Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Foreign Policy & News Bomb Iran

Pentagon rules out Fallon testimony. Petraeus and Crocker to testify before Congress next month.

But doesn't that lead to precisely the conclusion the pentagon does not want a possibly contrarian viewpoint exposed in public?

rporter314,

When some reporter told VP Cheney that 2/3- more like 3/4- of the American people opposed the war in Iraq, he replied, So what? I don't believe that this Administration gives a hoot about opposing views or popular sentiment. I suspect that they regarded Adm. Fallon as more of an impediment to their Iranian agenda. Some dems want him to testify. This is probably a stupid question, but, Can they subpoena him under some sort of special provision or other? And, yes, you're right that they don't want a contrarian viewpoint exposed to the public. However, I believe that they'll do what they want to do when they can.

Joe

Iranian forces were involved in the recent battle for Basra, General David Petraeus, the US commander in Iraq, is expected to tell Congress this week. I wonder what Adm. Fallon would tell them?

I think Adm Fallon has seen through their deception. In at least one instance he stated he saw no definitive evidence Iranians were involved in Iraq regarding the accusations aimed at them. But every time some administration spinster states Iran was involved some military type comes behind them and states there is no definitive evidence to support it. What both sides agree on is there is definitive evidence some of the weapons used are in fact Iranian. What they disagree on is whether the Iranian government (or some subordinate military faction under direction of the government)supplies and supports the insurgency/militias.

Those who support the Iranian allegations ignore the possibility any of those arms could have come from the black market. I believe the correct approach is to admit the black market possibility and work backwards to see where it leads.

This may turn out to be one of the strangest situations. The US accuses Iran of supporting the insurgency/AQ/militias against the US but attacks Iranian nuclear research facilities and then justifies the action as an appropriate and proportionate response to Iranian interference in Iraq. I can see Americans eating this up.

I think there are two scenarios.

1. Utilize and extend the meaning of current Congressional mandates

2. Conduct a PR campaign aimed at justifying attacking Iran. When the numbers are right it should force Congress to pass the "right" bills to authorize the administration to attack Iran.

This is the same situation the administration was in in 2002 when Powell suggested going to the UN. The administration had already made up it's mind to invade Iraq (which would be the fall back position) but a UN resolution would legalize an invasion so it was worth waiting for. The propaganda campaign mounted by the administration worked and forced Congress to authorize use of force. The UN didn't pass a use of military force resolution so the administration got one of their brilliant attorneys to stretch the meaning of UN 1441.

It becomes more compelling when viewed from the administrations rebuttals that everyone is complicit i.e. the American people were overwhelmingly in favor and Congress overwhelmingly authorized use of force, therefore everyone is to blame not just the administration. Of course the contingency plan bomb 'em anyway, is always a go.

I believe that you're right and I'll add that Petraeus and Crocker will probably follow the bomb Iran script and testify before Congress about Iranian involvement in the fighting in Iraq and in order to stabilize Iraq that we have to bomb Iran. I don't know if MSM will beat the drum for bombing Iran, but I suspect that they won't do anything to expose any Administration lies, either. Since there doesn’t seem to be any political opposition- other than Dennis and Ron Paul- Congress will probably go along. Legality and morality issues aside, if they do bomb Iran- which we'll probably know one way or another before too long, you can say goodbye to the dollar.

In this continuing saga Adm Mullen criticized by Weighing Readiness for Military Action Against Iran.

This appears to be an expansion of previous propaganda and a proliferation of military threats. Even though Adm Mullen mentions diplomacy, it is clear military action has become the current position of the administration. Once again note he has couched the threat in terms of Iraq, while not offering any proof of his allegations. This is the same style propaganda used in the run up to the invasion of Iraq with the then favorite mantra, "we have the evidence" without actually displaying said evidence until forced in the ignominious Powell UN presentation.

I suspect the administration has now begun what will appear to be a continuous barrage of propaganda detailing Iranian interference in Iraq especially regarding Iranian weapons. They will leave it to the public to connect the dots and conclude without having actual evidence that the Iranian government is responsible for American troop deaths.

Wag the Dog!

About a week or two before the hearings, I heard O'Reilly on his radio talk show declare that the reason we're in Iraq is Iran. I figured that was a preview of the spin Petraeus and Crocker would present to the 'Honorables.' They're redefining Iran as the enemy in Iraq.

Joe