ABOUT HARDBLOGGER

Hardblogger delivers opinions and analysis on the latest political news by MSNBC anchors, correspondents, analysts and contributors. Whenever news breaks, Hardblogger will break it down, so check in often.

Hardball with Chris Matthews airs weeknights on MSNBC.



Mr. President, what are you prepared to do?

Posted: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 5:56 PM by Countdown

In his press conference Wednesday, President Bush said he is convinced that the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ Qods Force is providing components to Shia militias for use in roadside bombs.  He also said he is not sure if the supply of the munitions was “ordered from the top echelons of government.”

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs General Peter Pace seemed equally vague, saying, “…I would not say by what I know that the Iranian government clearly knows or is complicit.” 

Having worked the “Iranian problem” for many years while in the intelligence community, the thought that the Qods Force could supply weapons and deploy personnel to Iraq without the knowledge and complicity of the Iranian government is ludicrous.

Iranian-made weapons components are being used in roadside bombs that are killing American troops.  American forces have detained Qods Force personnel in Iraq, recovered documents indicating their involvement in a variety of operations in Iraq, and captured weapons that were manufactured in Iran.  Whether or not the orders came from the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Khamenei, President Ahmadinejad, or the commander of the IRGC, the bottom line is that someone in the Iranian regime authorized these operations. 

The president at one point remarked, “I’m going to do something about it.”

If it was up to me and I believed that the IRGC Qods Force has American blood on its hands (it does), there would be strikes on IRGC facilities in Iran.  How’s that for dialogue with Tehran?

Mr. President, just what are you prepared to do?

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

Believing is seeing they always say! Still there are those that have seen and heard but refuse to believe! What will it take to wake up people in US that keep burying their heads in the sand. Without a doubt Iran is connected in supplying weapons to insurgents in Iraq. Neighboring Countries are next in line for buying weapons from Iran. It may be possible the Supreme Leader of Iran is not aware of this, but I highly doubt that. When you can't trust a Country that lives with lies and are taught to lie it's going to be difficult for the US to prove everything at once. The non believer's in the US will not believe unless a tour of Iran has been taken by them that haven't come up for air.

Mary, Minnesota (Sent Wednesday, February 14, 2007 11:45 PM)

Hear! Hear! The politicians and media tied our hands in Vietnam, Somalia and the 1,000 hours of DESERT STORM. Time to let the military professionals "Just do it!" If not over there, we'll just be called upon to do it here. We remembered the Alamo, the Maine, and Pearl Harbor where the victims were almost entirely military; what's erased 9/11 and over 3,000 civilian deaths from the American public's memory so quickly?

Bob Cope, San Antonio, TX (Sent Wednesday, February 14, 2007 11:47 PM)

The rhetoric leading up to Iraq was much the same as we're hearing now. Bush is setting the table, once again, for war, this time probably by air. Listen to what they were putting out in 2002, it's frighteningly familiar. http://www.peacecandy.com/gwbush/remindus/

Carrie, Burbank, California (Sent Thursday, February 15, 2007 12:26 AM)

Fine. Can we make the same assumptions about U.S. weapons and money being used by Shi'ite militias to kill U.S. soldiers?

Jon Empey (Sent Thursday, February 15, 2007 1:28 AM)

If George Bush has established his Administration's right to preemptive strikes and anti-terrorism retaliation across national boundaries (as I believe he has), then the question should be when and not if. The Middle East has too long been accepting of terrorism and direct violence on an international scale when waged against those whom they dislike. A decisive blow against them would create a deterrent that they have not recognized in recent times. More importantly it would reduce their terrorist capabilities.

Bill Mahan, Los Banos, CA 93635 (Sent Thursday, February 15, 2007 2:23 AM)

Shouldn't we first get the IRGC people working in Iraq out of there, no matter the cost? If we strike IRGC sites in Iran before we get them out of Iraq, aren't we just setting ourselves up for hyperactivity in Iraq by the Qods force?

Soppy Cresap (Sent Thursday, February 15, 2007 7:29 AM)

I think your comments and ideas about this situation are spot on. The time to strike is now, while the iron is hot. These folks are killing our troops.

