I realize that is a turnoff of a headline, a veritable Michael Moore in a Speedo of a headline.
President Obama’s reelection briefly raised hopes that in a second term the US might be able to engage with Iran…
NPR being a “news” organization, they quickly dispelled the notion that any such thing was likely to happen, but I had already heard more than enough.
Raise your hands if you thought, even for a nanosecond, that President Obama’s reelection meant that the US would be more likely to “engage” with Iran (whatever that means). Anyone…?
I didn’t think so. I never heard anyone say such a thing. It’s a fabrication, an invention of the [gag] journalist’s mind. As with most fantasies, it has no basis in fact. Isn’t this the same criminal regime in Iran (different names—barely—but same ideology) that held 52 American hostages 444 days of Wimpy Carter’s administration, only to release them on the inauguration day of Dutch Reagan? Therefore, if a real journalist were to apply precedent and logic to the story, wouldn’t she observe that it would be more likely for a Republican president to engage with Iran (preferably with the Fifth Fleet)?
But it’s very telling.
The real news story isn’t that Iran is arming itself atomically right under our noses—everybody knows that—and it certainly isn’t anything to do with Obama’s reelection, however tragic the event. No, if a [heave] reporter could believe that Obama’s reelection meant rapprochement with Iran, what else could it foretell? A polio cure? A Cubs World Series victory? A moving performance out of Keanu Reeves?
They are in thrall to him and they don’t even know it. It is as if his articulateness (and cleanliness!) have cast a spell over the media. His “optional Negro dialect” is a siren song to them. They do not see the huckster, the flim-flam man. They only see a man of infinite possibility. A man who isn’t there.
And if you send them $75 dollars (beyond the tax money you already send them), they’ll send you a coffee mug.