Obama-Biden Reservations Confirmed

Reverend_Hellh0und · 09-17-08, 08:30 AM

This will be the gift that keeps on giving for Obama....

Quote:

The American Spectator

Obama-Biden Reservations Confirmed

The three problems, according to campaign sources: The report was true, there were at least three other people in the room with Obama and Zebari to confirm the conversation, and there was concern that there were enough aggressive reporters based in Baghdad with the sources to confirm the conversation that to deny the comments would create a bigger problem.

Mentork · 09-17-08, 08:33 AM

Come on reverend, can't you at least wait tell' it gets on faux?

American · 09-17-08, 08:33 AM

Obama should be censured for this. Foreign policy negotiation is none of his damn business. President Bush is still the President, and Obama is out of his lane.

Objective Voice · 09-17-08, 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by American

Obama should be censured for this. Foreign policy negotiation is none of his damn business. President Bush is still the President, and Obama is out of his lane.

Well, nobody said much about Reagan when he negotiated w/Iran not to release the hostages before he was sworn in as president. That one event killed Carter's 2nd bid to the presidency and put Reagan on a path straight to the White House. Of course, this does make Obama look bad when he's been a strong proponant for bringing our troops home. One could argue that it's politics as usual, whereas w/Reagan the other could argue it's a strong-arm tactic to add a feather in his cap after he becomes president...again, much as Reagan did so long ago.

(And mind you, I liked Reagan...still believe to this day he did more to make American's believe in America again than any president since JFK, but you really can't condemn Obama w/o also condeming Reagan for doing the exact same thing.)

Summerwind · 09-17-08, 02:49 PM

Are you kidding me? This is ridiculous. OF COURSE Iraq should wait at least till the election to see who will be president. We don't have to go back very far (Duh, GWB) to see that agreements set into by one administration are often ignored, tabled, and withdrawn from by the next administration. It is wise for Obama to recommend this to any nation that is making pacts with US right now; HONEST and wise.

Since by all indication, Obama is more energetic about Iraqi's actually having sovereignty than GWB or McC; it seems a perfectly sensible for Obama to suggest that the POV he will bring to the table may be worth waiting for.

The idea that GWB may just have to accept timetables before the election would hurt McC way more than it would hurt Obama; if anything, Obama suggesting a delay helps McCain. There's no dirty politics here.

Gill · 09-17-08, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Objective Voice

Well, nobody said much about Reagan when he negotiated w/Iran not to release the hostages before he was sworn in as president. That one event killed Carter's 2nd bid to the presidency and put Reagan on a path straight to the White House.

Please tell me that you're joking.

Gibberish · 09-17-08, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by American

Obama should be censured for this. Foreign policy negotiation is none of his damn business. President Bush is still the President, and Obama is out of his lane.

Two things about your post.

1. Since when are Senator's forbidden from negotiating with foreign nations?
2. What did Obama negotiate with Iraq?

Gill · 09-17-08, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by American

Obama should be censured for this. Foreign policy negotiation is none of his damn business. President Bush is still the President, and Obama is out of his lane.

Yep, technically he broke the law as defined by the Logan Act. But, he will never be censured for it.

Gibberish · 09-17-08, 03:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gill

Yep, technically he broke the law as defined by the Logan Act. But, he will never be censured for it.

This is where I disagree. Exactly what part of the Logan Act did Obama violate?

Is a sitting Senator considered as not having "authority of the United States" to have "correspondence or intercourse" with foreign governments?

Harshaw · 09-17-08, 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gibberish

This is where I disagree. Exactly what part of the Logan Act did Obama violate?

Is a sitting Senator considered as not having "authority of the United States" to have "correspondence or intercourse" with foreign governments?

No, he does not have that authority, if in so doing he's attempting to intervene in the foreign policy of the United States.

Foreign policy is Executive branch, exclusively. The Senate consents to treaty ratification (not negotiation) and the appointment of Executive officers, but that's all they do.