Saturday, May 13, 2006

NY Times Beating War Drums, Again

UPDATE 1: Edited for clarity

     This article, this peice of craptastic jingoism from the NY Times, it bends over backwards to help the Bush administration, the neo-cons, many Democrats, Arab-haters and Christian Zionists start a war with Iran.

     It starts out by quickly mentioning the earlier traces of HEU, traces found on some equipment in Iran, traces which were explained away years ago.  The NY times plays its readers for fools, because the NY Times never mentions that.  The Times leaves in the minds of its "readers" that this is the second time a contaminated swab has been found. 

     A second, less severe point is that the article relies entirely on unnamed sources.  Isn't that part of what people point out as the problem with journalism today?  Isn't journalism that might cause America to start another war important journalism, say, more important than, the precise name of a particular military medal.  It should be noted that one of the unnamed sources might be John Bolton.

     This article's author, this shameless assholeic warmonger, does stupid, nearly pointless things to keep Iran in the sights.  For example, uranium for most power plants is enriched, enriched between 3 and 5 percent.  The NY Times idiot says 3 and 4 percent.  What if you read this article, and then you later learn that Iran enriching to 5 percent, 5 percent, you've been taught is outside nuclear power reactors range.

     Other articles, published this same morning, mention two critical things that this flatulent peice of know-nothing-ism does not bother to say.  Namely a) Iran denies any of this, and b) research has already been done which indicates this uranium is not weapons grade.  We all bloody well know by know that SOMEONE forged those uranium from Niger documents, and CURVEBALL lied about other stuff, and SEVERAL PEOPLE lied about underground WMD labs in Iraq.  People will lie to kill other people!

     There is, I suppose, the off chance that this material was not available to the NY Times before publication, but I doubt it sincerely.  If it was not, the NY Times has a positive obligation to put corrections at the end of the web page link this post started with.  War might be the alternative.

No comments: