Obama wants to stall Iraqi troop withdrawal until Bush leaves office

[Jacksonian]

No, he is NOT trying to "undermine the US Government". He's able to understand that "the US Government" is about to change, and perhaps change A LOT. This sort of anticipation is indeed good judgment. The inability to look ahead seems much more admirable to you than to me.

Anticipation is one thing. Attempting to undermine the current US administration in power is quite a different thing - especially since it is to better Obama's political position: "US failed in Iraq" and HE wants to be the ONE who "Brings home the troops"

You might be okay with this. I am not. And I bet when the American people find out about this during the debate - they won't be pleased either, IMHO.

[Flint]

You might be okay with this. I am not. And I bet when the American people find out about this during the debate - they won't be pleased either, IMHO.

OK, we'll see, won't we?

What's undermining the current US administration is that it's a lame-duck administration, guaranteed to be out of office in 5 months.

I personally do not care who brings home the troops. Indeed, if McCain were campaigning to bring them home ASAP and Obama were campaigning to leave them there for another 100 years, I'd switch sides in a heartbeat. If McCain had gone to Iraq and told them to hang lose for a few more months when negotiations become meaningful again, I'd cheer him on. I think he should do exactly that.

The US has indeed failed in Iraq. We've spent trillions, we've killed well over 100,000 people, we've inflamed sectarian conflicts, we've inspired more terrorism, and recruited more Muslim extremists, we've antagonized the entire Arab world, we're no closer to controlling Iraq's oil, and we have no real goal other than to get out as painlessly as possible. We never DID have a goal.

So if this is "undermining", I applaud it no matter who is doing it or whose campaign it helps. ANYTHING that short-circuits Bush's Iraq efforts is good for the US. Anything at all.

[frodo]

I'm sorry, but there is no point in contributing to this thread because it appears that no one has bothered to do the first thing necessary before launching...

In the New York Post, conservative Iranian-born columnist Amir Taheri quoted Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari as saying

...and if you check, you will find that Amir Taheri is a serial liar.

remember the one about an Iranian law making Jews wear identifying marks? That's Amir, a leading purveyor of NeoCon Koolaid.

[Jacksonian]

Originally Posted by frodo

I'm sorry, but there is no point in contributing to this thread because it appears that no one has bothered to do the first thing necessary before launching...



...and if you check, you will find that Amir Taheri is a serial liar.

remember the one about an Iranian law making Jews wear identifying marks? That's Amir, a leading purveyor of NeoCon Koolaid.

Read post #7. Obama's camp confirmed with this statement:

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.

[Flint]

Read post #7. Obama's camp confirmed with this statement

The issue here isn't whether or not Obama did this. The question is whether he should have done this. And to make that decision, you have to decide whether such an agreement makes more sense before Bush leaves (after which it won't count anyway), or whether it makes more sense to wait, and get an agreement that might last 8 more years.

And so far, the ONLY argument against waiting until a more lasting agreement can be struck is, waiting helps Obama, therefore it's bad, therefore we shouldn't wait.

In reality, Obama has done nothing more binding than to express an opinion. I suspect the outrage stems from the fact that it's an intelligent and informed opinion, and helps his cause as well as the US cause. Can't have that!

[Jacksonian]

Originally Posted by Flint

I suspect the outrage stems from the fact that it's an intelligent and informed opinion, and helps his cause as well as the US cause. Can't have that!

Why are you mistating where the outrage is?

There is outrage because Obama has NO RIGHT to attempt to interfer in the diplomatic efforts of the elected United States government - PERIOD. It's not just that he has tried, in private, to achieve the exact opposite result from the one he has advocated in public. Worse, Obama has in effect tried to conduct his own foreign policy as a President-in-waiting, thereby undermining the actual foreign policy of the United States. For Obama to engage in this kind of politically-motivated backstabbing of the United States government is deeply dishonorable. Moreover, as Taheri notes, Obama has a conflict of interest here: the United States wants our efforts in Iraq to succeed, but Obama wants--needs--for them to fail.

That is the outrage.

[Flint]

Originally Posted by Jacksonian

There is outrage because Obama has NO RIGHT to attempt to interfer in the diplomatic efforts of the elected United States government - PERIOD.

OK, I have to call stupid on this one.

