Iran situation becomes more complex by the day

Before America invaded Iraq, Judy Miller, of the NY Times, was repeatedly echoing the Bush administration's claims of Iraqi WMD. Well, over the weekend, the NY Times started echoing the Bush administration once more. The interesting factor in this story is that the source who claims Iran is giving the Shia weapons in Iraq is unnamed. Wouldn't somebody who uncovered such vital important information want the credit for it?

The L.A. Times ran an interesting article about Iran. There are many in Iran who are sick and tired of Ahmadinejad's empty promises. Ahmadinejad was elected on the platform of economic reform; he has not lived up to his promises, and the recent election in Iran was devastating for him as a result. The reformers in Iran are looking for change, and voted for change in the recent election. Is this the time to be making "unnamed" accusations and threatening rhetoric, when Iran is a country looking for reform? Our actions just may unite the Iranians behind their president. Once more, the neo-con influence on American policy is failing.

The reporting of Iran in the NY Times is eerily familiar to the pre-Iraq war leadup. Even more interesting is that we learned the intelligence community held back the administration's power-point presentation on Iran , as reported in the National Journal. Hadley claims the administration was overstating the evidence of Iranian support of Iraqi insurgency. Finally, the"experts" presented this report on Sunday in Iraq, with major revisions, and with conditions of remaining still un-named.

The Guardian reports America is ready to go with an Iranian attack and the neo-cons are egging on the administration.

With all we have learned about Iraqi pre-war intelligence, how legitimate is this report? Why did our own intelligence hold the report back, with major revisions being made? Why did the NY Times once more start echoing the administration? Why is the administration still insisting that there will be no attack on Iran?