(also see this post)

Ever since the months prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, there have been a few reports in the newspapers that the Central Intelligence Agency was casting aspersions on the intelligence the White House was relying on to justify the war. The CIA has never given a position on whether the war is needed or justified or said that Bush is wrong to go to war. But doesn't it seem much more likely that the CIA is an extremely right wing organization than a left wing one? After all, even if the people working for them and at least a lot of the leadership really wanted a war for their own reasons, there are a lot of reasons for them to not want to tie their credibility to what they know is faulty information. They and their personnel, present and former, could use other means of promoting the Iraq war, and still be motivated to make the statements in the media. If the CIA got behind faulty information, they would have to make a choice between whether they would be involved in scamming the American people and the world once the military had invaded Iraq and no weapons were found- so: 1) Imagine the incredible difficulties involved in pulling off a hoax that weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq. Imagine all the people you would have to be able to show the weapons to- the inspectors from the UN / the international community, the American press, statesmen, etc. Then imagine the difficulties of substantiating that story to people who would examine it- the lack of witnesses to a production plant that made the weapons or to transportation operations or storage of the weapons during Hussein's regime of them. 2) If the story fell apart upon inspection or the CIA tried not to hoax it at all, imagine the loss of credibility they would suffer. The CIA, it is safe to bet, does not want to be known to the American people as a group that lies to them to send them to war. Even within the CIA there could be disagreement among people about how involved they should be in promoting the war or the neo-con agenda more broadly, so the CIA would have to worry about lying to and managing its own people after trying so hard to get them to trust their superiors in the agency, and perhaps there simply might be too many people in the agency who knew enough about what was going on in Iraq to know if someone was deceiving people to promote this war.

So there is a lot of reason to be cautious against being seen as endorsing what they knew was false intelligence even if they were very strong supporters of going to war.

This is indeed compleltly missing in the coverage. Even my beloved CBC radio news did not put this in context.

I find it very ironic that the Brits and US are worried how the Iranian 'prisoners' will be treated. I wonder if they are afraid of how they will be interrogated, of course they should of thought of that before they threw away the Geneva Convention. Surely what is okay for the coalition is ok for the Iranians.

logic. It sounds like you are advocating for two wrongs making a right. Whatever reason the US seized the Iranians in Yrbil, if we are to to agree with your assumption that it was wrong, then how would this validate the equally wrong (if that's the case) seizure of the Brits? It really is possible to be outraged, to use your term, by both actions. The idea that they might cancel each other out doesn't compute in my brain.

When you hit someone, it may be true that them hitting you back is "wrong", but don't come whining to me for any sympathy. The coalition picked this fight, dared Iran to do anything, and now that the Iranians did something are acting like they are innocent victims.

How exactly did the coalition "start" this ? The inspection of incoming shipping is a routine occurrance in Iraqi waters. Iran "started" it by kidnapping British sailors (twice, if you count 2004 - which should tell you it has nothing to do with the US detainment of the iranians).

And while your mom may have told you that "who started it" doesn't matter and that "two wrongs don't make a right", in the real world, if someone punches me in the face, I generally make sure he learns, one way or the other, that he made a mistake. Because if you let someone push you around all the time without teaching him a lesson, he keeps doing it.

Except this doesnt "learn" anyone anything. This whole affair is making Iran look grossly ham handed in its approach. The whole propoganda effort by Iran is almost comically Soviet-esque in its crudeness.

Kidnapping British sailors isnt goint to:

Stop the UK from patrolling the waters
Stop the UK from voting for sanctions against Iran
Win any political capitcal with the EU

In the end, the whole thing will probably blow over. The sailors will (more than likely IMHO) be returned unharmed, the iranian hard-liners will prance about feeling good, and most of the rest of the world (including a lot of people in Iran I bet) will roll thier eyes and wonder what the point of the whole charade was.

And, btw, Iran's doing very well financially out of this - $5/barrel on oil is a lot of money for them.

Here you have, what I think is the most likely motivation for the whole circus - if there was a logical motivation.

Mad Dog