Feb 14 2007

Bush Confirms Iran Is Killing Our People

Published by at 1:35 pm under All General Discussions,Iran,Iraq

No one, I repeat – no one, is forcing Iran to get involved in Iraq to the point they are assisting in the killing of our people. That is an act of war where ever it occurs. The weapons, planning, training and assistance Iran is providing to Islamo Fascists in Iraq to Americans is an act of war. And now Bush is being crystal clear that HE sides with the men and women on the front line:

President Bush said Wednesday he’s convinced that the Iranian government is supplying deadly weapons to fighters in Iraq, even if he can’t prove the orders came from the highest levels in Tehran.

More important, Bush said in his first news conference of the year, is protecting U.S. troops against the lethal new threat. “I’m going to do something about it,” Bush said.

U.S. officials have said that Iran helped on attacks on troops in Iraq, an assertion denied by Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

While the Liberals are making up lame and irrelevant excuses to allow the continuation of attacks on our people.

Democratic Senator Chris Dodd said the Bush administration had tried to falsify evidence before.

“I’m looking at this report with a degree of scepticism,” he said.

“I don’t doubt that Iran has been involved to some degree and clearly that’s a problem that needs to be addressed, but I’m getting uneasy that they’re trying to create a premise, set a premise, for some future, broader military action in Iran.

Dodd and others are basically saying more of our troops need to die before they will act to protect them. They want courtroom-solid evidence before they will risk their political behinds to stand by our people on the front lines. The left are such cowards it is just about criminal. What Dodd and others should be asked is what they require to finally stand by our troops instead of Tehran.

16 responses so far

16 Responses to “Bush Confirms Iran Is Killing Our People”

  1. lassoingtruth says:

    What a joke. Too late AJ. ..Bush was also “convinced” Saddam
    had WMDs. (Or was he?-most believe he cherrypicked the intelligenceto suit an already decided quick “mission accomplished” after which few would care if any WMDS were found.)

    But let us say he “convinced himself” then and now, with the
    help of course of suspiciously motivated consultants. He was
    wrong then and if he attacks Iran thousands of US servicemen
    will be punished by Iranian-oriented Iraqi Shias.

    You, Strata are “basically saying” that US servicemen need to
    die in an unwinnable war agaisnt Iran and that US citizens should trust
    an insolent loser, if not liar to guide them into another debacle.
    I say “insolent” advisedly. Remember, Strata, your leader’s dancing around the stage searching for unfound WMDs in that horrible skit a few years ago,oblivious to and unconcerned with the US and Iraqi
    blood he had shed based on the WMD …”mistake?” He treated
    it as a joke when, if he was only a joke in a fiction it would be
    worth a chuckle.

  2. Terrye says:


    Well as a matter of act lassoing Dodd was convinced Saddam had wmd as well.

    I am curious about something, why is it the left never has to be responsible for anything it does or says or believes? I heard Gore and Clinton and Zinni and Levin all of them opine about Saddam and his weapons before Bush left Texas. So everytime I read something like you wrote I ask myself, are these people stupid uninformed, or just plain dishonest?

    In truth the Clinton administration packed the CIA with people who got the jobs because of politics rather than qualifications. Because of that they did not see the Pakistani bomb coming, they were oblivious to Kaddafi’s nuke program, they did not know anything about Kahn and his nuclear network and they completely overlooked the terrorists here in America who carried out the 9/11 attacks. And now these same people are still yammering about Bush and the weapons. I guess when he took office he should have just discounted all that intel and said that since Clinton spent most of his second term in the Oval Office with Monica it was highly unlikely he knew what he was talking about in regards to Saddam. But Bush did not, instead he set about trying to improve the intel while your side just revised history and covered your incompetent asses.

    BTW, lassoing where are the weapons? Does anyone know? Do you?

    I realize thatyou think we shoujld have let Saddam get away with the oil for food scam, as well as firing on our planes, defying the UN and killing hundreds of thousands of his own people. You have made it chrystal clear that while our troops are in a war you are rooting for the enemy…but how about telling us what you think of the likes of Dodd speaking out of both sides of his mouth?

