Quote:
Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
So me and Club were wrong. The Syrians don't have the WMDs. It's beginning to sound like the Iranians do.
|
No comment here on those wacky traveling WMDs.
But after reading that Chalabi article, I am starting to think that Hello's rhetorical "Chalabi may be a bad guy, but why on earth would the Iranians want us in Iraq" question has some answers. After all, since we invaded they have continued to import parts related to the development of nuclear weapons and have not given the IAEA the access it wants to verify Iran's progress in that direction. On top of that they overtly rigged their most recent "elections" to stamp out what had been a pretty vibrant democratic movement and solidify the power of the hard line clerics. All of this while we are too preoccupied to lift a finger, because we were busy removing the guy next door (who was responsible for the 8 year war against Iran) and spending billions to build another majority Shi'a state. Seems like a good time to be an Iranian hard-liner to me.
Of course, it's an entirely different thing to say that Iran planned it this way the whole time, but I don't think it's so hard to see that they wouldn't necessarily be against the Iraq invasion.
On another tack, I see that Bush asserted in a press conference
this week that he never met with Chalabi, while a few short months ago he was claiming on Meet the Press that Chalabi was the level-headed Shi'a leader who, with Pachachi and al-Hakim, had assured him that Iraq wouldn't become a hard-line religious state. I wonder how long it will be before someone asks about Tenet's famous "slam dunk" comment and Bush replies "Tenet? I may have seen him at a state dinner once or twice, but that's about it..."
