‘The Times’ establishes its policy: the meeting was about Iran, and Obama acceded

by on May 20, 2009 12
0sharesFacebook
0tweetsTwitter
0stumbledStumbleUpon
0sharesReddit
0recommendGoogle

David Sanger in the Times, web-only; his piece begins:

"Now that President Obama has established what he called a 'clear timetable' for Iran…."

I guess you had to be there.

About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.
Posted in Iran, Israeli Government, US Politics

{ 12 comments... read them below or add one }

  1. Marion says:
    May 21, 2009 at 3:04 am

    So what do you all make of this report? EXCLUSIVE: U.S., Israel forming working group on Iran Set to assess progress of outreach, share intelligence http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/20/us-is...

  2. pineywoodslim says:
    May 21, 2009 at 3:45 am

    Who knows? It could be a feint, a meaningless sop to Netanyahu to keep him in some supposed loop, an effort by Obama to cover all his bases since he's already determined that there will be no attack on Iran, or it could be joint war planning.

  3. Ed says:
    May 21, 2009 at 4:01 am

    This is how the Jewish Apparatus works: It's politicians emerge from a high-level meeting with the leader of a world power, put their own pre-determined spin on the gist of the meeting and what was concluded (whether that was actually the substance and outcome of the meeting or not) and then Jewish Apparatus allies in the dominant media validate that specious interpretation around the world by emphasizing that angle. Woolah!: Obama is committed to giving Iran until the “end of the year” to surrender its sovereignty or face annihilation by the U.S. at the direction of the Zionists. What a trick… What a scam.

  5. Eva Smagacz says:
    May 21, 2009 at 7:15 am

    My thought exactly. Media is manouvering Obama to a position he did not take.

  6. RichardWitty says:
    May 21, 2009 at 10:45 am

    I think Obama was the one that defined the boundaries of the US/Israel relationship, and it has been consistent since his campaign. Support for Israel's defense, increase stability in the range, contain Iran's assertion of regional dominance.

  7. RichardWitty says:
    May 21, 2009 at 10:46 am

    And, support for Palestinian welfare and affirmation of national aspiration.

  8. pineywoodslim says:
    May 21, 2009 at 12:07 pm

    C'mon Richard, spit it out, you can say it–support for a two state solution.

  9. Sin Nombre says:
    May 21, 2009 at 1:20 pm

    And here's another one, slugged by Reuters under the headline "U.S. keeps nuclear 'don't ask, don't tell': Israel aide": http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUST...

  10. Citizen says:
    May 21, 2009 at 1:57 pm

    We can't have Israel's hegemony upset, can we? Why that might actually be in the interest of Uncle Sam.

  11. Citizen says:
    May 21, 2009 at 2:00 pm

    Can't get much softer than that, Witty. US to keep giving Israel hard cash, no interest, no strings attached, plus all our latest weapons, our guarantee of their survival as jews ruling, and in return Israel may give up a porta-potty, while Pals get some noodles, a tad more of their own water, and are even allowed to wave the pal flag. Sounds like a win-win!

  12. jorge999 says:
    May 22, 2009 at 4:19 am

    Alas, that's a pretty accurate depiction, Citizen.

Leave a Reply