Talking Points: Iran IED's Debunked?
Bush Philosophy: No one ever said that talking points had to be true or make sense.
From AFP:
I wanted to highlight the part about Shia militias for a good reason. Because obviously one of Bush's speechwriters dropped the ball here. Bush is claiming that the Iranian government has been providing Shia militias in Iraq with ever-deadlier IED's, which are then used against both coalition forces and civilians. But this doesn't make sense because the Shia militas are mostly controlled by the Shiite's now in control of the government. Is Bush saying that the guys in charge of the new Iraqi government are also the ones blowing up our troops and their own citizens?
And even if Bush had said Sunni insurgents (or even terrorists), the statement would still not make sense. Iran wants the Shiite's of Iraq in control there. Are we really to believe that the leaders of Iran are willing to jeopardize their burgeoning relationship with the newly US-installed Shia in Iraq? I doubt it. I also doubt they would supply the terrorists, because for the most part they have been targeting Shiites in order to foment sectarian violence. Iran is a mostly Shia country and to say that they are having a hand in killing their fellow Shiite brethren is silly.
Of course, all this talk about IED's courtesy of the Iranian government might not be a 'slam dunk' talking point.
From Reuters:
From AFP:
WASHINGTON - US President George W. Bush, stepping up a war of words with Iran, accused Tehran of contributing to ever-deadlier roadside bombs used against US-led forces and civilians in Iraq.
"Tehran has been responsible for at least some of the increasing lethality of anti-coalition attacks by providing Shia militia with the capability to build improvised explosive devices in Iraq," the US president said on Monday. (Emphasis added)
I wanted to highlight the part about Shia militias for a good reason. Because obviously one of Bush's speechwriters dropped the ball here. Bush is claiming that the Iranian government has been providing Shia militias in Iraq with ever-deadlier IED's, which are then used against both coalition forces and civilians. But this doesn't make sense because the Shia militas are mostly controlled by the Shiite's now in control of the government. Is Bush saying that the guys in charge of the new Iraqi government are also the ones blowing up our troops and their own citizens?
And even if Bush had said Sunni insurgents (or even terrorists), the statement would still not make sense. Iran wants the Shiite's of Iraq in control there. Are we really to believe that the leaders of Iran are willing to jeopardize their burgeoning relationship with the newly US-installed Shia in Iraq? I doubt it. I also doubt they would supply the terrorists, because for the most part they have been targeting Shiites in order to foment sectarian violence. Iran is a mostly Shia country and to say that they are having a hand in killing their fellow Shiite brethren is silly.
Of course, all this talk about IED's courtesy of the Iranian government might not be a 'slam dunk' talking point.
From Reuters:
WASHINGTON - The top U.S. military officer said on Tuesday the United States does not have proof that Iran's government is responsible for Iranians smuggling weapons and military personnel into Iraq.
President George W. Bush said on Monday components from Iran were being used in powerful roadside bombs used in Iraq, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said last week that Iranian Revolutionary Guard personnel had been inside Iraq.
Asked whether the United States has proof that Iran's government was behind these developments, Marine Corps Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the military's Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a Pentagon briefing, "I do not, sir."
Post a Comment