Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Add Reply
AP: White House Wants to Meet One-on-One with Iran; xyxyxyxyxyxyxyxyxyxyxyxyxyxyxyxyxyxyx
Topic Started: Oct 21 2012, 07:10 PM (611 Views)
kbp

Considering his"lead from behind" approach in foriegn affairs, I'd have to go along with LTC

...except the timing ties it into the debate somehow, IMO.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Toast
Member Avatar

and then there is this:

Secret Message from US to Iran thru Swiss Envoy
Quote:
 

TEHRAN (FNA) – Senior Iranian parliamentary sources revealed on Saturday that the Swiss envoy to Tehran has quoted US President Barack Obama as acknowledging Iran’s nuclear rights.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mason
Member Avatar
Parts unknown
Toast
Oct 21 2012, 10:18 PM
and then there is this:

Secret Message from US to Iran thru Swiss Envoy
Quote:
 

TEHRAN (FNA) – Senior Iranian parliamentary sources revealed on Saturday that the Swiss envoy to Tehran has quoted US President Barack Obama as acknowledging Iran’s nuclear rights.
.
That's pretty close to what Obama has said.

Obama has said no Country can tell another if it can or can't have Nuclear Weapons. And he wants us to disband and dismantle ours.

This may be a the WH trying to get the Romney camp to comment and entice them into a position. Obama can get the NYT's to disavow (or correct a story) whereas Romney can not.


.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kbp

It appears the nameless source from the "administration" told the story and the named source from the "administration" denied it ...covered on both ends.

Then the story grew to include the secret Swiss messenger, responses from Iran, and input from Israel.

What can they gain?

Will it change how Romney would address what Barry has not done for our only real ally in the mideast?

How he could argue the embarge is failing?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kbp

A topic that is repeated often in articlesabout tomorrows debate:
...Iran's nuclear program has also been a subject of contention, with Mr. Romney saying the Obama administration has not been tough enough on Tehran and not supportive enough of Israel.

Mr. Obama has accused Mr. Romney of politicizing the attack in Libya, and said he has put in place tough sanctions on Iran while building U.S. security cooperation with Israel. The president has also highlighted anti-terrorism successes, including the raid that killed Osama bin Laden.



Iranian news:
..."Yet, if by negotiations you mean the talks between Iran and the Group 5+1 (the five permanent UN Security Council members plus Germany), these negotiations are underway now and according to the latest talks (between the two sides' chief negotiators), these negotiations will be held in November or (better to say) late in November," said the Iranian foreign minister.


Barry in debate:
The sanctions in place have brought Iran to within a month of negotiations, as all have read about recently, and our continued pressure through those sanctions will prevail in keeping security high for Israel...


Just a thought or two. Maybe Romney called in a favor with the response from Israel.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kbp

Quote:
 
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/10/21/New-York-Times-Caught-Editing-Iran-Story-After-White-House-Denials

New York Times Caught Editing Iran Story After White House Denials

The New York Times claimed yesterday, two days before the presidential candidates' foreign policy debate, that the White House had reached an agreement with the Iranian regime to pursue direct talks.

The story could have helped President Barack Obama make the case that he had made more progress with Iran than had previously been indicated. But the White House rushed to deny the story--and early this morning, the Daily Caller reports that the Times had changed it, but without indicating that changes had been made.

The DC's Gregg Re writes:
  • When the New York Times updated its story late Saturday to reflect [National Security Council spokesman Tommy] Vietor’s statement, the paper made no mention of the update or any correction to the story, leaving readers with the impression that the White House’s denial had been in the story all along. In fact, the initial version of the story portrayed the development as a tentative victory for the Obama administration, which has recently been faced with foreign policy crises in the Middle East and Libya.

    The new version of the Times’ story also removed this line about the threat of Iran’s nuclear ambitions: “Even with possible negotiations in the offing, there is no evidence Iran has slowed its fuel production.”

Normally, a pro forma denial by the White House would not send reporters and editors scurrying to cover up their work. With good sources, and reliable information, journalists could be expected to stand by their story.

Now, with the Times carrying out edits that it apparently hoped no one would notice, the entire story seems like a desperate attempt to set the stage for the Third Presidential Debate in a way that favors the incumbent.

