uggabugga





Manufactured evidence?



In the immediate aftermath of the From TPM Remind me again why we shouldn't expect Persian script? OK, and we're looking at stuff from 2004?



And that 5-31-06 (American MM-DD-YY) date format on the RPG round is , as the anonymous commenter on the earlier post said, a bit suspicious .



Posted by: Jim M

Date: February 12, 2007 11:33 AM (Also, a somewhat similar but confused



And you think to yourself, "Well, maybe, but those are just a comments in a blog. What do they know?"



But guess what? In an interview on the The evidence that has been produced, in fact fabricated, is preposterous. The dates. If you look at the evidence, the dates that are used in this mortars are written in American date format, putting month first and date second. Whereas nowhere in the world people use month first and date second. Everywhere in the world except for the U.S. And those who fabricated this evidence should listen and learn. Everybody else in the world uses date, month, year. That is the order.



CHARLIE ROSE: That says what to you?



That this evidence is fabricated , as was the evidence that was fabricated before the Iraq war in order to launch an aggression. This evidence is fabricated and it points to a very dangerous policy that is being pursued by this administration.



CHARLIE ROSE: What is that dangerous policy pursued by this administration?



That dangerous policy is to create a crisis, to escape forward. That is, to blame somebody else for the results of their adventurism, which everybody knew would lead to this disaster. And then there was the following exchange in Bush's Q: What assurances can you give the American people that the intelligence this time will be accurate?



BUSH: Ed, we know they're there, we know they're provided by the Quds force. We know the Quds force is a part of the Iranian government. I don't think we know who picked up the phone and said to the Quds force, go do this, but we know it's a vital part of the Iranian government. What matters is, is that we're responding. The idea that somehow we're manufacturing the idea that Iranians are providing IEDs is preposterous. Interesting. When questioned about the accuracy of the intelligence, Bush did not reply by saying that the collection of evidence was by reliable parties, or that the analysis was thorough. Instead, he spoke about manufacturing evidence , denying that it took place.



Both Iran's Zarif and Bush call the evidence or charges it's been manufactured "preposterous". (Makes you wonder if Bush watched the Charlie Rose interview.) In any event, it was curious to see Bush comment on "manufacturing evidence", since that's not been a talking point. Until now.





In the immediate aftermath of the briefing by anonymous U.S. military on Iranian EFPs, some commentators in blogs noted that the date in one example was in the format used in the United States. Here is slide 15 (from TPM):From TPM comments : (emp add)(Also, a somewhat similar but confused observation over at Balloon Juice)And you think to yourself, "Well, maybe, but those are just a comments in a blog. What do they know?"But guess what? In an interview on the Charlie Rose show on Tuesday, Feb 13 with Javad Zarif, Iran's Ambassador to the United Nation, Zarif said this: [at the 37:50 point if you replay on the website] (emp add)And then there was the following exchange in Bush's press conference this morning: (emp add)Interesting. When questioned about theof the intelligence, Bush did not reply by saying that the collection of evidence was by reliable parties, or that the analysis was thorough. Instead, he spoke about, denying that it took place.Both Iran's Zarif and Bush call the evidence or charges it's been manufactured "preposterous". (Makes you wonder if Bush watched the Charlie Rose interview.) In any event, it was curious to see Bush comment on "manufacturing evidence", since that's not been a talking point. Until now.

15 comments







