The New York Times reports "U.S. Says Captured Iranians Can Be Linked to Attacks"
Down in paragraphs 16 and 17 SABRINA TAVERNISE finally gets around to explaining where the Iranians were nabbed and what baddy they were conspiring with. Turns out to be the guy Bush just bet all of his chips on.
But the more significant raid occurred before dawn the next morning, when American forces raided a second location, the general said. The military described it as “a site in Baghdad,” but declined to release further details about the location.
Iraqi leaders said last week that the site was the compound of Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, one of Iraq’s most powerful Shiite political leaders, who met with President Bush in Washington three weeks ago.
No surprise that "US" doesn't say that Bush's latest guy in Iraq can be linked with attacks on coalition forces too. Hard to hammer the Iranians too hard for consorting with dangerous Islamoloonies who met with President Bush three weeks ago.
Now arresting Bush for treason for "cleaving to the enemy in time of war" now that would make some sense.
I am upset with TAVERNISE and the Times for allowing the Bush administration to acuse the Iranians for being linked with someone in Iraq without mentioning with whom. I would report "incomplete reports of arrests in Baghdad. Coalition forces refused to explain why they had arrested people. It is speculated that this is because they have obtained proof that an Iraqi organisation whose head met with Bush 3 weeks ago has been killing US soldiers." but then that's why I'm just a blogger.