Iran Nukes years Away on Planet NYT

The New York Times article on Iran's breaking of an agreement to restrain its nuclear "research" with the Europeans and the IAEA downplays the threat of Iran's pursuit of a nuclear bomb. Despite years of deception, despite collusion with the nuclear weapons bazaar of A.Q. Khan, despite work with North Korea, despite no need for nuclear energy given its vast hydrocarbon reserves, despite Holocaust denials from its leaders, despite its call for Israel to be wiped off the map—despite the obviousness of these FACTS, the reporters Steve Weisman (notorious for anti—Israel bias) and Nazila Fathi (hmm..wonder if Nazil might have some bias — she is a stringer based in Iran) quotes experts who say Iran is "years away" from developing a nuclear bomb (in the second paragraph, yet, just to make sure readers don't miss their conclusion).

Many other experts says the time frame is much shorter than the Times touts. The "journalist" would have been more responsible (and moral) if they reported that experts are divided on the issue of the imminence of the Iranian bomb. Sometimes, despite its secularity, you have to wonder if the Times is paving the wave for Armaggedon.

Ed Lasky   1 11 06

The New York Times article on Iran's breaking of an agreement to restrain its nuclear "research" with the Europeans and the IAEA downplays the threat of Iran's pursuit of a nuclear bomb. Despite years of deception, despite collusion with the nuclear weapons bazaar of A.Q. Khan, despite work with North Korea, despite no need for nuclear energy given its vast hydrocarbon reserves, despite Holocaust denials from its leaders, despite its call for Israel to be wiped off the map—despite the obviousness of these FACTS, the reporters Steve Weisman (notorious for anti—Israel bias) and Nazila Fathi (hmm..wonder if Nazil might have some bias — she is a stringer based in Iran) quotes experts who say Iran is "years away" from developing a nuclear bomb (in the second paragraph, yet, just to make sure readers don't miss their conclusion).

Many other experts says the time frame is much shorter than the Times touts. The "journalist" would have been more responsible (and moral) if they reported that experts are divided on the issue of the imminence of the Iranian bomb. Sometimes, despite its secularity, you have to wonder if the Times is paving the wave for Armaggedon.

Ed Lasky   1 11 06