Obama broke the law?

[chipmunk stew]

Looks to me like he's trying to postpone the withdrawl solely for political purposes.

Which I find abhorrent.

I understand there's a lot of mudslinging and ridiculousness involved in politics but when you start using our troops as pawns I have a big problem with that.

Aside from the lack of direct quotes, there are other red flags in the article that should alert you that what "it looks like" is probably not the way it is. For example:

While in Iraq, Obama also tried to persuade the US commanders, including Gen. David Petraeus, to suggest a "realistic withdrawal date." They declined.

Why would he do that if he wanted to delay withdrawal?

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.

To be credible, his foreign-policy philosophy requires Iraq to be seen as a failure, a disaster, a quagmire, a pig with lipstick or any of the other apocalyptic adjectives used by the American defeat industry in the past five years.

again.
etc.

It's an op-ed in a Right-leaning rag. Take it with a grain of salt.

 

[leftysergeant]

Obama's plans for the future of Iraq do not include our leaving a contingent the size of some sovereing nations and an embassy bigger than Vatican city. That is, however, what Bush wants in the status-of-forces agreement.

Where does the soldier wannabe think he gets off telling the next congress they have to fund an ill-advised agreement? How can he even sign an aggreement without the consent of the Senate, and how is the Senate supposed to know whether or not to rubber-stamp it without some idea of what we now have and would continue to have on the ground?

Obama wants to actually withdraw. Bush and McCain just want to make it look as though we were withdrawing and still continue to pour money down the corporate rasence there.

 

[BobK]

The story is kind of thin on information. So nothing will be made of it. Here is the law that would likely be applied if found to be true.

Logan Act

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.

 

[leftysergeant]

Obama was not there to defeat any legitimate end of the United States. You could only say that he did if you idnetify the USA with the person of GWBush, which is an utter absurdity.

The US Senate palys a major role in determining what the legitimate ends of the USA are. Bush does not have the authority to unilaterally commit us to an absurd status of forces agreement without a Senate vote.

 

[BeAChooser]

Did Obama Undermine US in Iraq?

http://www.nypost.com/seven/0915200...tried_to_stall_gis_iraq_withdrawal_129150.htm

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."

Wow! More evidence that Obama really is stuck on stupid where Iraq is concerned.

If he did this, the he even violated US law.

By the way, here's the McCain campaign's response to this report:

At this point, it is not yet clear what official American negotiations Senator Obama tried to undermine with Iraqi leaders, but the possibility of such actions is unprecedented. It should be concerning to all that he reportedly urged that the democratically-elected Iraqi government listen to him rather than the US administration in power. If news reports are accurate, this is an egregious act of political interference by a presidential candidate seeking political advantage overseas. Senator Obama needs to reveal what he said to Iraq's Foreign Minister during their closed door meeting. The charge that he sought to delay the withdrawal of Americans from Iraq raises serious questions about Senator Obama's judgment and it demands an explanation.

 

[Wangler]

This has been covered here.

Kinda tastes like election

 

[BeAChooser]

This in the NY Times, before the trip, sure seems consistent with what the NYPost reports Obama said to them.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/...e-election-day-visit-to-iraq-and-afghanistan/

FLINT, Mich. – Senator Barack Obama said today he intends to visit Iraq and Afghanistan before the November election.

... snip ...

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

 

[Puppycow]

(never mind)

 

[Puppycow]

Before everybody goes off half-cocked, please carefully read the article.

Nothing within the quotes suggests that Obama was trying to delay the return of US troops. He was suggesting, correctly, that the next president would not be bound by an agreement that did not have the approval of congress. He was not making "demands." That is just Taheri's spin.

And leave Reagan out of it (or at least read this first)

 

[Dragoonster]

The story is kind of thin on information. So nothing will be made of it. Here is the law that would likely be applied if found to be true.

Logan Act

Wow, never heard of that before. The link says no one has ever been convicted or even prosecuted for it. Wacky stuff.

Whether legal or not, I could understand if the intent is to allow the next President to not be hampered by a long-term deal, however Inauguration Day is still four months away, so it's pretty iffy. Depends on Obama's motivation, and exactly what he said.

Looks to me like he's trying to postpone the withdrawl solely for political purposes.

Which I find abhorrent.

