Bush approved raids on Iranians in Iraq

Yahoo news ^ | 1/12/2007 | ANNE FLAHERTY

[do the dhue]

WASHINGTON - An order from President Bush authorized a series of U.S. raids against Iranians in Iraq as part of a broad military offensive, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Friday.

Bush issued the order several months ago, Rice told The New York Times as she prepared to visit the Middle East. She said the president acted "after a period of time in which we saw increasing activity" among Iranians in Iraq "and increasing lethality in what they were producing."

Five Iranians were detained by U.S.-led forces this week after a raid on an Iranian government liaison office in northern Iraq, a move that has frayed even further the relations between the two countries. The United States accuses Iran of helping provide roadside bombs that have killed American troops in Iraq, and a bitter standoff already exists over Tehran's nuclear program.

This is an excerpt

[do the dhue]

I like that. I think Bush should keep approving raids all the way to Tehran!!

[Perdogg]

It's about three years late, but welcome to the party pal!!!!

Iran has been at war with the US since 1979, it's about damn time!

[umgud]

The MSM and Pelosi's gang will spin this as an evil act.

[Mike Darancette]

Bad George, no third term for you. :)

[FLOutdoorsman]

Don't you mean since 1953?

Anyway, glad the CiC signed off, however, it seems a slow action to take place. Simply allow the Commanders on the ground to do it, and save time.

[Anti-Bubba182]

Half the crackpots writing about the raid on the liason office
are calling the office a consulate. Any damn thing to make the US look bad.

[do the dhue]

It is a terrorist sponsoring state.

I think it is


Hammer Time!

[takenoprisoner]

Begs the question. Since we have troops in Iraq fighting terrorists, why do troops need Presidential approval before going after suspected terrorists? Because they were Iranian? What other possible terrorists are on the Presidential list that needs approval before going after?

[do the dhue]

The MSM and Pelosi's gang will spin this as an evil act.

They won't spin my mind. I don't listen to any of them and that includes Hollywood and their movies too.

[Earthdweller]

Iran would like nothing better then to screw up progress in Iraq. My guess is it's a top priority.

[do the dhue]

That is a great question.

Afraid of a International incident? Iran isn't or they wouldn't have sent them there. I doubt if it would start a war with Iraq and Iran right now.

We have killed al qa'eda members in Iraq (who are foreign born fighters er runners).

I don't know why?

[VeniVidiVici]

Oh no! Bush approved raids against a government that has promised our death an destruction! How dare he!

[Tut]

I the article it said ...

"The president seems to have placed diplomacy on the back-burner again," Byrd said.

I think the Iranians have been very diplomatic every time they take action to harm our troops. They seemed loud and clear to me. I wonder how that old KKK dude missed that part.

Maybe KKK Byrde have some kind of vested interest in seeing our troops being killed from the actions the Iranians takes.

[do the dhue]

It would seem to me that Byrd would remember the words of one of the great Democrats of all time:



Don't hear that from any of the Commie Demorats today.

[do the dhue]

LOL

[Earthdweller]

"Don't hear that from any of the Commie Demorats today."

Of course not. What would the anti-American base think?

[do the dhue]

Iran and Syria.

We could cut through Syria like butter.

If Patton was around he would start a war with Iran and make it look like the Iranians started it. And he would be in Tehran by Sunday morning.

[do the dhue]

Of course not. What would the anti-American base think? LOL

Commie SOBs

[Earthdweller]

The thing is Iran is supposedly a semi-democracy. In todays environment we can't just attack them without provocation. How would Patton deal with that?(Brainstorming)

[CountryBumpkin]

But for his recent and necessary change in party affiliation, here is one glaring exception:
http://lieberman.senate.gov/newsroom/release.cfm?id=267458