Justin Raimondo has an interesting look at what at the time was going to be the third and final debate between the Presidential contenders.
Raimondo had written:
On the other hand, both the White House and the Iranians are denying direct talks are in the offing: and while cowardice is a signature characteristic of this administration, especially when it comes to dealing with the phony Iranian nuclear “crisis,” the Iranians have good reason to keep this under deep cover. They are all too aware of the Israel lobby’s ability to squelch efforts to reach a peaceful settlement. According to the Times, Tehran has agreed to talks only after the election, on the grounds that they don’t know whom they’ll be dealing with in the White House come January.
My students will be asked to explain how this may be similar to the Native American issues that surrounded the 1828 election. Therein, John Quincy Adams was derided for insisting that treaties signed with Natives be honored. Andrew Jackson was able to gain some popularity by…disagreeing.
What kind of conversation do you think we’ll have?
Article can be found at: http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2012/10/21/before-the-election-a-pattern-of-provocations/