Patters

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/22/op...in&oref=slogin

Interesting op-ed piece for a couple reasons.

(1) Flynt Leveratt a Bush official, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynt_Leverett,
wrote this very good op-ed piece criticizing Bush's approach to Iran. He raises a lot of good points in arguing that diplomacy is the right course.

(2) After the CIA rejected portions of the piece as classified (despite the fact they had initially cleared the info), the Times chose to run the piece with the classified parts blacked out. I think this highlights the tough balance that the media has in terms of representing the right to know and honoring censorship by government. In this case, I think the censorship is unwarranted:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/22/op...22precede.html

Real World

Well, the Times is not going to get cookies and milk from this Administration. I think one could understand if they might be less than cordial to the NYT.

As for the article itself, I tend to disagree with some of his assessments. Namely this part:

Those who argue that Iran did not cause Iraq’s problems and therefore can be of only limited help in dealing with Iraq’s current instability must also acknowledge that Iran did not “cause” Afghanistan’s deterioration into a terrorist-harboring failed state. But, when America and Iran worked together, Afghanistan was much more stable than it is today, Al Qaeda was on the run, the Islamic Republic’s Hezbollah protégé was comparatively restrained, and Tehran was not spinning centrifuges. Still, the Bush administration conveyed no interest in building on these positive trends.

My problem with this is that he is implying that the situation in Afghanistan is problematic because Iran isn't helping, yet at the same time is saying that Iran has little involvement in Iraqi chaos. Most know the problems inside Afghanistan come from the region opposite Iran, and is mostly pakistani, and kashmiri influenced. Furthermore he's trying to say that GW's post 9/11 policy with Iran is what pushed them to spin centirfuges. That's ridiculous. Iran has always intended to go nuclear. In doing so, they've had a nuclear program for decades. A country that doesn't have nuclear ability in year 1, doesn't decide to develop nukes in year 2, and succeed in year 6. It takes decades. I've argued with people who feel that we should attack Iran to prevent them from going nuclear that it'd be dumb because Iran is going nuclear no matter what. There is nothing the IAEA, EU, UN, or USA could do to stop that either. I have no problems with having a relationship with Iran, as I think there always should be (and trust me there always is). I just don't see Iran as ever being a participant in serving Western, or American interests. Afterall, we're talking about a very radical, religiously ideological regime, that is a known sponsor of terrorism.

I respect this guys opinion, I just disagree with some of his conlusions.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him."
Leo Tolstoy, 1897

PressCoverage

the NYT was one of the main enablers for Bush-Cheney's pre-war intel twisting... exhibit A being Judith Miller and her editors...

now that the NYT is being "disloyal" to the administration, suddenly it's persona non grata to the Bush League...

Harry Boy

The NY Times is a Biased Left Wing Socialist Communist Rag, people that live in Condo's should use it for their dogs to ***** on.
"yup"

__________________
Harry Boy (Genius)

In The Absence Of Law And Order Society Will Surely Destroy Itself

PressCoverage

overall, the NYT is one of the two finest metro daily newspapers in the world... media outlets from all over the world use their stories... so think it through, and gear down just a bit, or you'll continue to look silly in yet another thread...

however, i guess the NYT wasn't very "communist" when it was publishing crap about Chalabi and other baseless anti-Saddam dissentors as gospel back in 02-03, huh? this, dispite being spoon-fed the information from the Bush League itself? and even though every allegation from Chalabi and the INC has been proven fraud ... know much about judith miller, do ya?

read books? ... here's two Christmas recommendations: ... "Hubris" , "State of Denial".... but, those authors must just be socialists hacks, right, "righty?"... i mean, one of the bastards actually "tattled" on Nixon!!!

DarrylS

As DC parties, fiddles and tries to compromise our constitutionally guaranteed freedoms, Somalia is becoming a haven for Al Queada.. think we have problems in Afghanistan, wait until the Taliban spreads to the horn of africa. Then things will become more confusing than they are right now. Keep producing more babies all you right wing mommies, a **** load are gonna be needed to fight the wars of the futuer.

__________________
"Being the best doesn't mean you always win. It just means you win more than anyone else".. tweet from Kurt Warner to Tom Brady.

IcyPatriot

Anytime anyone reads the NYT this fact needs to be remembered. While the times is liberal even though they say they want to be center...their owners are Jewish and very active in most Jewish political causes.

So...while they tend to detest conservatives and the G.O.P. they also detest all of Israel's enemies even more.

Not saying anything is wrong with any of that ... but it does clarify where they are coming from in some of their stories.

Harry Boy

The NY Times have Jewish Owners, Bush and America are fighting and killing the enemy of Israel, the NY Times "HATES BUSH"

__________________
Harry Boy (Genius)

In The Absence Of Law And Order Society Will Surely Destroy Itself