Posted on 08/25/2005 12:19:41 PM PDT by rightalien
A front-page story concerning Iran in Tuesday’s Washington Post was clearly intended to thwart American efforts preventing that country from obtaining nuclear weapons, as well as to embarrass the Bush administration with more implications of faulty intelligence.
In an article entitled “No Proof Found of Iran Arms Program”, Dafna Linzer states:
Traces of bomb-grade uranium found two years ago in Iran came from contaminated Pakistani equipment and are not evidence of a clandestine nuclear weapons program, a group of U.S. government experts and other international scientists has determined.
"The biggest smoking gun that everyone was waving is now eliminated with these conclusions," said a senior official who discussed the still-confidential findings on the condition of anonymity.
Dontcha just love it when media outlets quote unnamed sources in stories with such vast global implications? Oftentimes, as in this instance, such vague references result in the article being so loosely based in verifiable facts that it is tough to take it seriously.
For example, the “findings” cited in this story come from a group of scientists that has been working in secret for the past nine months under the direction of the United Nations’ International Atomic Energy Agency -- you know, that group that did such a fabulous job of monitoring Iraq and North Korea’s weapons programs, and has consistently demonstrated itself to be a fabulous ally of ours.
Moreover, the final report of this top-secret group of scientists isn’t due to be presented to the IAEA and its chief, Mohamed ElBaradei - you know, that guy that has done such a fabulous job of running this nuclear watchdog agency, and has consistently demonstrated himself as being a fabulous ally of ours - until September 3.
With that in mind, it is truly fascinating the size of the hairs the press is trying to split to make the case that Iran isn’t trying to split any atoms.
For instance, the premise of this article - along with all others like it on Tuesday - is that if this nuclear material in question can be linked back to uranium-contaminated equipment that had been brought from Pakistan years ago, it proves that Iran is not trying to develop a nuclear program.
Excuse me? It has been known for some time, even by the illustrious IAEA, that Iran began its nuclear work almost two decades ago with the help of Pakistani nuclear black-marketer A. Q. Khan. As such, it should come as no surprise, even to the illustrious IAEA, that any of Iran’s nuclear equipment could be somehow linked back to Pakistan.
In fact, the conclusion that this proves Iran is not trying to develop a nuclear program is thoroughly specious. After all, countries that were purchasing nuclear equipment and information from A. Q. Khan were doing so specifically to establish a nuclear program of their own. If they weren’t, why would they spend so much money on such things?
Yet, irrespective of the lack of any logical foundation, the press can’t be stopped from wasting such a fine opportunity to impugn the Bush administration:
The IAEA had put together the group of experts in an effort to foster cooperation but also to eliminate the possibility that its findings would be challenged by the White House, officials said. In the run-up to the Iraq invasion in March 2003, the White House rejected IAEA findings that cast doubt on U.S. assertions about then-Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's arsenal. The IAEA findings turned out to be correct, and no weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq.
Nice prose, but not altogether accurate, is it? After all, evidence of Iraqi WMDs presented by the administration to the U.N. before the March 2003 invasion came in part from information obtained by U.N. weapons inspectors. As a result, suggesting that the U.N. was correct concerning Iraq not having WMDs is erroneous regardless of this assertion having become a rallying cry of the left.
Additionally, as is also regularly ignored by the press, the absence of WMD discoveries in Iraq up to this point does not abrogate the fact that international intelligence agencies across the globe for more than a decade reported that these weapons existed, nor does it discount anecdotal evidence suggesting that in the months leading up to the invasion, Saddam moved these weapons to other nations.
But presenting such alternative explanations to the public isn’t the charge of the mainstream media, is it? Instead, the goal here is to, once again, embarrass the administration enough to prevent it from having any hand in monitoring the nuclear activities of Iran, and, instead, place this responsibility squarely in the lap of the U.N. and the IAEA who have made it clear that they would welcome such an outcome.
In fact, the Washington Post doesn’t appear to be hiding this from its readers when it states that the intent on the IAEA’s part in creating this clandestine operation was to “eliminate the possibility that its findings would be challenged by the White House.”
Wow! Is this a concept that America and its citizens should welcome: an international organization researching sensitive information about our enemies with our tax dollars whose conclusions are unchallengeable by our leaders?
Of course, this should not come as a surprise to most Americans, for the left and their press - regardless of all the evidence of corruption and malfeasance at the core of the United Nations - still trusts this international body to defend America’s interests more than it does the Bush administration.
How sad.
Noel Sheppard is an economist, business owner, and member of the Media Research Center’s NewsBusters squad. He welcomes your feedback at slep@danvillebc.com.
What the Media is working for the Bad guys? Next you'll
tell me the sky is Blue.
Because they do!
They seem to support our enemies because they do support our enemies.
There is NO "seem" about it.
They are the enemy, every bit
as much as Usama Bn Laden, and will
do whatever they can, to demoralise us,
cause us to lose, and/or get our
troops killed.
good question...
Because they hate US?
Unnamed source = no source. IOWs; BS.
Their man lost the last election, and so they are both attempting to undermine an "enemy" President and punishing the American public for not voting their way. These are folks who also are wondering why newspaper sales and network viewership are down...
The real question becomes: why do people who live well because of the success of their work allows them to have lots of toys and luxuries support systems that would tear them into shreds, line them up against a brick wall and shoot them because of their livestyle or what they believe or how they dress if they ever had to live in a society under the thumbs of the people they support?
Why do they denigrate the system that gave them their wealth and freedom to do these things?
This is the real question.
I'm thinking about the quote about a year or two ago from an Iranian leader that the day after Iran has nuclear weaponry, it *will* be used upon Israel. Leads me to wonder just where the Wash Post's true allegiences are: certainly not in America's interest as I know it, nor the Western civilization.
It's even deeper than that ~ they hate themselves!
Because there is nothing they won't do or sacrifice to attain the power they believe they should have, by divine right, over the rest of us.
You can start by asking yourself if there is anything you're doing that's keeping them in business.
ME? You have got to be kidding.
Because the reality is that they are supporting our enemies.
It doesn't even matter what their intentions or motivations are. If you throw bread in a pond, day after day, and the carp eat most of it then it doesn't matter whether you say "I am feeding the ducks" the reality is that you are primarily feeding the carp.
Briefly, they feel guilty for being so screwed up yet so rich and privileged. They have so much money that higher taxes wouldn't affect them, so they side with the politicians who attract the lowest IQs, the Democrats, whom intelligent people spurn.
It's a pseudo logic that a person with your intelligence finds hard to see. An analogy might help. If you grew up blue collar, you won't understand Neil Cavuto's insistence that you can save 10% of your income for retirement.
That explanation works today but what is the reason the press has distorted the news in favor of our enemies before that? I'm thinking at least as far back as the "Thet Offensive crushed American forces..." line of BS.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.