A Recipe For Facts

[Winstonm]

A Recipe for Facts:

Step 1: get bipartisan agreement.

Step 2: make sure the bipartisan nature of the agreement is reported.

Step 3: report a previous report as verification of the facts.

Step 4: repeat steps 1-3 until all claims are accepted as truth.

 

The Sunday Morning Talk Show Iranian Build-a-bomb Recipe

 

Step 1: bipartisan agreement:

 

The Democrat:

"The Iranians will have a nuclear weapon if something doesn't change their minds. We need tough sanctions. We need to do them now," Democratic Senator Evan Bayh told "Fox News Sunday."

 

The Republican:

Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, a leading congressional voice on defense and security matters, said he would like Congress to set aside a week dedicated to a raft of new sanctions legislation against the Islamic republic.

 

Steps 2 and 3:

 

by Stephanie Griffith Stephanie Griffith  – Sun Oct 4, 4:23 pm ET

 

WASHINGTON (AFP) – US lawmakers on Sunday vowed quick action against Iran following a report that weapons experts believe Tehran has the know-how to build an atomic bomb -- even as a senior US official downplayed the news article.

 

A chorus of congressional voices, both Republican and Democratic, urged tough action against Tehran following a New York Times report that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has determined Iran now has "sufficient information" to build a nuclear weapon.

 

 

There are a couple of small problems with this bipartisan truth - the New York Times article that leaked the information made it clear that it was not a document released by the IAEA but a preliminary finding that was in doubt:

 

The report by experts in the International Atomic Energy Agency stresses in its introduction that its conclusions are tentative and subject to further confirmation of the evidence, which it says came from intelligence agencies and its own investigations.

 

One would hope that some mention might be made that the head of the agency doubted the veracity of the report itself:

 

Last month, the agency issued an unusual statement cautioning it “has no concrete proof” that Iran ever sought to make nuclear arms, much less to perfect a warhead. On Saturday in India, Dr. ElBaradei was quoted as saying that “a major question” about the authenticity of the evidence kept his agency from “making any judgment at all” on whether Iran had ever sought to design a nuclear warhead.

 

Step 4 depends on whether or not we accept this bipartisan "fact" or whether we start demanding real proof.

 

When it comes to something as serious as military action or starting of wars, I am weary of the chest-thumping bipartisan truth method of determining facts and foreign policy.

 

The original NYT article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/04/world/mi...ast/04nuke.html

[mike777]

A Recipe for Facts:

Step 1: get bipartisan agreement. 

Step 2: make sure the bipartisan nature of the agreement is reported.

Step 3: report a previous report as verification of the facts. 

Step 4: repeat steps 1-3 until all claims are accepted as truth.

 

The Sunday Morning Talk Show Iranian Build-a-bomb Recipe

 

Step 1: bipartisan agreement:

 

The Democrat:

"The Iranians will have a nuclear weapon if something doesn't change their minds. We need tough sanctions. We need to do them now," Democratic Senator Evan Bayh told "Fox News Sunday."

 

The Republican:

Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, a leading congressional voice on defense and security matters, said he would like Congress to set aside a week dedicated to a raft of new sanctions legislation against the Islamic republic.

 

Steps 2 and 3:

 

by Stephanie Griffith Stephanie Griffith   – Sun Oct 4, 4:23 pm ET

 

WASHINGTON (AFP) – US lawmakers on Sunday vowed quick action against Iran following a report that weapons experts believe Tehran has the know-how to build an atomic bomb -- even as a senior US official downplayed the news article.

 

A chorus of congressional voices, both Republican and Democratic, urged tough action against Tehran following a New York Times report that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has determined Iran now has "sufficient information" to build a nuclear weapon.

 

 

There are a couple of small problems with this bipartisan truth - the New York Times article that leaked the information made it clear that it was not a document released by the IAEA but a preliminary finding that was in doubt:

 

The report by experts in the International Atomic Energy Agency stresses in its introduction that its conclusions are tentative and subject to further confirmation of the evidence, which it says came from intelligence agencies and its own investigations.

 

One would hope that some mention might be made that the head of the agency doubted the veracity of the report itself:

 

Last month, the agency issued an unusual statement cautioning it “has no concrete proof” that Iran ever sought to make nuclear arms, much less to perfect a warhead. On Saturday in India, Dr. ElBaradei was quoted as saying that “a major question” about the authenticity of the evidence kept his agency from “making any judgment at all” on whether Iran had ever sought to design a nuclear warhead.

