Skip to comments.The New York Times and Ahmadinejad
Posted on 05/30/2006 6:32:18 AM PDT by Quilla
The New York Times Saturday offered a disgustingly sympathetic portrait of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (hat tip: Dinocrat). 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 Ahmadinejads political identity, the focus of the article is on Ahmadinejads speed and aggression in accumulating power and in reshaping the nature of Irans government.
For what ends? Here the article is curiously silent about Ahmadinejads threats to destroy Israel and Irans 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 womens 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 womens rightscertainly as westerners have understood that term for the past several hundred years. Moreover, the only specific example of Ahmadinejads alleged support for women was his proposal to allow women into sports stadiumswhich was promptly rejected by the Supreme Ayatollah Khamenei. So much for Ahmadinejad as Irans Susan B. Anthony.
Another aspect of Ahmadinejads 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 nations cell phone system, which people were using to circulate jokes about Ahmadinejads poor personal hygiene.
This sounds like a joke itself, but totalitarianism is no laughing matter. Plainly, the Times downplays the tyranny and brutality of Ahmadinejads 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, Ahmadinejads ridiculous, and chilling, letter to President Bush is presented as a significant act of reaching out. The Times also describes Ahmadinejads 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 Americas 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 peacefullyand 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.
Mahmou dAhmed inejad.
Needs to be repeated
Bump for later comment
And the "BIG SLEEP" begins again for America.....
Until one day very soon, we all wake up to telecasts of a mushroom cloud over Israel or Europe and the Press blames the President for not stopping it.
Not one word about Iran's threats to "wipe Israel off the map" - it wasn't mentioned at all. Nor did the "impartial journalist" bring up the subject. (I believe it was Very Gross, aka Terry Gross).
The liberals are making no secret of who's side they are on. As always - they are on the side of America's enemies.
Big surprise to anyone?
Being card carrying members of the club, the NY Times is fully sympathetic to fellow stinkers.
Has the left EVER condemned a dictator? Just once? It's gotten to the point where I honestly believe the NYT would defend Hitler, FGS.
Ahmadinejad is very progressive, donchaknow.
Sure: Somoza in Nicaragua, Batista in Cuba, The Shah in Iran. You know: All the ones we strategically aligned with in order to prevent overtly anti-American governments from coming to power and aiding our enemies. So now we have...Castro in Cuba, Ahmadinejad in Iran and (for a time, and now on the comeback trail) Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua.
To paraphrase from an old advertisement, "they got their jobs through the New York Times."
"Until one day very soon, we all wake up to telecasts of a mushroom cloud over Israel or Europe and the Press blames the President for not stopping it."
The MSM will say it happened because of the Irag War and Israel's treatment of the Palestinians.
This article is full of regime-bias and bs.
I've been trying to find some information on Nazila Fathi.(unsuccessfully)
It's a little hard to believe that she could be allowed to write from Tehran for years, and not have regime ties herself.
Obviously, the NYT suffers Zionist guilt for Israel. How comforting it must be to be a Jewish Democrat.
There was supposedly another one where they attacked The Three Stooges for one of their films that made fun of Hitler.
Ping me if anyone can dig it up please.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.