It only took a few paragraphs in to Salon's critique of the NY Times' handling of revelations - more specifically, the NY Times' exclusion of revelations - in wikileak's #cablegate to begin to wonder about Obama's action, as well, and the meaning of it:
One of the first revelations in the WikiLeaks cables archive, first reported in a big story by the New York Times, is that U.S. intelligence has concluded that Iran obtained 19 medium-range missiles from North Korea. The Times story warned in its third paragraph that the "missiles could for the first time give Iran the capacity to strike at capitals in Western Europe or easily reach Moscow."
But the Times did not print the full December 2009 cable for its readers, complying with a request from the Obama Administration, the reasons for which are not clear. WikiLeaks did publish the cable, which you can read here.
And the thing that jumps out about the cable, which describes a U.S.-Russian meeting on Iran, is that the Russians expressed intense doubts about whether Iran had actually acquired so-called BM-25 missiles from North Korea. But these dobuts were inexplicably left out of the Times story that set the international narrative on the issue. Neoconservatives in the U.S. have seized on the report to trumpet claims that Iran is a threat and to retroactively justifiy George W. Bush's 2002 "axis of evil" speech.
You would fully expect the neocons to be blowing this non-nuclear story on missiles' sales bunk up American's nether-regions like smoke stovepiped through the ashes of the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq. Forever war propaganda is what the neocons and the GOP campaign on.
But what should be surprising is to see that the Obama administration is replicating the Bush administration in their Judy Miller like attempts to control the media message, unleashing what is essentially illegal propaganda and directed at the American people, if the reports are true. And if it could be any worse... Doing it in a manner that inexcusably re-enforces the failed neoconservative world view and narrative.
And, for future reference, we should all be taking any material produced by these newly defrocked Judy Miller wannabes - William J. Broad, James Glanz and David E. Sanger - with a full shakers worth of grains of salt concerning anything they write in the future and any of their editors that let this piece of craptacularly biased journalmalistic propaganda out into the print world ought to be shown the same disdain and watched with the same skeptical eye.
I mean, this was sourced material propaganda fail... Just imagine what these propagandists would be willing to do off the record?
I shudder at the thought.
It is efforts like these that leave me with near zero regret for the oncoming end of the NY Times' print edition - what used to be a paper of record is clearly now just fodder for the birdcage - and an equal amount of hope that this President would and will be different.
It was not right when the Bush adminstration did it then, and it is not right if the Obama administration is doing the same type of things now.