The October Surprise That Proves O'bama Is As Dangerous As A Rabid Rat

[Selene]

Iranian and U.S. 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 against the Islamic regime, according to a highly placed source.

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.

The source, who remains anonymous for security reasons and is highly placed in Iran’s regime, said 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.

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. Iran is in the throes of massive inflation and citizen unrest because of the sanctions.

http://www.wnd.com/2012/10/obama-cuts-deal-with-iran-over-nukes/

[Robert Campbell]

Adam,

We'll see whether anything comes of this.

Robert Campbell

[blackhorse]

We all know how trustworthy the mullah's are.

[9thdoctor]

What kind of October surprise would this be? What happened in North Korea? All the Romney campaign would have to do is make an ad recounting how Clinton sent aid in exchange for their promises about nukes, and then what did they do? Surprise! Thanks for the food, and now we got a nuke, suckers!!

This article is not well sourced, and it doesn't pass the smell test. I'm calling bullshit on it.

[Reidy]

Make that two of us.

Johnson pulled something similar with regard to North Vietnam just before the 1968 election (he wasn't a candidate, and he got along poisonously with Humphrey, but he liked Nixon even less). It was not a success as a game-changer or as a war-ender.

The difference is that the story was true back then, and it got the news coverage that such a story, if true, would get today.

[Selene]

I'll take those apologies now...lol!!

WASHINGTON — The United States and Iran have agreed 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.

Iranian officials have insisted that the talks wait until after the presidential election, a senior administration official said, telling their American counterparts that they want to know which American president they would be negotiating with.

News of the agreement — a result of intense, secret exchanges between American and Iranian officials that date almost to the beginning of President Obama’s term — comes at a critical moment in the presidential contest, just two weeks before Election Day and a day before the final debate, which is to focus on national security and foreign policy.

David E. Sanger contributed reporting.

http://www.nytimes.c...tml?emc=na&_r=0

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Adam,

Nobody seems to understand anything anymore. I just fired up my Google News before looking at this and guess what I saw on Reuters right at the top?

White House denies plans for one-on-one talks with Iran

I'm not even going to comment on this until all those knuckleheads start acting like they know how to do something other than media manipulation.

Michael

[Selene]

I find it absolutely fascinating that this NY Times story "broke" two (2) days before the final debate that will be devoted to foreign policy and in light of the absolute incompetence of the administration's catastrophic Benghazi debacle...

[william.scherk]

Iranian and U.S. 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 against the Islamic regime, according to a highly placed source.

If I read this story correctly, the pseudonymous writer (who is supposedly a double-agent, by his own admission) claims an agreement has been reached: halt part of the nuclear programme, get some sanctions lifted.

The United States and Iran have agreed 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.

This NYT story claims that Iran and the USA have agreed to One-on-One negotiations.

White House denies plans for one-on-one talks with Iran

This Reuters story (as did the NYT story) contains an official denial of the 'agreement on talks.'

Question for Adam: how does the NYT story relate to the WND story? You lolled that you are accepting 'apologies.' What for?

-- the next debate should be extremely interesting, as both Obama and Romney will be closely questioned on Iran and the nuclear issue. I have followed Romney's public statements on Iran. Besides rhetorical excess, he has not yet shown a plan that has the least bit of daylight between his own and the present US plan.

Here are the supposed topics that will be covered in Boca Raton (from the Commission for Presidential Debates:

Mr. Schieffer stated:

Subject to possible changes because of news developments, here are the topics for the October 22 debate, not necessarily to be brought up in this order:

• America's role in the world
  
• Our longest war - Afghanistan and Pakistan
  
• Red Lines - Israel and Iran
  
• The Changing Middle East and the New Face of Terrorism - I
  
• The Changing Middle East and the New Face of Terrorism - II
  
• The Rise of China and Tomorrow's World
  

The debate will be held on Monday, October 22 at Lynn University in Boca Raton, FL. The format calls for six 15-minute time segments, each of which will focus on one of the topics listed above. The moderator will open each segment with a question. Each candidate will have two minutes to respond. Following the candidates' responses, the moderator will use the balance of the 15-minute segment to facilitate a discussion on the topic.

.

Edited October 21, 2012 by william.scherk

[Selene]

Question for Adam: how does the NYT story relate to the WND story? You lolled that you are accepting 'apologies.' What for?

William:

In post # 4 and # 5 above, Ninth and Reidy called "bullshit" on the report on the Iranian double agent's revelation about the October surprise just about three (3) days ago and lo and behold, the NY Times comes out with this today!

Coincidence, when traced back far enough, becomes inevitable.

A...

[william.scherk]

Question for Adam: how does the NYT story relate to the WND story? You lolled that you are accepting 'apologies.' What for?

In post # 4 and # 5 above, Ninth and Reidy called "bullshit" on the report on the Iranian double agent's revelation about the October surprise just about three (3) days ago and lo and behold, the NY Times comes out with this today!

Yeabut.

Adam, the two stories are not the same -- the WND is not the NYT story, neither in content nor in claim. It is the WND story that had the stink of BS to the two worthy gents. Surely you see that distinction.

If Iran has finally agreed to one-on-one talks with the USA, this is not what he claims. He claims that an agreement between the two governments has already been detailed, in terms of abandoning enrichment in exchange for lightening the sanctions that are destroying Iran's economy. (see Secretary Clinton's remarks from October 4th)

I am more interested in how you estimate the difference between the USA sanctions/negotiations/P5+1 talks and what Romney has yet to mumble mumble backtrack on his 'plan.'

I hope that the 'one on one' item comes up in debate questions and followup. Both men should be held to the fire on what their endgame is and how they would get there.

_______________

The original WND story has an update prepended (emphasis added):

Editor’s note: Tonight the New York Times is reporting the Obama administration is opening direct talks with Iran in uranium enrichment issues. WND’s earlier reports, including this one, provide the depth and context for this announcement. Reza Kahlili will discuss this breaking story on an upcoming edition of “Fox and Friends,” time to be announced.

Edited October 21, 2012 by william.scherk

[Selene]

I trust Reza's analysis. He has an excellent network in Iran. I have been listening to him on the John Bachelor shows for three (3) years and he has always been ahead of the information curve and almost always correct.

He was correct on the Stutz computer virus and the assassinations of the nuclear scientists and a number of other aspects of the situation.

Very high ethos for me.

[william.scherk]

Here is something that is much more October Surprising in re Obama. As reported by Adam's trusted news source WND:

A prominent member of Chicago’s homosexual community claims Barack Obama’s participation in the “gay” bar and bathhouse scene was so well known that many who were aware of his lifestyle were shocked when he ran for president and finally won the White House.

“It was preposterous to the people I knew then to think Obama was going to keep his gay life secret,” said Kevin DuJan, who was a gossip columnist in Chicago for various blogs when Obama was living in the city as a community organizer and later a state senator.

“Nobody who knew Obama in the gay bar scene thought he could possibly be president,” said DuJan.

DuJan, founder and editor of the Hillary Clinton-supporting website HillBuzz.org, told WND he has first-hand information from two different sources that “Obama was personally involved in the gay bar scene.”

“If you just hang out at these bars, the older guys who have been frequenting these gay bars for 25 years will tell you these stories,” DuJan said. “Obama used to go to the gay bars during the week, most often on Wednesday, and they said he was very much into older white guys.”

Obama, DuJan said, is “not heterosexual and he’s not bisexual. He’s homosexual.”

Investigative journalist Wayne Madsen, who worked with the National Security Agency from 1984 to 1988 as a Navy intelligence analyst, confirmed DuJan’s claims.

“It is common knowledge in the Chicago gay community that Obama actively visited the gay bars and bathhouses in Chicago while he was an Illinois state senator,” Madsen told WND.

WND also spoke with a member of the East Bank Club in Chicago, who confirmed Obama was a member there and was known to be a homosexual. The upscale fitness club, which has some 10,000 members, is not a “gay” facility. But it’s one of a number of places identified by the Chicago homosexual community as a “gay gym,” where homosexuals meet and engage in sexual activity.

In April, WND reported a federal judge dismissed a libel case against Larry Sinclair, a homosexual who claimed Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign had paid to rig a polygraph test regarding Sinclair’s sensational charge that he had sex and used cocaine twice with Obama while Obama was an Illinois state senator. Sinclair tells his story in “Barack Obama & Larry Sinclair: Cocaine, Sex, Lies & Murder.”

WND also reported former radical activist John Drew has said that when he met Obama when Obama was a student at Occidental College, he thought Obama and his then-Pakistani roommate were “gay” lovers.

In addition, rumors have swirled around Obama’s relationship with his personal aide and former “body man,” Reggie Love, who resurfaced on the eve of the Republican National Convention to support his old boss. Love resigned from the White House in November 2011 after compromising photographs of him as a college student received wide circulation.

WND also has documented in two separate articles, here and here, that Obama wore a gold band on his wedding ring finger from the time he attended Occidental College through his student days at Harvard Law School.

DuJan said that during Obama’s first presidential campaign, “there was fear in the gay community” about talking openly about Obama being homosexual, particularly after the murder in December 2007 of Donald Young, the openly gay choir director at Jeremiah Wright’s Trinity United Church of Christ, who was known to be a close friend of Obama.

“People did not want to talk openly about Obama being gay,” he said.

“Then, when we saw how Larry Sinclair was demonized, anybody who would expose Obama worried they would be silenced if they dared to speak the truth about Obama’s gay life,” DuJan said.

‘Obama’s secrets’

DuJan said he has been told “Obama’s secrets would have to come out just like John Edwards’ secrets came out.”

He said Obama stopped going to gay bars and bathhouses in Chicago when he began running for the U.S. Senate in 2004.

“Back then, Obama could walk around Chicago and people generally wouldn’t recognize him, even though he was a state senator in the Illinois assembly at the time,” DuJan said.

DuJan insisted that while he’s a supporter of Hillary Clinton, he holds no personal animus toward Obama. He said he campaigned for Clinton in 2008 “because I had waited for years for her to be able to run.”

“I opposed Obama not because I’m a racist, or that I hate Obama, I just knew the type of person Obama associated with in Chicago,” he said.

[Selene]

Here is something that is much more October Surprising in re Obama. As reported by Adam's trusted news source WND:

William:

First, O'bama did admit to using cocaine...correct?

Second, the openly homosexual head of the Wright choir was murdered in 2007...correct?

Third, this issue has been "out there" for all twelve (12) months of every year since at least 2007.

Your "argument" using refutation with guilt by association is rather sad. Let's see, an item appeared in WND website and I made reference to the author of that item in that website, therefore, I must subscribe to all other items that ever have, or, ever will appear on WND?

That is rather weak.

If I remember correctly, you had/have just about the same attitude with WND as you do/did have with Glenn Beck.

Adam

[Brant Gaede]

Obama is going to be slaughtered in the foreign policy debate. Any particular issue doesn't matter.

--Brant

[william.scherk]

[T]his issue has been "out there" for all twelve (12) months of every year since at least 2007.

You are right. This is not an "October Surprise" to anyone but me, it seems.

The proof of the Obama gay killing spree? Not from the World Nut Daily, nope.

I got to start paying more attention to 'alternative' news sources for the real truth ...

[Selene]

William:

The Supermarket "tabloids" were instrumental in discovering the truth that main stream media would not pursue...

For example:

1) the Lewinsky "blue dress;"

2) the John Edwards extra marital affair;

3) Sara Palin's daughter's pregnancy;

4) Tiger Woods;

5) Columnist Mike Walker, in an interview with the UK newspaper Metro, stated, "The OJ Simpson trial – the New York Times referred to us as the bible of the case –

6) The Hugh Rodham/Clinton pardon scandal;

7) Jesse Jackson's love child; and

8) solved the murder of Bill Cosby's son. The LA police chief had to get up at a press conference and say: 'We have just arrested a suspect for the murder of Ennis Cosby going on information we are very confident about and this is in great part due to help from the National Enquirer.' I was on the phone in a heartbeat to my editor to find out how we got them to say that. Turns out it was 'either say it or we will not lead you to where the gun is hidden in the woods wrapped in the famous knitted cap';^[16]

Have they been wrong? Of course.

I keep an open mind.

Adam

[9thdoctor]

Mmm. For a minute there I was starting to think I need to get my BS detector recalibrated, but now this is smelling like a rat, albeit one coated in BS. My paranoid instincts are saying this was an abortive attempt to lure Romney into speaking prematurely, and saying the wrong thing. Whatever the wrong thing might be. And they changed their minds, since it doesn't take much of a chess master to see only two moves ahead. OTOH, it might be that the New York Times' standards have fallen to the point that any rumor can get past their remaining quality control. With North Korea didn't we insist that we wouldn't do one on one talks, that the "international community" had to be at the table? Wouldn't it wreck our coalition if we went it alone?

[Selene]

He does have some "purty" lips though!

[Reidy]

A quick comparison of the two stories finds that, in WND's version, the Ayatollah Khamenei is in the thick of negotiations, awaiting Obama's forthcoming written guarantee, and that Iran and the US have worked out a plan to betray Israel. None of this is in the NYT version. I suspect that a more thorough perusal would bring out more differences. They are not the same story, and the latter does not confirm the former.

