Richard Clarke: "...in all probability, the Iranian government is knowingly killing U.S. troops"

[sabra]

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/01/iranianmade_ied.html

Iranian-Made IEDs Are the Most Deadly U.S. Forces Have Seen, and Their Use Is on the Rise

The most deadly improvised explosive devices being used against U.S. soldiers in Iraq continue to come from Iran, and Iran continues to provide more tactical training, according to explosive experts working with the U.S. military.

...

"I think the evidence is strong that the Iranian government is making these IEDs, and the Iranian government is sending them across the border and they are killing U.S. troops once they get there," says Richard Clarke, former White House counterterrorism chief and an ABC News consultant.

U.S. intelligence officials say Iran is using the bombs as a way to drive up U.S. casualties in Iraq without provoking a direct confrontation, but a looming question remains. According to CIA Director Hayden and others, most of the EFPs are provided to the Shia militias, while it is the Sunnis who are responsible for many more U.S. deaths. Officials are now asking, could Iran be arming both sides of the sectarian violence?

Either way, Clarke says the evidence is clear that the Iranians know they are causing damage to the U.S.

"I think it's very hard to escape the conclusion that, in all probability, the Iranian government is knowingly killing U.S. troops," said Clarke.

:crazy:

[ShortnFiery]

1. Holy shit, not Clarke

Dammit :(.

[sabra]

2. I had the same reaction.

[ShortnFiery]

7. All I can say is that these old impotent leaders LOVE war!

I'm sickened at the thought of NOW killing thousands of innocent Iranians just to get our war hard-on. :grr:

Stop! We sell arms all over the world that kills innocent people.

WE ARE ALL THE KILLERS.

Pull the troops out of that hell hole and shut down the war profiteering machines.

Dammit, Richard Clarke, you just sold out. :grr:

[sabra]

11. I am going to hold my reservations on Clarke... The statements may

have been taken out of context? Remember this is the MSM new meme.

[cynatnite]

21. Clarke is pretty credible...

I do believe that Iran is conducting these kinds of operations. They are reacting to bush's rhetoric and the upping of the military stance toward Iran. I do think Iran's leader is a religious fanatic...but I think the same thing about bush, too.

What's scary, IMO, is these two fanatics facing off the way they are with the Iraqis, Iranians and our soldiers all in the middle. That's not counting the rest of the Middle East as well because the region will be dragged into it.

Thanks, mr. bush, you just might get your armageddon that you and your freaked out followers have been praying for.

[Nickster]

28. Also recall in his first book that he basically said we were ready to go to war against Iran

in the 90s. Clarke has viewed Iran as a threat since before the Iraq invasion.

[ShortnFiery]

72. Oh so he's an old war horse for a War with Iran.

Terrific! :eyes:

[peacetalksforall]

34. Did I miss something? Clarke is giving an assessment. I don't see

where he is pumping for war. Don't you want to read an assessment from him? I think he provided some insight into the situation and I have learned to trust him (that is, as much as some of these people can be trusted to handle the business of keeping our country safe - some are totally untrusting.)

Someone point me to where he is pumping for war. Keep feeding us facts and assessments, Clarke. We'll see where you're heading sooner or later. Hope you are a peace seeker and willing to help save this country and innocent people and their wonderful country.

[ShortnFiery]

36. Yeah, now Clarke's been blackmailed into KILLING innocents in

Iran. Better them than us because American lives are oh so much more important?

[sabra]

37. I meant ABC not Clarke :-) They may be pimping his words for the new talking points

[ShortnFiery]

53. Perhaps you're right Sabra, I did not consider that.

Thank-you. Oh no our upstanding M$M would not manipulate an interviewee's statements, would they? :eyes:

[Jack from Charlotte]

10. Do you not think this clusterf*ck that AWOL has started isn't........

resulting in Iran warring in Iraq?

Iran is the winner of The Bush/McCain/Lieberman War. Of course they're trying to kill our guys.

[ShortnFiery]

42. Iran and Iraq warred for 10 years to a bloody draw.

There is NO, I repeat NO RISK OF IRAN INVADING IRAQ.

Dammit, this is all a ruse to ensure that our Military Industrial Complex KEEPS all the energy and reconstruction contracts.

Can't you see the obvious ruse?!?

[Jack from Charlotte]

44. You need a reading comprehension course.............

Clarke's talking about exporting IED's. Not Iran invading Iraq. However, I'm sure their are some, a few Iranians in Iraq, as well.

