The U.S. (Obama and Clinton) is no better than the media. They refer to “an illicit nuclear program” which consists of intentions that would be erases by sanctions and/or attack.
The ‘geniuses’ who attacked Iraq because of fake WMDs now want to attack Iran because of a fake intention to produce WMDs. And when these ‘geniuses’ attack and don’t find the fake intentions? They’ll look high and low, and won’t find those intentions anywhere. What will they do?
Then the ‘geniuses’ will take a cue from Rumsfeld: “They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.”
Those pesky Iran intentions will be harder to find then the Iraq WMDs were. Meanwhile Israel, which the Arabs fear most in the Middle East, is laughing up its sleeve with its non-monitored nuclear program and its 200 nuclear weapons.
The basic problem, of course, as it has been for a long time, that the US can’t control Iran. Nor Iraq, more and more. Syria didn’t buckle either. Egypt? The US-promoted military rule might not prevail. Turkey is no longer a staunch ally and it is more friendly with Iran. Even Israel is upset. The whole ME is headed south for the US, and so the NYTimes and others have to step it up. It’s called strategic communications (propaganda), and it is a high priority.
So don’t blame only Isabel Kershner — she’s following orders to keep her job.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Jan 21 2012 13:59 utc | 3

Actually, I mis-spoke in my eagerness to indict the scumbag Israeli’s. To be fair, the phrase was “illicit nuclear program”. The term “weapons” was added occassionally, slipped in, for effect I suppose.

Posted by: PissedOffAmerican | Jan 21 2012 15:33 utc | 5

And here you can find UN Ambassador Rice referring to an Iranian “illicit nuclear WEAPONS prgram”…..
“We share Israel’s very grave concern about the threat that Iran’s illicit nuclear weapons program poses, not only to Israel….blablahblah…..”
So, bottom line, why do these fuckers feel the need to stop lying to us now? Well, honestly, I don’t think they do. I think that b reads to much into this, that the ommission of the word “nuclear” is simply an oversight, rather than an effort to speak honestly. Does anyone following the rhetoric used against Iran really buy into the premise that the NYTs gives a shit about responsible reportage? Damn, almost as a single entity, they propelled the United States into war with Iraq by providing the most widely read, and most replete with lies and scripted false accusation, rationale for such a war.

Posted by: PissedOffAmerican | Jan 21 2012 16:12 utc | 7

Strategic Communications are

“focused United States Government efforts to understand and engage key audiences to create, strengthen, or preserve conditions favorable for the advancement of United States Government interests, policies, and objectives through the use of coordinated programs, plans, themes, messages, and products synchronized with the actions of all instruments of national power.”

The “focused United States Government efforts” include a coordinated effort by the US military, intelligence and special operations elements working with their publicists to advance US policy for world hegemony, to which Iran is a current obstacle. Truth needn’t be an element of the process.
examples of Strategic Communications:
1. a fictitious plot by Iran to assassinate the Saudi ambassador
2. a fictitious plot by Iran to bomb the US Embassy or Consulate General in Turkey. (@8 above)
3. a fictitious threat by Israel to bomb Iran on its own prerogative. (as if Israel is a rogue nation w/o US control)
The latter is useful in a ‘good cop – bad cop’ threat to Iran. Here, France President Sarkozy is the good cop:
Reuters:

Western nations have voiced mounting concern that Israel could launch a preemptive attack against Tehran, deepening instability in an already volatile region.
“We need stronger, more decisive sanctions that stop the purchase of Iranian oil and freeze the assets of the central bank, and those who don’t want that will be responsible for the risks of a military conflict,” Sarkozy said. “Help us guarantee peace in the world. We really need you,” Sarkozy said, in a direct appeal to Moscow and Beijing.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Jan 22 2012 2:52 utc | 9

The problem, said the US Secretary of State, is that someone in Iran might believe “that either acquiring nuclear weapons or the breakout capacity for nuclear weapons will make Iran stronger and more dominant in the region.” But that would be “an absolutely wrong calculation.”
So Clinton demands that Iran must cease its fully-monitored treaty-authorized uranium enrichment program for these — ahem — reasons, because “it is for me – if you[sic] are thinking strategically – very much in Iran’s interests . . .” — well, let her tell why Iran must cease doing something it is authorized — and even encouraged* — by treaty to do.

“So it is for me – if you are thinking strategically – very much in Iran’s interests to come to these talks in Geneva committed to working out a way to restore the confidence of the international community and to firmly, conclusively reject the pursuit of nuclear weapons, and to understand the strategic calculation at work here. Because if anyone in Iran believes that either acquiring nuclear weapons or the breakout capacity for nuclear weapons will make Iran stronger and more dominant in the region, that is an absolutely wrong calculation. Because it will trigger an arms race that will make the region less stable, more uncertain, and cause serious repercussions far beyond the Gulf.”

*TREATY ON THE NON-PROLIFERATION OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS
The States concluding this Treaty, hereinafter referred to as the “Parties to the Treaty”,(excerpts)

–Undertaking to cooperate in facilitating the application of International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards on peaceful nuclear activities,
–Expressing their support for research, development and other efforts to further the application, within the framework of the International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards system, of the principle of safeguarding effectively the flow of source and special fissionable materials by use of instruments and other techniques at certain strategic points,
–affirming the principle that the benefits of peaceful applications of nuclear technology, including any technological by-products which may be derived by nuclear-weapon States from the development of nuclear explosive devices, should be available for peaceful purposes to all Parties of the Treaty, whether nuclear-weapon or non-nuclear weapon States,
–Convinced that, in furtherance of this principle, all Parties to the Treaty are entitled to participate in the fullest possible exchange of scientific information for, and to contribute alone or in cooperation with other States to, the further development of the applications of atomic energy for peaceful purposes,
–Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with articles I and II of this Treaty.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Jan 22 2012 15:39 utc | 11

The right margin seems to be broken, making reading longer comments tedious as it involves sliding the bottoms guide back and forth, back and forth.
Any way to fix this? Is it a long link or…what?

Posted by: jawbone | Jan 22 2012 16:05 utc | 13

“Any way to fix this?”
An irritating fix, that I resorted to, is to choose “small” for text size. Until its fixed on b’s end, I think thats the best ya can do. I think it was the long link I posted that caused the problem, but not sure. b seems to have removed it, so that was probably it.

Posted by: PissedOffAmerican | Jan 22 2012 22:57 utc | 15

Thank you, b. And, POA, did you mean you changed your print size to small to make the spread less wide? Hhhmmm–OK! I’ll try that if it happens again.

Posted by: jawbone | Jan 23 2012 0:22 utc | 17

It’s good web courtesy to shorten long URL’s into a “tiny URL” before posting.
Go to TinyURL.com

Posted by: Don Bacon | Jan 23 2012 2:09 utc | 19