There are deep suspicions that the invasion of Iraq was a smokescreen on the part of the Bush administration to distract attention away from the campaign in Afghanistan that was allegedly intended to find Osama bin Laden. If this is true, the motive will evidently have to be the subject for future historians to debate, because it definitely remains a mystery to the world today.
Buried a little deeper in the current whirlpool of disinformation is the growing possibility that the administration’s stream of comments concerning Iran may also, in fact, represent another smokescreen being perpetrated on the public at large.
Simply put, the allegations made by President Bush against Iran, on numerous occasions, when not contradicted by his own military leaders, do not square with the facts.
Here is a list of some, but probably not all, of the administration’s accusations.
**************************************
- AUGUST 4, 2005: Press reports told of a large shipment of high explosives that came into Iraq from Iran, according to the administration.
- MARCH 14, 2006: Speaking in London, Bush accused Iran of supplying powerful roadside bombs to Iraqi insurgents. The previous week, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld had accused Iran of sending members of its Revolutionary Guard to conduct operations in Iraq.
- MARCH 14, 2006: A little later, on the very same day, Marine Corps Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joints Chiefs of Staff, said he has no evidence the Iranian government has been sending military equipment and personnel into neighboring Iraq.
- NOVEMBER 30, 2006: Not to be outdone, administration officials said they have found smoking-gun evidence of Iranian support for terrorists in Iraq.
- JANUARY 24, 2007: The Bush administration was reported in Newsweek to be escalating its accusations that Iran is backing Shiite extremists inside Iraq.
- FEBRUARY 11, 2007, an unnamed military explosive expert and a defense intelligence official, along with a Coalition Spokesperson, presented evidence to the Baghdad press corps that "Iran is involved in supplying explosively formed projectiles or EFPs and other material."
- FEBRUARY 12, 2007: Administration spokesman Tony Snow said “the Bush administration is confident the report about the weapons flow from Iran into Iraq is accurate.”
- FEBRUARY 15, 2007: Stepping up the rhetoric, the Columbia Tribune in the San Francisco area, reported that “challenged on the accuracy of U.S. intelligence, President George W. Bush said yesterday there is no doubt the Iranian government is providing armor-piercing weapons to kill American soldiers in Iraq.”
- APRIL 12, 2007: Barney Porter reported in The World Today, the U.S. “has again accused Iranian intelligence services of providing weapons to militants in Iraq, and also says gunmen are being trained in Iran in the use of lethal roadside bombs, which have killed scores of US soldiers.”
- APRIL 19, 2007: The Guardian reported “the war of words between the US and Iran has spilled into Afghanistan after US allegations that Iran is secretly supporting the Taliban insurgency.
- JUNE 6, 2007: CBS News reported that “there is no clear evidence that Iran is supplying the Taliban with weapons, according to U.S. Army General Dan McNeill.”
*****************************************
No doubt you get the point by now. We’ve been bombarded with a steady stream of information calculated to make us believe that the seemingly never ending problems associated with the war in Iraq, and now, perhaps, even Afghanistan, are the fault of Iran.
Well, sure, maybe there’s some truth to these claims, but consider the following. Last week, the Associated Press posted a list of the major terrorist incidents that have occurred in Iraq since our invasion of that country in 2003. They are shown below exactly as published (italics added).
********************************************
-July 7, 2007: A suicide truck bomber rips through a market in a Shiite Turkoman town north of Baghdad, killing at least 115 people.
-April 18, 2007: A car bomb explodes at a Baghdad market as workers leave for the day, killing 127 people.
-March 6, 2007: Two suicide bombers blow themselves up in Hillah, about 60 miles south of Baghdad, killing 93 people in a crowd of Shiite pilgrims.
-Feb. 3, 2007: A suicide truck bomber strikes a market in a predominantly Shiite area of Baghdad, killing 137 people.
-Jan. 22, 2007: A parked car bomb followed immediately by a suicide car bomber strikes a predominantly Shiite commercial area in the Bab al-Sharqi market in central Baghdad, killing 88 people.
-Nov. 23, 2006: Mortar rounds and five car bombs kill 215 people in the Shiite neighborhood of Sadr City.
-April 7, 2006: Two suicide bombers attack the Shiite Buratha mosque in northern Baghdad, killing 85 people.
-Sept. 29, 2005: Three suicide attackers detonate car bombs in an outdoor market and two nearby commercial streets in the mostly Shiite town of Balad, north of Baghdad, killing at least 102 people.
-Sept. 14, 2005: A suicide car bomber strikes as day laborers gather shortly after dawn in a heavily Shiite neighborhood of Baghdad, killing 112 people.
-July 16, 2005: A suicide bomber detonates explosives strapped to his body at a gas station near a Shiite mosque in Musayyib, killing at least 90 people.
-Feb. 28, 2005: A suicide car bomber targets mostly Shiite police and national guard recruits in Hillah, killing 125 people.
-March 2, 2004: A suicide bomber kills at least 85 people at the Imam Hussein shrine in the Shiite holy city of Karbala.
-Feb. 1, 2004: Twin suicide bombers kill 109 people in two Kurdish party offices in the northern city of Irbil.
-Aug. 29, 2003: A car bomb explodes outside a mosque in Najaf, killing more than 85 people, including Shiite leader Ayatollah Mohammed Baqir al-Hakim.
****************************************************************
I’m sure you must have noticed that the victims in all but two of the incidents, on 4/18/07 and 2/1/04, were identified as Shia. Actually, however, the online reference, Wikipedia, says that the attack on 4/18/07 also targeted a Shiite area. The 2/1/04 attack targeted Kurds.
Therefore, 13 of the 14 attacks targeted Shiites and none targeted Sunnis. Obviously, Iran, a Shiite nation, has had nothing to do with Iraq’s largest terrorist incidents.
But, more importantly, why hasn’t the Bush administration questioned, even once, the source of the major munitions involved in these attacks?
One possible answer lies in the administration’s cozy, hand-holding relationship with the opulent leaders of the Sunni nation that lies to the south of Iraq and that shares 426 miles of its border, Saudi Arabia.
The Saudi hierarchy is deathly afraid of the threat represented by the potential uniting of the Iraqi Shiites with Iran. Like the Romans at the Scottish border, the Saudis intend to spend billions to construct a large barrier along its entire Iraq border, but it will take years to complete.
Furthermore, the LA Times reported on Sunday that the largest number of foreign fighters and suicide bombers in Iraq come from Saudi Arabia. Specifically, Saudis represent about 45% of all foreign militants targeting U.S. troops and Iraqi civilians. A U.S. official confirmed the information, but he spoke on condition of anonymity because of the subject’s sensitivity.
One can‘t be too surprised these days, under our smoke-and-mirror government, that the official would be afraid to reveal himself. But we must wonder why we continually only hear accusations thrown in the direction of a country that is clearly innocent of complicity in Iraq’s most terrible attacks.
Obviously, ulterior motives are at work. Moreover, the Karl Rovian philosophy seems to be alive and well here. The book of Rove says that if you continue to say something long enough, eventually more people will begin to believe it, no matter how ridiculous it is on its face.
A previous spin doctor, P.T. Barnum, has been credited with posing it a little differently when he allegedly said “there’s a sucker born every minute.”
Dave McGill, News Correspondent……………….
Dave’s column, “The Contrarian,” published every Wednesday to Gather Essentials: News will occasionally present a contrary view to various aspects of the news, or an alternate take on the conventional wisdom of the day………….
Dave has been a senior officer of a large eastern insurance company, involved in economic projections and investment strategy, president of a Midwestern mortgage banking company, and a financial consultant in Southern California, serving clients in the field of commercial real estate development…………….
You can find all of Dave’s “The Contrarian” columns at: http://gather.com/thecontrarian...... Keep up with Dave’s other postings and Gather activity by joining his Gather network – just click here: http://atadaskew.gather.com........ You’ll find Dave and other News Correspondents, plus celebrity content and plenty of other News experts at News.gather.com.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 30
As to the gist of the article itself, I would say 'right on' ... great insight ... has not this administration lied itself into complete discredit yet ? ... it has for me.
So when does the liberation of the Saudi Arabian people begin?
