Did Obama try to stall Iraq withdrawal?

Including all those that I have agreed with you on?

 

You mean like agreeing with Mr. Bush on his rather liberalistic stand on illegal immigrants?

Since I am not a conservative per se (I am more of a Libertarian), just agreeing with me does not make you a Conservative. It's what you agree with me on. For example, I believe that gays should have the right to marry. That's something that's part of the liberal platform, and I'm sure that it's one thing you agree with me on.

 

So we are both a little more complex, I am in full agreement that everyone (with exceptions for mental illness, felonies, etcetera) be allowed to own and use a gun once they achieve 18 years of age.

 

I posted this article from the New York Post and said I hope it is not true. As for whether or not it is true, I am waiting to see since it is such a serious accusation. Just a couple of points on that:

1. The most damning claim in the report comes from the Iraqi foreign minister who is attributed on the record by name. It was not attributed to a "high ranking Iraqi official" who declined to be named. It is attributed to the foreign minister on the record. At the very least I would think that would require the Obama camp to issue a response, a denial, something...If Obama says it is true this is potential Logan Act territory and this man does not deserve to be in the Senate, much less the White House. If he says he was misinterpreted I would wonder how he could be president and be trusted to speak on behalf of this country if he could cause such a significant misunderstanding. If he denies it completely and says it is completely fabricated the media will most likely drop it. Heck, I don't know if they will ever even pick it up if he doesn't deny it.

2. Compare the standard of proof for some. An article in the NYPost quoting an Iraqi foreign minister on the record? Some say they will wait to see if it is true before even commenting on it, some citing a conservative publication. Fair enough.

But read a rumor on a leftwing hate site that is known for floating rumors that often are found to be completely fabricated? Many decide there must some truth to it! Or even if there isn't they declare it worthy of consideration to the point that national magazine covers scream of "Babies, Lies & Scandals!" Some in the media even asked the McCain campaign for samples of Palin's DNA to prove she was Trig's mother and only backed down when the timeline of Bristol's pregnancy made it impossible for the baby to be hers. Float a banned books list on the internet and thousands gobble it up, even though many of the books on the list were not even printed yet at the time Palin was mayor. Post an accusation of slashing funding for special needs kids and pregnant teens (even citing a document that on its face indicates it was not a cut) and the NYTimes and CNN pick it up and repeat it as fact with no fact checking. There really is a double standard.

If the report is true, I still wonder if the media will find it of interest even though it would be the most relevant and damning report imaginable to this election. The media has no interest in Obama's relationship with unrepentant domestic terrorist Ayers, or his campaign's payments to ACORN who have just been cited for even more fraudulent registration forms in yet another state.

I think some are afraid to comment on the substance of the report because it might turn out to be true and they have not yet figured out how to explain this one away.

I really hope it is not true, but just seeing the reaction from some to the existence of the report (whether or not it is ultimately confirmed) is very revealing.

 

Fox News has picked up the story. I wonder how this is going to go. If these allegations hold, the Democrats may have to call up Hillary from the bullpen. I would imagine that only the most diehard Obama supporters would likely vote for him after trying to manipulate the Iraq War for his own selfish gain and keep troops there unnecessarily. The first debate is Friday, isn't it? The Obama campaign is already denying it. I'll bet within hours either the Iraqi Foreign Minister will either validate the article or refute it.

 

Doesn't really matter. Just like everything else. They will put whatever spin on it that they need to make it go away. Just politics being politics.

 

Pretty much the opposite of what Hoshyar Zebari said in July.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/17/AR2008061702034.html

 

Right! And fine, upstanding Republicans (at least the ones who don't get caught soliciting sex in public bathrooms) would NEVER try to pull a stunt like THAT!

Oh yeah, there was that little event in 1980, when the US hostages came home the very day Reagan was inaugurated. But that was a coinicidence, I'm sure. It had nothing to do with an unelected (yet) politician negotiating with terrorists, which he said he would NEVER do! And the Iran-Contra thing, well, you'd have to be some kind of comspiracy theorist to think THAT was related!

It's politics as usual, people. If you want it to stop, you're going to have to start voting 3rd party or indepedents.

(Of course, I'm not admitting that the assertion is true. If the NY Post and FOx Noise report it, it's probably fiction, anyway.)

 

Anyone following this, please read the Washington Post June article cited above which only highlights Obama's hypocrisy:

June 17, 2008: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/17/AR2008061702034.html

Look again at what the report today said about Obama's closed door meeting with Zebari in July:

If what Zebari says is true, as one blogger put it, Obama "directly and deliberately interfered with the foreign policy power entrusted by the Constitution to the sitting president only (with the advice and consent, and not interference and sabotage, of the Senate)." If true, he tried to convince the foreign minister of Iraq that Iraq should not negotiate with the current President of the U.S. , wanting Iraq to delay the security agreement on the draw down of U.S. troops there. If true, not only was he trying to subvert the Constitution by interferring with ongoing negotiations between a sitting President and another country during a time of war, but he did so in an effort which would have delayed the return of the troops to the U.S. The only way I see that this is not a really big serious problem for Obama is if it is completely fabricated. Zebari should be asked by some American reporters from CBS and NBC and CNN the New York Times, unless they are all in Alaska. If Zebari said I have never talked to that reporter and the story is made up it will be over in 2 seconds.

 

The only hypocrisy I saw was on the part of Zebari stating in July that Obama wanted

and then supposedly telling a different reporter recently that

That is if, as you stated the latest New York Post Story is real, which is looking less real with time. But you can keep pushing it if it helps you get through the night.

 

Actually, if you believe Carter, he was on the phone negotiating on inauguration day.

 

The comment about what gets me through the night is just rude and childish, but not really surprising, considering. No response necessary to that one.

But the rest needs to be corrected. The comment above refers to the statement of Zebari from JUNE but the commenter identifies it as a JULY statement. The Washington Post article was in JUNE. It was written before Obama ever went to Iraq. (Which is clear from reading the article since in the article it mentions an upcoming trip before the election).

Obama went to Iraq in JULY. This is why I re-quoted the article where Zebari comments on the JULY trip. That is the point of this thread and the point of the Post story. Obama said in JUNE that he wanted troops out of there quickly, then in JULY in a closed door meeting in Iraq tried to persuade the Iraqis to delay the troop withdrawal agreement that was being negotiated until after the election. Zebari is commenting on two separate things, making one comment before Obama's trip and the other after. It is not rocket science, but it does require reading the entire article and looking at the dates. That is why I specifically posted the dates in front of the quotes from each.

As for whether or not the story is real, the Obama campaign has now issued a statement on it which they described as a denial, but in it Obama confirms what Taheri said as true!

I have to agree with Glenn Reynolds. I don't see any difference between what Taheri said and what Obama's response to the statement is. If anyone here can explain the difference between Tahreri's statement and Obama's I'd love to hear it. Obama confirmed what Taheri said about wanting the Iraqis to delay the agreement until after the election and even repeated what Taheri said about Obama believing the U.S. Congress should be involved.

If you read it differently, then at the very least it shows that Obama was not even clear enough when talking to the foreign minister of Iraq for the Iraqis to understand what he was saying. As I said before, if Obama said it was a fabrication, then it would not be a story, but if he confirmed it, which he now has, people will have to decide if they care that he tried to delay the troops' withdrawal agreement. If he claimed what he said to Taheri was misunderstood, then he does not need to be negotiating with anyone, much less with allies and enemies on behalf of the United States.

 

I'm following the point you have made JCgirl. And if it is true (which it seems Obama's response to it proves it to be so) then it is disgusting and very disturbing. He is clearly more concerned with his own agenda more than what is best for our nation.

As for his supporter's changing their minds over it, I don't think so. Remember how it sounded when the parents in Charlie Brown cartoons talk? Well, when faced with a harsh reality about their candidate, that's all liberals hear. It won't make much difference. It should, but it won't. The "spin" has already started.:ack:

 

I am sad to say I think you called it exactly as it will play out. The Charlie Brown mental image is perfect. I also imagine them putting their fingers in their ears and repeating "la, la, la,la, la" over and over again.

I also saw something on the budget stuff today that should hurt Obama, but I doubt it gets reported in the MSM either. One is that Obama is the second highest recipient of Freddie/Fannie political contributions -- and that is in only his four short years in the Senate. John McCain, in comparison, received only $20,000 in 20 years from Freddie/Fannie. Here is the transcript from Fox News. I don't think any of the networks have picked it up yet.

 

I couldn't agree more JCG!

 

:iagree:

ME TOO!!

 

I swear, some people on this board must have FOX news and every other conservative media outlet in the DVR.

 

And other's have every liberal one on their's. To each his own. :jester:

 

What news service is considered "conservative" besides Fox News? Seriously.

 

New York Post, WorldNetDaily and the Drudge Report jump to mind. I'm sure there are others.