The October Surprise Has Arrived

The administration is reeling from the still-unfolding story about its missteps and deceptions over the Benghazi attacks, in which four American officials died.  Although intelligence reports from the first day indicating a planned military attack and were backed up by both drone footage and corroborating statements from Libyan authorities, the administration insisted for weeks that it was a spontaneous protest inspired by a cheap internet trailer.  Compounding the offense, President Obama has referred to these horrendous 9-11 attacks as "bumps in the road" and the deaths as "not optimal."

Enter The New York Times, which has now reported that the U.S. and Iran have agreed to face-to-face talks on Iran's nuclear enrichment program. The Obama administration almost immediately issued adamant denials that any agreement had been reached, and The New York Times quickly edited its report to put the administration's efforts in a better light.

Still, what better way to deflect attention from the Benghazi fiasco-of-their-own-making than to pose the possibility of a deal with Iran over its nuclear ambitions?  The Times article stated (emphasis added):

It has the potential to help Mr. Obama make the case that he is nearing a diplomatic breakthrough in the decade-long effort by the world's major powers to curb Tehran's nuclear ambitions, but it could pose a risk if Iran is seen as using the prospect of the direct talks to buy time.

Is there a serious mind in the audience who believes that the Iranian regime under Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will honor any agreement it reaches with the United States?  Has it to date?

According to a report by WorldNetDaily, which first predicted the deal in early October, Obama administration officials met in Doha, Qatar on October 1.  They proposed that Iran temporarily halt its uranium enrichment program, in return for which sanctions would be lifted:

Ali Akbar Velayati, the former Iranian foreign minister and current close adviser to the supreme leader on international affairs, secretly traveled to Qatar for the meeting. Velayati is wanted by Argentina for the Jewish community center bombing in Buenos Aires in 1994 that killed 85 people.

One Obama representative, the woman, who had met Velayati before, urged Velayati to announce a halt, even if it is only for a week or two, to uranium enrichment prior to the U.S. election, according to the source. The U.S. representatives promised the Obama administration quickly would remove some sanctions on the Iranian central bank and oil industry, with further collaboration after the election, the source said.

Iran's FARS News Agency reported that President Obama sent the Iranians a letter last January recognizing Iran's right to develop nuclear technology.  Last December, the Obama administration sought support from Democrats to "water down" sanctions against Iran included in the 2012 Defense Authorization bill that was then in Conference Committee.  In Senate deliberations on the bill, an Iranian sanctions amendment passed 100 to 0.

The Obama administration is now denying that it has a "pre-election" agreement but insisting that any "deal" would have to come after the election.  The clear implication here is "stick with us and we'll fix all these nasty problems with Iran."  But what kind of "agreement" could we expect from Iran with this president at the helm?

It is clear from their past efforts that Obama has literally been letting the Iranian regime get away with murder.  He pointedly refused to criticize their brutal crackdown on pro-democracy protesters, in marked contrast to his support for the Muslim Brotherhood's "Arab Spring" in Egypt, which resulted in the loss of one of our most reliable allies in the Muslim world, Hosni Mubarak.  And now we learn that they have been secretly seeking to undermine sanctions against Iran.

In other words, without even having an agreement, Obama has already been trying to give away the store.  What kind of message is he telegraphing with that?  The Iranians have already been told by this administration that they can do what they want, so why sign an agreement that makes things more difficult?  Any agreement will surely be big on symbolism but, given Obama's feckless track record in facing down our enemies, short on results.

What a train wreck!

Obama's ongoing effort to appease Iran is not new and should come as no surprise, given his stated willingness to talk to Iran from the beginning.  There is no coincidence that he chooses to capitalize on those efforts now, two weeks before the election, to imply that if we vote for him, our problems with Iran will be resolved.

This latest reveals the Obama administration's self-serving calculus.  They will willingly make concessions -- or promises of the same -- to enemies who have sworn to destroy us, for the short-term benefit of an election.

In the last debate, Barack Obama told Mitt Romney that "the suggestion that anybody in my team, whether the secretary of state, our U.N. ambassador, anybody on my team would play politics or mislead when we've lost four of our own, Governor, is offensive[.]"

Yes, Mr. Obama, it is offensive.  Extremely offensive.  In fact, it is more than that.  It is simply outrageous that you would subordinate the national security of this country and the safety of officials in your charge for the craven, nakedly self-serving purpose of saving your own political hide.

Simply outrageous. 

