The New York Times broke a story on Saturday, saying that the White House may be engaging in US-Iran bilateral talks with Iran, discussing Iran’s developing nuclear program. Interestingly enough, it seems the Obama administration has outright denied that any talks will be taking place. Nevertheless, this is supposedly going to be the ‘October surprise’ we’ve all been waiting for, as several analysts still believe that the announcement for bilateral talks will be made before the election. The New York Times reports:
The United States and Iran have agreed in principle for the first time to one-on-one negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program, according to Obama administration officials, setting the stage for what could be a last-ditch diplomatic effort to avert a military strike on Iran.Now, if the talks aren’t going to take place, then the Obama administration maintains the status quo, concerning its foreign policy that seems to be unravelling. If the talks do take place, then this opens up a whole new can of worms for both candidates.
Four more years of Obama, that's what.
Pure and simple voter manipulation by the House Organ of the Democratic party AKA the NY Times.They are getting more desperate by the day,this is only the beginning of their last ditch effort to re-elect Obumbler.Expect some sort of attack in the MSM on Romney or his Family in the not too distant future.
I am seriously, seriously not getting this: if it's true, why the alleged confusion from the White House -- backchannel affirmations countermanded by official denials? If it's policy, why not have a big announcement to that effect and let's debate the wisdom of it this evening? If it's not, who are these "Obama administration officials" talking to the NYT?
This is a nuclear-armed cloisterf*** compared to Benghazi, and the damage of this confusion is going to be enormous to Obama's re-election campaign: it effectively reduces his administration to a burbling spectacle (tough to do, I know) -- like Joe Clark in the 1980 federal election campaign arguing with John Crosbie over oil prices, with Sinclair Stevens in the background announcing the layoff of 70,000 federal civil servants.
The only plausible explanation I can come up with is that this is the NYT's way of endorsing Mitt Romney for President, without actually putting that endorsement into print. Can anybody help me with this?
It should not be any surprise if Obama tries a desperation ploy on the international stage to save his presidency. He cannot compete on the economy. This story won't be released until after the debate as Oboma might have to answer questions. Obama cannot start a military action as his whole campaign has been about telling the people he was disengaging from ME military conflict. You have to know that Iran will support re-electing Obama as he is the most easily manipulated.
If true though this would clearly indicate just how far Obama is prepared to go in selling out America to gain re-election. Whatever Iran might promise in return you, know that they'll renage on later.
SUN TV had a quote from Donald Trump this morning that there is going to be an extremely important announcement coming on Wednesday-connected?
What do you think would carry more influence with the American voter-the obvious sell out to a terrorism supporting state or some type of agreement that suggests a downplay in nuclear and world tensions?
Some sort of "peace in our time" agreement would certainly make Romney look like a war monger type especially if it came shortly after tonights foreign policy debate.
Wow, talking! I'm sure this will increase enthusiasm among already committed obozo voters, but I don't see it making much difference to anybody else.
I bet a lot of voters think talks of this sort have taken place already.
Those who follow more closely are well aware of how much Iranians love talking while constructing nukes. They can multitask quite well.
So many Yanks are very very stupid. The only sincere negotiations that the Iranians will engage in are for the unconditional surrender of the US.
Their nuclear program is on a roll. One report says there will be enough enriched uranium in Iran for 4 to 6 nukes by March 2013.
Several years ago one of the Ayatollahs commented on the stupidity of Iran's enemies. They haven't improved since then.
Yes, I expect the Yanks to receive their Darwin Award soon.
This is the "Obama-Nation(tm)'s" Hail Mary foreign policy pass; which may more accurately be described as a fumbled football "Hail Mohammed" pass, if there is such a thing.
Seems to me the national sport for Iran is soccer...
http://www.persianleague.com/
The trouble with the "Obama-Nation(tm)" foreign policy is that he suffers from 'own goal syndrome' on behalf of the other team.
