Rosen falsely claimed Bush officials "made clear" U.S. forces will not enter Iran
On the January 11 edition of Fox News' Special Report, Fox News White House correspondent James Rosen falsely claimed that Bush administration officials "made clear their newly muscular approach to Iran ... will not launch American forces across the border into Iran." In fact, when asked about the possibility at a January 11 hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Bush "isn't going to rule out anything to protect our troops."
As noted by Steve Clemons, the director of the New America Foundation's American Strategy Program, on his weblog, The Washington Note, at a January 11 Senate Foreign Relations committee hearing, the committee's chairman, Sen. Joseph R. Biden, Jr. (D-DE) asked Rice whether a line from President Bush's January 10 televised speech on Iraq signaled that the administration would be conducting military action inside either Iran or Syria. Contrary to Rosen's report, Rice never "made clear" that the administration would not do so:
BIDEN: Last night, the president said, and I quote, "Succeeding in Iraq requires defending its territorial integrity and stabilizing the region in the face of extremist challenges, and that begins with addressing Iran and Syria." He went on to say, "We will interrupt the flow of support for Iran and Syria, and we will seek out and destroy networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq."
Does that mean the president has plans to cross the Syrian and/or Iranian border to pursue those persons or individuals or governments providing that help?
RICE: Mr. Chairman, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs was just asked this question, and I think he perhaps said it best. He talked about what we're really trying to do here which is to protect our forces and that we are doing that by seeking out these networks that we know are operating in Iraq. We are doing it through intelligence. We are then able, as we did on the 21st of December, to go after these groups where we find them. In that case, we then asked the Iraqi government to declare them persona non grata and expel them from the country because they were holding diplomatic passports.
But the -- what is really being contemplated here in terms of these networks is that we believe we can do what we need to do inside Iraq. Obviously, the president isn't going to rule anything out to protect our troops, but the plan is to take down these networks in Iraq.
The broader point is that we do have and we have always had as a country very strong interests and allies in the Gulf Region, and we do need to work with our allies to make certain that they have the defense capacity that they need against growing Iranian military build-up, that they fell that we are going to be a presence in the Persian Gulf Region as we have been, and that we establish confidence with the states with which we have long alliances, that we will help defend their interests. And that's what the president had in mind.
Rosen, however, noted only that Gen. Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, had said at a January 11 news conference that "we can take care of the security for our troops by doing the business we need to do inside of Iraq."
Rosen also mentioned Biden's comments at the Foreign Relations Committee hearing "warn[ing] Rice that any U.S. military action in Iran will require prior congressional approval." Those comments came just after the above exchange between Rice and Biden.
From the January 11 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume:
ROSEN: Still, administration officials made clear their newly muscular approach to Iran, suspected of supplying ordnance to jihadists and insurgents in Iraq, will not launch American forces across the Iraqi border into Iran.
PACE: We can take care of the security for our troops by doing the business we need to do inside of Iraq.
ROSEN: Senator Joseph Biden of Delaware, the Democratic chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, warned Rice that any U.S. military action in Iran will require prior congressional approval, and that if such a move is made without that approval, he will start a, quote, "constitutional confrontation."
I posted this in another topic, but it's probably more relevant here. Bush's "surge" may very well have more to do with Iran than Iraq. [link to www.npr.org]
So, what does Rep. Tom Lantos - Democratic chair of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs - think sending a carrier group and Patriot missiles to the region? Apparently that the build-up is just an effective way of sending a message to Iran. [link to www.npr.org]
Ummm...wasn't there a vote in October 2002 that was supposed to be about just sending a message? Despite my sarcasm with that question, I am not laughing.
President Bush is stubbornly pursuing a military solution in Iraq while obstinately ignoring diplomacy. The bellicose neo-conservative ideology that lead us into the Iraqi/Middle Eastern debacle is still the only solution our intellectually blind President sees. Not only are we putting more troops in Iraq against its prime ministers wishes (by most accounts), we have now invaded the Iranian Embassy in Iraq. Our President WANT”S war.
