For The Left, Iran Can Do No Wrong

In today's NY Times, Michael Gordon reports that, "Iranian operatives helped plan a January raid in Karbala in which five American soldiers were killed, an American military spokesman in Iraq said today."

If the name Michael Gordon doesn't ring a bell, that must be because you have not been perseverating about the "traitorous" reporting by Gordon and the hated Judith Miller in the run up to the invasion of Iraq. The left side of the blogosphere has declared the pair persona non grata for reporting the widespread belief of the western intelligence services that Hussein possessed WMD.

For that sin, nothing the pair do in their lives will ever again be believed by the "progressives". Anything less than their banishment into careers as Starbuck's baristas will do.

So today, in reaction to the Gordon piece we see the spectacle of an all out assault on Gordon and an absolute denial, purely on an ad hominem basis, of the possibility that Iran has done anything against the interests of the United States in Iraq or anywhere else. Iran is just peachy keen according to their lights.

Here is Bernhard of Moon of Alabama:

You can bet with a very good chance that his statement, which Michael Gordon dutiful stenographs, has its origins in the White House. This bomb-Iran propaganda, the accusation of direct, official Iranian military intervention in Iraq, is originating from within the center of the Bush administration. It is fed through a "military spokesman" who just left the White House to Michael Gorden who's editors dependably publish it unfiltered in the New York Times.

Here is the bravely anonymous "Mcjoan" of Daily Kos:

Of course the objective of the U.S. military has been to pin the blame on the Iranian government. Not only does it further their case for war against Iran but it provides a momentary distraction from just how catastrophic this whole venture has been. And, yet again, Michael Gordon is the willing media stooge for their efforts. The NYT really should do something about him.

And we have the leader of the pack, Glenn Greenwald, quoted by all the others, saying:

Every paragraph in this article -- literally -- does one of two things: (1) uncritically recites the U.S. military's accusations against the Iranian government, and/or (2) offers assertions from Gordon himself designed to bolster those accusations (e.g., "There is also extensive intelligence that Iran has supplied Shiite militants with the most lethal type of roadside bomb in Iraq" and "In Washington, Bush Administration officials have generally held open the possibility that the Quds Force activities might have been carried out without the knowledge of Iran's senior leaders").

None of these people have or present one shred of evidence that the sainted Iranian government and its Quds troops are as pure as the driven snow. They don't need to to satisfy themselves and their sycophants. They operate solely on the basis that, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." Anything, anything at all, said by anyone they can tie to the Bush Administration in any way is de facto wrong. No ifs, ands or buts.

If you don't believe me, wait until a Democratic President in the next Administration, as is the current most likely scenario, charges the Iranians with similar or new acts of belligerence. The folks cited above will then promptly acknowledge the likelihood of truth in those accusations. They will have not one shred of independent evidence of the facts, as they do not now. They will simply believe the messenger. Nor will they, I predict, even note the sudden change in their perspective. Hell, by then some of them will have received their hoped for appointment in the new White House.

For my part, I too have no independent evidence about the involvement of Iran, but I am willing to accept a wide array of evidence from all sources before I discount any for cause. I also have no sense of an orchestrated drum beat against Iraq as all of our friends on the left do. It makes a wonderful issue for them. They can scream ad infinitum about it without having to prove anything and then when Bush leaves office without attacking Iraq, they can claim it was their vigilance at the barricades that dissuaded him from acting. It's a win/win.