 

Step 4 depends on whether or not we accept this bipartisan "fact" or whether we start demanding real proof.

 

When it comes to something as serious as military action or starting of wars, I am weary of the chest-thumping bipartisan truth method of determining facts and foreign policy.

 

The original NYT article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/04/world/mi...ast/04nuke.html

I am not sure what the exact question is. ;)

 

Iran is a huge country with many people with PHD's....To build a nuke requires 1930's education and economy.

 

If Iran wants to build a nuke, they will and why not?

If Israel decides they must act...they must act.

If Saudis want nukes..they can buy one.

 

 

Note I have not heard one USA politician say...if Iran wants nuke...we willgo to total war or even pretend war.

[Winstonm]

I do not trust Iran to be truthful. I do not think they are good guys. It would not surprise me if they were attempting a nuclear weapon. But so far these are only suppositions and acccusations.

 

My problem is the way we play fast and loose in this country with accusations and try to sell them as facts.

[mike777]

I do not trust Iran to be truthful.  I do not think they are good guys.  It would not surprise me if they were attempting a nuclear weapon.  But so far these are only suppositions and acccusations.

 

My problem is the way we play fast and loose in this country with accusations and try to sell them as facts.

I agree.

 

I have no good solution...and yours?

 

 

btw If we have been trying for 30 years to answer whatever your real question is and we have no answer, do what now?

[Winstonm]

I do not trust Iran to be truthful.  I do not think they are good guys.  It would not surprise me if they were attempting a nuclear weapon.  But so far these are only suppositions and acccusations.

 

My problem is the way we play fast and loose in this country with accusations and try to sell them as facts.

I agree.

 

I have no good solution...and yours?

 

 

btw If we have been trying for 30 years to answer whatever your real question is and we have no answer, do what now?

It would be nice if the citizenry would hold accountable those responsible for disinformation - perhaps a start is simply to turn off the news channels of all those stations that treat accuracy in stories as if it were based on a call-in phone poll and call out the written word when it is non-proved.

 

Sure, it is an important story that there is a conflict within the IAEA about the value of this information. But the value of the information in the NYT's story is not the concrete fact that the story's start would have one believe:

 

By WILLIAM J. BROAD and DAVID E. SANGER

Published: October 3, 2009

 

Senior staff members of the United Nations nuclear agency have concluded in a confidential analysis that Iran has acquired “sufficient information to be able to design and produce a workable” atom bomb.

 

That is beyond slant - the purpose of that opening line is to make the report seem more universally accepted that it truly is.

 

I think the solution is to keep pointing out such distortions - loud and long - and hope that eventually more MSM will take up the cause of marginalizing such distortions.

[mike777]

AGain as I mentioned in threads from years ago....Nukes=1930-40 tech.......So Iran has 1930 technology what is the real point?

 

Again not sure what the real question here is...so far much to do about nothing.

 

We all know governments act on incomplete information...so what.....

 

 

Who is against having more facts.....?

[Winstonm]

Who is against having more facts.....?

 

Well, it seems the ones who wrote the story are - unless the head of the IAEA is lying.

 

Answering a question regarding a story published in The New York Times on Saturday that quotes a source saying an internal IAEA report mentions that Iran is actively pursuing a nuclear weapons programme, Mr ElBaradei said the existence of such a document was “totally baseless”.

[mike777]

Who is against having more facts.....?

 

Well, it seems the ones who wrote the story are - unless the head of the IAEA is lying.

 

Answering a question regarding a story published in The New York Times on Saturday that quotes a source saying an internal IAEA report mentions that Iran is actively pursuing a nuclear weapons programme, Mr ElBaradei said the existence of such a document was “totally baseless”.

AGain...Iran is a huge country...a rich country, a very smart country..so what is your point? They have 1942 tech so what?

 

So Iran wants nukes...so what?

 

 

My point is why the heck do they not have nukes today....or yesterday?

 

What is your point....facts are confusing..so what....?

[Al_U_Card]

I agree with Mike (maybe I better go lie down until it passes?????).

 

Iran is a sovereign nation, no better nor worse than the U.S. They have their problems which will get fixed one way (Israel/U.S.) or another (internal revolt).