Dave Bristol, Leesburg, Florida (Sent Thursday, February 15, 2007 8:35 AM)

I'm sure that a strong diplomatic protest with references to military retaliation would really be heeded. Right! Another situation between a rock and a hard place. An aggressive military retaliation by the President would bring a cresendo of howls from national and international political opponents and might well draw military response from Iran. That response might not be aimed solely at the US and its interests. The President must consider the various options available to him. He could form a plan, attempt to draw support from national and international interests, decide on a course of action and proceed. Or, he could act unilaterally against such targets that accurate intelligence would identify, something he might do as a pre-emptive warning that Iran should cease and desist. Or, he could blather a lot as past presidents have and do nothing. Not an unprecedented response. I don't know what President Bush will do but a clear military response is called for.

Jack Riedel, Leesburg, FL (Sent Thursday, February 15, 2007 9:29 AM)

I agree with all you said and think we should go after Iran's military facilities and nuclear sites, but I am afraid Congress we make it impossible to do so. Congress does not lead. They follow opinion polls and therefore will try and probably will be able to stop any military action against Iran. We have already lost the war on terror and politics did it.

Karen Tripp , Buford, GA. (Sent Thursday, February 15, 2007 10:07 AM)

I believe that the purpose of the sabre rattling towards Iran is not to provide a pretext for military action, but rather to hinder or prevent Iranian reconstruction efforts in Iraq. They are afraid that successful reconstruction efforts by Iran would give them too much political influence in Iraq. So what Bush will do is close the border, restrict trade and seize assets in the name of protecting the troops.

Jason Schulz, Fargo, ND (Sent Thursday, February 15, 2007 10:35 AM)

In some respects it is sad, but I don't think that anyone is listening to W. In fact, since his election and the failed attempt to "reform" Social Security, he has not been relevant. The War, then the election have made matters even worse. I watched him yesterday, and I thought - GOOD LORD. While the upcoming vote on the War is not binding, I think it will have a chilling affect on W and his weakened state. Less and less Americans will even care about what he says and does. I am no supporter of W, but it is not good to have a President that has no voice.

Paul Mclaughlin Winston-Salem, NC (Sent Thursday, February 15, 2007 11:41 AM)

I think all the Bush bashing is working. Now the conservatives behind this fiasco are having to expose themselves to defend their beliefes. Now that Bush is broken some positive international diplomatic dialog can begin.

Gerald Von Riesen, Parker CO. (Sent Thursday, February 15, 2007 11:48 AM)

LtC Francona brings up an interesting issue; if it was explicitly known that Iranian weapons were supplied to any Tehranian proxies or Iraqi militants used to kill US forces, it amounts to declared war on the US. However, as it stands this is not necessarily evidence of a smoking gun or quid pro-quo that the US in turn is moving to declare war on Iran, which the press seems to really want to (naively and wrongly) believe. Unlike the assumptions of the wider press, the presumed burden of declaring war isn't on the US; it's on Tehran which is and has been playing these high-stakes games of aggressive interventionism in their neighbor's internal affairs. To me, the Administration is raising awareness that the Al Quds terror group is there. It is also a warning to Tehran that they're on the spotlight and a microscope. The region has never been truly stable politically, tribally, or secularly even before the US entered Bagdad, and Iran like many regimes has its bags of tricks that most of the public and press hasn't seemed to bother checking into. For one, try this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qods_Force It is highly doubtful some rogue elements of Al Quds (Al Qods) exist to just do as they please without the political will, support, and control of their high leaders. Then again, the US response is quite measured and directed given this information. The Tehranian public relations machine will be silent for a while as they estimate out how deeply the spotlight goes on into their Al Qods activities. Then later maybe they'll say something that sounds like a half-admission or half-truth that buys them some time to move their agents around or recall them, which might even get some of them captured.

Arm Chair Warrior, Washington, DC (Sent Thursday, February 15, 2007 12:50 PM)

I think a strike on the IRGC facilities would be a nice touch. Just to let them know that we won't tolerate our men and women being killed by bombs and components made in your country. In Afghanistan when they sent in hunter/killer teams after our Special Forces troops, they were eliminated post haste. In Iraq, if Iranians are caught delivering or planting explosives they should be tried then hung at the border as a warning.