    My guess is you will say he is a Democrat and it is ok for Democrats to lie.

    Right now the Iranians are trying to play both ends against the middle in Iraq and this is costing not only our troops their lives but innocent Iraqis as well. It would be nice is self righteous preachy liberals would lay off the preening and posturing long enough to give a damn about those people.

    But you won’t..you will just go on lying and dissembling and revising history.

  3. dgf says:

    SS Strata —

    You posted on this topic just the other day as well, and called for all Democrats to “stand firm” on this issue. Yet despite repeated inquiries to you in that thread, you declined to explain what you meant by “standing firm” against such alleged acts by Iran.

    Again, AJ. Again you have the opportunity to say what you mean by “stand firm”. That is (to be precise), assuming that the reports of Iranian gov’t involvement (of some sort) are accurate, what is “standing firm”? What should the US do ? What should the US not do ? What is *not* “standing firm? Is whatever GWB does (or does not do) “standing firm”? Is everything else *not* “standing firm”? Are you your own man? Or somebody else’s? Or something else, again?

  4. Terrye says:

    Standing firm might mean showing the same willingness to stand up to the people killing our troops as they do to calling Bush a liar. That would be a good place to start. One thing is for sure, the military has come up with evidence and they know these rifles and bombs are showing up in Iraq and are being used to kill people, Iraqis and Americans and British. That is not a subject for debate. People can debate how high up in the Iranian government the orders went, but they can not debate whether or not these weapons and people have been found in Iraq. Unless of course you are a paranoid loon obsessed with attacking Bush above all else.

    BTW, here are a few quotes, just to show that not only liberals can cherry pick quotes:

    October 9th, 1999 Letter to President Clinton Signed by Senators Levin, Lieberman, Lautenberg, Dodd, Kerrey, Feinstein, Mikulski, Daschle, Breaux, Johnson, Inouye, Landrieu, Ford and Kerry — all Democrats

    “We urge you, after consulting with Congress and consistent with the US Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions, including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”

    Joe Biden > August 4, 2002
    “This is a guy who is an extreme danger to the world, and this is a guy who is in every way possible seeking weapons of mass destruction.”

    Chuck Schumer > October 10, 2002
    “It is Hussein’s vigorous pursuit of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons, and his present and future potential support for terrorist acts and organizations that make him a danger to the people of the united states.”

    John Kerry > January 23, 2003
    “Without question we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator leading an impressive regime. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he’s miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. His consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction.”

    Sandy Berger > February 18, 1998
    “He’ll use those weapons of mass destruction again as he has 10 times since 1983.”

    Senator Carl Levin > September 19, 2002
    “We begin with a common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations, is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.”

  5. Iran in Iraq – Bush – “I’m going to do something about it”…

    President Bush is a leader, unlike the lightweight poll watchers who fill our house and senate, and upon seeing the clear evidence of Iranian involvement in Iraq, he’s not taking it lying down:
    “President Bush said Wednesday he’s convince…

  6. dennisa says:

    “Democratic Senator Chris Dodd said the Bush administration had tried to falsify evidence before.”

    He has that on Joe Wilson’s authority.

  7. lassoingtruth says:


    My “side” is neither Democrat nor Republican; eg, I would vote for Kucinich but never Hillary, nor did I vote for Bill -or-his GOP
    opponents. So all your attempted (it’s ineffectual in political terms today) self-exculpation of Bush’s lies based on Clintonian
    politics rolls off me like water off a duck. But you are inaccurate
    on the details. You will find Zinni eg, is a self-identified conservative Republican,and he made his objections known before the war
    was launched. It is also a canard that the Democratic party
    had the same broad intelligence which Bush did at the time.
    Read Senator Dan Graham on that.
    The weapons, as Scott Ritter outlined, along with Ray McGovern,
    were non-existent and/or degraded years before the inspections,
    as Saddam’s key military had told our intelligence.
    And no I didn’t want Saddam to continue with the scandal or shooting
    at the planes (which he had rights to do under int’l law); I was
    opposed to the entire barbaric embargo wherein Albright
    admitted and expressed no concern about hundreds of thousands
    of Iraqi children killed as a result.
    You are a lying deluded Israel-firster who has no real concerns about the Iraqi people, which polls since 2004 reveal have wanted all
    US troops OUT of Iraq immediately but which you wish to stay and lord it over these people until they bow to a US installed
    Israeli/American puppet.

