Todayz Newz

The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) is reporting that statements made recently by Prez Obama are misleading at best, and outright deception at worst.

On November 9, 2009, U.S. President Barack Obama told Reuters in an interview that an unsettled political situation in Iran may be complicating efforts to seal a nuclear fuel deal between Tehran and major world powers. This implies that a deal was reached with Iran during the nuclear talks in Vienna, but that Iran is having a hard time ratifying that deal due to criticism of it at home.

This depiction of the October 18-19, 2009 Vienna talks, and the explanation that the unstable political situation in Iran is making it difficult for the Iranian regime to announce that it agrees to the deal, are misleading. Iranian public statements since the end of the talks to date attest that:

1) No deal was ever reached during the Vienna talks….

2) Iran’s regime is currently stable…

Also noteworthy in the article are the following statements. I suggest reading the entire article for an analysis you will not get from the White House.

The West continues to extend the deadline for Iran to weigh its proposal but the Iranian position is unchanging.

Iran regards itself as a superpower which is entitled to nuclear energy for civilian purposes, and stresses that it is unwilling to debate this status or its nuclear program with anyone…

The West has tried, and is still trying, to set conditions for Iran’s request by insisting that it send 75% of its nuclear fuel, or approximately 1,200 kg, outside the country for enrichment; however, this enrichment will neutralize it so that it can no longer be used for military purposes. Iran rejected this condition…

The enrichment by the West will turn the uranium into fuel rods, which will prevent it from being used for military purposes. This, apparently, is why Iran is unwilling to transfer most of its enriched uranium reserves to a third country, preferring to keep it in its possession.

Is there any room left for doubt as to Iran’s intention to acquire nuclear fuel?

Why has Obama been less than truthful about discussions which occurred in Vienna? What, if any, recourse does he have to apply additional pressure on Iran to come clean on their intentions regarding nuclear capability? Why am I asking so many rhetorical questions?

The truth is that we have no leverage and have never had leverage. Iran is a rogue nation with a rogue President who has made no secret of his desire to wipe Israel off the face of the map. There is no amount of bargaining that will work with such people or nations: see my earlier post on taqiyya and kitman.

It’s time to take care of business with Iran, and forget diplomacy. If we won’t, Israel will. Either way, be prepared for the consequences: prepare your family, secure a supply of food and water, purchase a mode of transportation that does not require oil, and get ready to hunker down for some rough times.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

Here we go again! Obama, like a toothless tiger, is warning Iran to come clean on its nuclear program soon, or else! And once again Iranian leadership will ignore the toothless tiger and keep doing what it’s been doing: developing nuclear technology for military use. And once again we will press for meaningless sanctions in the United Nations (or is that the United Nothing). This is really getting old!

One would think that given his Muslim roots, which he now so strongly emphasizes, Obama would understand the Islamic notions of taqiyya and kithman, particularly as it relates to Iran’s nuclear program.

Ahmadinejad knows the United States and the United Nations will do nothing; one need only look at the track record thus far. With Obama’s approval rating continuing its downhill slide, you would think he might provide actual leadership the American people can be proud of and get behind.

This past weekend Mr. Obama (I refuse to address him with the ‘P’ word since I believe he is illegitimate) made a very startling announcement. You probably missed it in the news.

Startling? Absolutely. Here is the gist of what he said.

We cannot send more troops into Afghanistan because we have no idea how to pay for them? (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/15/military-spending-weighs-obamas-afghan-decision/)

Did you get that?

For months, General Stanley McChrystal has been begging, even pleading, with the administration to send more troops into Afghanistan, because without them the current level of stability is untenable for the long term. Yet Obama’s concern is not with the situation in Afghanistan, or the morale of the troops which seems to be on the decline because of a lack of support back home (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/13/morale-troops-afghanistan-army-says/), but with how the US can continue funding the troop delpoyment.

I wish he was equally concerned how to repay the TARP (bailout) funds he so eagerly passed earlier this year. An herein is the irony. Further troop deployment is estimated to cost about 40 billion dollars a year to sustain the troop, and Obama is concerned where the money will come from. Yet he chose this year to throw 787 billion dollars away with no concern at all how it was going to be repaid.

What is wrong with this picture? Is Obama really concerned about the federal budget? If he is, his concern over funding troops is justified. But his actions to date indicate he has no concern at all over the budget.

I believe Obama does not want us in Afghanistan and is looking for a way out by citing the ongoing expense involved with maintaining troops in Afghanistan. Now, this is going to irritate some of my conservative friends, but I also agree with Obama on this issue. I think it is long past time to pull our troops out of the country. I don’t think we should ever have gone there, because there was no clear goal or objective to achieve. We cannot go to war if we have no way to measure what it means to ‘win the war’ and to do so requires defining the objective, so we can know when the objective has been achieved.

But Obama will never sell his objections to the American people if he bases them on financial concerns. We are not as blind and ignorant as he believes us to be. He has no concerns about financial obligations.

Mr. O, stop the lying and just be honest with us for once.