NY Times Glowing Endorsement of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

[Bonnie]

Political arrests are down, women's rights are on the rise. Life under Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, according to the New York Times.


The New York Times on Saturday offered a disgustingly sympathetic portrait of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. While the article acknowledges (in the words of an anonymous political science professor in Tehran) that "being against Jews and Zionists is an essential part" of Ahmadinejad's political identity, the focus of the article is on Ahmadinejad's "speed and aggression" in accumulating power and in "reshaping" the nature of Iran's government. For what ends? Here the article is curiously silent about Ahmadinejad's threats to destroy Israel and Iran's support for international Islamic terrorism.

While the New York Times cannot quite bring itself to call Ahmadinejad a "reformer," that is clearly the thrust of the article. For example, the article repeatedly trumpets that Ahmadinejad is "a proponent of women's rights," has "challenged high-ranking clerics on the treatment of women," and has "defended women in a way that put him outside the mainstream of conservative Islamic discourse." Of course, the "mainstream of conservative Islamic discourse" takes a rather dim view of "women's rights" — certainly as westerners have understood that term for the past several hundred years. Moreover, the only specific example of Ahmadinejad's alleged support for women was his proposal to allow women into sports stadiums — which was promptly rejected by the Supreme Ayatollah Khamenei. So much for Ahmadinejad as Iran's Susan B. Anthony.

Another aspect of Ahmadinejad's leadership style that appeals to the New York Times is his economic populism. The article quotes Ahmadinejad as saying that "parliament and government should fight against wealthy officials," who "should not have influence over senior officials" and who "should not impose their demands on the needs of the poor people." As for the poor people, Ahmadinejad "promises to improve the lives of the poor" by forcing banks to lower interest rates, offering inexpensive housing loans, promoting "development projects" throughout the country, and trying to inject oil revenue into the economy. Although the Times acknowledges that the Iranian economy is "almost entirely in the hands of the government" and that Ahmadinejad lacks "a strong grasp of economics," nowhere does it suggest that greater freedom and deregulation might be the keys to a stronger economy.

Ah, freedom. Something the New York Times interprets most expansively at home (e.g., the alleged First Amendment right to expose national security secrets), but cares rather little about abroad, at least in countries not allied with the United States. Hence, the article on Ahmadinejad offers little disapprobation for his "political arrests," which the Times brightly reports "are down;" or for his "pressure" on newspapers "to be silent on certain topics, like opposition to the nuclear program;" or for his "punishment" of officials running the nation's cellphone system, which people were using to circulate jokes about Ahmadinejad's poor personal hygiene.

This sounds like a joke itself, but totalitarianism is no laughing matter. Plainly, the Times downplays the tyranny and brutality of Ahmadinejad's regime because it does not fit into the "reformer" mold into which the article tries to squeeze him. Apparently, Islamic tyrants are now going to be accorded the same white glove treatment that the Left has always shown Communist tyrants.

Lastly, the Times article paints Ahmadinejad as an "ideologically flexible" leader who seeks a "dialogue" with the United States. Indeed, Ahmadinejad's ridiculous, and chilling, letter to President Bush is presented as a "significant" act of "reaching out." The Times also describes Ahmadinejad's "consistent theme" as "the concept of seeking justice." Again, a term that has very different meaning to westerners than to Ahmadinejad and his supporters. The point of these word games, and blatant misrepresentations, is to suggest that Ahmadinejad is not the warmongering Islamic fanatic that he, in fact, has shown himself to be time and time again. Quite obviously, this is part of the Times' broader strategy of opposing U.S. military intervention in Iran. The Times once again takes the side of America's enemies.

I predict we will be seeing many more Times articles over the coming months portraying Ahmadinejad as a reasonable fellow with whom the United States can negotiate peacefully — and all the while Ahmadinejad will continue his pursuit of nuclear weapons to use to destroy Israel and terrorize the West into submission.

The intellectual dishonesty, and moral hollowness, of the New York Times no longer surprises me.

http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2006/nyt-ahmadinejad-for-president/

 

[1549]

http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2006/nyt-ahmadinejad-for-president/

I think what we need to be consider is whether or not the negative aspects of Ahmadinejad's reign warrant an invasion.

Perhaps the article is not proposing that the ruler is free of flaw, but that there is potential here for a more free and peaceful Iran.

The treatment of Jews in Iran can not be tolerated. The infringement on civil rights should be frowned upon. But if there is a human side to Ahmadinejad then perhaps these things--along with the nuclear weapon issue--can be eased through negotiations.

 

[Bonnie]

I think what we need to be consider is whether or not the negative aspects of Ahmadinejad's reign warrant an invasion.

Perhaps the article is not proposing that the ruler is free of flaw, but that there is potential here for a more free and peaceful Iran.

The treatment of Jews in Iran can not be tolerated. The infringement on civil rights should be frowned upon. But if there is a human side to Ahmadinejad then perhaps these things--along with the nuclear weapon issue--can be eased through negotiations.