You bring up an excellent point, Karl....The looting of the munitions dumps was an atrocious case of mismanagement, along with the disappearance of billions of dollars and - now we're told - some 300,000 barrels of oil PER DAY is unaccounted for. The mismanagement by this administration, without any accountability, puts any previous scandal you could name to shame.
As far as Iran is concerned, it appears that the penetrators and the sensors associated with the IED's were manufactured in Iran. Allegedly, in at least one case, the mfg. date was so recent that it suggested that the government might have been involved. However, this administration's credibility is lower than any previous one that I've known, so skepticism would be appropriate in my opinion.
The main point of this article, however, is not whether Iran is helping the insurgents but rather why the administration is totally quiet on the source of the Sunni munitions that have caused virtually every major terrorist incident since 2003, and that absolutely triggered the civil war, which, in turn has pulled our troops into the chaos and caused many casualties.
I've noticed that the Shiites tend to be in the lower economic levels. In Bahrain, Lebanon and pre-war Iraq, the Shiites accounted for the majority of the populations, but the Sunnis held and/or hold the power. The friends of the administration, like Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Pakistan are Sunnis. I may be wrong, but I don't think our administration is thrilled to have seen the democratic process produce a Shiite controlled government in Iraq.
You last sentence says it all. The Shia weren't supposed to win the election; they came out to vote because the cleric's [and particularly the head cleric--can't remember his name for the moment] said they should vote. Norm Coleman [the anti-UN point man was having fits]. I also think our own dear leaders radically miscalculated in thinking they could control the sunni's. Ah, the best laid plans. . .a tiger by the tail. . .an awakened lion as Alain noted, and all that.
Notice Bush hasn't been shy about announcing putting our money on the Fatah via the "Overseas Private Investment Corporation." Wonder who they are? Yes, a blizzard of disinformation and the truth is there somewhere but we'll have to dig it out -- and the sooner the better.
How about that Robt Gates ordered MWRAP [Mine Resistant and Ambush Protective Vehicle] Task Force, with 6000+ advance orders -- designed to be 'modified' as the enemy adapts. Doesn't sound like we're pulling out to me. Bush just says 'up yours' [forgot we're supposed to be polite]; congress is basically saying the same thing -- to us and to each other. Something's gotta give.
General question: Does it not occur to those who think we have a right and an obligation to be there that the Iranians and other stakeholders naturally think we have absolutely no business there -- from any perspective. The Iranians have been making deals with the Iraqis for reconstruction -- why wouldn't they fight to protect their own interests -- to the death? For a long time. Oh, I see. Guns and butter.
Either that, or simply something little mindless men attempt to do to vainly convince others that they are not little mindless men.
Those that take up the 'system' line, are those that would deny all conspiracies and simplify the dumbest ones as the norm with all possible believers falling into the dumbest categories ... that is like ignoring that the baby is still in the bathwater when you throw it out.
Of course IF it is insinuated that theory believers are just little mindless men attempting to convince others that they are not ... then that is an acceptable opinion for those in denial of the potentials that there is no such thing as a conspiracy affecting us all ... to each their own.
\But I believe, by my free choice, that the possibilities of conspiracy should be addressed rather than just trusting our 'leaders' while we either just stick our head in the sand and hope for the best, or, support everything they say and claim.
Inquiring minds that seek truth have no 'other' agendas to support ... those that have agendas will do most anything to support them. Even denial of truth it seems.
Mario, those that do not believe in conspiracy will never believe that our media has been purchased for editorial control by the very wealthy that only want us all to think down certain approved paths ...
The concept of control is why the media does not use the suggested word "allege" as you suggest, that does not suit 'their' purpose in that instance, even though it may well be closer to the truth we are told that they always attempt to give us ... NOT !
Let me put it this way, conspiracy theories are the stuff of little men with ideas bigger than they can handle.
Are you actually saying that people need to be gullible in order to believe that they are being duped?
Someone has to imagine it before it can be done. I'm with you on conspiracy theories but have to acknowledge that thought begets action.
