Obama has held “high-level” talks with Iran and Syria for months

By Scott A. Robinson

Filed Under General on Feb 3 

The Obama team has been in contact with Iran and Syria SINCE BEFORE HE WON THE ELECTION!

US President Barack Obama has already used experts within the last few months to hold high-level but discreet talks with both Iran and Syria. . . .

The Syrian president himself revealed on Monday that “dialogue started some weeks ago in a serious manner through personalities who are close to the administration and who were dispatched by the administration” (emphasis added).

These conversations certainly were a bit presumptuous. Apparently Obama seemed knew something about the outcome of the election before the outcome was actually decided. Maybe that’s why ACORN is still receiving a $5.2 billion payoff (or “stimulus”).

Since the Obama administration had no issue working in secret with two of the most evil, powerful, and downright frightening states, even before he was elected President, now that he actually has the power of the Presidency . . . is, well, unsettling to say the least.

What else has the Obama team been doing without America knowing?

So much for transparency.

Comments

36 Comments

  1. Brian H on 03.02.2009 at 21:14 (Reply)

    “What else has the Obama team been doing without America knowing?”

    1. Funding foreign abortions
    2. Closing Gitmo with no plan of action.
    3. Stopping interrogations of terrorists.
    4. Claiming it is not the time for profits.
    5. Selecting tax crooks in his administration.

    Wait!.. Sorry, Scott. Those things he did with America watching.

    1. chrissy on 04.02.2009 at 11:31 (Reply)

      And most of Americans cheered him on too…

      This is frieghtening to me.

  2. Troy La Mana on 04.02.2009 at 01:04 (Reply)

    Isn’t this what the Democrats claimed Reagan did behind Carters back?

  3. J on 04.02.2009 at 01:44 (Reply)

    As I mention before, a panel of ambassadors and experts agreed that talking with Iran was necessary for achieving progress in Iran and the Middle East. From the article, I can’t discern the nature of the talks. But since the term track II denotes nonofficial and informal conversations using unofficial actors, I assume they were unofficial and informal.

    The ACORN stuff was untrue during the election and it is still untrue now.

    1. Brian H on 04.02.2009 at 13:50 (Reply)

      Government by comittee, niiicccee.

      Only a true liberal would brag about making decisions based on “a panel of ambassadors and experts”.

      1. J on 05.02.2009 at 00:19 (Reply)

        Well what we have been doing for the past 20 years is not working. Iran has gotten more dangerous and more dangerous with our nonaction.

        1. Alaina on 06.02.2009 at 01:37 (Reply)

          You consider talking action?

          1. German Observer on 06.02.2009 at 09:40 (Reply) (Comments won't nest below this level)

            I do.

  4. Eric on 04.02.2009 at 09:30 (Reply)

    “What else has the Obama team been doing without America knowing?”

    Vetting administration nominees.
    Oh wait. I got that backwards. That’s what America thought the team was doing when it wasn’t.

    1. Brian H on 04.02.2009 at 13:56 (Reply)

      Hey, Eric.

      Don’t we remeber the media brutaly attacking McCain for his non-vetting of Palin?

      1. Eric on 04.02.2009 at 15:02 (Reply)

        Well, you have to remember: What Palin’s daughter’s boyfriend’s uncle eats for dinner is WAY more important than the usurpation of the presidency and secret councils with terrorists.

        1. Brian H on 04.02.2009 at 16:06 (Reply)

          I’ll try to remember that, thanks.

        2. German Observer on 04.02.2009 at 20:01 (Reply)

          No, what Palin or one of her aquaintences has for dinner is rather irrelevant. If she knows, that Africa is a continent and not a country or that and which papers she reads indeed should have be checked.

          By the way: what exactly are terrorists?

          1. Eric on 04.02.2009 at 21:27 (Reply) (Comments won't nest below this level)

            Sorry, G.O.
            I should have said, “secret meetings with the bad guys.”

            Now, I’m not exactly sure who/what “bad guys” are, but Iran and Syria count. Not sure who else counts, but, um, are you from West Germany or East Germany?

          2. German Observer on 04.02.2009 at 22:00 (Reply) (Comments won't nest below this level)

            “Not sure who else counts, but, um, are you from West Germany or East Germany?”

            :-)

            Hm, its almost 20 years now, that difference doesn’t count anymore. But to answer your question: I have the potential to be your worst nightmare. Cause my mother is from East Germany and my father is from, please sit before reading, is from Syria (no joke but the plain truth).
            To set that shock down a bit: I was born and brought up in West Germany, where my father came to in 1957 to study, then he met my mother on a vacation in East Berlin, they married and they managed to get my mother (legaly) to West Germany in 1964. So, I was was educated in the sense of beeing a (West-)German and overall I feel as a European in the first place.

            Oh, I should add, that my ties to Syria are not particular tight. I have visited Syria only twice and don’t even speak Arabic. Believe me I don’t have any sympathys for the regime over there and certainly its fair to call them bad guys. To call them “THE” bad guys is certainly untrue, there are some more in the region and teh world to blame as well.

          3. Eric on 04.02.2009 at 23:13 (Reply)

            Cool reply, G.O., and cool heritage.

            But you’re way off on guessing my worst nightmare. That would be having to endure Gone with the Wind, The Sound of Music, or anything with John Travolta from beginning to end.

          4. Brian H on 04.02.2009 at 22:04 (Reply) (Comments won't nest below this level)

            You will know when you see it, GO. It wont look like George W. Bush.

            Everything is subjective, right GO? Who can really say what a terrorist is, right?

            Riiiggghhhttt….

          5. Alaina Segovia on 04.02.2009 at 22:05 (Reply) (Comments won't nest below this level)

            At least Sara Palin knows when Tax Day is and that it comes every year.

  5. East of Eden on 04.02.2009 at 12:34 (Reply)

    SICK….

  6. Cordeiro on 04.02.2009 at 14:54 (Reply)

    I’m not a lawyer, but I’ll play one on PD.

    There is a federal statute someplace in the US Code that prohibits anyone other than authorized administration personnel from conducting any diplomacy in the name of the United States. As Obama’s actions pre-dated his ascenion to the Oval, technically his actions would violate this statue.

    But of course, we’re talking about the Obamessiah, so rules and regulations don’t apply to him.

    1. Rob on 04.02.2009 at 15:03 (Reply)

      They barely apply to any government officials in this country. Most Presidents and administrations would be locked away if the laws of our country were followed.

    2. Scott A. Robinson on 04.02.2009 at 15:03 (Reply)

      I’m sure “J” will have some great reason why Obama was acting like he was the President before he was the President.

      It makes me wonder what these “talks” were really all about, especially considering most of the world leaders supported Obama.

      Or he’ll just say “that’s not true!”

      1. Alaina Segovia on 04.02.2009 at 15:48 (Reply)

        Let me take a shot at answering for J… Obama got a mandate from the American people and Bush was worthless and violating the Consitution.

        1. J on 05.02.2009 at 00:22 (Reply)

          I have never said anything about a mandate for Obama. As for Bush, well, I wasn’t going to mention Bush. How do I know that? I already posted a response.

          “But since the term track II denotes nonofficial and informal conversations using unofficial actors, I assume they were unofficial and informal.”

      2. J on 05.02.2009 at 00:27 (Reply)

        Look no further than your local search engine Scott. A simple search for “track 2″ diplomacy will explain that the term track II denotes nonofficial and informal conversations using unofficial actors.

    3. J on 05.02.2009 at 00:25 (Reply)

      That implies that they were acting as US diplomats. But the term “track 2″ explains why that is not true.

      1. Scott A. Robinson on 05.02.2009 at 08:03 (Reply)

        J,

        I am well aware of what “track II” means. However, the Obama team was in no position to properly have such discussions prior to winning the election.

        Furthermore, do you really believe these were only “track II” talks? Well, I shouldn’t ask you that, I’m sure you do, because you follow lock-step behind ‘Lord’ Obama.

