislators specifically excised qualifications and contrary opinions to the shrill assessments. The Dems got gamed, but it's not just clear cowardice. Still, in the face of that, roadblocks were erected to forestall a complete imperial mandate.

Sadly, though, events will move so quickly should "pre-emptive retaliation" be needed against Syria or Iran that Congress will be debating on whether an already hot war is to be pursued and funded, and we know what that dynamic will be: "are you traitors going to cut off our brave soldiers in the field?" and other such crap.

The Democrats didn't do enough, and were cowed by the power of the media and uberresilient Republicans, but they didn't just lie down. They deserve some credit for this.

[teryang]

3. Au contraire! Guess who is trying to infiltrate Iran?

The real story is about American big energy companies being unable to infiltrate and take over the Iranian state oil assets.

Their former criticism was that Iran's government was ideologically opposed to private development projects and partnerships with outsiders.

Numerous non-American energy entities, from Europe, China and India, are now making large inroads into development of vast Iranian energy resources while the Americans are out in the cold.

Thus the objective is for Americans and their proxies to infiltrate and take over Iran, one way or the other.

[bush_is_wacko]

4. Yes, I think we all realize this is true. I suspect the whole Iran Hostage

affair had more to do with oil than anything else too. What I don't really get is what the Saudi's are ACTUALLY getting out of their relationship with the US. I just can't see how our stock market is helping them. I know they have a lot invested in it, but EXACTLY what good is it doing them right now? I would think it would be far more economical to invest in China or one of the OTHER more rapidly growing economies around the world.

Anyone want to try to inform me on this one? I'm sure I'm missing a whole lot here, but every time I try and boil this one down to the bone I come up with the same angle on it.

[teryang]

7. We prop up their obsolete autocracy

...and provide them with national security. Their current government wouldn't last long if it didn't have the premier military power defending it.

[bush_is_wacko]

10. They have NO ONE defending their country?

That is odd. I would think they certainly have the resources to create a very powerful military source and buy the latest equipment. Nuclear technology is certainly within their grasp as well. They have some of the most talented engineers in the world.

Our relationship with the Saudi's is very strange! We're getting access to their oil and they are getting access to our military. But either they want Iraq's oil or our government doesn't think their oil is enough.

I would think if the latter were true the Saudi's would feel pretty threatened about now since Iraq's oil is ours for the taking and Iran is only steps away from Iraq. (If it isn't stopped soon we will be there within a few months and bushitler will do it without even notifying Congress, since he believes he's already been given the authority to do anything he wants in the war on terror) With Iran and Iraq's oil in our possession WE could tell the Saudi's to go get f'd! Yet we seem to be on pretty good terms still.

[teryang]

12. I agree

A number of nations don't understand the threat that Bushco represents at this point. The Saudi royal family realistically speaking doesn't have much choice.

On the other hand, the Saudi's are in a position to spend defense dollars on American hardware. They are also in a position for the time being to expand energy production when necessary to meet American domestic political requirments. Thirdly, they have a history of collusion and good relations with the military contractor junta in power now.

As a matter of fact, Saudi Arabia couldn't defend itself from an outside threat on the order of Israel or Iran. This is what the first Gulf war was about in part. It's population is too small and its military culture is undeveloped. If anything a larger more capable military would be a threat to the throne.

I have always felt that the 911 axis of power is America, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan. It is a sophisticated combination with an arsenal of vast resources in strategic locations in Asia, to prevent the emergence of the natural counter axis of land based asian power: Russia, China and India.

[John Q. Citizen]

9. The hostages were a direct result of the US backed coup

the restored the Shah to power in the late 1950's.

The Shah was our man, and he moved to implement a lot of western institutions on the Iranians, plus he had a hated secret police who brutalized or killed any dissent.

The hostages were taken at the start of the Iranian Revolution, the popular upraising which deposed the Shah and brought the Ayatollahs to power.

The reason we were into having our man in the region undoubtedly was about oil, but not just Iranian oil.

[bush_is_wacko]

13. I remember all this. In fact after all the political assassinations I have

now seen "televised" I still cannot get the Shah's assassination out of my head. I was old enough to know what I had seen but apparently no old enough to deal with the horror of it.

The Shah was touted as the best thing since sliced bread so he got a lot of coverage at the time. This whole thing aged Carter almost beyond recognition and it certainly ended his presidency. At the time I guess I wasn't old enough to make any kind of oil connection although surely others did.

[WMliberal]

6. ummm, hasn't "Iran" been doing this for thousands of years?

Sorry, the history nerd in me couldn't resist. "Classical espionage" or "taking over the government"; could they be any more vague?

[Vinnie From Indy]

8. I thought this thread was about Geraldo. He shouldn't be allowed to

infiltrate Iraq again.

[bush_is_wacko]

14. SORRY, SHOULD READ IRAN!!! INFILTRATE IRAN!

[Benbow]

15. CIA: Iraq war has fuelled terror threat

Is this being reported anywhere else?

The CIA has admitted that the conflict in Iraq has increased the threat of global terrorism by providing a cause for extremists.

In his first public appearance, CIA Director Porter Goss on Wednesday described armed groups fighting US forces in Iraq as inspired by Usama bin Ladin and intent on attacking Americans.

"The Iraq conflict, while not a cause of extremism, has become a cause for extremists," Goss said.

"Those jihadists who survive will leave Iraq experienced in and focused on acts of urban terrorism. They represent a potential pool of contacts to build transnational terrorist cells, groups and networks in Saudi Arabia, Jordan and other countries," he said.

US President George Bush cited Iraqi backing for international terrorism as a reason for invading the country.

His critics, however, had always maintained the invasion was a distraction from the global "war against terror" declared after the 11 September 2001 attacks on the US.

"These sentences indicate Goss is very much listening to what his analysts are saying and not necessarily to what the White House wants to hear," said Kenneth Katzman, terrorism analyst for the Congressional Research Service.

Goss also said those fighting US forces in Iraq had achieved some of their goals in the Iraqi elections by keeping Sunni Arab voter turnout low.

A long-time intelligence officer and former chairman of the House of Representatives intelligence committee, Goss took over as the head of the CIA last year.

He said US authorities and their allies had dealt "serious blows" to the al-Qaida network.

"Despite these successes, however, the terrorist threat to the US in the homeland and abroad endures," he warned.

I don't believe the penultimate paragraph, by the way. Al-Qaida is not one network, it is a movement, a unifying global (Muslim) idea, a many-layered, shifting zeitgeist: anyone in sympathy with the general aims - and we all know what those are - can be a "member". Bush's invasion of Iraq has turned out to be a catalyst that brought into power an Islamic, Shia state, sitting on the second largest reserves of oil in the world. How many more American soldiers does Hillary Clinton think it is OK to send to die in this lost cause?