The discussion you kicked off on conspiracy theories is interesting....I guess any conclusions that one draws from known facts might be so labeled. For example, that Bush more or less abandoned his pursuit of Bin Laden and turned towards Iraq is simply a fact. Attempting to attribute a motive to that behavior, however, would be a theory, and since almost everything involves more than one person - a conspiracy theory at that.
There are so many unexplained situations, wrapped up in so much disinformation these days, one would almost have to be a blind, non-thinking swallower of the party line to be able to deny entertaining a conspiracy theory or two, or three, or more.
Jerry, you've certainly given the subject a very philosophical analysis. I like your conclusions - or are they, in fact, also conspiracy theories?
You threw in a good theory too, Mario, especially considering the gusto that the billionaires have displayed in gobbling up media ownership...
My take on Mario's comment, Greg was that people who are gullible will have no idea that they are being duped....kind of the opposite of your take...
Thanks, also, for your comments, Missy W., Rose, James, Dave M., Mickey, Alain, I'm Moody, Jared, Wil, Sam, Ty, Cecile and Mischelle....
We have free speech, but we are far from being free of manipulation. As part of the disinformation campaign to suppress critical thought, anyone who frames a theory over a situation is labeled a conspiracy theorist, and the framework has been carefully laid that equates "conspiracy theorist" with "kook."
Therefore, to short circuit the equation, anyone who expresses a critical theory is a kook. A good example, would be those who feel the work of the 9/11 commission was inadequate. The media has literally turned itself inside out to brand those people as kooks, even though the "inadequate" premise is unquestionably correct.
Of course, as time goes by, bringing up that particular subject is like beating a dead horse, and that's exactly what the media apparently wanted to accomplish.
Of course, the foregoing includes at least two or three conspiracy theories.
You say:
Let me put it this way, conspiracy theories are the stuff of little men with ideas bigger than they can handle.
I say :
Conspiracy theory allows that more is going on behind the obvious than what the conspirators would want the 'little' men to know about. It is not that we cannot handle it, it is just that we do not believe their denial and their mode of second hand slander for our being suspicious.
As for not being able to handle the real facts, I would say that the ones that deny the possibility of conspiracy are the ones that cannot handle the truth. They just want to keep on believing that those in power that they support would never do anything other than what they claim.
So I would contend that it is other than myself that cannot handle such ... the narrow views show the little minds, not the seeking of the deeper truths of an inquiring mind.
Greg asks:
Are you actually saying that people need to be gullible in order to believe that they are being duped?
I say:
You may have missed the word 'not' in my statement, so I will add it here into your statement/question to clarify:
... people need to be gullible in order to NOT believe that they are being duped !
Other than the above, I pretty much believe what David has said in his comments on this.
Anybody who doesn't accept the official story must be a kook! And anybody who remembers or cares about something once the media has decided it's no longer an issue is obviously some kind of obsessed fanatic.
I don't know if it will slow the hawks down, Katie, but Iran just made a pretty good move in this Middle East chess game by entering into a defense pact with Syria...
Glad to see you have the Neocon talking points down, ty.
I share your optimism that sooner or later, we will be hearing about this alleged "proof," and Iran will surely "pay."
Greg --
"...conspiracy theories are the stuff of little men, with ideas bigger than they can handle."
Perhaps. But I would submit that in the cases we are dealing with in this article, as well as with the grand 9/11 scheme, what we are dealing with is conspiracy probability.
"Theories" are only such until evidence becomes present, at which point they become possibilities. The more and more evidence you accumulate, possibilities become probabilities. In the case of the American people being mislead in the case for war with Iran (just like the situation that got us into the present fiasco in Iraq), we are dealing with a very high probability.
In the case of 9/11 being at least allowed to happen and then supplemented by the use of high explosives in WTC 1,2, and definitely 7, by agents and operatives of the United States shadow government; the body of evidence is so overwhelming and practically undeniable when considered in whole, we are certainly dealing with a case of conspiracy high probability.
So much so, indeed, I myself just see it as case of plain conspiracy FACT.
They must not think for themselves and seek truth wherever it resides, no, they must just accept what their 'leaders' tell them, as far as they are concerned, their authorities always know best. To deviate from that norm might draw attention to themselves and make them uncomfortable ...