« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Gates: Iran Kinda Maybe Arming Taliban
Well, that didn't take long. Hours after Nick Burns told CNN that the administration has "irrefutable evidence" that Iran is arming the Taliban, Defense Secretary Bob Gates revised his June 4 remarks that the provenance of the Iranian weaponry is unclear. Here's Gates then:
There have been indications over the past few months of weapons coming in from Iran. We do not have any information about whether the government of Iran is supporting this, is behind it, or whether it's smuggling or exactly what's behind this, but there clearly is evidence that some weapons are coming into Afghanistan destined for the Taliban, but perhaps also for criminal elements involved in the drug trafficking coming from Iran.
And here's Gates now:
“It’s pretty clear there is a fairly substantial flow of weapons (into Afghanistan),” he said. “I haven’t seen intelligence specifically to this effect, but I would say given the qualities we’re seeing, it’s difficult to believe it is associated with smuggling or the drug business or that it is taking place without the knowledge of the Iranian government.”
So it's now "difficult to believe" that Tehran might not be involved in the weapons shipments, despite the absence of any particular intelligence on the question. Gates has been the most prominent dissonant voice on Iran -- and the Middle East more broadly -- in the Bush administration, yet here he is, inching closer toward the line that Burns unveiled to CNN. How long before he cites his own "irrefutable evidence?"
Advertisement
Comments (35)
bobh wrote on June 13, 2007 1:45 PM:All I have to say is: wheres the f-ing evidence?
March to war 2.0 all over again.
benjoya wrote on June 13, 2007 2:08 PM:but the brave and pious lieberman also said there was evidence! oh wait, that was a different pile of neocon horseshit. my bad.
benjoya wrote on June 13, 2007 2:10 PM:i guess gates was getting tired of being associated with an imaginary "realist wing" of the administration. mission accomplished, mister secretary!
Anonymous wrote on June 13, 2007 2:15 PM:I have two words for Burns and all those rattling their eternally flaccid sabers at Iran: Fuck you!!
Burns ought to go to Iran and try to stimulate democracy himself as opposed to dumping more oceans of blood and treasure in the ME.
If he could do it, many would revere him.
But alas, he's such a wimp!!
theswan wrote on June 13, 2007 2:27 PM:Is this the push to war? Has the spin machine gone full tilt into selling the next act of their scheme?
jerri wrote on June 13, 2007 2:29 PM:Don't let the Republicans forget that Iran did the same for Ronald Reagan in Central America. And, so what is the difference? Is our own country not the biggest arms supplier (trader) on the planet?
And what is the possibility that China has subcontracted the Iranians to provide them with a supply of arms? The Chinese make military goods for the United States.
This has such an Iran/Contra feel. We are buying weapons from Iran to sell to the right wing insurgents of Afganistan.
Rodent Lamprey, jr. wrote on June 13, 2007 2:31 PM:Assuming that there is any evidence what so ever that weapons may have gone from Iran to Afghanistan, so what? Is the US accusing Iran doing what the US does? Does Gates remember what country that sent Stinger missiles to Afghanistan to people like Osama Bin Laden, or even more recently provided weapons to Afghan warlords that may be working with the Taliban now? Maybe it will turn out just as poorly for Iran as it did for the USA. Is Gates accusing Iran of being as incompetent as his own adminstration?
tjallen wrote on June 13, 2007 2:32 PM:Irrefutable evidence, just like Iraqi WMDs?
Call it a slam dunk, Nicholas? Go ahead, make our day!
I hope everyone realizes that when this administration says "irrefutable evidence" they mean Karl made it up.
Anonymous wrote on June 13, 2007 2:35 PM:Won't be long now. The neo-cons are getting anxious. They know it's now or never.
And they really really want to nuke Iran.
Evidence, schmevidence.
Just because it's utter bullshit that any idiot can see through doesn't mean they're not moving forward every single day with their plan.
KINGFORD wrote on June 13, 2007 2:42 PM:More bull from this administration. Iran is Shia,the Taliban Sunni and the twain shall never, ever meet.
Anonymous wrote on June 13, 2007 2:44 PM:foggy connections at best. but hey, anything to blame iran for things that saudi arabia (sunnis in iraq) and pakistan (taliban in afghanistan) are blatantly guilty of.
Anonymous wrote on June 13, 2007 2:46 PM:DoD officials kinda, maybe complicit with Geneva violations, and refusing to enforce the law.
Where are the JAGs; have they anything to say about their gags; and when will Congress openly discuss the war crimes evidence that the senate Intelligence committee has been gagged from disclosing?
cmac wrote on June 13, 2007 2:59 PM:Hm. I forget how the story goes. Did Peter get eaten by the wolf in the end?
Anonymous wrote on June 13, 2007 3:03 PM:More bull from this administration. Iran is Shia,the Taliban Sunni and the twain shall never, ever meet.
is it more of an insult to one's intelligence to be asked to believe that iran and the taliban are allies or that saddam and osama were allies? tough call.
benjoya wrote on June 13, 2007 3:03 PM:More bull from this administration. Iran is Shia,the Taliban Sunni and the twain shall never, ever meet.
is it more of an insult to one's intelligence to be asked to believe that iran and the taliban are allies or that saddam and osama were allies? tough call.
Jane wrote on June 13, 2007 3:07 PM:SNARK
So. Let's see, the Church of England bombed the Vatican so this shows that the Vatican is supplying arms to the Irish Loyalists. Oh, wait - I'm confused.
Take me to our leader. Is it true that an absence of evidence of gray matter is not evidence of absence of brains?
WMD=Weapons of Mass Deception -- currently found on display in our capital.
Hillary, would you please get a move on with rescinding that authorization?
Before the '06 election I had a bet on that we would be in Iran in 12 months. What are the odds now?
WFB wrote on June 13, 2007 3:22 PM:Even if the reports about the weapons convoys are true, given the fact that (a) the Taliban murdered thousands of Afghan Shiites the last time they were in power (just run a Google search on "Taliban massacre Hazaras" for the gory details), and (b) Iran is a Shiite nation, isn't it at least possible that those weapons were intended for the exact same Afghan Shiite minorities so that they could defend themselves against future attacks by the resurgent Taliban? There is absolutely nothing in any of these reports so far to contradict that. So weapons were being smuggled into Afghanistan - where is the evidence they were intended for the Taliban?
thehim wrote on June 13, 2007 3:34 PM:I just posted about this at HorsesAss. The Taliban is armed by drug smugglers who pay the Taliban for protection. The reason they're getting Iranian arms is because Iranian officials are on the take. This is a common tactic for us to blame governments for high-level corruption that they cannot control.
Hass wrote on June 13, 2007 3:46 PM:Actually, the Taliban also murdered 10 Iranian diplomats in the Iranian consulate in 1998 when they overran the city of Maza-e Sharif. This almost sparked a war between Taliban-dominated Afghanistand and Iran.
Around that time, the US was supporting the Taliban: http://www.amazon.com/Forbidden-Truth-U-S-Taliban-Secret-Diplomacy/dp/1560254149
benjoya wrote on June 13, 2007 3:55 PM:IIRC, only 3 countries ever recognized the taliban as a legit government: pakistan, UAE and (wait for it) Saudi Arabia
tas wrote on June 13, 2007 4:05 PM:Now that Gate is "revising and extending" his remarks, it is pretty clear that there is no such proof. Just more of the same old beating people into spouting the party line.
Move along now, nothing to see here.
johnnydoughey wrote on June 13, 2007 4:27 PM:I realize it is blasphamy, but I believe the real problem with the shipment of weapons (if it is true) from Iran to Iraq or Afghanistan, is that they were not produced and sold by OUR arms manufacturers. If they were, there would be justification for it, rather than damnation...
Julie Keller wrote on June 13, 2007 4:27 PM:Query: Do Nick Burns and Dick Cheney go way back together, the same way Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld were ideological buds before this administration?