[link to news.xinhuanet.com] [link to www.hindu.com]
you are willing to trade that the other side wants.
In the case of the Islamofascists, they, including various leaders of Al Qaeda, Moqtada Al Sadr, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad have regularly declared their objectives are to wipe Israel off the face of the map, wipe the United States off the face of the map, and impose a global Caliphate. Their actions have been entirely concictent with these declarations within the scope of their capabilities.
Some questions that need answers: 1.Which of these objectives are you willing to exchange for peace? 2. Which of these objectives do you think the Islamofascists are willing to relinquish in perpetuity? 3. Are you willing to surrender your liberty to a global Caliphate? 4. Are you willing see America destroyed or despoiled at the hands of the Jihadists?
The claim that Ahminadjead said he wanted to wipe Israel off the map is a mistranslation. According to Juan Cole WHO SPEAKS FARSI, it should have read dissapear from the pages of time, a quote of Khomeni citing an 8th century Iranian poet. It has nothing to do with tanks or military attacks. The ONLY group I have ever heard of talking about a Global Caliphate is al Queda they may as well talk about growing wings and flying to the moon. Hey lets go after the terrorists and extremists. In that vien invading the most SECULAR country in the region, Iraq, was pure insanity. Your whole list was false dichotmies. Which of these extremist groups are going to build rafts float across the Atlantic Ocean and invade the US taking it over and take my freedom again? Obviously none of them, thats ludicrous on the face of it so the only one I am losing any freedom from is the Bush admininstration. Lets do what we need to do to fight the extremists and terrorists, the first step would be to STOP invading whatever middle eastern country has the oil we want. Your simplistic Manichean thinking is part of the problem not part of the solution
Your are as usual, factually incorrect.
If you want to quote Juan Cole, then perhaps you should reference the wikipedia page you read this on: [link to en.wikipedia.org]
You are right! Al Qaea DOES whant to establish a global Caliphate. But so too do almost all of the other Islamofascist groups including the Twelvers. Ansar Al Islam [link to www.foreignpolicy.com] Ansar Al Sunnah. Jemaah Islamiah [link to www.ntu.edu.sg]
Ahmadinejad is a Twelver. you should study just what that implies. Twelvers believe that the one day the occulted twelfth Iman [Mahdi] will return and erect a Global Caliphate.
He has said in the past: "Israel must be wiped off the map," said Ahmadinejad" [link to english.aljazeera.net] The source is Al Jizeera. Apparently, what Ahmadinejad said in Farsi translates to the above in Arabic as well. Why did the Arabic speakers transalted his remarks the same way the English speakers did?
On the US he has said: "The establishment of the Zionist regime was a move by the world oppressor against the Islamic world" same source. The term 'world oppressor' is a reference to the 'Great Satan', the United States. and: "And God willing, with the force of God behind it, we shall soon experience a world without the United States and Zionism," according to a quote published by Iran's state news outlet, the Islamic Republic News Agency. source [link to www.cnn.com]
You should change your handle to 'ClayPigeon', more indicative of your apparent purpose here, but please, whatever you do, don't leave! I do so enjoy crushing your flimsy arguments.
This is not news to me. I have known about this years before anyone had heard of Aminadjead. It is the equivelent of Christians saying Jesus will return except they dont equate him with God. None of this changes the fact that the president in Iran has no real power, that is in the hands of the counsel of experts and the leader of the revolution maybe YOU ought to study THAT. As I pointed out Aminajeads mento LOST the election to remain leader and Rafsanjani won. The current leader Khameni is a moderate by the standards of the region. As for the clay pigeon comment considering how often I take YOU apart I wonder what that makes YOU?
When you are repeatedly proven factually incorrect as you were again today.
Keep on emoting. Irrationality is your long suit.
