New York Times Fronts Anti-War Reporting Against Action in Iran: 'Could Leave Hundreds of Americans Dead'
The New York Times, laboring under the false impression it participated in George W. Bush's "rush to war" in Iraq, is pushing back hard against the prospect of preemptive action against Iran's nuclear threat, raising the specter of another Middle East quagmire for the United States.
Mark Mazzetti and Thom Shanker reported Tuesday's lead story, "U.S. Simulation Forecasts Perils Of Strike At Iran."
A classified war simulation held this month to assess the repercussions of an Israeli attack on Iran forecasts that the strike would lead to a wider regional war, which could draw in the United States and leave hundreds of Americans dead, according to American officials.
Omri Ceren responded at Commentary Thursday morning with "NY Times Simulates Journalism on Iran," calling the article part of "the paper’s unsubtle front page campaign to brush back Israeli action against Iran."
The paper's war against action against Iran has been running for weeks. Times reporter Scott Shane's February 22 front-page "news analysis," “In Din Over Iran, Rattling Sabers Echo,” was written in the style of an anti-war activist, complete with questioning the "new whiff of gunpowder in the air." Shane quoted four scholars, all of whom were dismissive of the Iranian nuclear threat and against intervention, and even noted criticism of his own paper for overstating Iran’s threat.
Downplaying the Iran threat was also the focus of Monday's front-page story, "Hawks Steering Debate on How To Take On Iran." The text box read: "Differences among pro-Israel groups on Iranian policy." Commentary's Jonathan Tobin responded with "Jews Divided on Iran? Not Really." Tobin pointed out: "The only organizations that the Times could find to back up that headline were J Street and Tikkun. While the former claims to be 'pro-Israel' even the latter’s adherents do not attempt to play that game. But however you wish to label them, the idea that disagreement from these two left-wing outliers constitutes any sort of a Jewish debate is comical."
- Clay Waters's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
May I make a Plea
Submitted by John21 on Wed, 03/21/2012 - 9:22am.
May I make a plea to the Iranians, when you pop that nuke your building, may I suggest you use the New York Times building as "Ground Zero".
Most of America will still be pissed (not liberals they wil be to into the Cum by ya BS) but some of us would be thankful for the "Clorine in the gene pool" before we make you glow in the dark.
Look...there are two possible paths to follow.
Submitted by c5then on Wed, 03/21/2012 - 9:23am.
One is the pre-emptive strike on Iran to prevent them from making a nuclear weapon and to destroy and damage their facilities to make that possibility an non-issue for about another decade.
The other is to take the Ron Paul approach and stop trying to be the world police force and simply worry about defending the US and our direct interests.
What we are currently trying to do is walk down a line that is in-between the two choices. This will not work in stoping Iran and it will make the US look weak, undecided and wishy-washy to the rest of the world. It will cause more problems in the long run.
What we as a country need to do is have the debate openly and calmly, make the decision as to which path we are going to choose (A or B above not C) and then do it.
What the NYT and others are advocating is that we pursue the same strategy that we did with North Korea. We can all see how well that worked out.
Madison and Jefferson and Franklin built a Republic - Roberts killed it!
There is a third path, c5.
Submitted by Newsbubba on Wed, 03/21/2012 - 11:33am.
We can remember how we defeated the Germans, the Japanese, and most of the rest of the world in a period of three or four years. Unfortunately, we let the USSR off the hook, and they would not step away from being a threat until Reagan made it totally clear that he could top any damned thing they did, and he WOULD DO IT. They folded.
We did NOT drop a few bombs on them, walk away, and hope that they would behave. (That's sort of what happened after WWl, and is what led to WWll) We did NOT worry ourselves silly over collateral damage. We killed people, and destroyed things until they were sick of it and they unconditionally surrendered.
Prior to that winning strategy, we took the Ron Paul approach and ignored it just hoping that they would go away.
We need to make up our minds if we want Iran to have a nuke or not. If the answer is no, then we should make every attempt to totally destroy everything in that country till they unconditionally surrender, turn over their "leaders," and shut the hell up for the next 50 to 100 years.
That strategy works every time it is tried by free men throughout history.
The point you make is that talking worked
Submitted by lrgon on Wed, 03/21/2012 - 1:51pm.
"... the USSR ... and they would not step away from being a threat until Reagan made it totally clear that he could top any damned thing they did, and he WOULD DO IT. They folded."
What you are saying is that Reagan's TALKED to them.
Previous presidents going all the way back to Eisenhower "talked" to the Russians. Kennedy signed a Nuclear Test BanTreaty, Nixon and Ford sat down and talked "SALT I and SALT II" and even a treaty that banned building a defensive shield from an ICBM strike!
Reagan talked about building a shield protecting American cities from Russian ICBMs. The media labelled it "Star Wars" and too costly and improbable to build. They were wrong but still no shield was built.
