In Spite Of It All, I Love This President
Today’s press conference provided some stellar examples of why I once thought, pre-Katrina and disastrous early occupation of Iraq, that President Bush would be remembered as one of the greats. At times, he is so on target that his directness overwhelms his sometimes awkward delivery.
President Bush said Wednesday he did not know if orders to use Iranian-made weapons to kill U.S. troops in Iraq came from the highest levels of the Tehran government.
“I can say with certainty that the Quds Force, a part of the Iranian government, has provided these sophisticated IEDs that have harmed our troops,” Bush said.
“I do not know whether or not the Quds Force was ordered from the top echelons of government,” he said.
The president rejected suggestions that the U.S. was creating a basis for conflict with Iran as “preposterous.”
“My job is to protect our troops, and when we find devices that are in that country that are hurting our troops, we’re going to do something about it, pure and simple … Does this mean you’re trying to have a pretext for war? No. It means I’m trying to protect our troops. That’s what that means,” Bush said.
No pretending to know more than we do, despite what the critics claim, but a strong statement of what we do know, and a blunt assessment of the core: protecting our troops.
It doesn’t get any better than that…
Actually Mark, he’s being deliberately misleading. Again. The President and his anonymous briefers are deliberately obscuring the most important question: where are the Iranians sending these weapons? There’s a reason they are doing that. It’s because they want to imply, without saying so explicitly, that the Iranians are arming insurgents. The reason they don’t want to say that explicitly is because they know it makes no sense. If the Iranians are arming anyone, it’s the Shia paramilitary groups allied with the Maliki government. Some of these weapons may make their way into insurgent hands via the black market, but that’s not even close to the same thing as direct Iranian arming of insurgents.
Read here and here for more.
Anonymous, you think I don’t know that they are arming the Sadr Army and other paramilitary groups?
What in the world is your point? Do you think only Sunni insurgents have killed Americans?
We’re way past that…maybe you missed the military briefings where the U.S. said the biggest problem in Iraq was now the militias.
Honestly, you’re completely off the mark here; you’re talking about this is if it’s a revelation, when in fact it’s a given…
One more thing: even if the militias had never directly killed an American, they’re prolonging the conflict and the bloodshed. But that’s a moot point, since these IEDs are not discriminatory – they’ll kill anyone who gets in their way…
You are one sick puppy, Mark.
Here is a little advice. Find a nice woman (or man, if thats your thing) to fall in love with. Politicians, they should be viewed with a clear and critical mind. That is your duty as a citizen.
A sense of humor is a good thing to have…or are you putting me on with a ‘faux’ humorlessness?
Because you’re sounding a bit pretentious here…
I mean, “my duty as a citizen”?…
Anonymous, you think I don’t know that they are arming the Sadr Army and other paramilitary groups?
What in the world is your point? Do you think only Sunni insurgents have killed Americans?
Mark, a couple points need to be made here. First, while Sunni insurgents are not responsible for all U.S. casualites, they are responsible for the vast majority of casualties. They are also responsible for the widespread killing of Shia Iraqis. The Shia militias are a problem for us in the sense that they are a key element of the sectarian conflict in Iraq. But except for some isolated incidents, they are not responsible for American casualties. It’s a sectarian war. They are fighting Sunnis. If Iran is arming Shia forces, isn’t it most likely that their primary intention is to help those groups fight Sunnis and defend the Shia population from Sunni militants? And if that’s the case, is it accurate to portray Iran as trying to harm U.S. troops? The groups they are helping are allied with the Maliki government, which we support.
There’s a reason the Bush administration insists on using the term “extremist groups” instead of “Shia militias” when discussing this issue. It’s because they want to foster the misapprehension that Iran is directly supplying insurgents in Iraq, who are then turning around and blowing up American troops. That may be what’s happening, but it seem very unlikely, and the fact that the Bush administration won’t say this directly indicates to me that even they don’t think that is happening.
You realize don’t you that much of the weaponry insurgents are using against our troops is U.S.-made, correct? It’s being sold to the insurgents on the black market by Iraqi troops (who received the weapons from us). So if Sunni insurgents buy Iranian made weapons on the black market, how is that any different than buying U.S. made weapons on the same black market? Should we declare war on ourselves, too?
You sure are certain about what is ‘never said’, ‘only implied’, etc. You’re basing your entire argument on a ‘hunch’…and it’s not just a matter of who manufactures the arms, and I have a ‘hunch’ you know that. It’s how they get into the country, and why there are Iranian Revolutionary Guard troops in country, etc., etc.
Finally, to tar us with supporting the Sadr militias despite all our pressure on al-Maliki to QUIT kowtowing to Sadr is, to be charitable, disingenous at best…
He’s not tarring us, Mark. Merely illustrating the fact that though U.S. made weapons are in the hands of Iraqi militias and insurgents, we can be certain that our goal is not to kill U.S. troops, and certainly is not handed down by the highest levels of government.
The thing that gets me about Bush’s quote is how short on proof it is, but long on “certainty.”