        I, and probably many of my friends here on PD, am quite skeptical that these “talks” remained within the loose definition of “track II”.

        1. J on 06.02.2009 at 01:45 (Reply)

          We are talking about what the article reported. So speculating beyond track 2 talks is just speculation.

          I’m assuming the purpose of these talks was to monitor the situations at hand. I assume because it is only thing that makes sense. These people have not enough leverage to conduct diplomacy. There would be no purpose in conducting talks that are beyond talk 2 because that would not be conducive to the desired goal, nor would meaningful progress be possible.

          Finally, I don’t get what you are saying with “Lord” Obama business. You don’t know the full extent beyond my thought processes. I speak in defense of him because I can understand his positions, without your ideological blinders. I can understand your positions as well. As such, I have never insulted any of you based on the blind following of Bush as he lead us into a ditch. Yes, I have criticized Bush, but never anyone personally to my knowledge.

          1. Scott A. Robinson on 06.02.2009 at 08:40 (Reply) (Comments won't nest below this level)

            And therein lies the problem. You claim I have blindly followed Bush. I have shown you many times that I have not.

            When have you opposed Lord Obama on any matter of substance?

            By the way, that was very liberal of you taking offense to me calling him “Lord”. Liberals, always creating victims.

          2. German Observer on 06.02.2009 at 09:30 (Reply) (Comments won't nest below this level)

            Scott, you are really hardcore. Damn funny!

          3. Scott A. Robinson on 06.02.2009 at 09:58 (Reply)

            I do enjoy a laugh at that video :-)

          4. German Observer on 06.02.2009 at 10:38 (Reply) (Comments won't nest below this level)

            Yeah, the video is funny – in many respects. Well but to tell the truth, among many other things I laughed more about, that you obviously fetched it out of your cupboard to prove that J actually sees Obama as his Lord. At least it had to purpose to underline your argument.

            Please go on, I have a lot of work to do and some comedy is always welcome.

          5. Scott A. Robinson on 06.02.2009 at 11:43 (Reply)

            I wasn’t trying to prove anything. It’s just an entertaining video. However, I have yet to see “J” oppose Obama on anything, as he wrongfully claims I do with Bush.

          6. German Observer on 06.02.2009 at 17:08 (Reply) (Comments won't nest below this level)

            Scott, tell me what ever you like. To link that video at this place had a purpose.

            Anyway, I cannot speak for J and I don’t want to either. But as for me, I certainly have a lot of points to criticize about Obama and I don’t like all of his plans.

            But this is not the point of discussion on this blog and not the climate to discuss these issues. This platform is designed or at least used by the far most contributors as a means to spread a lot of venom about the damned liberals and to reassure each other of their “true” attitudes. That’s fine and okay, I have a lot of fun here. But don’t expect anyone to have a serious discussion here. So the only thing people like J can do is to set a stop-sign every by and then. Do you really conclude that people like J, Keegan or me see Obama as their Lord only because they don’t criticize him. No Scott, you don’t. The intention is, to make them look a bit naive.

          7. J on 07.02.2009 at 03:43 (Reply)

            By “any of you”, I mean the other conservatives here, who have given Bush benefit of doubt many times, as well as in the case of enhanced interrogation techniques or the Iraq War(which I believe you have defend, I might be wrong). You brought up “many of my friends” so I used them in my argument.

            You don’t call him Lord because he is president and this is the United States. It is unusual. The only possible reason to do so would be to imply something, which I inferred to be an insult based of your previous arguments about my “ideological blinders”.

            Like I said, we are less than a month into his presidency. Generally, many of this stuff is down the line Democratic agenda, so I can’t complain. This site’s posts mainly consist of the GOP’s type of problems, so I can’t imagine agreeing with any of them. I can’t recall this site posting this, but I am really against William J. Lynn III, a lobbyist, for the Deputy Secretary of Defense, for example.

  7. Brian H on 04.02.2009 at 16:08 (Reply)

    The fact that he designed his own Presidential Seal was probably a good clue that he was a tad bit ahead of himself.

Leave a comment