Under Clinton the Chinese communists got the technology to MIRV (multiple re-entry vehicles) their missles and to improve their ICBM's accuracy. Clinton was not impeached for selling us out. He was impeached for "sex."
Jimmy Carter was tougher on the reds than Ronald Reagan. Carter boycotted the 1980 Moscow Summer Olympics in protest to the 1979 invasion by soviet troops into Afghanistan.
Reagan brought the troops home after the Beirut truck bomb killed 300 Marines. The US was part of a multi-nation UN force. UN missions make matters worse and invite "blowback" at countires deemed as invaders by middle eastern nations citizens.
Ron Paul has gone on record of backing Israel's "Operation Babylon" ( Israeli air strike at the Iraqi Osirak nuclear facility in June 1981). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Opera
Tough talk by movie cowboys at the Brandenbeg gate is one thing but his administration came down hard on Israel for bombing that nuke cite! Congress condemned Israel for taking out the nuke facility except Ron Paul. Paul, in defense of Israel's actions, said Israel didn't need permission from the US to exercise their sovereign right to defend their country.
That sounds like a man that will defend US sovereignty from any nation!
Paul is a defense man who will defend America but doesn't want to wear out our military on foreign adventures policeing the planet. His foreign policy views are to trim back the militarism that is making the world an unsafe place.
What purpose does it serve America to have US troops stationed in foreign lands that go crazy and shoot civilians. US foreign policy as it now stands is insane and it creates insane actions that enrage people who "blowback" at us!
How many of these children even heard of, little alone understood, what 9-11 was all about?
The dead in that Kandahar village:
Mohamed Dawood son of Abdullah
Khudaydad son of Mohamed Juma
Nazar Mohamed
Payendo
Robeena
Shatarina daughter of Sultan Mohamed
Zahra daughter of Abdul Hamid
Nazia daughter of Dost Mohamed
Masooma daughter of Mohamed Wazir
Farida daughter of Mohamed Wazir
Palwasha daughter of Mohamed Wazir
Nabia daughter of Mohamed Wazir
Esmatullah daughter of Mohamed Wazir
Faizullah son of Mohamed Wazir
Essa Mohamed son of Mohamed Hussain
Akhtar Mohamed son of Murrad Ali
The wounded:
Haji Mohamed Naim son of Haji Sakhawat
Mohamed Sediq son of Mohamed Naim
Parween
Rafiullah
Zardana
Here Irgon, another list*
Submitted by cajun2 on Wed, 03/21/2012 - 2:04pm.
An avowed radical Muslim went berserk and killed and wounded his fellow soldiers at Ft Hood. Since November 2009, still no justice. These soldiers understood the meaning of 9-11 probably better than any of us which is why they served this country. To ignore a visible threat to our people is why events like Hassans rampage can even happen. But three years later, he is a "wounded warrior"to the media and OUR warriors still have no justice.
Lt. Col Juanita Warman
Major Libardo Caraveo
Cpt John P Gaffaney
Cpt Russell Seager
Staff Sgt Justin Decrow
Spc Jason Hunt
Sgt Amy Krueger
Spc Fredrick Greene
Pfc Aaron Nemelka
Pfc Michael Pearson
Pfc Khuam Xiong
Pvt Francheska Velez (pregnant)
Michael G Cahill
and 38 wounded
And we wait for justice.
Newt is ready to bring troops home
Submitted by lrgon on Wed, 03/21/2012 - 5:30pm.
Newt Gingrich----
"I think it's very likely that we have lost, tragically lost, the lives and suffered injuries to a considerable number of young Americans on a mission that we're going to discover is not doable,"--March 11th, 2012 interview on Fox News Sunday.
On CBS's Face The Nation, Gingrich said bringing about the kind of change the United States and its allies are seeking in Afghanistan would require a more "ruthless" approach. "We're not prepared to be ruthless enough to force them to change, yet we're clearly an alien presence," the former Speaker of the House said.
So even the fav of neocons is sounding more like Ron Paul.
Must make you neos automatically begin to look for egg on your faces.
⇒ Irgonamus? Say what?
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Wed, 03/21/2012 - 5:33pm.
If Newd Gingrich is a "neocon", what the hell is a "neocon"?
Good evening Cool
Submitted by cocodrie on Wed, 03/21/2012 - 5:48pm.
He is another ignoranus - an idiot that is also a posterior orifice.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
Were there any children involved?
Submitted by lrgon on Wed, 03/21/2012 - 6:21pm.
Did the army officer at Ft Hood murder chidren and then burn their bodies like this US soldier who should have been sent home long ago did in Kandahar?
The Ft.Hood officer accused of the murder of these US citizens was a US soldier. I don't know what denomination or if the soldier accused of the mass killings in Kandahar even has religious convictions. If he is Christian are you implying, by referring to the Ft Hood killer in your comeback argument, that it was his religious views that caused him to go beserk?
At Ft.Hood he said he didn't want to be deployed to Iraq. He was showing signs of cracking and the US government let him conntinue wearing the uniform instead of discharging him! Is the US army to blame even a little for their negligence in the Ft. Hood Killings?
