Left I on the News:
An article appeared in the Times (UK) yesterday with this headline: "Sarkozy talks of bombing if Iran gets nuclear arms". Here's the first paragraph (with emphasis added):
President Sarkozy called Iran’s nuclear ambition the world’s most dangerous problem yesterday and raised the possibility that the country could be bombed if it persisted in building an atomic weapon.
Later in the article come references to Iran's "nuclear aims" and how "a nuclear-armed Iran would be unacceptable." Charitably, one might describe all these references as indirect quotes, but not once does the article include even the most cursory of boilerplate language noting the fact that Iran has denied any such intention and that there isn't the slightest evidence that it is "building an atomic weapon."
Maybe the really big lie is the one about the Iranian President calling for a Holocaust against the Jews. Still, there is no doubt this one is a pretty big and important lie.
A US attack on Iran seems to me unlikely because even Cheney can probably see it would be a disaster, but I would say that this is world's most dangerous problem right now (after Iraq).
At the level of international diplomacy (and also national politics and corporate media) it seems to me that zero effort is being made to head off this possibility. Only the grassroots are protesting.
People like Sarkozy with this statement are, if anything, increasing the likelihood of an attack.
Isn't this grossly irresponsible?
Left I on the News:
An article appeared in the Times (UK) yesterday with this headline: "Sarkozy talks of bombing if Iran gets nuclear arms". Here's the first paragraph (with emphasis added):
President Sarkozy called Iran’s nuclear ambition the world’s most dangerous problem yesterday and raised the possibility that the country could be bombed if it persisted in building an atomic weapon.
Later in the article come references to Iran's "nuclear aims" and how "a nuclear-armed Iran would be unacceptable." Charitably, one might describe all these references as indirect quotes, but not once does the article include even the most cursory of boilerplate language noting the fact that Iran has denied any such intention and that there isn't the slightest evidence that it is "building an atomic weapon."
Maybe the really big lie is the one about the Iranian President calling for a Holocaust against the Jews. Still, there is no doubt this one is a pretty big and important lie.
A US attack on Iran seems to me unlikely because even Cheney can probably see it would be a disaster, but I would say that this is world's most dangerous problem right now (after Iraq).
At the level of international diplomacy (and also national politics and corporate media) it seems to me that zero effort is being made to head off this possibility. Only the grassroots are protesting.
People like Sarkozy with this statement are, if anything, increasing the likelihood of an attack.
Isn't this grossly irresponsible?
Sarkozy repeats the big lie about Iran
No comments:
Post a Comment