L.Kuran (Sent Thursday, February 15, 2007 1:20 PM)

Do you think the Qods are supplying the arms to the Shiites to use against us, or to use against the Sunnis? I suppose Iran's objective is to help the Shiites take control of "their" part of the country, and to ultimately control that region from Iran. I also take it that some Shiite groups are resisting Iranian influence, and these groups might also be targets of the Iran supplied weapons. What's happening on the Sunni side? I take it the Iranians are not providing arms to the Sunnis, who I hear are responsible for most of the attacks against our forces. Are there any Saudi weapons showing up yet? How about arms from Syria, Qatar, the UAE, Kuwait, Egypt, Jordan, Russia......? I'm all for retaliating against the bad guys, but I sure hope our goal is to avoiding widening the conflict. My biggest fear is the impact that would have on oil supplies from a region that produces almost 1/3 of the world's oil. A major disruption to oil supplies would trigger a global economic collapse. I guess if that happens the whole world would finally be sharing in the cost of this grossly failed experiment in spreading democracy at the point of a gun.

Nick, Houston TX (Sent Thursday, February 15, 2007 1:27 PM)

Is that the same intelligence community that gave the President the phony intell for invading a country with no WMD? Of course, this is different, right?

Byron Kearbey, Dunnellon, FL (Sent Thursday, February 15, 2007 2:53 PM)

If "blood on their hands" is the threshold for action, should we expect the announcement of the extraordinary rendition of wealthy Saudis supplying military funding to the Sunnis who are, after all, responsible for thousands of US deaths as opposed to the 171 that are blamed on Iranian supplied munitions? I am not saying that I don't mourn the senseless loss of those 171 lives but it's a lot more complicated than just acting macho, isn't it? Mr. Francona, what are you prepared to do?

Scott Ferguson, Birmingham, AL (Sent Thursday, February 15, 2007 4:01 PM)

Turn the place into a sheet of glass

scott zimmerman (Sent Thursday, February 15, 2007 4:02 PM)

Stupid article. Let's have a hunch and then blow something up in another country just like our ill-concieved entrance to the Iraq fiasco. It sounds like this author wants to commit the USA to a complete middle east war. Let's open up the draft and kill thousands more soldiers over some hunch about road side bombs in Iraq.

Marty, Mankato, MN (Sent Thursday, February 15, 2007 4:50 PM)

The military is a TOOL of the people. The tool may understandable want to continue this dishonorable war to avenge their dead, but the people don't want that.

Sean, Torrington, CT (Sent Thursday, February 15, 2007 5:03 PM)

Is it possible for the governing body of a country to be ignorant of arms trafficing that violates its own policies? Can you say Iran/Contra. I don't suppose any of those 'International Arms Standard' serial numbered elements are second or third generation copies.

Paul H., Black Diamond, WA (Sent Thursday, February 15, 2007 6:36 PM)

why aren't reporters asking president bush if he plans to go after Saudia Arabia for arming Sunnies who are killing our troops, as vigorously as he is going after Iran for arming shiite muslims doing the same? His case against Iran - and for protecting our soldiers - would be much stronger if it were more even-handed.

steve sunshine, Glendale Ca. (Sent Thursday, February 15, 2007 7:55 PM)

There is proof the weaponry was made in Iran? hmm...interesting....and more BS...how much more killing are Americans going to allow this ragtag government to do in their name? How many more innocent civilians must die to satisfy this lust for oil and blood? When this all does a 180 degree turn, and bites America on the ass again, just like 911, who we gonna invade next? SOMEBODY in government that isn't in bed with big business has got to step up to the plate, put a stop to this insanity, and place every last politician involved into the prisons where they belong.

