Decision to attack Iran made, head cherry picking/hyping intel

[boutons_]

Iraqi Fighters "Grilled for Evidence on Iran"
By David Smith
The Observer UK Sunday 11 November 2007

Interrogator says US military seeks evidence incriminating Tehran.

US military officials are putting huge pressure on interrogators who question Iraqi insurgents to find incriminating evidence pointing to Iran, it was claimed last night.

Micah Brose, a privately contracted interrogator working for American forces in Iraq, near the Iranian border, told The Observer that information on Iran is 'gold'. The claim comes after Washington imposed sanctions on Iran last month, citing both its nuclear ambitions and its Revolutionary Guards' alleged support of Shia insurgents in Iraq. Last week the US military freed nine Iranians held in Iraq, including two it had accused of links to the Revolutionary Guards' Qods Force.

Brose, 30, who extracts information from detainees in Iraq, said: 'They push a lot for us to establish a link with Iran. They have pre-categories for us to go through, and by the sheer volume of categories there's clearly a lot more for Iran than there is for other stuff. Of all the recent requests I've had, I'd say 60 to 70 per cent are about Iran.

'It feels a lot like, if you get something and Iran's not involved, it's a let down.' He added: 'I've had people say to me, "They're really pushing the Iran thing. It's like, , you know."'

Brose said that reports about Washington's increasingly hawkish stance towards Tehran, including possible military action, chimed with his experience. 'My impression is they're just trying to get every little bit of ammunition possible. If we get something here it fits the overall picture. The engine needs impetus and they're looking for us to find the fuel - a particular type of fuel.

'It now really depends on who gets elected President in the US. If nothing changes in the current course, I'd say military action is inevitable. But we have to hope there will be a change of course.'

He denied ever being asked to fabricate evidence, adding: 'We're not asked to manufacture information, we're asked to find it. But if a detainee wants to tell me what I want to hear so he can get out of jail ... you know what I'm saying.'

Other military intelligence officials in Iraq refused to comment, but one said: 'The message is, "Got to find a link with Iran, got to find a link with Iran." It's sickening.'

Last week in Baghdad the US military showed journalists a recently discovered cache of mortars, rocket-propelled grenades and bomb-making materials it claims are of Iranian origin. Rear Admiral Gregory Smith, spokesman for Multi-National Force Iraq, said it was possible they crossed the border before a recent promise by Iran to stop the flow of munitions into Iraq.

He said: 'Iran has had a historic malign influence here in Iraq. They have financed many of the activities of Shia extremist groups. In many cases they have done training, they have actually deployed some of their personnel here in theatre. The Qods Force (Iranian Revolutionary Guards) have come here - we know that, we've got some in detention. They have said in many cases they were not here and intend to support a more peaceful outcome in Iraq and we look for their excellence in achieving that.'

Among the weapons Washington has accused Iran of supplying to Iraqi insurgents are EFPs, or explosively formed projectiles, which fire a slug of molten metal capable of penetrating even the most heavily armoured military vehicle. The number two US commander in Iraq, Lt Gen Ray Odierno, said there has been a sharp decline in the number of EFPs found in Iraq in the last three months.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,2209036,00.html

[101A]

Good news that the number of those "EFP's" is declining.

Maybe all of this focus has Iran on its best behavior.

This is a reputable source (as far as the reporter).

I hope we aren't building a case for war; most of that comes from the left fearing it. The White House isn't posturing ANYTHING like it did prior to the Iraq invasion. The SS isn't going to the U.N. to lay out a case, the President isn't on T.V., etc. Everybody's LOOKING for them to do it, but I haven't seen it.

That said, the White House could very well be building a case, and making sure they have ALL ducks in a row before they present it; of course the same evidence which could justify war, could also be used to further our resolve to convince other countries to play harder with Iran regarding sanctions.

Until I see someone withing the administration openly talking about invading Iran, and removing it's regime, I am not going to assume that is what is happening.

[boutons_]

"building a case for war;"

The decision is made,
was part of the Iraq decision made in the 1990s ("Real men want Iran"),
now comes the bogus case for war,
the ridiculous incompetence,
the total lack of negative scenarios/contingencies/PlanB,
more blood spilled,
as the Repugs/neo- s grab the oil.

[xrayzebra]

It is not going to happen with this administration. The next
administration may have to deal with it. But Bush and his
administration knows they don't have the backing to even
attempt to invade Iran. But don't count out Israel. They are
not going to take being wiped out by Iran sitting on their haunches. They know when the man says they want them
wiped off the face of the earth he means it. Our bunch just
attempt to make out he didn't say anything.

[101A]

"building a case for war;"

The decision is made,
was part of the Iraq decision made in the 1990s ("Real men want Iran"),
now comes the bogus case for war,
the ridiculous incompetence,
the total lack of negative scenarios/contingencies/PlanB,
more blood spilled,
as the Repugs/neo- s grab the oil.

Well, we won't have to wait that long to be proven right/wrong on this. We'll see in 14 months. (I'll remind you if you were wrong)

[boutons_]

The decision to attack Iran has been made.

Whether head will actually be able to pull it off is much less certain.

Repugs attacking Iran before the election will most certainly preclude the Repug candidate's election.

If the polls shows the Dem candidate way ahead, then the Repugs may say the election is lost so let's attack Iran because the next Dem pres won't.

[xrayzebra]

Well, we won't have to wait that long to be proven right/wrong on this. We'll see in 14 months. (I'll remind you if you were wrong)

Hey, I could be wrong. I just don't see the support for us
doing anything overtly. But I don't think Israel will just
sit there on their hands doing nothing if it looks like they
are going to have an operational bomb.

[clambake]

i don't think we have China's permission.

[xrayzebra]

The decision to attack Iran has been made.

Whether head will actually be able to pull it off is much less certain.

Repugs attacking Iran before the election will most certainly preclude the Repug candidate's election.

If the polls shows the Dem candidate way ahead, then the Repugs may say the election is lost so let's attack Iran because the next Dem pres won't.

I don't know where you get your stuff. But doing
something up front in the open, nope it hasn't and
wont happen. Undercover operations, yep. I
would suspect we already have people in Iran.
We are not that hated by many in Iran. And I
would guess we have more support from folks in
the ME than you would want to admit to.

[xrayzebra]

i don't think we have China's permission.

You may be closer to the truth than you think.
Why do you think NorthKorea took so long. But
they aren't the biggie. Public support here in the
good old US is the real biggie. Even with China's
blessings, you still have Russia, who with their new
dictator, wants to flex their muscle.

[clambake]

I would suspect we already have people in Iran.

yeah? what are they doing? looking through binoculars and talking on shoe phones? are they recruiting people for terror.....errrr....i mean covert attacks?