Obama has NO RIGHT to express opinions on the current administration's policies? Golly, does McCain have a right to opinions, or does he also have NO RIGHT to comment on these negotiations? Since neither candidate has ANY power to interfere, neither is interfering. Calling it interference is simply a lie.

Moreover, as Taheri notes, Obama has a conflict of interest here: the United States wants our efforts in Iraq to succeed, but Obama wants--needs--for them to fail.

Sorry, but again I call stupid. Obama wants what's best for the US. Bush's negotiations are NOT what's best for the US.

I would say Taheri has pulled a fast one on you here, and you fell for it. I SINCERELY want our efforts in Iraq to succeed. Bush's record is nonstop unmitigated failure, from day one and without a break. ANYTHING that changes what Bush does in Iraq is far and away to the US national benefit. Bush's policies have been CATASTROPHICALLY BAD. For you, for me, for our nation, for Iraq, for everyone but Halliburton. Which may not be coincidence.

If you are not outraged that Bush got us into this war with lies, and ARE outraged that someone wants to get us out of it, you need to get away from the funhouse mirrors. In order for American efforts to succeed, BUSH'S efforts must fail. Bush has been our worst enemy. I'm overjoyed at the prospect that an actual patriot might be elected. The whole nation should rejoice.

[Jacksonian]

Originally Posted by Flint

OK, I have to call stupid on this one.

Obama has NO RIGHT to express opinions on the current administration's policies? Golly, does McCain have a right to opinions, or does he also have NO RIGHT to comment on these negotiations? Since neither candidate has ANY power to interfere, neither is interfering. Calling it interference is simply a lie.

Sorry, but again I call stupid. Obama wants what's best for the US. Bush's negotiations are NOT what's best for the US.

I would say Taheri has pulled a fast one on you here, and you fell for it. I SINCERELY want our efforts in Iraq to succeed. Bush's record is nonstop unmitigated failure, from day one and without a break. ANYTHING that changes what Bush does in Iraq is far and away to the US national benefit. Bush's policies have been CATASTROPHICALLY BAD. For you, for me, for our nation, for Iraq, for everyone but Halliburton. Which may not be coincidence.

If you are not outraged that Bush got us into this war with lies, and ARE outraged that someone wants to get us out of it, you need to get away from the funhouse mirrors.

First you mistate my position - then you insult me - and then you attempt to spin this off to bash Bush. Stay on topic, please.

We all know what Obama said - his camp confirmed it. You are entitled to believe whatever you want - but I fail to see how anyone is 'stupid' when they note how Obama lied to his supporters about getting the troops home as quickly as possible, while attempting to interfer with and delay the legitimate withdrawal plan set in place by the current administration, simply to serve Obama's political agenda - "America Fail". Guess he needs to recover from the success of the Surge that he was wrong about.

Perhaps you can send your spin to the Obama camp - they might need it in the upcoming debates. Except that it is so wordy - and Obama won't have a teleprompter to read it from.

[Flint]

We all know what Obama said - his camp confirmed it.

And I applaud him for it. It was a useful and patriotic thing to do. I repeat: McCain should do the same.

I fail to see how anyone is 'stupid' when they note how Obama lied to his supporters about getting the troops home as quickly as possible, while attempting to interfer with and delay the legitimate withdrawal plan set in place by the current administration

I humbly suggest you aren't looking very hard. Bush's plan does NOT bring "the troops" home as quickly as possible. Bush is making a show of bringing A FEW troops home, just in time to kill an Obama talking point, as a straight political tactic having nothing to do with long-term US strategy in Iraq.

But you seem to have a blind spot here. When Obama tries to pull a stunt, you see that it's a stunt. When Bush pulls a counter-stunt, you fall all over yourself misrepresenting it and seem completely unable to recognize it for what it is. How very one-sided.

Perhaps you can send your spin to the Obama camp - they might need it in the upcoming debates. Except that it is so wordy - and Obama won't have a teleprompter to read it from.

Actually, you raise (and repeatedly illustrate) one of the genuine problems here. Complex international situations 8 years in the brewing, with plenty of actors making plenty of mistakes, cannot be sensibly addressed with slogans and sound bites. But thoughtful analyses are wasted on a public with 10-second attention spans and no knowledge of the situation. You yourself have made absolutely no effort to do any analysis - you've been entirely content with slogans. NO RIGHT is a slogan. But Obama is expressing an opinion, and you can't get that far. Interference is a slogan, and that fact that Obama cannot legally interfere is somehow forgotten.

