However, the big question is what do we do with this information. Iran, however complicit it is in Iraq, is simply looking after its own national interest, much like the US does by funding the Northern Alliance before the 2001 invasion, by funding pro-democracy (and semi-terrorist) movements in Iran, and by selling weapons to the enemies of our enemies, and sometimes our friends.

We need to find a constructive and diplomatic manner in which to influence Iran to stop exerting their influence through weapons. We as a country cannot afford another invasion, and we need to maintain all of our political capital to pressure Iran on the Iranian issue.

I like the video, but the presence of Iranian-made weaponry does not say anything about how it got into Iraq. It could have been bought on the black market, for instance. (And if it were, that would, conversely, not be evidence that Iran wasn’t involved: countries routinely use the black market to disguise what are essentially arms transfers).

I will be vastly unsurprised if it turns out Iran is arming Shiite groups in Iraq. But proving Iranian involvement is going to be very tough indeed, unless they’re caught in the act of delivering it.

And that doesn’t even address the question of who is arming the Sunni insurgents.

Nor does it get at *how much* of the weaponry is Iranian. As the major noted, Iraq is awash in unfathomably huge amounts of leftover ordnance.

That there is some plausibility in looking at these devices to conclude that Iran is our enemy is a tribute to the effectiveness of the MSM in obliterating all historical context. As Iran flaunts world opinion to accelerate its nuclear program and proclaims “death to the Great Satan America”, we speculate that identifying Iran as the weapons manufacturer is not conclusive proof of Iran’s involvement, because some 3rd party could be the distributor. How far removed from the events of the last 50 years does one have to be in order to make such an objection seem plausible?

The term “political correctness” obscures the true question at issue: more precisely, it’s moral correctness. The Left, the American intellectuals, the church, the Right, and the terrorists all agree that altruism is a proper moral standard – selflessness is the highest virtue. That is why we’re caught in a dead-end effort to defend the US indirectly – to somehow secure the West through the vehicle of charity to the Iraqi people. It is why we have encumbered our troops with Rules of Engagement that put them in harm’s way for the sake of respecting the enemies ideals, and why we cannot name the enemy. The Right’s current attempt at defense within the moral confies set forth by the Left is doomed to fail. If the Right wants to change course and save America and their party, they’ll have to identify morality as the issue at stake. reject altruism as the basis for conducting war, and mount a unilateral defense of Western Civilization.

And as for the person who said we should think for ourselves, that’s just the sort of reporting that allows you too: you disagreed – QED. However I was disappointed that, given it was described as a “shill” piece there was not an explanation as to why it is thus. I would genuinely like to know what’s the counter argument to the one the Major gave.

This interview allows the viewer to draw the conclusions, and deprives the gorgeously-coiffed anchor of his/her God-given right to steer public opinion.

Today’s the 46th anniversary of declaration by the head of the FTC that television programming was a ‘vast wasteland’. By contrast, this item by Pajamas Media illuminates the fact that it still is such a wasteland, and monoculturally slanted to boot – including PBS and NPR, the bastard children of Newton Minow’s celebrated speech.

More Pajamas, and less oh-so-sophisticated anchors.

sheep being led to the slaughter!

There is nothing here that remotely fits the definition of propaganda, which is information present in a particular way to stimulate a particular response. Weber stuck to the facts, presented no opinions outside his competence, and, according to Miniter, was even reluctant to go as far as he did.

If he had said the Iranian government sent these to kill Americans, I would require more information, but expressly declined to make such a statement, or to reach the opposite conclusion.

Someone who calls this propaganda is someone unwilling to deal with facts. And the other facts (not presented here) are, as JaJ noted above, that Austrian-made weapons of the same type sold to the Iranian G o v e r n m e n t (over the protests of our the United States government) have also been found in Iraq. I have not followed the story closely enought to know whether the serial numbers are the same as those sold to Iran, but the evidence against Iran is piling up, and it is not what I would call a trustworthy source of information.