NPR just flat out LIED.

I'm sure the Israeli's think they are

What a disappointment NPR turned out to be.

At this point I really don't care if they go down the tubes, they went to the dark side a long time ago.

Sad but true. Worse yet is that the CBC in Canada seems to have been muzzled too.

I fear that armed conflict is inevitable. I won't live to see it but maybe the next generation will have to go to town on TPTB.

http://www.google.com/imgres?q=demotivational+posters+rebellion&hl=en&safe=off&client=safari&sa=X&rls=en&biw=1037&bih=888&tbm=isch&prmd=imvns&tbnid=FYdwuA3lbw4G1M:&imgrefurl=http://www.motifake.com/132508&docid=PN_89Ec3VtLQzM&imgurl=&w=558&h=677&ei=ckIPT-mQHsGviAKm2Ny0DQ&zoom=1

Republicans and Libertarians. Get it right.

A major difference, but so fine a distinction most listeners don't notice. It's called propaganda.

if you have a weapons program, you are developing weapons.

if you're not developing weapons, you don't have a weapons program.

it's pretty simple. what they said is a complete contradiction to what our Defense Secretary said.

All you have to to is read the PNAC plan, which the neocons so graciously put on the Web for all of
us to see. http://www.newamericancentury.org/index.html

They list the countries that they desire--for their resources and/or geopolitical advantages.

So, they will have them. PERIOD.

Iraq was first on their wish list. In fact, when Clinton was President, the neocons demanded
that he invade and take out Saddam Hussein. These reptiles have been wanting this real
estate for a long, long time. Here's the 1998 letter from the neocons, urging President Clinton
to go to war with Saddam. http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

The neocons also list Syria, Libya and Iran as targets. Iran will be a tougher "get" but
they'll get it. We human beings seem to lap up the manufactured crises, lies and reality
twisting--in order to help the neocons justify actions that they take in these countries.

They've been iteratively conditioning us to soften up on the idea of plundering Iran. That will be
the toughest battle, because unlike Afghanistan, Syria or Iraq--the population is very
well educated and more modern. The must justify the horrible consequences of taking
Iran--with equally horrifying stories about what will happen if we don't obliterate that
country.

If you ever wonder what is driving our foreign policy--or what will happen next--just
refer back to the PNAC plan. It's all there.

We're not doing a damn thing about it--and no President since George W Bush has
wavered from their plan. All of their dreams are coming true--with each and every
country that they wish to dominate and plunder.

No doubt, the "Iran is going to blow up Israel and also Wisconsin" malarkey will continue and exacerbate--just as the "Saddam has WMD" and "Saddam is part of Al Queda" lies were slowly ramped up before we invaded Iraq.

I am amazed that people seem to have forgotten the PNAC plan so quickly.

they never die off. just lie low in mausoleums; slinking out into the open, to suck the World's blood - whenever they feel conditions are in their favor. helped no end, of course, by their soul-selling familiars - our political & military leaders, and our mass media.

They weren't exactly the voice of reason during the run up to the Iraq war and have been trending to the right for years.

to listen to. One must listen with a keen ear though.
Me? I often find myself listening to religious crap and mocking it while I drive.
They cover about half the stations any more.

The entire republican primary fraud/show is evidence enough that the MSM is a worthless mouthpiece of propagandists. The much deeper problem is why Americans believe so much obvious propaganda and the answer lies in what a corrupt country the U.S. has become.

Same bullshit slight of hand again. They can believe, with no proof, whatsoever, that anyone has a program on anything. But it sounded just like they said He was developing a weapon.

I can't say my quote shows the exact words they used, and to me it doesn't matter

if they're not developing a weapon, they can't have a program to do so. Panetta said they're not pursuing a weapon. That's pretty clear. Any "news" story saying the US believes Iran is developing a weapon (or a weapons program) is a lie.

You can't be on the bus and off the bus at the same time.

or better stated, if you're off the bus, the news can't say you're on it. If they do, they're lying.

Before the most recent invasion of Iraq they were busily spinning the anti-war demonstrators as just a few misguided hippies who were out of touch with real Americans.

they still portray themselves as liberal/objective, so the liberals flock to it and eat up whatever they say and they think they're getting "their side" of the stories when in fact they're getting the same bs that's on FOX.

INformed and intelligent enough to recognize the FOX bs but not so the NPR bs just because it's portrayed as liberal/objective?

when he stacked their board with a bunch of right wing, bible beating, corporate drones.

They've been largely useless for years. If I need to wake up to clock radio, it's now tuned to the local classical station. If there's a commercial, it's a mellow one for a stupid luxury car or brokerage.

For every story the DU attackers come up with there are hours of GOOD programming to listen to. If every point on NPR agreed with every listener then why not call it Fox News junior?

and mislead the public and give false pretenses for sending our kids to die for our country that we should just keep our mouths shut because it's sacred NPR?