Anonymous your argument is wrong for several reasons. First, you stated that Iran is arming the the Shia’s solely in order to aid them in their sectarian battle with the Sunnis. If this is true what are the Shias doing with AAM’s and shaped charges? Last time I checked the Sunni’s didn’t posses an Air Force or an Armored Division, so your assertion is absurd. Secondly, did you not read the news about the high ranking revolutionary guard official arrested and deported? Of course I’m sure you would suppose he was their as an “advisor” to Sadr’s militia as well. Look we get it there was no WMD in Iraq, but to sit here and ignore basic facts is a slap in the face to the soldiers who are actually overseas facing these sophisticated weapons and who should be able to EXPECT the necessary backing of their country.
You sure are certain about what is ‘never said’, ‘only implied’, etc.
They’re called enthymemes, and this administration is very skilled at using them. So was Johnnie Cochran.
Well, Fargus, that’s because unlike us snarky bloggers and commenters, he’s seen direct proof of Iranian arms (many of which are of a capability, as Josh points out, that would be useless against the insurgents) used in attacks that have resulted in American fatalities.
You can choose not to be believe him, but I can also choose to believe him, and I do. And if I’m right, and he’s seen such proof, then his certainty is 100% understandable.
If you’re right, well, then I’m a fool, which I may be anyway…but I find it a sad commentary that so many of you apparently believe the President of Iran (the same man who assures us that his nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only, and that the Holocaust is a myth) over the President of the United States.
so many of you apparently believe the President of Iran
And that’s called the fallacy of the excluded middle.
How so? In this case, it really is an either-or, isn’t it? One of the two Presidents is right…and did you see how Ahmadinejad danced when asked directly about Iranian arms in Iraq by Diane Sawyer?…
Mark, my point is only that the evidence presented so far is incredibly weak, and not only that, so is the narrative behind it. If the Bush administration wants us to take these claims seriously, they need to fill in the story a little bit. Which “extremist groups” are the Iranians supplying? What is their motive for doing so? To what extent is black market activity responsible for these arms making their way into insurgent hands? Are the shia militias placing road-side bombs to blow up U.S. troops? If so, where’s the evidence of that? If it’s the Sunni insurgents doing this (which seems far more likely), why would the Iranians be supplying people who are their sworn enemies?
These questions are not being answered. And they’re basic questions. If we’ve learned anything from the WMD fiasco, it’s that basic questions need to be answered. No one should just accept at face value claims that don’t make much sense. Why are you so willing to do that?
And by the way, Sadr’s forces are not the only Shia paramilitary types in Iraq. Some of these weapons were found in SCIRI hands, which is allied with Maliki’s government. If the Iranians are supplying our nominal allies in Iraq, is that really consistent with an intent to harm American troops? Doesn’t the Bush administration at least owe us a more detailed explanation of what exactly they think is happening here?
See, Anonymous, here’s what bugs me about your no-doubt-well-intended questions. To take one:
Are the shia militias placing road-side bombs to blow up U.S. troops?
It doesn’t matter…the bombs will kill our troops anyway, because they will go down those roads. Furthermore, this is terrorism, regardless of whose ’side’ the bombers are on.
The Iranians do not need to be supplying roadside bombs to either side…how much more obvious can you get?…
Mark, please, this is the weakest form of argument there is. Who cares what Ahmedinijad says? As we know now, Saddam’s statements about WMD in 2002 were far more accurate that Bush’s. That doesn’t mean that Bush is a less trustworthy person than Saddam in general. Arguments by authority are inherently weak. Let’s deal with the facts.
And I’m not saying that Bush is lying about anything. I’m saying he’s deliberately leaving out key parts of the narrative. He’s using the cryptic term “extremist groups” so as to gloss over the difference between Sunni insurgents and Shia militias. He’s also overstating the significance of the presence of Iranian arms. He wants us to make inferences that are not necessarily justified. There are other potential explanations for the presence of such munitions that are far less nefarious than the ones the administration wants us believe. All I’m saying is the administration owes us some explanation of why these other possibilities aren’t plausible.
Well, Anonymous, again, I must say you seem to have a very well-placed source inside Bush’s head, because I don’t see how you can so blanketly assert what his intentions are.
You are ascribing motives to him that you can’t possibly know, or prove either way – and you ask me to stick to the facts?…
No one is saying they “need” to do anything. But there is clearly a thriving black market for weapons in Iraq. As with any market, people with the supply try to fill the demand. Iran is a neighboring country. It’s entirely possible that opportunistic Iranian arms merchants are trying to make a quick buck on the black market. As Bush himself says, we have no idea whether the Iranian government itself is behind this trade.
What concerns me is the assertion that Iran is engaging in acts of war by supplying our enemies with weapons. Maybe they are doing that, but that’s a serious claim and it needs to proven, not just asserted. If Iran is merely failing to crack down sufficiently on opportunistic arms merchants, that’s one level of culpability. If they are directly and intentionally supplying insurgents, that’s a whole nother level of culpability. The actual facts matter, especially if this activity is going to be seized upon as a justification for another war.
Mo
I don’t know what Bush’s intentions are. All I know is that he and officials in his administration are using very cryptic language to describe what they think is happening in Iraq. Usually people do that because they want you to make inferences that they aren’t willing to say explicitly. Do you really doubt that the administration wants people to believe that Iran is intentionally supplying Iraqi insurgents in order to kill U.S. troops? That’s clearly the inference they want people draw, but the truth is likely far more complicated than that.
Henley lays out the standards of evidence for this case.