Looks like Iran is in the on-deck circle

[bluestateguy]

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,664967,00.html

Next week's much anticipated final report by a bipartisan commission on the origins of the 9/11 attacks will contain new evidence of contacts between al-Qaeda and Iran—just weeks after the Administration has come under fire for overstating its claims of contacts between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

A senior U.S. official told TIME that the Commission has uncovered evidence suggesting that between eight and ten of the 14 "muscle" hijackers—that is, those involved in gaining control of the four 9/11 aircraft and subduing the crew and passengers—passed through Iran in the period from October 2000 to February 2001. Sources also tell TIME that Commission investigators found that Iran had a history of allowing al-Qaeda members to enter and exit Iran across the Afghan border. This practice dated back to October 2000, with Iranian officials issuing specific instructions to their border guards—in some cases not to put stamps in the passports of al-Qaeda personnel—and otherwise not harass them and to facilitate their travel across the frontier. The report does not, however, offer evidence that Iran was aware of the plans for the 9/11 attacks.

The senior official also told TIME that the report will note that Iranian officials approached the al-Qaeda leadership after the bombing of the USS Cole and proposed a collaborative relationship in future attacks on the U.S., but the offer was turned down by bin Laden because he did not want to alienate his supporters in Saudi Arabia.

The Iran-al Qaeda contacts were discovered and presented to the Commissioners near the end of the bipartisan panel's more than year-long investigation into the sources and origins of the 9/11 attacks. Much of the new information about Iran came from al-Qaeda detainees interrogated by the U.S. government, including captured Yemeni al-Qaeda operative Waleed Mohammed bin Attash, who organized the October 2000 attack on the USS Cole, and from as many as 100 separate electronic intelligence intercepts culled by analysts at the NSA. The findings were sent to the White House for review only this week. But Commission members have been hinting for weeks that their report would have some Iran surprises. As the 9/11 Commission's chairman, Thomas Kean, said in June, "We believe....that there were a lot more active contacts, frankly, with Iran and with Pakistan than there were with Iraq."

[shraby]

1. Can I go into hibernation

for a couple of years?

Please kick this..my kicks don't work.

[Disturbed]

2. Axis of Evil

Iran, Syria and N. Korea. If BushCo remains in power all of these countries will be attacked, once Iraq is subdued. At least that is the PNAC plan. Iraq may never be subdued to the point where US troops can draw down below 100K. There has to be Military Draft.

[JNelson6563]

20. But it will be so much easier now!

With all those bases we will soon have in Iraq, why it'll be nothing to launch attacks on Iran and other neighbors!

World domination for dummies I guess, eh? Why can't all Americans see how blatant these thugs are?

Julie

[shockingelk]

3. This will be MEGA BAD for Bush

Recall that when we were going into Iraq, an incredible number of people thought Iraq was somehow behind 9/11. That was part of the reason many supported the invasion.

Some people still think Iraq was behind 9/11 - mostly the type that get their news from the smoking area at work. This is the question those people will ask, "Wait. You mean Bush attacked the wrong country? It wasn't Iraq, it was Iran?"

Maybe I'm more optimistic that a lot of people here, but I think Americans are too smart for so many to still think going into Iraq was a wise choice. I also think they're disinterested in things that aren't on ESPN, HBO or their camcorders and are collectively still processing the wrong information.

[DoYouEverWonder]

5. You know W doesn't know how to spell

Iraq? Iran? It's only one letter off. Anyone could a mistake like that. It is so hard to tell the difference between the two anyway.

[Bullshot]

9. I don't think Paul Harvey knows the difference between Iraq and Iran .

There have been a couple of occasions when Harvey goes into one of this obnoxious twangs and gets all excited because they think they've found WMDs in IRAN. Then, continuing in his chalkboard-scratching twang, he asks what the skeptics of finding WMDs are thinking now.

[shockingelk]

16. All the more reason for people to think we attacked the wrong country

I am trying to keep in mind that people believed Iraq was behind 9-11 in the first place.

[SpaceCatMeetsMars]

10. Hopefully a lot of people will ask that, although

it seems like the most hardcore bush supporters are racists that think Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, all the Middle East countries, are all 100% fanatical Arabs that want to kill Americans. They cannot or will not make any distinctions and Bush knows how to manipulate that.

I once knew an Iranian guy who got so mad at being stereotyped all the time, he would say to people, "Do you know that I am not even an Arab? I'm a Persian!" But he said nobody ever even asked him what the difference was.

[shockingelk]

15. Hardcore Bush supporters by definition will vote for *

It's the people that don't follow politics or world events closely that this new will affect. Many of such people still vote.

[muriel_volestrangler]

4. See also this in LBN

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x690885

US Targets Iran regime

Some 'senior official' in the administration is saying Bush plans to encourage a revolt in Iran after the election. He (she?) also claims they're contemplating bombing the Iranian nuclear complex before some Russian fuel rods arrive there.

[Baltimoreboy]

7. Someone should

Iran can't be trusted with nuclear weapons.

[LibertyorDeath]

17. The only Country to ever use Nuclear Weapons (Atomic)

Is the USA So I'm sure Iran doesn't trust us with ours.
and there's only one way to defend against Nukes.
Get some of your own.

"Someone should Iran can't be trusted with nuclear weapons."

It is inevitable that a Country hostile to the USA will someday
give pay back for decades of US interference in their internal
politics.

More than likely in our life times.

[Baltimoreboy]

19. Inevitable

It's also inevitable that the world will end. Let's not rush it by letting Iran, which supports terror groups, get nuclear weapons.

[LibertyorDeath]

39. The Unfathomable Arrogance of America

Yes we can have every fucking weapon ever devised

Nuclear Biological Space Based.

but the rest of you (at least the ones we don't like)can't have shit

Well it doesn't work like that.

Oppenheimer knew that.

North Korea is the perfect example of a whack job with
Nukes.

The genies been out of the bottle for a long time.


Ever crazy MF on the Planet is busy creating a

Nuclear arsenal to keep America at bay.

[Baltimoreboy]

47. The world policy on nukes

No one really wants more nations getting them. You can't make the knowledge go away. You can limit who does anythin with it.

[rucky]

18. Let's nuke the bastids!

[wuushew]

21. That sounds like the Israeli position

The United States' ability to control events by force should end at our borders. Decisions for interfering in the affairs between two or more states or in the affairs of a sovereign state itself are best handled by the United Nations. Since Bush pissed off the world I don't see this happening, nor do I have a probelem with it.

[Baltimoreboy]

22. The UN has no army

And has no ability to stop Iran from building a gas station much less a nuclear power plant and an atomic bombs.

Iran backs terror groups and they can't be allowed to get nukes to share that "wealth."

[wuushew]

25. that would lead to many sequels in the mold of the illegal Iraq doctrine

where the possibilty of this event is viewed as justification for destroying the governent of any non-cooperative country.

Any given WMD has the ability to kill X number of people.
The total number of people killed is the probability of terrorists obtaining such weapon times the lethality of the weapon.

In this way the total number of innocents killed on average is higher because exercise of U.S. military force has a 100% probability of killing a given number of people in the destruction of the WMD program/non-cooperative government.

[Baltimoreboy]

27. Supporting terror and planning to get nukes

Is threat to national security for a bunch of nations, including the U.S.

How many innocents would die if terrorists got nuclear bombs?

[wuushew]

28. So you believe Condi?

The only warning we would get is a mushroom cloud or some such non-sense she was blathering.


I don't know why these nuclear aspiring Muslim countries are so much more dangerous then we are, since both the 40th and 43rd Presidents of the United States were Evangelical nut-jobs who welcomed Armageddon. If that is true the only states that should have nukes are rational atheist ones like the former Soviet Union. Hypocritically we sought to stop the spread of communism into the Middle East during the Cold War and we are certainly reaping the fruits of our poorly thought out support of the Afghans in the 1980's in the form of Al Queda.

