Saturday, January 13, 2007

Rumors (Partially) Confirmed

Secretary of State Rice told the New York Times on Friday that recent actions against Iranian operatives in Iraq were authorized by a presidential order issued "several months ago." "'There has been a decision to go after these networks,' Ms. Rice said in an interview ... in her office on Friday afternoon, before leaving on a trip to the Middle East. Ms. Rice said Mr. Bush had acted 'after a period of time in which we saw increasing activity' among Iranians in Iraq, 'and increasing lethality in what they were producing.'"

"In adopting a more confrontational approach toward Iran, Mr. Bush has decisively rejected recommendations of the Iraq Study Group that he explore negotiations with Tehran as part of a new strategy to help quell the sectarian violence in Iraq."

Additionally, ABC News reports that massive new shipments of Iranian-made explosive devices have been detected, smuggled into Iraq bound for Moqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army (if we're detecting them, why exactly aren't we intercepting them?).

This apparent escalation - by both sides - is troubling in the extreme.

3 Comments:

At 7:13 PM, Blogger Carol Gee said...

. . . and, oh so transparent! This administration should always be taken at its word. As Steve Clemons posts, the operative word is "material support." Haven't we heard that phrase before? Ugh!

 
At 10:43 PM, Anonymous Hamilton said...

This is what General Patton would have said about the current state of the war:

"I don't want to get any messages saying, "I am holding my position." We are not holding a Goddamned thing. Let the [terrorists] do that. We are advancing constantly and we are not interested in holding onto anything, except the enemy's balls. We are going to twist his balls and kick the living s**t out of him all of the time. Our basic plan of operation is to advance and to keep on advancing regardless of whether we have to go over, under, or through the enemy. We are going to go through him like crap through a goose; like s**t through a tin horn!"

Likewise, I'm sure Patton would have wanted to move straight on to Iran as soon as Saddam's army was defeated, much like he advocated fighting against Russia towards the end of WWII.

- Hamilton
www.fedlocally.com

 
At 11:53 PM, Anonymous JollyRoger said...

If all I have for "evdence" of Iranian moves is Chimpy and the MSM, I'm not buying it. We done been down that road before.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home