If this is true.....

[EvilMonkey]

http://www.nypost.com/seven/09152008/posto...awal_129150.htm

 

OBAMA TRIED TO STALL GIS' IRAQ WITHDRAWAL

 

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.

 

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

 

Obama has made many contradictory statements with regard to Iraq. His latest position is that US combat troops should be out by 2010. Yet his effort to delay an agreement would make that withdrawal deadline impossible to meet.

 

Supposing he wins, Obama's administration wouldn't be fully operational before February - and naming a new ambassador to Baghdad and forming a new negotiation team might take longer still.

 

By then, Iraq will be in the throes of its own campaign season. Judging by the past two elections, forming a new coalition government may then take three months. So the Iraqi negotiating team might not be in place until next June.

 

Then, judging by how long the current talks have taken, restarting the process from scratch would leave the two sides needing at least six months to come up with a draft accord. That puts us at May 2010 for when the draft might be submitted to the Iraqi parliament - which might well need another six months to pass it into law.

 

 

[FlaSoxxJim]

Had the headline about Obama intentionally trying to stall withdrawal been on the mark, I'd say it would be a very serious problem, and I personally would be very disheartened.

 

Reading the piece, however, if this is the operative sentence detailing the allegation:

 

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.

 

. . . Well, then I see it as being a prudent stance. I don't care for the idea of missing 2010 withdrawal targets, and I'm sure Obama doesn't either. But if this is an alternative to Iraq (not to mention the next presidential administration) being forced into an open-ended Status of Forces agreement, etc., I don't think it's necessarily the wrong approach.

[lostfan]

This article is written tabloid-style, but Jim said what I was thinking. Quite frankly, I don't care what the Bush administration wants at this point. And even if McCain wins, it still doesn't change the fact that Congress actually should be involved - that's in the Constitution. But in any case, the next president should be able to have their own leverage, not locked into what Bush decided for them.

[EvilMonkey]

Had the headline about Obama intentionally trying to stall withdrawal been on the mark, I'd say it would be a very serious problem, and I personally would be very disheartened.

 

Reading the piece, however, if this is the operative sentence detailing the allegation:

 

 

 

. . . Well, then I see it as being a prudent stance. I don't care for the idea of missing 2010 withdrawal targets, and I'm sure Obama doesn't either. But if this is an alternative to Iraq (not to mention the next presidential administration) being forced into an open-ended Status of Forces agreement, etc., I don't think it's necessarily the wrong approach.

Your operative sentance, at least the way that it is written, leaves itself open for all sorts of interpretation. It could also be implied "Why reach an agreement with HIM, instead wait a bit and reach it with ME, because I willbe the one in charge soon, and it would be in your interest to have ME on your side" It could also be read as every other possible combination inbetween the two.

[Rex Kickass]

This seems like a stretch of an argument, which would explain why the NY Post put it in the Op/Ed section.

 

An extension of the UN mandate is not the same as stalling a troop drawdown at all. Merely, it could be a plea to allow a new administration to internationalize the military presence in Iraq, allowing US combat troops to withdraw while leaving peacekeepers to come in and keep a weak state from failing.

 

I don't think most people will understand the difference, however. There is some subtlety at play - and it could very well be used as a hit you over the head issue that could hurt Obama.

[EvilMonkey]

This article is written tabloid-style, but Jim said what I was thinking. Quite frankly, I don't care what the Bush administration wants at this point. And even if McCain wins, it still doesn't change the fact that Congress actually should be involved - that's in the Constitution. But in any case, the next president should be able to have their own leverage, not locked into what Bush decided for them.

Isn't that the President in CIC? I know that Congress needs to approve treaties, but as for specific troop levels and movements, i think that is up to the President, not Congress.

[lostfan]

Isn't that the President in CIC? I know that Congress needs to approve treaties, but as for specific troop levels and movements, i think that is up to the President, not Congress.

An agreement/treaty would have a direct effect on the next President's ability to decide troop levels. IMO they should be the ones deciding. Whether that is Obama or McCain. There has been enough mismanagement of this war as it is, I don't want to see more.

[Rex Kickass]

Isn't that the President in CIC? I know that Congress needs to approve treaties, but as for specific troop levels and movements, i think that is up to the President, not Congress.

 

Actually, the War Powers resolution means that Congress must authorize the placement of troops in imminent harm for no more than 60 days without a state of war being in effect.

[StrangeSox]

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

[EvilMonkey]

Obama and Zebari had a differing of opinions once before. Maybe something was lost in the translation.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/20...-and-iraqi.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...8061702034.html

[lostfan]

Also, I'm slightly amused by the fact that the Bush administration has eventually taken Obama's line on so many things lately.

[Rex Kickass]

Obama and Zebari had a differing of opinions once before. Maybe something was lost in the translation.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/20...-and-iraqi.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...8061702034.html

 

So the links that you post are both kind of confirming my theory. If Iraq wants to have international peacekeeping forces in the country to protect its interests, Obama would have suggested asking for an extension of the UN mandate. This gives the US the flexibility to leave at its own pace while still maintaining a military presence that can help keep the peace in Iraq.

 

I think there's a very honest argument that can be made that the US shouldn't have its military capability held hostage to how effective the Iraqi government is. Having an internationalization of the military presence can give the US that flexibility while aiding Iraq's stability.