[Baltimoreboy]

30. Just talking Iran

Iran has sponsored terror for decades. Oh, and their leaders hate the U.S.

No U.S. president should let them get nukes.

[wuushew]

31. I will respect your opinion on Iran

but I assume from your posts that you were in agreement with invading Iraq in March 2003 before the faultiness of the intelligence info was known to the general public. If in the future similar intelligence on Iran is suspect the mere threat of WMD will likewise be a forgivable transgression to achieve our aims?

[Baltimoreboy]

32. I never believed their intel on Iraq

Few did.

Even the UN agrees about Iran.

[wuushew]

33. Yes but the only 100% proof positive of a nuclear blast is seismic data

As occurred with Pakistani and Indian nuclear denotations. Since we don't mess with confirmed nuclear powers I predict that in the future the United States will take even more unilateral action against aspiring nuclear nations based on non-existent to somewhat strong intelligence reports.


Also we do not know that Iran is attempting to develop nuclear weapons, all we and the U.N. know is that Iran has been less than cooperative in the inspections of its nuclear facilities, has a large amount of uranium enrichment equipment(unnecessary for purely civilian use) nor has any need for nuclear power since the country is awash in natural gas and oil reserves. None of this proves that Iran is developing nuclear weapon they are only reasons to suspect such and apparently enough for Bush to want to attack Iran.

[alfredo]

44. air pressure will tell the tale too. Nukes do send out one big

shockwave.

[Baltimoreboy]

48. The UN feels there is a lot of evidence

I am no nuke expert so I can't comment on that, but I don't think the Iranian government should be allowed to have them.

[bluestateguy]

40. You're right they cannot

But the Intelligence "findings" of this Administration cannot be trusted either, so until we get a new Administration I will demand double proof before I take their word for anything.

[radfringe]

6. just asking....

how much of the "connection" can we believe?

Recent conclusion is that the CIA screwed up big-time. Many of us at the DU believe CIA info was really run through a White-House-spin-cycle in order to justify invading Iraq.

In either case - how reliable is the intel?

Side note: On CNN yesterday it was mentioned that bush*'s economic advisors were incorrect or mislead bush* regarding job creation and tax cuts.

The spin from the WH regarding WMD's is that bush* ws mislead by intel advisors

Back in 2000, one of the concerns was bush*'s lack of experience -- we were often told by the right-wingers that bush would have good advisors to counsel him

It's looking like the advisors were not all that good, and bush* is blaming others for being "fooled" again

"There's an old saying in Tennessee—I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee—that says, fool me once, shame on—shame on you. Fool me—you can't get fooled again."—Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002

[wndycty]

8. It was all a typo?

Is it possible that Bush had it right, however every report he read had a "q" instead of an "n?" I would not e surprised to see the administration claim that. . .LOL

[muriel_volestrangler]

11. Scene from UK sitcom "Yes Prime Minister"

(arranging the funeral of a previous Prime Minster);
Bernard Woolley (on the phone): "No, we can't have alphabetical seating in the Abbey: you would have Iraq and Iran next to each other. Plus Israel and Jordan, all sitting in the same pew. We would be in danger of starting World War III."
http://www.yes-minister.com/ypmseas2a.htm

[GiovanniC]

12. How Many People Will Really Even Realize

That Iran and Iraq are not the same country?

[Q]

13. So...eight or ten SAUDIS passed through Iran?

- The Bush* government and their Democratic lackies can't or won't connect any kind of dots to the Saudi Royals...already proven to be connected to 9-11 financing.

- But we don't hear many complaints from either party about the 28 pages Bush* 'edited' from the original 9-11 report.