OsamaBinHiding (Sent Thursday, February 15, 2007 9:21 PM)

it would be great if there was some sort of propaganda war to make the iranians look like oppurtunist trying to subvert the fledgling iraqi government while the country is in the midst of a civil war in order to aleviate some of irans economic troubles somehow. maybe the there is some lingering anamosity between iraqis and iran to make them want to fight again. then maybe the shiites and sunnis would be united by their sense of patriotism. then we could bow out of iraq gracefully. we could send or support from way over on the other side of the ocean. of course we would have to exert less control over the oraqi government and trust them that they will make the right descisions. but we were gonna do that anyway right? but i guess it would be easier to blow up things.

skip denton (Sent Thursday, February 15, 2007 10:18 PM)

I found some Weapons of Mass Destruction! There was some "yellow cake" smelt like banana, some nerve agent in a small container with a P on it, the container next to it contained a suspicious white powder marked with a S. There were also canisters of liquid explosive obviously from Quds as they are the only other people on earth to use the US date system of MM,DD,YY. These canisters must have been funded with drug money as they had COKE written on the sides. I was about to alert Bush until I noticed the fruit cake further along the counter. Man that guys sharp.

Paul Hope-Cross (Sent Thursday, February 15, 2007 11:54 PM)

Dear Col. So will we advertise 2 months ahead of time that we are coming to blow them up. How can we win a war when we tell the enemy months ahead of time what we are planning to do. I have an old world war 2 poster that says "loose lips sinks our ships"...we have informed the enemy in this war of every strategical action we are going to take a least weeks ahead of time, then we dont understand why we can't find and destroy the enemy..look at this latest surge we initiated..we told them weeks in advance here come the troops...what the hell are they teaching you officers at the war college now a days?

Yankee Zeyphr Olympia WA. (Sent Friday, February 16, 2007 1:21 AM)

GEORGE W. BUSH, OUR AMERICAN "DON QUIXOTE" ! Don Quixote tells the story of George W. Alonso Quixano, a minor landowner who has read so many stories of chivalry that he descends into fantasy and becomes convinced he is a knight errant. Together with his companion Sancho Panza (*** cheney), the self-styled Don Quixote de la Mancha sets off to save Dulcinea del Toboso (Condelezza?), an imaginary object of his courtly love crafted from a neighbouring farmgirl by the illusion-struck "knight".

Karl Imhof AA, Geneva, Switzerland (Sent Friday, February 16, 2007 6:50 AM)

If Iranian 'special force troops' are in Iraq, then US/Coalition 'special forces' might also sneak into Iran and get 'closer' to those nuclear sites in Iran that are developing WMDs? Has Iran opened a 'door' for the US to take further action based on Iran's violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferatrions Treaty with the UN and the embargo? We re-invaded Iraq because of WMDs concerns that Saddam did not assuage, and Iran's promise to make WMD even though couched in the usual denials must also be responded to with the 'military option' if need be. Hitler's 'appeasement' and the resulting WWII is a lesson paid for in 'some blood now' or 'more blood later'.

H. Lankutis (Sent Friday, February 16, 2007 7:36 AM)

The assumption once again is that this intelligence is correct. Yet all we have is Bush Administration people saying this and one anonymous expert. The Senate Committee on this area has requested evidence of these accusations yet none has been brought forward to this date. Is it plausible that Iran is doing this? Sure. What is it plausible that Hussein had WMD's? Sure. But it did not and the intelligence was not the problem whatsoever. It was Bush Administration making something out of nothing to fit their agenda. So is it plausible that Bush Administration is doing the same thing here with Iran? Sure. Until real evidence is presented to Congress and "anonymous" experts willing to testify under oath, how can we in good conscience bomb Iranian facilities?

Brian, Mt Baldy, CA (Sent Friday, February 16, 2007 1:08 PM)

How do we know these weapons are not being suppllied by Iraqi refugees in Iran. There are hundreds of thousands of people taking refuge in Iran.

