If you cannot find Osama, bomb Tehran......

Mr Still, Please refrain from giving this administration any more ideas. They're about to consider any new idea that meets their fancy.. c.i.

Gee whizzikers, Sofia -- Maybe they WILL go into Teheran and get themselves into worse trouble while the main Al Qaeda element continues, protected by their government and BY OUR GOVERNMENT, in Saudi.

I think this is good news about Iran. These are very bad guys. I don't know why anyone wouldn't welcome this news...and proof that some of the allegations in this thread were wrong.

From the article:
Tehran's announcement came just days after President Bush accused it of harboring terrorists. Iran's government has long said al-Qaida operatives are in its prisons, but this was the

A previous comment:
So far all of it's talk and bluster. No one ever seems to come forward with hard evidence. Unfortunately, most people don't even notice this -- they're used to words being substituted for proof.
-----------
Now we have the hard evidence.

I think the idea of going into Iran is even worse than going into Iraq. Pure psycho idiocy. There are bad guys everywhere -- I'd say Bush & co are seriously among the worst. Maybe we should invade the White House and Pentagon and get rid of them. Wouldn't be any stupider and a lot less dangerous for the world than the US going into Iran. Completely indefensible. Ridiculous.

I agree. There is no plan or reason to go into Iran--

The Bush administrations' allegations of al-Quaida operatives in Iran has been confirmed--and the operatives are now being detained by the Iranian govt.

I doubt seriously iran would have complied with this measure--had they not seen fireworks in Iraq.

um do we have any reason whatsoever to believe the statements issued by Iran??????

I thought about that.
Why on earth would they admit to something that makes them look bad?
Its like Winona going to court, and her defense being: I stoled some stuff.

They are admitting they have the guys.

Bush's argument is: Has Iran jailed them, or has Iran put them up in posh environs? Either way, al-Quaida has some peeps in Iran.

For what other reason would Iran admit to this?

If we are naive enough to think we can catch everyone who's a threat to us, and malign enough to put so many at risk in an attempt to reach this unachievable goal, then I hope some smartpower (vs. superpower) puts us out of our misery right quick, before we cause any more damage.

Sofia -- Bush doesn't have real, credible arguments. What you are hearing and reading are wholly self-centered political strategies.

My comment about bush not having credible arguments means that I don't think he would have credible arguments for going into Iran (or doing just about anything else, in my view). Based on his track record. His statement about Iran wasn't an argument, just a statement which (as we know from many categorical statements which have turned to be untrue) may or may not be correct. This is not a person to whom the truth comes easily.

Sofia, why would you believe otherwise? What are your criteria (after so much embarrassment and secrecy on the part of the White House) for believing a) bush's statements, and b) bush's arguments, or that either are anything more reliable than one would consider any self-centered political strategies from a politico posing as a statesman. Perhaps we get our news from different sources? Do you really believe bush?

(PS. Those aren't typos. I'm trying to teach myself to not capitalize bush's name as a token of my, uh, esteem!)

Tartarin, you said--
His statement about Iran wasn't an argument, just a statement which (as we know from many categorical statements which have turned to be untrue) may or may not be correct--
----------
This statement turns out to have been true--confirmed by Iran.
----------
Responding to your comment--
Sofia, why would you believe otherwise? What are your criteria (after so much embarrassment and secrecy on the part of the White House) for believing a) bush's statements, and b) bush's arguments, or that either are anything more reliable than one would consider any self-centered political strategies from a politico posing as a statesman. Perhaps we get our news from different sources? Do you really believe bush?
----------
I take each statement individually, realizing no one gets everything right every time. I don't immediately try to find fault with everything someone says, and I make an effort to reserve judgement until the facts are known. I give political figures on both sides of the aisle the same credibility--and judge their assertions against known fact. Sometimes, this involves patience.

I believe Bush prosecuted Iraq for reasons he considered in US best interests.

I believe the 16 words were factual, but misleading because he knew intel had deemed British intel as unprovable. He didn't lie, but didn't share the whole truth. Much worse has been done.

I believe the accusation he made about Iran harboring, or possessing al-Quaida operatives has been proven.

I believe Saddam Hussien, Dr. Anthrax, Mr. Germ and the host of other nutty-named Iraqis had their reputations for good reason, and were working on WMD. I believe Bush was presented with a lot of intel to back this up--but not enough to prove their case beyond a shadow of doubt.

