No Fact-Checking Required; No Objectivity Necessary

UPDATE: below

On Friday, John McCain correctly called Barack Obama's foreign policy naïve:

Senator Obama continues to say he would sit down and negotiate with the president of Iran who yesterday called the state of Israel a stinking corpse. That’s a dramatic difference between my view of the relations with a state sponsor of terror that is exporting lethal explosive devices into Iraq killing Americans and I would not give them the respect or the ability to enhance their prestige by sitting down and talking to the head of the state sponsor of terrorism who repeats his country’s dedication to the extinction of the state of Israel.

Reporter Larry Rohter defended the Illinois Senator in the next day's New York Times, in part by quoting an Obama advisor:

Susan E. Rice, a former State Department and National Security Council official who is a foreign policy adviser to the Democratic candidate, said that “for political purposes, Senator Obama’s opponents on the right have distorted and reframed” his views. Mr. McCain and his surrogates have repeatedly stated that Mr. Obama would be willing to meet “unconditionally” with Mr. Ahmadinejad. But Dr. Rice said that this was not the case for Iran or any other so-called “rogue” state. Mr. Obama believes “that engagement at the presidential level, at the appropriate time and with the appropriate preparation, can be used to leverage the change we need,” Dr. Rice said. “But nobody said he would initiate contacts at the presidential level; that requires due preparation and advance work.”

The Times' defense is nonsense, as both the campaign and newspaper know or should have known. Look no further than Obama's own website:

Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions.

The candidate said the same when interviewed by--wait for it!--the New York Times:

Senator Barack Obama said he would “engage in aggressive personal diplomacy” with Iran if elected president, and would offer economic inducements and a possible promise not to seek “regime change” if Iran stopped meddling in Iraq and cooperated on terrorism and nuclear issues. . .

Making clear that he planned to talk to Iran without preconditions, Mr. Obama emphasized further that “changes in behavior” by Iran could possibly be rewarded with membership in the World Trade Organization, other economic benefits and security guarantees.

The Senator's plainly proud of this position--he touted it during the July 23, 2007, Democrat debate:

QUESTION: In 1982, Anwar Sadat traveled to Israel, a trip that resulted in a peace agreement that has lasted ever since.

In the spirit of that type of bold leadership, would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries? . . .

OBAMA: I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them -- which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration -- is ridiculous.

I'm aware the media quit fact-checking lefty pronouncements years ago. But how tough would it have been for Larry Rohter to dig-out the paper's past editions? Or, as Wolf Howling suggests, search on Google? Simple--for anyone but Rohter. Couldn't another NYT editor, assistant or flunky do the research? No need when publishing--as Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs sees it--a partisan "advocacy piece."

Which covers nearly every print article and electronic story. Electing Democrats is the mainstream media's full-time job. Even in service of Obama's naïve and dangerous foreign policy.

MORE:

Mark Levin on National Review Online:

Inquiring Minds Want to Know

Well, Senator Obama, would you have met with Adolph Hitler in 1939? Based on your stated policy, I think you would have. If not, how do you differentiate that situation with your stated position that you would meet with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea without preconditions (July 2007)? And in your statement today, responding to President Bush's brilliant speech in Israel (which was apparently not directed at you, but you assumed it was), you did what you've done in the past, i.e., claim past presidents share your unique view of diplomacy. But the question remains, would you have met with Hitler in 1939 — without preconditions?

(via Wolf Howling)