The tragedy is that for people like you it is a "so what?" response. You justify it by pointing to another US soldier that screams "God is the greatest " in arabic while pulling the trigger on US soil and killing unarmed soldiers.
A double tragedy is that US troops on an army base on US soil were unarmed and incapable of shooting back just like those unarmed Afghani civilians unarmed by their own government. Don't they have a right to self defense like the victims at Fort Hood?
Apples to oranges comparisons are inaccurate when the issues are a failed US foreign policy and a POTUS that broke his promise to bring the troops home as soon as he took office.
Newt Gingrich says we are moving toward the "ruthless" side of the equation in Afghanistan. He recognizes the shift away from endless wars.
54% of the American people want the US out of Afghanistan. We aren't a democracy since we aren't a nation that is governed by popularity polls. However polls do say that people are tired of these wars.
The Constitution is our rule book. Congress is supposed to decide when to make war and not the UN. If our Constitution is to continue to mean anything and our solldiers are supposed to have clear mission in any war they are sent to fight in they deserve to fight under the US flag not under a UN flag.They must fight under US congressional directives not UN Security Council directives. We must only send them in to win the wars and come home asap.
We are being bullied by the executive branch into going along with a foreign policy that makes these wars linger on for decades.
Obama is a committed socialist and he sees war as advantageous to promoting socialism abroad and diverting attention away from his failed domestic policy.
It is unpatriotic to watch US soldiers slide into insanity and begin shooting at children and burning villages.
When planes were hijacked and flown into buildings
Submitted by Radical1979 on Wed, 03/21/2012 - 6:34pm.
Children were involved.
Paulbot
Submitted by Radical1979 on Wed, 03/21/2012 - 2:04pm.
I think Reagan spoke softly, but carried a big stick.
It wasnt the words, it was the stick.
⇒ Irgonamus
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Wed, 03/21/2012 - 2:08pm.
Reagan didn't talk to "them", he talked to us. He announced SDI (Star Wars) and the Russians listened in and believed he was serious.
The problem with Barack Hussein Opology is that the Russkies can listen in all they want, but they're too busy laughing.
He "talked" to them, alright!
Submitted by CobraMan on Wed, 03/21/2012 - 4:33pm.
"What you are saying is that Reagan's TALKED to them."
Yea, he "talked" to them, alright, with a massive increase in the number of troops stationed along the East /West boarder, the deployment of nukes in Germany, and the largest naval increase we have witnessed since WWII. I know, because I was stationed in Germany, as a part of that military buildup, in the mid 80's when most of that "talking" occurred, like when he "talked' to the Russian navy by simultaneously "lighting up"' each and every Russian naval vessel with US seaborne sonar and air/seaborne radar when Russia, acting the tough guy, sailed their entire navy out into the North Sea, for the LAST TIME, by the way, in the late 80's. That was a message to Russia, (there's no where that you can go where we can't find you and destroy you), that came through loud and clear, as is evident by how the Soviets immediately turned their fleet around and sailed back to home port. (The effects of that "talk" is still evident today, by the way, with hundreds of billions of dollars worth of Russian naval vessels slowly rusting away, anchored in their home ports since the late 80's.)
You see, as an 80's era Cold War veteran, I actually witnessed Russia spend itself in bankruptcy "talking back" to Reagan.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Decisions, decisions
Submitted by Huapakechi on Wed, 03/21/2012 - 10:03am.
We could have 'hundreds' of casualties if our already overstressed military forces (thanks a lot to liberals for cutting military manpower and budgets) preemptively attacking the nuclear production sites, or we could suffer millions of casualties when someone smuggles a nuke through our porous Southern border (thanks again, libs, for neglecting our national security).
What to do, what to do?
Remember it's what they don't tell you...
Submitted by c5then on Wed, 03/21/2012 - 10:36am.
I wonder what the simulation shows if Israel doesn't preemptively strike and Iran strikes Israel first? How many US casualties would occur as a result of that?
Madison and Jefferson and Franklin built a Republic - Roberts killed it!
I am not for war and...
Submitted by ForeverOnTheRight on Wed, 03/21/2012 - 12:46pm.
I don't want to be trigger happy, but if these namby pamby pasifists had been around during WW2 their heads would have exploded, so to speak. Did we become a nation where the liberals and media (one in the same I know) or cowards in the '60s?
Anti-Israel or Anti-Semitism
Submitted by Conservator on Wed, 03/21/2012 - 12:54pm.
That's the real question. BTW, far to often American Jews seem to ignore the real anti-Semitism that exists with far left radicals of the Democratic party which a majority continue to support. Even in newspapers like The Washington Post, if you read the comment section on any article where Israel is the subject, you will find hateful comments about the evil Zionists and Zionism.
Neville Chamberlain would be so proud.
Submitted by Radical1979 on Wed, 03/21/2012 - 6:08pm.
.