I understand there's a lot of mudslinging and ridiculousness involved in politics but when you start using our troops as pawns I have a big problem with that.

I'll agree with that. I'd like to point out though that imo it's likely Bush's orders for US troops to engage across the Pakistani border in the last couple weeks probably has a domestic political motivation.

He also pulled something like that before the '04 election, though I might be misremembering.

 

[Puppycow]

So we are to believe that Bush was trying to get troops out of Iraq sooner rather than later, and that this is what Obama was objecting to? I seem to recall that people were concerned that Bush would try to commit US troops to stay in Iraq well into the next administration and that this is what Obama was objecting to.

 

[Meadmaker]

"alleged" episode

Oh, yeah.

Actually, no one denies that a meeting took place, although some people's memory of exactly what was discussed gets a little fuzzy.

 

[kallsop]

Obama to Iraqi's - help me win in November

OBAMA TRIED TO STALL GIS' IRAQ WITHDRAWAL

I don't know if the NYP is on to something here, or it's drivel. Certainly interesting if true. Obama wants to delay any good news in Iraq until after November! Does a 143 day inexperienced junior US Senator have the authority to override the administration and bypass Congress to set US foreign policy? Just curious and all. Strange posture for someone who wants the troops out, to want them there just long enough so he can use our troops as fodder in an election campaign.

Hoping for change, know what I mean.

 

[boloboffin]

Duplicate thread.

 

[leftysergeant]

The bookmarks I had to the PNAC manifesto regarding Iraq seem to be dead now, ands I have heard that the site is gone, but I do recall a suggestion that Iraq was expected to serve as a sort of stationary aircraft carry in order to project our military power in the Middle East. This may be why Bush is trying to get the status of forces agreement now and with as little interference from Congress as possible.

He may hit a brick wall rather soon.

 

[jmercer]

Merged three threads since they're on the same exact subject.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: jmercer

 

[boloboffin]

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/09/noted_bamboozler_behind_latest.php

Well, well, well. The source for this story is about as trustworthy as Chalabi.

 

[BeAChooser]

Well, well, well. The source for this story is about as trustworthy as Chalabi.

Here's what your muckraker link quotes Taheri saying:

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."

Now how is that inconsistent with Obama's statement before going to Iraq that the NY Times quoted? Namely,

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

Sounds to me like Taheri heard Obama correctly and if Obama suggested that Iraq "not be bound by an agreement that's currently made", Obama most certainly did interfere in negotiations and violated the Logan act.

It also suggests that the Obama campaign's response to this controversy ... namely "Barack Obama has consistently called for any Strategic Framework Agreement to be submitted to the U.S. Congress so that the American people have the same opportunity for review as the Iraqi Parliament" and "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" may be untrue. I think it's time Obama released the text of whatever *secret* contacts he had with Iraq's leaders when he visited Iraq. For *transparencies* sake.

 

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by RadioactiveMan
...
I don't care if he is your god.
​

Apologize for that insult, please.

Was the alleged insult

• that Obama was the god of Ben
• Or that the god Obama was insulted by being so labeled?

 

[SteveGrenard]

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/09/noted_bamboozler_behind_latest.php

Well, well, well. The source for this story is about as trustworthy as Chalabi.

Yesterday evening, the McCain camp sought to get some mileage out of Taheri's report, releasing a statement from Randy Scheunemann, McCain's top foreign policy aide, asserting that: "If news reports are accurate, this is an egregious act of political interference by a presidential candidate seeking political advantage overseas."

This statement by Randy Scheunemann is a hoot, a total farce. His own activities do more to try and influence politics overseas than even a sitting President does. Scheunemann is the owner of not one but three lobbying firms in Washington, one of which represented Republic of Georgia for a few years now and he's also MCCain's top foreign policy aid. Anything he says is about as trustworthy as anyone elses or not. And so much for eliminating the lobbyists from your midst Senator McCain.

Also please take note the NY Post which carried Taheri's column is owned by R. Murdoch, same as Fox News. It is an extreme right wing neocon newspaper that is totally biased against Obama and in favor of McCain. You would have a hard time finding just about anything in that newspaper that isn't slanted to the extreme right. This is no ordinary op-ed, Taheri was planted there deliberately to try and damage Obama.