The administration is reeling from the still-unfolding story about its missteps and deceptions over the Benghazi attacks, in which four American officials died.  Although intelligence reports from the first day indicating a planned military attack and were backed up by both drone footage and corroborating statements from Libyan authorities, the administration insisted for weeks that it was a spontaneous protest inspired by a cheap internet trailer.  Compounding the offense, President Obama has referred to these horrendous 9-11 attacks as "bumps in the road" and the deaths as "not optimal."

Enter The New York Times, which has now reported that the U.S. and Iran have agreed to face-to-face talks on Iran's nuclear enrichment program. The Obama administration almost immediately issued adamant denials that any agreement had been reached, and The New York Times quickly edited its report to put the administration's efforts in a better light.

Still, what better way to deflect attention from the Benghazi fiasco-of-their-own-making than to pose the possibility of a deal with Iran over its nuclear ambitions?  The Times article stated (emphasis added):

It has the potential to help Mr. Obama make the case that he is nearing a diplomatic breakthrough in the decade-long effort by the world's major powers to curb Tehran's nuclear ambitions, but it could pose a risk if Iran is seen as using the prospect of the direct talks to buy time.

Is there a serious mind in the audience who believes that the Iranian regime under Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will honor any agreement it reaches with the United States?  Has it to date?

According to a report by WorldNetDaily, which first predicted the deal in early October, Obama administration officials met in Doha, Qatar on October 1.  They proposed that Iran temporarily halt its uranium enrichment program, in return for which sanctions would be lifted:

Ali Akbar Velayati, the former Iranian foreign minister and current close adviser to the supreme leader on international affairs, secretly traveled to Qatar for the meeting. Velayati is wanted by Argentina for the Jewish community center bombing in Buenos Aires in 1994 that killed 85 people.

One Obama representative, the woman, who had met Velayati before, urged Velayati to announce a halt, even if it is only for a week or two, to uranium enrichment prior to the U.S. election, according to the source. The U.S. representatives promised the Obama administration quickly would remove some sanctions on the Iranian central bank and oil industry, with further collaboration after the election, the source said.

Iran's FARS News Agency reported that President Obama sent the Iranians a letter last January recognizing Iran's right to develop nuclear technology.  Last December, the Obama administration sought support from Democrats to "water down" sanctions against Iran included in the 2012 Defense Authorization bill that was then in Conference Committee.  In Senate deliberations on the bill, an Iranian sanctions amendment passed 100 to 0.

The Obama administration is now denying that it has a "pre-election" agreement but insisting that any "deal" would have to come after the election.  The clear implication here is "stick with us and we'll fix all these nasty problems with Iran."  But what kind of "agreement" could we expect from Iran with this president at the helm?

It is clear from their past efforts that Obama has literally been letting the Iranian regime get away with murder.  He pointedly refused to criticize their brutal crackdown on pro-democracy protesters, in marked contrast to his support for the Muslim Brotherhood's "Arab Spring" in Egypt, which resulted in the loss of one of our most reliable allies in the Muslim world, Hosni Mubarak.  And now we learn that they have been secretly seeking to undermine sanctions against Iran.

In other words, without even having an agreement, Obama has already been trying to give away the store.  What kind of message is he telegraphing with that?  The Iranians have already been told by this administration that they can do what they want, so why sign an agreement that makes things more difficult?  Any agreement will surely be big on symbolism but, given Obama's feckless track record in facing down our enemies, short on results.

What a train wreck!

Obama's ongoing effort to appease Iran is not new and should come as no surprise, given his stated willingness to talk to Iran from the beginning.  There is no coincidence that he chooses to capitalize on those efforts now, two weeks before the election, to imply that if we vote for him, our problems with Iran will be resolved.

This latest reveals the Obama administration's self-serving calculus.  They will willingly make concessions -- or promises of the same -- to enemies who have sworn to destroy us, for the short-term benefit of an election.

In the last debate, Barack Obama told Mitt Romney that "the suggestion that anybody in my team, whether the secretary of state, our U.N. ambassador, anybody on my team would play politics or mislead when we've lost four of our own, Governor, is offensive[.]"

Yes, Mr. Obama, it is offensive.  Extremely offensive.  In fact, it is more than that.  It is simply outrageous that you would subordinate the national security of this country and the safety of officials in your charge for the craven, nakedly self-serving purpose of saving your own political hide.

Simply outrageous. 

RECENT VIDEOS