The Workday Liberal

In yesterdays press conference with President Bush, he expressed the opinion that whether or not the top levels of the Iranian government were aware of the flow of weapons to Iraq was not pertinent:

THE PRESIDENT: What we do know is that the Quds force was instrumental in providing these deadly IEDs to networks inside of Iraq. We know that. And we also know that the Quds force is a part of the Iranian government. That's a known. What we don't know is whether or not the head leaders of Iran ordered the Quds force to do what they did.

But here's my point: Either they knew or didn't know, and what matters is, is that they're there. What's worse, that the government knew or that the government didn't know?

--snip--

Can I -- let me -- I can't say it more plainly: there are weapons in Iraq that are harming U.S. troops because of the Quds force. And as you know, I hope, that the Quds force is a part of the Iranian government. Whether Ahmadinejad ordered the Quds force to do this, I don't think we know. But we do know that they're there, and I intend to do something about it.

Bush intends to "do something about" Iranian weapons ending up in the hands of insurgents, regardless of the fact that Iranian leadership may not be responsible. Using the logic relied upon by the President then, I believe his removal from office is warranted due to the Presidents pursuit of policies that resulted in tons of weaponry under coalition control falling into the hands of the insurgency. I will remind the reader that multi tons of weapons which devolved to coalition control after the invasion of Iraq were left unguarded, and looted by the same people who are now fighting us. The fact is that the weapons looted after the invasion due to the negligence of the administration in protecting these ammo dumps are, beyond a shadow of doubt, currently being used by the insurgency, whereas the evidence pointing to Iranian complicity is tenuous at best. In other words, the case is stronger by far for Bush's complicity in accidentally arming the insurgency than Iranian involvement.

The validity of Iranian weaponry in Iraq is at best a cloudy issue. Iran does have a security arrangement with Iraq. The Iraqi government has protested the detention of Iranians by American forces for supposedly arming insurgents, saying the Iranians were invited by Iraq and ought to be protected with diplomatic immunity. It is highly probable that the Iraqi government, supposedly sovereign and able to pursue an agenda of it's own choosing, is taking weaponry from Iran, and disbursing those weapons to it's allies in the civil war.

Just a few days ago American forces arrested the number three person in control of the Iraqi health ministry for ties to the Shia militias. He is charged with funneling money to Al Sadr's militia. One must wonder if any of this money was taken from the 363 tons of cash loaded on pallets from the N.Y. Fed and airlifted to Baghdad with next to no accounting for the distribution of those funds. Funds which were urgently requested in order to fund Iraqi government ministries, which one must presume included the health ministry. If any of this money can be traced to that source, it would seem to me another example of the President unknowingly supplying the insurgency because of mistaken policy.

In fact the Maliki government has previously complained about a lack of equipment and training from the coalition to Iraqi army and police units. I have argued for quite some time that we never will see those units fully armed or trained by Americans because to do so is to arm and train the Baghdad wing of the Iranian revolutionary guard. If Iranian weaponry and influence is to be embargoed at the border, it would behoove this administration to touch base with our supposed allies, the sovereign government of Iraq on the issue. If our allies are allied with Shiite militias, and turn to Iran for arms, is the leadership of Iran complicit in arming the insurgency? That is a dubious proposition at best.

What is not a dubious proposition is that the vast majority of casualties suffered by coalition forces may be directly tied to the Sunni insurgency. Those insurgents took advantage of the chaos immediately following the invasion to empty vast stores of munitions and we see the deadly results of that lack of security on a daily basis. There is no question that the Bush administrations lack of planning resulted in a huge windfall of weaponry to the insurgency.

If the President can say that action against Iran is warranted by the possibility of Iranian weapons unwittingly going to the Shia militia's, that logic leads us to question what may be done to those responsible for unwittingly arming, and funding of the insurgency immediately after the invasion? The only remedy provided by the constitution for the people of the United States to "do something about" the President is impeachment.

Again, this is using the logic posited by the President, which I believe, as usual, is flawed. I do believe knowledge of the transgression is necessary in order to condemn the accused in these matters. This applies equally to the Iranians and to the Bush administration. I also believe the nature of the ignorance regarding the consequences of boneheaded policy by the Bush administration is nearly unbelievable. Who were the geniuses who thought it would be a good idea to leave weapons depot's unguarded? So while I do believe there are a litany of reasons the President ought to be impeached, I do not think his near willful ignorance in these matters is one of those reasons.