1 of 2
1
Iran Says IAEA Atom Report Shows US Charges Wrong
Posted: 30 August 2007 05:15 PM   [ Ignore ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1161
Joined  2007-07-16

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/08/30/3499/

VIENNA - Iran’s uranium enrichment program is operating well below capacity and is far from producing nuclear fuel in significant amounts, according to a confidential U.N. nuclear watchdog report obtained by Reuters.

A senior Iranian nuclear official said the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) report showed U.S. suspicions about Tehran’s nuclear intentions were baseless.

—————-

Sound familiar to anyone??? Anyone want to browse through the NYT archive to analyze their coverage of Iran, how they structure their reporting, what their biases are and what that means for our understandings of this conflict that is still in the manufacturing process?

I would not be the least bit surprised - mostly because I have seen the pattern too many times - to see systemic deceit that heavily relies on “official” sources without checking the facts.

In essence: Yellow Journalism.

 Signature 

“Unsustainable systems can’t be sustained.” ~ Robert Jensen

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 August 2007 06:49 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15368
Joined  2006-02-14

Hum ... and why should we be so quick to accept the Iranian version of things? I don’t mean to say that this US administration isn’t above massaging the truth. But so is Iran ...

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 August 2007 05:03 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  403
Joined  2007-08-26
dougsmith - 30 August 2007 06:49 PM

Hum ... and why should we be so quick to accept the Iranian version of things? I don’t mean to say that this US administration isn’t above massaging the truth. But so is Iran ...

One doesn’t have to accept Iran’s version of things to recognize that the White House is stoking the same fires they stoked in late 2002 as they ramped up to war with Iraq. The pattern is identical, right down to the rhetoric (Bush’s “nuclear holocaust” scare tactic at the American Legion speech is identical to his “smoking gun/mushroom cloud” scare tactic in 2002).

My personal feeling is that they’re both mad. Bush is eager to usher in the End Times and the return of Jesus, while Ahmadinejad is all hot to get the ball rolling for the eagerly-anticipated return of the Hidden Imam, who is kind of like Jesus, only with a much more grumpy attitude. wink

 Signature 

—————————————————
http://www.StephenJGallagher.com
http://StephenJGallagher.blogspot.com

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 August 2007 08:25 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15368
Joined  2006-02-14
steveg144 - 31 August 2007 05:03 AM

One doesn’t have to accept Iran’s version of things to recognize that the White House is stoking the same fires they stoked in late 2002 as they ramped up to war with Iraq. The pattern is identical, right down to the rhetoric (Bush’s “nuclear holocaust” scare tactic at the American Legion speech is identical to his “smoking gun/mushroom cloud” scare tactic in 2002).

Yes, I am entirely onboard with you there. But the Bush White House is stoking flames that Iran is not afraid to add wood to. Frankly, what the invasion of Iraq told Iran and North Korea was that it didn’t matter to their safety that they didn’t have a nuclear program. If the US wanted to invade them it would simply cook up a pretext. So they lost all real reason to forego having their own nuclear programs. That’s why we have seen very vigorous renewed efforts in both these “axis of evil” countries to nuclearize.

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 August 2007 08:49 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  403
Joined  2007-08-26

>>But the Bush White House is stoking flames that Iran is not afraid to add wood to.

That’s what scares me: unlike the leadup to Iraq, this time both parties want war.

 Signature 

—————————————————
http://www.StephenJGallagher.com
http://StephenJGallagher.blogspot.com

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 August 2007 09:11 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1161
Joined  2007-07-16
dougsmith - 30 August 2007 06:49 PM

Hum ... and why should we be so quick to accept the Iranian version of things? I don’t mean to say that this US administration isn’t above massaging the truth. But so is Iran ...

Doug, im not suggesting you believe or focus on Irans comments, but rather what the IAEA’s report says. So, ignore the second paragraph and focus on the first:

“Iran’s uranium enrichment program is operating well below capacity and is far from producing nuclear fuel in significant amounts, according to a confidential U.N. nuclear watchdog report obtained by Reuters.”

 Signature 

“Unsustainable systems can’t be sustained.” ~ Robert Jensen

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 August 2007 09:37 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1161
Joined  2007-07-16

Guys, hopefully im wrong but im worried that there might be a small undercurrent of jingoism here.

First, what exactly is the “problem” in the region? Second, what is Iran doing that is escalating the “problem”? Steve, what is Iran doing to make you feel it wants war? Is it that they are not subjugating themselves to our imperial dictates? That their defiance is somehow a battle cry? Its that kind of assumption that worries me.

