Comments on: More twisted ‘intelligence’ on “Iranian IEDs” in Iraq

By: hewhoasks

hewhoasks — Wed, 14 Feb 2007 03:18:58 +0000

“It’s amazing that Iraq, a country that just a few years ago was on the verge of building nuclear weapons, now is incapable of making these simple, crude bombs.”

Very well said. When I read “precision machining” I thought that might have meant turning on a lathe a metal cone with a sophisticated shape to tolerances of 0.0001 inch. That’s not what the photos seem to show, by a long shot.

Here’s a very interesting military-oriented thread on this same topic.

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=103905

I’ll also mention that you can find quite a bit of useful information (if you want to make such devices) doing a Google or a patent search with the proper terms.

By: Robert Fernando

Robert Fernando — Tue, 13 Feb 2007 23:33:23 +0000

81mm shells on an Iranian Military Website – It would appear that Iran’s Defense industries DO in fact make 81mm shells.

By: DallasNE

DallasNE — Tue, 13 Feb 2007 22:58:51 +0000

Following is the Bush transcript most in question in my comment above. While there are a number of false statements here it is the one at the end where Bush proclaims that he gave Saddam a chance but that Saddam wouldn’t let the inspectors in that has always galled me.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/07/20030714-3.html

By: DallasNE

DallasNE — Tue, 13 Feb 2007 20:28:45 +0000

Eric, on another matter. President Bush has said a number of times that “Saddam wouldn’t let the inspectors in”. I have never heard that statement explained. Since it has a direct bearing on why Bush invaded Iraq it still has relavance today. Since Bush himself kicked the UN inspectors out so he could begin the bombing campaign I would still like to know what Bush meant when he repeatedly stated that “Saddam wouldn’t let the inspectors in”.

The October 2002 Congressional resolution specifically limited US military action to Saddam not complying with UN Resolutions. Bush here seems to be claiming that Saddam was in violation of the UN Resolution on WMD inspections so he had to invade in order to enforce the UN Resolution. Frankly, I don’t think he has a leg to stand on yet he has never been taken to task over this very issue. From where I stand Bush is not in compliance with the October 2002 Congressional resolution limiting military action to UN Resolutions. Bush was, after all, unable to get a second UN Resolution to green light an invasion of Iraq. Using Bush’s own words “whatever you (Congress) voted for” Bush has failed to abide by that resolution limiting war to Saddam not abiding by the terms of the UN Resolution.

By: Joe

Joe — Tue, 13 Feb 2007 03:21:36 +0000

Talking Points Memo similarly notes the problems with the “evidence,” as well as the fact that a reasonable assumption is that something is there, but surely not enough for sane people to make war over it given the balance of risk. Something like my sentiment in ’02-’03.

The deja vu flows into the fact that a NYT reporter is selling unnamed source material in scary terms, acting bitchy when challenged on the point (see, e.g., Glen Greenwald). You know something has run its course when they start repeating plots so blatantly.