Juan Cole is an aknowledged middle east expert and I cited him. Are you DENYING he said what I cited? No you arent, you TRIED to discredit him but were not in my opinion convincing. Even HAD you, I would NOT have been shown factually incorrect to have CORRECTLY cited what he claimed.You cite people who disagree, I cite Cole, this makes neither of us factually incorrect. Neither of US speak Farsi. Just because you WISH it were true, doesnt make it true, this is a lesson you rightwingers need to learn.
"Ahmadinejad is a Twelver. you should study just what that implies. Twelvers believe that the one day the occulted twelfth Iman [Mahdi] will return and erect a Global Caliphate. " --NL207
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
So Ahmadinejad is not the one to worry about. It is this 12th Imam dude, who will then create a "Global Caliphate".
Great then! You keep an eye out and let me know when the 12th Imam gets here so I will know when to start practicing my "As-Salamu Alaykum"'s.
"Why did the Arabic speakers transalted his remarks the same way the English speakers did?" -NL207
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Good question. According to [Juan] Cole, "Ahmadinejad did not say he was going to wipe Israel off the map because no such idiom exists in Persian(sic) [Farsi]" --from your Wikipedia link above.
My answer would be that translating idioms is pretty tricky business and that when translating from Farsi, the idiom is distorted from its original meaning whether it is translated to English via Arabic or not. Anyone who has done some translation understands it is more of an art than a science. If you have read different translators of great works like Tolstoi and Dostoievski, you would know a little about how they can even differ about the same material.
You should ask Al-Jezeera to break down the translation for you. Then again, you could learn Farsi and look at the original statements yourself.
Words are not concepts anymore than maps are territory. Can you imagine translating for a foriegn audience a guy telling you he is going to see a man about a horse?
What a hoot! NPR is a publicly funded leftist propaganda machine. As bad as the ABC, NBC, CBS and CNN are, they are at least funded by private subscribership. NPR is statist drivel and nothing more, representing the vewpoints of a small number of publicly supported tax parasites who are not respionsible to anyone for either profit or loss or the content of their reporting. They have all the credibility of Pravda. Considering their content and editorial policies, they may as well be Pravda.
PIPA did a study about misperceptions that is demonstrably WRONG things people believed about the Iraq invasions. Of the three misperceptions studied, by those who got most of their news from Broadcast media Fox viewers were MOST likely to have any OR all three misperceptions, and who was LEAST likely? Yes that would be those who got most of their news from PBS or NPR. Your real coplaint would be that those who tune in to the public stations arent dumb enough to be brainwashed into believing the delusional fantasies you wingnuts prefer to objective reality
I tuned in just in time to find things all cleaned up. Good Work!
It can be a bit tedious responding to certain ideological types that don’t include history, sociology or much else beyond war in their intellectual repertoire.
sorta like a non answer
"Obviously, the president isn't going to rule anything out to protect our troops"
Except maybe providing them with the necessary equipment to fight a war, or getting them out of a scam war,even if it means he has to admit to being a lying ,weak-willed sucker.
Too bad he couldn't have ruled out sending all those troops over there in the first place, or even running for the Presidency. That might have helped to protect the troops.
Wouldn't have gotten to impress Daddy, though. Whatta candy-ass embarrassment of a president.
When you said he was trying to impress daddy, did you mean GHWB or that higher father he always talks about?
I didn't specify.
If that supernatural father exists, and he's resposible for the guidelines attributed Him by his followers, I can''t imagine He's too impressed.
Herbertwocker,on the other hand, may be impressed, but only in that very biased way that parents of "special" children can be.
BTW, as I've often been accused of Anti-Christian remarks here, notice I capitalized my supreme being related pronouns.See, I can work with you.
committing acts of war against the Unted States.