Why would Iran want to sabotage the occupation when it is the occupation that is propping up a government of Iran-friendly religious nuts who came out of exile from there?

We claim that Iran is meddling in others affairs. Lets forget that last november a US military spokesmen said we will start training Latin American militaries to offset the political movement to the Left because LA is “our area of responsibility.” Lets forget about all of our bases throughout the Persian Gulf (and the world, which there is over 1,000 of), our neglegent support for Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Israel, etc. But we illegally attacked, invaded and are occupying Iraq. Just like the Iraninan diplomats who were illegally seized for months and just released this week, their meddling is political and diplomatic. We realize that when Sistani pushed for the elections back in 2004 - the ones we originally rejected untill massive demonstrations teetering on an uprising forced us to allow the election - and our guy(s), Allawi and/or Chalabi, didnt win that we opened Pandora’s Box. In other words, we are using diversionary tactics to get others focused on the Wizard and not the man behind the curtain.

What Im noticing is a distorted lens of what is going on. Im not saying im fond of the Iranian government, but its clear that they are not the problem. I think its plausible to say that if it werent for our belligerence that Ahmadinejad would not have been elected. The reformists were defeated because Ahmadinejad successfully exploited the danger of “the Great Satan” to arouse public fear behind him (a Rovian tactic we are all too familiar with).

This horseshit of ours in the region is not about our distaste or disapproval of corruption, tyrannies, weapons of mass destruction or meddling in others affairs. By our own actions and those of our satelites it is clear that that is not the issue. This region is rich in energy resources and the creation and expansion of the Shanghai Cooperation Council and the Asian Energy Security Grid are threats to our influence. The pretexts about our benevolency fighting against tyranny is just a smokescreen to give cover for our imperial agenda. I dont see how Iran is making things worse by openly defying and pointing out our bullshit (again, Im no fan of their government but its a real stretch to point a finger at them).

The Yellow Journalism that obliges to help shape public opinion is working. The real issue is not about what Iran is doing, but what we are doing and how we use hyperbole to provide excuses for the continuation of that.

 Signature 

“Unsustainable systems can’t be sustained.” ~ Robert Jensen

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 August 2007 09:41 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15368
Joined  2006-02-14

Well, assuming that Iran showed them everything, that is an encouraging report. However I wouldn’t put it past Iran to try to obfuscate, either. And by saying that I am not advocating war with Iran. I’m just being realistic.

NB: the NYTimes article on this report is in today’s paper. You can access it HERE. It is an evenhanded article and nothing like “yellow journalism”.

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 August 2007 09:45 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  403
Joined  2007-08-26

What is it that makes me feel that Iran wants war? Well, how about shelling Iraq, for starters?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070830/wl_nm/iraq_iran_shelling_dc_1

One doesn’t shell one’s neighbors, as a rule; it’s considered rude.

That being said, I don’t think it would matter one iota if Iran acted “provocatively” or curled up like
an earthworm and “cooperated”: Bush is determined to have his glorious little war with Iran
before he leaves office no matter what, so Iran’s actions aren’t really relevant. From that perspective,
your point is well taken.

 Signature 

—————————————————
http://www.StephenJGallagher.com
http://StephenJGallagher.blogspot.com

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 August 2007 10:12 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1161
Joined  2007-07-16

steve, very good point about the shelling. I somewhat agree, but what does that have to do with the US? theres more to the picture you know. the Kurdish separatists and the MEK - a terrorist group first supported by Saddam and now by the US - are carrying out attacks in Iran. i dont think its necessary to get into the local and separtist politics or the historical significance of this, but just to stress that I dont see how Iran is asking for war with the US by attacking terrorist groups that are seeking refuge in Iran, and which at least one is receiving US support. In other words, a reasonable solution would be for the US to stop the MEK and PKK from seeking refuge in Iraq considering we are legally obligated to provide security to those we occupy.


———-

doug,

first, that was far from even handed. The article is littered with assumptions that Iran is being deceitful and is up to something. Where in the article did it even open the possibility that the US has been issuing hyperbole on Iran or what our alterior motive might be for such hyperbole? I mean, it does that for Iran but not us. The article goes pretty much like this: a IAEA report undermines the US concerns about Irans nuke program and then the US makes excuses and accuses Iran of trying to fool us for “political reasons.” We dont explain what the context of the “political reasons” are. It gives no insight into US motives in the region.

