New York Times Editorial, "President Obama at the United Nations": Compare with WaPo Editorial, "Trouble at the Core of U.S. Foreign Policy"

After members of the editorial board of The New York Times had an "off-the-record" discussion with Obama on August 29, 2013 (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/09/michael-calderone-new-york-times.html), they had this to say about the president's speech at the UN on Tuesday (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/25/opinion/president-obama-at-the-united-nations.html?_r=0):

"In his address to the United Nations General Assembly, President Obama gave some coherence to his foreign policy vision, which acknowledges both America’s role in the world and its limited ability to determine events inside other nations. He also set important, if incomplete, priorities for the rest of his term. Mr. Obama is well known for giving good speeches, so the question is whether he can implement a consistent, effective strategy to achieve his goals."

Now compare this first paragraph of the Times editorial with the beginning of a Washington Post editorial entitled "Trouble at the core of U.S. foreign policy" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trouble-at-the-core-of-us-foreign-policy/2013/09/25/b7d2652a-2608-11e3-b75d-5b7f66349852_story.html?hpid=z3):

"IN HIS second inaugural address, President Obama delivered a ringing pledge of U.S. support for American ideals around the world. 'We will support democracy from Asia to Africa, from the Americas to the Middle East,' he promised, 'because our interests and our conscience compel us to act on behalf of those who long for freedom.'

Just eight months later, the idealism is gone. In what may be the most morally crimped speech by a president in modern times, Mr. Obama explicitly ruled out the promotion of liberty as a core interest of the United States."

Is it remotely possible that the two editorial boards were listening to the same speech?

Given that The New York Times has sold its journalistic soul to the devil - How can they continue to publish editorials without acknowledging, let alone explaining, their editorial board's "off-the-record" meeting with the president? - we shouldn't be surprised.