How does the truth of Iranian-manufactured weapons used against American soldiers depend on who is doing the reporting? Is Judy Miller to be demonized for her past “sins” of reporting the consensus that was held by nearly all of the intelligence communities in the West? Is Michael Gordon less of a journalist because he reports what the Administration says, without injecting skepticism? I thought the job of a reporter was to, you know, report things? Analysts analyze. They are not performing the same function. It would be nice if more journalists could figure that out.

So the New York Times gets around to printing what I would call common sense.  That being the fact that Iran has been supplying our enemy with weapons in which to kill our soldiers: The most lethal weapon directed against……

You’re right that the media is supposed to be on a side — the side of truth. Journalists seek and write about the truth, wherever that takes them, whether it supports one government’s side or another government’s side. Journalists are not supposed to side with any entity except the truth, as they find it and understand, to the best of their ability.

And it’s not that surprising that Michael Gordon reports the administration claims so unquestioningly. He is the reporter who, with Judith Miller, reported that Iraq was trying to enrich uranium with aluminum tubing for centrifuges. He is very pro-Bush administration.

I get the sense from what you write that you are actually looking forward to war with Iran, that you can’t wait for it. I am terrified of what could happen if the U.S. attacks Iran. Iran is twice the size of Iraq and has a fully operational, very powerful military. I mean, does your side even *think,* for one nanosecond, about the consequences of bombing Iran, with Iraq in civil war and 3 million Iraqi refugees both internally and externally displaced?