13 November 2011: Iran, etc
Is it just me, hearing Fareed Zakaria's pain at restraining himself, wanting to say he recognizes part of his job is placating war loving
Who, who?
Maybe this is as close as a talking head on TV can get to saying that US foreign policy is deliberately counterproductive and stupid, which is to say not very close. And another thing you can't say on television is that Saddam and Qadaffi were both allied with the US at one time, then US policy changed, so see what it got them. Or to put it another way: the Iranians must by now conclude that it would be insane to not get nuclear warheads.
Two from the Christian Science Monitor:
1.Iran nuclear report: Why it may not be a game-changer after all The Iran nuclear report released yesterday by the UN nuclear watchdog agency sought to corroborate details provided by US intelligence in 2005. But some nuclear experts are unconvinced.
In a 14-page annex to its quarterly report on Iran released yesterday, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said new intelligence and other data gave it "serious concern" about the allegedly peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear program. But the casus belli for military strikes that anti-Iran hawks in the US and Israel expected to gain from the IAEA report is far from clear-cut.
Imminent Iran nuclear threat? A timeline of warnings since 1979
The report is based on more than 1,000 pages of information shared with the agency by US intelligence in 2005, one year after they were apparently spirited out of Iran on a laptop computer. But deep skepticism about the credibility of the documents remains – Iran has long insisted they are forgeries by hostile intelligence agencies – despite a concerted attempt by the IAEA to verify the data and dispel such doubt.
"It's very thin, I thought there would be a lot more there," says Robert Kelley, an American nuclear engineer and former IAEA inspector who was among the first to review the original data in 2005. "It's certainly old news; it's really quite stunning how little new information is in there."
and 2.Mystery surrounds deadly blast at Iran ammunition depot
Lew Rockwell,"12 Facts About Money and Congress That Are So Outrageous That It Is Hard To Believe That They Are Actually True" [via Mimi]
Brayden Goyette, Truthdig, "Flat Taxes Are Big in the Former USSR. Have They Worked?"
Arthur Silber re OWS
Scott Olsen, the vet who was injured at the Oakland OWS protests last month, discusses his progress since surgery at his Google Plus page in a public posting, here.[via Gary Farber]
Labels: Iran, journalism, miscellany, revised posts, US foreign policy
posted by Jonathan Versen @ 11:32 PM
2 comments
2 Comments:
What is clear is that basing arguments on “intelligence” gathered by Israel and American “intelligence” agencies is worthless. What is clear is that it doesn’t matter if Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons program. What is clear is that it doesn’t matter what the IAEA says since they have no credibility. What is clear is that it doesn’t matter what the IAEA says because the U.S. and Israel are determined to attack Iran no matter what the cost or repercussions. The whole report can be summed with words like “maybe” “may” “could be” and “perhaps.” They have no evidence. This much is clear. Fareed’s fair and balanced approach is propaganda since there is no reason to attack Iran so it follows that the powers that be must cook up lies to feed the public. We need intellectuals like Fareed to deliver the propaganda which is what he is doing. People who strive to be “reasonable” by presenting propaganda and lies as reasonable are whores. This much is reasonable.
You're right. Reasonable and dainty caveats aren't objections, and squeamish endorsement is still endorsement.
Post a Comment
<< Home