Yellow Dog wrote on June 13, 2007 4:42 PM:Kingford: Precisely. We missed a huge chance to destroy the Taliban and gain a valuable ally when we turned down Iran's offer to help us in Afghanistan after 9-11.
Iran was and remains the Taliban's mortal enemy, just as Pakistan was and remains the Taliban's closest ally (closer and much more valuable than bin Laden.)
All of this was known not just in the intelligence community, but in commercial books published in the U.S. BEFORE 9-11.
So, naturally, we pissed on Iran which could have helped us, and poured billions into Pakistan, which has butt-fucked us blind ever since.
It's the Lillian Hellman maladministration: everything everyone says is a lie, including "and" and "the."
jimbo92107 wrote on June 13, 2007 4:47 PM:Why would Iran need to arm the Taliban when Saudi Arabia is providing them all the money they need?
Doesn't make sense for Iranians, who are predominantly Shiia, to lend support to their Sunni mortal enemies in the Taliban.
After so many lies, why should we believe them now?
Delia wrote on June 13, 2007 6:38 PM:So when do we get to hear about the possibility of a mushroom shaped cloud again?
Code word: snake
dircha wrote on June 13, 2007 7:41 PM:Of course we are going to bomb Iran! How do you expect a GOP candidate running on a fear, nationalism, and terror ticket (all of them except Paul) is going to win in 2008 if the American people aren't good and fearful and outraged at muslisms threatening the fatherland?
Stinky wrote on June 13, 2007 8:36 PM:The word for this century is the word (SAID)
Just because someone from Iran - Israel- USA or any other person from any other country SAID !
Doesn't mean squat in this lying manipulative time we live in !!
Stinky wrote on June 13, 2007 8:37 PM:The word for this century is the word (SAID)
Just because someone from Iran - Israel- USA or any other person from any other country SAID !
Doesn't mean squat in this lying manipulative time we live in !!
Stinky wrote on June 13, 2007 8:37 PM:The word for this century is the word (SAID)
Just because someone from Iran - Israel- USA or any other person from any other country SAID !
Doesn't mean squat in this lying manipulative time we live in !!
paul lukasiak wrote on June 15, 2007 8:53 AM:Somebody needs to explain to Gates that "arms shipments to Afghanistan" does not mean "arms shipment to the Taliban. There are numerous Shiite tribal areas of Afghanistan that suffered under the Taliban, and its far from inconceivable that Iran is helping these people to defend themselves, rather than rely on the US lead co-alition that appears to be losing ground there...
Official A wrote on August 6, 2007 2:45 PM:This is a common tactic for us to blame governments for high-level corruption that they cannot control. Posted by: thehim
I can understand the confusion, since most of the high-level corruption ion the US is government (Bushco) generated.
anonymous wrote on August 6, 2007 4:07 PM:I guess "irrefutable" means something different in the Conservative Dictionary of Convenient Misdefinitions.
jeffgee wrote on August 6, 2007 10:22 PM:Iran took a dim view of the Taliban before Bush started his war in Iraq. Iranians mourned with Americans after 9/11. Iranians considered the Taliban to be too fundamentalist, which is saying a lot, considering the strict enforcement of Sharia laws in Iran. Bush has squandered it all. Now if Iran is friendler with the Taliban, it probably has to do with the principle of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend"
Bill in Chicago wrote on September 4, 2007 5:15 PM:Bush handed much of Iraq to Iran on a silver platter when he put Bremer in charge.
Even if the reports about the weapons shipments are true, given the fact that (a) the Taliban murdered thousands of Afghan Shiites the last time they were in power (just run a Google search on "Taliban massacre Hazaras"), and (b) Iran is a Shiite nation, don't you think it is at least possible that those weapons were intended for the exact same Afghan Shiite minorities - so that they could defend themselves against future attacks by the resurgent Taliban? There is absolutely nothing in these reports to contradict that. So weapons were being smuggled into Afghanistan - where is the evidence they were intended for the Taliban?
And as noted above, if you want to know who is really behind the resurgent Taliban, just open your eyes:
www.asecondlookatthesaudis.com