Follow by Email

Tuesday, April 14, 2015

New York Times Editorial, "A Reckless Act in the Senate on Iran": Obama Livid With Corker

Obama is furious with the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee for reaching a bipartisan compromise over Bob Corker's bill, which will require Congress to approve or disapprove a final deal involving Iranian nuclear development. How do we know the president is so angry? Because the semi-official mouthpiece of the Obama administration, The New York Times, has expressed his resentment. In an editorial entitled "A Reckless Act in the Senate on Iran," the Times declares:

"Congress has formally muscled its way into President Obama’s negotiations with Iran, creating new and potentially dangerous uncertainties for an agreement that offers the best chance of restraining that country’s nuclear program.

. . . .

there is no constitutional imperative requiring Congress to insert itself into the negotiations, which are the only effective means to block Iran from developing a nuclear weapon."

Of course, it would have been appropriate for the Times to mention that Obama has acknowledged that after 13 years Iran will be free to develop a nuclear arsenal, and any "restraint" is temporary.

The Times also tells us:

"Even if Congress barred Mr. Obama from waiving American sanctions, the European Union and the United Nations Security Council could lift the sanctions they imposed, thus undercutting the American decision."

Remarkably, there is no mention in this propaganda piece of Russia's decision, in the aftermath of the Lausanne "framework understanding," to sell advanced S-300 air defense missile systems to Iran. Supply of these missiles to Iran will complicate any future air strike against Iranian nuclear facilities. But more to the point, Russia is already waiving American sanctions, although a final agreement with Iran has yet to be reached.

How sad that we have reached the point where The New York Times is incapable of anything other than obsequious propaganda.

1 comment:

  1. Hypocritical to defend this imperial presidency when the NYT believes the U.S. Constitution is subservient to the United Nations Charter, which is why #44's foreign policy is so magical, i.e., requires a magic wand.