Obama Tried To Stall Gis' Iraq Withdrawal

Harshaw · 09-16-08, 09:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SouthernDemocrat

As to the actual subject of the thread. It seems that we only have a New York Tabloid making this claim. Whether one agrees with Obama's ideology or not, by all accounts he seems to be a decent individual and a man of integrity, thus I find this claim extremely hard to believe. In fact, I don't believe it at all.

There needs to be more than this, yes.

But it certainly warrants a further look, at least as much as anything Palin may have done does.

And I don't even need to worry about integrity when what I've seen from his ego is enough for me to imagine he might have done this.

Because if it's true, whether or not he should actually be prosecuted is entirely separate from the fact that it should be a disqualifier from holding the office of the President.

And it's interesting that you bring up the 1980 election, because that's when the Democrats started their scorched earth campaigning of (wait for it) personal destruction. Part of that were accusations that the Reagan campaign negotiated with Iran to hold the hostages longer. Now, not a shred of evidence of that ever emerged, and perhaps nothing will ever come of this thing now.

But I find the protestations and the sneering about Republican campaign tactics entirely laughable.

Ikari · 09-16-08, 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GottaHurt

Obama better pray to Allah it's not true. This blogger raises an interesting point:

This is huge, folks. This is Logan Act type stuff. The Logan Act reads:

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply himself, or his agent, to any foreign government, or the agents thereof, for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.

All American Blogger Obama on Iraq Withdrawal: Can We Hold Off On This ‘Til I’m President?

The aristocracy gets to do whatever they want. But I think this warrants a hard look into the activity. If Obama did this, then he broke the law and must answer for it. I don't put it past previous politicians having done the same thing, but if we want to control the system then we can't excuse the sins of candidates by the sins of past politicians. If the troops can be pulled out, it should be done as soon as possible and not for the achievement of one's own political needs. It's a very strong accusation which needs to be properly investigated.

Harshaw · 09-16-08, 04:05 PM

The Obama campaign has confirmed that the conversation took place and it was substantially similar to the Iraqi foreign minister's take on it.

AFP: Obama camp hits back at Iraq double-talk claim

From the Taheri article:

Quote:

"He asked why we were not prepared to delay an agreement until after the US elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington," Zebari said in an interview, according to Taheri.

From the Obama campaign:

Quote:

But Obama's national security spokeswoman Wendy Morigi said Taheri's article bore "as much resemblance to the truth as a McCain campaign commercial."

In fact, Obama had told the Iraqis that they should not rush through a "Strategic Framework Agreement" governing the future of US forces until after President George W. Bush leaves office, she said.

In the face of resistance from Bush, the Democrat has long said that any such agreement must be reviewed by the US Congress as it would tie a future administration's hands on Iraq.

Of course, they contradict themselves here:

Quote:

"Barack Obama has never urged a delay in negotiations, nor has he urged a delay in immediately beginning a responsible drawdown of our combat brigades," Morigi said.

So, the Obama camp's characterization is actually more strongly-worded ("told they should not") than what Taheri reported Zebari said ("asked why" they did not).

Either way, it's an interference in the agreement on and implementation of US policy -- AND despite how they try to spin it, it delays bringing troops home, leaving them in what Obama consider's harm's way, simply because it may not be done Obama's way.

AND . . . it's just frickin' whining. Whining to the foreign minister of another country and telling them that they should delay making a decision about the future of their country because in so doing they might make an agreement which he might not prefer if he becomes President. Awwww. Can't a messiah get some love?

bhkad · 09-16-08, 08:47 PM

Good post, Harshaw!

I'd already prepared this, which reiterates what your post says, so I will post it to bump the thread.

Did Obama just confirm Taheri? Update: Team McCain responds
posted at 9:02 am on September 16, 2008 by Ed Morrissey

Quote:

Glenn Reynolds takes a close look at Barack Obama’s response to Amir Taheri and doesn’t see any daylight between them. Yesterday, Taheri accused Obama of attempting to derail a status-of-forces agreement between the US and Iraq by telling the Iraqis to wait until after the American elections and stop negotiating with the Bush administration. Obama responded by essentially confirming Taheri’s account:

In the New York Post, conservative Iranian-born columnist Amir Taheri quoted Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari as saying the Democrat made the demand when he visited Baghdad in July, while publicly demanding an early withdrawal.

“He asked why we were not prepared to delay an agreement until after the US elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington,” Zebari said in an interview, according to Taheri.

“However, as an Iraqi, I prefer to have a security agreement that regulates the activities of foreign troops, rather than keeping the matter open,” Zebari reportedly said. …

Obama’s national security spokeswoman Wendy Morigi said Taheri’s article bore “as much resemblance to the truth as a McCain campaign commercial.”

In fact, Obama had told the Iraqis that they should not rush through a “Strategic Framework Agreement” governing the future of US forces until after President George W. Bush leaves office, she said.

Which is exactly what Taheri wrote. Barack Obama went to Iraq and interfered with the diplomatic efforts of the elected United States government, in a war zone no less, by telling the Iraqis to stop negotiating with the President. How exactly does that make Taheri’s column untruthful?

