Cheney just doesn't give up that easily

Does he?

(July 03, 2007) -- As if he hadn’t done enough damage already, helping to promote the American invasion of Iraq with deeply flawed articles in The New York Times, Michael R. Gordon is now writing scare stories that offer ammunition for the growing chorus of neo-cons calling for a U.S. strike against Iran – his most recent effort appearing just this morning.

What’s most lamentable is that editors at The New York Times, who should have learned their lessons four years ago, are once again serving as enablers.

The Times carried Gordon’s latest opus at the top of its front page today. The Washington Post, in contrast, carried the same claims by an American military spokesman, in an article by Joshua Partlow, on page A8. After a brief accounting of the military's assertion, Partlow devotes much of the rest of the story to a general war roundup (including news of civilians south of Baghdad killed by our bombs).
[snip]
The latest official effort to blame-blame Iran so that perhaps we can bomb-bomb Iran revolves around new claims by Brig. Gen. Kevin J. Bergner that the deaths of five American soldiers in Karbala in January were actually plotted by Iranian militants. Gordon’s breathless article first appeared on the Times’ site yesterday with absolutely no caveats – revealing his true motives and standards. "In effect, American officials are charging that Iran has been engaged in a proxy war against American forces for years," Gordon declared.
[snip]
And who is Gen. Bergner? He arrived in Iraq just a few weeks ago from his previous job, as special assistant -- to President Bush in the White House.

At his press conference on Monday, which supplied quotes for Gordon, he admitted he could not explain the motivation for the attack on the five U.S. soldiers; why the Iranians would feel any need to outsource to Hezbollah; or why they would risk this kind of "exposure."

The danger of the Times article -- given the prominence attached to it -- is real. For example, Sen. Joe Lieberman responded to the allegations by asserting that this means Iran "has declared war on us."

Well, hell, it worked so well the first time around....

Update: Some quotes from an article titled: US blame game puts more pressure on Iran By Kaveh L Afrasiabi

"How can Iran take the US seriously when every time Iran takes one or two steps forward, the US reciprocates by ratcheting up the accusations against Iran?" a prominent Iranian political analyst told the author. "It is now clear that the US has a Janus-faced approach toward Iran, taking away with one hand the olive branch it offers with the other."

Indeed, it has not escaped Tehran's attention that US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has not echoed Mottaki's sentiment for a new round of talks, nor has the Farsi-speaking US ambassador to Baghdad, Ryan Crocker, given any positive feedback that would reassure the Iranians. This is despite his positive assessment of the initial talks in Baghdad in March.

Yet the US - in writing - requested the talks in the first place. Now there is a noticeable change of heart. It could be that the Iran debate in Washington is being resolved in favor of the anti-Iran hawks headed by the office of Vice President Dick Cheney.

[snip]

The fact is that Iran, while favoring a timetable for US troop withdrawal from Iraq, does not favor an immediate exit, which might spell doom for the Shi'ite-led regime in Baghdad. It is therefore a serious error of judgment on the US military's part to regard Iran's influence in Iraq as purely negative.

[snip]

In the big picture, whatever their points of tensions, the US and Iran have common friends and common enemies in Iraq, as well as many in between who may have vested interests in derailing the evolution of US-Iran relations.

Unfortunately, the latest news from the US military suggests that the US government is itself riveted by contradictory policy currents over Iran and may be on the verge of a pretextual attack on Iran, to preempt a peaceful resolution of the nuclear row. That, no doubt, spells disaster not only for Iran but also for the entire region and will adversely impact the United States' vital interests in the Middle East.

As I posted on May 24th from this article:

But this is worrisome. The person in the Bush administration who most wants a hot conflict with Iran is Vice President Cheney. The person in Iran who most wants a conflict is Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Iran's Revolutionary Guard Quds Force would be big winners in a conflict as well -- as the political support that both have inside Iran has been flagging.

[snip]

The zinger of this information is the admission by this Cheney aide that Cheney himself is frustrated with President Bush and believes, much like Richard Perle, that Bush is making a disastrous mistake by aligning himself with the policy course that Condoleezza Rice, Bob Gates, Michael Hayden and McConnell have sculpted.

According to this official, Cheney believes that Bush can not be counted on to make the "right decision" when it comes to dealing with Iran and thus Cheney believes that he must tie the President's hands.