Tuesday, May 13, 2008

Another phony war?

Do you believe….

Has the New York Times bought the big one?

Has it exploited its good will to the extent it is no longer credible?

That is the concensus of many after years of editorial coverage of Washington

That reflects lap-dog servility.

I grew up with the Times.

It was in the house from my earliest recollections.

It was a paper that was perhaps more respected than any other.

To see, how the Times had compromised itself repeatedly is not only an embarrassment, it coincides with a complete loss of faith in journalistic integrity.

Today, too many once proud papers are playing the game.

They are acting as PR extensions of the people and institutions they are writing about and they are doing a disservice to the art of journalism and propagating an entire new generation of cynics who will no longer buy the pap that’s being doled out.

Consider the whole makeshift architecture of a planned build up to War—another phony one by most informed accounts.

Our rush to war before Bush leaves office is predicated on the diatribe that the Iranians are to blame for the continuing blood-shed in Iraq.

The latest message: The Iranians are responsible for the high-end weapons that are killing our boys.

The government tells this to the Times, and the Times reprints this bogus message that has not been vetted.

And that’s how it goes up and down and in and out for the last six years.

It’s déjà vu all over again if anyone would care to relive the Bush approach to the Iraq War or the destruction of CIA officer Plame.

The people involved are the bad people who want payback, whether it’s war or the destruction of someone’s carreer as it was with Valerie Plame.

It seems that every time our hyper inflated Surge falters, the government rolls out the Iranians to blame.

Here’s a quick chronology:

In the beginning of this campaign to win over patriots to the idea of Iranian culpability, we were told that Iranian spies have been captured in Iraq fomenting civil war among the Shia and the Sunni.

Moreover, the White House dredged up their one enduring argument: The Iranians are planning to build WMD. (Didn’t we hear that story before?)

If that doesn’t get the necessary response, there is always the one that goes: the Iranians might decimate Israel.

In truth, I don’t think the Israelis are going to sit on their haunches and allow that to happen. Sorry, guys.

Then there’s the big one that Bush played up in his artificial build up to war:

The Iranian small boats are attacking our Naval craft.

And we look at the film and something looks wrong—especially in light of revised Naval policy since the Cole was attacked by forces loyal to bin Laden.

Why don’t we hear the claxon horns going off/ Why don’t we see the ships pointing their weapons at the suggested enemy? Nothing figures.

Then we discover that perhaps the coverage didn’t employ the right film and on and on.

All pseudo arguments for fingering the Iranians as the cause of our national anxiety.

Could they be made to suggest that Iranians are getting ready to attack US craft?

We don’t know.

But that was certainly the implication.

Nevertheless, American Congressmen/women are going along with the White House; the White House’s repeated charges has resulted in Congress signing a “non-binding” resolution against the Iranian guard.

Then, a Deus Ex Machina:

The National Security Estimate comes out and it says that the Iranian government had given up its nuclear weapons program and it had done more than a year before.


Now, none of this is making very much sense.

The White House says that we are one step away from War with Iran and the Security Agencies say that that is not the case at all.

Who do we believe?

And then the White House stirs the pot.

It seems that the White House, in building its case against Iran, had decided to gather all of the more sophisticated weapons it could find in Iraq—ready to blame them all on Iran.

However, get this, some general who hadn’t gotten the word from on high had the weapons checked. You know what they found? No evidence whatsoever of Iran’s presence. None of the weapons bore Iran’s imprimatur and none of the other explosives bore logos, or identifying remarks to indicate they were made in Iran.

In short, the White House’s case may have back fired.

Even though the Times has willingly played along.

That’s what happens in a democracy---even under this cabal: Sometimes the truth manages to leak out…...

There are too many dissenters around that find this a case of deja-vu, the same kind of lame explanations used to point the finger at Iraq.

And we know where that led.

It seems George Bush wants to leave on a high note by creating another war and building his image as a patriot while distracting us from the fact that we are engaged in a war we cannot win; only, it’s not going to work this go round.

The Americans are catching on and much too savvy for that.

Les aaron

Politics Blog Top Sites


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home