Hot Air Mobile
Home The Vault Gear About
Hot Air -- get your fill


Did Obama try to scotch an Iraqi-US agreement on military forces?

posted at 8:00 am on September 15, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly

Amir Taheri accuses Barack Obama of interfering in the attempt to negotiate a status-of-forces agreement with Iraq while making his trip to Baghdad in July.  In his New York Post column, Taheri quotes the Iraqi Foreign Minister, on the record, telling him that Obama tried to convince the Iraqis to end the negotiations and instead ask the UN for another one-year extension to the current mandate.  That would have left US troops in current position for another year, but more importantly, would have provided the US a diplomatic setback that Obama could have exploited on the campaign trail:

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.”

Color me skeptical in one aspect of Taheri’s argument.  He claims that this would have hypocritically delayed the withdrawal of American troops until 2011, and you have to read the column to see how he calculates that through Iraqi elections and parliamentary procedure.  That assumes, however, that an Obama administration would bother to negotiate a drawdown and withdrawal with Baghdad.  Obama probably will just pull American troops out of Iraq without worrying about such niceties as a status-of-forces agreement.

Hypocrisy isn’t the issue here; it’s the interference of Obama in military and diplomatic affairs.  Just on diplomacy, interfering with the United States in its diplomatic efforts is a Logan Act violation.  Interfering with war policy treads on even more serious ground, especially since the primary motivation appears to be winning an election without regard to whether it damages our ability to fight the enemy or drives wedges between us and our ally, the elected, representative government in Baghdad.

Taheri has had some credibility problems in the past.  He falsely accused the Iranian mullahcracy, who really need no help in villainy, of passing dress-code legislation that required religious minorities to wear color-coded clothes.  That created a firestorm until reporters reviewed the legislation and found no reference to any kind of requirement for dress identification for Jews, Christians, or Zoroastrians.  Taheri offered a weak defense of his story, which was not sourced on the record, and it passed into urban-legend status.

This looks different, if for no other reason than Taheri’s main source goes on the record.  Hoshyar Zebari didn’t hide behind a “high-level source in Baghdad” tag for this story.  Zebari’s testimony puts the onus on Obama to explain why he attempted to interfere with the Bush administration’s negotiations despite his having absolutely no authority to do so.  If Obama wants to negotiate a defeat for America, he needs to wait until Americans elect him to the White House before betraying our allies and our troops in the field.


Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Impeachment

davidk on September 15, 2008 at 10:52 AM

Yet another dangerous, charismatic megalomaniac threatens a democracy. Actually, this creep is now a threat to democracies in the US and Iraq.

indythinker on September 15, 2008 at 10:53 AM

McCain needs to do an ad about this stat! We have separation of powers for a reason.

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.”

Congress can not have powers added just because Obama wants to play president. Ludicrous.

carbon_footprint on September 15, 2008 at 11:04 AM

Paraphrasing Obama put his own self interest ahead of the interests of the country.

TooTall on September 15, 2008 at 11:08 AM

If this is as shady as it seems, then this alone could end Obama’s chances in November.

SoulGlo on September 15, 2008 at 11:21 AM

My son is a Captain in the regular Army. He is presently stationed in Iraq.

Obama is simply playing games with my son’s life.

My son’s life is nothing more to Obama than a miniscule part of the backdrop of The Destiny of The Anointed One.

How furious do you suppose I am right now?
______

RJGatorEsq. on September 15, 2008 at 8:18 AM

It is unbelievable that the life of your son is of so little worth to the Democrats.

As in the suposed issues of racism, sexism, and so many other issues they staked a claim on HIPOCRACY seems to be the only constant. Lip service to get power.

I hope that the traitor Obama is exposed once and for all and it ruins his political career forever.

petunia on September 15, 2008 at 11:27 AM

Shouldn’t the congress, who have spent countless hours investigating dead ends with the Bush Admin, have a look into this?

Oh wait, Obama is a Democrat and when you are a Democrat, it is different.

Throw this bum in jail.

fazoolius on September 15, 2008 at 11:30 AM

This should be investigated immediately – - screw the campaign, this guy is breaking some serious laws, and it should not be tolerated just because he’s running for president (or because the press likes him so much).

