Obama Tried To Stall Gis' Iraq Withdrawal

I'd like a show of hands: who on this forum actually believes that W was trying to negotiate an earlier withdrawal of US soldiers from Iraq (contrary to every one of his public pronouncements) but was thwarted by Obama ?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That is not the question............Reading comprehension is helpful.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

*************
M*W: Obama will probably slither right through the loopholes on the Logan Act. He certainly didn't have the seniority as a senator to attend to such negotiations with a foreign government. He overstepped his political bounds, but probably nothing will come of it. He's stated that he's willing to negotiate with terrorists, so what does that tell us? It tells us that he's one of them. Who do you all think is funding his campaign? Obama has got to be stopped before he rapes our country.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So you are claiming that if there was no withdrawal to delay or legitimate negotiations involved, and Obama was not only correct in his attempts to block illegal maneuvers by W&Co, but was dealing with W efforts that were of no benefit to the soldiers in Iraq, instead having other motives entirely,

you'd have a question left ?

What would that question be ?

 

Too late, George has already, with the help of his corporate buddies and Mr Greenspan.
Now you can all pay off their bill for America's latest economic surprise deal ("gosh darn, we never saw that coming!").

 

AMEN Vkothi!!!! Let those that elected George II pay his bills. The rest of us do not have blood on our hands. Why should we have to pay for the mistakes of George II and those that put him where he is?

 

You have to, because "someone" has to, those other guys don't exist, remember.
(just smile and nod)

 

Provide any verifiable fact, that President Bush is doing anything illegal and beyond his powers, beside's your prejudice, and paranoia.

In plain words your opinion about what is illegal isn't worth squat.

Provide any information that Obama has any right to even try and stick his nose into those negotiations.

Separation of Powers, under Constitution, Article's I, II.

Logan Act, now show any legal rational that Obama shouldn't be charged with a felony.

The Constitution is written is plain understandable language, and delineates the responsibility of the three branches of Government in very plain and understandable lines.

The Logan Act is also in plain simple language, and to violate that Act is a Felony.

 

Notes on notions

A general question: Who, in all of this, are persona non gratae?

Answer: The Iraqis, it seems.

To be specific:

I am curious how you think the Iraqi government was obliged to give the Illinois junior senator an audience. It seems to me that, as the Iraqi government, they are allowed to meet with and hear whomever they choose. Certainly, the Bush administration has failed to prevent them from entertaining the Iranians.

If the Iraqis don't want to talk about the state of the war with a junior senator, they don't have to.

Yet they did. Why?

Is it possible that, since Obama was making the point of traveling the region, the Iraqis might have wanted to know his thoughts on the matter, since he is a presidential candidate?

And how would that equal an attempt to negotiate or conclude a treaty?

If we consider another aspect of the situation—after all, you wrote last week that,

—it seems you're attempting to run interference and damage control for the GOP. The actual facts disagree with certain points of your accusation.

In the first place, Obama was not attempting to delay the withdrawal. At the time of his inquiry, his plan would have accelerated the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. I made that point last week:

If you intend to continue pushing your spurious accusations, I understand why you would wish to avoid addressing the facts. However the facts are what they are:

Timeline:

• July 19, 2008 — German magazine Der Spiegel reports,

• July 19, 2008 — White House emails reporters: "Iraqi PM backs Obama troop exit plan — magazine". ABC's Jake Tapper suggested,

• July 21, 2008 — Sen. Obama meets with Iraqi PM al-Maliki and Iraqi Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi, among others. This would seem to be the meeting Taheri is referring to. Yet there is a problem with that. Compare Taheri's article with Marc Lynch's consideration of the issue:

• August 21, 2008 — Reports emerge suggesting that the Bush administration is accelerating its exit plans:

Indeed, not only does Bush have the appearance of altering his position before the election to score points for Republicans among voters, but he is also seems to be rushing to, as you put it, "To be known as, 'The President who won the Iraq War'". And, whereas Froomkin noted in August that,"... Bush's real accomplishment here is that he has stalled long enough that none of the deadlines he has now agreed to will be on his watch. This will all be somebody else's problem", there are now emerging suggestions that Bush is trying to hamstring the next president by ceding control over American troops to an international body:

There is, of course, more to this story than a single opinion article in Time, and we can certainly explore that issue now if you want to. But as analysis of the published draft agreement continues, it might be best to wait and see what credibility there is to Ackerman and Hathaway's interpretation. After all, that is the lesson of Taheri's latest mishap.

But do not think that nobody is smart enough to understand the game afoot: Whatever the Republicans do wrong, accuse it of the Demcorats.

Bush certainly has the appearance of playing politics in order to be "the President who won the war in Iraq". I would say that at least we now know what's important to him, but, as we approach the sunset of the Bush administration, we ought not be surprised in the least; that the president values politics more than substance, or even humanity itself, has been pretty clear throughout.
____________________

Notes:

"Iraq Leader Maliki Supports Obama's Withdrawal Plans". Spiegel Online. July 19, 2008.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,566841,00.html

Tapper, Jake. "White House Accidentally E-Mails to Reporters Story That Maliki Supports Obama Iraq Withdrawal Plan". Political Punch. July 19, 2008. http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/07/white-house-acc.html

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

Lynch, Marc. "Taheri's absurd conceit". Abu Aardvark. September 16, 2008. http://abuaardvark.typepad.com/abuaardvark/2008/09/taheris-absurd.html

Farrell, Stephen. "Draft Accord With Iraq Sets Goal of 2011 Pullout". New York Times. August 21, 2008. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/22/world/middleeast/22baghdad.html

Froomkin, Dan. "A Timetable By Any Other Name". White House Watch. August 22, 2008. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2008/08/22/BL2008082201762.html

Ackerman, Bruce and Oona Hathaway. "What Bush Will Surrender in Iraq". Time. September 11, 2008. http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1840274,00.html

 

Tiassa, for all your massive post your still haven't addressed the Constitution, or the seperation of Powers.

U.S. Constitution Article I Section VIII, the powers of Congress, or:

Article II Section II of the U.S. Constitution the Executive Powers, or the Logan Act

Lots of Obfuscation, and spinning, but you have completely ignored the U.S. Constitution, and Federal Law.

 

Poor you

The separation of powers is not an issue at this time: You have yet to demonstrate that Obama attempted to negotiate or conclude a treaty.

When you do so, Mr. Roam, the questions of the separation of powers and the Logan Act will become viable.

I'm not ignoring anything, Mr. Roam. I have repeatedly asked you to establish how Obama's discussions with Iraqi officials equate to negotiating a treaty. You have, thus far, failed to make the point.

It is not my fault if you refuse to do so. It is not my fault if you are incapable of doing so. And it certainly is not my fault if the facts do not support your accusation.

 

Very well stated Tiassa, as ususal.

 

Demonstrate that Obama did something wrong, that is exactly what the stories are showing and the Parties to the Conversation are testifying to.

If this situation was reversed, you would be screaming to the Heavens for Blood, and severed heads.

Just like joe with his daily Spamming of the Next Greatest Sara Palin scandal, he post with, no factual information that a crime has been committed.

Now as to Obama:

He does not have to try and conclude or negotiate a treaty, all he has to do to be in violation of the law is to interfere by making a request to change the course of the negotiations.

And that is exactly what he did.

ps: Now why are you not parsing joepistols steady barrage of post on Sara Palin, in the same manner that you do mine? Can you say Partisan Double Standard?

Just watching you a joe circle the wagons, to defend Obama is a hoot.

Now lets see joe provide proof that Governer Palin broke the law, that is the same thing you are requesting of me.

 

Tissia couldn't state anything well, even with a ghost writer.

 

Jihadi Watch, or, Watch the Jihadi: Go, jihadi, go!

In what way, Mr. Roam? The problem is that you perceive a certain condition that is not immediately apparent to others. The question, as such, is how you go from A to B. If you assert that a+b=5, then there is only a limited set of numbers a and b can actually be. Analogously, you have not explained what a and b equal; nor have you explained how you determined those values. If you want to tell me that a=2 and b=3, how have you determined these values aside from assigning them in your presuppositions?

Let us consider something about what parties to the conversation(s) have to say.

As Ganymede pointed out, even a Republican witness to Obama's July meeting with Prime Minister al-Maliki support Obama's version of events. Mike Buttry, a Hagel spokesman, said that Taheri's story is "absolutely not true":

Which parties to the conversation are you referring to?

It does not surprise me when conservatives assert to think for liberals. To reiterate a point I made to Norsefire yesterday, if you wish to think for other people, one vital component is that you don't put your outlook into their heads.

I am aware that members of the United States Congress often meet with foreign heads of state. It is absurd to think that all they talk about is the latest cricket test, or the World Series, or merely exchange bland pleasantries. In June, Phillipine President Arroyo paid a visit to the United States, during which she met with Sen. McCain. Among the subjects of discussion was the situation in Mindanao, where, according to Arroyo, "the US military is our partner both in the application of soft and hard power". I would actually hope that McCain asked relevant questions during their talk, but you might feel differently. After all, you're asserting that discussing anything pertaining to U.S. policy agreements constitutes interference under the Logan Act. So perhaps you would prefer that McCain remained mute throughout.

I am accustomed to the idea that the United States has such prestige that our federal legislators, on occasion, have access to foreign halls of power.

Cry a little more, Mr. Roam. Look, if you're incapable of responding to the assertions of scandal, don't make it my problem. Don't expect me to make the argument for you. I'm honored, sir, but only perversely.

As I look through Joe's "Another Palin scandal" topic, at no point do I see him calling for Sarah Palin to be thrown in prison. Here's a list of his posts in that topic: #1, 3, 8, 13, 16, 18, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30, 32.

Please be so kind, then, as I've apparently missed it, to point out in which post our neighbor has called for Gov. Palin to be thrown in prison. The GOP Vice-Presidential candidates credibility, as is usual for political office-seekers, does not rest solely on whether or not she has been convicted of a crime. Rather, these scandals simply remind voters—as in her late decision to not cooperate with the "Troopergate" investigation, and her all-too-familiar assertion that she and her staff are above investigation—that Gov. Palin would bring jack shit for change to Washington.

She has no credibility. That is not a crime. But it won't help her a whole lot with voters.

Quit your bawling.

You need to explain how asking a question equals trying to change the course of negotiations. Seriously, if that was the standard, then any journalist asking questions of a foreign head of state or diplomat runs the risk of a Logan Act violation.

Because he's not calling for her to be thrown in prison. Consider the list of posts above, answer the question of when he did so.

When I assert that she should be thrown in prison, I will do so.

That seems to be a difference 'twixt you and I. While Palin appears to have severely fudged her expense reports, I'm not about to call for her being thrown in prison. While the issue arises in the data Palin provided, and while the hair-splitting shows that she is utterly full of shit, I can't say that she has actually committed fraud in such terms as to warrant conviction. Rather, it is enough that the voters know what kind of person she is, and they can make their decisions from there. Unlike your claim that Obama should be thrown in prison, it seems that Joepistole is merely putting questions of Palin's "moral turpitude" and "appalling" conduct before the People.

• • •​

Time out. This is getting really strange.

The word jihad, in an older context predating the modern usurpation by suicide bombers, referred to a manner of fleeing one's supposed enemy and throwing stones to slow down the pursuit.

In a way, that's what you're doing, Mr. Roam. You walk up to the line, throw out a spurious accusation that Obama tried to delay the withdrawal of American troops. That attack didn't work, so you fell back and threw a Logan Act stone. That stone failed, for quite obvious reasons, to hit the mark. So you fell back again, this time throwing the Joepistole/Palin stone. And that, too, has missed its mark. One can only wonder, as you fall back, if you're going to try to pull a rabbit out of a hat, or a monkey from your ass, and throw that, too.

Your rhetorical jihad, Mr. Roam, would be funny if it wasn't so sad to witness. To the other, though, it might eventually succeed if you manage to kill us with irony.
____________________

Notes:

Tapper, Jake and Kirit Radia. "Undermining McCain Campaign Attack, Republicans Back Obama‘s Version of Meeting With Iraqi Leaders". Political Punch. September 19, 2008. http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/undermining-mcc.html

Ager, Malia. "McCain, Arroyo discuss Mindanao at meeting". GlobalNation. June 28, 2008. http://globalnation.inquirer.net/ne...370/McCain-Arroyo-discuss-Mindanao-at-meeting

See Also:

Associated Press. "Report: Palin's expense statements shows she tapped state travel allowance while staying home". StarTribune.com. September 9, 2008. http://www.startribune.com/politics/28055084.html