- When Washington goes to war or threatens it, America's
media march in lockstep, cheerleading. Fiction substitutes for fact.
-
- News is carefully filtered, dissent marginalized, and
supporting imperial belligerence substitutes for full and accurate disclosure.
-
- As a result, patriotism means going along with rogue
policies. Never mind rule of law principles and democratic values. Free
and open societies are risked. So is humanity if belligerents overstep.
-
- The IAEA Iranian nuclear program report stirred a hornet's
nest of inflammatory commentary, no matter the agency's fabricated contents.
Previous US intelligence assessments refuted them, including most recently
in March 2011.
-
- Nonetheless, IAEA allegations proved red meat for America's
media. Commentaries from three major broadsheets are typical.
-
- The Wall Street Journal
-
- On November 8, deputy Journal editorial page editor Bret
Stephens headlined, "Now For a Real Iran Debate,"saying:
-
- "There's no scarcity of reliable information about
Iran's nuclear programs, licit and illicit." At issue only is how
Washington and Western allies act "to check them."
-
- In September, IAEA said "Iran had enriched 4.5 tons
of low-enriched uranium - sufficient, with further enrichment, for three
or four bombs - and that a third of the uranium had been enriched in the
last year alone."
-
- It also said "Iran had begun more advanced centrifuges,
capable of enriching uranium at a significantly faster rate than"
earlier ones. "So much for the success of sanctions in shutting down
Iran's underground network of nuclear-parts suppliers."
-
- Fact check
-
- Iran's nuclear program is peaceful and nonmilitary. No
credible evidence suggests otherwise. Its operations follow standard procedures.
Other nations follow them. None are vilified. Nothing done is illegal.
Beating up on Iran bogusly discredits anyone doing it.
-
- "So much for the enabling fiction that was the 2007
National Intelligence Estimate, which judged 'with high confidence' that
Iran 'halted its nuclear weapons program' in the fall of 2003."
-
- So much for a Journal editor accepting fabricated IAEA
information, refuted by US intelligence as recently as March 2011 in its
- America's Annual Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence
Community.
-
- He continued saying pursuing diplomacy or more "sanctions
guarantees failure, signals weakness, and emboldens the hardest of Iranian
hardliners."
-
- Time's "no longer on the West's side....(F)urther
delay only increases the complexity and uncertainties of any strike."
-
- Short of supporting war, Stephen railed against Iran,
saying Western leaders should "hasten the regime's demise." How
he didn't say or explain that every nation's sovereignty is inviolable,
whether or not he approves.
-
- The New York Times
-
- A Times editorial headlined, "The Truth About Iran,"
saying:
-
- Despite using fabricated, discredited, old information
with no credibility, The Times called IAEA's document "chillingly
comprehensive....What gives the report particular credibility is its meticulous
sourcing."
-
- Russia, China and other nations "have been shielding
Iran." Security Council members must "quickly impose a new round
of even tougher sanctions...."
-
- Fact check
-
- For years, Times writers and commentators beat up mercilessly
on Iran. In June 2009, Iran's presidential election was more democratic
than America's rigged process.
-
- Nonetheless, a Times editorial headlined, "Iran's
Nonrepublic," claiming "government authorities bulldozed the
results" so incumbent Ahmadinejad's victory was "bogus."
-
- Instead of journalistic integrity, The Times claimed
Ahmadinejad stole the election with no evidence whatever proving it. Rhetoric
substituted for reasoned commentary in typical Times style.
-
- In contrast, when the Supreme Court reversed America's
2000 popular vote (and electoral one learned months later) to install its
own favorite, a Times editorial supported Bush's illegitimacy and his "unusual"
post-election "gracious(ness)."
-
- No matter that Al Gore won and they knew it. No matter
what's now known about a rogue administration terrorizing humanity.
-
- Stopping short of supporting war, The Times said striking
Iran's nuclear facilities "would not set (it) back for very long.
It would rally Iranians around their illegitimate government....The last
round of sanctions was approved 17 months ago."
-
- Russia and China oppose more. "So long as that enabling
continues, Iran will keep pushing its nuclear program forward."
-
- Fact check
-
- In April 2010, Ron Paul addressed HR 2194, the Comprehensive
Iran Sanctions, Accountability and Divestment Act, saying:
-
- "I rise in strong opposition," including against
its Senate version. Debate replicated lies, misinformation and distortions
preceding Iraq 2003. "Propaganda (is) speed(ing) us to war against
Iran for the benefit of special interests."
-
- "A vote for sanctions on Iran is a vote for war
against Iran." In other words, he called sanctions an act of war.
-
- In 1997, the New England Journal of Medicine called economic
sanctions "a war against public health." Sanctions constitute
war by other means. Manipulated money power in private hands used irresponsibly
is financial war.
-
- Delegitimizing Iran's legal nuclear program shows which
side Times editors support. They're the same anti-populist power and wealth
ones they always back on all vital issues.
-
- The Washington Post
-
- A WP editorial headlined, "Running out of time to
stop Iran's nuclear program," saying:
-
- The IAEA "spelled out in detail what governments
around the world have known for a long time: Iran's nuclear program has
an explicit military dimension, aimed at producing a warhead that can be
fitted onto one of the country's medium-range missiles."
-
- Fact check
-
- Substituting bombast for truth, Post editorializing got
another black eye. Throughout the piece, accuracy was nowhere in sight.
-
- Like The Times, Journal, and others like them, however,
what else can be expected from establishment broadsheets. They stop short
of doing what readers expect - their job.
-
- "The IAEA's evidence....ought to end serious debate
about whether Tehran's program is for peaceful purposes. That's why Russia
and China tried to block the report."
-
- Never mind that IAEA's "evidence" lacks credibility.
It was fabricated, discredited and out of date. Independent analysts refuted
it. All countries should denounce its nefarious purpose, potentially leading
to war.
-
- Short of supporting it, the Post said Obama's got time
to act. He repeatedly said "Iran's acquisition of a nuclear weapon
is unacceptable - and the IAEA report makes clear that the danger is growing,
not diminishing."
-
- Most dangerous are:
-
- IAEA heads publishing baseless allegations;
-
- America, Israel, and Western nations supporting them;
and
-
- disreputable major media opinion writers marching in
lockstep instead of doing their jobs responsibly.
-
- Sadly, that's what passes for corporate-controlled news,
commentary and opinion in America.
-
- It's why more readers go elsewhere for real information
and analysis. Hopefully one day they all will!
-
- Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at
lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.
-
- Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and
listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive
Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central
time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy
listening.
-
- http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/.
|