Rick on September 15, 2008 at 11:30 AM

While I loathe Obambi as much as any rational person should, I’d counsel a heavy dose of skepticism here.

These claims are being made by an Iraqi govt official, a group who are famous for saying one thing one day, then the very next day claiming the exact opposite – always with the excuse that it was a “cultural misunderstanding” or a “translation problem”.

If there turns out to be some sort of solid evidence, fine…Obambi should be hammered by it. But I’ve got the feeling that tomorrow, we’re going to start hearing that same ol’ song and dance.

rvastar on September 15, 2008 at 11:34 AM

I smell a very desperate rat.
Looking back to the time he was over in Iraq I had this funny feeling that he was trying something like this.
I hope the McCain team uses this, maybe an October surprise.

Christine on September 15, 2008 at 11:50 AM

While it would not surprise me if Obama did meddle in US negotiations with Iraq, I think there needs to be at least two credible sources to make such a serious charge. As Ed points out in his opening post, I don’t think Taheri can be counted as a credible source.

Loxodonta on September 15, 2008 at 11:51 AM

Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent (or resistance) to lawful authority. Sedition may include any commotion, though not aimed at direct and open violence against the laws. During World War I the Espionage Act (1917) and the Sedition Act (1918) punished speeches and writings that interfered with the war effort…Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent (or resistance) to lawful authority. It is clearly illegal to negotiate with a government when not authorized to do so (the Logan Act). Sedition usually involves actually conspiring to disrupt the legal operation of the government and beyond expression of an opinion or protesting government policy.

davenp35 on September 15, 2008 at 12:02 PM

While I loathe Obambi as much as any rational person should, I’d counsel a heavy dose of skepticism here.

These claims are being made by an Iraqi govt official, a group who are famous for saying one thing one day, then the very next day claiming the exact opposite – …

rvastar on September 15, 2008 at 11:34 AM

Obama is famous for doing the exact same thing, but when anyone points it out, he says it’s a “distraction.”

You know that the real tools behind this garbage were Pelosi and Reid; I’m beyond disgusted, and if I don’t see info on the MSM about this, I’m going to hound their CEO’s and advertisers.

anniekc on September 15, 2008 at 9:11 AM

Doubtful. I’d lay it on Soros, Kerry, and Gore. Obama’s arrogance and over-confidence knows no bounds with that kind of money behind him.

McCain needs to do an ad about this stat! We have separation of powers for a reason.

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.”

Congress can not have powers added just because Obama wants to play president. Ludicrous.

carbon_footprint on September 15, 2008 at 11:04 AM

After checking the source, yes, someone should make that ad.

“Sarah Palin, have you ever met with any foreign heads of state?”

“No, Charlie, and I haven’t held any illegal negotiations with any either.”

Typhoon on September 15, 2008 at 9:39 AM

Perfection!

Connie on September 15, 2008 at 12:15 PM

After checking the source, yes, someone should make that ad.

“Sarah Palin, have you ever met with any foreign heads of state?”
“No, Charlie, and I haven’t held any illegal negotiations with any violated the Logan Act by quietly negotiating with the Iraqi gov’t to keep our troops there longer either.”

Typhoon on September 15, 2008 at 9:39 AM
Perfection!

Connie on September 15, 2008 at 12:15 PM

Fixed it for ya.

NightmareOnKStreet on September 15, 2008 at 12:40 PM

Already using our troops as a political football. Nice.

29Victor on September 15, 2008 at 12:42 PM

Well this is a firestorm waiting to happen.

If this gets discredited, Taheri should be out of a job. This is too explosive an accusation to get wrong or “mistranslate”.

If this is correct, then Obama deserves to be charged under the Logan Act.

Either way, at this point, someone should be losing a job; probably about as soon as it takes another news reporter to talk to Zebari (with a translator) to verify the story.

gekkobear on September 15, 2008 at 12:47 PM

Can we question his patriotism NOW?

powerpro on September 15, 2008 at 12:48 PM

I am going to be a bit skeptical until there is some type of verification of this information. Simply because I cannot honestly believe Obama could be this stupid. I am happy to be proven wrong.

