re: WHAT THE HELL HAPPENED? - The answer in today's NY Times (For Warren)

[ib1yysguy]

re: WHAT THE HELL HAPPENED? - The answer in today's NY Times (For Warren)

Israel Struck a Nuclear Project in Syria, Analysts Say

WASHINGTON, Oct. 13 — Israel’s air attack on Syria last month was directed against a site that Israeli and American intelligence analysts judged was a partly constructed nuclear reactor, apparently modeled on one North Korea has used to create its stockpile of nuclear weapons fuel, according to American and foreign officials with access to the intelligence reports.

The description of the target addresses one of the central mysteries surrounding the Sept. 6 attack, and suggests that Israel carried out the raid to demonstrate its determination to snuff out even a nascent nuclear project in a neighboring state. The Bush administration was divided at the time about the wisdom of Israel’s strike, American officials said, and some senior policy makers still regard the attack as premature.

---

There it is folks.

 

[Annie]

Israel Struck a Nuclear Project in Syria, Analysts Say

WASHINGTON, Oct. 13 — Israel’s air attack on Syria last month was directed against a site that Israeli and American intelligence analysts judged was a partly constructed nuclear reactor, apparently modeled on one North Korea has used to create its stockpile of nuclear weapons fuel, according to American and foreign officials with access to the intelligence reports.

The description of the target addresses one of the central mysteries surrounding the Sept. 6 attack, and suggests that Israel carried out the raid to demonstrate its determination to snuff out even a nascent nuclear project in a neighboring state. The Bush administration was divided at the time about the wisdom of Israel’s strike, American officials said, and some senior policy makers still regard the attack as premature.

---

There it is folks.

Way old news, just enough time for MSM to pick up on.

 

[Cancel7]

Way old news, just enough time for MSM to pick up on.

I am interested in this phenomenon of covering up and denying a news-worthy event, until such time it finally comes out anyway, and then dismissing it with "that's old news".

This was successfully pulled off with the Downing Street Memo. For as long as possible bush and his apoligists insisted the president had not decided on war months before march 03, and that he had been pursuing peace

When the memo was released, these same people dismissed it as "old news" which "everybody knew". So now, "everybody knew" what they had spent many months denying, and once they could no longer deny it, they didn't admit it so much as, waive it off as "old news".

The basic and crass dishonesty of this strikes me. It doesn't make you at all uncomfortable?

 

[Annie]

I am interested in this phenomenon of covering up and denying a news-worthy event, until such time it finally comes out anyway, and then dismissing it with "that's old news".

This was successfully pulled off with the Downing Street Memo. For as long as possible bush and his apoligists insisted the president had not decided on war months before march 03, and that he had been pursuing peace

When the memo was released, these same people dismissed it as "old news" which "everybody knew". So now, "everybody knew" what they had spent many months denying, and once they could no longer deny it, they didn't admit it so much as, waive it off as "old news".

The basic and crass dishonesty of this strikes me. It doesn't make you at all uncomfortable?

Actually this was very much like the Downing Street memo, posted on blogs long before it became mainstream. Blame MSM, not me or blogs.

 

[Cancel7]

Actually this was very much like the Downing Street memo, posted on blogs long before it became mainstream. Blame MSM, not me or blogs.

I'm not blaming you, I was asking you if you find this recent fad disturbing.

"MSM" can't really print rumors I suppose. Lord knows if they published a story claiming that Israel attacked Syria, with no evidence other than gossip, they would be roundly shouted down from the right, and called liars.

If officials in both our government and the Israeli government are mum on it, then it's going to take a few weeks to properly verify it.

And when it is verified, then it is news, by definition. Verification that Israel bombed Syria, is news. It is not old news, it is not new news, it is, quite simply, news.

 

[Epicurus]

This was downplayed and hushed up in the press for so long I have my skepticism about any information they decide to reveal now.

But thanks for the info.

 

[ib1yysguy]

This was downplayed and hushed up in the press for so long I have my skepticism about any information they decide to reveal now.

But thanks for the info.

"they" meaning the press? Give me a break, dude. The press, as Darla pointed out, can't report rumors as fact. Now that there are some sources willing to say what happened, it's front page news. Until today there was nothing substantial to draw conclusions from.

This delay is the price we pay as media consumers for accuracy.

 

[Epicurus]

"they" meaning the press? Give me a break, dude. The press, as Darla pointed out, can't report rumors as fact. Now that there are some sources willing to say what happened, it's front page news. Until today there was nothing substantial to draw conclusions from.

This delay is the price we pay as media consumers for accuracy.

I'm not bitching at the media. If the governments of the US, Syria, and Israel are keeping it hushed then there is little available for the media to responsibly report on. I am curious about the hush. The Bush administration had every reason to play up the success of their allies, Israel had every reason to splash the story over the headlines to turn international opinion against Syria, and Syria could have easily spun it to condemn US-Israeli aggression. But none of this happened. All three countries kept their remarks vague and details hidden.

Everyone had a reason to bring this to international attention and yet none did.

Don't you find that curious?

 

[ib1yysguy]

Very curious. And this is still technically a government source, so how much you can rely on it is suspect.

 

[Annie]

I am interested in this phenomenon of covering up and denying a news-worthy event, until such time it finally comes out anyway, and then dismissing it with "that's old news".

This was successfully pulled off with the Downing Street Memo. For as long as possible bush and his apoligists insisted the president had not decided on war months before march 03, and that he had been pursuing peace

When the memo was released, these same people dismissed it as "old news" which "everybody knew". So now, "everybody knew" what they had spent many months denying, and once they could no longer deny it, they didn't admit it so much as, waive it off as "old news".

The basic and crass dishonesty of this strikes me. It doesn't make you at all uncomfortable?

Actually the WaPo had something on it at the beginning of last week or end of week before, back on page 39 or something like that.

 

[Epicurus]

Bump

 

[Lao Tse]

"they" meaning the press? Give me a break, dude. The press, as Darla pointed out, can't report rumors as fact. Now that there are some sources willing to say what happened, it's front page news. Until today there was nothing substantial to draw conclusions from.

This delay is the price we pay as media consumers for accuracy.

Holy shit, are you serious with this? This is hilarious.

"News black outs are the price we pay for the comfort of a coherent set of lies."

 

[Battleborne]

***sigh***

I told y'all this was going to happen several months ago...but I was dismissed as per usual...soo...it is on a need to know basis...like y'all are in the inner circles?