Fanning the Hysteria About Iran: NPR Leads the Charge to War

[Guest guest]

> " M

> Mon, 6 Sep 2004 14:42:12 -0400

 

>

-----

>

> Fanning the Hysteria About Iran: NPR Leads the

> Charge to War

> Mike Whitney | August 31 2004 | Prison Planet:

>

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2004/310804leadsthecharge.htm

>

> When did " liberal " NPR become a champion of American

> aggression against

> Iran? Listeners to National Public Radio are

> increasingly apt to

> criticize the " rightward shift " in the station's

> news coverage. The

> August 30 " Morning Edition " program, however,

> reached a new low for

> slanted journalism and for making the Bush

> Administration's case for war

> with Iran.

>

> The commentary titled " US Presses UN Agency on Iran

> Nuclear Program " was

> a textbook example of propaganda dressed up to look

> like unbiased

> reporting. All three interviewees were charter

> members of America's " far

> right " establishment; haling from the American

> Enterprise Institute, the

> Nixon Center and the Project for the New American

> Century. All three of

> these groups were " front and center " in facilitating

> the unwarranted

> attack on " unarmed " Iraq. The Bush Administration is

> looking for an

> excuse to attack Iran; that much is clear.

>

> Having failed to coerce the IAEA (International

> Atomic Energy Agency)

> into recommending " punitive action " be taken against

> Iran at the

> Security Council, the US is trying to cajole its

> European allies to take

> steps (sanctions?) that will further isolate Iran.

> As Condoleezza Rice

> has said, " Iran will either be isolated or it will

> submit to the will of

> the international community. " (ie the USA) NPR

> reporter Vicki O' Hara

> never mentions the conspicuous (malicious) intent of

> the US, choosing

> instead to emphasize the " real concern " among the

> Bush team that Iran

> may be developing nuclear weapons.

>

> It's déjà vu, all over again? Nevertheless, O' Hara

> gives these dubious

> allegations the highest respect and proceeds to

> corroborate her case by

> questioning the three aforementioned " impartial "

> observers. The State

> Dept's, John Bolton is the first to respond with his

> entirely

> speculative analysis of Iran's capabilities. He said

> that Iran may be

> able to " enrich uranium within a year and

> " weaponize " within three

> years. Bolton, of course, produced no evidence to

> substantiate his

> charges and failed to mention that the IAEA gave

> Iran a clean bill of

> health less than one month ago. As George Jahn of

> the Associated Press

> reported:

>

> " New findings by the UN agency appear to strengthen

> Iran's claim that it

> has NOT enriched uranium domestically and (this)

> weakens US arguments

> that the country is hiding a nuclear weapons

> program. " Such

> " science-grounded " analysis never satisfies the

> fanatical appetites of

> the current occupants of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, nor

> does it discourage

> men like Bolton who prefer to make their accusations

> out of " whole

> cloth " . He is already on the record as favoring

> " regime change " in Iran,

> now he merely needs to assemble the appropriate

> fabrications to support

> his case.

>

> Following Bolton, O'Hara questioned the equally

> " hawkish " Geoffrey Kemp;

> a man whose civility and British accent disguise his

> otherwise

> warmongering proclivities. Kemp agrees with Bolton

> that new suspicions

> about Iran signal (as Kemp says) " an ominous shift

> in rhetoric and,

> therefore, in policy. " In other words, even though

> the IAEA says with

> complete authority that there is " no conclusive

> evidence that Iran is

> involved in illicit activity " , Kemp prefers to " cast

> his lot " with a

> madman like Bolton.

>

> These sentiments are also shared by Michael Rubin of

> the American

> Enterprise Institute; that bastion right wing

> nut-jobs who " spearheaded "

> America's rush to war with Iraq. (Rumsfeld, Cheney,

> Wolfowitz, Perle

> etc) Rubin reasons that, " What would constitute

> proof (for the IAEA)

> would be nuclear weapons components which would be

> too late! " Too late!

> Too late, for what?

>

> Iran is surrounded on four sides by nuclear powers

> already. (Russia, US,

> Israel and Pakistan) Does Rubin expect that the

> Mullahs will get nukes

> and suddenly go " Jackie Chan " ? Consider Rubin's

> " mind-bending logic for

> a moment. By applying his dubious rationale, we

> could justify attacking

> any country we chose without even the slightest

> proof of wrongdoing. In

> fact, this is precisely how the neocons have always

> felt; only now,

> their aspirations have become part of an NPR

> platform for spreading

> their wisdom to the benighted masses.

>

> (We note that none of those interviewed referred to

> the new generation

> of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons

> currently being developed by

> the Bush Administration in violation of previous

> international treaties)

>

> " Liberal NPR? " How could anyone call themselves a

> journalist and use

> three right wing loonies as their sourcing for a

> report on a topic as

> hyper-sensitive as Iran? Is this the new benchmark

> for " evenhandedness "

> at NPR; a standard of " fair play " that even exceeds

> those at rival FOX

> News? " We malign; you decide? " It boggles the mind.

> NPR has done the

> public a colossal disservice by feeding the hysteria

> that is tilting the

> country towards war with Iran.

>