  8. garrettc says:

    Considering the rogue elements in our own CIA and State Department that routinely act against the policies of the administration, it would not be suprising if there are rogue elements in the Iranian government. Doesn’t matter, they are acting for the Irnaian government, by definition. If Iran is to consider itself a modern, soverign state, rather than a collection of power centers, it must take responsibility for the actions of individuals in its duly constituted departments. Or hunt them down and openly punish them, as we do.

  9. The Macker says:

    Good research!

    Has anyone noticed that Lasso uses the same “athorities” that Ken did? And, his mind works the same way.

  10. The Macker says:

    ie:Zinni, Buchanan, Scott Ritter.

  11. lassoingtruth says:


    Gareth Porter purveys facts that will also “haunt” warmongering
    Iranophobes like AJ Strata: Iran’s government unlikely to be involved in killing US troops.

  12. herzhonour says:

    It’s all the Jews fault.
    If they would just go throw themselves
    into the sea, peace would reign over the
    world just like it did pre-WWII.
    That’s when Israel did not exist.
    And of course we should have NEVER
    embargoed Saddam, we should have allowed
    him to continue his mass murdering until
    all of the Kurds and Marsh Arabs were
    wiped out of existence. Then all that money
    used for the no fly zone could have been
    used to promote more aggressive socialism
    in America.
    By now along with Pakistan, Iran, and Libya
    Saddam would have had nuclear weapons too.
    All that oil in the Middle East then could have
    been effectively used to blackmail the rest of the
    oil using world to do their bidding.
    But they are all so peaceful, tolerant, honour
    bound, and compassionate they would have
    never demand the rest of the world submit
    to whatever demands they made.
    Why don’t you start making a queue advising
    the rest to follow long in submitting pre-emptively
    to the terrorizing islamofacists.
    We should naturally return to pre-9.11, pretend
    once again there is nothing to worry about.
    And we certainly should have NEVER re-acted
    to the attack of 9.11, instead we should have
    apologized to the people we forced into killing
    all those oxygen wasting fools that died that day.
    Including all those pregnant women, children and
    You don’t and never will have anyone’s back.
    Most likely because you don’t believe in anything,
    meaning there’s nothing worth fighting for, including
    You sleep well through the night because of the
    rough men you deny.

  13. ivehadit says:

    No sense conversing with the Kucinich lovers. None whatsoever.
    Misery loves miserbale company and no amount of discourse will change that…only therapy.

    “Covert hostiles” is what they are.

  14. Soothsayer says:

    Anyone find it strange that our top gneerals refuse to confirm that the government of Iran has anything to do with IED’s in Iraq? Meanwhile – we’re supposed to take the word of WMD-spoutin’-Nigerian-yellow-cake-lying-bogus-al-Qaeda-linkin’ George W. Bush – who wouldn’t know what an IED was if it bit him in the behind?

    As if.

  15. lassoingtruth says:

    Herzhonour (Carol_H?)

    No matter. You say “By now along with Pakistan, Iran, and Libya
    Saddam would have had nuclear weapons too. All that oil in the Middle East then could have been effectively used to blackmail the rest of the oil using world to do their bidding.”

    As Vladimir Putin says, recent US policy has created an alarming
    urge to acquire nukes.
    I didn’t read you advocate taking inventory of Israel’s nukes,
    nor of considering Assad’s plan of disarming it and having a
    nuke -free Mideast?!

  16. lassoingtruth says:


    more on Bush’s blundering booberie above…and AJ

    “Dodd and others are basically saying more of our troops need to die before they will act to protect them. They want courtroom-solid evidence before they will risk their political behinds to stand by our people on the front lines. ”

    They want courtroom-solid proof whereas you’ll be satisfied
    with more of the Douglas Feith-provided “Lie Factory” kind.