What was in the letter?

U.S. Contacted Iran Supreme Leader Before Election

In the aftermath of the obviously rigged Iranian elections, it is now revealed that president Obama sent a letter to the real power in Iran prior to the elections. Not president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, but rather Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khameneiin. A letter in advance of the sham elections that president Obama had to know was about to occur. Khameneiin has even subsequently acknowledged receipt of the president's letter.

I for one am wondering what was in that letter. Will it ever be known? I seriously doubt it. Supposed national security and such will naturally preclude release of the letter until long after Obama is out of office and probably only after he is long since dead. Provided that this country even exist at that point in time.

But it would be interesting to see what this president was passing in back channels to this totalitarian theocracy of Islamic militancy. Am I alone in that thinking and curiosity? Am I alone in wondering what could have been of such importance, as to use back channel diplomacy to send a private communique to a totalitarian regime? Even Neville Chamberlain was more above board in his cowardly appeasing approach to Hitler. Is this the style of diplomacy that is to be revisited and revived by this president? And what other plans does he have in the making.


The first question that should be asked of this president IMO is why? Why send letters to Islamic tyrants through back channel diplomatic pouches? And why do it in advance of an election that any reasonable person (other than Jimmy Carter) would have to realize is going to be a sham. And have there been other letters sent to other extremist radical leaders? Is this why there has been no response from Obama on the intended missile launch by N Korea? Has a gentleman's agreement already been reached between him and Kim?

Letters to Kim Jong? Letters to Hugo Chavez? Where does the trail end and at what level of complicity is our president involved in facilitating socialism, communism, fascism and tyranny globally.

I for one in light of what I am seeing believe these are fair questions. The problem is? We as citizens of this country have few if any individuals in media, willing to speak truth to power. And fewer than that who will ask those probing questions in our behalf.

I watch the news reports and read the internet daily and I know the answers that I keep coming up with to some of these questions that I am raising. Especially in light of the president's performance on the Iranian election and the crisis that has followed since the rigged elections. IMO, legitimate and probing questions need to be asked by those claiming to be journalists and claiming to represent the best interests of "we the people." We gave them the constitutional right to ask the questions for us and they are abdicating their responsibility to the king.

If you ask my opinion? Obama's letter was an acknowledgment of his advanced intent to do absolutely nothing in the face of what he already knew would be the result of these elections. He already knew how the Iranians intended to handle this sham election and that they intended to put down any resistance to the outcome.

Obama IMO, was telling them in advance, that regardless of the published outcome in the American media or the reality of fact as would be leaked out eventually via the internet, that he would sit on his hands and do absolutely nothing. What other interpretation can be made in lieu of his actions (lack of action) as it concerns the fledgling revolution currently struggling for life in Iran.

I believe I know what other presidents of my lifetime would have done in this instance save one. Jimmy Carter would have been every bit as weak as Obama if not more, but I don't even think that Bill Clinton would have reacted so poorly and transiently and visibly weak on the international stage to the Iranians and terrorists as this president has. And I know what Reagan or either of the Bush's or the rest would have done I am fairly certain.

And yesterday, after over ten days of abject refusal to address the crisis in any substantive fashion, Obama was finally cornered. During yesterday's press conference from the White House, Major Garret of Fox news finally baited the dragon in his lair and took on the president head on. Garret asked the president pointedly and directly as it concerned his weak leadership concerning the events in Iran, "what took you so long?" (as in what took you so long to show any spine on the issue) What took you so long to denounce these repressive acts by the Iranians?



And the other networks present at the news conference suddenly seemed to find some collective balls after Garret of Fox news had finally cornered Obama on his weakness on the Iranian crisis.

Here are some of the other questions that were finally unleashed by a previously cowed media.



And once again the "I am the president of the United States and they are not" was about all that Obama had as a response or retort to justifiably probing questions of his administration and its failure to address the present day realities of threats to this country.

Meanwhile, Charles Gibson of ABC news is getting fitted and sized for his Lincoln bedroom slippers and bathrobe tonight, as he anchors a two hour ABC news extravaganza "Live from the White House." (The Barack Obama Socialist health care program submitted to America by the All Barack Channel.)

In any other era or at any other time where reason and common sense prevailed? Americans would be outraged and calling this production precisely what it is. They would be calling it propaganda and acknowledging the reality that we are on the cusp of Obama creating a "Ministry of Propaganda" and doing so with existing media resources.

But I guess we should first allow the man to have his say through his corrupted media mouthpieces before we call the reality before us what it is.