So you make a good point. Obama's best bet is to memorize a few catchy lies or oversimplifications, and repeat them incessantly. The average American would think he "understood the issues" in that case. Real analysis is rejected as too wordy, probably doubletalk or spin. Over their heads. Over yours as well.

But you have mischaracterized what Obama did, you have mischaracterised what Bush is doing, and you have mischaracterized what's best for the US. Slogans have a way of doing that to you, but you know, thinking is just too hard, and it requires that you know things. What a hasssle.

[frodo]

Guys you are wasting your time. Nothing Taheri says can be trusted.

[free ranger]

Originally Posted by Jacksonian

Nice spin, Flint. The reality is that Obama has NO RIGHT to attempt to interfer in the diplomatic efforts of the elected United States government - PERIOD. It's not just that he has tried, in private, to achieve the exact opposite result from the one he has advocated in public. Worse, Obama has in effect tried to conduct his own foreign policy as a President-in-waiting, thereby undermining the actual foreign policy of the United States. For Obama to engage in this kind of politically-motivated backstabbing of the United States government is deeply dishonorable. Moreover, as Taheri notes, Obama has a conflict of interest here: the United States wants our efforts in Iraq to succeed, but Obama wants--needs--for them to fail:




Obama is carrying out his own foreign policy, in opposition not only to his own stated position on Iraq, but in opposition to the foreign policy of the United States, with a view toward bringing about failure, not success, in Iraq.

It is not only dishonorable - it smacks of treason.

+1

And BTW - where are all the lies about Bush that Flint said you made?

The only one I see who dragged Bush into this thread was Flint. When all else fails, blame Bush!

[free ranger]

Originally Posted by frodo

Guys you are wasting your time. Nothing Taheri says can be trusted.

Tell that to the Obama camp who already agreed with him!

[dharma]

If he did it—and I have no idea, one way or the other—he probably committed a felony.

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

[flourbug]

The Logan Act is never enforced, and there are questions about its constitutionality. It prohibits anyone except the President (or those authorized by him) from engaging in negotiations with foreign powers. It is still on the books and has been upheld by the courts. If you serve in a Federal Office you are WARNED by official order not to take it upon yourself to negotiate on behalf of the US either while in office or once you leave. So whether justified or not, I see Obama's move as very bold. Reference:

American Constitutional Law, By Donald P. Kommers, John E. Finn, Gary J. Jacobsohn Page 209 quoting Justice Sutherland in US vs Curtis-Wright:

[Dreamweaver]

No backing down from Teheri in this long response. Here is just some. Also judging by O's campaign response it's all looking true.

Obama also told NBC: "The foreign minister agreed that the next administration should not be bound by an agreement that's currently made, but I think the only way to assure that is to make sure that there is strong bipartisan support, that Congress is involved, that the American people know the outlines of this agreement.
"And my concern is that if the Bush administration negotiates, as it currently has, and given that we're entering into the heat of political season, that we're probably better off not trying to complete a hard-and-fast agreement before the next administration takes office, but I think obviously these conversations have to continue.
"As I said, my No. 1 priority is making sure that we don' t have a situation in which US troops on the ground are somehow vulnerable to, are made more vulnerable, because there is a lack of a clear mandate."
This confirms precisely what I suggested in my article: Obama preferred to have no agreement on US troop withdrawals until a new administration took office in Washington.
Obama has changed position on another key issue. In the NBC report, he pretends that US troops in Iraq do not have a "clear mandate." Now, however, he admits that there is a clear mandate from the UN Security Council and that he'd have no objection to extending it pending a bilateral Iraq-US agreement. . . .
Contrary to what Obama and his campaign have said, Iraqi officials insist that at no point in his talks in Washington and Baghdad did Obama make a distinction between SOFA and SFA when he advised them to wait for the next American administration.
The real news I see in the Obama statement is that there may be an encouraging evolution in his position on Iraq: The "rebuttal" shows that the senator no longer shares his party leadership's belief that the United States has lost the war in Iraq.

