Thursday, January 11, 2007
"Reporting for the Iranians..."
I’m sure you’ve seen the headlines: Report: U.S. Troops Raid Iranian Consulate in Iraq
“U.S. troops raided an Iranian consulate in northern Iraq late Wednesday night and detained several people, Iran's main news agency reported today, prompting protests from Tehran just hours after President Bush pledged to crack down on the Islamic Republic's role in Iraqi violence.”
…
“U.S. officials have not confirmed the raid but did say in a press release that they had taken six people into custody in Irbil during the course of "routine security operations."
…so, of course, the Post goes with the Iranian version. For a more recent update on the story:
U.S. raid on Iranian consulate angers Kurds - CNN.com
“In Washington, a U.S. official confirmed that six Iranian officials were detained for questioning. But he disputed accounts that troops broke open a consulate gate and conducted a raid.
"No shots were fired. No altercation ensued," said the official. "It was a knock on the door and, 'Please come out.' "
“The official also explained that the Iranians in question were not inside an officially designated diplomatic consulate or embassy-like building.”
So CNN reports that a U.S. official more or less denies it was a raid on an official consulate and yet they, too, go with the Iranian version of events. Now, I’m only a blogger and thus apparently “the common journalistic practices of verifying facts, seeking both sides of a story and subjecting an article to editing are honored mostly in the breach” by me. But before such breathless accounts are ricocheted around the internet and beyond, shouldn’t we get a more reliable source than Iran? ...or CNN?
Side Note I: But what if it turns out to be a real consulate? I’m amused with the idea that somewhere Jimmy Carter would have to then be thinking that if only he had done something similar, he might have gotten a second term…nah, probably not, he knows the Jews would never have let him be re-elected.
Side Note II: From that same CNN report:“In an address Wednesday night, Bush vowed that U.S. troops "will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria" to insurgents inside Iraq.
“Both Tehran and Damascus denounced his plans Thursday and said an increase of U.S. troops in Iraq will only increase bloodshed, The Associated Press reported.”
They’re denouncing his plans to “interrupt the flow of support from” them? Doesn’t that kind of help make the President’s case?
“U.S. troops raided an Iranian consulate in northern Iraq late Wednesday night and detained several people, Iran's main news agency reported today, prompting protests from Tehran just hours after President Bush pledged to crack down on the Islamic Republic's role in Iraqi violence.”
…
“U.S. officials have not confirmed the raid but did say in a press release that they had taken six people into custody in Irbil during the course of "routine security operations."
…so, of course, the Post goes with the Iranian version. For a more recent update on the story:
U.S. raid on Iranian consulate angers Kurds - CNN.com
“In Washington, a U.S. official confirmed that six Iranian officials were detained for questioning. But he disputed accounts that troops broke open a consulate gate and conducted a raid.
"No shots were fired. No altercation ensued," said the official. "It was a knock on the door and, 'Please come out.' "
“The official also explained that the Iranians in question were not inside an officially designated diplomatic consulate or embassy-like building.”
So CNN reports that a U.S. official more or less denies it was a raid on an official consulate and yet they, too, go with the Iranian version of events. Now, I’m only a blogger and thus apparently “the common journalistic practices of verifying facts, seeking both sides of a story and subjecting an article to editing are honored mostly in the breach” by me. But before such breathless accounts are ricocheted around the internet and beyond, shouldn’t we get a more reliable source than Iran? ...or CNN?
Side Note I: But what if it turns out to be a real consulate? I’m amused with the idea that somewhere Jimmy Carter would have to then be thinking that if only he had done something similar, he might have gotten a second term…nah, probably not, he knows the Jews would never have let him be re-elected.
Side Note II: From that same CNN report:“In an address Wednesday night, Bush vowed that U.S. troops "will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria" to insurgents inside Iraq.
“Both Tehran and Damascus denounced his plans Thursday and said an increase of U.S. troops in Iraq will only increase bloodshed, The Associated Press reported.”
They’re denouncing his plans to “interrupt the flow of support from” them? Doesn’t that kind of help make the President’s case?