Sure if we could all just get passed his anit-christ complex and his desire to destroy Israel then the US things would be peachy!!!

 

[jasendorf]

Why not post the article itself and let each of us decide? Or, maybe we're too stupid to do that for ourselves so you just posted what we're supposed to think instead? This article horribly mischaracterizes the article I see from the 27th (is there another?)...

I suggest letting everyone read it for themselves and see if the editorial commentary provided by intellectualconservative.com rings true.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/28/world/middleeast/28iran.html

 

[Bonnie]

Why not post the article itself and let each of us decide? Or, maybe we're too stupid to do that for ourselves so you just posted what we're supposed to think instead? This article horribly mischaracterizes the article I see from the 27th (is there another?)...

I suggest letting everyone read it for themselves and see if the editorial commentary provided by intellectualconservative.com rings true.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/28/world/middleeast/28iran.html

Yes that's exactly what I did, or did you lose your reading glasses again?? Perhaps you are adverse to people writing their opinions.. psssst...it's called commentary, what you do with it is up to you.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Why not post the article itself and let each of us decide? Or, maybe we're too stupid to do that for ourselves so you just posted what we're supposed to think instead? This article horribly mischaracterizes the article I see from the 27th (is there another?)...

I suggest letting everyone read it for themselves and see if the editorial commentary provided by intellectualconservative.com rings true.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/28/world/middleeast/28iran.html

I would, but I'm not giving that commie rag any information on me. Not even a made up username.

 

[jasendorf]

Sure if we could all just get passed his anit-christ complex and his desire to destroy Israel then the US things would be peachy!!!

I think if we can survive Khrushchev banging his shoe and shouting "we will bury you" without invading the USSR, I'm pretty sure we can do the same to Iran.

 

[Said1]

Why not post the article itself and let each of us decide? Or, maybe we're too stupid to do that for ourselves so you just posted what we're supposed to think instead? This article horribly mischaracterizes the article I see from the 27th (is there another?)...

I suggest letting everyone read it for themselves and see if the editorial commentary provided by intellectualconservative.com rings true.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/28/world/middleeast/28iran.html

I suggest you not dictate what another memeber wants to post, blockhead.

 

[jasendorf]

Yes that's exactly what I did, or did you lose your reading glasses again?? Perhaps you are adverse to people writing their opinions.. psssst...it's called commentary, what you do with it is up to you.

So, you're admitting that you think we're too stupid to read the article and decide for ourselves? Fair enough.

 

[Said1]

So, you're admitting that you think we're too stupid to read the article and decide for ourselves? Fair enough.

Yes, it looks like she's admitted t hat. No-ting get by you. You better head back to your village, it might burn down without you there to point out the fire.

 

[jasendorf]

I suggest you not dictate what another memeber wants to post, blockhead.

I just wanted to make sure I knew why she posted commentary on an article instead of the article itself. I guess mischaracterization is more useful than the actual facts when it comes to debate around here?

 

[Bonnie]

So, you're admitting that you think we're too stupid to read the article and decide for ourselves? Fair enough.

Bonnie..what you do with it is up to you.

Yes that's just what I said.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I think if we can survive Khrushchev banging his shoe and shouting "we will bury you" without invading the USSR, I'm pretty sure we can do the same to Iran.

Not if our media erodes public support for the endeavor with sympathetic lies.

 

[Said1]

I just wanted to make sure I knew why she posted commentary on an article instead of the article itself. I guess mischaracterization is more useful than the actual facts when it comes to debate around here?

Are you the pot or the kettle, Mr. Has-made-false-generalizations-and-characterizations-about-almost-ever-member-posting-here.


And furthermore, you are free to point out what you find mis-represented or spoken in the article, which you didn't, mister overly critical.

 

[Bonnie]

Are you the pot or the kettle, Mr. Has-made-false-generalizations-and-characterizations-about-almost-ever-member-posting-here.

He's just a sad angry person who's not here to discuss anything but rather to take all his hostility out on those he disagrees with, we should feel sorry for him

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I just wanted to make sure I knew why she posted commentary on an article instead of the article itself. I guess mischaracterization is more useful than the actual facts when it comes to debate around here?

Hey butch, we've been nothing but accepting of you. So quit making unfounded blanket assertions re: us. We're your daddy.

 

[Said1]

He's just a sad angry person, we should feel sorry for him

No, I won't pull the race card. Sad and angry people are a race you know.

 

[Bonnie]

No, I won't pull the race card. Sad and angry people are a race you know.

See I did not know that

 

[Said1]

See I did not know that

It's true. They share a common chemical imblance, unique to them.

 

[jasendorf]

He's just a sad angry person who's not here to discuss anything but rather to take all his hostility out on those he disagrees with, we should feel sorry for him

sad angry? I'm living a charmed life. Just because your panties are all in a bunch because we're not nuking Iran isn't a reason to project your self-loathing onto me.