nce again, US allegations are presented as fact. Bush did not ‘note’ -he alleged. They do not mention, for instance, that even the British Foreign Secretary conceded recently that there is no evidence of Iranian complicity in Iraqi attacks on British forces -who are the ones closest to the Iranian border. Nor is there any mention that, the last time the Bush Administration span this line in a big way, in March 2006, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs himself came out and claimed that he knew of no evidence of Iranian involvement. The Times further endorses the Bush view of the world with the next line of the article: ‘It explains, in part, his lack of faith in diplomacy with the Iranians.’ Once again, the official line is swallowed whole and US Government is assumed to be honest, transparent and straightforward in its stance towards Iran. There is no mention of Iraq, for example, as if the US’s recent track record of outright lies and deception have no bearing on their allegations against Iran. They simply did not happen. Nor is there even a hint that what the US Government is apparently contemplating is a monstrous and entirely criminal act. Instead we get the usual recitation, distortion, suppression and insinuation. It's a different kind of blitz but it's just as lethal.
12/10/2011
