Hypocrisy on Iran

8 Responses to Hypocrisy on Iran

1. Mike says:

   4/9/2006 at 8:08 pm

   I first heard about this on CBS News last night. At first I was simply horrified at the thought that a US President could actually announce plans to disrupt another country’s attempts to enrich uranium with a “nuclear bunker-buster”. Then three facts settled on me at once:
   Fact 1: The nuclear weapon is the most destructive weapon ever developed by Man.
   Fact 2: We have only used this weapon twice, both times to expedite the end to WWII.
   Fact 3: There has never been a weapon developed that has not been used more than twice in war.
   Another fact of History just came to me that seems germane.
   Fact 4: Dubya didn’t get too good a grade in History, did he?
   If you believe in any Higher Power, now would seem to be a good time to start praying.

   Reply
2. Steve says:

   4/10/2006 at 6:04 am

   CBS…..that’s the outfit who has it in for Bush…… helped Dan Rather inflate and twist the story they later retracted right….. trashing Dan Rather’s career…..THAT CBS ran THIS story??? Uh huh…

   —–

   Rather and CBS vigorously defended the story, insisting that the documents had been authenticated by experts. However, CBS was contradicted by some of the experts it originally cited, and later reported that their source for the documents, former Texas Army National Guard officer Bill Burkett, had misled the network about how he had obtained them. On September 20, CBS retracted the story. Rather stated, “if I knew then what I know now – I would not have gone ahead with the story as it was aired, and I certainly would not have used the documents in question,” [2] The controversy has been dubbed by some as “Memogate” and “Rathergate.” Following an independent investigation commissioned by CBS, CBS fired story producer Mary Mapes and asked three other producers connected with the story to resign. It is unclear whether or not Rather’s retirement was directly caused by this incident, although many believe that he had to step down a year earlier than planned.

   [edit]
   Retirement from the Evening News

   Dan Rather receiving applause at the end of his final broadcastRather retired as the anchorman and Managing Editor of the CBS Evening News in 2005. His last broadcast was Wednesday, March 9, 2005.

   Reply
3. Patricia says:

   4/10/2006 at 9:07 am

   Steve,

   The story has been run by every reputable news organization. You’re grasping at Republican talking point straws.

   Reply
4. Steve says:

   4/10/2006 at 3:51 pm

   Patricia:

   The story has been run, and CBS was wrong, and it illustrates why it may be a mistake to simply
   on their published stories to the extent that Mike seemingly has.

   Grasping at republican talking point straws? What a meaningless whiff of smoke that is. I mentioned
   a fact about CBS’s prior mistakes. Their not infallible. That is the point of it, whether republican or not.

   Reply
5. Jim says:

   4/10/2006 at 4:27 pm

   Steve, you’re waaaaaaay off.

   The story has two sources: a New Yorker article and a Washington Post article. CBS is running these other outlets’ stories. So is Reuters, the Associated Press, the New York Times, the Chicago Tribune, NBC, ABC, CNN…

   Reply
6. Alan says:

   4/10/2006 at 5:19 pm

   The issue here is balance of power. If, for example, Pakistan and India both have nukes, people make tsk, tsk noises, but nobody is really upset, because if one uses it then the other will use it, so therefore they will not use the weapons. Likewise with South Africa. If one nation decides not to develop weapons, but instead spend the money on domesticd programs, and the surrounding nations also decide not to spend the money develping weapons, the balance of power is maintained.

   But what if, in a sort of prisoner’s dilemma scenario, one nation, Iran, decides to develop weapons, but the other, Iraq, has been forcibly prevented from doing so by an occupying army. When everyone thought Sadam had WMD, there was a sort of balance maintained. Now the US, by default is responsible not only for Iraq’s internal security but for defending Iraq from outside agressors as well. Israel says it will come to Iraq’s defense with its weapons. Israel? Not good. Sadam liked to lob the occasional scud missle into Tel Aviv, and now it looks like the Iranians want to take up the same hobby. The whole Middle East will end up glowing in the dark.

   Reply
7. J. Clifford says:

   4/10/2006 at 5:25 pm

   Yeah, but glowing in the dark from Iran’s nukes, which don’t exist yet… and which we don’t have good intelligence about, just like Iraq… our OUR nukes, which Bush has developed a plan to use on Iran?

   Reply
8. Alan says:

   4/10/2006 at 7:00 pm

   our nukes

   The way I read it, Bush is still developing the plan, but in such a low-key way that Democrats are not being included in the dialogue, but somehow Reuters, New Yorker, Washington Post, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN et al have somehow gotten wind of it. No doubt Iran will somehow find out and might even be motivated to discuss alternatives. I think it’s carrot and stick diplomacy.

   Iran’s nukes

   Iran has been making a lot of noises recently about Israel’s right to exist. Whenever a nation starts demonizing another nation instead of, well, governing, it’s not a good sign.

   I’ve really been trying to resist doing this, but oh, well, here it is: Chomsky says, “A standard technique of belief formation goes along with oppression, whether it’s throwing them in gas chambers or charging them too much at a corner store, or anything in between. The standard reaction is to say: ‘It’s their depravity. That’s why I’m doing it…’”

   In Iraq, Sadam first went after “the Jews”, then once he had his public relations victory and carte blanche to deal with ‘the enemy’ in the most ruthless manner, turned his attention to political opponents. I’m sure this all-too-common historical lesson has not been lost on either Iran or the Bush administration.

   Reply