Obama's Secret Role in the Iran Talks

What does BO stand to lose respect-in-the-world-wise, if the nuke talks go south? And what if the Iranians, as some state, accuse us of trying to destabilize their government?

I am waiting - but not holding my breatjhe - for "Our colleague Massimo Calabresi" to post the following:

"That's because, Administration sources tell TIME, Obama personally weighed in three times during secret, multiparty negotiations with the Israelis over the last four months — in what has become not just a test of Israel's nuclear intentions but also a test of Obama's effort to limit Israel's nuclear ambitions through a combination of sanctions, threats and incentives."

Else we read targeted malice/cruelty, near-toothless bluster and a hint of age-old euro-supremacism and devious anglo-racism in all this lurid show ...

...Obama personally weighed in three times during secret, multiparty negotiations with the Iranians over the last four months...

Wingnut response #1: "Well, he had to do something to validate winning the Nobel Peace Prize after he won it back in February..."

Wingnut response #2: "Why is he negotiating with a terrorist state like Iran? We should be nuking that country into a parking lot."

Wingnut response #3: "So? It's not a done deal yet, despite the work that has been done to this point...Obama isn't getting any results in his 9 months in office; he hasn't done anything at all."

Wingnut response #4: "Of course Obama is going to be able to negotiate with his fellow Muslim extremists."

Wingnut response #5: "It's a set-up, and Obama is letting himself get played...just watch!"

Pssst. Obama plans to sell Iran weapons and funnel the money to ACORN. Michelle Malkin told me. Pass it on.

"We very quickly saw an opening here," says a senior Administration official involved in the multiparty negotiations that ensued, speaking on condition of anonymity.

.
Anonymity. Is that anything like, "this is total bull-crap we are giving you TIME, but go ahead and print it anyways"?

How can we trust anything that comes from this kind of inexplicably anonymously-sourced stenography?

Puzzled by a series of stories here, in the Post and NYT coming out of a collection of anonymous sources. Why can't journalists find people who will speak on the record? People who are not authorised to speak on the record appear to be a favoured species. The down side? lazy journalism.

“Despite the top-level diplomatic work, U.S. officials were not particularly optimistic ahead of Monday's meeting in Vienna”.

I do not know whether they are deliberately downplaying expectations because judging from the article it appears the Obama folks have reason to be quite optimistic.

Well, hopefully the secrets will be leaked out in full again and we will all know the outcome of the high level confidential meetings.

LM

http://theblindspotsofgod.wordpress.com

Will whoever kidnapped KT and replaced her with somebody from the marketing department please return her immediately?

Thank you.

Boy, the Nobel Committee is looking pretty darn smart right now, aren't they?

"We very quickly saw an opening here," says a senior Administration official involved in the multiparty negotiations that ensued, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Mmm, now that's some high quality propaganda right there, KT. Any guesses why Calabresi didn't give any reasons for allowing this guy anonymity?

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/10/024745.php