Ahmadinejad To Obama: I Do Have Pre-Conditions, Chump

For Advertising Info, Write.
rwnews@blogads.com

Premium Left blogad

Left Blog Ad

Permalinks

Ahmadinejad To Obama: I Do Have Pre-Conditions, Chump

Written By : William Teach

Late Friday, the Obama admin quietly announced that they would be meeting with Iran, with no pre-conditions, just as Obama promised during the first part of his never-ending campaign. Unfortunately for Obama, it seems that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad understands how to move from “campaigning” to “governance” much better: Iran snubs Barack Obama’s nuclear talks

Less than 48 hours after Washington and its allies reluctantly accepted an offer of face-to-face negotiations from Tehran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, insisted that the topic of greatest interest to the West would not be on the table.

“From the Iranian nation’s viewpoint, the nuclear case is closed,” he told Britain’s ambassador to Tehran, Simon Gass. “Having peaceful nuclear technology is Iran’s lawful and definite right and Iranians will not negotiate with anyone over their undeniable rights.”

What else is there to say? When one says they will treat with another from a position of weakness, one gets owned. When it is with a leader of a rogue country involved in Middle Eastern terrorism hell bent on developing nuclear weapons (were Iran simply looking to create nuclear power, that would be acceptable under the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Matter of fact, the USA would be oblidged to help), it is even worse. Chamberlain had no pre-conditions, Hitler did. Look how well that turned out.

BTW, do you think this is ending up in the American media? Of course, the answer is “no.”

Ahmadinejad is also taunting Obama, as the AFP points out.

http://Kingfisher Kingfisher

Time for his O-ness to issue another apology. The only question now is when will Obama issue an apology for being so f*cking stupid?

This is not great PR for those interested in pursuing Constitutional Law.
http://Kingfisher Kingfisher

Chamberlain had no pre-conditions, Hitler did. Look how well that turned out.

But…but…but…but…but…but…but…Chamberlain didn't apologize to the Nazi's 50 ultra-gazillion times! :-P

This time will be different. Yeah, that's the ticket!
BIG

I am sure that Obama and Ahmadinejad can still find many issues to discuss when they sit down to chat. Why let what the Iranians have done over the past thiry years stand in the way of making a fresh start? They will begin by finding issues that they can agree upon. Here is a short list:

1. Both Obama and Ahmadinejad have called for a complete surrender by American forces in the middle east. This seems to me to be an easy point where they can find agreement and take the steps to bring it about.

2. Wiping Israel off the map is another point where they are in agreement. Maybe Obama can bomb Tel Aviv for Ahmadinejad to show his good intentions.

3. They both desire to see oil prices over $200 a barrel. Obama will do his part to make sure this happens by preventing the United States from drilling for her own resources. Iran just has to threaten shipping in their region and oil will be at a price they both can live with.

I am sure there are many more points that they will find common ground on. But this should be enough for them to get started and their actions will result in peace in our time.
http://Kingfisher Kingfisher

2. Wiping Israel off the map is another point where they are in agreement. Maybe Obama can bomb Tel Aviv for Ahmadinejad to show his good intentions.

This is not surprising, considering that most on the left are anti-semitic.

Israel? A small price to pay to raise the "O" to further greatness!
BIG

Posted by Kingfisher

2009-09-14 10:01:36

Dumping Israel has few negatives for our President. It might hurt a bit with fund raising, but I have faith in our President that he will find other ways to replace the lost revenue. Just look at all the fraudulent campaign fund raising he did to get the job. When you add in the fact that he would be joing the rest of the world in it's hatred of the tiny Jewish state, he probably views it as a positive way to increase his standing in the world community.
http://networdblog.blogspot.com/ Christopher_Taylor

Yeah, that's the problem with this "kinder, gentler" diplomacy approach: it only works with friends (and makes them think you're a pushover). With enemies it just makes you look weak, easy to control, and harmless. Other nations might not have liked President Bush's approach, but they knew better than to mess with him.
BIG

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,549780,00.htm…

And if you don't believe me, here is Osama bin Laden himself weighing in on the issue.

"Ask yourselves to determine your position: is your security, your blood, your children, your money, your jobs, your homes, your economy, and your reputation dearer to you than the security of the Israelis, their children and their economy?" he said.

If Obama can join forces with Chavez and Castro in regards to Hondouras, why should he have a problem joining bin Laden and Ahmadinejad when it comes to dealing with Israel?
rmiller

And yet….Pres. Obama has not talked to the Iranians. He has only opened the possibility. That they rejected those talks because of preconditions is the fault of the Iranian regime, not the Obama Administration.
whats_up

Posted by rmiller

2009-09-14 13:11:34

Lets also add that not talking with the Iranians has done really well the last eight years hasnt it?
D-Vega

If Obama can join forces with Chavez and Castro in regards to Hondouras, why should he have a problem joining bin Laden and Ahmadinejad when it comes to dealing with Israel?

Please don't say things that are so silly, BIG.

Obama has actually stepped up attacks on Osamaland.

He hasn't even demonstrated that he has joined "forces" with any of the people you mentioned.
D-Vega

Oh, and the Iranians saying there is no discussion on nukes is not a pre-condition.
http://conservativebootcamp.com martinhale

Remember that international diplomacy is very often a matter of appearances and posturing. What has been suggested from the first moment Mr. Obama offered "pre-condition-less" talks with Iran, is that adopting that posture places us in an untenable position, not just with Iran, but with all the less-than-friendly nations of the world. The all of the dictators and would-be tyrants around the globe have learned from how the Obama administration has dealt with Iran and N. Korea that the "Great Satan" can be had and manipulated just by being petulant little satraps. Not only is it not 'politics as usual' or 'cowboy diplomacy', it's 'foolhardy naivete' personified – kind of like the naivete inherent in starting a tariff/trade war with your largest trading partner and the largest holder or your debt – foolhardy naivete indeed.

So while you're busy pursuing your partisan agenda of holding Mr. Obama blameless, remember that there are bad people in the world who're devoting significant mental energy to figuring out how to capitalise on his perceived weaknesses. Names near the top of that list would be Vladimir Putin, Hugo Chavez, Raul Castro, Evo Morales, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and many others. As Mr. Obama has just discovered with Mr. Ahmedinejad, when you cede your role as a superpower willingly and pre-emptorily, many of the people you need to negotiate with are no longer interested in negotiating with you.
CoolCzech

Oh, and the Iranians saying there is no discussion on nukes is not a pre-condition.

Posted by D-Vega

2009-09-14 14:03:06

Oh, REALLY? Saying, I'm willing to talk with you as long as you don't talk about the only important thing there is to talk about is NOT a "pre-condtion," huh?

Then what the hell is it, then?

And by the way, rmiller, HERE is what is wrong with what Obama has managed to "accomplish":

He has treated the Muslim world to the spectacle of an American president literally begging for Iran to talk to him, and been publically humiliated with a stunning refusal.

Did you guys out in San Francisco REALLY think that Iran or North Korea or Syria or Chavez give a royal frack WHAT is chic to believe in your neck of the woods?
Mike_M

"He hasn't even demonstrated that he has joined "forces" with any of the people you mentioned."

You're right vega, Chavez expressed worry to Castro that Obama was to the left of them both.

And Obama has never personally launched a rocket into an Israeli city. He's only giving Hamas $1 billion to rebuild the Gaza launchpads that *they* used to do it.
http://Kingfisher Kingfisher

Oh, and the Iranians saying there is no discussion on nukes is not a pre-condition.

Posted by D-Vega

2009-09-14 14:03:06

You obviously haven't learned from your last mistake…claiming that illegals weren't covered when the Obama administration afterwords changed the bill to remove illegals.

Feel free to look like a fool to please your Obamassiah.
Mike_M

"Did you guys out in San Francisco REALLY think that Iran or North Korea or Syria or Chavez give a royal frack WHAT is chic to believe in your neck of the woods?"

Well they certainly know that Obama doesn't need the help of South Korea, Japan, China, or Russia to negotiate with North Korea now that he's proposed bilateral talks.

What could all those other countries that trade with and border North Korea possibly do? They probably just got in the way of Obama's blinding personal aura.

I mean, Kim Jong Il and Obama in a discussion? They might have to host the meetings halfway between Pyongyang and the Andromeda Galaxy to make room for those two egos.
whats_up

Remember that international diplomacy is very often a matter of appearances and posturing. What has been suggested from the first moment Mr. Obama offered "pre-condition-less" talks with Iran, is that adopting that posture places us in an untenable position, not just with Iran, but with all the less-than-friendly nations of the world. The all of the dictators and would-be tyrants around the globe have learned from how the Obama administration has dealt with Iran and N. Korea that the "Great Satan" can be had and manipulated just by being petulant little satraps.

Posted by martinhale

2009-09-14 14:05:02

Martin,

How was foreign policy under Bush any better, did Iran stop producing nukes? How about NK? Did not talking to them produce anything?
D-Vega

Oh, REALLY? Saying, I'm willing to talk with you as long as you don't talk about the only important thing there is to talk about is NOT a "pre-condtion," huh?

Nope, it's not. Because it is at the heart of what we the talks would be about.

If Iran were to say that nukes are negotiable, then already there would be progress before talks began.

Look at the Bush admin's take on it. They were willing to talk to Iran about possibly stopping the nukes. The pre-condition was that Iran had to stop the nukes. That's such a ridiculous non-starter that it just put everything on hold EXCEPT for the nukes progressing.
D-Vega

You obviously haven't learned from your last mistake…claiming that illegals weren't covered when the Obama administration afterwords changed the bill to remove illegals.

Illegals weren't covered under the bill. What the revision would be is to include a clause for verification. But the bill plainly stated from jump that the public option would not be for illegals.
http://Kingfisher Kingfisher

Illegals weren't covered under the bill. What the revision would be is to include a clause for verification. But the bill plainly stated from jump that the public option would not be for illegals.

Posted by D-Vega

2009-09-14 15:32:15

One thing's for certain. Once you lie, you'll never admit you were wrong.
http://conservativebootcamp.com martinhale

Mike, never fear – when Mr. Obama comes home from both N. Korea and Iran empty-handed, or even worse, with meaningless agreements about trade in the international playing card market, and a commitment to "lend" each of those terrorist states several billion greenbacks, he'll have learned a few valuable lessons in international diplomacy. What's that you say? He should have known those things going in to the position? Whoa, big fella, that's racist heresy, to say something like that.

I note with interest that Mr. Obama is trying to deal directly with Mr. Kim and has cut the Chinese out of the picture. Shame, really, about that. Since N. Korea is a surrogate for the Chinese, and the purpose of having the Chinese at the table in those negotiations was to acknowledge the fact of that surrogacy, and to use our relationship with China as a means of levying pressure on Mr. Kim, one has to think that the Chinese will be missed in future negotiations. That decision is especially interesting in light of the other foreign policy decision announced the same weekend – the tariff on Chinese tyres. I have to believe that Mr. Obama is trying his level best to piss the Chinese off for some reason.

I just can't imagine what it might be, however.
D-Vega

One thing's for certain. Once you lie, you'll never admit you were wrong.

What I just said was not a lie, King.
http://Kingfisher Kingfisher

What I just said was not a lie, King.

Posted by D-Vega

2009-09-14 15:44:56

Except that it was a lie. Or, you can provide the clause to the bill that supports your argument but that is too much work for you.
D-Vega

House Bill –

SEC. 242. AFFORDABLE CREDIT ELIGIBLE INDIVIDUAL.

(a) DEFINITION. —

(1) IN GENERAL. — For purposes of this division, the term ''affordable credit eligible individual'' means, subject to subsection (b), an individual who is lawfully present in a State in the United States (other than as a nonimmigrant described in a subparagraph (excluding subparagraphs (K), (T), (U), and (V)) of section 101(a)(15) of the Immigration and Nationality Act) —

SEC. 246. NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS.

Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.

Senate bill –

excludes those "not lawfully present" from federal funding. Under the "Making Coverage Affordable" section of the Affordable Health Choices Act:

(h) NO FEDERAL FUNDING. — Nothing in this Act shall allow Federal payments for individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.
http://Kingfisher Kingfisher

Nice try, idiot. The infamous "Section 246."

Um, Vega, section 246 only applies to "affordability credits." This simply means that illegal aliens would not be reimbursed by the government if they could not afford health insurance. In other words, 32 words from this section only covers one minor portion of a 1000+ page bill. Illegal aliens are still required to purchase insurance and can still buy into the public option (with the help of subsidies).

You still have refused to provide the requirement to provide proof of eligibility since it is illegal to ask the eligibility from illegal aliens. If proving citizenship is prohibited, that section means absolutely nothing in this context, dumbass.

The White House even admitted this was true. You still haven't answered the question why the WH has changed face and is now modifying the bill to include requirement of proof of citizenship before an anyone can enroll in the plan.

That means, you're still a liar.
D-Vega

King, I said that in first post:

Illegals weren't covered under the bill. What the revision would be is to include a clause for verification. But the bill plainly stated from jump that the public option would not be for illegals.

Don't be a Kanye about it.
http://www.superdickery.com mightysamurai

Illegals weren't covered under the bill.

Only in your lonely, pathetic, Obama-worshipping fantasies were illegals not covered under the bill.

I honestly don't get why you feel the need to lie so transparently about this. If illegals were not covered under the original bill why did Obama need to INSERT an extra clause that provided for verification and enforcement? If illegals weren't covered as you claim that should have been completely unnecessary, the bill should have prevented illegals from getting coverage just fine as-is. The idea that this new addition is anything but a tacit admission that Joe Wilson was right all along is…is…I'm not sure there's a word for this kind of slavish, mindless worship of Barack Obama. Even for you this is incredibly sad.
RWNReader2

Obama's "open door" policy – the door's open to talk to anyone without precondition… except of course Republicans who don't like his healthcare plans.
CoolCzech

You still haven't answered the question why the WH has changed face and is now modifying the bill to include requirement of proof of citizenship before an anyone can enroll in the plan.

That means, you're still a liar.

Posted by Kingfisher

2009-09-14 16:57:22

I'll answer the question FOR D-Vega, King…

the WH abruptly caved on this issue 'cause Joe Wilson had the guts to Speak Truth to Power in a highly visible forum, God Bless Him.

Oh, an D-Vega: yes, the bill says illegals are not covered, but without any meaningful enforcement measures in place that restriction is about as meaningful as the immigration laws that restrict illegals from entering the country illegally.

Know what I mean??
D-Vega

That's what I said at the very beginning, Czech, Kingfisher.

The bill does not cover illegals. It says so plainly. In Obama's speech, he clearly says the reforms do not cover illegals.

The bill also does not include an enforcement clause. But does that does not mean it de facto covers illegals anymore than illegals are covered now.

The History of Ernesto Che Guevara – A Short Story

Premium Right Ads

Blogads Right

Previous Features

The Best Quotes From “Ten Prayers God Always Says Yes To”

Hey Lady Gaga, Kids Have a Time-Tested Answer for Bullies: Punch Them in the Mouth

Seven Differences Between Winners And Losers

The Problem With The Occupy Wall Street Generation

The 20 Most Influential Black Republicans

Talking With Chuck D. From Public Enemy About Farrakhan, Air America’s Failure, And Open Borders

User Info

Features

Archives Best of RWN Humor John Hawkins Interviews Quotes Special to RWN