http://beta.redlasso.com/Community/ClipPlayer.aspx?i=0de16a2a-58f7-464b-9377-a22c6158fcab

Would you feel better about the source if it had a named called Curveball and was friends with a convicted embezzler named Chalabi?

Because thats the anonymous evidence you were willing to go to war over.

Anyone who thinks whistleblowers don’t have any reason to desire anonyminity should talk to Valerie Plame..

Damn conservatives are f’ing stupid!

Comment by TripMaster Monkey — October 8, 2007 @ 12:49 pm

I’ve been reading TP headlines too long and its rubbing off.

If only the TP toadies were as critical of TP.

Comment by Vendetta — October 8, 2007 @ 12:55 pm

Amazing how these Chimpy leg humping morons try to constantly denigrate others for their supposed lack of criticism against specific groups/publications/sites ; as if you 25%’ers have always been on such an “even keel” when it comes to the actions of the worst president and administration in US history in Chimpy and Co , and your comments about them ?

Comment by TripMaster Monkey — October 8, 2007 @ 1:05 pm

Oh right, when the Brits learned that the facts were being fixed around the agenda in Iraq they immediately informed the world and took a firm stand against any such invasion. So we surely can trust them to let us know if the facts the WH may present to make a case against Iran are substantiated or not. Call me crazy but I’m not reassured by their “sensible conditions”. Maybe I’m wrong.

Comment by DigDug — October 8, 2007 @ 12:10 pm

Fish and chips will hereafter be known as Freedom Fish.

Agreed.

That’s the thanks you get for helping the petulant boy George with the lives of your soldiers.

- Tom

While your journalism is most persuasive, you cannot deny that Britain would support an attack against Iran; be it publicly or not.

Not denying it…merely pointing out that Britain’s definition of “strike”, as taken from the article is quite restricted…and also pointing out that Britain is placing sensible conditions on their involvement.

At least they have the presence of mind and sanity to get out – something I can’t say about our country – sadly.

Comment by OMEGA_3 — October 8, 2007 @ 12:56 pm

Haha, and now they are meddling in European politics. I guess in 1492 they just came home.

While your journalism is most persuasive, you cannot deny that Britain would support an attack against Iran; be it publicly or not.

Comment by Vendetta — October 8, 2007 @ 12:40 pm

While misleading, to say the least, it’s no less evident that our dear British friends are just as conservative as our leadership is. Britain should be an island off the coast of newfoundland, not Europe.

Good catches, TMM. As usual, our trolls here like to cherry pcik not only the content, but the source as well. Must be a learned trait of all NeoCons, huh?

From your article:

British Premier Gordon Brown has agreed to support US air strikes against Iran if Iran were to carry out large-scale attacks by militant proxies against British or American forces in Iraq, the Sunday Telegraph reported Sunday afternoon, quoting unnamed senior Pentagon officials.

That’s a pretty big if, Vendetta. Again, from your article (emphasis mine):

After talks with President George W. Bush in July, Brown left US officials with the belief that Britain was “on board” for a military response – but only if Iran was proven to be behind a big militant attack or if an incident similar to the kidnapping in March of British sailors occurred again, the British daily reported.

Sounds rather as if Britain is cautioning the U.S. to have something more substantial than lies and hysteria this time around.

One more time, from the article you cited:

Brown reportedly clarified to Bush that he would not support a campaign to destroy Iran’s nuclear program and bring about regime change in Tehran, but Pentagon officials said he did indicate he would be prepared to back strikes in certain circumstances.

When you blithely said “How about support a strike on Iran”, don’t you think you should have been a bit more specific? Or were you being intentionally misleading?

One final amusing point…all this is coming to us, courtesy of The Jerusalem Post, specifically, the “Iranian Threat” section.

Priceless.