I am speechless. And horrified.Why would Obama refuse Al-Qaeda members? Because the Mansourian candidate is shutting down Gitmo?
Obama Declines Iran Offer of al-Qaida Members Ken Timmerman, Newsmax
When Iranian government official Ahmad Samavati arrived in Washington, D.C., in February at the head of a five-man negotiating team, he thought he had an offer the Obama administration couldn’t refuse.
The Iranian regime was going to turn over scores of top al-Qaida operatives, including some on the FBI’s “Most Wanted Terrorists” list.
To Samavati’s surprise, the State Department officials he met declined the offer. “They told him they did not want any al-Qaida people. They told him they didn’t want them in the United States,” an Iranian source familiar with the negotiations told Newsmax.
The decline, and the very fact that the Iranian regime sent Samavati to Washington in the first place, shows the profound policy shift that has occurred in both Tehran and Washington since Barack Obama became president.
But Washington seems to be going in one direction and Tehran in another.
In the annual report on terrorism it released last April, the State Department blasted Iran for its unwillingness to cooperate in arresting, rendering, or controlling al-Qaida members operating from its territory.
“Iran has repeatedly resisted numerous calls to transfer custody of its AQ [al-Qaida] detainees to their countries of origin or third countries for interrogation or trial. Iran also continued to fail to control the activities of some AQ members who fled to Iran following the fall of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan,” the report stated.
Obama’s determination to shift gears on Iran is no secret.
He announced his intention to negotiate with the regime during the presidential campaign, and he has repeated that determination many times since taking office.
But no one at Foggy Bottom will comment on why the State Department refused the Iranian offer in February, despite numerous phone messages and e-mails entreaties.
To piece together this story, which goes beyond the public policy statements from the administration, Newsmax has sought out Iranians with personal knowledge of the secret negotiations, including some who work closely with the Iranian government and current and former U.S. officials in the military and intelligence community.
Persian-language Web sites also have detailed leaks from Tehran.
At the time Samavati came to Washington, the State Department was still in the throes of a “policy review” concerning Iran.
So on one level, his offer was premature. But beyond that, the Obama administration, like the Bush administration before it, may be simply too disorganized to coordinate a government-wide response to such a forward-leaning proposal, a source close to the negotiations suggested.
There is much more. Go.
Pastorius,
ReplyDeleteWell, I think Clinton Refused to Take Osama, when the Sudanese offered him, his head on a platter.
Damien,
ReplyDeleteHere's factcheck.org on that:
I just read the post on which I am guessing this comment was made. I'm guessing it came from this post:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/33536_ADL_Condemns_Remarks_by_Geert_Wilders
Funny thing is, while I do believe that Johnson is a turncoat, I don't disagree with him on most of his points.
And neither do I disagree with him here. At least not in a fundamental way.
Geerts quote was: In his speeches, he claimed that “Islam is not a religion” and “the right to religious freedom should not apply to this totalitarian ideology called Islam.”
My disagreement with Charles (and the ADL, by the way - who are a completely fucking useless organization - almost worse than the SPLC) on this subject is one of degree and context, but not a fundamental difference.
Degree? Well, Geert's comment was over-the-top.
Context? Geert needs to clarify what he means by Totalitarian ideology.
The fact is, there are many Muslims who do not live according to the "Totalitarian ideology" of Islam. Instead, they live according to an Islam that they make up out of their hearts.
The Tao is one but sages call it by many names. 72 names for God and 72 tribes in the world.
Romans 2:
12For all who have sinned (W)without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law;
13for it is (X)not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified.
14For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do (Y)instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves,
15in that they show (Z)the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them,
16on the day when, (AA)according to my gospel, (AB)God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.
Geert, and everyone else, who hates this Totalitarian aspect of Islam needs to make sure that we leave room for those who do not practice Islam as it is taught. This must be done on an individual level, not on a political level.
However, the political world needs to make laws which create the distinction as well.
