The way the NYT has been handling the Iranian speed boat story has now become just plain, well, Judy Miller-ish.
Two days after the blogosphere had largely unravelled the military's original story and the Navy itself was starting to backtrack, the paper-of-record felt compelled to trumpet the threat on its front page with a piece titled: Iran Encounter Grimly Echoes '02 War Game. (Link.) And then yesterday, more than a week-and-a-half later, The Times not only returned to the subject with more saber-rattling, but with a visual display of impressive disproportion.
In an op-ed piece in the Week In Review by one David B. Crist -- ID'd as a Marine Corps reservist who served in Iraq in 2003 -- the headline touts: Iran's Small Boats Are a Big Problem. (Link.)
Using snapshots Crist took himself (when, five years ago?), The Times deemed to blow up these images three columns wide and stack them a-third-of-a-page tall (the one on top, naturally, featuring some kind of mobile rocket launcher) to give the impression that -- after what the military said didn't happen that way; and based on a hysterical act of propaganda on the eve of Bush's Iran-bashing Middle East trip (also attempting to distract from a completely failed Israeli-Palestinian policy) -- these small boats (pictured all-by-their-scary-lonesome) must, must, must loom large as a threat at this point in time.
For more of the visual, visit BAGnewsNotes.com.
Follow Michael Shaw on Twitter: www.twitter.com/bagnewsnotes
Mahmoud Ahmedinejad has been dressed up as the "dictator-of-the-month" for propaganda purposes, but he's not a dictator. He doesn't dictate anything. He doesn't control the armed forces, he doesn't control the economy, he doesn't control domestic policy, and he has only partial control of foreign policy.
He has less actual power than most US state governors.
We have troops in a country that borders their country; our battleships were 16 miles off of the Iranian coast; we have a President with an itchy finger on the button who just declared a branch of the Iranian government a terrorist organization; we provided Iraq with weapons and money during the Iraq-Iran war (including the chemical weapons Saddam used on the Iranian army); we removed the Iranian Prime Minister who wanted hold democratic elections and transition Iran into a Democracy (and take control of the oil from the UK) and we installed a dictator the Shah in Operation Ajax; we “accidentally” killed 290 people on domestic Iran Air Flight 655 while we were in Iranian waters (we gave all of the crewmen medals and lied about being in Iranian waters); we destroyed six Iranian ships and two oil platforms causing high Iranian casualties; and we blamed Iran for the downing of the Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie when it was actually Libya. All the while, we either denied or covered-up "embarrassing" facts that were later revealed by independent investigations and International Tribunals. History seems to indicate that we’ve been the aggressor and we've been less than truthful about our dealings with Iran. But, why let a little thing like history and the facts get in the way? Yeah, the Iranians are definitely the aggressors and are lying in this situation.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JA17Ak03.html
Why should the Iranians be concerned about us being there, we are there for the common good.
The only questionable part of the event was the verbal threat over the radio. Many people who've served in the Persian Gulf think the threat may have been made by the Filipino Monkey, one of the hecklers that hassles ships over the radio.
There is no question that the IRGC boats buzzed around the warships and dropped objects in the path of one of them. This was after the warships had already IDed themselves with regular Iranian Navy forces.
It seems logical to conclude that it can no longer be trusted as a source of factual, unbiased news on ANYTHING having to do with the middle east.