Follow by Email

Saturday, May 9, 2015

New York Times Editorial, "Beyond the Iran Nuclear Deal": Senile Dementia

Is the Gray Lady suffering from senile dementia? It would almost be worth paying to know who wrote the delusional editorial entitled "Beyond the Iran Nuclear Deal," in which The New York Times goes on record as saying:

"Iran is a Shiite nation; the Gulf states are majority Sunni, and the closer Iran and the big powers get to a deal (the self-imposed deadline is June 30) the more anxious the Sunni leaders have become. On this score, Mr. Obama can offer a convincing response: an Iran restrained by a strong and verifiable nuclear agreement is a lot less threatening than an unfettered Iran."

A "strong and verifiable nuclear agreement" like the one the US signed with North Korea?

But wait, there's more! The Times concludes:

"But as Ellen Laipson, president of The Stimson Center, a think tank, has argued, the nuclear deal should be seen as 'a great moment of opportunity' for the Arabs (with Israel’s tacit agreement) to embark on new regional ventures with Iran on energy, climate change, water scarcity and arms control.

If the nuclear deal is completed, the administration would try to encourage Iran to play a more constructive role in Syria. Many are skeptical that this will produce results, but testing the possibility of expanded cooperation beyond the nuclear deal is certainly worth the effort."

Got it!: Saudi Arabia, which beheads persons for practicing "witchcraft," and Iran, which hangs homosexuals and stones to death women accused of adultery, should cast aside almost 1,400 years of vicious Sunni/Shiite enmity and focus on "energy, climate change, water scarcity and arms control."

You just know that's going to happen . . . not.


  1. Deal deadline? What does this mean? With no deal,we go hardball with them on July 1? I think not.The deadline is the same sort of thing as declaring a date that we'll depart a country that we're at war with.Wherever we are with negotiations,will be considered good enough and acceptable.That "where we are" will be a deal that makes no sense other than with Iran.

  2. The Obama adminsitration is practically at war with Texas, so, why not an editorial that reads:
    "...embark on new regional ventures with [Texas] on energy, climate change, water scarcity and arms control...""

    same words, same 'issues', same talking points, they must be cutting and pasting at this point so as to NOT be distracted from the "Federal War on Racist Police".