1. Conterfeiting US Currency: The counterfeit supernotes that flooded the Bekaa Valley in Lebanon in the 1980's are thought to have been supplied by Iran. The Iranians are thought to have either printed them themselves using engravings aquired from the former GDR or to have obtained these from the ultimate source of supernote counterfeiting, North Korea during some of their rms deals with the PRK. [link to www.iran.org] [link to www.nytimes.com]
2. IED's. These are actually very highliy refined and deadly booby traps. By far the most US casualties in Iraq have been to these devices. They appear to be made in Iran and suplied to the Jihadists there, free of charge along with training. [link to corner.nationalreview.com] [link to www.telegraph.co.uk] [link to abcnews.go.com]
3. the Hezbollah attack on the Marine barracks in Beirut, 1984. [link to www.cnn.com]
4. The US embassy hostage taking of 1979, in which now Iranian President Ahmadinejad is said to have been a player. [link to www.washtimes.com]
5. Threats made by the president of Iran to annihilate Israel [a US ally] and create a world without America. He hs also described the present situation as a 'clash of civilizations'. [link to english.aljazeera.net]
Any rational observers might well conclude that Iran is already waging a limited war gainst the United States, gambling that we will not respond militarily. Only a fool who wishes this abuse on himself would allow this man and his followers to continue without approprate consequences.
I see you are not a rational obeserver.
To speak for RATIONAL observers many of your examples are bogus I dont know about the coutnerfieting however
IEDs made in Iran
[link to today.reuters.com]
US general says no proof Iran behind Iraq arms
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - 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."
The Hezbollah attack on the US marines, hey I hate to see Americans killed as much as anyone but we dont get to send soldiers to a war zone while WE are killing people in that country and then snivel that they kill us back. The USS New Jersey was shelling the Shouf Mountains a suburb of Beiruit. I am sorry but the marines were valid military targets and we were in THEIR country they didnt find and attack us somewhere else.
The taking of the hostages in 79 was a terrorist act, put it in context. What was it when we overthrew the democratically elected Mohamed Mossedegh and installed the brutal torturer Shah Pahlavi, lets not pretend they just developed an America hatred out of nowhere, and all those hostages came home alive. It was wrong, but it was also blowback from OUR actions which were also WRONG.
The president of Iran is a nutbag its questionable if he actually called for the destruction of Israel. He also has NO power, he is a figurehead, he has no power over their military or their parliment. The true executive power in Iran is the leader of the revolution or something like that, that would be Khameni a moderate. Aminijead's party LOST the last election his mentor was ousted as the leader of the counsel of experts and barely remained on it at all and the leader is now Rafsanjani a man so moderate he is the one the US used to support when he ran for their leadership positions. The warmongering rhetoric just isnt necessary. Warmongers ALWAYS look for any reason to kill, kill, kill. Iran is a problem but not necessarily an intractable one. Good negotiations could easily take care of the problem. Of course this administration has no diplomatic arm their idea of diplomacy is to tell coutries to do what they are told. Iranians are not Arabs, thier culture is different, they may become a problem we have to deal with militarily, that option is always available, until then we have an absolute obligation to attempt to solve the problems diplomatically, only when that FAILS does a military option become justifyable. Your cheap rhetoric doesnt come within a parsec of showing we are there yet.
Rhetoric is always beaten by references. I provide refernces. You provide rhetoric. You lose.
The source of the IED's: You don't accept the views of General Pace on teh involvement of senior command in Abu Ghraib. Why do you suppose he is correct about these IED's?
Many of the field officers serving in Iraq do not believe the Iraqis are manufacturing these IEDs in Iraq. The British have reported capturing shape charge mines that are the product of skilled munitions makers with access to precision machine tools.
Lets refer to your lefty activist Cole's site: [link to www.juancole.com]
This quote: "Furthermore, shaped-charge mines are easily made from scratch with #10 cans, dinner plates, and plastic explosive."
look at the captured devices here: [link to www.theodoresworld.net] and here: [link to www.telegraph.co.uk]
and compare to these similar devices made by Hezbollah terrorists in Lebanon. [link to www.defense-update.com] [link to www.defense-update.com]
The difference in workmanship should be plainly obvious. The latter devices were made using crude facilities. The former devices are of much higher quality workmanship, belying the assertion on Cole's site that these are made of tin cans and dinner plates. Don't you think the Iraqi artifacts should look similar to the Lebanese if they were produced by terrorists in somebody's garage?