Another flip by the O.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/09172008...53.htm?&page=1

[Jacksonian]

Originally Posted by Flint

And I applaud him for it. It was a useful and patriotic thing to do. I repeat: McCain should do the same.

I humbly suggest you aren't looking very hard. Bush's plan does NOT bring "the troops" home as quickly as possible. Bush is making a show of bringing A FEW troops home, just in time to kill an Obama talking point, as a straight political tactic having nothing to do with long-term US strategy in Iraq.

But you seem to have a blind spot here. When Obama tries to pull a stunt, you see that it's a stunt. When Bush pulls a counter-stunt, you fall all over yourself misrepresenting it and seem completely unable to recognize it for what it is. How very one-sided.

Actually, you raise (and repeatedly illustrate) one of the genuine problems here. Complex international situations 8 years in the brewing, with plenty of actors making plenty of mistakes, cannot be sensibly addressed with slogans and sound bites. But thoughtful analyses are wasted on a public with 10-second attention spans and no knowledge of the situation. You yourself have made absolutely no effort to do any analysis - you've been entirely content with slogans. NO RIGHT is a slogan. But Obama is expressing an opinion, and you can't get that far. Interference is a slogan, and that fact that Obama cannot legally interfere is somehow forgotten.

So you make a good point. Obama's best bet is to memorize a few catchy lies or oversimplifications, and repeat them incessantly. The average American would think he "understood the issues" in that case. Real analysis is rejected as too wordy, probably doubletalk or spin. Over their heads. Over yours as well.

But you have mischaracterized what Obama did, you have mischaracterised what Bush is doing, and you have mischaracterized what's best for the US. Slogans have a way of doing that to you, but you know, thinking is just too hard, and it requires that you know things. What a hasssle.

Well - if you don't have facts and truth, you can resort to snark and insults, eh Flint? SOP for you, I can see.

Let me just answer a few of your ridiculous claims - and I will let you have the last word - because I have said about all I can say about Obama's treasonist attempt to interfer in international affairs, and I am sure that you will continue to defend the indefensable - because it suits YOUR political agenda.

When Obama tries to pull a stunt, you see that it's a stunt. When Bush pulls a counter-stunt

WHAT counter-stunt? You never fail to find Bush at fault for everything - but if I recall, the Iraqis requested that the withdrawal be stepped up, and the Bush Administration agreed. It had NOTHING to do with Obama's run for president. (Geez, the Messiah thing is getting to your head!)

In fact, the US has been negotiating two related agreements with Iraq: the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) replaced the UN mandate under which US forces would operate until Dec 31 2008, and covered such issues as aspirational time horizons and conditions-based withdrawals; the Strategic Framework Agreement (SFA) covered broader issues between the two countries. The SOFA may be unique from other SOFAs concluded by the United States in that it may contain authorization by the host government — the government of Iraq — for U.S. forces to engage in military operations within Iraq and eventually aspirational timelines were included as well. That blurs the line between status and strategy.

http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/107217.pdf

As for your statement:

You yourself have made absolutely no effort to do any analysis - you've been entirely content with slogans. NO RIGHT is a slogan. But Obama is expressing an opinion, and you can't get that far. Interference is a slogan, and that fact that Obama cannot legally interfere is somehow forgotten.

You are the one who provides no links for your opinions - they just flow forth in great volume in attempt to drown the reader with the glory of your intellectual superiority. And as far as slinging slogans - OMG - you are as bad as any radiacal leftist I have ever seen. 'When it doubt, blame Bush!' Bush HAS to be dragged into any argument, right - even when the topic is how 'Obama has tried in private to persuade Iraqi leaders to delay an agreement on a draw-down of the American military presence'.

On the other hand, I did analysis Obama's illegal attempt to interfer in official foreign policy, in opposition not only to his own stated position on Iraq, but in opposition to the foreign policy of the United States, with a view toward bringing about failure, not success, in Iraq.

My analysis - it is not only dishonorable - it smacks of treason. I can only assume that given how personal the attacks from you have become - the truth hurts.

[Flint]

My analysis - it is not only dishonorable - it smacks of treason. I can only assume that given how personal the attacks from you have become - the truth hurts.

