So I'm reading story after story where the MSM distills the State Department's most recent blurb on Iran's uranium enrichment efforts down to the following (as quoted from Bloomberg
Iran Could Produce Nuclear Bomb in 16 Days, U.S. Says
Well it's not exactly a bald-faced lie, but it sure-as-sh*t isn't the truth either. What Stephen Rademaker of the
State Department actually said was that Natanz, the facility they intend to use, could hold up to 50,000 centrifuges, a critical component in the enrichment process, but then even he went on to apply a little Bu$hCo-approved spin:
Using those 50,000 centrifuges they could produce enough highly enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon in 16 days.
...except that, Iran doesn't have 50,000 centrifuges
! In fact, they only have 164 and have informed the IAEA that they plan to construct 3000. And as if all this spin weren't enough, Mr. Rademaker
does not discuss, and Bloomberg does not mention, what a massive investment in time, manpower, and capital constructing 50,000 centrifuges would be.
So where am I going with this? Simply here: Many Americans, especially those predisposed to consider Iran a threat, won't care about how long it would actually take for Iran to construct a bomb. So...if the MSM refuses to accurately report what comes out of the administration and insists on embellishing the headlines in order to make better copy, there is no chance that a groundswell of public opinion will arise to stop Bu$hCo's plans for attacking Iran. But then, maybe that's the point. After all, a shill's
job is entice the prospective rubes; Bu$hCo is going to need to apply a lot of lipstick to the pig that is a US strike on Iran; And, for the MSM, war is way more interesting than diplomacy.
Whatever it takes to sell papers, baby. Where'd you get the idea that 21st century American news outlets (or at least the editors, publishers, and producers) give a rat's ass about some moldy old sentimental mush about serving the public interest or exposing truths the powerful would rather keep hidden.
The MSM is shat, of course.
I noticed in the BBC this morning that the level of recent enrichment is identical to the necessary level for fuel production. Quite an interesting gesture (percentage) when viewed diplomatically.
Ah, the shills have been getting lots of practice under the w, Rove and co....
The simple fact is that despite it's long history, Iran is not an aggressor. Their wars are defensive, not offensive. Even if they were this close to the bomb (cough, how many do we have?), the chances they would use it are next to nil... unless we attack them... then all hell could break loose. Scary.
That article was very poorly written and certainly was confusing to follow. The Guardian Unlimited
has a good question and answer article today that says just about the same thing you do. I hope you sent a letter to Bloomberg's editor and set him straight.
Kathy, you're right that was a pretty poor job for Bloomberg, but I saw the same stupid headline in at least three other places: Raw Story, AP, and Yahoo News (though they may have copied the AP).
Hey, War is good for ratings you frog!
The So Called American Media (SCAM) isn't even a conspiracy in the sense of being an organized planned thing. There are plenty of petty conspiracies to go around, but no overarching one. Mostly, it's just stupid and ideologically blind running in the same ruts, backing each other up across political corporate media boundaries, using each other and so on. Like a culture of corruption or something. Part of it, to be honest, is that we've taken advantage of a new phenonmenon (this internetsss thingy) that allows us to see the shape of it all while they remain lost (to varying degrees) in the trees.
Our government is being run by people who are like the little boy who cried wolf. This behavior makes our lives particularly dangerous, because it is not possible to believe a thing that the government has to say. The only times that it lets the truth out are when it threatens and when it decides to cause harm..