As much as I believe nObama is a disaster waiting to happen and he is not above violating the Logan Act in Iraq and elsewhere, I was not aware that Ronald Reagan ever visited Iran. Could some enlighten me with a source?
Posted on 09/19/2008 5:19:39 AM PDT by nikos1121
On Monday, in an opinion piece published in the New York Post, I suggested that Senator Barack Obama had urged Iraqi leaders to postpone making an agreement with the United States until there was a new administration in Washington.
I said this because Obama himself had said it.
By trying to second-guess the present administration in its negotiations with Iraq, Obama ignored a golden rule of American politics.
I first learned about that rule from Senator Edward Kennedy more than 30 years ago. During a visit to Tehran, Kennedy received a few Iranian reporters for a poolside chat. The big question at the time was negotiations between Washington and Tehran about massive arms contracts. When we asked Kennedy what he thought of those negotiations, his answer was simple: He would not comment on negotiations between his government and a foreign power, especially when abroad. That, he said, was one of the golden rules of American politics.
A few years later, I spent a day with Ronald Reagan during his visit to Iran. I asked what he thought of the strategic arms limitation talks between the U.S. and the USSR. He echoed Kennedy’s golden rule: He would not comment on his government’s negotiations with a foreign power, especially when abroad.
Today, Senator Obama is the leader of a loyal opposition in the United States, not the chief of an insurrection or a revolutionary uprising. What we are witnessing in the U.S. is an election, not an insurrection or a coronation, even less a regime change.
(Excerpt) Read more at article.nationalreview.com ...
He ends this fine article with these questions. Will no one ask Obama these questions? Whu not?
Since I do not wish to become involved in an Alphonse-and-Gaston number with Obama, I suggest that we focus our attention on the fact that the nominee is left without anything resembling a policy on Iraq. So, rather than coming out with another denial of something I never said that he had done, the esteemed senator should ponder these questions:
Does he still believe that toppling Saddam Hussein was illegal and “the biggest strategic blunder in U.S. history”? If yes, we might wonder why he is prepared to deal with the new Iraqi leaders who, by definition, have usurped Hussein’s power in Baghdad with American support.
Does he still want to withdraw from Iraq or does he want to stay, doing a bit of “drawdown” and “redeployment” every now and then? And, if he wants to stay, on what basis, for what purpose, and for how long?
Is Senator Biden’s plan to carve Iraq into three separate states still a live option or has it been thrown into the dustbin where it should have been from the start?
Would Obama now support the conclusion of a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) and a Strategic Framework Agreement (SFA) through negotiations between the Bush administration and the Iraqi administration of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, also a “lame duck,” as it faces elections early next year?
Since I do not wish to become involved in an Alphonse-and-Gaston number with Obama, I suggest that we focus our attention on the fact that the nominee is left without anything resembling a policy on Iraq. So, rather than coming out with another denial of something I never said that he had done, the esteemed senator should ponder these questions:
Does he still believe that toppling Saddam Hussein was illegal and “the biggest strategic blunder in U.S. history”? If yes, we might wonder why he is prepared to deal with the new Iraqi leaders who, by definition, have usurped Hussein’s power in Baghdad with American support.
Does he still want to withdraw from Iraq or does he want to stay, doing a bit of “drawdown” and “redeployment” every now and then? And, if he wants to stay, on what basis, for what purpose, and for how long?
Is Senator Biden’s plan to carve Iraq into three separate states still a live option or has it been thrown into the dustbin where it should have been from the start?
Would Obama now support the conclusion of a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) and a Strategic Framework Agreement (SFA) through negotiations between the Bush administration and the Iraqi administration of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, also a “lame duck,” as it faces elections early next year?
Somebody please tell me this issue is gaining traction in the mainstream, even just a little rubber on the road?
Taheri’s argument and supplementary material in this article is so very cogent and stinging. Even if one wishes to ascribe dubious motives to its author, this type of clear cut thinking is striking. Truth has no bias.
This issue really does seem like a game changer, yet I do not hear anything about it other than FR and NRO. Please, please, please tell me I’m missing something...
Since we obviously live in upside-down bizzaro world now; the press will do nothing, and no one will care.
As much as I believe nObama is a disaster waiting to happen and he is not above violating the Logan Act in Iraq and elsewhere, I was not aware that Ronald Reagan ever visited Iran. Could some enlighten me with a source?
I would love to know why the McCain campaign is not going after this story like a hungry dog on a steak...
This incident is interesting. I came across these quotes posted a month ago on youtube. I’m not endorsing them nor do I necessarily believe them.
__________________________________________________
Amir Taheri is the same guy who claimed Irans parliament had passed sumptuary laws for religious minorities, which ended up being fake. Not only did the law not exist but it wasnt even discussed in Parliament as the associated press showed. The National Post had to retracted the story and apologize for not checking to see if the story was true.
Taheri on the other hand still maintains that the law was passed, which shows his poor journalistic skills.
San Francisco state university also documented faked stories that Taheri authored to make himself appear like he had inside knowledge.
Historian Shaul Bakhash of George Mason University has accused Amir Taheri of concocting nonexistent conpiracies in his writings and “repeatedly refers us to books where the information he cites simply does not exist. Often the documents cannot be found in the volumes to which he attributes them.... “
____________________________
I think there is a lot of rhetoric thrown out during the election time that needs scrutiny before its pushed forward as fact. Again, no BHO fan here.
I do not believe he is 'loyal' to the constitution of the United States. Most of the democrats fall into this same camp.
Mc Cain should bring this up in the Foreign Policy debate next Friday.
Like I said, even if he is dubious...
All he is doing is drawing attention to words uttered by The One himself. He’s merely taking a large highlighting pen and screaming to us “did ya’ll see this several months ago?!”
This shows why you don’t put a rookie with 145 days of experience in a position that would allow him to run the most powerful nation on earth.
Many democrats feel the same way. That he is loyal to himself first and the rest later. Why would anyone have the audacity to go to Berlin and speak to people there, no less about how bad our country is...? Who would do such a thing unless someone who is so full of himself.
Obama is putting it as plain as it can be put, is a product of a guy named Axelrod. He’s a persona. Nothing more nothing less. I think this is going to be a land slide for McCain.
“even just a little rubber on the road”????
Sorry, the only thing I see is oil as the lsm slides right over it.
This is why I posted it... for the reasons you give. I think it should be reposted throughout today. Perhaps someone else can do it...
These are questions that should be asked to Obama at the first debate.
I read Taheri frequently. I find him accurate and with insight.
If you read THE ARTICLE THAT I POSTED you will see that he specifically states that these are factual statements made by others and he documents them.
I’m not sure why you posted criticsms of the man instead of commenting on the criticsms of Obama.
You list San Francisco State U. and The National Post> I thought he wrote for the The Daily Post.
This shows why you don’t put a rookie with 145 days of experience in a position that would allow him to RUIN the most powerful nation on earth.
Fixed it for you!
It made the front page of my local paper this morning.
Saving this for the debate format...gonna hit him with it then...
The Obama camp admitted he said this and gave the reasons:
There were more people in the room and the press in Iraq were picking up on it. If you read the other threads on this, you would see where this has been confirmed.
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.