Today's London Times has a story with this headline, also picked up by Drudge:

Attack Iran the day Iraq war ends, demands Israel

That certainly caught my attention, and I wondered whether Ariel Sharon really thinks it would be a good idea for the U.S. and its allies to send troops and aircraft across the border into Iran the day after Iraq surrenders -- or ever, for that matter. Like most supposedly bloodthirsty 'warbloggers', I certainly don't. Iran looks ripe for self-liberation with just a little help in the way of external criticism and accurate information.

Of course, I had to click on the link and read the first paragraph of the story:

ISRAEL’S Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has called on the international community to target Iran as soon as the imminent conflict with Iraq is complete.

The word "target" is a bit more ambiguous than "attack", but it still looks like an all-out military assault on Iran is planned, or at least urged. I thought I had better keep on reading. Here's the first half of the second paragraph:

In an interview with The Times, Mr Sharon insisted that Tehran — one of the “axis of evil” powers identified by President Bush — should be put under pressure “the day after” action against Baghdad ends because of its role as a “centre of world terror”.

That let all the air out of the story. It turns out that the the headline is, to put it bluntly, a lie. One of those lies that is technically true in one sense, but false on its face and therefore still a lie. The transition from "attack" to "target" to "pressure" is cleverly done, but surely too obvious to fool anyone who actually reads as far as I did. (The use of "demands" in the headline is also thoroughly dishonest.) Does the Times need readers enough to lure them in with fraudulent headlines, like the cheapest kind of bait-and-switch used car dealer? Apparently they think so.