I saw the headline and thought, wow:
EXCLUSIVE: U.S. contacted Iran's ayatollah before election
Then the article:
Prior to this month's disputed presidential election in Iran, the Obama
administration sent a letter to the country's supreme leader, Ayatollah
Ali Khamenei, calling for an improvement in relations, according to
interviews and the leader himself.
Ayatollah Khamenei confirmed the letter toward the end of a
lengthy sermon last week, in which he accused the United States of
fomenting protests in his country in the aftermath of the disputed June
12 presidential election.
When was the letter sent? In early May, well before the election.
But the implication by the conservative Washington Times is rather obvious to me. In their misleading report, President Obama is depicted as "siding" with the regime of Iran right before the election of June 12. The article paints the alleged letter, which is apparently nothing more than the US asking for better relations between the two countries, as somehow untoward. Yet Obama has said all along that he wanted better relations with Iran, regardless of who is in power. This is not new "news." In addition, the Washington Times apparently has not seen the letter, so it is unclear what this exclusive report is about really.
But, given the Iranian regime's violence against protesters several days ago, placing Obama in that context as somehow showing preference for that kind of brutality scores political points with Conservatives who want the US to bomb, bomb, bomb Iran.
Consider the comments the publication got for its article. Like this one, for example:
"Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, said the
Obama administration would do better to "avoid any talk of engagement"
with Iran until the outcome of the current political ferment is
clearer.
"The fact is, we will by necessity engage, but not at the
moment," he said. "I don't think we want to suggest it will be business
as usual, regardless of the outcome" of the political struggle in Iran."
The letter was sent BEFORE the election, not during the current crisis. It is misleading, is it not?
This is propaganda, pure and simple. But then again, it is the Washington Times. You might be curious how the glue sniffers are reading this. Here are some examples:
From the Weekly - bomb, bomb, bomb Iran - Standard:
"Less than 24 hours after Barack Obama's strongest statement on Iran,
three new stories underscore his administration's fundamentally weak
approach to the terrorist regime and offer hints as to why he has been
so eager to engage the mullahs. First, a Washington Times article by
former USA Today reporter Barbara Slavin
reveals
that the Obama administration sent a letter directly to Supreme Leader
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in early May. According to the report, the
letter laid out the administration's desire for "cooperation and
bilateral relations."'
Very odd. For some strange reason, the "terrorist" regimes of Saudi Arabia, ISI controlled Pakistan, and countless others are of no interest to anyone. Why?
Then there is professor William Jacobson, who adds his own claims to what the letter in question says and to what the Washington Times does not even report:
"The events of the past two weeks, including the revelation that Obama sent a
letter in May to "Supreme Leader" Ayatollah Ali
Khamenei,
reveal that there is one precondition to negotiations which Obama
willingly embraces: United States acceptance of Mullah rule in Iran in
perpetuity."
I have re-read the article three times now and I see nothing about any preconditions in the letter nor any specifics about the letter - beyond asking for better relations - as reported in this article.
The National Review goes even farther, into la-la-land and over a cliff into a glue-sniffing haze of crazy:
"As the Iranian government’s murderous repression of the Iranian people
continues, critics right and left agitate over the deafening silence of
an American president who, as a candidate, derided the Bush
administration’s ambitious democracy promotion as too timid. They
speculate as to why Barack Obama won’t speak out: Why won’t he condemn
the mullahs? Is he daft enough to believe he can charm the regime into
abandoning its nuclear ambitions? Does the self-described realist so
prize stability that he thinks it’s worth abandoning the cause of
freedom — and the best chance in 30 years of dislodging an implacable
American enemy?
In truth, it’s worse than that. Even as the
mullahs are terrorizing the Iranian people, the Obama administration is
negotiating with an Iranian-backed terrorist organization and
abandoning the American proscription against exchanging terrorist
prisoners for hostages kidnapped by terrorists. Worse still, Obama has
already released a terrorist responsible for the brutal murders of five
American soldiers in exchange for the remains of two deceased British
hostages."
In other words, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran and plant stories to pressure the President into yet another war.