Big Lizards:Blog:Entry “It's Not the Crime, It's the Cover Up: NYT Still Shielding Obama On "No Preconditions"”

« Boycott Michael Reagan | Main | Marriage, Money, and Ursus Maritimus »

May 19, 2008

It's Not the Crime, It's the Cover Up: NYT Still Shielding Obama On "No Preconditions"

Hatched by Dafydd

Today, even AP admits that Barack Obama did indeed say that he would hold summit meetings with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Syrian President Bashar Assad, Venezuelan President Oogo Chavez, and North Korean Dear Leader Kim Jong-Il "without precondition"... the very policy that prompts many in the GOP (including Big Lizards!) to dub Obama an "appeaser."

(Actually, Obama is even more feckless than Neville Chamberlain: Great Britain had no military to speak of in 1938; they used the eleven months between the dissection of Czechoslovakia -- "peace for our time" -- and Nazi Germany's invasion of Poland in a massive mobilization and buildup for a long war. Obama has no such easy excuse.)

Yet amazingly, the New York Times continues to run interference. Even today, they still pretend that what's at issue is meeting with our enemies at all, rather than meeting with them at a presidential level without any prior agreement to moderate their behavior.

Here is the Times blog the Caucus on the dustup today between John McCain and Barack Obama:

Mr. McCain, who was in Mr. Obama’s hometown to address the National Restaurant Association, diverged from prepared remarks on economic issues to get in his jab at Mr. Obama.

Believing keeping the focus on national security is advantageous to Mr. McCain, his campaign has been continuing to try to make hay over Mr. Obama’s stated willingness to sit down with the leaders of rogue nations.

The Caucus follows this bare-faced mischaracterization of the nature of the dispute with a spirited defense of Obama, just in case any readers were still confused which side was "right":

Arguing for engagement with the country’s foes, Mr. Obama said in a speech on Sunday that “strong countries and strong presidents talk to their adversaries.”

“That’s what Reagan did with Gorbachev,” he said, adding, “I mean think about it. Iran, Cuba, Venezuela -- these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don’t pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us. And yet we were willing to talk to the Soviet Union at the time when they were saying we’re going to wipe you off the planet.”

He went on to argue that Iran spends “one-one hundredth of what we spend on the military. If Iran ever tried to pose a serious threat to us, they wouldn’t stand a chance. And we should use that position of strength that we have to be bold enough to go ahead and listen.”

To which, according to the Caucus, John McCain had no answer and was reduced to impotent harumphing...

Mr. McCain seized upon those comments today, his voice stern and dripping with contempt: “Obviously, Iran isn’t a superpower and doesn’t possess the military power the Soviet Union had. But that does not mean that the threat posed by Iran is insignificant.”

How weak! How embarassing! Things certainly look bleak for McCain's chances, when even a wimp like Obama can spank McCain like a stripper at a stockholder's meeting.

By the way, just to correct the record: Reagan certainly did not, as Obama claimed, talk to Gorbachev when the Soviet Union was saying "we’re going to wipe you off the planet." It was Nikita Kruschev who said "we will bury you" in 1956, three decades before Reagan's summit. The whole point of that meeting was that General Secretary Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev had already drastically reformed the Soviet Union -- remember perestroika and glasnost? -- long before Reagan agreed to that summit.

This summit represents the polar opposite of what Obama actually proposed, and which the Times continues to work overtime to suppress: You won't read a word about Obama's promise to hold summits "without precondition" in this article... nothing.

By contrast, here is AP's version of that same exchange:

Republican John McCain accused Democrat Barack Obama of inexperience and reckless judgment for saying Iran does not pose the same serious threat to the United States as the Soviet Union did in its day. McCain made the attack Monday in Chicago, Obama's home turf.

"Such a statement betrays the depth of Senator Obama's inexperience and reckless judgment. These are very serious deficiencies for an American president to possess," McCain said in an appearance at the restaurant industry's annual meeting....

McCain listed the dangers he sees from Iran: It provides deadly explosive devices used to kill U.S. soldiers in Iraq, sponsors terrorists in Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East and is committed to the destruction of Israel.

"The threat the government of Iran poses is anything but tiny," McCain said.

AP goes on to characterize -- correctly, we note -- the nature of the dispute:

At the heart of the dispute between the candidates is Obama's assertion that, as president, he would meet with leaders of these rogue countries without preconditions. Obama insists that direct engagement with the Soviets helped prevent nuclear war and, over time, helped to bring down the Berlin Wall.

McCain strongly disagrees with Obama's position; he argues such a meeting would lend international prestige to U.S. foes.

"A summit meeting with the president of the United States, which is what Senator Obama is proposing, is the most prestigious card we have to play in international diplomacy," McCain said.

"An unconditional summit meeting with the next American president would confer both international legitimacy on the Iranian president and could strengthen him domestically, when he is very unpopular among the Iranian people," McCain said.

As to Obama's assertion (as paraphrased by AP) that "direct engagement with the Soviets helped prevent nuclear war and, over time, helped to bring down the Berlin Wall," I refer you to our earlier post, Appease Porridge Hot, Appease Porridge Cold: There's engagement (Kennedy style), and then there's engagement (Reagan style).

Back to the Times. The Caucus takes no judicial note of the about-face Obama took after McCain called him out. Responding to McCain, Obama today denied he had said Iran posed no threat to us:

Speaking during a town hall meeting in Billings, Mont., Senator Obama fired back at Senator McCain. “Let me be absolutely clear: Iran is a grave threat.” But the Soviet Union posed a bigger threat, he said.

A grave threat? "Grave," in the sense used here, means "fraught with danger or harm," "portending future disaster," "involving or resulting in serious consequences : likely to produce real harm or damage," "very serious : dangerous to life." But here is what Obama said over the weekend, while he was still trying to defend his promise to meet "without precondition" with leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, and North Korea by pretending that was a commonplace diplomatic act in which U.S. presidents always engage:

“That’s what Reagan did with Gorbachev,” he said, adding, “I mean think about it. Iran, Cuba, Venezuela -- these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don’t pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us."

He didn't say "they don't pose as serious a threat," he said "they don't pose a serious threat." But maybe he just misspoke. He's a Democrat; he has a license to flub. But what about the overarching point?

Suppose Iran completes development of its nuclear warhead. Then suppose it passes a couple of nukes to Hamas, which passes one to al-Qaeda, which smuggles it into a busy American port and detonates it. (Hamas uses its other nuke on Tel Aviv.)

Wouldn't that be far "graver" than anything the Soviet Union actually did to us? Remember, in one sense, the threat from the Soviets was weaker: Unlike Islamist "martyrs," the Soviet Union wanted to live. We deterred them by threatening nuclear retaliation... a strategy we called "mutually assured destruction," or MAD.

Iran could make retaliation unlikely by putting several cutouts between itself and the nuclear bomb; and al-Qaeda or other apocalyptic, human-sacrificing death cults cannot be deterred by threats of retaliation, because they long to die in the blast anyway, believing that's an express ticket to paradise and the 72 virgins and 72 wives (or perhaps chilled raisins instead).

But evidently, none of this has occurred to the first-term senator from Chicago. He cannot conceive any way in which Iran could pose a serious threat to the United States. Except that he simultaneously believes that it constitutes a "grave threat!"

And the Times doesn't notice any contradiction. This raises an interesting thought... Given the New York Times' inability to stay afloat financially, and given their clear ideological leanings -- maybe it would make more sense for them simply to disband the company and reorganize themselves as the Democratic Party of the Times Square District.

I think they would be a lot more financially secure with a piece of Barack Obama's fundraising action than they are now trying to peddle their "newspapers."

Hatched by Dafydd on this day, May 19, 2008, at the time of 3:46 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this hissing: http://biglizards.net/mt3.36/earendiltrack.cgi/3024

Comments

The following hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist

McCain is going to thrash Barack “Neville” Obama, Jr. in the upcoming debates.