HawaiiLwyr on September 15, 2008 at 12:52 PM

I’d be careful with this one. As I recall, Obama seriously offended Zebari early on in his campaign by supposedly misrepresenting a telephone conversation they had. It is certainly possible that Zebari the only Iraqi official who isn’t in the tank for Obama (the rest having been persuaded that Obama will win) and is thus willing to out him. OTOH, Zebari may be reading tea leaves, betting on McCain, and trying to position himself to advantage with a new administration.

JM Hanes on September 15, 2008 at 12:58 PM

Simply because I cannot honestly believe Obama could be this stupid. I am happy to be proven wrong.

HawaiiLwyr on September 15, 2008 at 12:52 PM

Stupidity has nothing to do with it. His narcissism leads him to believe he is incapable of making a wrong decision. His inner dialog might go something like this: “I thought of it, therefore, it must be right.”
New Obama slogan: “2 cool 4 rules” Still, we do need at least a second source for confirmation, but I’m hopeful that will come soon.

NightmareOnKStreet on September 15, 2008 at 1:02 PM

Zebari’s testimony puts the onus on Obama to explain why he attempted to interfere with the Bush administration’s negotiations despite his having absolutely no authority to do so.

If true this is treason but the only way Obama is going to offer any explanation is if the story doesn’t go away. Hard to imagine the MSM having the fortitude to push him on this story when they are so busy combing Alaska for dirt on Palin.

highhopes on September 15, 2008 at 1:31 PM

They’ve got to start getting stuff like this out into the open for the public at large to see.

SuperCool on September 15, 2008 at 1:49 PM

Negotiating with foreign governments is way above Obama’s pay grade.

alwyr on September 15, 2008 at 1:55 PM

You know for a party that says they are so against our troops being there for an illegal war he sure doesn’t mind them staying there to make himself look good and Pres. Bush look bad now does he.

tee866 on September 15, 2008 at 1:57 PM

Fox has picked it up.

Damiano on September 15, 2008 at 2:02 PM

Rush is talking about it now

Marybeth on September 15, 2008 at 2:10 PM

…Hard to imagine the MSM having the fortitude to push him on this story when they are so busy combing Alaska for dirt on Palin.

highhopes on September 15, 2008 at 1:31 PM

Especially hard to imagine since that would go against their Obama-nized mission statement.

NightmareOnKStreet on September 15, 2008 at 2:14 PM

Marybeth on September 15, 2008 at 2:10 PM

Rush is HAMMERING him on this. If Hannity picks up the cause, it could well enter into the mainstream media.

ManlyRash on September 15, 2008 at 2:16 PM

Obama is famous for doing the exact same thing, but when anyone points it out, he says it’s a “distraction.”

While true, that is completely irrelevant to the matter at hand.

If this is allegation is true, then Obama is guilty of sedition. Period. Therefore, it is a very serious charge – one that should only be made if there is concrete proof.

The reason I’m no longer a Leftist is because I can’t stomach the top-to-bottom intellectual dishonesty of the Left, so I leave them to scream, rant, and emote about every whisper. We need to always concern ourselves with reason, data, and truth. And until there is more evidence to support this allegation, the word of one Iraqi politician is most certainly not enough.

rvastar on September 15, 2008 at 2:28 PM

Especially hard to imagine since that would go against their Obama-nized mission statement.

NightmareOnKStreet on September 15, 2008 at 2:14 PM

I note where other posters are saying Fox News and Rush have picked up this story but that isn’t getting it out there to a place where Obama has to respond since both outlets (and Hannity too) are all considered tools of the right in the leftie narrative. It needs MSM persistence.

Strategically, what’s really needed is the McCain campaign to openly and clearly demand an answer to the question whether or not Obama was negotiating without authority in Iraq. Obama can’t leave the question at a simple no (because it would seem like they were trying to hide something) and the minute he makes any admission of discussing such issues with Iraq- he’s toast. Even if it takes a couple days, this is the type of hard-hitting criticism of an opponent that is effective because it isn’t a personal attack.

highhopes on September 15, 2008 at 3:12 PM

I have not read all of the comments here, so forgive me if I repeat…
I just can’t get past this:

“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,” Obama said. “The foreign minister agreed that the next administration should not be bound by an agreement that’s currently made.”

from: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/06/16/1146329.aspx

That’s Not okay.

bridgetown on September 15, 2008 at 3:41 PM

That’s Not okay.

bridgetown on September 15, 2008 at 3:41 PM

Treason never is.

highhopes on September 15, 2008 at 3:45 PM

Even if it takes a couple days, this is the type of hard-hitting criticism of an opponent that is effective because it isn’t a personal attack.

highhopes on September 15, 2008 at 3:12 PM

Oh, it’s personal!
:)

bridgetown on September 15, 2008 at 4:05 PM

Oh, it’s personal!
:)

bridgetown on September 15, 2008 at 4:05 PM

Yeah but it’s a different kind of personal attack based on Obama’s actions. Much different than the “John McCain doesn’t know how to use a computer” attack.

If McCain can nail Obama for negotiating separate agreements with the Iraqis and pressuring the top military leaders in Iraq to change their positions from what they
reported to Congress- Obama will be personally screwed in a heartbeat. That’s why I think the MSM is going to ride to his rescue even if it means launching the full-scale Bill Clinton defense mode where former SECSTATES formally endorse Obama’s actions and Doris Kerns Goodwin is out there explaining that all presidential candidates unilaterally negotiate deals before even being elected.

highhopes on September 15, 2008 at 4:19 PM

At the very least, this is disturbing enough to warrant an official investigation, IMHO.

cryptojunkie on September 15, 2008 at 4:26 PM

At the very least, this is disturbing enough to warrant an official investigation, IMHO.

cryptojunkie on September 15, 2008 at 4:26 PM

Particularly the part about badgering the military leadership to change their stated position about troop levels.

highhopes on September 15, 2008 at 4:41 PM

I would be intrested to know if Obama met with any of the Iraqi Resistance Movement (Baathist diehards) while he was overseas.

davod on September 15, 2008 at 5:00 PM

its_a_trap on September 15, 2008 at 4:42 PM

Agreed; if this is true, Obama is ‘at best’ a patently dishonest violator of the Logan Act; ‘at worst’, he is a traitor.

Janos Hunyadi on September 15, 2008 at 5:09 PM

Do you want to believe Muslims?

BL@KBIRD on September 15, 2008 at 5:54 PM

He`s apparently ready to lead BEFORE day one. Take that Hillary!

ThePrez on September 15, 2008 at 5:56 PM

Obama seems to be denying this obviously..

unless there is audio or video&audio of the conversation recorded this is useless..

Obama, was wrong on the surge, the troops are begging to come home..

Obama was for defeat for America at the hands of Al-Quaeda instead of Victory.. he does not deserve nor does he have the judgment to be Commander-in-Chief.

Chakra Hammer on September 15, 2008 at 6:03 PM

the troops are beginning to come home.

Chakra Hammer on September 15, 2008 at 6:04 PM

…this isn’t surprising…a bit “cart before the horse” even for this guy…but not surprising….

Obama, you see, is running for President. For him — as for his acolytes, all projecting their agendas on him like a run-down drive-in movie screen — that office is synonymous with “leader”…as in the oft-mischaracterizing description of the office as “leader of the country” and “leader of the free world”.

That’s only one reason I have contempt for his candidacy.

As a guy, this Obama cat seems a winning fellow…in the mold of Bill “Watch His Hands” Clinton. I can imagine having a beer and watching a game with “Obama the Guy”.

It’s “Obama the Politician” (again, in the same mold as Billy Clinton, but with the yeast fully risen) that’s a nauseating mess.

You see: the President is the head of the executive branch. He directs the most expensive arm of the three-headed beast we call government. We surrender a bit of personal sovereignty to that government to do a little collective public business. That’s it.

Obama doesn’t get that. He’s wrong. Why?

…because I, for one, don’t need a leader!

*WHEW* Thank you. I’ll sit down now.

Puritan1648 on September 15, 2008 at 6:13 PM

Ladies and gentlemen, I request that all of you write your respective Senators and House Representatives and demand an investigation into this matter.

For anyone who is interested, I am sending out the following letter. Feel free to cut and paste or edit it if you’d like.

Dear Senator/ Congressman,
I respectfully request your attention and your diligence in utilizing all means to launch an investigation into the actions of Senator Barack Obama as they relate to the allegations raised by in the Amir Taheri in New York Post article, OBAMA TRIED TO STALL GIS’ IRAQ WITHDRAWAL, published on 9/15/08. For your convenience, I have provided the following web link to this article: http://www.nypost.com/seven/09152008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/obama_tried_to_stall_gis_iraq_withdrawal_129150.htm?page=0
Quoted from this article:
“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.”
If the facts of this article are correct, this constitutes a clear violation of the Logan Act, which states:
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.
The text of the Logan Act as it relates to the alleged actions of Sen. Obama are further supported by United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp. (1936), on which Justice Sutherland wrote:
“[T]he President alone has the power to speak or listen as a representative of the nation. He makes treaties with the advice and consent of the Senate; but he alone negotiates. Into the field of negotiation the Senate cannot intrude, and Congress itself is powerless to invade it.”
Sutherland also notes in his opinion the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations report to the Senate of February 15, 1816:
“The President is the constitutional representative of the United States with regard to foreign nations. He manages our concerns with foreign nations, and must necessarily be most competent to determine when, how, and upon what subjects negotiation may be urged with the greatest prospect of success. For his conduct, he is responsible to the Constitution.”
Senator Obama’s trip to Iraq and the related meetings were conducted as part of a larger world tour of his Presidential campaign. He had no Constitutional authorization to conduct any negotiations nor make any requests of the Iraq government on behalf of the United States, as he was acting on his own behalf and in the sole interests of his campaign, without and Presidential authorization or consent.
Again, I must demand for the sake of the public interests, that you utilize all the authority granted to you by your office and your constituency to begin a full investigation into these matters and see that investigation through its proper course.

Sincerely,

Damiano on September 15, 2008 at 6:19 PM

Puritan1648 on September 15, 2008 at 6:13 PM

Fabulous!
Are you a playwright? If not, you Should Be.

bridgetown on September 15, 2008 at 6:50 PM

Missed all the evening newscasts- was this mentioned at all? I didn’t hear any more about it after a brief bit on Rush’s show.

anniekc on September 15, 2008 at 8:47 PM

Beat him over the head with this over and over and over again. He is a destructive ego maniac.

hestrold on September 15, 2008 at 8:49 PM

McCain Responds to Obama’s Reported Undermining of the Commander-In-Chief During Wartime per The Corner

hestrold on September 15, 2008 at 8:55 PM

“Did Obama try to scotch an Iraqi-US agreement on military forces?”…Don’t ask me, I’m still trying to find (1) Christian who can recall the opening lines of the Arabic call to prayer, & recite it with a first-rate accent. And describe the call to prayer as “one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset.”

http://select.nytimes.com/2007/03/06/opinion/06kristof.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

I know, old news, but I’m still searching…any one??..any one??

christene on September 15, 2008 at 9:06 PM

Desperately trying to loose all 57 states.

Prosecute after McCain wins along with Nasty Nancy and any other tratorious Dem that talked to the Syrians without Prior approval.

Our young men and women who volunteer to defend this country need to know someone has their backs!

dhunter on September 15, 2008 at 9:22 PM

I am simply blown away by the sheer scope of this if Mr. Obama did this.
It sounds like Obama, screw Bush and screw soliders . Let the world go to Hell in a handbasket as long as he looks gooda savior.
How can people vote for this man?

Gracelynn on September 15, 2008 at 9:40 PM

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/06/16/1146329.aspx

Link to a press conference confirming 0B0mba asking for withdrawl and holding off on the Status of Forces Agreement.

dhunter on September 15, 2008 at 9:48 PM

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/06/16/1146329.aspx

Link to a press conference confirming 0B0mba asking for withdrawl and holding off on the Status of Forces Agreement.

dhunter on September 15, 2008 at 9:48 PM

Well, that’s pretty black and white to me. Obama was in Iraq, unilaterally making proposals that are contrary to current US policy on the sole basis of his candidacy.

That is over the line no matter how you slice it. I hope everyone is beating down their respective Congressional doors on this and demanding prosecution based on the Logan Act.

Damiano on September 15, 2008 at 9:59 PM

Obambi’s campaign has responded:

. . . 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.”
Last Tuesday, Bush announced plans to remove 8,000 US troops from Iraq in the coming months and send 4,500 to Afghanistan by January.
Obama said the president was belatedly coming round to his own way of thinking, but also accused Bush of “tinkering around the edges” and “kicking the can down the road to the next president.”

Sounds like a distinction without a difference to me. Guilty as charged.

MrLynn on September 15, 2008 at 10:16 PM

dhunter on September 15, 2008 at 9:48 PM

Thanks for that link. Earlier today, I thought more confirmation would be needed to make a charge against Obama that he had interfered with ongoing negotiations. But his own words from this article makes the case against Obama very strong.

MSNBC: OBAMA’S TALK WITH IRAQI FOREIGN MINISTER
June 16, 2008

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.

The foreign minister agreed that the next administration should not be bound by an agreement that’s currently made.

Loxodonta on September 15, 2008 at 10:31 PM

Are you a playwright?

bridgetow

…no…just a fat guy in his underwear…the voices in whose head can type….

…oh…and who needs a new keyboard ’cause the period key stutters….

Puritan1648 on September 15, 2008 at 10:44 PM

MSNBC: OBAMA’S TALK WITH IRAQI FOREIGN MINISTER
June 16, 2008

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.

The foreign minister agreed that the next administration should not be bound by an agreement that’s currently made.

Loxodonta on September 15, 2008 at 10:31 PM

He’s clearly attempting to set preemptive policy that is in direct opposition to the current administration. Whoever is the new President in January isn’t bound to anything… they have the executive authority to change policy.

This also directly interferes with policy agreements that were currently being negotiated by the current administration.

He is totally out of bounds and his campaigns response only serves to further highlight these facts.

If he wants to oppose administration policy, the place to do it is on the Senate floor, as it his job description, not in discussion with foreign officials.

There is no excuse for this. If the is not an investigation launched, I give up on our government since that will be defacto evidence that it no longer serves public interest or obeys the laws of this nation.

Damiano on September 15, 2008 at 10:45 PM

Damiano on September 15, 2008 at 10:45 PM
I copied your letter from above and sent it to my Senator’s and House Reps. but I fear it will do no good since my Senator’s are Byrd and Rockefeller but I’m trying my best. I will keep hitting them on this till 1 of them answer’s my emails or they send someone knocking on my door and take me away.

tee866 on September 15, 2008 at 10:56 PM

I fear it will do no good since my Senator’s are Byrd and Rockefeller but I’m trying my best.

tee866

…offer to name your sock drawer or your kitchen sink after Byrd and he might give it a look.

Puritan1648 on September 15, 2008 at 11:01 PM

Or I could change my dog’s name to buddy cause everyone knows Byrd loved that dog.I told my husband when we moved here that I was pretty sure they would elect Byrd even after he died and I’ve yet to have anyone prove me wrong.

tee866 on September 15, 2008 at 11:04 PM

tee866 on September 15, 2008 at 10:56 PM

Democrat or Republican, doesn’t matter…

The Dems (especially idiots like Byrd and Rockefeller) will ignore them, but in the back of their tiny minds it will feed the sense of buyers remorse that several members of Congress have already expressed.

Plus, if it does come to a vote, these idiots will clearly know that it’s at their peril if they oppose it.

Damiano on September 15, 2008 at 11:12 PM

The article states what Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari was supposed to have said in an interview.

Surely the Bush administration can easily seek direct confirmation whether this story has any legs. But I doubt the president will do it.

Birdseye on September 16, 2008 at 12:20 AM

Just found this at NoBama

CNN’s “Anderson Cooper 360″
July 21, 2008

David Gergen: “I think it was the first — Barack Obama made the first mistake of his trip, in my judgment, in releasing a statement in which he said exactly what Maliki had said in those conversations. We have a long tradition in this country that we only have one president at a time. He’s the commander in chief and the negotiator in chief. I cannot remember a campaign which a rival seeking the presidency has been in a position negotiating a war that’s under way with another party outside the country. I think he leaves himself open to the charge tonight that he’s meddling, that this is not his role, that he can be the critic, but he’s not the negotiator. We have a president who does that. So, I think the underlying facts support him, but I think it would be a real mistake — and I think it was a mistake — to get into these conversations and let it be used politically.”

CNN’s Anderson Cooper: “That’s interesting. Gloria, do you think this is the first mistake he made on this trip?”
Gloria Borger: “You know, it’s very interesting, I do agree with David. And Candy, in her earlier piece, talked about walking the fine line between being this candidate and being presumptuous. And I think that he may just have crossed that, because, you know, it is a tradition. You don’t talk about these private conversations. And it’s not up to Barack Obama right now to negotiate troop withdrawals. It’s up to Barack Obama to be on a fact-finding mission, which is indeed what he has said he was on.”

CNN dismisses it as a mistake but it backs up the Post article.

So, corroborating evidence so far:

- From MSNBC- 6/16/2008
Obama states in press conference about call with Zebari:

“I emphasized to him how encouraged I was by the reductions in violence in Iraq, but also insisted that it is important for us to begin the process of withdrawing U.S. troops, making clear that we have no interest in permanent bases in Iraq,” the senator said. “I gave him an assurance that should we be elected, an Obama administration will make sure that we continue with the progress that’s been made in Iraq, that we won’t act precipitously, but that we will move to end U.S. combat forces in Iraq in a manner that’s as careful as we were careless getting in.”

- CNN on July 21, linked above

- NY Post Article and quotes from Zebari

Damiano on September 16, 2008 at 12:27 AM

Is this legal?

Entelechy on September 16, 2008 at 12:35 AM

Is this legal?

Entelechy on September 16, 2008 at 12:35 AM

Nope. Not according to the Logan Act. (see my posted letter above to my reps and senators).

The Post article is corroborated by 3 independent sources and Obama’s own statements. This isn’t a question anymore of “if” he violated the Logan Act, it’s now a matter of whether or not he will be prosecuted for it.

Write your reps and senators, people.

Damiano on September 16, 2008 at 12:40 AM

As others have said, we really need to make sure the facts are correct, although the PMSNBC reports seem pretty damning. OTOH, this might be a good time to throw the 1980’s Democrat statements of, “It’s not the nature of the evidence, but the seriousness of the charges that merit an investigation” back at them. That could be fun.

AZfederalist on September 16, 2008 at 12:45 AM

Is this legal?
Entelechy on September 16, 2008 at 12:35 AM

Not according to the Logan Act:

§ 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

NightmareOnKStreet on September 16, 2008 at 1:17 AM

Just throw the Logan Act at him. It will of course generate a lot of buzz. Lefties will insist Bush is trying to interfere in the elections because this vile action is intended to benefit McCaib, blah blah blah. Who cares? It drives the media crazy but more importantly it questions Obama’s patriotism.

Birdseye on September 16, 2008 at 2:01 AM

Just on diplomacy, interfering with the United States in its diplomatic efforts is a Logan Act violation.

Actually the Logan Act applies to private citizens and Sen. Obama is not a private citizen, so no it would not be a violation of that act because he is an government employee after all.

JeffinSac on September 16, 2008 at 8:04 AM

Obama had told the Iraqis that they should not rush

“Barack Obama has never urged a delay in negotiations

Ah, the language of politics.

“as much resemblance to the truth as a McCain campaign commercial.”

Stupidity. That line is pretty telling. This has nothing to do with McCain, and is goes far beyond a campaign commercial, if it can be substantiated.

reaganaut on September 16, 2008 at 8:57 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3


You must be logged in to post a comment.