The New York Times (motto:  all the news that's fit to print) is at it again.  Prior to the Iraq war it served as a major propagandist for the Bush administration albeit with much hand wringing mea culpas afterward. Remember the infamous Judith Miller and her relentless fake reports on Iraq's "weapons of mass destruction".  This time it's Iran.  With the previous set of Wikileaks documents, the Times trumpeted Iran's alleged involvement in the Iraq conflict.  This time out of the mass of diplomatic cables, the ferrets at our leading national paper have pulled out a nugget as proclaimed in the headline, "Iran Fortifies its Arsenal with the Aid of North Korea" (11/28/10).

The story is about new missiles, more advanced, capable of reaching the
capitals of Western Europe, even Moscow — some irony considering the
weapons ostensibly are an adaptation of a Russian design.  It does not go into further detail feigning secrecy and the wishes of the  Obama Administration.  Yet the details are available on Wikileaks (or were until the site ran into trouble).  So, why did they not discuss the rest of the cable?

Perhaps it's because the Russians are extremely skeptical of the allegations.  While the U.S. called the BM-25 an existing system, the Russians disagreed for one very good reason — the U.S. was unable to provide any evidence of its existence — for example, the usual satellite photos of launches.  The Russians said they had not seen any evidence of any tests of this missile.  So, if Iran made this deal, it is happy buying a pig in a poke.

For The New York Times, first it was fearsome Iraq, now it's crazy Iran, armed and becoming more dangerous by the day.  Of all the hundreds of thousands of documents, this is the one (excerpted of course) the Times thought "fit to print" — so "fit to print" that it assigned three reporters to the story.

But then the New York Times is not alone — although it stands out claiming, as it does, a principal and principled voice in our national conversation.

People see what  they want to see in this rich trove of documents.  Thus Netanyahu asserts:  "sixty years of propaganda … that … "Israel is the greatest threat" but now "agreement that Iran is the threat."  He is referring to two documents: a statement reportedly by King Abdullah (he of the long toga not the one in the British modeled uniform close by in Jordan) about cutting off the head of the snake —  snakes, serpents, satans and devils are high on the list of metaphors in that part of the world.   And a comment by the King of Bahrein — did you know Bahrein has a king who prefers to be addressed, His Supreme Highness?  With a suitable magnifying glass, Bahrein can be found in the Persian Gulf region.

Anything wrong with Netanyahu's picture?  Only this: a few months ago the Brooking's Institution released the results of extensive polling of Arab public opinion.  The results were, if not shocking, certainly unpalatable for the cherry pickers.  Israel was far and away considered the major threat — a good 88% of Arabs thought so — followed by the U.S. at 77%.  Iran was not even close, tied with Algeria at 10%.  On nuclear weapons, a solid majority (57%) felt Iran's nuclear weapons would have a positive impact in the region.  Interesting that in Egypt, the most populous Arab country and one at peace with Israel, this figure was 82%.   But then, as long as the rulers are captive, who cares about Arab public opinion?

And so it goes on … cherry picking at its best … or worst.

---