Latest case in point... M K Bhadrakumar's article for the March 27th Asia Times article, "US moves towards engaging Iran".
Oh, but wait! Could just be a tricky play on words, right? "Engaging" Iran with military force vs "engaging" Iran with diplomatic talks are two different ball games. But when you read the headline, and consider the past "beating the drums of war" accusations of media, what comes to your mind first?
Slick... very slick. And still deceptive. The damage is done with the headline alone.
The opening paragraph of Bhadrakumar's article supports the "drums of war" theory.
The coming few weeks are going to be critical in the standoff between the United States and Iran as the upheaval in the Middle East reaches a turning point. And all options do remain on the table, as the George W Bush administration likes to say, from military conflict to a de facto acceptance of Iran's standing as the region's dominant power.
But since what Bhadrakumar was about to report mandated a recanting of that impression... here comes paragraph two.
One thing is clear. The time for oratorical exercises is ending. A phase of subtle, reciprocal, conceptual diplomatic actions may be beginning. An indication of this is available in the two radio interviews given by Bush last weekend and beamed into Iran, exclusively aimed at reaching out to the Iranian public on the Persian New Year Nauroz.
Followed by more details in paragraph's four thru six.
Bush's interviews with the government-supported Voice of America and Radio Farda, especially the latter, were a masterly piece in political overture. He held out none of the customary threats against Iran. This time, there was not even the trademark insistence that "all options are on the table". There were no barbs aimed at President Mahmud Ahmadinejad. Least of all, there were no calls for a regime change in Tehran. Bush simply said something that he might as well have said about Saudi Arabia or Egypt. As he put it, "So this is a regime and a society that's got a long way to go [in reform]."
Bush spoke of the evolution of the Iranian regime's character rather than its overthrow. The criticism, if any, of Iranian government policies approached nowhere near the diatribes of the past. There was none of the boastful claims that the US would work toward isolating Iran in its region and beyond. In fact, Bush acknowledged, "There's a chance that the US and Iran can reconcile their differences, but the [Iranian] government is going to have to make different choices. And one [such choice] is to verifiably suspend the enrichment of uranium, at which time there is a way forward."
Bush assured that in return the US would be "reasonable in our desire to see to it that you have civilian nuclear power without enabling the government to enrich [uranium]". Here again, he pointed out that the problem is that "they [Iranian governments] have not told the truth in the past, and therefore it's very difficult for the United States and the rest of the world - or much of the rest of the world - to trust the Iranian government when it comes to telling the truth".
Sensationalist headlines, followed by content that has nothing to do with the news "trailer". And we wonder why so many in the world are just plain clueless about current events? i.e. why so many believe that Bush is bent on starting a war with Iran before his 2nd term is up.
Yet a closer examination of that "truth" finds that the Bush admin, while refusing rightfully to take any options off the table, has always advocated for int'l diplomacy, and encouragement to the youth of Iran to strive for changes in their country.
So who is really beating the drum for war in Iran?
How about Seymour Hirsch at the New Yorker, who's story was then redistributed by CNN. Or perhaps Pelosi? Maybe Walter C. Uhler at The Information Clearing House? How about the Libertarian Party?
Then, of course, there's Joe Biden on Hardball. And Tim Shipman, reporting for London's The Telegraph. And let's not forget the progressive site, Common Dreams.
Notice any common threads in ideology and agenda here? Of course, in the same illustrious company of the above is Chavez.
And the liberals say they aren't siding with the wrong side of the argument.... uh huh.
The result of all this BS spewed from the mouths of political opportunists? A poll saying American's don't trust Bush on Iran. Well damn... who would, after all the years of media and liberal lies?
Definitely another one of those things that makes you go "huh???" And more fodder for my "media rant" category.