It wasn’t enough for Obama to fail at forcing the nation into a defeat in Iraq when he opposed the surge. Now he has interfered with our efforts to stabilize Iraq and provide for its security after the surge succeeded in keeping Iraq from falling into a failed state. And when he got caught working for failure and defeat, he tried making it into a smear against John McCain.

That’s not leadership America needs from a Senator, let alone a President. The Senate should investigate this as a gross violation of the Constitution and the separation of powers between the branches of government.

Update: Team McCain’s response so far, given by Randy Scheuneman:

“At this point, it is not yet clear what official American negotiations Senator Obama tried to undermine with Iraqi leaders, but the possibility of such actions is unprecedented. It should be concerning to all that he reportedly urged that the democratically-elected Iraqi government listen to him rather than the US administration in power. If news reports are accurate, this is an egregious act of political interference by a presidential candidate seeking political advantage overseas. Senator Obama needs to reveal what he said to Iraq’s Foreign Minister during their closed door meeting. The charge that he sought to delay the withdrawal of Americans from Iraq raises serious questions about Senator Obama’s judgment and it demands an explanation.” —Randy Scheunemann, Senior Adviser McCain-Palin 2008

Hot Air Blog Archive Did Obama just confirm Taheri? Update: Team McCain responds

"In fact, Obama had told the Iraqis that they should not rush through a “Strategic Framework Agreement” governing the future of US forces until after President George W. Bush leaves office, she said."

Obama's campaign just confirmed Taheri's charge!

:eek

Gibberish · 09-16-08, 10:07 PM

Things definitely look bad for Obama.

Harshaw · 09-16-08, 10:24 PM

Very bad.

As I said above, given his ego, it's a conversation I could absolutely imagine taking place, and it sure looks like it did.

So, how does one go about defending this?

Reverend_Hellh0und · 09-16-08, 11:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Harshaw

Very bad.

As I said above, given his ego, it's a conversation I could absolutely imagine taking place, and it sure looks like it did.

So, how does one go about defending this?

start with a media blackout, followed by thier shielding, and cover up. smile and wave.

MrVicchio · 10-09-08, 09:31 PM

Quote:

WASH TIMES Friday: Obama secretly tried to sway Iraqi government to ignore Bush deal on keeping troops in Iraq... Developing...

DRUDGE REPORT 2008®

Quote:

The Logan Act is a United States federal law that forbids unauthorized citizens from negotiating with foreign governments. It was passed in 1799 and last amended in 1994. Violation of the Logan Act is a felony, punishable under federal law with imprisonment of up to three years.
The text of the Act is broad and is addressed at any attempt of a US citizen to conduct foreign relations without authority. However, there is no record of any convictions or even prosecutions under the Logan Act.[1][2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan_Act

TBone · 10-09-08, 09:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrVicchio

DRUDGE REPORT 2008®

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan_Act

Sort of like the Swift Boat Vets,or the Dan Rather set up? Mysteriously, the RNC comes up with this stuff when they are about to get their butts kicked. I bet you a soda Karl Rove is involved with this?

I hope they are wrong, so Obama can sue the f^&% out of the them and quite the paranoid Right Wingers and their Pundits.

MrVicchio · 10-09-08, 09:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TBone

Sort of like the Swift Boat Vets,or the Dan Rather set up? Mysteriously, the RNC comes up with this stuff when they are about to get their butts kicked. I bet you a soda Karl Rove is involved with this?

I hope they are wrong, so Obama can sue the f^&% out of the them and quite the paranoid Right Wingers and their Pundits.

If they have the evidence, and what I am hearing is they actually do, to prove Obama was out of bounds in tis, will you call for an investigation and prosecution of Obama? I'd go far as to say you'd still vote Obama even if the evidence is clear cut, inescapable proof he violated the law.

Dan Rather set up?? Are you kidding me? Seriously? Rather ran with faked papers and went down for it. The guy that made his break covering a storm went out in a storm of his own making.

Teh Swift Boat Vets came out and said what they wanted too, blame Kerry for being unable to, even with the entire media behind him, to counter their claims.

09-16-08, 10:07 PM	#45
Gibberish Sage Join Date: Oct 2005 Last Seen: 03-17-10 08:43 PM Location: San Diego, CA Posts: 6,089 Thanks: 698 Thanked 1,167 Times in 782 Posts Lean: Moderate Gender:	Re: Obama Tried To Stall Gis' Iraq Withdrawal Things definitely look bad for Obama.
	__________________ When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?

09-16-08, 10:24 PM	#46
Harshaw Sage Join Date: Oct 2005 Last Seen: 02-01-10 01:16 PM Posts: 6,414 Thanks: 111 Thanked 2,172 Times in 1,246 Posts	Re: Obama Tried To Stall Gis' Iraq Withdrawal Very bad. As I said above, given his ego, it's a conversation I could absolutely imagine taking place, and it sure looks like it did. So, how does one go about defending this?
	__________________ 2001-2008: Dissent is the highest form of patriotism. 2009: Dissent is the highest form of racism.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode