Could Ahmadinejad pull a Putin?

Golnaz Esfandiari reports on Iran's latest political controversy:

During the interview, the reporter asked the president if he planned to publicly name people involved in state corruption, as he had promised to do. "There is only one year left of the government…," the reporter began.

"How do you know it will be the final year?" a smiling Ahmadinejad responded. The government is part of the Iranian nation, he added, and the nation will remain forever.

The cryptic answer made headlines on several Iranian news sites, including Khabaronline, which said Ahmadinejad made the comment with what it called a "meaningful" smile.

One member of the Iranian parliament's executive board accused the president of attempting to put in place a "Putin/Medvedev presidency plan," though it's unclear who would be Medvedev in that scenario. 

If Ahmadinejad were planning something like this, it's seems odd that he would telegraph it this way in an interview. 



Romney's climate change answer: All of the above

As has been covered extensively during the campaign, Mitt Romney believed humans caused climate change before he didn't believe it and before it became a punch-line in his speeches. In response to a question on the climate a science questionnaire from Nature this week, also filled out by Obama, Romney seems to be trying to have it both ways:

I am not a scientist myself, but my best assessment of the data is that the world is getting warmer, that human activity contributes to that warming, and that policymakers should therefore consider the risk of negative consequences. However, there remains a lack of scientific consensus on the issue — on the extent of the warming, the extent of the human contribution, and the severity of the risk — and I believe we must support continued debate and investigation within the scientific community. Ultimately, the science is an input to the public policy decision; it does not dictate a particular policy response.

So he does believe that humans are causing climate change and that lawmakers should consider the subject, but doesn't believe the science is settled. And even if it were, the science shouldn't dictate a  "particular policy response." This is what happens when statements are tailored to avoid any assertions that could later be contradicted by either real-world events or the speaker's own actions.