The Washington Post, "As an Iran deal nears, the lobbying, pro and con, intensifies": A Glaring Omission

In a lead Washington Post article entitled "As an Iran deal nears, the lobbying, pro and con, intensifies," Karen DeYoung writes:

"Many believe the deadline will not be met. 'My own view is that it’s highly unlikely,' said Thomas R. Pickering, a former top U.S. diplomat who has met with numerous members of Congress to build support for the agreement."

Regrettably, Ms. DeYoung does not mention that Pickering is listed as a member of the Advisory Board of the National Iranian American Council.

This information should have been included in DeYoung's article. Pickering is anything but a disinterested party.

I have written to Martin Baron, WaPo's editor. Let's see what he has to say.

[Mr. Baron responded, "if you've read what that organization is, I have no idea why you'd think his comment on whether a deadline might be met requires mention of his participation on its advisory board."

My response to Mr. Baron:

"Although you might disagree with the conservative politics of American Thinker, you might still want to have a look at a March 5, 2014 article entitled "The Ayatollah's Lobby on K Street?" [by Jordan Schachtel]:

"Has the National Iranian American Council and its founder, Trita Parsi, inserted itself into the debate over Iran sanctions under false pretenses? Has the left been duped and psychologically disarmed by Parsi and the folks at NIAC, who have seemingly tried to appeal to the left's dove-like idealistic sentiments? Substantial evidence points to the conclusion that NIAC’s agenda, far removed from the actual interests of the Iranian-American community at large, displays almost zero daylight between itself and the docket of the “supreme leader’s” theocratic regime.

Trita Parsi and the staff at NIAC have penned articles in several left-wing mainstream media outlets, including The New York Times and The Huffington Post, among many others. Parsi recently lectured at CIA headquarters and has personally met and lobbied former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Parsi, along with the staff at his disposal, claim to be "the voice" of the one million Iranian Americans in the United States, with the stated mission of “advancing the interests of the Iranian American community."

If NIAC’s mission is truly to serve the best interests of the Iranian-American community, it has epically failed to meet that objective. When polled, 99% of Iranian Americans who support a pro-democracy trajectory for Iran expressed that NIAC did not in any way represent their interests. Furthermore, a staggering 99% of respondents also believed that NIAC are simply a lobby for the Ayatollah’s Islamic Republic.

Mohsen Makhmalbalf, an established leader in Iran’s Green Movement, said of Parsi, “I feel his lobbying has secretly been more for the Islamic republic.” When reached for comment, Amir Fakhravar, an Iranian jailed dissident and recipient of the Annie Taylor Journalism Award, said of NIAC, “You cannot find any difference between their statements and the Iranian regime’s statements. Either officially or unofficially, they are following the path of the regime.”

NIAC came to fruition in 1999, when Trita Parsi was at a conference in Cyprus being held under the auspices of the Iranian regime. During the conference, Parsi laid out his plan to introduce a pro-regime lobbying group to counteract the sentiments and influence allegedly purported by America’s pro-Israel and anti-regime advocacy groups.
Internal documents, unveiled as a result of the National Iranian American Council’s failed defamation lawsuit against an investigative journalist, reveal that Parsi had been maintaining a close relationship with Iranian defense Minister Javad Zarif for several years."

Also consider the following from a Haaretz (left-wing Israeli) article entitled "Nuclear deal divides Iranian community in America" [by Dan Shadur]:

"Parsi has been following the nuclear deal negotiations closely and clocked many hours talking with U.S. and Iranian negotiators. He supports the deal unreservedly. He believes the deal being cobbled together is the only way to peacefully prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, and that it creates a framework for a U.S.-Iranian dialogue, something he views as a positive development."

In short, NIAC has a dog in this fight, and Pickering, who is listed first among its advisory board members, is not a mere "former top U.S. diplomat."

Query: If a former US diplomat was now a leading advisor to AIPAC and lobbying against a deal with Iran, wouldn't her/his association with AIPAC be relevant and deserve mention?"

I subsequently sent an additional email to Mr. Baron:

"And from Commentary, Is NIAC the Iran Lobby?' by Michael Rubin:

'There has been a lot of controversy back-and-forth about whether the National Iranian American Council (NIAC) lobbies for the Islamic Republic of Iran. After an Iranian-American journalist referred to NIAC as a lobby group, NIAC sued him for defamation but ended up losing its case. While at the Washington Times, Eli Lake used documents revealed during that lawsuit’s discovery phase to suggest that NIAC was, indeed, illegally lobbying. Lake’s story apparently forced NIAC to amend its tax returns.

Jamal Abdi, NIAC’s policy director, now appears to push aside any pretense that NIAC is something other than Iran’s lobby. Speaking at the forthcoming “Expose AIPAC” conference, Abdi is featured on the “Training: Constituent Lobbying for Iran” panel. Oops.

Then again, in his university days, NIAC founder Trita Parsi made no secret of his goals.'

Again, if a former US diplomat was now a leading advisor to AIPAC and lobbying against a deal with Iran, wouldn't her/his association with AIPAC be relevant and deserve mention?"

Let's see if WaPo will now be willing to correct the omission . . .]

