Posted on 10/12/2012 11:20:40 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Last week, WND reported the breathtaking story, based on impeccable Iranian sources, that Barack Obama sent an emissary to Qatar to meet with a representative of the ayatollah to offer a secret deal – one that would help Obama win his re-election bid.
It was a shocker – even by Obama standards.
The White House was offering Iran a deal to reduce international sanctions against the rogue, terrorist-supporting nation developing nuclear weapons if it simply agreed to suspend uranium enrichment for two weeks before the U.S. election – allowing Obama to announce a phony "diplomatic coup."
As the story pointed out, this could well be the "October Surprise" Obama planned to overcome his fading support among the American public.
It was quite a story, indeed. But it was not picked up by a single news agency in the country – therefore leaving open the possibility Obama can still pull it off.
To say the least, this kind of reporting is expensive and risky. How did the rest of the media respond? With another collective yawn.
In other words, the word is not getting out. Despite the precision and grainy detail offered by WND’s reports, the rest of the media simply ignored these startling revelations, as if they never happened.
Why would the media collectively ignore this news?
Could it be because they don’t want it to be true?
Could it be because they are in the tank for Obama and neither of these stories represents good news for his campaign?
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
The majority of American’s don’t know where Iran is or what the implications of a Nuclear (armed) Iran means to the world. So, his brokering a deal with Iran would have little to no impact from my point of view. The only people who would vote for him because of that are already voting for him.
Remember how Carter’s plan to “rescue” the hostages in the spring of 1980 turned out? I always believed that there was never any chance for a “rescue” with the forces that were sent to do the job, but there was a great chance that the hostages would be killed by their captors. Then the nightly news broadcast calling out the “days” of the captivity would go away long before the election and the voters would forget. I hope that wasn’t true, though. /s
Meant to ping you to post #12.
Even for Obozo this seems a bit far fetched...
Even for Obozo this seems a bit far fetched...
<><><><>
But, but, it’s on the internet, on WND, so it has to be true.
There was an earlier thread which speculated the Libyan situation was supposed to be a controlled event where Obama would emit his mystic and rescue all through superior negotiating charisma.
This was the plan -http://articles.cnn.com/2012-09-10/middleeast/world_meast_zawahiri-peace-plan_1_zawahiri-islamists-al-qaeda-leader
This interview was aired on CNN in Canada on 9/11, but not in the USA.
If he ok’d the jets from Sicily to go to Libya there wouldn’t be enough time to hide or move the evidence....
If he does this, he’s Neville Chamberlain redux............
...”by any means necessary”
Mr./Gen. Unmentionable.
What emissary, GHW Bush?
Yup. That would do it. A free gubmint cell phone and a gun to my head; then yes, I would vote for BHO.
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.