Moya Smith,Buffalo,N.Y. (Sent Friday, February 16, 2007 5:18 PM)

LtC Francona is correct. Our forces need to protect themselves by all means necessary from all of the multiple enemies that we have in this region that we have invaded and occupied 8000 miles from our shores. That protection of force needs to agressively continue until all of our troops have been withdrawn form this massive mistake by an incomptent idiot of a President. In our SUCSESSFUL military efforts of the past we have prevailed because we were right and the American people overwhelmingly supported the mission. Most of the posters on this blog want to legislate that support by making dissent illegal. You want to save freedom by outlawing it. The fact of the matter is that the invasion of Iraq was the wrong next move. We should have stayed and maintained our gains in Afghanistan which, if you haven't noticed, we are losing. Right makes Might...not the other way around.

Gary Schear Bozeman Montana (Sent Friday, February 16, 2007 6:36 PM)

its unbelieveable that we are just now figuring out the source of these devices. Is the military that inept that they can't even find who's attacking them? I too support the guys in the field but think the people in the Pentagon should be drawn and quartered.

john doey (Sent Friday, February 16, 2007 6:44 PM)

When the Soviet Union invaded and occupied Afghanistan in the 80's, the US Government - via the CIA - armed, trained and advised the Mujaheddin (led by Osama Bin Laden). The Soviet Union knew this, as did the rest of the world, and could have assembled a justification to strike the United States and its interests in response. They didn't. Why? Because of American retaliation options. The Soviets were wise not to listen to the Hawks and hardliners who wanted to have at it finally with the United States because of the nature and scope of the consequences, many of which would not have been predicted. Hardliners don't normally think about retaliation options. What could Iran do? Terrorist attacks? Probably. Choke off the Persian Gulf? Probably? Attacks on oil tankers like the one on the USS Cole? Probably. I believe that the price of oil would soar over $200 a barrel and gas would be over $5.00 a gallon. Maybe Iran decides not to sell oil to the West and just sell it to the Chinese and India. Maybe someone cannot attack the US directly, so they go after Israel and England inflaming other regions in the world. Attacking Iran is definitely in someone's interests, as the Iraq War was, but definitely not that of the American people. Some interests are really eager to start a World War in the Middle East - and you can bet that none of them will be in Harm's Way. Who would that be good for?

Rob M., New York (Sent Thursday, February 22, 2007 5:34 PM)

Continuing to do the wrong thing when you know it's wrong is crazy. Bush, Cheney and Rice invaded for control of the oil and I think they thought it would be easy. But we can't continue to shoot the residents who hate us and bomb them with chemical weapons. I'm an Air Force veteran and we cannot transform a country by killing it's residents. The president is prepared to get the new oil law signed giving 70 percent of revenue to western Big Oil companies, the same ones like Halliburton who have been supplying them for decades. Stop killing to control this oil and push in Afghanistan to kill Bin Laden. Start a new Treaty of Paris and stop killing everybody. We don't know the terrorists from a Buick.

Bob, Pensacola (Sent Thursday, February 22, 2007 8:13 PM)

Thank you Rob from New York, I whole heartedly agree with you.. also during Vietnam and Korea were there not Soviet pilots and advisors helping kill Americans.. one has to weigh in the costs of starting another World War, with what goes with the territory of fighting a war.. once guns start going off peace is very hard to come by.. one can even see this being played out in Iraq.. in a consistent low level of violence that will not abate.. you know, if everyone took such a violent opinion, one should ask an Iraqi how he feels about the American soidier who was convicted today of first murdering a young girls family in front of her, then raping and killing her.. can you imagine the situation for that girl in the last few minutes of her life.. swine.

George Pantos, Grosse Pointe Michigan (Sent Friday, February 23, 2007 3:28 AM)

I wonder if the Democrats are ever disturbed by the fact that their rhetoric is a word for word match for that which comes from the terrorist leaders and their mouthpieces. Kind of scary isn't it?

Paul D., Granville, IA (Sent Friday, February 23, 2007 1:39 PM)



SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

Your name, city and state (John Doe, Seattle, Wash.): 

 Your e-mail address (jdoe@msnbc.com):

Your website (it's okay if you don't have one):

Remember me? (We'll keep it private)

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=57074


The Essentials

More Hardblogger

Recent Posts:

Archives:

Authors:

Syndicate This Site

Add Hardblogger to your news reader:
live.com xml
myyahoo msn
bloglines newsgator
google

MSNBC Weblogs