Maybe General Pace would be so good as to explain this.
Iwill address the rest of your tripe later.
"Rhetoric is always beaten by references." --NL207
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Could you please provide a reference to back that up?
~~~~~~~~
"The source of the IED's: You don't accept the views of General Pace on teh involvement of senior command in Abu Ghraib." --NL207
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Pace was simply asked whether he had proof of Iranian involvement. If Pace had said yes and could not provide that proof, he would have been found out in a blatant lie. One can only assume he does not have proof. I don't know whether that has anything to do with any CYA he may have had to perform in regards to Abu Ghraib. They really aren't comparable situations. If you believe proof exists, it shouldn't be hard to get someone in the military to back you up on your claim.
It also appears from your comments that you support General Paces comments about chain of command at Abu Ghraib. Why do you apparently discount him here? You see that for every seeming hypocrisy, there is an equal and opposite one.
~~~~~~~~
"The difference in workmanship should be plainly obvious." --NL207
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You should notify General Pace immediately.
"belying the assertion on Cole's site that these are made of tin cans and dinner plates." --NL207
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Furthermore, shaped-charge mines are easily made from scratch with #10 cans, dinner plates, and plastic explosive." Juan Cole
You are being deceptive. It is clear that Cole is saying these devices can be made in an unsophisticated way. He is not saying they are all made in an unsophisticated way. He was describing how accessible the technology is. Just dishonest of you.
"Don't you think the Iraqi artifacts should look similar to the Lebanese if they were produced by terrorists in somebody's garage?" --NL207
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Actually no. I would expect the look of IED's to vary pretty widely. They look to be made from pieces that are welded together and more importantly from what is available. Different materials will be available in different countries I would think. It would also depend on the type of explosives training the builder has. Considering the size of Iraq's former army it is quite possible that far more people with sophisticated explosive experience could be involved in the manufacture of IED's in Iraq.
It is of course speculation, but I don't see anything that would support the conclusion that the IED's would look alike unless they were made in the same place by the same bomb-maker and even then, the availability of supplies might make some pretty noticeable differences evident.
Who is planning our next war? /January 9, 2007
Israel angrily denies the report. But, on Dec. 30, retired Gen. Oded Tira, who headed up all Israeli artillery units, burst into print with this admonition:
"As an American air strike in Iran is essential for our existence, we must help (Bush) pave the way by lobbying the Democratic Party (which is conducting itself foolishly) and U.S. newspaper editors. We need to do this in order to turn the Iranian issue to a bipartisan one and unrelated to the Iraq failure."
"Bush lacks the political power to attack Iran," writes Tira. Thus, Israel and its U.S. lobbying arm "must turn to Hillary Clinton and other potential presidential candidates in the Democratic Party so that they publicly support immediate action by Bush against Iran."
"The Americans must act," Tira concludes. "If they don't, we'll do it ourselves ... (and) we must immediately start preparing for an Iranian response to an attack."
According to UPI editor-at-large Arnaud De Borchgrave, Tira's line tracks the New Year's Day message of Likud superhawk "Bibi" Netanyahu, the former prime minister.
Said Netanyahu, Israel "must immediately launch an intense, international public relations front first and foremost on the U.S. The goal being to encourage President Bush to live up to specific pledges he would not allow Iran to arm itself with nuclear weapons. We must make clear to the (U.S.) government, the Congress and the American public that a nuclear Iran is a threat to the U.S. and the entire world, not only Israel."
Israel's war, says Bibi, must be sold as America's war.
