"Iran’s fraudulently elected president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, will clearly stop at nothing to stifle legitimate dissent and hold on to his illegitimate power. The most recent horror is the sharp rise in executions since the June presidential elections.
. . . .
Washington has condemned this assault on all traces of reform-minded opposition and free expression. It has sensibly done so in measured tones, not wanting to give Mr. Ahmadinejad another excuse to claim that his opponents are agents of the West, and specifically the United States. Predictably, he has done so anyway.
. . . .
We believe that the Obama administration was right to reach out to Iran in an effort to curb its nuclear ambitions. But we also believe that there have to be limits to that forthcomingness, and time is running out.
After initially agreeing to send much of its current stockpile of low-enriched uranium abroad for conversion into nuclear reactor fuel, Tehran is now backing away. As long as the centrifuges are spinning, Iran can be expected to drag this on. Mr. Obama has set a deadline of the end of this year for diplomatic progress on the nuclear issue. He should keep to that."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/26/opinion/26thur2.html
The failure of The New York Times to provide coverage of the Holocaust is well known. This delay in acknowledging the severity of human rights outrages in Iran while concurrently providing an unchallenged forum for the views of Roger Cohen and the Leveretts is horrifying. Note that The New York Times does not once mention in this editorial oppression of Iran's Baha'is.
The New York Times would have us believe that Washington "sensibly" has "condemned this assault on all traces of reform-minded opposition and free expression" in "measured tones". Horsefeathers! Obama has personally ignored the brutal oppression of Iran's dissidents, as best evidenced by the dissidents' chants on Tehran's streets: "Obama, either with them or with us!"
The New York Times is again careful to condone Obama: "the Obama administration was right to reach out to Iran". Note the similarity between this sentence and the words appearing in a recent editorial concerning Obama's failed Far East trip:
"President Obama was elected in part because he promised a more cooperative and pragmatic leadership in world affairs. We support that."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/opinion/21sat1.html?_r=1&hp
The excuses for Obama's failures by The New York Times, long in lockstep with the current administration, have become predictable and tiresome.
The New York Times observes that Obama "set a deadline of the end of this year for diplomatic progress on the nuclear issue" and "should keep to that." The Times "forgets" that Obama has already drawn several such lines in the sand, but has consistently shied away from any action, observing the need to consult with American partners. Obama's timidity plainly has The Times editorial board worried.
Notice, both Cohen in his last editorial and NYTimes suddenly want to distance themselves from Obama - exactly at the moment when his approval rating fell below 50%! I think the rating is the true source of the epiphany.
ReplyDelete