Cheers
Hans Rupprecht, Commander in Chief
1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group “True North”
What a deal.
Iran can use nuclear technology in exchange for allowing the US to use YouTube technology.
I have no doubt whatsoever that Obama and his party would manipulate such an immensely important global problem purely for political gain, no matter the fallout.
Where we seem to differ is that I have absolutely no doubt that Romney and his party would do the same or similar if given the chance.
Someone needed to remind America's dollar-store Robert Mugabe that Nicolae Ceausescu's last soiree abroad in December 1989 was to make nice with one of the few governments who still wanted anything to do with Communist Romania---Islamic Iran. This only makes sense when you realize both Khomeini and Ceausescu worked for the same master---the Father of Lies.
The open revolt in Timisoara was left in the capable hands of Elena and the Securitate while Nicolae swanned off to Tehran, blissfully unaware that in a week he would be overthrown and by the end of the second he and Elena would be in hell.
Obama will be re-elected, never fear. Every enemy of Christian civilization is on his side, and every one of them is doing everything in their power to ensure his re-election at all costs.
As well they might, as he's one of the few things standing between them and divine justice, in the form of the patriotic revolutions in every quarter of Christendom which are sure to follow once banking systems collapse (as they should have in 2008), and the standing armies of governments controlled by the enemies of God's law desert or mutiny.
Nothing short of a Bucharest Christmas will drive Obama from the White House. Pray it comes quickly.
Next Christmas in Bucharest!
David Southam - I agree, it doesn't make sense.
Now, we have both the WH and Iran denying this. And Israel's Netanyahu commenting on its impossibility.
First, so what? Talk, like Obama's constant rhetoric about lowering unemployment, saving the economy with his stimulus and blah blah, is cheap. It's as irrelevant as his constant sloughing issues off to 'Investigative Commissions' which report back in the far-off future and are ignored.
It's as irrelevant as Obama's constant references, not to his record which cannot be mentioned, but to the amorphous future. Talk about the future between two such manipulative sides, the Iranians and Obama, is empty.
Second, why on earth would Iran with its imperial ambitions, seek talks with a floundering USA? What can it get from the US in return for giving up a nuclear weapon? Nothing.
Third, IF, and I repeat several times, IF such an interaction were true, then, why not announce it now? So what if questions are asked about it on tonight's debate; it ought to be strong enough, if it's genuine, to stand up to questions.
And if no questions are desired, then, they'll be asked anyway by the GOP campaign, and the lack of coherent response would be damaging to Obama.
So, I'm like you. I'm puzzled. Was it a toss-out by the Obama campaign to see if the electorate were greedy for it and would fall for yet more rounds of pure rhetoric?
Speaking of the New York Times...
Evidence that they knew about a scandal involving Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill's husband in June, but did not report it...instead they helped McCaskill's team spin the story.
http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/22/mccaskill-campaign-admits-new-york-times-had-story-on-her-husbands-business-dealings-in-june/
By the way, Obama as President can't, legally, ie constitutionally, make any kind of deal (aka treaty) with Iran. He requires the approval of the Senate. Article II, Section 2.
ET, what's your point?
Sorry, John Lewis, I don't get YOUR point.
If you are referring to my puzzlement over the rhetoric of the various leaks...
If you are referring to my pointing out the limits of Obama's constitutional powers...
Maybe its the point on John Lewis' head.
Actually, the fact that Bambam cannot make deals/treaties on his own is a moot point: The American public will see the "savior" bringing the godless devils to the table even if the MSM bothered to fact check. A script from Hollywood if I ever saw one. I wouldn't be surprised if that zinger makes it's way to the debate tonight.
Good comments above.
If true,
Obama has put his neck/ass on a water board and the Iranian Mullahs know it.
He has to give them what they want or they will blackmail his chances for reelection.
How many frigging laws is he willing to break?
Obama deserves another Nobel Peace Prize..