A quick thought on "absolutes" when it comes to the alleged plot against the Saudi ambassador...

[Poll_Blind]

This is very quick moving news right now and it's being generated from a lot of different corners and from lots of different perspectives.

One thing to keep in mind, no matter which perspectives you accept or reject is that, unless you believe you are outright being lied to, somebody wired about $100,000 dollars on Manssor Arbabsiar's behalf into a bank account for the person who claimed they could carry out the hit. I believe Andrea Mitchell (wince) said it was in 2 payments of about $49,650 or something like that, made separately.

Does this mean that this is an act of state-sponsored terrorism by Iran? Hardly. Is the flip-side of that belief that the entire thing is fabricated to either launch a US attack on Iran or cover for an Israeli strike? No.

The reality of the situation, IMO, is that there's probably someone in Iran who has a pretty hefty bankroll and who decided to try their hand at US-style "cowboy" diplomacy. Maybe read one too many fawning Bill Casey biographies, I dunno. But if they wired that money into a bank account, it probably came from a big damned bank and that bank account and prior transactions on it are what is causing the US government to point the finger at Iran. That and it's really fucking convenient.

But I've read a just a few posts that made me think a handful of posters possibly believed the entire thing might have been fabricated, and I haven't lost that much faith in the Obama Administration yet. Twist, tort, spindle the facts? Yes. Wholesale fabrication? No.

Now, shitheels like House Rep. Jeff Duncan are already http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.+Res.+429:">introducing legislation to use this alleged plot, and the convenient assumption that it was fully state-sponsored, to widen the grip of the US intelligence apparatus over the Americas. Also, very convenient. And I doubt it will stop there. Not by a long shot.

But as this story unfolds, I think it's worth considering that there is likely some truth to these allegations and that it's not the basic (albeit somewhat mysterious and confusing) "facts" of the matter that might ultimately be in dispute but how narrow a reading they receive what they're leveraged into that's going to be a bigger deal.

PB

[tabatha]

1. It was two payments of $49,960

because wire fees in each case are $40.

Since intelligence has been so much better in recent years - who knows what the Iranians will try so that people who are used to "conventional" methods will not be looking in "unconventional" places.

[Poll_Blind]

3. Thanks, that's almost certainly the number she quoted. I just find it hard to believe that...

...the Iranian Quds is reflected in Arbabsiar's behavior. It's akin to a katsa flying down to Haiti to recruit a band of tonton macoute to sneak in through Miami to assassinate the Syrian ambassador. Especially the hanging out in Port-Au-Prince bars and asking around if "You guys know anyone who can help me carry out a hit?" part.

It's just hard to believe that's how a state would carry out such an action if they chose to.

PB

[Tx4obama]

4. Rachel Maddow talked about the money and the wire fees on her show Tuesday evening. n/t

[msongs]

2. when obama kills his enemies its good, when iran tries it its bad. hmmm nt

[Mimosa]

5. Don't Saudi's kill homosexuals, don't allow women to drive or vote?

Personally I don't care what happens to Saudi ambassadors. Why should I?

[Poll_Blind]

6. The line of reasoning is this: If the allegations are 100% true as claimed, it would be a grave...

...act of war. Period. I could give less of a shit what they do on Saudi soil but allegedly* desiring the death of the Saudi ambassador enough not to care if US citizens or elected representatives who might also be dining were wounded or killed...well, you'd care then.

* But why? It doesn't make any sense. I must've read 20 articles about it today and in all of them the analysis comes to one simple conclusion: It would not benefit the Iranians in any way to do such a thing. I just finished watching this video with an analyst from the Bush administration who witnessed the intel being manipulated firsthand and has some words of caution, plus her experience interviewing Iranian government officials about their national security strategy. Doesn't make any sense to her either.

PB

[Mimosa]

7. Thank you. I'll study. ;)

[provis99]

8. the government are liars until proven otherwise.

It is irresponsible for a citizen to accept what the government says is the truth; you should always assume the government is lying.

[Poll_Blind]

9. How do you propose to determine they're not lying about everything?

See, I'm curious how it's possible to completely disregard what the government claims one the one hand but then prove or disprove it to be true to one's own personal satisfaction, on the other.

Or, since I don't own a bathysphere, don't I have to take somebody's word for it what's at the bottom of the ocean?

PB