who gives a fuck?? are the papers only allowed to take the piss out of Bush and Brown?

Will the fourth estate drop the ball on Iran as well?
By LAWRENCE MARTIN

Monday, October 29, 2007 – Page A23

As the war drums beat on Iran, it is not just the Canadian government that faces a big test, but also the media, here and south of the border.

The question is whether journalists will be dragged around by their noses like they were on Iraq. Many American and Canadian media later apologized for taking at face value White House claims of weapons of mass destruction as well as other Bush administration bilge.

The media played a big part in laying the groundwork for the war. More skeptical and accurate reporting might well have reduced the public support required by the President for the invasion. Iraq is a lamentable chapter in the history of the fourth estate - one that cannot be repeated on Iran.

Journalists must start from the perspective that American governments, not just George W. Bush's, have a history of demonizing the enemy. It's called threat inflation and it's a political tool that has been used repeatedly to suck in the press.

Think back to the early fifties and Paul Nitze's hyped document, NSC-68, which wildly exaggerated the Soviet arsenal. Then came John F. Kennedy and allegations of a so-called missile gap with the Soviets - one that never existed. Under Lyndon Johnson came the trumped-up Gulf of Tonkin incident that was used to trigger escalation in Vietnam. Ronald Reagan turned Nicaragua's ragtag Sandinista rebels into a force capable of descending with ferocious force on Washington.

On Iraq, the media (not all of us bought in) generally accepted Colin Powell's list of bogus allegations put before the United Nations. There were UN inspectors on the ground with a different story, but the media swallowed the political propaganda. There was very little reporting on how the policy of containment had worked in the previous decade, how Saddam's armies had been substantially weakened, how he hadn't swatted a flea outside his own borders in that time. Hardly anyone mentioned how Saddam did, in fact, have WMDs in the Gulf War, but didn't even bother to use them.

As the Bush administration rolls out its version of the Iranian threat, the subjugation of the truth during the Iraq war run-up cannot be forgotten.

Nor can the new realities. Iran has pressed ahead with construction of a large facility to enrich uranium. It has dismissed three United Nations resolutions. It has allegedly supplied weapons to the Taliban in Afghanistan and accelerated support for extremist groups in the Middle East. Its President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has made repeated threats to destroy Israel.

Though Iran denies much of it and tries to claim its nuclear power development is for peaceful purposes, the media are not making this up.

But big chapters in the story are yet to come. The Bush administration last week levelled major new sanctions against Iran, blacklisting all of its major banks. The administration seems bent on moving the matter to a head, even though Iran can't develop nuclear weapons before Mr. Bush leaves office. The Russians and others, though few in the media, are asking why - why the push for confrontation now? Mr. Bush's headlong rush to judgment is exactly what happened in Iraq, with disastrous consequences.

The White House keeps citing Mr. Ahmadinejad, without reminding everyone that he does not have near the power of a classic dictator. Though it is obviously in our interests to prevent Tehran from getting nuclear weapons, it is also worth mentioning, though this is rarely is done, that even if Iran got nuclear weapons, any attempt to use them would result - given the overwhelming American/Israeli arsenal advantage - in instant annihilation. The ruling Iranian mullahs are not likely maniacal enough to want that.

While our governing Conservatives have been quiet on Iran, the Liberals have now joined other parties in advocating a patient, multilateral approach and solution.

"Mr. Harper's complete silence on this is eerie," says Bob Rae, the party's new critic on foreign affairs. Iran must fully comply with the requirements of international law, he says. Its "current path poses a threat to peace and stability."

At the same time, he adds, "Canada has to remind itself and, in particular, the Bush administration, of the importance of multilateral, law-based action. We have to learn the lessons of Iraq - and understand that rhetorical outrage should never outweigh the more difficult job of understanding the terrible consequences of unilateral military action."

 lmartin@globeandmail.com

 http://www.rbcinvest.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/PEstory/LAC/20071029/COMARTIN29/Headlines/headdex/headdexComment/2/2/7/

Ball Already Slipping From Media's Hands
Jordan Thornton

Lawrence Martin has to be commended for asking “Will the Fourth Estate Drop the Ball on Iran As Well?” (Editorial, Oct. 29). However, he misses the point that much of the media has already allowed itself to fall into the trap of talking exclusively about the feigned justifications given by American and Israeli “Hawks” - as opposed to the reasons - for an Act of Aggression they view as an inevitability. As such, Martin himself succumbs to the Administration’s own misinformation.

There has been no credible evidence produced that would suggest that Iran is supplying militants in either Afghanistan or Iraq. Likewise, the people claiming that Iran is developing nuclear weapons have been unable to produce any evidence of these claims, despite being asked by the International Atomic Energy Agency, which not only says that the evidence contradicts them, but that any attack on Iran would be “an act of Madness”.

It’s true that Iran has dismissed three UN resolutions, but these US-sponsored initiatives were created as an attempt to leverage a justification for its planned war. Investigations are currently underway into allegations that the US coerced countries into voting for the resolutions, most notably, India. Iran has not done anything that is not permitted under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and this explains Iran’s reluctance to recognize these resolutions.

Most troubling, though, is Martin’s all-too-familiar claim that “(Ahmadinejad) has made repeated threats to destroy Israel”. This falsehood was the result of a mistranslation – corrected the same week it was made - and in fact, the man has never said any such thing. It is interesting, however, that we are supposed to support a war, based upon such alleged statements, but ignore the fact that Israel is actually plotting with the US to attack Iran.

Part of the process of not “dropping the ball” on the subject of Iran is to reverse the misinformation that already exists, and currently clouds the debate about the Neo-Cons' designs for a war, which is really about controlling Middle Eastern supplies of oil, eliminating an entity Israel views as a threat, and ensuring both countries’ continued regional influence.

Jordan Thornton

an addition

from the daily telegraph...