Contrary to the stated beliefs of many Right-leaning posters I've dealt with, I sincerely want to be able to trust that my government is doing the right thing; they are, after all, going to do something in my name, and it's always best if it is the right thing.

But, geez, I find it almost impossible to believe the Iran connection. There was so much "Yes, we're sure"-ing and "slam dunk"-ing and so on, only to find out that it was, to a large extent, hooey. "We really thought we were right," the Administration says, "and look: the Democrats believed us!" But they seem to think they're right now, too. Let's set aside malicious conspiracy theories for now. Is it just bad intelligence again? Is it going to turn into another "Oopsies!" moment? Will we find ourselves in another, "Well, we've started now, so we can't stop, even if we were wrong" situation?

It seems that the Republicans might have painted the Democrats into a corner on Iran--just not the corner they like. If a Democrat now approves force against Iran and it turns out that this was another mistake--even an honest one--then the Right will once again be on the attack with, "Well, you were for it before you were against it, ya damned flipflopper!" It might be easier for Democrats not to go with evidence, however strong it might seem to be. It seemed strong last time, too.

I find it almost impossible to believe the Iran connection.

Keeping one's head in the sand will do that.

I take your point, Avenger: it's easy not to believe if you choose not to look at the evidence. Why, though, should people take this evidence seriously when last time turned out wrong in major respects?

That's not a rhetorical question. If anyone has some kind of compelling argument why the case against Iran is definitely right, whereas the intelligence on Iraq got so screwed up, I'll listen with my mind as open as I can pry it.

But, geez, I find it almost impossible to believe the Iran connection. There was so much "Yes, we're sure"-ing and "slam dunk"-ing and so on, only to find out that it was, to a large extent, hooey.

Be honest, Doc: did you watch either the PJM video, or click on the link to my previous article on the HS50s?

The Iranian fuses common to 81mm and 60 mm mortars and unibody cast tailboom assembly are unique to Iranian manufacture. The Iranian EFPs, unlike the Iraqi-manufactured EFPs, actually work against modern armor, and have passive infrared triggers manufactured by no one other than Iran.

The HS50s captured were directly tracked from Austria, to Iran to Iraq, with known serial numbers, and in such quantities ( more than 100 of 600 by February) that denying Iranian involvement is nothing less that willful self-deception, or if you prefer it, another form of Trutherism.

"... It might be easier for Democrats not to go with evidence, however strong it might seem to be. ..."

That's been part of the Democratic playbook for quite some time, so you're kinda stating the obvious.

(Yes, it's taken out of context, but it jumped out at me as being too, too true.)

I just want to know: is it really that far-fetched that Saddamn knew we were coming and got rid of the WMDs? I mean what else could he do to spite us? He couldnt fight us militarily. The only thing he could do was make the war seem illigetimate by sending the weapons to Syria. There is evidence thats what happened. I guess that doesnt fit with the KOS talking points though.

when last time turned out wrong in major respects?

Yea, that can happen when a guy has the WHOLE FREAKING WORLD fooled, even his own generals who thought he had the stuff. I don't suppose you've read the section in Dulfer where it stated even Saddam's own generals were convinced they had the stuff.

If they believed, how on earth do you expect outside intel agencies to do any better?

Here today, we're looking at actual weapons, not speculations or extrapolations. Either Iran is or is not the only country to have made single piece cast tailfins for mortar rounds. This is something easily verifiable by any major news agency with the resources to go buy/rent one of every example available.

I say news agency because its obvious you believe the Major to be lying and/or incompetent in his job.

Avenger:

I don't as yet have any opinion on the Major's competence or veracity. Nothing I wrote was intended to cast him in a bad light, and I'm sorry if it was construed that way.

I am not challenging any specific evidence about Iran's possible involvement in attacking U.S. troops. CY is correct: I haven't yet read the evidence, because I keep hoping that someone can assure me, before I start digging in, that this set of facts is more correct than was the last set of facts that got us into Iraq. "Hey, everybody was fooled," doesn't cut it for me. Let's not be fooled this time; let's get it so right that nobody on either side of the aisle can question it.

Why is this stuff more solid than the last stuff was?

Why is this stuff more solid than the last stuff was?

Should we start with solids themselves? Watch the video. Watch past videos presented on major networks and certainly out there in YouTube. REad news accounts.

We physically have Iranian weapons.

This includes scored of RPGs, mortars in various sizes, artillary shells, and of course, EFPS.

We also have more than 100 sniper rifles we know Iran's government bought on the open market from Austria's Steyr that have been recovered in Iraq of 600 they purchased.

If the physical recovery of weapons that only they make the way they do, and the purchase and later capture of weapons of weapons we know they bought isn't enough phsycial proof (along with the five Quds force operatives we are still holding after capturing them in Iraq) isn't enough, you're simply a truther, Doc.

This is rock-solid.

Again, CY, I'm not at the point where I'm saying that any evidence is weak or strong, wrong or right; I haven't looked at anything yet. I just want to know what I'm getting into.

Actually having weapons would already make the case stronger than the case for WMD in Iraq.

I don't as yet have any opinion on the Major's competence or veracity.

Yet you doubt the credibility of the story for some reason.

Just wariness based on the past confusions surrounding the Iraq invasion, Avenger.