The Iran product pitch continues

The Times' latest WMD stenographer, James Glanz, fails to ask a few follow-up questions.

BAGHDAD, Feb. 11 — After weeks of internal debate, senior United States military officials on Sunday literally put on the table their first public evidence of the contentious assertion that Iran supplies Shiite extremist groups in Iraq with some of the most lethal weapons in the war. They said those weapons had been used to kill more than 170 Americans in the past three years.

Never before displayed in public, the weapons included squat canisters designed to explode and spit out molten balls of copper that cut through armor. The canisters, called explosively formed penetrators or E.F.P.s, are perhaps the most feared weapon faced by American and Iraqi troops here.

In a news briefing held under strict security, the officials spread out on two small tables an E.F.P. and an array of mortar shells and rocket-propelled grenades with visible serial numbers that the officials said link the weapons directly to Iranian arms factories. The officials also asserted, without providing direct evidence, that Iranian leaders had authorized smuggling those weapons into Iraq for use against the Americans. The officials said such an assertion was an inference based on general intelligence assessments.

That inference, and the anonymity of the officials who made it, seemed likely to generate skepticism among those suspicious that the Bush administration is trying to find a scapegoat for its problems in Iraq, and perhaps even trying to lay the groundwork for war with Iran.

Nice for Mr. Glanz to note that this is likely to "generate skepticism among those suspicious" of the Bush administration's motives, but it might also be helpful for the Times' reporter to ask a few skeptical questions himself.

Like, why the sudden fury of interest in a weapon that has allegedly resulted in the death of 170 U.S. troops...in a war that's taken over 3,000?

And, why now? According to NPR's Jamie Taraby, this was talked about in a Pentagon briefing in September and a similar presentation was made last March. She said there was really wasn't anything new in the briefing over the weekend.

Then there's this strange aside in the Glanz article:

The senior military official blamed recent press reports for, he said, overstating the importance of the weapons presentation, which had been delayed. Part of the delay reflected a view among officials in Washington that the original presentation was insufficiently strong. Officials here did not address that element of the internal debate.

Huh? Press reports overstated the importance of the presentation, which was delayed because the original presentation wasn't strong enough? I'm trying to follow the logic here.