Follow by Email

Tuesday, August 28, 2012

New York Times Editorial, "Iran’s Nuclear Quest": Parroting the Obama Administration

The New York Times has morphed into the mouthpiece of the Obama administration.

In an editorial entitled "Iran’s Nuclear Quest" (, the Times tells us:

• "Iran appears to have installed a few hundred more centrifuges at its deep underground site known as Fordow, thus enhancing its ability to produce uranium enriched to 20 percent, a purity that can be converted relatively quickly to bomb-grade fuel."
• "Tehran’s nuclear ambitions are clearly dangerous to Israel and the region."
• "It is disappointing that recently toughened sanctions and several rounds of negotiations have not produced positive results."
• "That is why this week’s meeting in Tehran of the Nonaligned Movement was a major blow."
• "Worst of all, Ban Ki-moon, the United Nations secretary general, chose to participate even though Iran has been thumbing its nose at Security Council resolutions for nearly six years."

On the other hand, the editorial would have us believe the Obama administration's "sensible" assurances that "there is time and space" to keep working toward a diplomatic solution, despite growing pressure for military action from an "overheated" Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu. Parroting Obama administration sentiments, the editorial observes, "The speculation now is that he [Netanyahu] is escalating his warnings before the United States election in a cynical gambit to get President Obama’s agreement to act against Iran soon."

Obviously, the Obama administration does not want a war with Iran prior to the elections in November, but the editorial doesn't tell us when Iran will be ready with its first atomic bomb.

In December 2011, US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta stated ("

"The consensus is that, if they [Iran] decided to do it, it would probably take them about a year to be able to produce a bomb and then possibly another one to two years in order to put it on a deliverable vehicle of some sort in order to deliver that weapon."

Or in other words, given Iran's persistent threats to rid the world of the "cancerous Zionist tumor" (, Israel should expect Iran's first atomic bomb to explode in Tel Aviv in just over a year.

If Manhattan was facing a similar threat, would the editorial staff of the Times, which is labeling Netanyahu "overheated" and "cynical," remain so sanguine?

Not a chance, unless they anticipated a Chapter 11 filing prior to doomsday.


  1. I just canceled my New York Times subscription. Between their Israel bashing editorials and Tom Friedman op-eds, it has become impossible to stomach. I switched to the Wall Street Journal which offers a much more realistic understanding of the dangers Israel confronts. Hopefully, more readers will also be disgusted enough with the Times and cancel their subscriptions as well.

  2. "The speculation now is that he [Netanyahu] is escalating his warnings before the United States election in a cynical gambit to get President Obama’s agreement to act against Iran soon"
    Oh, bastards.

  3. I was a subscriber for some three months (electronic edition) and then I came to my senses, called myself correctly "Idiot" and cancelled.


    Yup, according to the NYT, those evil Republicans are responsible for any damage that might ensue from Tropical Storm Isaac.
    Oh, and did you hear that unlike Bush who was nowhere to be found during Hurricane Katrina, Obama is on his way to New Orleans at this very moment where he will personally be setting up his command center at the Superdome... Not!
    I'm just surprised that the Comment Cops at the NYT let Randall Toepfer from New Orleans tell it the way it is:
    "At the time of Katrina Louisiana held a Democratic governor, New Orleans held a Democratic mayor and a Democratic city council. In fact, Democrats have had control of New Orleans for decades. Yet somehow this article solely blames Republicans for bungling Katrina. What nonsense to construe such a complex issue in black and white partisan terms."

  5. "What nonsense to construe such a complex issue in black and white partisan terms."
    Yes, I am foreign born, with tragic family past and complex personal history and I can't believe that people can spend their lives on absolutely idiotic level.
    I have yet to encounter a New York "liberal" "Jew" who wouldn't start/continue/end a conversation about Israel with "But Netanyahu .." These people are idiots and there is no justification for their idiocy. They have had all resources available (libraries, travel, people), but they have chosen empty lives of opportunists. NO SENSE OF TRAGEDY, NO SENSE OF COMPLEXITY, NO COMPASSION, NO SENSE OF DECENCY, NO KNOWLEDGE OF HISTORY, NO NOTHING, just constant posturing, pretensions, and feeling good about themselves - oh no, we are not religious, oh no, we eat only grass - (yes,I care), oh, ah, we go to opera (yes, I care), oh, ah "Hope, unity, change."
    Not a single one bothered to spend some time actually studying history, no a single one bothered to talk to people who had different experience (and they are the most bigoted, condescending individuals one can meet) etc.

  6. BTW, anonymous (1:42), you are aware that NYT couldn't care about our subscription, aren't you.
    When they started to charge for online edition, they plastered the entire subway system in New York with pictures of young and handsome Arabs (all in white) in the middle of some desert, reading ... you know what.