{"id":17317,"date":"2012-12-02T14:41:13","date_gmt":"2012-12-02T22:41:13","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/antiwar.com\/blog\/?p=17317"},"modified":"2012-12-02T14:41:37","modified_gmt":"2012-12-02T22:41:37","slug":"aps-iran-nonsense-getting-downright-adorable","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/2012\/12\/02\/aps-iran-nonsense-getting-downright-adorable\/","title":{"rendered":"AP’s Iran Nonsense Getting Downright Adorable"},"content":{"rendered":"

So late last week when John Glaser took apart<\/a> the latest scare piece from the Associated Press’ George Jahn, the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists was mocking it as “amateurish and technically incorrect.” I didn’t personally notice that the graph was flawed on first sight, but it did look like the sort of thing I could’ve photocopied out of half a dozen of my college textbooks. Except then the graph would be right. <\/p>\n

So now that the weekend has rolled around, Jahn is back with his “oops but seriously<\/a>” defense for the first mistake, insisting now that even though the graph looks like (And indeed is) an amateurish hoax, he’s betting that the Iranians just made the graph look stupid and wrong intentionally, because that’s just how cagey they are. And that somehow the very wrongness of the graph “supports suspicions.”<\/p>\n

Fool Jahn once, shame on you, fool Jahn in every single article he’s written on the subject in the last several years shame on Jahn.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

So late last week when John Glaser took apart the latest scare piece from the Associated Press’ George Jahn, the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists was mocking it as “amateurish and technically incorrect.” I didn’t personally notice that the graph was flawed on first sight, but it did look like the sort of thing I could’ve […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":32,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_seopress_robots_primary_cat":"","_seopress_titles_title":"","_seopress_titles_desc":"","_seopress_robots_index":"","_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3],"tags":[],"coauthors":[],"class_list":["post-17317","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-news"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"meta_box":{"disable_donate_message":"","custom_donate_message":"","subtitle":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17317","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/32"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=17317"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17317\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":17319,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17317\/revisions\/17319"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=17317"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=17317"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=17317"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=17317"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}