[peekaloo]

14. but they have nukular weapons

I'm betting he goes for Fidel's "clean" prostitutes next.

[SpiralHawk]

23. Thanks to Ollie North - Iran has Hawk antiaircraft missles

That they can use to shoot down US pilots and planes.

Thanks a pantload, Ollie.

Can you spell t-r-a-i-t-o-r ?

From the Iran Contra report -- recommended reading for all Freeper Lurkers.

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/walsh/chap_02.htm

[Cleita]

24. From our PNAC friends shortly after 9/11.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/Bushletter.htm

<snip>
Hezbollah is one of the leading terrorist organizations in the world. It is suspected of having been involved in the 1998 bombings of the American embassies in Africa, and implicated in the bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983. Hezbollah clearly falls in the category cited by Secretary Powell of groups “that mean us no good” and “that have conducted attacks previously against U.S. personnel, U.S. interests and our allies.” Therefore, any war against terrorism must target Hezbollah. We believe the administration should demand that Iran and Syria immediately cease all military, financial, and political support for Hezbollah and its operations. Should Iran and Syria refuse to comply, the administration should consider appropriate measures of retaliation against these known state sponsors of terrorism.
<snip>

Invading Iran and Syria have always been in the original plans.

[Walt Starr]

26. If we don't aatck befoer Bush is out of office

I predict Kerry WILL attack.

[taxidriver]

29. ooh, that's not gonna be a popular thing to say.

you should really try towing the party line, its more safe.

[Walt Starr]

46. I'll never toe the party line again!

The Democratic Party and the fucked up duopolist stranglehold on Amerikan politics they hold in collusion with the Republicans have forced me to be one of the small percentage of people who actually make the decisions in the elections.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

35. Right. That makes a lot of sense.

[BillZBubb]

38. I predict you are WRONG!

Kerry will not attack Iran unless undisputable evidence exists that top officials there were involved in 9/11. Other than that, he'll create a true international coalition to isolate Iran. He won't attack them.

[Walt Starr]

42. We'll see

mark the thread. It'll be interesting to see how things work out in our predictions.

[spanone]

34. All the more reason to get these fuckers gone.

pre-emptive strikes will keep Halliburton cooking for decades to come.

[medeak]

36. disaster

Iran has been making statements that if attacked they will pull out all the stops and by every means possible retaliate.

It's insanity.

[wuushew]

37. kick

:kick:

[Hubert Flottz]

41. France has Nukes too and they rubbed Bush the wrong way!

Just a matter of getting around to them? Besides they make them there French Fried Pertaters with Mustard on 'em UUUnnnhhhuuu! Bush and his Pards are a world class calamity! If you think the world was pissed at us for invading Iraq, just wait till Bush tries it on another country that hasn't attacked us first! America is becoming a Rogue Nation if this type of aggression is not held in check! Bush shot our credibility WAD in Iraq and Afghanistan! Europe and Russia are not laughing at Jerry and Pat's Chimp show anymore!

If Bush wants to nip this in the BUD, why don't he put pressure on Pootie Poot who is selling the atomic fuel to Iran? Because he's really a coward?

[Hubert Flottz]

43. Swift

:kick: in the arse for the NeoKKKons and their goal of WORLD Conquest!

[alfredo]

45. Iran???? Ooops! my bad. committed a typo. Sorry bout that Iraq. EOM.

[Killarney]

49. this puts Shrub in a tough position

He can't start another war right now. If he sent us to Iran right now, we would 100% need the draft and if he admitted that, then he would lose in November.

However, if he sits and does nothing on this for the next four months, his base will be pissed off! His whole speech about not making any distinction between the terrorists and the countries that help them? If Bush ignores Iran, he will be made a fool of by all the other hawks in America.

This is a lose-lose situation for Bush.

UNLESS, the media sweeps it under the rug.

If the media pushes the fact that there might be a case for war with Iran and there was no case for war with Iraq, then shrub is in trouble.