Michael Calderone, "New York Times Editors, Columnists Met With Obama During Syria Push": Obama Only Reads the Anti-Semitic Times?

As I write this blog item, I am reaching for my airsickness bag.

Michael Calderone, the Senior Media Reporter for The Huffington Post, tells us in an article entitled "New York Times Editors, Columnists Met With Obama During Syria Push" (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/18/new-york-times-obama-syria_n_3949419.html?utm_hp_ref=media), that Obama recently consulted with editorial and op-ed staffers from The New York Times regarding his meandering Syria policy. As reported by Calderone:

"On Aug. 29, the president again sat down for an off-the-record discussion with Rosenthal [editorial page editor of the Times] and some members of the editorial board, according to sources familiar with the meeting. Times opinion columnists David Brooks, Gail Collins and Ross Douthat also attended, but editors for the paper's news pages did not.

The meeting came amid the White House’s push for military intervention in Syria, one of the topics discussed that day.

. . . .

On the afternoon of Aug. 30, Secretary of State John Kerry made the case that Syria had used chemical weapons, signaling that U.S. retaliation for crossing a 'red line' drawn by Obama could be imminent. But the Times still seemed unconvinced that immediate action was the best course.

In an editorial posted online Aug. 30 and in the next day's paper, Times editors wrote that 'even in the best of circumstances, military action could go wrong in so many ways; the lack of strong domestic and international support will make it even more difficult.'

The Times also noted that Obama's 'approach on Syria now seems wholly at odds with the strong position' he took as a candidate in 2007.

. . . .

On the evening of Aug. 30, Obama reportedly decided to seek congressional approval for a strike during a talk with chief of staff Denis McDonough. He announced his decision publicly the following day.

Rosenthal did not respond to requests for comment about the Aug. 29 meeting and a Times spokeswoman declined to discuss the specifics of that gathering.

. . . .

[T]he Obama White House has long seemed particularly interested in getting its point of view across in the Times, and the president has said he reads all the paper's columnists. In April, a former adviser said the Times is the only paper Obama reads."

Okay, what is most frightening about all of the above? That Obama only reads the Times, a newspaper which has grown increasingly infamous for its anti-Semitic and anti-Israel biases (see, for example: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2012/02/stench-of-anti-semitism-at-new-york.html and http://www.camera.org/images_user/pdf/NYT%20study%20exec%20summary_ind.pdf)?

Or perhaps that Obama saw fit to consult with politicized Times op-ed writers, such as Gail Collins, who know absolutely nothing about the Middle East?

Or perhaps that Obama was swayed by the editorial board of The New York Times, whose recent editorials on the subject of Syria (see, for example: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/09/new-york-times-editorial-syrian-pact.html and http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/09/new-york-times-editorial-diplomatic.html) are most kindly characterized as delusional?

Or perhaps that it is more important to Obama how he is portrayed by the media than making decisions based upon . . . morality?

Bottom line, as I have stated in the past: The New York Times should now toss aside its ethical journalism handbook and proudly advertise itself as the semi-official mouthpiece of the Obama administration.