Seymour Hersh reports in the New Yorker (6/6/11–subscription required) that there is s virtually no evidence Iran has a nuclear weapons program, despite huge efforts on the part of the U.S. to prove otherwise. Though Hersh’s findings do not contradict the past two National Intelligence Estimates, they do fly in the face of long-held official and corporate media views.
Corporate media routinely treat the alleged Iranian nuclear weapons program as a matter of fact. New York Times reporter Michael Gordon has done it at least twice (2/24/03, 10/19/04), in one case suggesting that a U.S.-friendly regime in Iraq might pressure “Iran to halt its nuclear weapons program.” With little variation in wording Gordon’s Times colleagues Patrick Tyler (6/27/05) and Scott Shane (3/26/05) have done the same. So has the Washington Post‘s Walter Pincus and Karen DeYoung (9/28/09), and Post editors and editorials routinely treat Iran’s nuke program as a proven fact (e.g., 9/11/10, 6/17/09).
So it’s not a big surprise that Hersh is coming under fire in in a corporate media which has largely internalized successive White House claims on Iran.
In a Politico report flagged by Glenn Greenwald , White House sources are quoted disparaging Hersh’s New Yorker piece in a report the concludes by reminding readers that Hersh has been criticized in the past for relying too much on anonymous sources. Just a little problem with that angle though, as Greenwald points out:
That’s the criticism that ends an article that relies exclusively on anonymous government sources, appearing in a D.C. gossip rag notorious for granting anonymity to any powerful figure who requests it for any or no reason. The difference, of course, is that the Pulitzer Prize-winning, five-time-Polk-Award-recipient investigative journalist who uncovered the My Lai massacre and the Abu Ghraib scandal grants anonymity to those who are challenging the official claims of those in power (that’s called “journalism”), while Politico uses it (as it did here) to serve those in power and shield them from all accountability as they spew their propaganda (which is called being a “lowly, rank Royal Court propagandist”).
Oh, Oh, I am so confused! Who do I rely on for the truth – the legendary and famous investigative journalist, Seymour Hersh, or the infamous MSM and government unreliable and sometimes imaginary sources? Woe is me!
But what Israel’s leaders say must be true. Right?
No, no: what Israel says is what we must do.
That’s right, Mary Ann and John. Now, get back into your cubicles and mind your own business.
Anonymous is a spokesman for a US Administration.
The job of the press is to question the position the government takes on issues, not to act as Washington’s spokesman. We saw how the fawning media let the Bush administration’s lies and sleight-of-hand take the U.S. to war in Iraq. How many times does anyone need to be hoodwinked before saying “no”?
The war drums are blasting away and the beaters hear nothing else above their din, nor will they tolerate anything but the sound of the drums, because the Fascist Corporate Government needs more wars in order to steal more resources to fuel it’s profits, and expand the empire. As for The “Fourth Estate,” it’s nothing” more than a corporate appendage.
Well my knee jerk reactions is to trust the Israelis. They usually are on the ball as far as their intelligence apparatus is concerned.As far as our intelligence……. they deserve all your derision after the screw up in Iraq.I also worry about the rhetoric from Iran. Not exactly warm and fuzzy or helpful. They warn their enemies of impending emulsion in fire and then with a smile say “we are only kidding”. Their leaders seem to be a few bricks short of a full load.But for those like Paula who worry…..Dont.Obama wont act in any way irregardless of Iran’s nuclear ambitions or threats.I may even go so far as to say even in the case of Iran USING an advanced destructive weapon.I don’t think he would do much more than saber rattle.Im sure that is how Iran feels.He is a paper tiger. And that probably is not a good perception in that part of the world.
Michael, Obama is a captive of the ‘Millitary Industrial Complex’ and will do THEIR bidding. He campaigned on many promises, like closing Gitmo, ending the wars in Afghanistan, and Iraq, giving us all decent health care, and my favorite making the government more transparent. Since his election, however, he has gone even farther than King George did down the road towards making the US a facist state. We are essentially at war with Lybia, he beefed up the troop level in Afghanistan, and we sure aren’t leaving Iraq ever, judging from the size of our new embassy there. I believe Pakistan will be up next (despite the fact that it already has the bomb and an unstable government), but Iran is in the que. AND… yes, we still have idiots in high places that believe a small nulear attack is okay. Obama like Bush before him will do as he is told period. Have you noticed while there are fewer and fewer living wage jobs, not enough to go around and not many more being created, the military, has in inifinite number of openings. as for the press, it will follow orders too.
Paula I agree with you that Bush and Obama have had their share of mistakes.That said, Im not a big purveyor of the military industrial complex theory.Just dont buy into it at all.No president as far as I know in or out of office has warned about the undo influence ,or pressure from such a shadow government. Now to a conspiracy theorist THAT is proof alone.
I hope we have become more circumspect about the uses of our military.
Obamas promises are simply things he needed to say to get in.Im surprised your surprised.As far as good jobs they will come back when government steps back.
The Dwight D. Eisenhower ring any bell there michael e? He explicitly warned of the undue influence of the military industrial complex. I must say your profound ignorance of the subjects you relentlessly comment about about is quite impressive.
Joe
Classic liberalism to believe because i don’t buy your argument that I must be ignorant.As far as Eisenhowers speech,I know it well.My guess is if you read it that you and your liberal friends would take
issue with a good part of it. Cute that you pick and choose what words you like.His worry was simple.Prior to the war we had a small army.Less than Brazil!He saw it raise to several million under arms in 4 years.We went from 4 aircraft carriers to hundreds.And air force that blackened the skies.By 1960 (when he made the speech)our nuclear arms were exploding.Still millions under arms in a draft,and in every real sense we were arming all of the free world and engaged in super power conflicts. A 700 ship navy!He had reason to worry for the future.One worry (though by no means his primary worry) was of a military takeover led not by generals but by industry that could rob us of our freedoms.He need not of worried.When Obama moves to cut seminal programs in our armament industry there will be no uprisings, or tanks marching on the white house.Or McDonald Douglas planes flying against the Pentagon.It will just be a bi-line next to ‘Jersey shore” moving to Rome.If he orders our troops out of Iraq or Afghanistan…..T hey will march and salute smartly. Our military industrial complex is a bulwark to our freedom. Like the high tech accomplishments of NASA, they do an amazing job. They have kept our arms first and our fighting men unsurpassed.I can feel your hackles going up just to here such heresy .Sorry Joe, I am not profoundly ignorant.I simply profoundly disagree.As I “profoundly” disagreed with this presidents economic moves.Im watching my sad predictions click into place like ticks in a lock.I dont blame you.There is little left to hang your hat on but fear mongering
American public opinion has been squarely against the war in Afghanistan for years now, yet on and on it goes. Hundreds of billions of dollars spent in a country where the average income is $500 a YEAR. Yet some people like this clueless “Michael” think the Military Industrial Complex is a theory?!?!?!?!? The ignorance of the average American is breathtaking.
To quote the late Chalmers Johnson, “When war becomes that profitable, you WILL see more of it.”
Michael E’s ramblings might make him, as he puts it, “seem to be a few bricks short of a full load.”
But don’t be misled: his function is to sidetrack intelligent discussion to the point that it stops. In this case he even repeats the NYT assumption that Rendell rightly points out is specious: “Obama wont act in any way irregardless of Iran’s nuclear ambitions or threats.I may even go so far as to say even in the case of Iran USING an advanced destructive weapon.”
He’s a troll, whether paid or not, and there’s no real benefit in taking him seriously. If a right-winger intelligently takes up the actual issues being discussed, that’s another matter.
no i’ll never use anonymous sources,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
ere bakachihu