Besides, I realize the NYT publishes a few good quality articles, but thats why I suggested going through the archives and looking for a dominant feature. I know you like the paper but you really ought to browse their archives for blatant biases and compare it to the amount of good quality ones that really are even handed.

 Signature 

“Unsustainable systems can’t be sustained.” ~ Robert Jensen

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 August 2007 10:28 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15368
Joined  2006-02-14
truthaddict - 31 August 2007 10:12 AM

thats why I suggested going through the archives and looking for a dominant feature. I know you like the paper but you really ought to browse their archives for blatant biases and compare it to the amount of good quality ones that really are even handed.

I read the NYTimes every day. I find them generally evenhanded, as was this article, which gave the IAEA’s position and the US response. I do not expect perfection from them, however.

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 August 2007 10:44 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 11 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  403
Joined  2007-08-26

>>In other words, a reasonable solution would be for the US to stop the MEK and PKK from seeking refuge in Iraq considering we are legally obligated to provide security to those we occupy.

I completely agree. But I do not believe the people running the show in D.C. are reasonable men. Ideologues rarely are. And they would have no problem framing Iran’s shelling of PKK separatist positions inside Iraq as “Iranian evildoers shell Iraq, putting the lives of our ‘Warriors’ in danger! Remember 9/11! Remember Pearl Harbor!! Remember The Maine!!!” And if the history of the past several years is any indication, the American people would lap up this casus belli with slack-jawed credulity.

 Signature 

—————————————————
http://www.StephenJGallagher.com
http://StephenJGallagher.blogspot.com

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 August 2007 11:17 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 12 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1161
Joined  2007-07-16

steve,

you forgot to remember the Alamo…

wink


———


Doug,

what about the Iranians. They are the subject. Again, its acceptable to speculate about alterior motives for the Iranians but you just cant acknowledge the elephant in the room. That is taboo and for that, the NYT deserves the title of yellow journalism.

and its not just Iran or Iraq or Venezuela; its US policies and business in general.

 Signature 

“Unsustainable systems can’t be sustained.” ~ Robert Jensen

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 August 2007 11:22 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 13 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15368
Joined  2006-02-14

I’m not going to get into another fruitless argument about the best daily paper in the US—and arguably the best in the world ... but suffice it to repeat that any responsible writer should expect attacks from both political extremes. I suggest you read what some of the right wing is saying about them.

And let’s save the incendiary descriptions like “yellow journalism” for the real thing, rather than rendering them meaningless.

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 August 2007 11:47 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 14 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  195
Joined  2007-07-24

Dougsmith, have you ever met a radical who doesn’t think his own side’s shrill, narrow-minded magazines are God’s gift to mankind? Me neither.

The IAEA is saying Iran doesn’t yet have nuclear fuel… okay. But for months now, it’s been saying Iran is producing nuclear weapons, and is 5-10 years from achieving them (and, if you ask me, is about 3 from a democratic revolution, but that’s something else). Why the change of tone?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 August 2007 12:02 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 15 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1161
Joined  2007-07-16

doug,

thats hyperbole to say its the best in the world.

its only fruitless because no one has accepted my request to browse through the archives on any particular topic to look for apparent biases. does the NYT treat US governmental actions and policies with more favor than the countries the government declares enemies? do they hold others to higher standards of scrutiny, skepticism and inquiry than we do ourselves? its not just a matter of occassionally getting the story right, but what is the trend, if any.

there is something sensationalist and jingoistic about a paper - any paper - that heavily relies on official sources to tote governmental propaganda about political issues. I read the NYT and Washington Post alot, too. And what I cant help but notice is that in a broad and general sense we are the perpetual good guys fighting the ever-changing bad guy.

the article you cited did precisely that. it was blatant in that we should not trust and be suspicious of Iran and not the US. It is absolutely clear that the perspective is largely nationalistic and favors the US government perspective. This is the same crap they pull on Chavez closing RCTV, Iraq, the fictional social security crisis, etc.

I have a quote up at my desk and it says:

“That there is a need for the US government to fool us speaks well of us. That we are so easily and repeatedly fooled does not.”

For the media to be so easily and repeatedly fooled and to take such a biased stand time and time again on a variety of issues relating to US governmental and business policies tells me they are not being fooled and that this is yellow journalism.

 Signature 

“Unsustainable systems can’t be sustained.” ~ Robert Jensen

Profile
 
 
   
1 of 2
1