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.

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.

The Iranians do not need to be supplying roadside bombs to either side…how much more obvious can you get?…

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

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?…

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.

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.

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?…

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?

And that’s called the fallacy of the excluded middle.

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.