 

Same old, same old.

[gwnn]

isnt the basic premise that there are 'sane nations' and 'insane nations' ? Sane is of course a nation that the majority of the world deems as sane. Here the majority does not mean a high enough % (51? 80? 90? depends on the definition) of people, it means a high enough % of nucular bombs. So if someone is deemed insane then they should wear a restraining jacket. Of course this is all obvious so why post about it? Or should I ask myself why I am posting about it?

[Gerben42]

Sane is of course a nation that the majority of the world deems as sane.

 

Wow, I never knew that was a democratic process. I thought GWB decided who is sane and who is not. A bit like Santa...

[Al_U_Card]

Viewed from an extra-terrestrial perspective, the polarization of the duality of our existence leads to a separation of black and white....unless, of course, you are a Gray... :P

[gwnn]

Sane is of course a nation that the majority of the world deems as sane.

 

Wow, I never knew that was a democratic process. I thought GWB decided who is sane and who is not. A bit like Santa...

well you can read the next phrase which defines what I meant by 'majority' in this context :P

[Winstonm]

The point is how we as a people have allowed our media to interpret facts for us based on accusation and repetition of the accusation.

 

If you think it is O.K. for AP to claim Iran has nuclear knowledge based on unsubstantiated information, then to you the question is moot. To me, that question is more relevant than IF Iran really does have nukes or the ability to make warheads.

 

The relevant issue is about who controls the information flow.

[mike777]

The point is how we as a people have allowed our media to interpret facts for us based on accusation and repetition of the accusation.

 

If you think it is O.K. for AP to claim Iran has nuclear knowledge based on unsubstantiated information, then to you the question is moot.  To me, that question is more relevant than IF Iran really does have nukes or the ability to make warheads.

 

The relevant issue is about who controls the information flow.

I think alot of this media stuff started with Thomas Paine, etc.

 

See the Indian Wars, Remember the Maine, Civil War, etc.

 

History repeats itself.

[Trinidad]

I do not trust Iran to be truthful.  I do not think they are good guys.  It would not surprise me if they were attempting a nuclear weapon.  But so far these are only suppositions and acccusations.

 

My problem is the way we play fast and loose in this country with accusations and try to sell them as facts.

I agree.

 

I have no good solution...and yours?

How about: Believing the neutral experts who know (names like ElBaradei and Hans Blix pop up) rather than people who don't know anything and have something at stake in the matter?

 

Rik

[luke warm]

The point is how we as a people have allowed our media to interpret facts for us based on accusation and repetition of the accusation.

 

If you think it is O.K. for AP to claim Iran has nuclear knowledge based on unsubstantiated information, then to you the question is moot.  To me, that question is more relevant than IF Iran really does have nukes or the ability to make warheads.

 

The relevant issue is about who controls the information flow.

i think it's ok for a news agency to quote a source as stating such and such... if the source is a supposed authority, that seems to be news to me... i object much more to our "news" sources trying to entertain us, or when they give one side and not the other(s) of an issue... just give us the facts, or at least tell us what all parties say are the facts, and let us decide

 

in a (slightly) related vein, keep 'em in the dark

[Winstonm]

From Glenn Greenwald:

 

That's because what happened here is obvious:  the administration wanted to issue a Press Release exploiting the fear surrounding the Zazi case to justify Obama's Bush-copying civil liberties policies (including its current demands for full Bush-era Patriot Act renewal and FISA continuation) while depicting Obama as our careful yet forceful protector.  So they dispatched an official (or officials) to dictate the sanctioned administration line to Anne Kornblut.  She then unquestioningly wrote it all down (after granting them anonymity) and The Post uncritically published it as a "news article."  That's what Washington journalists typically mean by "reporting":  we dutifully write down what government officials tell us to say -- while letting them hide behind anonymity -- and then we publish it. 

[Winstonm]

The point is how we as a people have allowed our media to interpret facts for us based on accusation and repetition of the accusation.

 

If you think it is O.K. for AP to claim Iran has nuclear knowledge based on unsubstantiated information, then to you the question is moot.  To me, that question is more relevant than IF Iran really does have nukes or the ability to make warheads.