GMAFB.

wouldn't be a surprise if the PTB & their minions figure that - providing intellectually stimulating entertainment, is a way of suckering the thinking segment of the public into buying their propaganda on the side. kind of a "get their defences down - then inject them with toxin" ploy.

I felt they were cheerleading for the Iraq invasion, to begin with, and I got tired of yelling at my radio during the 2004 election season, when they crapped all over Kerry and were way kinder with Shrub and his record than he deserved. My guess is that they got enough RWers on their board to slant their news rightward, or else they got the old "shill for us or NPR is history" memo.

Penetta is making a distinction between working on the weapon, and working on the nuclear material for a warhead. They are working on the material, whether they actually produce a weapon will be determined in the future. There are real reasons to presume that they will not. Not everyone agrees

so to say that the US thinks' they're developing a weapon would contradict what he said.


I think people should stop splitting hairs about this "weapon" vs "program" vs "material for a warhead" crap.

this is what Panetta said. it's pretty clear. It's in the OP but I'll post it again because some people aren't getting it:

"Are they trying to develop a nuclear weapon? No."

Now if they're not trying to develop a nuclear weapon, that means they are not developing a "program" to do so. It means they're not trying to develop nuclear material for a warhead. Could it be more clear? I don't think so.

Panetta doesn't think they are trying to develop a warhead. However, he may be one of the few in the US and the only one of our "allies", which is who the attribution in the original article was. Furthermore, just because they aren't trying NOW, doesn't really mean much. Once they can produce the nuclear material, the rest of it is fairly well known. Developing the fuel is the whole game basically. So your concern is basically a distinction looking for a difference. Which is why Panetta's answer on CBS was relatively noncontroversial.

... so they can export their natural gas to anti-nuclear Europeans.

It's a pretty reasonable business plan.

We just want to own their natural gas.

Iran has a few thousand if that.

It's sad. At least 2% is better than none.

He didn't say 'capability to build a nuclear weapon'.

He said 'nuclear capability'.


PANETTA: I think the pressure of the sanctions, the diplomatic pressures from everywhere, Europe, the United States, elsewhere, it’s working to put pressure on them. To make them understand that they cannot continue to do what they’re doing. Are they trying to develop a nuclear weapon? No. But we know that they’re trying to develop a nuclear capability. And that’s what concerns us. And our red line to Iran is, do not develop a nuclear weapon. That’s a red line for us. [...]

SCHEIFFER: Could we take out their nuclear capability?

DEMPSEY: Well I certainly want them to believe that that’s the case? [...]

PANETTA: They need to know that if they take that step, that they’re going to get stopped. … Our preference is that the international community, including Israel, ought to work together on this issue. … If the Israelis made that decision we would have to be prepared to protect our forces in that situation that’s what we’d be concerned about.


"Nuclear capability" is a 'dual use' phrase. It can also represent purely civilian atomic power programs, and isotope production for medical uses. Yes, it can represent a nuclear weapons capability, but this is not the only common use for the term.

I would call that a pants-on-fire lie by the post.

Why do you think things like ideals, principles, and policy aims are so strongly discouraged, minimized, and even mocked?

You are quickly herded when trusting information based on "brand" and neither compass nor destination beyond the next cycle.

Are there worse sources of information? Sure, that does not negate that they are part of the narrative machine that sets the boundaries of mass opinion and weavers the bullshit stories that allow the crap they can't smuggle into unrelated legislation and extra-legal shenanigans they need the majority to be sorta behind or run afoul of having to muck around with controlling without broad tolerance.

Are we about to witness another Confederacy of Dunces, vomiting their fear-mongering lies in every venue:

"Iran has weapons of mass destruction!"

"Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons!"

"Look at all those aluminum tubes!"

"We don't want the 'smoking gun' to become a mushroom cloud!!!"

When Joe Wilson threw his Monkey Wrench of Truth into the corporatists' war machine, they outed his wife. Wonder what they'll cook up for Panetta...

.... it's Panetta that is lying.

Iran is pursuing a weapon and our leaders know it. You act as though you don't think our leaders will lie when they think it is in their interest to do so.

what evidence do you have?

.... do a google.

To be technical, it is not so much a lie as it is a form of diplomacy.

Honestly, do you think Iran is playing around with this stuff for their stated purpose of power generation?

The question of whether or not Iran has the right to possess a nuke is a legitimate one. The question of whether or not that is their aim is settled.

NPR has been an effing bullpucky operation for the last decade or more. Independent my ass! Public for sure, but the management has been bending over for the DC establishment for way too long.
For example, Diane Rehm yesterday had that damnable Hans Spakovsky as a guest panelist discussing voter fraud and voter suppression. Talk about fox in the hen house! Disgusting...
I'm hoping Bill Moyers' new show "Moyers and Company" will tilt the playing field more to the left, or should I say, to fact-based news and programming. Check your local listings for his premiere show tonight on American Public Television (not PBS.) In the EST zone it's 9-10PM, repeats on other days and times on many stations depending on local programming decisions. Some local PBS stations will carry it, many will not. Welcome back, Mr. Moyers!