Well, I must say you are consistent. Both in the political realities, and in my posts, you display an incredible flare for seeing much that isn't there, and distorting the rest beyond all recognition. In between the insults you can only see when you think OTHER people use them, you tell a few lies, hilariously misinterpret a few facts in absurdly self-serving ways, and that's it. Insight, fanatic style.

OK, you see what you wish to see, and welcome to it. I can only hope that someday, your world will include some shades of gray. Color, now, fuggitaboutit.

[Jacksonian]

OBAMA OBJECTS
BUT THE EVIDENCE SAYS I'M RIGHT

IN Monday's Post, I discussed how Barack Obama, during his July trip, had asked Iraqi leaders not to finalize an agreement vital to the future of US forces in Iraq - and how the effect of such a delay would be to postpone the departure of the US from Iraq beyond the time Obama himself calls for.

The Obama campaign has objected. While its statement says my article was "filled with distortions," the rebuttal actually centers on a technical point: the differences between two Iraqi-US accords under negotiation - the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA, to set rules governing US military personnel in Iraq) and the Strategic Framework Agreement (SFA, to settle the legal basis for the US military presence in Iraq in the months and years ahead).

The Obama camp says I confused the two. It continues: "On the Status of Forces Agreement, Sen. Obama has always said he hoped that the US and Iraq would complete it - but if they did not, the option of extending the UN mandate should be considered.

"As to the Strategic Framework Agreement, Sen. Obama has consistently said that any security arrangements that outlast this administration should have the backing of the US Congress - especially given the fact that the Iraqi parliament will have the opportunity to vote on it."

If there is any confusion, it's in Obama's position - for the two agreements are interlinked: You can't have any US military presence under one agreement without having settled the other accord. (Thus, in US-Iraqi talks, the aim is a comprehensive agreement that covers both SOFA and SFA.)

And the claim that Obama only wanted the Strategic Framework Agreement delayed until a new administration takes office, and had no objection to a speedy conclusion of a Status of Forces Agreement, is simply untrue.

Here is how NBC reported Obama's position on June 16, after his conversation in the US with Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari: "Obama also told Zebari, he said, that Congress should be involved in any negotiations regarding a Status of Forces Agreement with Iraq. He suggested it may be better to wait until the next administration to negotiate such an agreement."

In other words, Obama wanted a delay on the Status of Forces Agreement, not on the Strategic Framework Agreement - as his rebuttal now claims.

The NBC report continues: "Asked by NBC's Lee Cowan if a timetable for the Status of Forces Agreement was discussed, Obama said, 'Well he, the foreign minister, had presented a letter requesting an extension of the UN resolution until the end of this year. So that' s a six-month extension.'"

That Obama was aware that the two accords couldn' t be separated is clear in his words to NBC:

"Obviously, we can't have US forces operating on the ground in Iraq without some sort of agreement, either a further extension of the UN resolution or some sort of Status of Forces agreement, some strategic framework agreement. As I said before, my concern is that the Bush administration -- in a weakened state politically -- ends up trying to rush an agreement that in some ways might be binding to the next administration, whether it was my administration or Sen. McCain' s administration." (Emphasis added.)

Obama also told NBC: "The foreign minister agreed that the next administration should not be bound by an agreement that's currently made, but I think the only way to assure that is to make sure that there is strong bipartisan support, that Congress is involved, that the American people know the outlines of this agreement.

"And my concern is that if the Bush administration negotiates, as it currently has, and given that we're entering into the heat of political season, that we're probably better off not trying to complete a hard-and-fast agreement before the next administration takes office, but I think obviously these conversations have to continue.

"As I said, my No. 1 priority is making sure that we don't have a situation in which US troops on the ground are somehow vulnerable to, are made more vulnerable, because there is a lack of a clear mandate."

This confirms precisely what I suggested in my article: Obama preferred to have no agreement on US troop withdrawals until a new administration took office in Washington.

Obama has changed position on another key issue. In the NBC report, he pretends that US troops in Iraq do not have a "clear mandate." Now, however, he admits that there is a clear mandate from the UN Security Council and that he'd have no objection to extending it pending a bilateral Iraq-US agreement.

The campaign's rebuttal adds other confusions to the mix. It notes that Obama (along with two other senators who accompanied him) also stated in July: "We raised a number of other issues with the Iraqi leadership, including our deep concern about Iranian financial and material assistance to militia engaged in violent acts against American and Iraqi forces; the need to secure public support through our respective legislatures for any long term security agreements our countries negotiate; the importance of doing more to help the more than 4 million Iraqis who are refugees or internally displaced persons; and the need to give our troops immunity from Iraqi prosecution so long as they are in Iraq."

