The New York Times Lies For Obama on Dictators… Again
Mr. Obama and his campaign have stressed that while the Democrat would depart from the Bush administration’s policy of refusing to meet with certain nations that fail to meet preconditions, he would not necessarily engage in presidential-level talks with them.
QUESTION: In 1982, Anwar Sadat traveled to Israel, a trip that resulted in a peace agreement that has lasted ever since.
In the spirit of that type of bold leadership, would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?
OBAMA: I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them — which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration — is ridiculous.
But, that fact didn’t stop The New York Times from lying today to prop up Obama.
And, funny this wasn’t the first time that The New York Times tried this…
Back on May 10th The New York Times wrote a similar article:
Mr. McCain and his surrogates have repeatedly stated that Mr. Obama would be willing to meet “unconditionally” with Mr. Ahmadinejad. But Dr. Rice said that this was not the case for Iran or any other so-called “rogue” state. Mr. Obama believes “that engagement at the presidential level, at the appropriate time and with the appropriate preparation, can be used to leverage the change we need,” Dr. Rice said. “But nobody said he would initiate contacts at the presidential level; that requires due preparation and advance work.”
Of course, this wasn’t true back then, either.
Someone should let Barack Obama know that diplomatic engagements have been repeatedly disastrous for the US in regards to Iran.
UPDATE: The New York Times corrected one of its lies.