why our government are asshats

[winterbadger]

This article details how the administration is in a bind: it wants deserately to paint the Iranians as bad guys and black hats. But the Iranians are actually cooperating (to some extent, and with their own motivations) in the War on Terror. So, are we putting aside out unreasoning hatred of Iran in order to prosecute the real, serious war against an opponent who is trying to kill us? The hell we are.

Since al-Qaeda fighters began streaming into Iran from Afghanistan in the winter of 2001, Tehran had turned over hundreds of people to U.S. allies and provided U.S. intelligence with the names, photographs and fingerprints of those it held in custody [my emphasis], according to senior U.S. intelligence and administration officials. In early 2003, it offered to hand over the remaining high-value targets directly to the United States if Washington would turn over a group of exiled Iranian militants hiding in Iraq.

Some of Bush's top advisers pushed for the trade, arguing that taking custody of bin Laden's son and the others would produce new leads on al-Qaeda. They were also willing to trade away the exiles -- members of a group on the State Department's terrorist list -- who had aligned with Saddam Hussein in an effort to overthrow the Iranian government.

Officials have said Bush ultimately rejected the exchange on the advice of Vice President Cheney and then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, who argued that any engagement would legitimize Iran and other state sponsors of terrorism.

In other words, we have been given valuable information by someoen we call a dealy enemy, they have taken AQ fighters off the streets and handed them over. ALREADY DONE. And on top of that, we are being offered a huge intelligence boon in our war with al-Qaida and the opportunity to hold some of its top people indefinitely. And we're turning it down because we would rather demonise Iran.

Bush's National Security Council agreed to accept information from Iran on al-Qaeda but offer nothing in return, officials said.

But no information has been forthcoming, intelligence officials said.

Gee, how ^$%#$ing astonishing. "Hey, why don't you give us something. For nothing. And, oh, by the way, we'll threaten to attack your country while you're doing it." And that didn't get us any goodies? I'm amazed.

Nevertheless, administration officials said they are determined to press Iran on the matter.

"We are not convinced that the Iranians have been honest or open about the level or degree of al-Qaeda presence in their midst," said one Bush adviser who was instrumental in coming up with a more confrontational U.S. approach to Iran.

We're refusing their offer to turn over senior AQ people to us , and WE doubt THEM? Well, at least that official has succeeded: that's an amazingly confrontational policy.

[The same official says, of the issue ofIran's supposed lack of openness about AQ,] "Until now, the Europeans have been focused on the nuclear issue and we want this high up on the agenda."

But another government official predicted that no European country would support a call on Iran to turn the al-Qaeda group over to U.S. military detention at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, a facility widely condemned by Washington's closest allies.

Yes, because our allies are probably convinced that it's a better thing that the TERRORIST LEADERS be held by Iran than by the United States.

I love my country, but we need to get rid of our president and his agenda before it leads us into another stupid, bloody, pointless war. This president has killed thousands of American service personnel and gravely imperilled the national security of the United States. It is time to remove him from office.

Comments

[jan-rosencrantz.livejournal.com]

Jeesez, Man, lighten up!!

You any idea how *tough* it is to be in charge of the most powerful nation on Earth, hunting people you know some towel-heads you hate and want to nuke have already found? Embarrasing, that's what it is.

and, if you accept the help of those Towel Heads, you lose the moral highground to nuke them and take their oil for possibly having the ability to make nukes at some point. It's tricky stuff, this Diplomacy business. That's why we prefer bombs.

Anyway, get this: we know we're on limited time 'cos some other little shit guy had the audacity to limit the number of terms a Pres can serve. So give us a damned break, we got a shitload of War profit to make an important and difficult job to do.

>8p

[soshesays.livejournal.com]

Seriously.

The Iran situation is incredibly disturbing. Yesterday I was flipping through the TV Guide and saw a special news report entitled "Iran: The Next Iraq?" What in the HELL is that supposed to mean? What parallel could you possibly draw between the two, other than geographic location? If we tried to invade Iran like we invaded Iraq, well, let's just say that "[losing] thousands of American service personnel" does not BEGIN to cover it.

I love my country, too, but I agree with you. Unfortunately, I seriously doubt that Bush will ever be impeached, because the system is overloaded with other problems, distracted by party politics, full of wishy-washy politicans who are too concerned about their own agenda in 2008, and maybe also because nobody wants to see Cheney running this country either. It's just such a mess.

[dativesingular.livejournal.com]

nobody wants to see Cheney running this country either. It's just such a mess.

Seriously. My entirely uninformed mind sometimes wonders if he's the one actually calling the shots anyway.

[winterbadger]

I think even most people who would not count themselves uniformed are pretty sure he is, at least as far as setting policy and then pushing everything to meet it. He is the evil Pitt (machinations and all) to Shrub's 'thick as a whale omelette' Prince Regent.