 

The relevant issue is about who controls the information flow.

i think it's ok for a news agency to quote a source as stating such and such... if the source is a supposed authority, that seems to be news to me... i object much more to our "news" sources trying to entertain us, or when they give one side and not the other(s) of an issue... just give us the facts, or at least tell us what all parties say are the facts, and let us decide

 

in a (slightly) related vein, keep 'em in the dark

So you are happy with stenography instead as reporting.

[luke warm]

no, but we seem to differ on just what is considered 'reporting'

[ArtK78]

Eventually we will get incontrovertible evidence that Iran has nuclear capability. That evidence will be a nuclear missile striking a major population center - Israel, Iraq, or somewhere in Western Europe.

 

However, I suspect that Israel will act against Iran before it comes to that.

[hrothgar]

Eventually we will get incontrovertible evidence that Iran has nuclear capability. That evidence will be a nuclear missile striking a major population center - Israel, Iraq, or somewhere in Western Europe.

 

However, I suspect that Israel will act against Iran before it comes to that.

It must be a weird and wonderful world inside what passes for your brain. I can only imagine the colors that you see, the voices that whisper to you at night, and the intricate set of delusions that masquerades for rational thought.

 

Simple question: Somehow the French, the British, the Chinese, and the Russians have all be able to live with nuclear weapons for decades without ever feeling the need to launch missiles at each other. Indeed, the only country out there who has ever been willing to use atomic weapons was US, and that was back in the good old days when we had a monopoly on these types of weapons of mass destruction.

 

What makes you think that the Iran regime is eager to commit suicide? Can you posit a single, even semi reasonable scenario in which the Iranians would do anything as mind numbingly stupid as launch a nuclear armed missile at Western Europe?

 

I'll note in passing, there's nothing all that special about nukes. The Iranians could easy create nerve gas; maybe even biological weapons. Somehow, they've managed to restrain themselves for low, these many years. I don't think that they're going to behave any differently when they finally get there hands on some nukes.

 

Richard

 

Who believes that the incontrovertible evidence that Iran has a nuclear capability will be seismic readings from an underground nuclear test (And who also believes that the Israeli's launching an attack against Iran would be almost as stupid as the US invading Iraq)

[luke warm]

And who also believes that the Israeli's launching an attack against Iran would be almost as stupid as the US invading Iraq

and who believes that's exactly what israel would do (unless talked down by the u.s., of course, or unless israel suddenly becomes enlightened and listens to your advice on their foreign policy)?

[hrothgar]

And who also believes that the Israeli's launching an attack against Iran would be almost as stupid as the US invading Iraq

and who believes that's exactly what israel would do (unless talked down by the u.s., of course, or unless israel suddenly becomes enlightened and listens to your advice on their foreign policy)?

I don't think that its inconceivable that the Israeli's launch an attack Iran. However, I believe that it would be counter productive, to say the least:

 

1. A preemptive Israeli strike would almost certainly cause the Iranians to shut down the Straits of Hormuz. This would provoke a massive spike in oil prices and devastate the international economy. (This is one of the few things that I can think of that might jeopardize the special relationship between the US and Israel)

 

2. A preemptive Israeli strike would most likely cause the Iranians to rally around the flag. Right now, the Iranian government is extremely unpopular with its own people. An Israeli military strike, launched against facilities in Iranian population centers will galvanize the Iranian population (and not in a way that anyone in the West would want)

 

3. The Iranians just agreed to have their uranium refined in Russia in exchange for nuclear fuel rods from France. There are no guarantees that the Iranians are going to dismantle their centrifuges; however launching an immediately following a major diplomatic breakthrough seems inane.

 

I don't expect that the Israeli's are going to listen to "my advice" on foreign policy. Then again, this is hardly "my advice". Anyone with half a brain knows that an Israeli assault is sheer lunacy. I can point to any number of quotes from US diplomats and military personal who make exactly these same set of points.

 

I understand that Kristol, the Weekly Standard, and the rest of the NeoCon are still furiously masturbating about the thought of an Israeli first strike. Luckily, their credibility has gone down a bit after people made the mistake of listening to the last around, invaded the wrong country, leading to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis.

[Winstonm]

no, but we seem to differ on just what is considered 'reporting'

I went back and reread your post. Maybe I misunderstand - but I do agree that it is O.K. to state what someone said who is quoted as an authority.

 

What I object to is simply reporting here's what one side said here is what the other side said.