By Ankush
The Times' lead today is Michael Gordon's story on claims being made within the administration about Iran's supply of "explosively formed penetrators" -- "[t]he most lethal weapon directed against American troops in Iraq" -- to Shiite militias. For people concerned about the White House laying the groundwork for military action against Iran, this piece represents yet another troubling development, despite protestations from "officials" claiming that they "were not trying to lay the basis for an American attack on Iran."
I hesitate to be too critical of the piece because, first, I don't follow intelligence reporting extraordinarily closely and, second, as Gordon reports, the administration intends to release more specific information in the days ahead (which, for quite obvious reasons, should be treated with extreme skepticism, particularly because they keep delaying the release of evidence about Iran's alleged meddling in Iraq). But the article does give me an opportunity to gripe about something you see a lot, which comes up here in a very important context and points up what I take to be some potentially serious flaws with Gordon's piece.
