I got information from an FBI official just back from the Middle East, today. The new Prime Minister of Iran IS the former leader of the hostage-takers. The Administration will sit on that information as long as possible, because publicly admitting it will require that action be taken. Now.
Congressman Billybob
Your source should know that Iran does not have Premier. They have supreme leader and a president
And that guy was not among the hostage takers, State Dept just confirmed
http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-iran03s1.html
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-fg-usiran2jul02,0,4394415.story?coll=la-home-headlines
So...what's wrong with now? Iraq?
There have been conflicting reports. Your source is another straw in the wind, but I'd like to see more evidence.
This story seems to imagine that the news media would work with Bush to beat the drums of war. I can't imagine anything more unlikely. If they are publishing negative stories about the new regime, it's probably because they had developed connections with Rafsanjani and, even as liberals, are upset by the election results. But they'll crawl back into their holes and shut up if Bush shows any signs of doing something.
publicly admitting it? all of us who are plugged into the news already know it. even if you "publicly" admitted it, I doubt the sheeple would even react - there are so many more missing persons for Greta Van Sustern to look for you know.
The Administration will sit on that information as long as possible, because publicly admitting it will require that action be taken.
What action can they take? They can keep him from entering the country, but that's about it.
http://rescueattempt.tripod.com/id28.html
trying to update it, might load slow
"publicly admitting it will require that action be taken. Now."
We have a really big problem that prevents us from taking action against ANYONE. Actually, there are two problems. The first is that our military is so small that we can't handle it. The other problem is that the members of the Bush adminstration,who yank the chains of the military leaders at the Pentagon, have an extremely inflated perception of the capabilities of our military and, as a result, send in too few troops. And those that they do send in are blindfolded, hands-tied-behind-the-back and have their ankles chained to blocks of concrete. So they CAN'T win.
I can't really say if the problem is the result of the administration touting the incredible capabilities of the tiny military that results in the military brass being afraid to admit that we really need more troops to do a job (and a MUCH larger military in general). Or the problem may be that the military is informing the administration of needs but the adminisitration ignors the input. But there is a huge problem with this administration not allowing for decisive victories in either of the two wars recently undertaken.