Obama Tried To Stall Gis' Iraq Withdrawal

[Buffalo Roam]

Yes, the Obamanator, want the Iraqi's to delay Troop With Drawls so he can get credit for pulling the Troops out of iraq:

Last updated: 2:34 pm
September 16, 2008
Posted: 4:02 am
September 15, 2008

WHILE campaigning in public for a speedy withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, Sen. Barack Obama 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.

[ashura]

Interesting, source?

[Buffalo Roam]

Interesting, source?

http://www.nypost.com/seven/09152008...150.htm?page=0


Even the Iraqi President, Jalal Talabani, see through Obama:

Obama as "a man of the Left" - who, once elected, might change his opposition to Iraq's liberation.

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

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.

[Buffalo Roam]

Obama, even has veracity problems, and doubt about his foreign policy experence, with the Iraqi Vice President.

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.

[Tiassa]

From the source article:

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."

(Taheri)

A spectacular headline, and a paragraph of reality. The concern appears to have been a status of forces agreement with the executive attempting to bind future U.S. presidents to conditions in Iraq that would not be ratified by Congress. That the Bush administration finally settled on a framework that more resembled Obama's proposition than anything the president had previously produced and disagreed with McCain's assessment of Obama's plan would seem to be the political damage the Post is trying to cover with this opinion article.
____________________

Notes:

Taheri, Amir. "Obama Tried to Stall GIs' Iraq Withdrawal". New York Post. September 15, 2008. http://www.nypost.com/seven/09152008...wal_129150.htm

[Buffalo Roam]

From the source article:



A spectacular headline, and a paragraph of reality. The concern appears to have been a status of forces agreement with the executive attempting to bind future U.S. presidents to conditions in Iraq that would not be ratified by Congress. That the Bush administration finally settled on a framework that more resembled Obama's proposition than anything the president had previously produced and disagreed with McCain's assessment of Obama's plan would seem to be the political damage the Post is trying to cover with this opinion article.
____________________

Notes:

Taheri, Amir. "Obama Tried to Stall GIs' Iraq Withdrawal". New York Post. September 15, 2008. http://www.nypost.com/seven/09152008...wal_129150.htm

Reality?

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.

[Buffalo Roam]

From the source article:



A spectacular headline, and a paragraph of reality. The concern appears to have been a status of forces agreement with the executive attempting to bind future U.S. presidents to conditions in Iraq that would not be ratified by Congress. That the Bush administration finally settled on a framework that more resembled Obama's proposition than anything the president had previously produced and disagreed with McCain's assessment of Obama's plan would seem to be the political damage the Post is trying to cover with this opinion article.
____________________

Notes:

Taheri, Amir. "Obama Tried to Stall GIs' Iraq Withdrawal". New York Post. September 15, 2008. http://www.nypost.com/seven/09152008...wal_129150.htm

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."

Reality is also, that Congress doesn't have any Constitutional Power to negociate Treaties, that power by Constitution is a Executive power, and the U.S. Constitution requires the Senate to give its advice and consent.

[joepistole]

From the source article:



A spectacular headline, and a paragraph of reality. The concern appears to have been a status of forces agreement with the executive attempting to bind future U.S. presidents to conditions in Iraq that would not be ratified by Congress. That the Bush administration finally settled on a framework that more resembled Obama's proposition than anything the president had previously produced and disagreed with McCain's assessment of Obama's plan would seem to be the political damage the Post is trying to cover with this opinion article.
____________________

Notes:

Taheri, Amir. "Obama Tried to Stall GIs' Iraq Withdrawal". New York Post. September 15, 2008. http://www.nypost.com/seven/09152008...wal_129150.htm

You hit the nail on the head Tiassa. Does Buff remind you of a kid with his antics?

[Buffalo Roam]

You hit the nail on the head Tiassa. Does Buff remind you of a kid with his antics?

And Obama doesn't even know how our Constitutional Government Works:

Reality is also, that Congress doesn't have any Constitutional Power to negociate Treaties, that power by Constitution is a Executive power, and the U.S. Constitution requires the Senate to give its advice and consent.

[joepistole]

Any your momma wears army boots!

[Buffalo Roam]

Any your momma wears army boots!

Yea, Yea, and you don't even know how your own government works, under the Constitution.

Neither does Obama.

[Tiassa]

Reality?

Yes, reality. In fact, you once again reinforce my point.

Looking at each sentence of your bright red quote:

• 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. — I consider the war illegal, even with the U.N. mandate. After all, legal relief attained under false pretenses is fraudulent. That American conservatives, who were known to berate the U.N. on every occasion, rely on a mandate given in response to fraud only reiterates the focus on something both conservatives in general and the Bush justification for war in particular lack: good faith. Or, as columnist Dan Froomkin noted in June,

Yesterday's long-awaited Senate Intelligence Committee report further solidifies the argument that the Bush administration's most blatant appeals to fear in its campaign to sell the Iraq war were flatly unsupported.

Some of what President Bush and others said about Iraq was corroborated by what later turned out to be inaccurate intelligence. But their most compelling and gut-wrenching allegations -- for instance, that Saddam Hussein was ready to supply his friends in al-Qaeda with nuclear weapons -- were simply made up.

In an accident of timing, the report also validates former press secretary Scott McClellan's conclusion in his new book that the White House pursued a "political propaganda campaign" to market the war.

