Jen Kuznicki
According the the New York Times, he is going to, but according to Fox News, the White House is denying the NYT story.
A few things:
In 2008 Barack Obama told the American people that he would be willing to negotiate with the whack-job Ahmadinejad without pre-conditions.
In 2009, as Ahmadinejad attacked Israel in his speech at the U.N., France, America and Israel walked out on him. Ahmadinejad’s comments included this from the Guardian:
As well as attacking Israel, he appeared to criticise President Barack Obama, suggesting that some of his policies were not fundamentally different from George Bush. “Attacks on Afghanistan and Pakistan are still going on. Guantánamo has still not been closed and there are still secret prisons in Europe,” he said.
During the speech, Ahmadinejad refused to acknowledge the Holocaust.
The Obama administration has purchased an Illinois prison to transfer the most dangerous terrorists in the world.
In 2010, Ahmadinejad, “prompted a walkout from the chamber of delegates from the US and well as those of the UK and other European Union members. US diplomats dismissed his comments as “abhorrent and delusional”. When he, ” accused the US government of orchestrating the 9/11 attacks to prop up Israel.”
U.S. delegates walked out when Ahmadinejad said “arrogant powers” threatened anyone who questioned the Holocaust and the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States with sanctions and military action. Other Western delegates also left, in what has become an annual feature of Ahmadinejad’s U.N. appearances.
Ahmadinejad struck out at Zionism, but did not comment on the issue that has dominated this year’s General Assembly — the Palestinian plan to ask the Security Council to admit their nascent state as a full U.N. member.
And this year, the speech by Ahmadinejad prompted a walkout by Israel. The United States walked out, as Obama explained, because it was held on Yom Kippur. But then Barack Obama dismissed Israel’s dangerous red line,
U.S. President Barack Obama on Sunday pushed back on the notion that he feels pressure from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu regarding the contentious Iranian issue, dismissing as “noise” the Israeli leader’s calls for the U.S. to lay out a “red line” that Iran’s nuclear program must not cross to avoid American military intervention.
During the Bush years, we never had to worry that Iran would get a nuke, and we never had to think that our government would dismiss Israel. We are in dangerous territory. If the NYT article is sourced by the officials within the administration, and now the Obama team is denying it, we can obviously drive a truck through the weak walls of the Obama foreign policy.
One has to wonder if there is a policy, or if there is rampant impatient ideology from those employed within the administration who want certain things to transpire.
If you enjoyed this article, please consider sharing it!
3 Responses to Will Obama negotiate with Iran?
My Tweets
Follow Me On The Web!
I think this is just a stunt to take the spotlight off of Benghazi before Monday night's debate. The man is desperate and will try anything to stay in office. He loves "being" President but doesn't like the work of the office of the Presidency.
We never quite subsidized Egypt in the significant usual sense of wasting money. We helped Egyptian leaders keep the Muslim Brotherhood from gaining power. We did this not just for Egyptians who recognized the significance of a more moderate Egypt and the danger that the Brotherhood posed but because the Brotherhood represents a threat to Israel and thereby an existential threat to us. Actually without Israel the Brotherhood represents a threat to all non-muslim countries and paying a few billion a year is worth billions in military defense spending which ultimately prevents the loss of innocent life that no amount of spending will ever be sufficient to offset. Actually we got off cheap. Now is the time to cut subsidy spending because we deliberately destroyed our insurance policy, not for the sake of democracy but for the sake of social justice and currently such subsidy is about as useful as subsidizing Iran or N. Korea. You can thank Barack Obama for this. Libya is an immediate example of what is far worse to come.
So why negotiate with Iran unless we think we can undermine their nuclear program by subsidizing their economy as we do with N. Korea? At least that would be how it could be sold to the American people pre-election but it really has no practical application when it comes to offsetting narcissistic Iranian nationalism and their quest for mid-east supremacy.
This Administration needs a subterfuge to destabilize their miserable foreign policy record long enough to allow ambiguity and confusion to run out the clock. Nothing imaginable or unimaginable is outside the purvey of an Administration desperate to recapture an election that a few previous months ago it took for granted. One way or another, before this Administration goes out the American image along with our security has yet to sustain additional damage.
Wow, Lucifer negotiating with Beelzebub.