If Iran’s non-existent nukes take out Israel, the NYT will lead the charge accusing Bush of forcing them to do it by imposing the sanctions the NYT wanted and/or talking to them as Obama wants. They’ll attack Bush no matter what.

I guess I’m going to have to find another newspaper to read on Sundays. I just can’t justify spending my money on such trash.

Damn.

The United States and the other major powers — Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany — have yet to put together a serious package of incentives and sanctions that might persuade Iran to change course.

The truth is that the United States, Britain, France, and Germany HAVE put together a serious package of incentives and sanctions, and Russia and China have always vetoed it in the United Nations. Now whose fault is that, NYT?

But wait a minute: the Great ObaMessiah will look into Putin’s soul, and Ahmadinejad’s, if he has one.

Perhaps that would be a good project prior to the upcoming Political Conventions: compile a list of the 100 (or so) best history questions to present to the candidates? In fact, it might be a good way to provide a refresher to the voters, too.

Any suggestions for pertinent questions?

My kids were misbehaving yesterday. I told them if they did it again I would take away their centrifuges. (I’m afraid they know I’m a softie, and probably won’t. Kids!)

JiangxiDad on May 28, 2008 at 11:31 AM

HA!

Amid all of the White House’s saber-rattling, it is tempting to discount Iran’s genuine misbehavior

Blame America First!

As with Barack Obama, who makes the same allegations repeatedly from the campaign trail, the New York Times demonstrated ignorance in this editorial. The EU-3 have held repeated talks with the Iranians

So the question becomes: are they truly ignorant, or are they attempting to create a reality for their readers in which Obama’s comments aren’t?

For some reason, 29 years of terrorist sponsorship and low-level war against the West has escaped their notice, as have the public offers to deliver normalized trade and diplomacy. The mullahcracy isn’t building a bomb to get free trade; they want to use it to extend hegemony over the entire Middle East, and not for benign purposes, either.

You’re wrong Ed. They recognized it, and said so in their editorial:)

… it is tempting to discount Iran’s genuine misbehavior.

My kids were misbehaving yesterday. I told them if they did it again I would take away their centrifuges. (I’m afraid they know I’m a softie, and probably won’t. Kids!)

Can we just offer Iran the NYT in exchange for them giving up their Nuke program?

Rbastid on May 28, 2008 at 11:21 AM

Funny, that was my first thought too.

Their stance is the exact same thing they bashed us for. They yelled to the Hills about how the Saudis paid off AQ to not hurt them, but its ok we pay off Iran not to hurt us and our friends?

The United States and the other major powers — Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany — have yet to put together a serious package of incentives and sanctions that might persuade Iran to change course.
That must include a credible American offer of security guarantees and normalized relations if Tehran abandons any nuclear weapons ambitions. If Iran persists, it must face sanctions with a lot more bite than Russia and China have been willing to consider, including a broader ban on doing business with Iranian banks and bans on arms sales and new investments in Iran.

.
So, let me get this straight….Iran builds nuclear capability in defiance of US, UN, and G8 sanctions, but if they stop (not even bringing up the issue of verification), they should be rewarded with normalized relations with the US. And, if Iran doesn’t stop, we should renew the sanctions which are pretty much already in place, and not consider acts of war. Absolutely brilliant – the UN is now running the NYT editorial board.

Mr. Ahmadinejad is talking about changing the destiny of mankind, while Mr. Obama and his foreign policy experts offer spare parts for Boeings or membership in the World Trade Organization. Perhaps Mr. Obama is unaware that one of Mr. Ahmadinejad’s first acts was to freeze Tehran’s efforts for securing WTO membership because he regards the outfit as “a nest of conspiracies by Zionists and Americans.

kirkill on May 28, 2008 at 10:38 AM

Heck, I’d be curious to know what the NYT would think a good military option is.

James on May 28, 2008 at 10:40 AM

Our abject surrender.

Once again the NYTimes falls into the trap of assuming that another nation’s foreign policy is simply a reaction to America’s foreign policy.

There are no good military options.

For like-minded liberals who read the Times, there never are. And even if there are good military options, they shouldn’t be employed because the world will hate us (more) for using them. Which will then require Saint Obama to come riding in on his white horse to save us and make everybody like us. Now that’s a retching option.