Sodom and Gomorrah: Plagiarism and Prevarication Go Unpunished at The New York Times and The Washington Post

Then the Lord said, 'How great is the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah and how very grave their sin!'

- Genesis 18:20

No, I'm not religious in a traditional sense, but I can say with certainty that my religious perspective, which is a bit amorphous, differs vastly from that of Jill Abramson, executive editor of The New York Times, whose theological upbringing is described in her Times blurb (http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/people/a/jill_abramson/index.html):

"Ms. Abramson said that as a born-and-raised New Yorker, she considered being named editor of The Times to be like 'ascending to Valhalla.'

'In my house growing up, The Times substituted for religion,' she said. 'If The Times said it, it was the absolute truth.'"

Abramson has "ascended to Valhalla," where truth reigns supreme? In fact, given my own recent experience with the anti-Semitism and outright lies of The Times, I consider her being named editor of the The Times to be more akin to descending into Helheim (hell in Nordic mythology).

Let's ignore the recent manifestations of anti-Semitism at The Times, e.g., Kristof's retweet of a controversial message that referred to AIPAC as one of "the 2 most pig like lobbies" in America (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/01/nicholas-kristof-retweets-obama-told-2.html) and Friedman's op-ed assertion that Netanyahu's standing ovation after speaking before Congress was "bought and paid for by the Israel lobby" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/14/opinion/friedman-newt-mitt-bibi-and-vladimir.html?_r=0). Yup, as advanced by both "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" and The New York Times, Jews pull all the strings.

Instead let's concentrate on Maureen Dowd's inadvertent lifting of language, i.e. plagiarism (see: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/17/maureen-dowd-admits-inadv_n_204418.html), which went unpunished by The Times.

Let's also focus on Thomas Friedman's recent December 4, 2012 flagrantly mistaken op-ed contention (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/05/opinion/iron-empires-iron-fists-iron-domes.html) that Israel's planned E1 construction "would sever any possibility of a contiguous Palestinian state." This was followed by a December 20, 2012 editorial entitled "The Fading Mideast Peace Dream" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/21/opinion/the-fading-mideast-peace-dream.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&_r=1&), in which The Times went on record as stating:

"So far this week, Mr. Netanyahu’s hard-line government, defying the Western powers, has approved construction of more than 6,000 new housing units. The approvals follow an announcement late last month that Israel would continue planning for new development in the E1 area — a project northeast of Jerusalem that would split the West Bank and prevent the creation of a viable contiguous Palestinian state."

Unfortunately for both Friedman and the editorial board of The Times, E1 construction by Israel, if it ever happens, will not sever the West Bank. This is a fact.

As provided by Section 15 of "Ethical Journalism, A Handbook of Values and Practices for the News and Editorial Departments" (italics added)  (http://www.nytco.com/pdf/NYT_Ethical_Journalism_0904.pdf), which puportedly guides the ethical conduct of The Times:

"The Times treats is readers as fairly and openly as possible. In print and online, we tell our readers the complete, unvarnished truth as best we can learn it. It is our policy to correct our errors large and small, as soon as we become aware of them."

As further provided Section 16 of the "Handbook of Values and Practices for the News and Editorial Departments" of The Times:

"Simple courtesy suggests that we not alienate our readers by ignoring their letters and e-mails that warrant reply."

The New York Times did not bother to correct Friedman's op-ed piece or its editorial, notwithstanding my e-mails to Andrew Rosenthal, its editorial page editor, and Margaret Sullivan, its public editor. Moreover, both Rosenthal and Sullivan didn't bother to reply.

But not to worry, Jill, Andy and Margaret. The Times is in "good company."

Notwithstanding Fareed Zakaria's plagiarism scandal and his resignation from Yale University's governing board (see: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/20/fareed-zakaria-resigns-yale-board_n_1814199.html), The Washington Post continues to publish his opinion pieces.

Worse still, The Washington Post has now demonstrated that it is indifferent to prevarication penned by its opinion writing staff. Earlier this month, in a WaPo opinion piece entitled "Obama appeals to Israel's conscience" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/fareed-zakaria-obama-appeals-to-israels-conscience/2013/03/27/a4365b18-96f5-11e2-b68f-dc5c4b47e519_story.html?hpid=z2), Zakaria claimed:

"After all, Israel has ruled millions of Palestinians without offering them citizenship or a state for 40 years."

Of course, as well known to Zakaria, Israeli prime ministers Barak and Olmert offered Arafat and Abbas an independent state along the 1967 lines with agreed upon land swaps, and Olmert even offered Palestinian control of east Jerusalem. Arafat and Abbas refused. I alerted WaPo to this lie, and Martin Baron, executive editor of the newspaper, sent me an e-mail saying that he was passing my complaint to Fred Hiatt, the editorial page editor. Has Hiatt gotten back to me? Not yet, and I'm no longer holding my breath.

And so, we have reached a time when plagiarism and prevarication go unpunished by two of America's leading newspapers. Is it any wonder that their readership and finances are in a death spiral?

We all know what happened to Sodom and Gomorrah, despite Abraham's best efforts at bargaining with God. Can ten righteous persons be found at The  New York Times and The Washington Post? I am beginning to have my doubts.