Obama Tried To Stall Gis' Iraq Withdrawal

Taheri is not known for being a good source, so I doubt the article can be taken at face value.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Amir_Taheri

Wow. Wikipedia's article is even more damning:

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

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

(Insert title here)

And yet, for all that bluster, you still are unable to address a very important point, which I shall reiterate here:

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

This conversation attributed to Obama took place in July, well before the Bush administration finally pulled back and adopted a framework that looks, well, rather like Obama's campaign proposal.

Remember that Bush has worked hard to expand executive power. After all, if he can secure long-term commitments without the need of a treaty itself, he no longer needs the advice and consent of the Senate to promote the interests of his cronies.

Is it that the point is too complicated for you to understand, Buff? Or is it simply that you don't want to address the point because it undermines your fantasy?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

How is President Bush working around the Advise and consent, the Treaty hasn't been worked out yet, when it is worked out,. and it is presented to the Senate, they can advise as to the changes they see necessary, or consent to the Treaty, they have no roll in conducting treaty negotiations, that is not in the Constitution, nor is it their right under the separation of powers, read your Constitution.

Obama violated the Logan Act. He didn't have any authorization to try and make a deal with the Iraqis to delay the with drawl, that is a Felony, let alone showing that Obama doesn't even know How our Constitutional Republic Government, works.

I would love to see if a Republican had done the same thing, You would be leading the Hue and Cry for His lynching, and screaming to high heaven about the Constitutional violation that had been committed.

So now show me in the Constitution were Obama has the Right to try and negotiate a delay in the with drawl of the Troops.

I will give you a hint were to start, U.S. Constitution Article I Section VIII

No were in Article I is power given to the Senate, or a Senator, to conduct Treaty Negotiations with Foreign Powers.




Here is Article II Section II of the U.S. Constitution:

Section II.


The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

It is the President who has the power to make Treaty, and the Senate can Advise, after the President presents the Treaty, or/and Consent to said treaty, there is no ability for the Senate to Conduct Treaty Negociations.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It because he's black isn't it?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Nobody has been prosecuted for the Logan act in 200 years. If they wanted to start, they would have to go after Henry Kissenger for deliberately delaying a peace treaty with North Vietnam for political reasons before Nixon was elected.

 

No, it's because he doesn't have the authority under the U.S. Constitution, and the Logan Act.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Spider, dont call BR "buffy", he doesnt like it

BR if you wish me to fix any further posts COPY THE LINK, im not in the same timezone as you (and currently my timezone is set to GMT anyway for the game)

 

Sure, he will get prosecuted right after Bush gets impeached.

 

He should get prosecuted right now, this is a Felony, remember the Logan Act.

And it was reconfirmed under your Hero William Jefferson Clinton, he signed the Revised Bill in to Law, as President, in 1994.

 

It helps, Mr. Roam, if you pay attention to what's actually going on

Your error is in the phrase, "the Treaty hasn't been worked out yet". Bush is not negotiating a treaty, but rather a Status of Forces agreement that would circumvent the Senate.

It's not a treaty. Obama, inasmuch as we can tell from the opinion article you posted, seemed to be asking why the Iraqi government wanted to negotiate a SoF agreement with a weakened executive instead of negotiate a treaty with a new executive that, in going before the Senate for ratification, would set firm dates and conditions for the continuation and cessation of the American presence, instead of what they're faced with now: the Bush administration, unable to secure a long-term SoF, is now pushing patchwork provisions that will, for the sake of domestic politics, leave the issues unresolved so that the next president has to negotiate a new SoF or, preferably, real treaty, anyway.

Ding, ding, Mr. Roam. Hop on the trolley.
____________________

Notes:

DeYoung, Karen. "U.S., Iraq Scale Down Negotiations Over Forces". Washington Post. July 13, 2008; page A01. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/12/AR2008071201915.html

 

Well again, under the Logan act, it is illegal for Obama to stick his nose into on going negotiations.

Also under Article I and Article II, the seperation of powers do not give Sen. Obama a leg to stand on, it isn't a power granted to him, as a Senator under the U.S. Constitution.

Iraq's political parties wrangle over the status of forces ....
The status of forces agreement (or SOFA) is a proposed deal between the US and ... “This treaty will protect Iraq,” he said in an earlier statement to the ...

www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2008/06/iraqi_po... - 46k - Similar pages

The Status of Forces Agreement is a Treaty, and the Senate Will have the ability to Advise and Consent, the House will also have the ability to have their say as they are the one with the power of the purse, and they have to write any spending bill, to provide moneys to support the SOFA, if they don't like it, they can kill it just by not allowing funds to be appropriated to support the SOFA.

The system still works, the President can't do anything without the Senate and the House approval, after he sends the Treaty/Agreement to them.

Remedial Constitution 101 for you, Tiassa, and a F-as to your evaluation, of said Treaty/SOFA and Fact.

 

Hop on the trolley, man! I'm cereal!

Give the Bush administration the F, then, Mr. Roam:

The administration doesn't want a treaty. It wants to avoid the Senate entirely.

As I said, Mr. Roam, ding ding.

You have yet to demonstrate that Obama negotiated anything. Indeed, even the opinion column you cited in the topic post seems to disagree with your Logan Act assertion:

And we might consider what the Iraqis had to say about their meetings with Obama:

The Vice President, it seems, advised Obama that negotiations were ongoing. It does not appear he negotiated anything with Obama.

It really does help, Mr. Roam, to pay attention to the things you're complaining about.
_____________________

Notes:

Bruno, Greg. "U.S. Security Agreements and Iraq". Council on Foreign Relations. June 6, 2008. http://www.cfr.org/publication/16448/us_security_agreements_and_iraq.html

Shankar, Thom and Steven Lee Myers. "U.S. to seek broad powers in Iraq as UN mandate expires". International Herald Tribune. January 25, 2008. http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/01/24/america/military.php

Taheri, Amir. "Obama Tried to Stall GIs' Iraq Withdrawal". New York Post. September 15, 2008. http://www.nypost.com/seven/0915200...tried_to_stall_gis_iraq_withdrawal_129150.htm

CNN. "Iraq leader, Obama discuss future troop pullout". CNN.com. July 21, 2008. http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/21/obama.mideast/index.html

 

Ding Ding, provide, Constitutional Article, and Statute that conferms your contention, show by Constitutional Article and Statute, that the President doesn't have the power to do these actions.

You have not provide any Legal support to your contentions, and nether have the Liberal sources that you have quoted, so show me where in the Constitution, and Federal Statute, that.......Barrack Obama had a legal right to even try to do what he did,.....that the Senate or a Senator has the right to conclude a agreement or Treaty, with a Foreign Power out side the Executive Powers..........Please show by Constitution Article and Federal Statute, that the President doesn't have these powers.

Article, Section, and paragraph, from the Constitution and Federal Statute.

 

Senators talk to foriegn leaders all the time. It kind of helps with, you know, the governing. Besides, Obama was just asking questions.

Your boys should be on death row for starting an unprovoked war, leading to the deaths of hundreds of thousands.

 

No one other than Buff and his fellow koolaid drinkers and ditto heads seriously think Obama violated any law.

 

Read the Logan Act, it is in simple english, but then Simple English seems to be to much for Liberals to deal with.


§ 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).

So, yes Obama committed a Felony, now will anyone enforce the law?

You scream for it to be enforced against President Bush, so why aren't you screaming for the Law to be Enforced against Obama.........Can You Say Hypocrite? Double Standard? Partizan HUA prejudice.

 

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, 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.​

Congressional Research Service

The cons said the same thing about Nancy Pelosi when she met with Syrian president Bashar Al-Assad.

 

The problem is not with the Logan Act. The problem is Obama did not violate the act. Only in Bushland can you prosecute someone for doing something they did not do and for which the acuser has no evidence.

 

Don't be too hard on the poor Buffalo- He's programmed to run with his herd, and trample anything that doesn't seem part of it. Obama is different, and that frightens him beyond reasoning.

 

Doesn't this make you happy Buffalo? Since you're against a precipitous withdrawal?