The above hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist at May 19, 2008 5:12 PM

The following hissed in response by: Rovin

Has anyone noticed the Washington Post may have seen the "writing on the wall" and over the past few months seem to (at least) try to be balanced in their reporting, leaving the editorials on the proper page? Meanwhile Keller and his clan can't wait for another intelligence breech to publish.

The above hissed in response by: Rovin at May 19, 2008 6:24 PM

The following hissed in response by: narciso79

The problem is Obama's example is much more like if Reagan had negotiated with Grigori Romanov, the hardline St. Petersberg boss, who would have
been the alternative to Gorbachev hadn't certain votes in the Supreme Soviet had gone differently. There's no likely that would have happened. Had Mondale or Hart succeeded would some one like Romanov or a Dimitri Ustinov, have taken their opponent's weakness to move into the other's sphere of influence. Remember, Khruschev, a relative moderate, did it with Kennedy, after the
Bay of Pigs and the Vienna summit. And the Cuban Missile Crisis was a game of chicken, from the fall of '61 onward.
People miss, or either refuse to see that Ahmadinejad is the product of the most extreme sectors of the Iranian mullocracy/paramilitary wing. A veteran of the Quds force, he literally
has 'blood on his hands' from the death of Quassemlou in Vienna, his administering of Evin
Prison (which makes Abu Graib look like a frat house)He may not have formal power, but informally
he has great influence,through Hezbollah and other channels. His typology resembles that of Stalin, who purged even the most avid Leninists
like London envoy Krasin; the espionage trials against Mousavian (whose report to the Supreme Ayatollah, about the extent of Iranian deceptions
vis a vis the Europeans, never made it to the last NIE)and other figures, of the 'reformist'
Khattami/Rafsanjani axis are typical of the
breed. Even fellow IRCG hardliner and former
propaganda chief Larijani, is too moderate for his taste.

The above hissed in response by: narciso79 at May 19, 2008 7:05 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dan Kauffman

Unlike Islamist "martyrs," the Soviet Union wanted to live. We deterred them by threatening nuclear retaliation

Yes, at times I miss the Soviets. They were after all an Atheistic Regine.

In order to ensure the Victory of the Revolution and the arrival of the Radiant Future, the world had to still be existing.

Now we are facing folks who think Armaggedon is a GREAT Idea, because it means they and their fellow believers would get to go to Paradise a lot quicker.

Now Obama said if I recall his word's correctly that Iran is not ~~REAL~~ Threat like the Soviet Union was, much less a Grave Threat. I wish he would define his terms a tad better.

Is a real threat like someone pointing a RPG at you, & his lesser threats like someone holding a shotgun to your head?

The above hissed in response by: Dan Kauffman at May 20, 2008 12:32 AM

The following hissed in response by: hunter

When dealing with such a corrupt MSM, it is hard to keep up the fight.

The above hissed in response by: hunter at May 20, 2008 6:17 AM

The following hissed in response by: boffo

Other than those who would still vote for Obama even if he were caught in flagrante delicto with Osama Bin Laden and a chihuahua, does anyone still read the New York Times?

The above hissed in response by: boffo at May 20, 2008 9:59 AM

The following hissed in response by: David M

The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the - Web Reconnaissance for 05/20/2008 A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day...so check back often.

The above hissed in response by: David M at May 20, 2008 10:38 AM

The following hissed in response by: Geoman

How is it that the candidate that promises nuance in all things, is so lead tongued on this subject?
I think Obama believes everything he reads in the New York Times, and the New York Times is credulous to all of Mr. Obama's utterances.

The hum of the feedback is becoming unbearable...

The above hissed in response by: Geoman at May 20, 2008 3:44 PM

The following hissed in response by: Geoman

The hum of the feedback is becoming unbearable...

The above hissed in response by: Geoman at May 20, 2008 3:45 PM