McClatchy: Cheney urging strikes on Iran

[AsburySkinsFan]

I guess since they think their surge is working that we can handle another war. :doh:

Cheney urging strikes on Iran

By Warren P. Strobel, John Walcott and Nancy A. Youssef | McClatchy Newspapers

Posted on Thu, August 9, 2007

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/18834.html

WASHINGTON — President Bush charged Thursday that Iran continues to arm and train insurgents who are killing U.S. soldiers in Iraq, and he threatened action if that continues.

At a news conference Thursday, Bush said Iran had been warned of unspecified consequences if it continued its alleged support for anti-American forces in Iraq. U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker had conveyed the warning in meetings with his Iranian counterpart in Baghdad, the president said.

Bush wasn't specific, and a State Department official refused to elaborate on the warning.

Behind the scenes, however, the president's top aides have been engaged in an intensive internal debate over how to respond to Iran's support for Shiite Muslim groups in Iraq and its nuclear program. Vice President Dick Cheney several weeks ago proposed launching airstrikes at suspected training camps in Iraq run by the Quds force, a special unit of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, according to two U.S. officials who are involved in Iran policy.

The debate has been accompanied by a growing drumbeat of allegations about Iranian meddling in Iraq from U.S. military officers, administration officials and administration allies outside government and in the news media. It isn't clear whether the media campaign is intended to build support for limited military action against Iran, to pressure the Iranians to curb their support for Shiite groups in Iraq or both.

Nor is it clear from the evidence the administration has presented whether Iran, which has long-standing ties to several Iraqi Shiite groups, including the Mahdi Army of radical cleric Muqtada al Sadr and the Badr Organization, which is allied with the U.S.-backed government of Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki, is a major cause of the anti-American and sectarian violence in Iraq or merely one of many. At other times, administration officials have blamed the Sunni Muslim group al Qaida in Iraq for much of the violence.

For now, however, the president appears to have settled on a policy of stepped-up military operations in Iraq aimed at the suspected Iranian networks there, combined with direct American-Iranian talks in Baghdad to try to persuade Tehran to halt its alleged meddling.

The U.S. military launched one such raid Wednesday in Baghdad's predominantly Shiite Sadr City district.

But so far that course has failed to halt what American military officials say is a flow of sophisticated roadside bombs, known as explosively formed penetrators, into Iraq. Last month they accounted for a third of the combat deaths among U.S.-led forces, according to the military.

Cheney, who's long been skeptical of diplomacy with Iran, argued for military action if hard new evidence emerges of Iran's complicity in supporting anti-American forces in Iraq; for example, catching a truckload of fighters or weapons crossing into Iraq from Iran, one official said.

The two officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to talk publicly about internal government deliberations.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice opposes this idea, the officials said. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has stated publicly that "we think we can handle this inside the borders of Iraq."

Lea Anne McBride, a Cheney spokeswoman, said only that "the vice president is right where the president is" on Iran policy.

Bush left no doubt at his news conference that he intended to get tough with Iran.

"One of the main reasons that I asked Ambassador Crocker to meet with Iranians inside Iraq was to send the message that there will be consequences for . . . people transporting, delivering EFPs, highly sophisticated IEDs (improvised explosive devices), that kill Americans in Iraq," he said.

He also appeared to call on the Iranian people to change their government.

"My message to the Iranian people is, you can do better than this current government," he said. "You don't have to be isolated. You don't have to be in a position where you can't realize your full economic potential."

The Bush administration has launched what appears to be a coordinated campaign to pin more of Iraq's security troubles on Iran.

Last week, Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno, the No. 2 U.S. military commander in Iraq, said Shiite militiamen had launched 73 percent of the attacks that had killed or wounded American troops in July. U.S. officials think that majority Shiite Iran is providing militiamen with EFPs, which pierce armored vehicles and explode once inside.

Last month, Brig. Gen. Kevin Bergner, a multinational force spokesman, said members of the Quds force had helped plan a January attack in the holy Shiite city of Karbala, which lead to the deaths of five American soldiers. Bergner said the military had evidence that some of the attackers had trained at Quds camps near Tehran.

Bush's efforts to pressure Iran are complicated by the fact that the leaders of U.S.-supported governments in Iraq and Afghanistan have a more nuanced view of their neighbor.

Maliki is on a three-day visit to Tehran, during which he was photographed Wednesday hand in hand with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Unconfirmed media reports said Maliki had told Iranian officials they'd played a constructive role in the region.

Asked about that, Bush said he hadn't been briefed on the meeting. "Now if the signal is that Iran is constructive, I will have to have a heart-to-heart with my friend the prime minister, because I don't believe they are constructive. I don't think he in his heart of hearts thinks they're constructive either," he said.