We are thus forewarned. A propaganda campaign, using Israeli agents and their neocon auxiliaries and sympathizers, who stampeded us into war in Iraq, is being prepared to stampede us into war on Iran.
We are to be convinced that Iran, with no air force or navy to speak of, an economy not 2 percent of ours, which has not started a single war since the revolution, 27 years ago, is about to give to terrorists, to use on us, a nuclear bomb it may be 10 years away from even being able to build.
Will Congress be duped again into giving Bush a blank check for war? Or will this new Congress summon the courage to take the war option out of Bush's hands, to decide itself, for the nation, when, where and whether America should ever go to war against Iran?
[link to www.theamericancause.org]
Still One More Card to Play/January 12, 2007
Which leads me to believe Bush has yet another card to play, an ace up his sleeve. What might that be?
Midway through his speech, almost as an aside, Bush made a pointed accusation at and issued a direct threat to -- Tehran.
To defend the "territorial integrity" of Iraq and stabilize "the region in the face of extremist challenge," Bush interjected, "begins with addressing Iran and Syria."
"These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq."
Now, any networks providing "advanced weaponry and training" to jihadists and insurgents are outside Iraq. Otherwise, they would have been neutralized by air strikes already.
So, where are they? Answer: inside Syria and Iran. And Bush says we are going to "seek out and destroy" these networks.
Which suggests to this writer that, while the "surge" is modest, Bush has in mind a different kind of escalation -- widening the war by attacking the source of instability in the region: Tehran.
"I recently ordered the deployment of an additional carrier strike group to the region," said Bush. "We will deploy ... Patriot air defense systems to reassure our friends and allies."
But there is no need for more carrier-based fighter-bombers in Iraq. And the insurgents have no missiles against which anyone would need Patriot missiles to defend. You only need Patriots if your target country has missiles with which to retaliate against you.
What Bush signaled in the clear Wednesday is that air strikes on Iranian "networks" are being planned. That would produce an Iranian response. That response would trigger U.S. strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities, for which Israel and the neocons are howling.
[link to www.theamericancause.org]
Press Secretary Tony Snow dodged this specific question when Chris Matthews asked him.
MATTHEWS: Well, he (President Bush) did say we're gonna disrupt the attacks on our forces. We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran. Does that mean stopping at the Iranian border or going into Iran?
SNOW: Well, again, I think what the president was talking about the war in Iraq, Chris.
MATTHEWS: So he will seek congressional approval before any action against Iran.
SNOW: Eh, You are talking about something that we're not even discussing. You're way ahead of yourself.
[link to www.crooksandliars.com]
From the Globe & Mail (Toronto, Canada) for Sunday:
"The White House also said Sunday that Iranians are aiding the insurgency in Iraq and the U.S. has the authority to pursue them because they 'put our people at risk.' ...
"We will interdict their operations, we will disrupt their supply lines, we will disrupt these attacks," Mr. Hadley said."
(Emphasis of course added.)
This is exactly - and I do mean exactly, down to including some of the exact same language - as was used to justify bombing Laos to shreds and invading Cambodia during Vietnam.
The Sandanistas would have had the justification (though clearly not the ability) to attack the US during the Raygun/Contra years. Why do we keep demanding the right that other countries comply to standards we would never accept for ourselves and demand the right to take actions we would NEVER accept from other countries with justifications we would never accept from other countries.
Juan Cole said what he said. He DOES speak Farsi. Memri is a propaganda group what they do is the equivelent of taking Savage and Coulter and telling the Arabic world that what they say represents American opinion. So it is disputed. OK I will accept that BUT Juan Cole is an aknowledged middle east expert and he DOES speak Farsi. His contention is this is the same as when Raygun said the Soviet Union would dissapear from the pages of history. Perhaps Cole is wrong, I dont speak Farsi and cant say. As for al Jezeera and Arabic translators why would they be any better than the Times translator? Iranians are not Arabic, Farsi is NOT a semetic language it is not even related to Arabic.