I’m sorry. That’s not a very nice post title. But how else to respond to this total piece of garbage piece he’s just published at Slate? Here he’s connecting the N.Y. Times piece of shoddy journalism–which posited that selected Iran hawks in the Administration have stopped believing in the accuracy of the 2007 NIE estimate which declared that Iran had stopped its nuclear weapons program in 2003–with the Times of London’s widely debunked report of an Iranian memo documenting work on a nuclear triggering device:
The new documents alluded to in the article were published in the Times of London in the second and third weeks of December and have been extensively reviewed by numerous authorities, none of whom have chosen to challenge their authenticity.
This is one astonishing, lying sack of s(&t statement if you consider that Gareth Porter and Phil Giraldi published a devastating evisceration of the Times of London story proving with nary a shadow of a doubt that the alleged memo is a fraud. They quote a U.S. intelligence official as not only saying that but also claiming that the most likely source of the fraud was either Israeli or British intelligence.
Hitchens undoubtedly knows about the Porter story; or he should. If he doesn’t then he’s incompetent. If he does and refused to acknowledge it then he’s a journalistic fraud. I don’t know which is worse.
Not to mention that the Times’ Oliver Kamm published a so-called defense of the Iran documents which attacked the accusers’ Giraldi and Porter’s political pasts without providing any added proof of the authenticity of the memo. This too is what made me smell a rat.
When someone like Hitchens is this willfully full of crap it makes you begin to wonder at their motivation and their interest in the matter. Personally, I think that someone with views so twisted might have interests we’re not aware of. We know that Israeli intelligence desperately wants to convince the world that Iran has or is about to get nuclear weapons. We know that Israeli intelligence wants to lay the groundwork for an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities. We know that Israeli diplomats and intelligence have liberally exploited the media to advance these views. That means that Hitchens is either a willing or unintended dupe of such interests.
Yes, I know these are strong charges. And I have to say I would not state them so broadly if Hitchens observed any standards of journalistic or intellectual integrity. But the passage above makes clear that he has none. If that’s so, then why else would he twist his narrative into such knots? The only thing I can think of is that this guy hates Iran, would be just as happy to have it bombed as not, and doesn’t want anyone to know about claims that Israel may be fabricating evidence to frame Iran. Whose side is he on? Certainly not the side of truth, fairness or integrity.