The Aug. 24 edition of the New York Times carries an article by David E. Sanger and Michael R. Gordon headlined “Future Risks of an Iran Nuclear Deal” whose third paragraph reads as follows:
“Even some of the most enthusiastic backers of the agreement, reached by six world powers with Iran, say they fear Mr. Obama has oversold some of the accord’s virtues as he asserts that it would ‘block’ all pathways to a nuclear weapon.”
The article quotes a grand total of two backers of the agreement, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) and R. Nicholas Burns, former undersecretary of state in the George W. Bush administration. Neither gentleman is described as, or describes himself as, an “enthusiastic” backer, much less as one of the “most enthusiastic”, and neither says he fears the president has oversold the agreement, giving Mr. Sanger’s and Mr. Gordon’s “nut graph” an accuracy content of zero, which, even for the Times, is a bit embarrassing.
What Sanger and Gordon are trying to do, of course, is to invalidate the proposed agreement without dealing with its substance. If it were any good, the president wouldn’t be lying about it, amirite or amirite? This isn’t journalism, but it isn’t really editorializing either. What it is is manipulation and deceit, and, why, New York Times, am I paying you to lie to me?
Afterwords
When Sanger and Gordon finally do get down to brass tacks, their major, their only, complaint, is that Iran doesn’t promise to never seek a nuclear weapon. Instead, they only agree to restrictions that would prevent them from obtaining one over the next fifteen years. Left unspoken in the article, which does ramble a bit, are such facts as that 1) right-wingers have been predicting the Iranian bomb with unfailing frequency and unfailing inaccuracy for the past twenty years, 2) that Israel has dozens, if not hundreds of atomic bombs, and 3) as the president has pointed out, if we discard the proposed agreement, there is nothing to stop Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon right now—nothing except open warfare. The Bush Administration refused to attack Iran. How likely is it that another administration would?
