Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why Did The White House Deny Any Agreement With IRAN After It Was Reported By THE NEW YORK TIMES?
10/21/2012 | self

Posted on 10/21/2012 11:07:04 AM PDT by timlilje

Because he will announce it during the Debate tomorrow!!!!


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: irandeniestalks; nucleariran; nuclearirantalks; whdeniestalks; whirantalks
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-31 last
To: timlilje

Sure...will Iran also promise to immediately pull all its special ops troops out of Syria, stop funding Hamas and Hezbollah, recognize Israel, and give amnesty to all of its gay citizens it has condemned to death?


21 posted on 10/21/2012 12:12:55 PM PDT by rfp1234
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: timlilje
This agreement?

We don't support Israeli attack, US tells Iran Sept. 3rd 2012

0bama sent a letter to Tehran assuring them that the U.S. will do nothing to help Israel. That takes that off of the table removing a big worry for them that might have made them think twice. Iran is good to go now with 0bama's blessing.

22 posted on 10/21/2012 12:42:58 PM PDT by TigersEye (dishonorabledisclosure.com - OPSEC (give them support))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Sons of Liberty; timlilje

Im not sure he could do this at the last minute anyway, because I think it would need the consent of Congress. Weren’t the sanctions imposed after a vote by the legislature? So I don’t think that he could simply undo them.


23 posted on 10/21/2012 12:52:24 PM PDT by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: timlilje
LOL. No way. The Obama administration made a major mistake by leaking the story. Israel is pissed off because they were not kept informed. Agreeing to a one on one meeting bypasses the existing multilateral approach (5P+1), which will piss off our allies who are helping us with santions.

And it raises questions as to what the preconditions will be for such a meeting and what concessions will be offered by either side.

The Obama administration stepped into it big time because now they have to walk it back after leaking it to the NYT. So the question will be is the NYT making this stuff up or is the Obama adminsitration lying?

Axelrod and Plouffe made a major miscalculation. Obama will distance himself from this at the debate.

24 posted on 10/21/2012 1:16:05 PM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: timlilje

Because he wants to attack Iran with Israel to win the election, and if Iran seems to be softening re sanctions, he has less justification for going to war.


25 posted on 10/21/2012 1:25:07 PM PDT by firebrand (Beware of wishful thinking--the mousetrap of small minds.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kabar
I read that Iran mumbled something about 1 on 1 talks possibly after the election. So the NYT maybe ran off half-cocked thinking that if it was said there were talks, it would reflect favorably on Odumbo. I think the NYT and possibly the administration were played by the Iranians, although I would think Amanutjob would want Odumbo reelected.
26 posted on 10/21/2012 1:52:11 PM PDT by visualops (artlife.us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: visualops
I believe that Plouffe and/or Axelrod thought this would help Obama before tomorrow night's debate on foreign policy. It would help undermine Romney's charge that Obama has not dissuaded Iran from its nuclear program and show that Obama's policies are working. I have no doubt the WH leaked this story.

One big problem: Axelrod and Plouffe only see things thru the prism of domestic policitics. They didn't figure on the international repercussions. Here is what Michael Oren, Israel's Amb to the US:

“We do not think Iran should be rewarded with direct talks,” Mr. Oren said, “rather that sanctions and all other possible pressures on Iran must be increased.”

I don't think Jewish voters will appreciate these talks. Obama must now walk it back without losing face and hurting himself with the NYT and the rest of the liberal MSM.

27 posted on 10/21/2012 2:53:34 PM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: timlilje

Did Obama tell the mullahs he would have “more flexibility” after the election, as he did with Medvedev?


28 posted on 10/21/2012 3:23:59 PM PDT by Hotlanta Mike (Resurrect the House Committee on Un-American Activities (HUAC)...before there is no America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All


Help End The Obama Era In 2012
Your Monthly and Quarterly Donations
Help Keep FR In the Battle!

Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!


29 posted on 10/21/2012 3:29:16 PM PDT by musicman (Until I see the REAL Long Form Vault BC, he's just "PRES__ENT" Obama = Without "ID")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: livius

Hussein hasn’t abided by the laws he disagrees with, he has circumvented congress, and ignored The Constitution numerous times over the last four years. Moochelle even bragged about it!


30 posted on 10/21/2012 5:18:53 PM PDT by The Sons of Liberty ("Get that evil, foreign, muslim, usurping, gay commie bastard out of MY White House!" FUBO!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: livius
Im not sure he could do this at the last minute anyway, because I think it would need the consent of Congress. Weren’t the sanctions imposed after a vote by the legislature? So I don’t think that he could simply undo them.

I hate to say it, but congress really has no ability to enforce sanctions. As with immigration, Obama can simply choose not to have our navy (of which he is commander in chief) simply not enforce trade restrictions. Any normal congress would immediately impeach him, but the democrats are he!! bent on crating a dictatorship and would block any attempt at usurping the usurper's powers.
31 posted on 10/21/2012 6:46:40 PM PDT by krogers58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-31 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson