Who Do You Put in Charge of Secret Talks With the World's Leading State Sponsor of Terror?
If you're Obama, you reportedly trust Valerie Jarrett, noted Chicago political hack. Here's the YNET report:
Obama's woman in Tehran
One of US president's senior advisors is secretly making efforts to establish line of communication with Iran
A Chicago lawyer is the key player behind the secret talks between the US and Iran. Yedioth Ahronoth reported Monday. A close friend of Michelle Obama, Valerie Jarrett is assisting the US government communicate behind the scenes with the representatives of Iran's supreme leader Ali Khamenei.
Jarret, who was born in the Iranian city of Shiraz, is a senior advisor to US President Barack Obama.
I don't care if you're Karl Rove or Valerie Jarrett, if you're the political operative for the Republicans or Democrats. But should you really be leading our secret talks with the world's leading state sponsor of terror?
- Comment (25)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
Oct '10
Re: Who Do You Put in Charge of Secret Talks With the World's Leading State Sponsor of Terror?
I would assume (I would *hope* this is the reason) that this is because of her Iranian heritage, though I know nothing about how long she lived there or anything.
Either way, political operatives should *not* be involved in the governing of the nation, which includes negotiations with foreign powers. Operatives are advisors. That's all they should be doing.
*edit* Of course, as others have said below, I don't think we should be having any talks like this to begin with. Just commenting in general on having her being involved.
Edited on November 5, 2012 at 4:08pmJul '12
Re: Who Do You Put in Charge of Secret Talks With the World's Leading State Sponsor of Terror?
I'm not sure I understand: do you mean that a more qualified person should conduct these talks, or that we shouldn't have them at all?
I think that warnings with actual teeth should precede any secret negotiations. This looks like Neville Chamberlain, but in secret, which is even worse.
Edited on November 5, 2012 at 4:49pmJun '10
Re: Who Do You Put in Charge of Secret Talks With the World's Leading State Sponsor of Terror?
I would send Dave Carter.
May '10
Re: Who Do You Put in Charge of Secret Talks With the World's Leading State Sponsor of Terror?
Because we all know that nothing says strength to an extreme Islamic cleric like sending a woman to negotiate.
True, it is the Islamist problem culturally, but three out of the last four Secretaries of State have been women. I just don't thing they take them (or us) seriously.
Apr '11
Re: Who Do You Put in Charge of Secret Talks With the World's Leading State Sponsor of Terror?
Well, apparently she was born in Iran. I mean how many state department officials can put that on their resume?
Jun '10
Re: Who Do You Put in Charge of Secret Talks With the World's Leading State Sponsor of Terror?
This would be like Clinton sending Dick Morris, right?
I know Dick is on our side now, but can you imagine sending him to handle delicate foreign affairs negotiations? And he's better than Jarrett.
Oct '10
Re: Who Do You Put in Charge of Secret Talks With the World's Leading State Sponsor of Terror?
PAH-thetic. Be very, very afraid...especially in the context of BHO's open mike slip-up with Medvedev.
Re: Who Do You Put in Charge of Secret Talks With the World's Leading State Sponsor of Terror?
tabula rasa: This would be like Clinton sending Dick Morris, right?
I know Dick is on our side now, but can you imagine sending him to handle delicate foreign affairs negotiations? And he's better than Jarrett. · 4 minutes ago
Exactly. Look, it's bad enough for the country that political operatives dictate so much policy from the White House (Rove was the master at this) but to extend that to delicate diplomatic operations?
Sep '12
Re: Who Do You Put in Charge of Secret Talks With the World's Leading State Sponsor of Terror?
Valerie Jarrett has been Obama's Rasputin. He's clung to her in spite of reams of bad advice and consequently ignored saner voices. It boggles the mind that he would send someone to talk with those thugs at all, but that he would send someone with such terrible judgment.... well--it pretty much sums up his presidency.
Apr '11
Re: Who Do You Put in Charge of Secret Talks With the World's Leading State Sponsor of Terror?
