Saturday, April 01, 2006
WaPo's Preemptive Anti-Warfare?
Perhaps the Washington Post is engaging in preemptive anti-warfare?
At the very least...they might not have much to apologize for if they keep work like this up.
Though some on the right may categorize this as a scare piece...and point to stories about what would happen in Iraq before which didn't come close to happening...the fact of the matter is that we're still there and will be there for who knows how long...and as hackneyed as this is to say...there just seems to be too many armchair warriors who give little thought to the complications that any war might bring about.
From Pressure On Iran May Spur Attacks by the Pulitzer Prize nominated Dana Priest (that's who I'd vote for) with research (gotta give props to the digger) by Julie Tate:
As tensions increase between the United States and Iran, U.S. intelligence and terrorism experts say they believe Iran would respond to U.S. military strikes on its nuclear sites by deploying its intelligence operatives and Hezbollah teams to carry out terrorist attacks worldwide.
Iran would mount attacks against U.S. targets inside Iraq, where Iranian intelligence agents are already plentiful, predicted these experts. There is also a growing consensus that Iran's agents would target civilians in the United States, Europe and elsewhere, they said.
....Citing prohibitions against discussing classified information, U.S. intelligence officials declined to say whether they have detected preparatory measures, such as increased surveillance, counter-surveillance or message traffic, on the part of Iran's foreign-based intelligence operatives.
But terrorism experts considered Iranian-backed or controlled groups -- namely the country's Ministry of Intelligence and Security operatives, its Revolutionary Guards and the Lebanon-based Hezbollah -- to be better organized, trained and equipped than the al-Qaeda network that carried out the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
Brian Bender at The Boston Globe wrote something similiar to this on February 12 in Iran is prepared to retaliate, experts warn though the experts he cited weren't as impressive.
Plus Dana Priest gives us this little morsel from inside the Bush Administration:
U.S. officials would not discuss what evidence they have indicating Iran would undertake terrorist action, but the matter "is consuming a lot of time" throughout the U.S. intelligence apparatus, one senior official said. "It's a huge issue," another said.
Maybe Fox News can counter this with talk of Operation Iraq-q+n being a cakewalk or not much tougher than a game of Duck Duck Goose.
(Speaking of experts working on Iran...there's a certain ex-CIA agent who might've been able to aid in the intel research if she hadn't been Cheneyed out to dry in order to manipulate the press...check out Larisa Alexandrovna's Outed CIA officer was working on Iran, intelligence sources say if you missed the blockbuster news about Valerie Plame Wilson that came out in February)
Update
Mad As Hell blog on Priest's story:
These assholes in the White House are going to get us killed...
|