In 2008, the Obama campaign battled against criticism for then-Sen. Obama's pledge to meet with the leaders of Iran "without preconditions." The campaign's lead spokesperson was Susan Rice, who claimed--in the face of clear evidence--that Obama had never made such a commitment. Rice has lately been criticized for her role in misleading the nation about the role of a YouTube video in the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi.

The Third Presidential Debate, which focuses on foreign policy, is Monday evening at 9 p.m. EDT/6 p.m. PDT.


I'm not convinced this was started by a leak from Barry's team. If it was, evidently the prompt response from both Iran and Israel forced them into Plan B - denial ...or something forced that.

If it was not, the denial is out and to be taken as FACT now, meaning Barry can't cite progress from his sanctions for Iran.

So a day before the debate we have the same old story as before ...which is that our ally, Israel, is not secure from nuclear weapons in the near future.

...unless you put faith in the intelligence Joey told us was absolutely on top of every detail about the progress of Iranian programs dealing with development of secret weapons in Iran …the same intelligence that was clueless what significance the 9/11 date had for the security in nations full of Islamic extremists, but know

Since the WH jumps so quickly deny the NYT story, I'm leaning more to the idea that the story came from the right. It seems like a stretch for Barry to have gained any ground from this, but then it could have forced Mitt to be more cautious in his condemnation of the sanctions process we've seen.

Tough call trying to keep up with WTH was going on in this claim / denial series of reports. It might be helpful if we knew the exact time of the NYT updates for comparison to the timing of denials from Iran & Israel.
Edited by kbp, Oct 22 2012, 07:10 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
chatham
Member Avatar

This Iran story changes about as much as the Benghazi story changed.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
retiredLEO
Member Avatar

I have heard all sorts of theories leading up to the NYT story and the AP story. WND reported that there would be negotiations with Iran and Iran would agree to inspections and stop enriching uranium, if this helps Obama get re-elected. This measure would only be temporary, sometime after the elections, things would revert back to our current situation. This will all be done, because Romney is the last person that Iran wants to see in the Oval Office. I don't really think that Obama really cares whether Iran gets a nuke or not.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
retiredLEO
Member Avatar

Ready to come clean on Iran, Mr. President?

While Barack Obama and Mitt Romney are preparing to trade barbs on foreign policy in the final presidential debate, a WND story about secret nuclear talks with Iran has gotten the world talking and may make its way onto the stage Monday night.

Now sources close to the Romney campaign also report the governor’s inner circle has been briefed on the WND story and is taking it seriously as debate preparations continue.
snip

http://www.wnd.com/2012/10/ready-to-come-clean-on-iran-mr-president/
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kbp

WND is more likely to be plants from the right, maybe killing the headline before it can happen.

IMO, the Libya exchange in the last debate - the ONLY foreign topic question - was a no-win for either side. Other than keeping the topic in the headlines, it did little for the polls. Maybe the Barry gained a little damage control from redirecting the topic to what "is" is.

It's my guess that Romney's overall gain came from being what they call more "presidential" most of the time, and addressing the issues direct ...while Barry goes all over the place, like telling the college student asking about JOBS how better funding for education will pay off in a decade or two down the road.

Romney has Barry beat on the domestic issues, mainly the economy. He has stressed how strentgh is an answer to gaining respect, while Barry bows to all, leading from behind.

Since they are on complete opposite sides on how to address foreign issues, it will be interesting to see how Romney illustrates Barry's methods are failing ...without making it look like a childish argument. Romney has a good advantage with Barry's recent failures, even if his experience is limited in this topic.
Edited by kbp, Oct 22 2012, 08:58 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mason
Member Avatar
Parts unknown
.
This is what we know: The New York Times holds nothing more sacred than an Obama Victory. We know this is the day before the final debate and days before the election.

They would no more erroneously print a story harmful to Obama in this timeframe than print a picture of Michelle Obama in mid-sneeze on the Front Page.

That tells me the White House had no problem going on the record as saying there would be plans for One-on-Ones with Iran.

In my mind, the explanations are going to have to include why the WH was willing to tell this to the New York Times.


.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mason
Member Avatar
Parts unknown
chatham
Oct 22 2012, 07:55 AM
This Iran story changes about as much as the Benghazi story changed.
.

Could be more evidence of a chaotic inner circle - or a President evading reality.