I don't think she should be there because it takes away from her time running this country. She should have sent Obama. He doesn't seem to have a lot on his plate. He could have combined it with a fundraiser...sort of a win, win. And he could have told them how he had killed Osama.
May '10
Re: Who Do You Put in Charge of Secret Talks With the World's Leading State Sponsor of Terror?
The only gal to send is Ma Deuce.
Sep '12
Re: Who Do You Put in Charge of Secret Talks With the World's Leading State Sponsor of Terror?
David Horowitz at FrontPage Magazine has written booklets about the Muslim Brotherhood and its alliance with our current leaders in the WH. Hillary's Huma etc., are part of it all. Very scary.
Sep '11
Re: Who Do You Put in Charge of Secret Talks With the World's Leading State Sponsor of Terror?
She's his ideological compass. Who better to represent Obama -- you know, the guy who heads the government that's the only thing we all belong to? L'état, c'est moi et Valerie et...
Representing the people of the United States, on the other hand....
Jun '12
Re: Who Do You Put in Charge of Secret Talks With the World's Leading State Sponsor of Terror?
Reportedly, she made the decision to get Bin Laden, so why not let her negotiate for The One as well?
Jul '12
Re: Who Do You Put in Charge of Secret Talks With the World's Leading State Sponsor of Terror?
I can't explain it, but every time I see a picture of Valerie Jarrett, I get the heebie-jeebies. I wouldn't send her to negotiate with the White House chef!
Edited on November 5, 2012 at 4:40pmSep '12
Re: Who Do You Put in Charge of Secret Talks With the World's Leading State Sponsor of Terror?
I would think Alinskyite Jarret would have much more in common with Islamist revolutionaries than some mid-level State puke who prefers his leftism with healthy dollop of noblesse oblige and who wouldn't dream of touching a Molotov Cocktail after working hours.
Aug '11
Re: Who Do You Put in Charge of Secret Talks With the World's Leading State Sponsor of Terror?
Mollie Hemingway, Ed.
Look, it's bad enough for the country that political operatives dictate so much policy from the White House (Rove was the master at this) but to extend that to delicate diplomatic operations? · 1 hour ago
This is very troubling on a number of levels--if only for the obvious reason you stated. Valerie Jarrett's judgment has been flawed on a number of occasions (e.g., the fiasco attempt to bring the Olympics to Chicago, for starters).
I'm trying hard not to go all conspiracy theory here, but the choice of envoy and the lack of transparency are significant red flags in my mind.
Mar '11
Re: Who Do You Put in Charge of Secret Talks With the World's Leading State Sponsor of Terror?
So far as I can tell, Jarret is something of a Machiavellian operator--which makes me distrust her greatly on domestic affairs, but may make her a good negotiator if she's as clever as has been hinted at.
In general, Mollie, I very much share your dislike of political operatives making policy of any kind in the place of elected officials. That said, I do recognize that sometimes unelected but closely trusted advisors to the President head diplomatic missions (though they are accompanied by other officials)--or are present at negotiations. Sometimes you need someone in the room you trust completely.
But here's another question: Jarret was born in Iran to American parents working there. Does she speak Farsi and Arabic fluently? No doubt her interlocutors will speak English to her, but it is amazing the subtle yet important things one can pick up on speaking the local language.
If she does, perhaps she is the right person to lead the delegation. If she doesn't, my initial inclination is no.
Edited on November 5, 2012 at 5:26pmSep '12
Re: Who Do You Put in Charge of Secret Talks With the World's Leading State Sponsor of Terror?
The reason for Valerie Jarrett's involvement is obvious - Obama's foreign policy is primarily driven by his U.S. domestic political concerns (i.e., how his foreign policy moves will be perceived by U.S. voters). Actual U.S. foreign policy interests are secondary (see, for example, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, etc). Valerie Jarrett's participation is to ensure that Obama's political needs are being best served by whatever transpires with Iran.
Nov '11
Re: Who Do You Put in Charge of Secret Talks With the World's Leading State Sponsor of Terror?
Jarrett is the direct reason Obama bungled Benghazi.