This is why I advocate declaring the preaching of Jihad and Sharia to be treason.
What we object to in Islam is Jihad and Sharia. They can keep pretty much everything else (but, of course, what is Islam without those two tenets). Let them do their prayers. Let them go to Mecca. Let them call on "Allah". Let them wear their dumbass clothing, etc.
But, Jihad and Sharia are out.
This is the context in which I would agree with Wilders.
Wilders problem is a lack of subtlety.
It is also the problem with Pamela, and a lot of our other fellow anti-Jihad friends.
In my opinion, the criticism of Bill Clinton on this point is off base.
ReplyDeleteWe were not at war with Al Qaeda at the time.
Now, we are.
Well, at least we are at war with man-made disasters.
When it comes to this, Obama has definitely gone off the deep end. No matter anything else, it was and is Al Qaeda we are at war with.
ReplyDeleteI honestly don't think Obama believes we are at war at all.
He's going to close Gitmo, where would we house them, without an American NIMBY uproar? And how would all those who voted for peace love and understanding feel if he was suddenly taking prisoners and locking them up?
ReplyDeleteHe may not want to give the appearance of you gave us AQ operatives now we owe you one.
"They told him they didn’t want them in the United States"
Even with Bush they were largely not held in the U.S. but O is closing down the black sites.
I'm with Christine. I think he didn't know what to do with them AND he doesn't understand we are at war.
And it was very political on his part.
And I don't agree with the decision at all.
New rally cry?
ReplyDeleteIslam? OK
Sharia? NO WAY!
Yes, I think Christine is right. But still, I am stunned by this.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that he does not recognize that we are at war (or so it appears) is just freaking hard to understand.
Why does he talk about invading Pakistan if he doesn't think we're at war?
???
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteThat's great. Good one.
I'm not so stunned. I still think it is also Obama being a politician and playing to his base. Close Gitmo then imprison more? He'd lose even more support than he is.
ReplyDeleteMR,
ReplyDeleteWhat the name for the idea that the simplest idea is probably likely to be true?
Pastorius,
ReplyDeleteYou Wrote,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What the name for the idea that the simplest idea is probably likely to be true?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I believe that would be Occam's_razorI should know, because I'm into the Skeptical Movement, as well as the anti Jihad Movement.
Pastorius -- Occam's Razor. The idea that, all other things being equal, the simplest explanation is probably the correct one. A concept I almost always fall back on.
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_Razor
heh. Damien types quicker than me.
ReplyDeleteHi Damien!
Hi, midnight rider!
ReplyDeleteMaybe I just notice Pastorius' question before you did.
That's it.
ReplyDeleteOccam's Razor says you're right, MR.
Jeepers...
ReplyDelete1) ADL, go to the ADL site and send them a what for ...they get scared, that's why they act the way they do
2)Geert deserves criticism when he goes over the top (as he did), NOT CONDEMNATION
3)Timmerman is a good man, and his Iran books show a great deal of thought considering when they were written
4) Jaco, WE'RE SUBTLE? Then again, compared to some, we are.
5) The state dept is plenty out of control and IN CONTROL of morons enuf to convince themselves that some POLICY controls our ability to get Al Qaeda anywhere anytime for any reason in any manner. And if you are familiar with how the stage was set for the Brits to lose at Saratoga, it is VERY WORRISOME and most believable, and an argument to find and elect any small govt conservative you can find.
6) Still, this is hard to swallow as being correct. Research on Ahmad Samavati is just a huge circle jerk of refs to this article. There is NO OTHER REF to this guy.
I ma going to with hold committing to believe this as is, but Timmerman is usu right. If this story was true, there SHOULD BE AN EARTHQUAKE in right side media lous enuf to make the MSM, certainly the Wsh Times and Fox, eh?
So, i guess, Epa, that you are stunned as well.
ReplyDeleteI know MR's answer makes sense. But, to me, this is a stunning turn of events.