[Selene]

A quick comparison of the two stories finds that, in WND's version, the Ayatollah Khamenei is in the thick of negotiations, awaiting Obama's forthcoming written guarantee, and that Iran and the US have worked out a plan to betray Israel. None of this is in the NYT version. I suspect that a more thorough perusal would bring out more differences. They are not the same story, and the latter does not confirm the former.

Correct.

However, as I mentioned to William, I trust Reza's reportage and I do not have any trust in much of the modern NY Times.

[caroljane]

WND is a niche version of the Enquirer etc, except that when it comes to the crunch WND cannot verify its stories .Its constant themes are that Obama is gay and a drug addled Communist, and it has harped on them forever,

WND was also a main source of the Egypt crucifixion hoax, amongst other agitprop balloons it is eager to set aloft at the behest of its "anonymous sources".

[Reidy]

Fortunately, WND's predictions and Robert Campbell's in #2 come with a hard time limit, and we have only a little over two weeks to wait.

[william.scherk]

Obama is going to be slaughtered in the foreign policy debate. Any particular issue doesn't matter.

Do you watch the debates. Brant? You do not have much to say about foreign policy differences between the two candidates**. I guess we can both imagine Magic Underwear having a lot of platitudes ready (America Strong Power Israel Strong America Power America blah) but what is the difference? How do we expect the slaughter to be accomplished on these topics?

• America's role in the world
  
• Our longest war - Afghanistan and Pakistan
  
• Red Lines - Israel and Iran
  
• The Changing Middle East and the New Face of Terrorism - I
  
• The Changing Middle East and the New Face of Terrorism - II
  
• The Rise of China and Tomorrow's World
  

Here's some things to consider for those who have not already watched the debate in their imaginations. It may make no difference (as Adam says, "it's over" and Romney will win) ...

(this is from the New York Times blogger Daniel Sanger. Perhaps not as interesting as the research from The Globe ...)

LIBYA AND BENGHAZI Both candidates will come ready for a fight on this topic, but the question is whether it is the right fight. Mr. Obama already admitted mistakes on “The Daily Show With Jon Stewart” and promised to get to the bottom of them, but the White House has been less than transparent about what kind of warnings filtered up from the intelligence agencies before the attack on the consulate, and whether there was a way that American security forces could have arrived sooner, perhaps in time to save some of the American lives. No doubt the argument will focus on a narrower issue: why the administration stuck so long to its story that this was a protest against a film that turned into something worse, rather than a preplanned attack by insurgents. For Mr. Romney, the task is to show that the Benghazi attack was symptomatic of bigger failings in the Middle East, a road he started down in the last debate, but an argument he never completed.

IRAN With the revelation in The New York Times on Sundayreported by Helene Cooper and Mark Landler that the Obama administration has secretly agreed in principle to direct, bilateral talks after the election, the urgent question for the candidates is this: in a negotiation, what would you be willing to let Iran hold onto in return for a deal that gave the United States and Israel confidence that Tehran could not gain a nuclear weapons capability? It’s a hard question for both men.

Mr. Romney has said he would not allow Iran to have any enrichment capability at all — something it is allowed under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as long as it is abiding by the treaty’s rules — a position that would kill any talks. But Mr. Obama does not want to say the obvious: that he is willing to allow Iran to hold onto some face-saving enrichment capability as long as it does not retain its stockpiles of medium-enriched fuel, which can be converted to bomb-grade. Also, look for answers to the question of whether the United States would back up Israel if it decided to conduct a military strike against Iran. Mr. Romney wants to show that Mr. Obama has created “daylight” between the United States and Israel; Mr. Obama wants to demonstrate that while he has Israel’s back, he is trying to protect the country from taking an action he considers unwise, at least at this stage.

CYBERWAR Mr. Obama cannot talk about “Olympic Games,” the covert program that the United States has conducted against Iran, with Israel’s help, using a cyberweapon against another country for the first time in history. But do Mr. Obama and Mr. Romney consider cyberweapons a legitimate tool in America’s arsenal, or too risky, since the United States is the most vulnerable country in the world? We have never heard either candidate answer the question.

-- there is more at the link. But some of us know already, don't we?

__________________

** (added) Brant actually weighs in on 'basic' policy differences: Romney's not much different than Obama in terms of basic policies

Edited October 22, 2012 by william.scherk

[Brant Gaede]

I'm talkinmg about the debate, not actual foreign policy.

--Brant

Jesus H. Christ!