I believe if a Clinton-type, a popular Democrat President had done the same things Bush has done, you'd be defending him.

I guess I'm different. It takes me only one or two sit-downs on a hot stove to stop sitting down on a hot stove!

Sofia, Seriously, the shoe is on the other foot. Here we have a politician who has screwed up over and over and over again. Maybe someday he'll get something right. But you can't blame people for regarding him with great skepticism and above all you have to be scared to death of him if you love this country and have regard for his citizens -- not to mention the citizens of other areas of the world whom he cavalierly bombs, imprisons secretly, and threatens. Even his own intelligence services back away from him.

Nothing would make me defend a president, I don't care whether his name is Clinton or not, who behaves in this manner. That's a long-burned straw man, Sofia.

"I believe the accusation he made about Iran harboring, or possessing al-Quaida operatives has been proven." Very possibly. Just as possibly not. I haven't seen proof. Where have you seen it?

Iran admits holding al-Quaida operatives-- In the article I linked a couple of pages back.

The reference to Clinton isn't meant to diffuse our discussion. It was used to underline my belief that Bush Detractors will find fault with everything he does, for no other reason than HE did it.

This isn't to say Bush is unassailable on all subjects. No one is. But, I do think many of his detractors grasp at ridiculous theories, and judge his actions very unfairly.

From the article:
Tehran's announcement came just days after President Bush accused it of harboring terrorists. Iran's government has long said al-Qaida operatives are in its prisons,

A previous comment: (Yours, Tartarin.)
So far all of it's talk and bluster. No one ever seems to come forward with hard evidence. Unfortunately, most people don't even notice this -- they're used to words being substituted for proof.
-----------
Now we have the hard evidence.

You're going to think I'm being difficult -- and for that reason this is my last post on this subject -- but I think you are falling for the kind of news that the administration hopes you will fall for. If you set this information against the 28 pages deleted (temporarily they say) from the report of the 9/11 commission, you'll see the problem with wording. That is clear both from the commission report and from what has been blacked out. Rethink this, okay? The administration is precisely covering up 9/11 responsibilities of old buddies and issuing statements about presumed culpability within yet another nation they'd like to get their hooks into while protecting the very country which was most culpable. Not going to argue with you further because whether I like bush or hate him, lies are lies, coverups are coveups. Look again at the language and the phrasing. Look at your link -- to an entertainment organization with a "news" (quotes intended) component! Nuh-uh. Doesn't work for me.

1.bush makes hostile remarks about iran abeting al quaida
2. iran says, oh, no we have them here under arrest
am i the only one that finds this less than credible?

no!

I was worried you'd think I was being difficult!
No such problem, as I have appreciated your manner of stating your points.
But, if I can't get my info from the news, where do you get yours?

Refreshed and saw dys.
Why don't you believe Iran has these people they say they have? (Sincere question)

i dont really know if they do or they dont--do they have a record for being honest?

It sort of becomes a toss up between who to believe between GWBush and Iran. hmmmm....... c.i.

It's as well to remember that the position of Iran between Iraq and Afghanistan puts it in the way of the oil pipeline Halliburton has been trying to get through for years -- to China.

Oil, oil, oil! -- do we have to go back to oil? you ask. But isn't it just the damnedest coincidence that even as the Saudis and North Korea (in their own, very different ways) present genuine and unavoidable and urgent problems for the US, our resources are being spent in an area which is about to be very, very profitable for virtually every top member of the administration, an area which in reality (if not in the US media) presented a much smaller threat overall.

Is it not entirely possible that the truth of 9/11 is starting to show (as suspected early on by "crazies") that Afghanistan and Iraq had virtually nothing to do with it but that 9/11 provided the "intelligence" "justifying" (both very much in quotes!) going into both of those countries where we now remain.

Taliban? Nasty? Sure. But, as the blacked out 28 pages apparently show in the 9/11 commission report, Al Qaeda was in fact operating out of Saudi, not Afghanistan. Keep on thinking about this. As one puts the pieces in place, one has to come to a very nasty conclusion (which is what I hope the bush administration will find itself in come November 2004).

One last question: Is the unbelievable inefficiency of the administration and Pentagon in handling and rebuilding post-war Iraq possibly deliberate? Could it be that the administration, counting on four more years, wants to make sure we remain in both invaded countries "for four years" (as Franks said) to protect not the people but to protect that much desired pipeline and the Little Businesses which grow up alongside it?