[ShortnFiery]

50. You need to understand "the concept" - I don't appreciate the personal attack

I understand your statement but it is moot. Read on:

The exporting of IEDs only serves as "a complement" of what's already there, in country. Further, you can get your "biggest bang for the buck" by using a combination of devices with Artillery Shells that they gleaned at the local Iraqi dump.

Therefore, it's like pissing in the wind, i.e., the true effect of exporting IEDs from Iran because the insurgents already have a treasure trove of IEDs and other major armaments because we didn't send in enough troops to secure the ammo dumps.

[jollyreaper2112]

78. Who says they aren't?

The Russians and Chinese were equipping the NVA in the Vietnam War and were certainly assisting in the killing of American GI's. That doesn't mean that it wasn't a stupid war and we shouldn't have been involved. The warhawks would have argued that this gave support to their domino theory -- the chinks and ruskies are there, the whole of asia will fall the moment America pulls out! Except it didn't.

Nobody doubts Iran has designs on Iraq. Nobody doubts that there are foreign sources of arms and support in this war. I mean, think about it! The US has made an ass out of itself since 9-11 and we already had a pile of people who were antagonistic towards us due to idiot foreign policy. With the Chimpenator in charge, those hearts are not exactly being warmed here.

So the question comes back to "What are we gonna do about it?" Papa Chimp left Saddam in power because he didn't have a good idea of who to replace him with. He was an asshole but an asshole serving as a check on Iran.

At this point we haven't just screwed the pooch, we've fucked it into bloody hamburger. There's no putting things back to right, just trying to manage the aftermath. But we're not doing anyone any good by leaving our troops in place as nothing more than bullet stoppers. I wouldn't doubt that Iran is supplying hardware to the Iraqis. I woudln't doubt that the Russians are running in some hardware, either. Nothing proves a new weapon like successful use in a real shooting war. I'm sure the Russians and Iranians were supplying some of the better weapons used in the last Lebanon war. Hell, we ran Stingers into Afghanistan during the Russian clusterfuck there.

If Bush tries spinning this into justification for going to war with Iran, then he needs to be flat out chimpeached.

[niyad]

3. when did he start drinking the kool-ade?

[rockymountaindem]

6. I don't think this is kool-aid

I think Iran probably is meddling around over there, and if they are providing weapons to any of the militias, I'm sure some of them are being turned on our forces. That would be inevitable.

[liberalnurse]

22. The "*bush/cheney bully-teasing tactics"

are in full force. They are a fine representative of the bully on the playground picking a fight....Classic hecklers can be noted as another description. :nuke: :scared: :banghead:

[ShortnFiery]

8. I bet that he had just enough extra money to invest in one of the

coroporate war profiteeing conglomerates. Look at how Woolsey and Bob Kerrey squeal with glee over the thought of KILLING - using all those pretty weapons that they have invested big bucks of their "wealth" on?

[pampango]

59. How fickle are we at DU?

Is there anyone whom we trust? Is there anyone, no matter how many times we have appreciated his or her opinion, wisdom, or unbiased contribution to a discussion, whom we will not drop like a bad habit the first time they say something we either don't agree with or don't want to hear?

I thought only freepers accused their own of being sellouts, kool-ade drinkers, or blackmail victims whenever someone utters an opinion divergent from the group think.

[ShortnFiery]

62. Some good advice: Trust nobody when it comes to big money and war

Nobody! Perhaps Sabra is right and they made a big deal about his statement. The country is already awash with IED material. Simply, the insurgents don't need help from Iran. :shrug:

[pampango]

69. Trust nobody. No thanks. I may be stingy with my trust, but

I cannot trust nobody (pardon the double negative). If I trust nothing that I hear, see or read, because I already know everything, I might turn into a freeper. I am old enough to know that you have to be careful about whom you trust, but I also know that I learn something new everyday from people whom I trust.

[ShortnFiery]

71. OK, but when it comes to government officials you haven't met, IMO,

trust is "a leap of faith."

To each our own. ;) :hi:

[pampango]

73. Ah, but society is based on "trust". Have a good one. n/t

[ShortnFiery]

75. Not necessarily. BTW how did that "trust" go with regard for invading Iraq?

Didn't work out so well, did it?

[pampango]

77. Nope. Sure didn't. Most here already knew better than to trust

Bush. Many more know it now.

