PDA

View Full Version : Obama secretly tries to stall troop withdraw!



Whet
9/15/2008, 08:04 AM
From the NY Post:

WHILE campaigning in public for a speedy withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, Sen. Barack Obama (http://www.nypost.com/news/p/obama_barack/obama_barack.htm) has tried in private to persuade Iraqi leaders to delay an agreement on a draw-down of the American military presence.
According to Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, Obama made his demand for delay a key theme of his discussions with Iraqi leaders in Baghdad in July.

"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.

Obama insisted that Congress should be involved in negotiations on the status of US troops - and that it was in the interests of both sides not to have an agreement negotiated by the Bush administration in its "state of weakness and political confusion."

"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 says.

Though Obama claims the US presence is "illegal," he suddenly remembered that Americans troops were in Iraq within the legal framework of a UN mandate. His advice was that, rather than reach an accord with the "weakened Bush administration," Iraq should seek an extension of the UN mandate.

While in Iraq, Obama also tried to persuade the US commanders, including Gen. David Petraeus, to suggest a "realistic withdrawal date." They declined.

Obama has made many contradictory statements with regard to Iraq. His latest position is that US combat troops should be out by 2010. Yet his effort to delay an agreement would make that withdrawal deadline impossible to meet.

Supposing he wins, Obama's administration wouldn't be fully operational before February - and naming a new ambassador to Baghdad and forming a new negotiation team might take longer still.

By then, Iraq will be in the throes of its own campaign season. Judging by the past two elections, forming a new coalition government may then take three months. So the Iraqi negotiating team might not be in place until next June.

Then, judging by how long the current talks have taken, restarting the process from scratch would leave the two sides needing at least six months to come up with a draft accord. That puts us at May 2010 for when the draft might be submitted to the Iraqi parliament - which might well need another six months to pass it into law.

Thus, the 2010 deadline fixed by Obama is a meaningless concept, thrown in as a sop to his anti-war base.

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and the Bush administration have a more flexible timetable in mind.

According to Zebari, the envisaged time span is two or three years - departure in 2011 or 2012. That would let Iraq hold its next general election, the third since liberation, and resolve a number of domestic political issues.

Even then, the dates mentioned are only "notional," making the timing and the cadence of withdrawal conditional on realities on the ground as appreciated by both sides.

Iraqi leaders are divided over the US election. Iraqi President Jalal Talabani (whose party is a member of the Socialist International) sees Obama as "a man of the Left" - who, once elected, might change his opposition to Iraq's liberation. Indeed, say Talabani's advisers, a President Obama might be tempted to appropriate the victory that America has already won in Iraq by claiming that his intervention transformed failure into success.

Maliki's advisers have persuaded him that Obama will win - but the prime minister worries about the senator's "political debt to the anti-war lobby" - which is determined to transform Iraq into a disaster to prove that toppling Saddam Hussein was "the biggest strategic blunder in US history."
Other prominent Iraqi leaders, such as Vice President Adel Abdul-Mahdi and Kurdish regional President Massoud Barzani, believe that Sen. John McCain would show "a more realistic approach to Iraqi issues."

Obama has given Iraqis the impression that he doesn't want Iraq to appear anything like a success, let alone a victory, for America. The reason? He fears that the perception of US victory there might revive the Bush Doctrine of "pre-emptive" war - that is, removing a threat before it strikes at America.

Despite some usual equivocations on the subject, Obama rejects pre-emption as a legitimate form of self -defense. To be credible, his foreign-policy philosophy requires Iraq to be seen as a failure, a disaster, a quagmire, a pig with lipstick or any of the other apocalyptic adjectives used by the American defeat industry in the past five years.

Yet Iraq is doing much better than its friends hoped and its enemies feared. The UN mandate will be extended in December, and we may yet get an agreement on the status of forces before President Bush leaves the White House in Januaryhttp://www.nypost.com/seven/09152008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/obama_tried_to_stall_gis_iraq_withdrawal_129150.ht m?page=0

Slimy "change merchant" that Barry Obama!

Civicus_Sooner
9/15/2008, 08:56 AM
Those zany politicians!

Partial Qualifier
9/15/2008, 09:00 AM
Indeed, say Talabani's advisers, a President Obama might be tempted to appropriate the victory that America has already won in Iraq by claiming that his intervention transformed failure into success.