[EvilMonkey]

So the links that you post are both kind of confirming my theory. If Iraq wants to have international peacekeeping forces in the country to protect its interests, Obama would have suggested asking for an extension of the UN mandate. This gives the US the flexibility to leave at its own pace while still maintaining a military presence that can help keep the peace in Iraq.

 

I think there's a very honest argument that can be made that the US shouldn't have its military capability held hostage to how effective the Iraqi government is. Having an internationalization of the military presence can give the US that flexibility while aiding Iraq's stability.

You are missing a key point in all this. WHY is Obama negotiating with a foreign leader? That is really above his pay grade, at least for now. Isn't that against the law? I thik the Logan Act prohibits unauthorized individuals from negotiating with foreign governments.

[lostfan]

You are missing a key point in all this. WHY is Obama negotiating with a foreign leader? That is really above his pay grade, at least for now. Isn't that against the law? I thik the Logan Act prohibits unauthorized individuals from negotiating with foreign governments.

He's not really negotiating (though the author tried his best to make it seem like he did), he didn't reach any deal. There is nothing wrong with a US Senator traveling abroad and having talks with foreign leaders though. Especially considering Congress wants in on this (and rightly so).

[Texsox]

It would mean he grabbed a page out of Reagan's playbook. Very sad indeed.

[lostfan]

It would mean he grabbed a page out of Reagan's playbook. Very sad indeed.

I'm pretty sure the Iranians hung on to the hostages longer mostly to insult Carter for trying to rescue them and that Reagan didn't play that much of a role. Although I admittedly haven't done all my research here either.

[StrangeSox]

I'm pretty sure the Iranians hung on to the hostages longer mostly to insult Carter for trying to rescue them and that Reagan didn't play that much of a role. Although I admittedly haven't done all my research here either.

 

that's what I've heard. Reagan didn't directly negotiate with them.

[EvilMonkey]

He's not really negotiating (though the author tried his best to make it seem like he did), he didn't reach any deal. There is nothing wrong with a US Senator traveling abroad and having talks with foreign leaders though. Especially considering Congress wants in on this (and rightly so).

You CAN negotiate without reaching a deal. And it certainly seems like he WAS trying to reach a deal. Again, just going by what was written. He seemed like he was trying to convince him to do something that he favored, and was told no. IS that now just called 'asking'? And there IS something wrong with it, if that person has a different message than the one of his government. And like it or not, Bush's message is the 'official' one for now.

[lostfan]

You CAN negotiate without reaching a deal. And it certainly seems like he WAS trying to reach a deal. Again, just going by what was written. He seemed like he was trying to convince him to do something that he favored, and was told no. IS that now just called 'asking'? And there IS something wrong with it, if that person has a different message than the one of his government. And like it or not, Bush's message is the 'official' one for now.

Obama's a part of the government too, and he is allowed to do that (dissent is allowed within our government, this isn't like the Soviet Union where everybody has to be in line with the official government position). I mean, it'd be different if he was the governor of Illinois and not a US Senator. He stated before he left that he was doing that in his official capacity, not as a presidential candidate.

[Rex Kickass]

You CAN negotiate without reaching a deal. And it certainly seems like he WAS trying to reach a deal. Again, just going by what was written. He seemed like he was trying to convince him to do something that he favored, and was told no. IS that now just called 'asking'? And there IS something wrong with it, if that person has a different message than the one of his government. And like it or not, Bush's message is the 'official' one for now.

 

I don't get the impression he was trying to reach any sort of deal. Again, you're inferring that from the basis of one op-ed article in the New York Post of all places citing two month old information. Speaking with leaders of a country over different foreign policy initiatives, and suggesting one thing or another does not amount to anything close to brokering a deal.

 

Just because I give you advice on how you should propose to your girlfriend doesn't mean I brokered a marriage.

[Balta1701]

You CAN negotiate without reaching a deal. And it certainly seems like he WAS trying to reach a deal. Again, just going by what was written. He seemed like he was trying to convince him to do something that he favored, and was told no. IS that now just called 'asking'? And there IS something wrong with it, if that person has a different message than the one of his government. And like it or not, Bush's message is the 'official' one for now.

Here's what makes this interesting though...Bush is himself already trying to circumvent the rules with this "Status of Forces Agreement". Basically, he's trying to convince the Iraqis to sign something that locks in his policy of keeping troops there under rules this administration would like for whatever time period they can negotiate.

 

Now, the weird thing is...normally, an agreement between 2 nations of this sort, where one is allowed to station troops on another's soil, is what we would call a treaty. The problem is...an actual treaty would have to go to the Senate for approval. And thus, it would open up discussion in the Senate, and frankly it'd probably fail at this point.

 

So we have this odd situation of the President trying to negotiate something on paper that isn't a treaty but that serves as a treaty and which the next President will be bound by because it's on paper. So while Bush's message may be the official one, it's a fundamentally odd situation because typically the Senate should in fact have a say here but the President is trying to deny that to them.

[Balta1701]

Hmm...

 

FWIW, the guy writing this article here is the same guy who in 2006 wrote an article claiming that Iran was forcing Jewish citizens in its country to wear a badge that would publicly identify them. That story was rapidly retracted and was false. There are various other books and articles in his past which seem to follow a similar path...citing other sources that don't say what he claims they do. There's a bit of a pattern of behavior here already.

[StrangeSox]

http://www.nypost.com/seven/09172008/posto...9453.htm?page=0

 

Taheri's response.