[...] What if the Bush Administration obtained pretty good evidence on the origins of some of the weapons; perhaps not only incontrovertible proof that the weapons are Iranian, but also evidence that traces back to a high level Iranian official? Well, if we were dealing with an honest group, they'd just come right out with their evidence, but remember that these guys are just looking for cover and political advantage. So instead they go with the following game plan:
1. Come out with a very weak version of your case, none of it technically untrue, but leaving out many specifics, some for reasons of 'secrecy' that don't seem credible;
2. Your political enemies, remembering the bogus Iraq WMD evidence, will believe that you are lying. Many, not being able to help themselves, will say as much publicly.
3. When you have enough of your enemies suckered out into the open with their doubts on the record, you unveil the real hard evidence, forcing your enemies to admit that they were mistaken--weakening their credibility, while enhancing yours. [...]
Monday, February 12, 2007
It would be nice to just say that this diary considers the possibility that the Government does have a good case against Iran and advises withholding judgment until the evidence is released. It does those things. Somehow, however, it also manages to turn it all into a diabolical plot of the World Arrogance: