Log In | Register
Last Friday [Aug 20], the New York Times reported that the Obama administration had convinced Israel that there was no need to rush on the issue.... In other words, despite [Jeffrey] Goldberg's breathless two-minutes-to-midnight schedule, there's no urgency whatsoever about debating military action against Iran....
Perhaps, after all these years of obsessive Iran nuclear mania, it's too much to request a moment of sanity on the issue of Iran and the bomb.... If...we really have a couple of years to think this over, what about starting by asking three crucial questions, each of which our debaters would prefer to avoid or ignore?
Cutting Through the Media's Bogus 'Bomb-Iran' Debate
Seeded on Sun Sep 5, 2010 8:40 PM EDT
Article Source: Common Dreams- Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.
- Public Discussion (1)
Despite Goldberg's panic-inducing prediction, there are plenty of reasons to believe that, for all its bluster and threat, Israel won't, in fact, bomb Iran next year -- or any time soon. But would the Israelis like to see the United States take on their prime regional enemy? You bet they would. Indeed, Netanyahu continually insists that the U.S. has an obligation to take the lead in confronting Iran....
The debate's ultimate purpose is to plant in the public mind the idea that a march to war with Iran, as Admiral Hayden put it on CNN, "seems inexorable, doesn't it?"
Inexorable -- only if the media allows itself to be fooled twice.
#1 - Sun Sep 5, 2010 8:41 PM EDTYou're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
