Constant's pations

If it's more than 30 minutes old, it's not news. It's a blog.

Saturday, January 13, 2007

Where's the Real, Non-Fabricated Evidence, Mr. Bush?

Ref The President has been whining about Iran's commercial nuclear program.

No evidence of nuclear weapons, he's claiming he has evidence of something else.

Where is it, and why does the President only focus on the illusory nuclear evidence?

* * *

Problem With Argument

Supposedly this has been going on for some time, but the US government hasn't disclosed any evidence, only focused on the unconvincing nuclear argument. Ref

___ If this evidence were real, why not present this information to the UN Security Council?

Suppose it is true

___ Which specific laws prohibit Iran from doing this?

___ Why is the illegal invasion of Iraq OK, but the lawful support for people opposing that illegal activity not OK?

Notice the similarity with the UK translator in Afghanistan: If this were a bonafide thing Iran was doing, why not present the evidence, wave it before the US screaming, "Iran is not allowed to do what the United States is doing"?

Iran, if it is doing this, may legally provide support to insurgents fighting an illegal occupation in Iraq.

Or does the US want to let the British go after the French for supporting the Colonists during the Revolutionary War? This would mean that the British would have a claim on the Statute of Liberty . . .

* * *

The story doesn't add up. The President's been talking only about nuclear weapons, now he wants us to believe Iran is making IEDs.

___ Where's the evidence?

___ Why should we believe the evidence is real?

___ If the "evidence" is real, why bother talking about the unreal nuclear evidence?

___ How is the evidence supposedly moving from Iran to Baghdad?

___ Why does the "surge" plan focus on moving troops on Bagdad?

___ Which laws of war specifically prohibit the Iranians from supporting insurgents who are fighting an illegal war?

___ Why does the US justify sending arms to the Contras -- in violation of the Boland Amendment -- but other nations are "not allowed" to do support insurgents opposing governments allegedly engaged in war crimes in Iraq?

* * *

If Iran were exporting weapons material to Iran -- which has not been shown -- the President cannot explain why there were no specific troops requests for the roads from Iran to Iraq.

The history of Iranian cross border issues is weak. Supposed ballot-tampering stories were proven fiction.

The President can't whine about phony evidence, and then claim the "real evidence" justifying a raid is there. He can try, but its not convincing.