Bush and Afghan President Hamid Karzai differed on Iran's role when they met last weekend, with Karzai saying in a TV interview that Iran was "a helper" and Bush challenging that view.

The toughening U.S. position on Iran puts Karzai and Iraqi leaders such as Maliki in a difficult spot between Iran, their longtime ally, and the United States, which is spending lives and treasure to secure their newly formed government.

A senior Iraqi official in Baghdad said the Iraqi government received regular intelligence briefings from the United States about suspected Iranian activities. He refused to discuss details, but said the American position worried him.

The United States is "becoming more focused on Iranian influence inside Iraq," said the official, who requested anonymity to discuss private talks with the Americans. "And we don't want Iraq to become a zone of conflict between Iran and the U.S."

Proposals to use force against Iran over its actions in Iraq mark a new phase in the Bush administration's long internal war over Iran policy.

Until now, some hawks within the administration — including Cheney — are said to have favored military strikes to stop Iran from furthering its suspected ambitions for nuclear weapons.

Rice has championed a diplomatic strategy, but that, too, has failed to deter Iran so far.

Patrick Clawson, an Iran specialist at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said a strike on the Quds camps in Iran could make the nuclear diplomacy more difficult.

Before launching such a strike, "We better be prepared to go public with very detailed and very convincing intelligence," Clawson said.

[Larry]

So many possible responses.

Remember "Never get involved in a land war in Asia"? Allow me to point out that we're already involved in two.

And what's this about an internal debate in the White House. That's not how things get done in this White House. In this administration, Cheney goes from office to office by crawling through the air conditioning ducts (no one sees him come, no one sees him go), gathering signatures on a blank piece of paper. Then he writes a proposal over the already-there signatures, and puts it in front of Bush, who signs it without reading it (and goes on vacation).

And am I the only one who's enjoying the irony (which the middle east seems to have more of than oil) of the US objecting to some country interfering in the internal affairs of Iraq?

[Vinnick]

I think we should offer to swap land with the Middle East.

We give them Texas, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Georgia, South Carolina, and Missouri. Hell, New Mexico through Florida.

The give us Pakistan through Jordan.

I think that's a fair trade. Our soil is better for crops.

[PleaseBlitz]

Behind the scenes, however, the president's top aides have been engaged in an intensive internal debate over how to respond to Iran's support for Shiite Muslim groups in Iraq and its nuclear program. Vice President Dick Cheney several weeks ago proposed launching airstrikes at suspected training camps in Iraq run by the Quds force, a special unit of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, according to two U.S. officials who are involved in Iran policy.

I am outraged that we would strike terrorist camps inside Iraq.

[Bang]

Hurry up! I'm running out of power!

~Dick

[Destino]

I am outraged that we would strike terrorist camps inside Iraq.

I had the same thought after reading the article. The thread title is misleading.

[Cskin]

On a serious note... what should we do? Continue allowing Iran proxy forces target and kill our American soliders? Evidence couldn't be any clearer that they're supplying the EFPs that are killing our soldiers?

I say hit them... either their training camp centers in Iran or their Govt. infrastructure in Tehran. They've got to know... keep effing with us and you're going to wish you hadn't. For those who want to do nothing... allowing Iran to continue killing our brave men and women.... well... um....:paranoid:..... :doh:

[jrockster21]

I am outraged that we would strike terrorist camps inside Iraq.

Terrorists or no, its still sending fighter jets to bomb targets IN IRAN. Actions like that have consequences.

[Popeman38]

Terrorists or no, its still sending fighter jets to bomb targets IN IRAN. Actions like that have consequences.

Actually, they reference training camps in Iraq, supported by Iran:

Behind the scenes, however, the president's top aides have been engaged in an intensive internal debate over how to respond to Iran's support for Shiite Muslim groups in Iraq and its nuclear program. Vice President Dick Cheney several weeks ago proposed launching airstrikes at suspected training camps in Iraq run by the Quds force, a special unit of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, according to two U.S. officials who are involved in Iran policy.

[Larry]

Oh, I've been wondering for a few years why somebody hasn't slapped them down.

My fantasy has revolved around the factories that make those EFPs, and the "Made in Iran" AKs and ammunition that keep turning up in Iraq a month after they're made, and the factory that makes those rockets that Hezbollah keeps firing at Israel and never running out of, all having accidental explosions and fires. Simultaneously.

No debate in Congress. No UN resolution. No press conference, before or after the explosions. (OK, maybe even a "We have no idea how this could have happened" from Bush, with a big ol grin on his face.)

If all of the entrances to their underground nuke facilities were to get blocked by rubble (accompanied by a diplomatic letter saying that our imagery of the rubble suggests that trying to clear the entrances might be dangerous.) might be nice, too.

