Oh, I agree completely. No question that in Iraq they've gotten pretty good at covering up all those "surgical strikes" that go awry and result in "collateral damage."

I suppose I should admit I haven't done any actual research here, and don't have figures to back up my claim regarding expenses doled out to various defense contractors in Iraq II.

I just don't see Iran as anything other than a bombing campaign. The point I was making was in questioning the motives for it.

Iran Bombing campaign = lots of big ticket defense appropriations. (that'll teach 'em to say mean things about Israel)

I'll go after this thought. At the other Home Place, I've a old 1901 copyright book about Persian scripture/literature. sad.

We invade in the Spring?

That assures a total failure!

GOP Jerks are strategic fools!

The sad remembrance is this :

Old time Persians would lure.

Once invaders were within old Persia,

old literature records 250,000 deaths.

Good take on that election by fly on the wall over at TPM, if you haven't already seen it.

I know they say one shouldn't look a gift horse in the mouth. However in this case I'm inclined to do it. This guy is way conservative and I fail to see much benefit there. I'll be happy to be wrong.

Tone in DC. Thanks.

At each coffee break, and at each stroll to the water cooler.... Please convey humanities great disgust for us. Call the pro-war ilk the truth. Tell each one you see that it's always been called Murder. Yup. Killing other people is murder. It's not to dilly dally. No more beating around the Bush.

"Petrophilla and it's anxiety : PETRO. Maybe GOPS can do some inner reflection, ROVE?

Rocks from Lake Tai, and the field worldwide... each river, cry out for Justice. Tai. stop lies.

-- GoodCelery!

___________________________________________________________

GC, these people on the Hill wouldn't know the truth if it sent them a large campaign donation ;-)

The administration and the supine media are not satisfied with killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and destroying their country. They want to do the same for the Iraqis' neighbors to the east.

Charming.

And Petraeus is enough of an asskisser (like Adm. Fallon said) to do it.

Would you please excuse me while I go bang my head against the wall?

I'd much rather bang Michael Gordon's but unfortunately, it's not available right now.

Good for Greg Mitchell.

'NYT' vs McClatchy on Iran's Link to Iraqi Insurgents

By Greg Mitchell

Published: May 05, 2008 11:45 AM ET

NEW YORK Michael Gordon, the military writer for The New York Times who contributed several false stories about Iraqi WMD in the runup to the U.S. attack on Iraq in 2002, has written several articles in the past year about Iran’s alleged training of Iraqi insurgents -- or supplying them with weapons to kill Americans. He produced another major report on this subject for today’s Times – based solely on unnamed sources -- which is at odds with an account today from McClatchy’s Baghdad bureau.

Gordon asserts that “Militants from the Lebanese group Hezbollah have been training Iraqi militia fighters at a camp near Tehran…An American official said the account of Hezbollah’s role was provided by four Shiite militia members who were captured in Iraq late last year and questioned separately.

“The United States has long charged that the Iranians were training Iraqi militia fighters in Iran, which Iran has consistently denied, and there have been previous reports about Hezbollah operatives in Iraq.

“But the Americans say the reports of Hezbollah’s role at the Iranian camp offer important details about Iranian assistance to the militias, including efforts Iran appears to be making to train the fighters in unobtrusive ways.”

But McClatchy has a quite different take.

Leila Fadel, the bureau chief, and Shashank Bengali report: “The Iraqi Government seemed to distance itself from U.S. accusations towards Iran Sunday saying it would not be forced into conflict with its Shiite neighbor. And Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki ordered the formation of a committee to look into foreign intervention in Iraq.

“As the government appeared to back down from its hardening stance against Iran, four marines were killed in Anbar in the deadliest attack in the Sunni province in months.

"The government spokesman, Ali al Dabbagh, told reporters Sunday that a committee was formed to find ‘tangible information’ about foreign intervention, specifically Iran's role in Iraq rather than ‘information based on speculation.’

"’We don't want to be pushed into any conflict with any neighboring countries, especially Iran. What happened before is enough. We paid a lot,’ Dabbagh said, referring to the eight years war between the two nations in which an estimated 1 million people died.”

Also today from Agence France-Press, on the weapons issue: “Iraq said on Sunday it has no evidence that Iran was supplying militias engaged in fierce street fighting with security forces in Baghdad.

“Government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said there was no "hard evidence" of involvement by the neighbouring Shiite government of Iran in backing Shiite militiamen in the embattled country. Asked about reports that weapons captured from Shiite fighters bore 2008 markings suggesting Iranian involvement, Dabbagh said: ‘We don't have that kind of evidence... If there is hard evidence we will defend the country.’"

Here is a list of Gordon’s sources in his Times article:

--“An American official”

-- “But the Americans say”

-- “American officials”

-- “American officials”

--“The Americans “

--“American officials”

--“An American official”

-- ditto, and so on

*

Greg Mitchell's new book explores Gordon's and McClatchy's past reporting on Iraq and Iraq. It is titled, "So Wrong for So Long: How the Press, the Pundits -- and the President -- Failed on Iraq."

-----------------------------------------------------------

Greg Mitchell is editor.

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003798525

I just don't see Iran as anything other than a bombing campaign. The point I was making was in questioning the motives for it.

and surely special forces too. FWIW.

I assume the nuttycons aren't too concerned about being attacked on the flank, because they are confident we can destroy any enemy movement across the border. And they are correct, as far as armor, troop transport, the Iranian air force, anything moving in a column or on a road.

But the folly of this, as always, is the potential for asymmetrical warfare. And all that would require is for Iran to actually do, on a massively larger scale, exactly what it is accused of doing.

That, and the fact that Iraqis and Iranians will happily work together if forced, especially if they are coreligionists. And an attack on Iran would achieve exactly that.

I assume that what the US would hope to achieve is a quick official "surrender" by Tehran, a yielding on nuclear power and nuclear research, and a murky situation in which the US controls the Gulf and stops all Iranian (oil) shipping indefinitely.