Obama debate talking point: ‘I will with be sitting down for talks with Iran’
posted at 10:35 am on October 22, 2012 by Howard Portnoy
Apologies in advance to all who are offended by ethnic jokes, but here goes. A Jewish business owner runs into a friend of his on the street. “Saul,” the first man says commiseratively, “I hear your factory burned down last Tuesday.” Saul leans into his interlocutor and whispers, “Sshh, next Tuesday.”
This joke came to mind after the Obama administration cracked a knee-slapper of its own this past weekend. On Saturday, the president’s water carrier’s at The New York Times breathlessly reported:
The United States and Iran have agreed in principle 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. [Emphasis added]
A cynic might question the release of this news to coincide with the third and final debate on Monday night, the focus of which is foreign policy. Then again, a cynic would home in on the highlighted phrase above, which is clarified by the Times’ writers advice in the next paragraph that “Iranian officials have insisted that the talks wait until after the presidential election.” Translation: Sshh, next Tuesday.
The ultimate question is not whether this agreement (which, nota bene, a White House spokesman denies further down in the very same Times article) gives the president an ace in the hole. It is hard to imagine anyone tuning into the debate, hearing this talking point, and saying, “What’s that? The president has made good on his promise to sweet-talk the brutal thugs in Iran out of their nuclear ambitions? He’s got my vote!” The overarching theme tonight will be the security lapse in Libya following the takedown of Kaddafi that opened the door for the Benghazi raid.
The question about this latest “news,” rather, is the same one that arose in the minds of skeptics when the timeline for the implementation of Obamacare was first suggested. That question was: If this law is so all-fired great, then why wait five years, until 2014, to implement it in its totality? The answer, of course, is timing. Sshh, next Tuesday, safely after Obama is re-elected.
- Gloria Allred rumored to have dirt that will sink Romney campaign
- Romney has already won Debate 3, and Obama knows it
- Debate 2 opens Pandora’s box on Benghazi consulate attack
- Do supporters of ‘Liar’ debate strategy really believe Obama is free of sin? (Video)
- Hillary Clinton’s ‘taking responsibility’ for Libya changes nothing
- New poll says that under Obama, Muslim world dislikes U.S. more than ever
- Outrage: Obama administration wants to give Egypt $450 million in aid
- Obama State Department aide tells reporter to ‘f**k off’
- Going-out-of-business sale at BarackObama.com
- Administrative earmarks: Obama as influence peddler in chief
- Liberal pundit: Obama’s 2008 “hope” message becomes 2012 “fear” message (Video)
- Shared sacrifice: Cutting ObamaCare could save $2 trillion
- Obama’s defense of super PAC reversal: The ends justify the means
Recently in the Green Room:
- Two House Dems demand Lerner resignation after using lobbyist to stage modified limited hangout
- Feelgood video of the day
- New liberal idea: Let’s raise $660 million online in a month to buy the LA Times before the Koch brothers can
- Of Course It Troubles Me. Are You Kidding Me?
- Friendly reminder from the White House about ObamaCare: “It’s. The. Law.”