Maybe some quiet diplomatic talk that hey, guys, if you want to fund and train Hezbollah, teach some terrorists how to make suicide belts, things like that, we'll look the other way. But when you start setting up factories so you can make weapons for terrorists in bulk, then you're making things too obvious for us to ignore.

However, while all of that makes for a nice fantasy, I'm not certain it would make good reality.

[Popeman38]

Oh, I've been wondering for a few years why somebody hasn't slapped them down.

My fantasy has revolved around the factories that make those EFPs, and the "Made in Iran" AKs and ammunition that keep turning up in Iraq a month after they're made, and the factory that makes those rockets that Hezbollah keeps firing at Israel and never running out of, all having accidental explosions and fires. Simultaneously.

No debate in Congress. No UN resolution. No press conference, before or after the explosions. (OK, maybe even a "We have no idea how this could have happened" from Bush, with a big ol grin on his face.)

If all of the entrances to their underground nuke facilities were to get blocked by rubble (accompanied by a diplomatic letter saying that our imagery of the rubble suggests that trying to clear the entrances might be dangerous.) might be nice, too.

Maybe some quiet diplomatic talk that hey, guys, if you want to fund and train Hezbollah, teach some terrorists how to make suicide belts, things like that, we'll look the other way. But when you start setting up factories so you can make weapons for terrorists in bulk, then you're making things too obvious for us to ignore.

However, while all of that makes for a nice fantasy, I'm not certain it would make good reality.

It would make for a nice reality, for about 70% of Americans. However, the furor brought by the other 30% would be like none other. You think the din screaming about unprovoked attacks against Iraq are deafening? Imagine the din where we get blamed for creating the problem and bombing Iran! It really is a lose-lose situation.

[JMS]

On a serious note... what should we do? Continue allowing Iran proxy forces target and kill our American soliders? Evidence couldn't be any clearer that they're supplying the EFPs that are killing our soldiers?

The shia are not responsible for the majority of attacks against our soldiers. I've read that they only account for around 20% of the attacks, Al Quada for 10% and the Sunni's who we are now arming and financing account for 70% of the attacks against our soldiers.

If the issue is who is sponsoring attacks against our soldiers we should first be concerned with the Sunni's. I believe folks in Saudi have been supporting them for years now. Funny how we don't read about Chenny/Bush wanting to invade Saudi.

I say hit them... either their training camp centers in Iran or their Govt. infrastructure in Tehran. They've got to know... keep effing with us and you're going to wish you hadn't. For those who want to do nothing... allowing Iran to continue killing our brave men and women.... well... um....:paranoid:..... :doh:

We don't have the troops to take on Iran and occupy Iraq. Even if we abandoned the Iraq occupation and invaded Iran, then we would have two countries we were unable to occupy.

[JMS]

I had the same thought after reading the article. The thread title is misleading.

Cheney had a typo when he typed the body of the Article. His attention to detail isn't what it once was, and besides he was mostly concerned with the title cause that's all the majority of American's read. And the majority is who he's concerned with.

[headexplode]

And am I the only one who's enjoying the irony (which the middle east seems to have more of than oil) of the US objecting to some country interfering in the internal affairs of Iraq?

Actually, that's the first thing that came to my mind.

[frommd]

I think we should offer to swap land with the Middle East.

We give them Texas, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Georgia, South Carolina, and Missouri. Hell, New Mexico through Florida.

The give us Pakistan through Jordan.

I think that's a fair trade. Our soil is better for crops.

The illegal immigrants will NEVER agree with this plan.

[Larry]

The illegal immigrants will NEVER agree with this plan.

Boortz was saying a few days ago that there's a big trend now, of people with Muslim names getting their names legally changed to Hispanic-sounding names.

So maybe they're all the same?

[Sarge]

Bombs away

[twa]

The illegal immigrants will NEVER agree with this plan.

We will never give up our homeland!!!

yours truly

Enrique Abdullah Gonzales....Allah Akbar,esse

[tizzod]

For a guy who got 700 deferments to get out of Vietnam, he sure seems to like war and blowing people up. I guess as long as he is out of the line of fire, then it's ok.

That silly Cheney!

[AsburySkinsFan]

I had the same thought after reading the article. The thread title is misleading.

thread title is simply the news outlet and the article title as published.

[#98QBKiller]

Boortz was saying a few days ago that there's a big trend now, of people with Muslim names getting their names legally changed to Hispanic-sounding names.

So maybe they're all the same?

I wonder if Randle El will change his name?

[tizzod]

I wonder if Randle El will change his name?

Antwaan Randle-Sanchez?

[Destino]

Enrique Abdullah Gonzales....Allah Akbar,esse

+10 for funny :laugh:

[Destino]

thread title is simply the news outlet and the article title as published.

don't pass the buck YOU ARE TO BLAME!

[#98QBKiller]

Antwaan Randle-Sanchez?

Antwaan "Dirty" Randle-Sanchez