Does that mean I will trust no one at any time for any reason? Nope. I do not believe that every government official is a corrupt liar. There are public officials whom, over time, I come to trust as reasonable smart and well-intentioned individuals. If such a person made a statement with which went against my beliefs, I would not immediately brand him as a sell-out (I hope.) I am old enough now to know that it is possible, just possible mind you, not likely, that there may be a new angle to a story or a bit of information that is new to me that I should consider before I shoot the messenger.

[ShortnFiery]

79. I think this one has a hard-on for war with Iran. For that, he's dangerous. n/t

[rocktivity]

4. Rocknation: "...in all probability, the Bush monarchy is knowingly killing U.S. troops!"

:mad:
rocknation

[Avalux]

5. EFPs!!!! I knew they were gonna do this - but why Clarke?

What motivation does he have to promote this?

I posted about EFPs this morning:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=79612&mesg_id=79612

[ShortnFiery]

13. Everyone has a price, perhaps blackmail, the powers that be

can press all kinds of buttons to get almost anyone (with a family) to cooperate. :scared:

[pampango]

63. So here at DU Clarke has gone from respected intelligence

expert whom we have frequently cited to poke holes in Bush's lies to sell-out or blackmail victim, as soon as he says something that he believes, but does not fit our preconceived notions of what must be true and what must be false.

Can we not be open to new ideas and opinions, particularly from people whom we trust, and consider the possibility that he might know what he is talking about (just as he has in the past) without blasting him as an obvious new sell-out to the cause?

[peacetalksforall]

54. If you read what he says it's only an assessment and some facts.

There is nothing in his quotes to suggest he is pumping for war.

[Avalux]

57. What evidence?

"I think the evidence is strong that the Iranian government is making these IEDs, and the Iranian government is sending them across the border and they are killing U.S. troops once they get there," says Richard Clarke, former White House counterterrorism chief and an ABC News consultant.

It may be true that Iran is involved in some way, but I want to see the damn EVIDENCE. No more of this "trust us" mentality; and it bothers me Clarke talks of evidence when none has been given.

[peacetalksforall]

67. I see what you're getting at. Is he referencing some 'item' like

forged documents when he references evidence? Or just being vague to hide stuff from us?

At the same time, I'm not sure if he would play the political war game for Dick and George or PNAC. He seems straight arrow from what I've observed so far. I read his book - my credibility meter didn't go off the scale. It seemed to fit into a comfortable truth context, for me.

[Avalux]

68. I have read his book; that's why I am troubled by his words.

After the past six years of hell, I really don't know what to believe anymore, no matter who says it. We have been lied to and manipulated so many times that even if Iran's involvement is the absolute truth, there's no way we can know for sure. Sucks to be the American people.

[peacetalksforall]

70. I understand. We spend a lot of time trying to figure out who to

trust.

Clarke did go out on a limb that held danger for him - he was the first (?) to confirm that Iraq was the number one item on the agenda when this adminisstraiion took office.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

9. War on Terror = Immunity to declare war on anybody at anytime

and we (as a "patriotic" nation) have stood by and watched...
:cry:

[LSK]

12. why would Iranians give Sunni insurgents IEDs???

:wtf:

[ShortnFiery]

18. Plus, the biggest damage via IEDs can be from employing Artillery shells.

There was so much ammunition taken away from the numerous ammo dumps during the early weeks of the invasion, I don't buy this story. They are beating the war drums and have coerced people that we have respect for to SELL THIS WAR for our Military Industrial Complex's welfare. It sure as shit is not going to benefit either the American nor the Iranian peoples. :grr:

[Nickster]

23. Because they are focusing those IEDs on US troops. When you need a proxy, it doesn't really

matter what sect they are from. They fulfill each other's needs, the Sunnis need arms against us and Iran needs us to be bogged down in a war in Iraq so we can't focus on them.

[LSK]

33. I thought it was now a civil war?

:shrug:

[Nickster]

47. I see it as being on two levels, and I may be completely full of crap, but I see the insurgents

as having a true vision of being in a civil war. I think the fighting between the Shia and Sunni sects is real.

On the second level, I see them as being used by outer influences to wear us down. The looted ammo and weapons can only go so far, they are being fed money and munitions from the outside. The borders are terribly porous, so shipments can come in relatively easy from just about anywhere. I've been trying to get my noodle around who would be using the insurgents as a proxy. Iran would be a suspect in my eyes. They have a chance to cause so much chaos and confusion and cripple Iraq. They know they can't face us militarily, so they are using the insurgents to wear us down and force us out after we did the heavy lifting of getting rid of Saddam, which they couldn't do. Then, they can either come in militarily to settle the violence or however they wish to frame it or they can influence the politics and basically use Iraq as a puppet. With the oil output of Iraq and Iran combined, they could rival if not dominate Saudi Arabia in OPEC. Iran is in bad shape financially and survives almost exclusively on oil revenue. If they could essentially control the oil price, they'd be set economically.

I look at it through the filter of Vietnam, we got bogged down with the VietCong who were proxies for the North Vietnamese. Who eventually came rolling into Saigon? NVA tanks. The VietCong didn't take over the government and by the end of the war, their numbers weren't even a significant portion of the fighting force. Yet we devoted our military strategy to counter-insurgency and missed the NVA military sending troops and supplies.

Now, myself, I don't support the war. It was the wrong war at the wrong time. I'm just looking at it from the standpoint of "we're here, now what is going on and what can be done about it". Sadly,I think we are past the point of doing anything constructive there and with the crew we have in charge, nothing constructive will be done.

[theoldman]

24. The Iranians do not give money to the Sunnis,

The Sunnis get their money from the Saudis and other Sunni dominated countries. That is why this war has no end in sight. There are too many countries involved. Same problem in Israel.

[LSK]

27. then WHO are the Insurgents?????????????????

Last I checked, we were supporting a Shiite Govt in Iraq.

[bullwinkle428]

61. My immediate reaction as well - it makes no sense that the U.S. is

supposedly supporting the Shia majority leading Iraq, which is ALLIED with the Shiite-led government of Iran! I guess there's always the possibility that keeping U.S. forces bogged down in Iraq diminishes the chances of starting something in Iran, though...

[teryang]

14. Not a shred of evidence

If they publicized it, it could be discredited quickly, just as Powell's UN briefing, the yellow cake documents, alleged Osama videos, etc.

[oblivious]

46. The only evidence provided is welds indicating the same factory.

Of course the factory could be anywhere, but they conclude it must be in Iran.

[teryang]

80. The latest story is iran is responsible for US troop abductions....

...and murder.

US SUVs, US uniforms, speaking english, iraqis thought they were American, abra kadabra! now they are Iranians. Also, Khobar towers bombing was Iranian job.

This is all psy ops, designed to mobilize the American people for war against Iran and more importantly to support the stupid idiots who thrive on wars that can't be won.

If they have evidence, they should publish it and disseminate it widely throughout the world for all to examine and evaluate. Just like Colin Powell's evidence, the yellow cake document, the bio warfare vans, the aluminum tubes and all the other fake evidence they produce to start wars.

They're doing Rheinhard Heydrich proud.

[ShortnFiery]

81. Absolutely! Ding! Ding! Ding!

You must have a little background in Intelligence Operations also. ;)

Get this evidence: The only evidence that IRAN must be involved in the kidnapping and killing of our American Soldiers recently is that IT WAS TOO WELL PLANNED AND ORCHESTRATED TO HAVE BEEN FROM IRAQ.

The above is *the only* evidence either the CIA or the Pentagon is claiming ... just wild-assed impressions! :crazy:

Further, as I've stated numerous times, there are plenty of IED materials within country. The thought that a factory stamped "made in Iran" IED unit is being sent from Iran insults our intelligence. The crude ones using artillery shells for an extra "bang" do a helluva lot more damage than the so called "cookie cutter" kind that is being sent with tag, "Love, from Iran. :eyes:

Clarke should be ashamed of himself. Don't fall into the trap of believing him merely due to past fleets of humbleness for he's hellbent to make IRAN pay.

There's much more going on here than meets the eye and NONE OF IT is valid evidence. :thumbsdown:

Don't believe it! There's not one shred of evidence that this is a "mass produced" operation. After all, the Iranians have a part to play, but they are far from stupid.

[roamer65]

83. People aren't buying it. No one I know is getting hyped for war with Iran.

They know it will be another disaster piled on top of two others, Vietraq and Afghanistan.

[MidwestTransplant]

15. This should not be a surprise to anybody.

We fund groups blowing up things in their country too.

[lyonn]

16. Sending our troops to the borders of Iraq to keep the

countries that are providing military devices and training from entering the country might be a good idea instead of patroling the streets of the towns and cities??

[justiceischeap]

17. Richard Clarke is on the side of safety and no one else's

I think if Clarke is saying this, then it's credible. All Clarke cares about, if you read his book, is the safety of American's.

[ShortnFiery]

25. Yeah, just like good ole' General Powell would never lie to us.

It's all BULLSHIT! But let's pretend that it's true: Iran is their direct neighbor and share a border with them. This is pure insanity. IEDs come from numerous sources. We FAILED to secure the ammo dumps and I don't see anyone "taking a fall" for killing scores of troops?

This is sick, we must say, "no more propaganda." :(

[justiceischeap]

30. I never thought good ole General Powell wouldn't lie to us

I knew he was full of shit because he was talking as a representative for this administration.

Sorry, I put more weight behind Clarke than I ever would Powell.

[ShortnFiery]

52. Then prepare to be equally disappointed because someone got to him. n/t

[justiceischeap]

58. I don't think this is true but you're entitled to your opinion

I think Clarke has been warning this administration and this country about foreign affairs and people just haven't listened. Case in point, 9/11.

I'm also sure that if I reread his book there would be something already in there about Iran as he wrote pretty extensively about the Middle East. For all we know this quote could be based on evidence from years ago.

[ShortnFiery]

60. I've lived in the Middle East and have friends who are

originally from Jordan. Just because Clarke spoke some truisms and was humble when all the rest were posturing, doesn't mean that he hasn't changed his strips now.

Don't ever believe that any one person is above corruption, because they are not. Further, if you could check out the "wealth management" portfolios of all the people in our government wanting to stay in Iraq and/or attack Iran, I'd bet that they all are heavily invested in corporations that are a part of our USA armaments/war machine.

Everyone has a price OR their family can be threatened. I put nothing below what some in this criminal Executive Branch are capable of doing to keep those bombs and bullets in stock.

Wake up and hear the DRUMS FOR WAR, again. :grr:

[justiceischeap]

64. Oh, I hear the drums of war

I have friends in Iraq right now and I live in Norfolk, VA and a lot of my friends here are in the military—I'm reminded daily about this war first-hand and don't want to see us in Iran anymore than I want to see us in Iraq.

I'm just not inclined to think everyone that says something supporting the devil is in league with the devil. Sometimes the devil is right just like the sun shines on a dogs ass every now and again.

[ShortnFiery]

66. That's precisely where we differ. To me, "the devil" is this occupation ,,,

not an entire nation of peoples, nor the leaders of the said "devil" nation.

If we WAR (bomb Iran), then we are terrorizing the people of Iran ONLY because we hate their leaders. That's IMO bat shit, barking at the moon MAD.

Detente everyone? ;) :hi:

[judaspriestess]

19. thats ok cause we're supposed to give war a chance

member? you member don't you?:sarcasm:

[Ganja Ninja]

20. I don't doubt there is some truth to the claim.

Whether it's the government of Iran or some religious group acting as a proxy. I do doubt that the effort is responsible for the bulk of the violence and that it's directed solely at American forces.
Of course the whole thing could just be some rogue staffer like so many of the GOP's dirty tricks.

[SanCristobal]

26. This probably is true,

but that doesn't mean we should invade Iran or that Clarke endorses doing so.

[ShortnFiery]

32. No, I've been lied to before, I don't believe a word of it. :(

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ShortnFiery]

45. This spittle about "Iran dominating the region" is bunk

Although the Iranians and Iraqis are all Shiites, they have distinctly different customs and cultures. Plus they both are fiercely nationalistic.

Don't fall into that trap. What we are doing is helping the murderous friends of The Bush's, aka, the Saudi Royal Family feel safer.

Comparing the practices of Saudi Arabia and Iran, neither one is worth fighting and dying so there will be enough Sunnis to make the Saudi's feel like there won't be an overthrow of their government. Like that would be totally a bad thing. :shrug:

We need to bring all parties together (Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Jordan, Afghanistan), and at the same time, get our Empire wannabe butts out of the entire Middle East. :nuke:

[davepc]

29. Iran is trying to destabilize Iraq and prevent an American puppet on their borders

Say it ain't so!

How could Clarke make such a claim!

Everybody knows Iran wants the US efforts in Iraq to succeed and would never do anything to undermine them, especially providing arms for people fighting the American occupation!

[ShortnFiery]

48. Why shouldn't both Iraq and Iran want the USA out of the M.E.?

This is a no win situation. We do NOT belong in the M.E.

Bring all parties to the negotiating table. Work diligently on the Israeli-Palestinian crisis, but get our troops out of the entire Middle East. Nothing good can come of this. :(

[Taverner]

31. Iran is involved in funding the insurgency

They have a dog in this race...and don't forget that we enabled this.


By taking out the only man who kept everyone in line, we facilitated this Civil War

Syria and The Saudis are funding the Sunnis
Iran is funding the Shi'ites


We could have prevented all of this by bringing Syria, Iran and S.A. to the negotiating table. Yes, we would have had to make concessions, but that's what getting out with dignity intact is all about.

We've done blunder after blunder in this fucking war...each action exacerbating the next.


Of course, some argue we should now attack Iran - wow that could be the fatal blunder that precipitates a full out middle east war. Woo hoo.

Get out now, just fucking leave. We have no business in Iraq right now.

[ShortnFiery]

35. Why can't we NOW bring Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia to the negotiating table?

I'll tell you why: because it would require that our War Profiteering Corporations share a piece of the Energy and Reconstruction pie with these countries. The forgoing is what it's all about.

The last thing this criminal Executive Branch is willing to do is *share.* :puke:

[Taverner]

38. Yes

And that would be the only thing that could get us out of this mess with any shred of dignity in tact....

[LSK]

41. no, the Shiites are NOT the insurgency, they currently hold the power

[Taverner]

43. In some places yes, in others, no

Depends neighborhood to neighborhood

Besides, there are a number of offshoot factions of disenfranchised Shiites running around too

We've made a mess out of Iraq - so badly that I don't think ANYONE really knows what's going on. That in itself is scary..

Thank you George, you just created another Post-Soviet Afghanistan!

[lyonn]

49. Blunder after blunder, yup, and an attack on Iran could be

the final blunder. A full story on Clarke's statement might be enlightening. Did he have an answer to the Iran problem?

The Dems are all over the place with alternatives to bush's devine plans and they are all dismissed with comments that they are not really plans.

Approving Negroponte and Adm. Fallon with little in the way of hard questions is, again, scary. Course we are not able to watch the hearings, we get the media's version. For instance, why was Fallon given such an important role in the Iraq land war. Why are so many of our ships in the gulf? Is it to bomb Iraq off the map or strike Iran?

[John1956PA]

40. Reagan had the U.S. provide stinger missiles to the Afghan resistance (Bin Laden, et al.)

. . . and, as a result thereof, numerous Soviet soldiers were killed while Reagan slept soundly. My point is that the U.S. has done its share of fueling wars in which it was not directly fighting. Now, when the tables are turned, the White House is starting its drumbeat for war against Iran because it has allegedly provided Iraqi insurgents with IEDs. When is this country going have a president who pursues the path of peace rather than warfare?

[mainer]

51. if we get out of Iraq, they won't be able to kill any more US soldiers

In fact, if we get out of Iraq, there won't be any reason for Iraqi insurgents to tolerate Iranian fighters within their borders. But for now, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."

Shades of the Vietnam war. The Vietnamese and the Chinese are centuries-long enemies. Only when the US attacked did North Vietnam turn to China for help. Once we got out, Vietnam reverted to its distrust of China.

[ShortnFiery]

56. But our Corporate Elite will miss out on making BILLIONS in energy and reconstruction contracts.

Ain't that a shame. :thumbsdown:

[Lex]

55. At this point in time, the WHOLE REGION hates us and wants us out.

Look what we've done: we attacked Iraq and they had nothing to do with 9/11.

What if Canada had been attacked that way--would we try to kill their invaders?

[partylessinOhio]

65. It's too simple isn't it? But most won't see the reality.

[spanone]

74. I suspect the Saudis are too.

[robertpaulsen]

76. Really? All the more reason to GET THE FUCK OUT! NOW!!! n/t

[riderinthestorm]

82. I believe WE are adapting to conditions on the ground

and getting better at ensuring manufactured incidents "look" real. It makes no sense for the Iranians to provoke us - it makes perfect sense that WE would fabricate an incident so it looks Iranian.

Richard Clarke is being duped. He's too long out of the loop imho. He used to be the top anti-terrorism guy but I would suspect he's been outside too long to understand the currents swirling in the present Admin's state of mind.

I just hate to see Clarke used this way but I guess I shouldn't be surprised.