Note that in this part of the statement, the term "security agreements" is used instead of SOFA and SFA - another sign that the two can' t be separated.

In any case, I never said Obama didn't raise other issues with the Iraqis. Yet all those issues have been the subject of US-Iraqi talks between the US and Iraq (and of conferences attended by Iraq's neighbors) for the last five years. Simply repeating them isn' t enough to hide the fact that Obama' s policy on Iraq consists of little more than a few contradictory slogans.

My account of Obama's message to the Iraqis was based on a series of conversations with Iraqi officials, as well as reports and analyses in the Iraqi media (including the official newspaper, Al Sabah) on the senator's trip to Baghdad. It is also confirmed by Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari.

In a long interview with the pan-Arab daily Asharq al-Awsat, Zebari says: "Obama asked me why, in view of the closeness of a change of administration, we were hurrying the signing of this special agreement, and why we did not wait until the coming of the new administation next year and agree on some issues and matters."

Again, note that Zebari mentions a single set of agreements, encompassing both SFA and SOFA.

Zebari continues: "I told Obama that, as an Iraqi, I believe that even if there is a Democratic administration in the White House it had better continue the present policy instead of wasting a lot of time thinking what to do."

In other words, Obama was trying to derail current US policy, while Zebari was urging him not to "waste time."

Zebari then says: "I pointed out to him [Obama] that the agreement being negotiated [with the US] was not to be necessarily binding on the future administration unless it wanted to cooperate with the people of Iraq instead of [causing] crises and problems from its very start."

According to Zebari, Obama said "some media reports that I want all [American] forces withdrawn are wrong. I want to keep American forces [in Iraq] to train [the Iraqi army] and fight terrorism." This is precisely what US troops have been doing in Iraq for the last five years.

Zebari then says that he had the impression that US policy in Iraq wouldn't change: "The US has permanent strategic interests in our region. A change in the administration would not change realities and priorities and would not mean a change of policy as a whole." (Full text of the Zebari interview is available on Asharqalawsat.com)

Contrary to what Obama and his campaign have said, Iraqi officials insist that at no point in his talks in Washington and Baghdad did Obama make a distinction between SOFA and SFA when he advised them to wait for the next American administration.

The real news I see in the Obama statement is that there may be an encouraging evolution in his position on Iraq: The "rebuttal" shows that the senator no longer shares his party leadership's belief that the United States has lost the war in Iraq.

He now talks of "the prospect of lasting success," perhaps hoping that his own administration would inherit the kudos. And he makes no mention of his running mate Joe Biden's pet project for carving Iraq into three separate states. He has even abandoned his earlier claim that toppling Saddam Hussein was "illegal" and admits that the US-led coalition's presence in Iraq has a legal framework in the shape of the UN mandate.

In his statement on my Post article, Obama no longer talks of "withdrawal" but of "redeployment" and "drawdown" - which is exactly what is happening in Iraq now.

While I am encouraged by the senator's evolution, I must also appeal to him to issue a "cease and desist" plea to the battalions of his sympathizers - who have been threatening me with death and worse in the days since my article appeared.

[Jacksonian]

Obama Undermines Own Country, Media Ignores It; Why? They Want What He Wants

Once again, the mainstream media’s behavior is being called into question – and once again, the reasons for it are obvious.



It is now becoming abundantly clear that Barack Obama, in a meeting with Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, tried to undermine his own country’s negotiations with Iraq during his July visit to Baghdad. Even the Obama campaign can’t deny it because there were multiple witnesses to the exchange.



So once again, conservatives begin raising the question: Why is the mainstream media ignoring this story? They’re treating it like they treated the John Edwards affair story, which they ignored until they no longer could. But this is much more serious. The Democratic nominee for president of the United States attempted to scuttle a crucial status-of-forces agreement between the U.S. and the government of Iraq. He blatantly urged the Iraqis to stop negotiating with the Bush Administration and wait until the next president – presumably him, at least as far as he’s concerned – takes office.



While the media desperately seeks a relevant angle on the so-called “Troopergate” non-story out of Alaska, or perhaps investigates who paid for Sarah Palin’s tanning bed, a U.S. senator who has not been elected president attempts to undermine legitimate negotiations between the man who has and the government of the nation we would like to stop occupying as soon as possible.



And he does not even deny doing so, not because he wouldn’t like to, but because he can’t.



Why is the mainstream media ignoring the story? Well, first and foremost, because they want Obama to win the election. But it goes deeper than that. They’re ignoring the story because they don’t see anything wrong with what Obama did.



If you’re a conservative and you’re sitting there thinking Obama has no right to undermine our current president when dealing with a foreign government in a time of war, I agree with you, but they don’t. The quaint notion that we support our president as commander in chief, and that he and he alone has the right to make foreign policy, carries no weight with the media. They look at Bush’s poor approval ratings. They look at the unpopularity of the war. They look at the fact that Bush has only four months remaining in office.



And they ask, “Well, why should Bush get to negotiate anything? He’s leaving soon, we don’t like him and neither does anyone else. So what’s the problem?”



The problem, of course, is that Bush is the president, and that undermining him puts both the war effort and the troops at risk – not to mention the potential long-term stability of Iraq. There is also the matter of respecting the office of the president and the electoral process that put Bush in that office. The press doesn’t care about any of that. They only care that they’re tired of Bush and want him gone.



The other reason the press is giving Obama a pass on this is that they agree with what he was trying to do. Undermine Bush and the war effort? They’ve been trying to do that for years. Trumpeting bad news while ignoring the good? Screaming headlines about roadside bombs and troop-death “milestones” while ignoring yet another province we get under control? They’ve been at it since before the 2004 election. Any reporter who was in that room with Obama probably would have asked Zebari much the same question:



“Why are you even talking to Bush? He sucks and we hate him!”



Obama’s actions, while probably not treasonous, are beyond reprehensible in a time of war. The McCain campaign should take Obama to task in the most severe manner possible, but they will have to do it through ads and other forms of persuasion. They will have to take it upon themselves to explain to the voters why Obama’s actions were wrong – and why, even if you don’t like President Bush, you should be horrified at the idea of a U.S. senator undermining his dealings with a foreign government in a time of war.



The mainstream media will continue to ignore this, unless the pressure and the groundswell of public sentiment becomes so great that they can no longer do so. They think Obama is a hero for trying to undermine Bush. And they will continue to cover for him, unless and until they become afraid that protecting him will bring them down as well.

[dharma]

Originally Posted by flourbug

The Logan Act ... prohibits anyone except the President (or those authorized by him) from engaging in negotiations with foreign powers. It is still on the books and has been upheld by the courts. If you serve in a Federal Office you are WARNED by official order not to take it upon yourself to negotiate on behalf of the US either while in office or once you leave. So whether justified or not, I see Obama's move as very bold.

Bold is one word for it, I suppose. Illegal and immoral are others that I would use. I feel the same way about Reagan's arms for hostages deal, BTW.

[frodo]

Amir Taheri is a serial liar, a known journalistic felon. Nothing he says has any credibility whatsoever, and furthermore nothing he has said makes sense.

Be aware that if you keep throwing this mud, some of it sticks to you.

Professor Juan Cole has a bit on this on his website "Informed comment."

http://www.juancole.com/

Amir Taheri, the rightwing Iranian 'journalist' who is the least accurate reporter to feign practicing journalism since Gutenberg invented movable metal type accused Barack Obama of seeking "a deal to delay US troops' from Iraq when he was in Baghdad last summer.

That makes no sense. The Iraqis have published their negotiating points, and they have been saying that they want a US withdrawal by 2010. That is virtually the same as Obama's plan, so it is highly unlikely that he was urging them to extend that timetable to 2011 or beyond. Taheri has garbled(probably deliberately - Frodo) what Iraqi Foreign Minister Zebari told him.

The Obama campaign said,

'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.

"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.'



Taheri can't get his facts right. He alleged in his piece that Iraq would form a new government after elections late this year. False. What are being planned are only provincial elections. The al-Maliki government is safe until early 2010 when the next round of parliamentary elections is scheduled to be held. Since al-Maliki has a stable constituency in the Shite south, 60% of the population, it is a little unlikely that he will be unseated.