"Al-Qaeda functions on the basis that they think they can break our will. That's their fundamental underlying strategy: that if they can kill enough Americans or cause enough havoc, create enough chaos in Iraq, then we'll quit and go home," Cheney added. "And my statement was that if we adopt the Pelosi policy, that then we will validate the strategy of al-Qaeda. I said it, and I meant it."
Cheney Remark Rankles Pelosi - washingtonpost.com
BAGHDAD, Feb. 25 — A raid on a Shiite weapons cache in the southern city of Hilla one week ago is providing what American officials call the best evidence yet that the deadliest roadside bombs in Iraq are manufactured in Iran, but critics contend that the forensic case remains circumstantial and inferential.
U.S. Says Raid in Iraq Supports Claim on Iran - New York Times
Twenty years ago, we, as normal citizens, would have never had the opportunity to see these two reports side by side. Thanks to the Internet, it does not take very long to begin to research what our Government is REALLY telling us. Who's strategy is Cheney referring to? Al-Queda was formed by Sunni Muslims, lead by Osama Bin Laden, a Saudi Sunni. If the Shiites are killing US troops, why is Cheney blaming al-Queda? If al-Queda is killing US troops, why is Cheney blaming Iran, a Shiite Muslim theocracy? In fact, if Iran is supplying the Shiites in Iraq, they are supplying the Iraqi Government whom our troops are ostensibly supporting!
The eldest son of an influential Shia politician says US troops treated him roughly when they briefly arrested him near the Iran-Iraq border on Friday.Ammar al-Hakim says he was targeted for arrest, rudely bound and blindfolded.The US military says he was arrested because his convoy was suspicious, but was treated with "dignity and respect".In Najaf, thousands have protested at the arrest. Mr Hakim's father is Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq.The US has repeatedly said that Iraq's Shia militias are being armed with weapons smuggled in from Iran.US ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad swiftly apologised for the incident.The BBC's Jane Peel, in Baghdad, says the diplomat was doubtless keen to head off a row with Shia leaders working with the US on the new Iraq security plan.
BBC NEWS | World | Middle East | Hakim complains of rough handling
If Iran is the next target for invasion (see Reuter's Article, having been planned for over a year), why is the US ambassador apologising for troops performing their duties? Or the more pointed question, why are high level Iraqis travelling to and from Iran? In this situation, the US Government has taken both sides of the fence. But the deeper meaning of this is not that policy makers can't make up their minds, on the contrary, they already plan to go into Iran. These contradictory stories serve to muddy the water so that informed debate (to the extent that debate is allowed) focuses on the wrong issues. The issue is not whether Iran is supplying weapons to their brethren in Iraq, and its not whether Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons, especially considering that most of Iran's nuclear programs have been sponsored and overseen by the UN all along. The real debate should be whether the United States has the legal or moral authority to invade sovereign nations to further US interests. According to international law, the answer is no, but by Neo Conservative ideals, the rest of the world doesn't really have a say, and by clouding the question with ambiguous arguments and actions, neither do the American people.
No comments:
Post a Comment