Or another attempt to hide the real Obama?


.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kbp

Quote:
 
http://www.dickmorris.com/iran-deal-the-october-surprise/?utm_source=dmreports&utm_medium=dmreports&utm_campaign=dmreports

Iran Deal: The October Surprise?
By Dick Morris on October 22, 2012

ill Obama announce a deal with Iran for a moratorium on the enrichment of uranium in return for the dismantling of some of the international sanctions against the regime? And will the announcement be timed to appear just before the election?

Reza Kahlili (the pseudonym for a former CIA operative in Iran’s Revolutionary Guards), the author of A Time To Betray (Simon & Schuster, 2010) reports in WND that “U.S. and Iranian negotiators have reached an agreement that calls for Iran to halt part of its nuclear program in exchange for the lifting of many of the U.S. sanctions.”

With ominous specificity, he notes that Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei “expects a letter from President Obama in a few days guaranteeing the details of the agreement arrived at recently during secret negotiations in Doha, Qatar.”

Citing an “anonymous source highly placed in Iran’s regime,” he warns that “once Khamenei receives Obama’s guarantees, he will authorize an announcement by Iran on a solution to the nuclear crisis before the U.S. presidential elections.”

He says that “the agreement calls for Iran to announce a temporary halt to partial uranium enrichment after which the U.S. will remove many of its sanctions, including those on the Iranian central bank, no later than by the Iranian New Year in March.”

The Iranians will, he says, agree to the deal because it is “in the throes of massive inflation and citizen unrest because of the sanctions.”

The impact of the October Surprise on the election in the U.S. could be enormous unless the Romney campaign and conservatives handle it properly.

The first step in defusing its potential impact is to warn of the possibility of an October Surprise. The more we talk about it and cite the chance that Obama could pull it off, the more political it will seem when and if it happens.

If such a deal with Iran is announced, Romney should question its timing and note that a key motivation for the Iranian acquiescence is the imminence of his own election. Romney should say that the Ayatollah is afraid that a new U.S. Administration would support an Israeli attack on Iran should the sanctions fail to work. He could point out that as the chances of his victory improve, the Ayatollah has become more willing to deal.

After all, remember that the Iranians often play in U.S. politics. The Ayatollah Khomeini refused to release the U.S. hostages before the 1980 election to help insure Carter’s defeat, only letting them go after his nemesis had lost.

We also must question the details of the deal:

• How will it be enforced?

• Who will inspect to see that Iran is complying?

• How easily can the West reinstate the sanctions if Iran fails to comply?

• On how much of their uranium supply will the enrichment moratorium be imposed?

The devil may be in the details.

Let’s remember the history of Democratic October Surprises. Of the past five elections, two have been won solidly by Democrats – 2004 and 1996. The other three all featured October Surprises:

• On October 30, 1992, Iran-Contra Special Prosecutor Lawrence E. Walsh announced that he would indict Bush Defense Secretary Cap Weinberger. The announcement came after Clinton, the Democratic candidate against Bush, had fallen behind in the tracking polls. Clinton surged on the final weekend and won the election, in large part because of the Weinberger indictment announcement. (Bush pardoned Weinberger after the election and he was never actually indicted).

• On October 1, 2000, it was revealed that George W. Bush had been arrested for DUI in Maine in 1976. The arrest had never been made public. Bush was several points ahead in the popular vote prior to the announcement but lost to Gore by 0.5% after the DUI story broke.

• Eight days before the 2004 election, the New York Times revealed that the weapons from a conquered Iraqi weapons dump had been looted by insurgents who were using these weapons against American troops. Democratic candidate John Kerry cancelled his regular TV ads to focus on the discovery and allege Bush Administration incompetence in protecting the weapons. Fortunately, four days later (and four before the election), the Pentagon issues satellite photos of the dump indicating that the story was false.

• The original October Surprise was pulled by Secretary of State Henry Kissinger on behalf of President Richard M. Nixon when he announced that peace in Vietnam was “at hand” on the eve of the 1972 election, only to see the war drag on for months more.

If there be any of us that doubt the potential of both this Administration and the Ayatollah for using chicanery and phony deals to impact the election’s outcome, think again!


No tie to the debate if he is accurate.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · LIESTOPPERS UNDERGROUND · Next Topic »
Add Reply