The White House response? That officials in Congress and elsewhere were saying the same things about Iraq. Or in other words, that other people bought the administration line. It takes a lot of chutzpah to defend yourself against charges that you've engaged in a propaganda campaign by noting that it worked.

(Froomkin, accents added)

• His advice was that, rather than reach an accord with the "weakened Bush administration," Iraq should seek an extension of the UN mandate. — Which only returns to the point I made earlier, that the concern appears to have been a status of forces agreement with the executive attempting to bind future U.S. presidents to conditions in Iraq that would not be ratified by Congress. Which leads us to ...

... your point about Congress:

Reality is also, that Congress doesn't have any Constitutional Power to negociate Treaties, that power by Constitution is a Executive power, and the U.S. Constitution requires the Senate to give its advice and consent.

It is exactly that advice and consent of the Senate that Bush was trying to work around.
____________________

Notes:

Taheri, Amir. "Obama Tried to Stall GIs' Iraq Withdrawal". New York Post. September 15, 2008. http://www.nypost.com/seven/09152008...wal_129150.htm

Froomkin, Dan. "The Propaganda Campaign Dissected". White House Watch. WashingtonPost.com. June 6, 2008. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...060602283.html

[Buffalo Roam]

Yes, reality. In fact, you once again reinforce my point.

Looking at each sentence of your bright red quote:

• 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. — I consider the war illegal, even with the U.N. mandate. After all, legal relief attained under false pretenses is fraudulent. That American conservatives, who were known to berate the U.N. on every occasion, rely on a mandate given in response to fraud only reiterates the focus on something both conservatives in general and the Bush justification for war in particular lack: good faith. Or, as columnist Dan Froomkin noted in June,



• His advice was that, rather than reach an accord with the "weakened Bush administration," Iraq should seek an extension of the UN mandate. — Which only returns to the point I made earlier, that the concern appears to have been a status of forces agreement with the executive attempting to bind future U.S. presidents to conditions in Iraq that would not be ratified by Congress. Which leads us to ...

... your point about Congress:



It is exactly that advice and consent of the Senate that Bush was trying to work around.
____________________

Notes:

Taheri, Amir. "Obama Tried to Stall GIs' Iraq Withdrawal". New York Post. September 15, 2008. http://www.nypost.com/seven/09152008...wal_129150.htm

Froomkin, Dan. "The Propaganda Campaign Dissected". White House Watch. WashingtonPost.com. June 6, 2008. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...060602283.html

Tissia reference my points Obama doesn't even know the responsibility's of the branches of Government, the Congress has no responsibility in treaties, the Senate only has a advise and consent role, the Executive has the responsibility of treaty and negotiation with Foreign Governments.

Obama as a Senator has no right by law to even try to negotiate a withdrawal delay.

In fact he is in violation of the Law, and Constitution.

So is it joepistol who doesn't know his constitutionl, and you fall in that class to, I would suggest some remedial education.

[otheadp]

Tiassa, spin it like it's hot.

[Buffalo Roam]

Tiassa, spin it like it's hot.

She spun it so fast.....she lost her groove!!!!!!

[spidergoat]

the New York Post article isn't news, it's commentary, and it's a lie.

...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.

"These outright distortions will not changes the facts -- Senator Obama is the only candidate who will safely and responsibly end the war in Iraq and refocus our attention on the real threat: a resurgent Al-Qaeda and Taliban along the Afghanistan/Pakistan border."

[Buffalo Roam]

Buffy, the New York Post article isn't news, it's commentary, and it's a lie.

...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.

"These outright distortions will not changes the facts -- Senator Obama is the only candidate who will safely and responsibly end the war in Iraq and refocus our attention on the real threat: a resurgent Al-Qaeda and Taliban along the Afghanistan/Pakistan border."

http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/o...16/131238.html

Obama Pressured Iraq to Delay Troop Withdrawals

Tuesday, September 16, 2008 9:49 AM

By: Phil Brennan

Despite his insistent demands for a rapid withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama secretly urged Iraqi leaders to delay an agreement that would lead to a draw down in troop numbers.

A blockbuster expose in Monday's New York Post by Amir Tahiri revealed that Obama made his demand for the delay a key theme of his discussions with Iraqi leaders in Baghdad in July, Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari told The Post.


"He asked why we were not prepared to delay an agreement until after the U.S. elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington," Zebari said in an interview with The Post.

[spidergoat]

It's a larger issue of the security agreement. They are negotiating things that would affect a subsequent administration. That part of it would lead to reductions in troops is not the issue. Sorry if this simple explanation isn't sensationalist enough for the right-wing media goons.

By the way, to further support your interpretation, you quoted an article that simply echoed the first article.

[Buffalo Roam]

It's a larger issue of the security agreement. They are negotiating things that would affect a subsequent administration. That part of it would lead to reductions in troops is not the issue. Sorry if this simple explanation isn't sensationalist enough for the right-wing media goons.

By the way, to further support your interpretation, you quoted an article that simply echoed the first article.

It is still a Felony for Obama to try and conduct Treaty negociations as a Senator, he has no standing as a Senator, to do so, and no Constitutional Authority to that right as well.

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.

§ 953. Private correspondence with foreign governments.
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.
1 Stat. 613, January 30, 1799, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 953 (2004).

[spidergoat]