I accept many politicians are professional liars, but if this is true - going these extra miles to align the smoke & mirrors, in this circumstance - that's just disgusting.

Civicus_Sooner
9/15/2008, 09:08 AM
I accept many politicians are professional liars, but if this is true - going these extra miles to align the smoke & mirrors, in this circumstance - that's just disgusting.Well, it looks like Bush is going to have a huge % of the troops either home or slaated to come home before the elections. That's gotta be making Obama's team lose sleep. I mean, when you're a one trick pony and your trick doesn't work anymore, what's next?

SoonerStormchaser
9/15/2008, 09:09 AM
Heh...I'm eagerly awaiting JM's spin on this.

Widescreen
9/15/2008, 09:11 AM
Heh...I'm eagerly awaiting JM's spin on this.

OBAMA CAN DO WHATEVER HE WANTS! HE IS NOT GOVERNED BY THE RULES OF THE MORTAL!

achiro
9/15/2008, 09:21 AM
IF this is true, wow!

CK Sooner
9/15/2008, 09:34 AM
NoBama!

Civicus_Sooner
9/15/2008, 09:45 AM
Heh...I'm eagerly awaiting JM's spin on this.Eh, why spin this? Just tell it like it is.

leavingthezoo
9/15/2008, 10:03 AM
i think our friend amir taheri has a history of making up stories. just sayin'...


A Saturday editorial condemning Iran was based on a report in a Canadian newspaper that has since been discredited. In a story written by Iranian-born analyst Amir Taheri, the National Post reported that the Iranian Parliament had given preliminary approval to a law to require Jews and other religious minorities to wear colored patches of cloth, evoking memories of the Holocaust. The National Post has since backed off its story, quoting a number of sources, including the lone Jewish member of the Iranian Parliament, as denying that such a measure was passed.

After the shocking story was published, a U.S. State Department spokesman said that such a law, if approved, would carry "clear echoes of Germany under Hitler.'' Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper was quoted as saying that Iran was "very capable'' of passing such a law, although he could not confirm that it had. Rabbi Marvin Hier, the dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles, told the National Post he had no independent confirmation that such a law was approved but believes it was considered by the Parliament.

A copy of the draft law obtained by the Associated Press did give preliminary approval to a law that would encourage Muslims to reject Western dress. The law would include economic incentives for local clothing manufacturers to offer Islamic-style attire and tariffs would be imposed on imports. But there was nothing in the draft of the law to require Jews and Christians to wear colored insignias.

For our part, we owe our readers an explanation - not excuses. In retrospect, we should have been more skeptical of the report and more diligent in our efforts to verify it.
http://www.sptimes.com/2006/05/23/Opinion/Correction__Iran_stor.shtml

that's just one example. but don't you boys worry. this one hasn't been debunked yet so you still got that to cling to.

:D

achiro
9/15/2008, 10:14 AM
i think our friend amir taheri has a history of making up stories. just sayin'...


http://www.sptimes.com/2006/05/23/Opinion/Correction__Iran_stor.shtml

that's just one example. but don't you boys worry. this one hasn't been debunked yet so you still got that to cling to.

:D

Which is why I said "if this is true"
But if it is true, a sitting senator speaking unofficially to a foreign government in regards to altering the timeframe/outcome of a war...isn't that illegal?

JohnnyMack
9/15/2008, 11:12 AM
I don't think anyone is stupid enough to think that BHO had anything to do with or would accept credit for "victory" in Iraq.

This article seems to have a lot of speculation in it.

soonerscuba
9/15/2008, 11:20 AM
Which is why I said "if this is true"
But if it is true, a sitting senator speaking unofficially to a foreign government in regards to altering the timeframe/outcome of a war...isn't that illegal?
Depends, saying that you favor an extended period of time to push for a new administration to make major changes on a foreign policy front (even with foreign dignitaries) is dramatically different from holding talks with a foreign government in regards to realpolitik.

Taheri has a major ax to grind and is funded by neoconservative thinktanks to push a message, I would take anything he writes, especially in regards to US Democratic politics with a teaspoon of salt.

Veritas
9/15/2008, 11:24 AM
I'm going to side with cuba on this one. Taheri has a history of being a fibber.

OklahomaTuba
9/15/2008, 12:37 PM
Obama better hope this isn't true. Looks like there is a law against this kind of thing...

http://www.historycentral.com/NN/Logan.html

Even if its 100% BS, its clear The One would rather win an election, than win a war.

SoonerProphet
9/15/2008, 02:33 PM
Didn't Reagan violate the Logan Act too? Proof yet again that politicians are co*cksuckers.

BigRedJed
9/15/2008, 02:41 PM
Well, I'm no expert on the Logan act, but that link says "Congress passed legislation outlawing such contacts between foreign governments and private individuals." Now, I'm thinking "private individuals" eliminates Obama, at the very least, who is a United States Senator. I assume Prophet is talking about the Iran hostage situation, and I don't know specifics on that. Perhaps the fact that he was Governor of California or President Elect might change his "private individual" status. Again, I'm unsure.

There certainly might be (in fact probably is) some other law that keeps U.S. Senators from negotiating with foreign governments outside the realm of the State Department. But based on the description in that link, it doesn't sound like the Logan Act applies.

SoonerProphet
9/15/2008, 02:45 PM
Well, I'm no expert on the Logan act, but that link says "Congress passed legislation outlawing such contacts between foreign governments and private individuals." Now, I'm thinking "private individuals" eliminates Obama, at the very least, who is a United States Senator. I assume Prophet is talking about the Iran hostage situation, and I don't know specifics on that. Perhaps the fact that he was Governor of California or President Elect might change his "private individual" status. Again, I'm unsure.

There certainly might be (in fact probably is) some other law that keeps U.S. Senators from negotiating with foreign governments outside the realm of the State Department. But based on the description in that link, it doesn't sound like the Logan Act applies.

It is all a bunch of election bs. Shenanigans about Reagan's "October surprise" and the release of the Iranian hostages is almost a conspirational as this. Hell, Congresional delegations sell out to Israel, Cuba, Georgia, you name it, weekly.

OklahomaTuba
9/15/2008, 02:50 PM
No, Algeria brokered the hostage deal with Iran, not Reagan.

This would be about 1000% worse than trying to get hostages released anyways.

If The One somehow gets elected, and this turns out to be true, his Presidency may be very short due to his impeachment over this.

And yes, it would be THAT serious.

Civicus_Sooner
9/15/2008, 02:58 PM
And yes, it would be THAT serious.
Indeed. It may seem like a little thing now but this could very well be the proverbial straw on Obama's back.

SoonerProphet
9/15/2008, 02:59 PM
I swear to god some people are so dense it is beyond the pale. When Charlie Wilson was raising money for the "freedom fighters" against the Soviets, did people cry treason or impeachment then. When members of PNAC adivised the Likud on its "clean break" strategy have people pressed the issue.

Election seasons drive me nuts, and partisan hacks are as deluded as they are clueless.

SoonerProphet
9/15/2008, 03:01 PM
Hell, it is the New York Post for Christsakes, might as well as believe The Weekly Standard, National Review, or Front Page.

soonerscuba
9/15/2008, 03:01 PM
If The One somehow gets elected, and this turns out to be true, his Presidency may be very short due to his impeachment over this.

And yes, it would be THAT serious.
Which law did he break? Simply giving a recommendation to a foreign leader as a Congressional delegate isn't a crime, engaging in formal policy talks is murky, and treaties are a no-no. Good luck with that preemptive impeachment.

Civicus_Sooner
9/15/2008, 03:04 PM
I swear to god some people are so dense it is beyond the pale. When Charlie Wilson was raising money for the "freedom fighters" against the Soviets, did people cry treason or impeachment then. .That's because nobody knew until after it happened.

The only real things that will be different between these two guys if elected is, 1) the amount of money your allowed to keep in your pocket, and 2) foreign policy.

Both actually are important to me, I don't know about you.

Whet
9/15/2008, 03:06 PM
Hell, it is the New York Post for Christsakes, might as well as believe The Weekly Standard, National Review, or Front Page.
Too bad it wasn't posted on such journalistic powerhouses such as NY Times, Daily Kos, or HuffingtonPost. Indeed!

SoonerProphet
9/15/2008, 03:10 PM
That's because nobody knew until after it happened.

The only real things that will be different between these two guys if elected is, 1) the amount of money your allowed to keep in your pocket, and 2) foreign policy.

Both actually are important to me, I don't know about you.

Nobody knew until after it happened, wtf are you talking about? Congresional delegation and private groups like PNAC are often involved in guiding fp, usually right in the open.

SoonerProphet
9/15/2008, 03:11 PM
Too bad it wasn't posted on such journalistic powerhouses such as NY Times, Daily Kos, or HuffingtonPost. Indeed!

I've never read either. The NY Times is a statist newspaper of the first order and supports any politicians as long as it get them the interview.

achiro
9/15/2008, 03:12 PM
Well, I'm no expert on the Logan act, but that link says "Congress passed legislation outlawing such contacts between foreign governments and private individuals." Now, I'm thinking "private individuals" eliminates Obama, at the very least, who is a United States Senator. I assume Prophet is talking about the Iran hostage situation, and I don't know specifics on that. Perhaps the fact that he was Governor of California or President Elect might change his "private individual" status. Again, I'm unsure.

There certainly might be (in fact probably is) some other law that keeps U.S. Senators from negotiating with foreign governments outside the realm of the State Department. But based on the description in that link, it doesn't sound like the Logan Act applies.

Logan, ie Logan Act, was a Senator or congressman.

leavingthezoo
9/15/2008, 03:12 PM
Too bad it wasn't posted on such journalistic powerhouses such as NY Times, Daily Kos, or HuffingtonPost. Indeed!

i don't care if its posted across your forehead or my ***; the guy has a history of writing false articles. find a guy who posts a similar article who hasn't forced several newspapers across the country to print a retraction later for not doing their homework and maybe you've got something here.

BigRedJed
9/15/2008, 03:13 PM
Logan, ie Logan Act, was a Senator or congressman.
Gotcha. In the article posted it only listed him as a physician.

BigRedJed
9/15/2008, 03:14 PM
And actually, it lists him only as "Dr.," so I guess I was assuming that meant physician.

achiro
9/15/2008, 03:16 PM
Gotcha. In the article posted it only listed him as a physician.

I should have said, I think he was a senator or congressman. I am not positive and am to lazy to look it up for sure. ;)

BigRedJed
9/15/2008, 03:18 PM
After looking at Wikipedia just now, it says that he was a state legislator at the time and LATER a U.S. Senator. It also says that nobody has ever apparently been convicted or even prosecuted for violating it.

Additionally, it has this info:




In 1975, Senators John Sparkman and George McGovern were accused of violating the Logan Act when they traveled to Cuba and met with officials there. In considering that case, the U.S. Department of State concluded:
The clear intent of this provision [Logan Act] is to prohibit unauthorized persons from intervening in disputes between the United States and foreign governments. Nothing in section 953 [Logan Act], however, would appear to restrict members of the Congress from engaging in discussions with foreign officials in pursuance of their legislative duties under the Constitution. In the case of Senators McGovern and Sparkman the executive branch, although it did not in any way encourage the Senators to go to Cuba , was fully informed of the nature and purpose of their visit, and had validated their passports for travel to that country. Senator McGovern’s report of his discussions with Cuban officials states: "I made it clear that I had no authority to negotiate on behalf of the United States — that I had come to listen and learn...." (Cuban Realities: May 1975, 94th Cong., 1st Sess., August 1975). Senator Sparkman’s contacts with Cuban officials were conducted on a similar basis. The specific issues raised by the Senators (e.g., the Southern Airways case; Luis Tiant’s desire to have his parents visit the United States) would, in any event, appear to fall within the second paragraph of Section 953. Accordingly, the Department does not consider the activities of Senators Sparkman and McGovern to be inconsistent with the stipulations of Section 953.

Civicus_Sooner
9/15/2008, 03:22 PM
Prophet, it wasn't in the media. Maybe you anf the lawyers involved in the the hearings with the Congressional delegation knew but it wasn't a fully formulated news story.

Also, anyone that has been paying attention to the media and it's changes over the last 20 years knows that the NY Times has sold it's journalistic integrity to the highest bidder. Too bad the smaller outlets across the nation that used to take it's word for truth took so long to figure it out. In the vacume was born "Talk radio," and FOX News.

SoonerProphet
9/15/2008, 03:22 PM
After looking at Wikipedia just now, it says that he was a state legislator at the time and LATER a U.S. Senator. It also says that nobody has ever apparently been convicted or even prosecuted for violating it.

Additionally, it has this info:

Just about to post that blurb about Sparkman and McGovern.

There is plenty of sh!t to slam the dude over, just quit making it up.

SoonerProphet
9/15/2008, 03:24 PM
Prophit, it wasn't in the media. Maybe you anf the lawyers involved in the the hearings with the Congressional delegation knew but it wasn't a fully formulated news story.

Also, anyone that has been paying attention to the media and it's changes over the last 20 years knows that the NY Times has sold it's journalistic integrity to the highest bidder. Too bad the smaller outlets across the nation that used to take it's word for truth took so long to figure it out. In the vacume was born "Talk radio," and FOX News.

Again, wtf does that have to do with anything? Just cause it wan't in the news means that it is an impeachable offense or a violation of the Logan Act? Sounds like sound logic there.

Civicus_Sooner
9/15/2008, 03:27 PM
Again, wtf does that have to do with anything? Just cause it wan't in the news means that it is an impeachable offense or a violation of the Logan Act? Sounds like sound logic there.I never said it was a violation of the Logan Act. I do think that foreign Policy is what will kill Obama. He was a one trick pony in the Dem primary and now that Bush is pulling the troops out, he's got nothing.

BigRedJed
9/15/2008, 03:32 PM
TUBA suggested it was a violation of the Logan Act. Look, if he really did it, I think it's chicken****, and wrong. Wouldn't change my mind about who I'm voting for, 'cause I'm already planning to hold my nose and vote McCain anyway. I just think it appears that the Logan Act doesn't apply here.

Also, I'm just tired of the demagoguery. From both sides.

SoonerProphet
9/15/2008, 03:35 PM
I never said it was a violation of the Logan Act. I do think that foreign Policy is what will kill Obama. He was a one trick pony in the Dem primary and now that Bush is pulling the troops out, he's got nothing.

My apologies for equating Tuba's asinine comment about impeachment and your's about how serious THAT would be.

Civicus_Sooner
9/15/2008, 03:39 PM
My apologies for equating Tuba's asinine comment about impeachment and your's about how serious THAT would be.

I meant serious in the political/campaign sense.

BigRedJed
9/15/2008, 03:40 PM
Hell, lipstick on a pig is serious in the political/campaign sense.

BigRedJed
9/15/2008, 03:41 PM
Hurt feelings are serious in the political/campaign sense.

SoonerProphet
9/15/2008, 03:41 PM
If it is f*cking bullsh*t, then how serious can it be?

BigRedJed
9/15/2008, 03:42 PM
EVERY LITTLE GODDAMN THING THAT ANYBODY CAN SAY NEGATIVE ABOUT THE OTHER GUY is serious in the political/campaign sense.

SicEmBaylor
9/15/2008, 03:46 PM
If this is true, then I think it was very stupid and irresponsible on Obama's part. However, it shouldn't be a violation of the Logan Act. The guy is a United States Senator with the responsibility of approving all US treaties.

Civicus_Sooner
9/15/2008, 03:52 PM
If this is true, then I think it was very stupid and irresponsible on Obama's part. However, it shouldn't be a violation of the Logan Act. The guy is a United States Senator with the responsibility of approving all US treaties.
Pretty much my thoughts on the subject.

achiro
9/15/2008, 03:54 PM
If this is true, then I think it was very stupid and irresponsible on Obama's part. However, it shouldn't be a violation of the Logan Act. The guy is a United States Senator with the responsibility of approving all US treaties.

I agree on the Logan act as well but IF TRUE, a sitting senator delaying the end of a war seems like it should be kind of a big deal. Of course, someone could just make the charges, and Obama fighting them in the public eye could really put a pretty good dent in his campaign efforts.

BigRedJed
9/15/2008, 03:56 PM
Exactly. I'm sure that's why you're hearing about it right now. True or not, it makes a hell of a dirty-tricks campaign tool. Accused is the new guilty.

OklahomaTuba
9/15/2008, 03:58 PM
Homey should take this case on.