Obama Tried to Stall U.S. Troop Withdrawal from Iraq
Monday, September 15, 2008 at 12:02PM 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 until after the U.S. presidential elections.
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.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. Indeed, say Talabani’s advisers, a President Obama might be tempted to appropriate the victory that America has already won in Iraq by claiming that his intervention transformed failure into success.Maliki’s advisers have persuaded him that Obama will win - but the prime minister worries about the senator’s “political debt to the anti-war lobby” - which is determined to transform Iraq into a disaster to prove that toppling Saddam Hussein was “the biggest strategic blunder in US history.”Other prominent Iraqi leaders, such as Vice President Adel Abdul-Mahdi and Kurdish regional President Massoud Barzani, believe that Sen. John McCain would show “a more realistic approach to Iraqi issues.”Obama has given Iraqis the impression that he doesn’t want Iraq to appear anything like a success, let alone a victory, for America. The reason? He fears that the perception of US victory there might revive the Bush Doctrine of “pre-emptive” war - that is, removing a threat before it strikes at America.Despite some usual equivocations on the subject, Obama rejects pre-emption as a legitimate form of self -defense. 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.Yet Iraq is doing much better than its friends hoped and its enemies feared. The UN mandate will be extended in December, and we may yet get an agreement on the status of forces before President Bush leaves the White House in January.
Obama’s actions appear to be a violation of the Logan Act:
The Logan Act (18 U.S.C.A. § 953 [1948]) is a single federal statute making it a crime for a citizen to confer with foreign governments against the interests of the United States. Specifically, it prohibits citizens from negotiating with other nations on behalf of the United States without authorization.
So what was Obama’s motivation to ask top U.S. commanders in Iraq, including GEN David Petraeus, to set a troop withdrawal date (they declined) and bargain with Iraqi officials to delay the Strategic Framework and Status of Forces Agreement that Iraq and the U.S. have been working hard to solidify until after the U.S. elections?
- Obama is (or was at the time) confident enough in his victory to believe he will win the presidential election
- If GEN Petraeus suggests a timetable for troop withdrawal, Obama would try to claim Petraeus adapted his “military plan” to end the war.
- If Iraq delayed the Strategic Framework and Status of Forces Agreement finalization, Obama could also claim credit for finalizing the agreement thus giving him much needed foreign policy “judgment”.
Essentially, he could forgo the failure of his opposition to the war and hitch his little wagon the victory in Iraq he fought so hard against and claim to have “solved Iraq”.
But no dice; they all turned him down. The Iraqi government and top U.S. commanders still side with President Bush.
Trackback URL: http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/trackback/2281955
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (27)
Obama is an empty suit on the world stage. The world is too volatile to entrust it to a community organizer who subscribes to Liberation Theology. We need experienced, informed leaders in the WhiteHouse.
Johnny, I echo those sentiments.
As others have noted, Obama, by holding these talks, is in direct violation of the Logan Act, and should be prosecuted.
I posted something early this morning on RCP. It's located at American Sentinel, as "Bring criminal charges against Obama--now! [http://theamericansentinel.com/2008/09/15/bring-criminal-charges-against-obama-now/] " for what appears to be his violation of the Logan Act.
Grrr.. posted on this topic earlier and was having some good conversation when my ISP went down, came back up, all comments were missing, went down again and is still down :-(
In my opinion, this is the clearest violation of the Logan Act that I can recall, but unlikely it will be enforced since it has only been enforced once in it's history. The real damage, assuming this is true, is political.
This totally strips off the Cloak of Obama and shows that he is a typical Chicago politician who will do anything to get elected, acting contrary to the position on which he has based his entire campaign.
Keith, when you said that about ISPs I was thinking you were somewhere close to my area, lol. I had that problem earlier and with a different ISP no less.
I use MidPhase.. they are very good. Just having problems today... which was inevitable because I was getting my highest visit count for a single day in months :-) Not that it was related, just that whole Murphy's Law thing
CKA, thanks for pointing out where Johnnie got his comment from: "It is time for some serious comeuppance for the Marxist empty suit from that sewer called the Chicago Political Machine."
It would be great if this actually goes through, I would be very interested in seeing a party nominee brought up on criminal charges, especially the one playing lip service to "Change"
I have to wonder, not even fox news is reporting this, is Fox news part of the main stream media?
I would be happy to be corrected, please let me know if the right of center, but still creditable Fox news reports on this story.
Rush Limbaugh did.
FoxNews would have reported it, but with my blog down for 11 hours, probably didn't know about it... just kidding :-)
Since FoxNews tends to verify before reporting, perhaps they are verifying before reporting.
Iraqi politicians are no dummies.
Viva Iraq!
Keith, it's war news. The MSM, including Fox doesn't care about that anymore. It's not negative enough for them. Sorry, but I don't watch much Fox news anymore, or any of the others for that matter. The New York Post is a fairly credible source unlike at least one of its competitors, the NYT.
Steph, you might want to consider that if you think Fox is too mainstream, you are a radical. No problem with being a radical, I am one as well (classical liberal (you might consider this close to libertarianism) radical - subjectivist, anti-violence), but studies show that the closes network to the median voter is Fox News, this reflects that the median voter is ideologically a republican with mistrust of American liberal elitism. I would say that the best reporting done on the left-side of Fox is done by Comedy Cental, but hardly reflective of a demographic nearly the size of Fox news. CNN is always good in a pinch, they do a very good job of covering live events. However, the internet is not a really good new source. Newspapers whose sole point it to slant the news in the favor of a particular canidate for office are inherently suspect.
BTW, Rush limbaugh is not news, unless Jon Stewart is news, At least the daily show has interviews with a wide variety of people. Rush has frequently had a great guest host, who really knows economics (Dr. Williams).
disagree, I know Rush Limbaugh is not news but when he does commentary he does research beforehand, or makes a disclaimer such as "if this is true..."
Fox is mainstream, it's just more balanced than the other because they don't take a position on much they report. That being said, it's still war news. People don't want to hear war news these days and the news channels will give people what they want or they go out of business. That's the reality of it. I wasn't exactly putting Fox down because they didn't cover it, I just know they are going to go with what makes them money.
As for the radical title, no, I'm not a radical. I believe in the rule of law. However, I will fight unjust laws as best I can and we have a lot of them now and still increasing.
Oh, one of the reasons I don't watch Fox much is there is only so many times you can hear about Cayley Anthony and her mother's hijinks before you want to throw a brick through the TV screen. Yes, it's horrible and yes, something needs to be done about finding out what happened but not every five minutes of the day, 24/7.
Steph,
I am not trying to offend, but the way I defining the case, you are radical. Think of a normal Bell curve, Fox is positioned to the right of the median, CNN is a similar distance to the left, MSNBC is pretty far left. This is supported by their ratings. Fox dominates because there is no mainstream outlet further to the right. I would argue that Rush Limbaugh is similarly positioned to the right as MSNBC, but does not have the same apparatus for creating news coverage. I would no more call MSNBC mainstream as I would can Rush Limbaugh mainstream. However, they are doing two different things. We are talking about market share, positioning where one thinks they can get the largest possible audience, MSNBC is very focused, Fox News started by being right of CNN which according to their assessment would play to the median with an error always to the left.
When you are not on the median, when you suggest that Fox news is even too mainstream for you, you indicate yourself as an "outlier." I chose the term radical. It has no pejorative connotation. It is simply descriptive. However, creditablity is, at least to some extent, a function of confirmation by some group less narrowly defined. Experts often have access to nuianced information, scientists read lab reports, they tend to have "radical" opinions, but we trust them. Journalists I am not so sure should be given the same trust. Often a journalist errs in facts on purpose to be controversial. Look to the left if you want to see what your journalist look like from their perspective, it is symetrical. They think you are as wacky as they are. Fortunately, the search for truth requires radicals. I hope that you will embrace this title, with the attached caveats.
Perhaps so, disagree, perhaps so. I'm decidedly conservative in my ideology... although there are a few things I can and do compromise upon so by that definition I probably am a radical.
I am much happier around conservatives than american-style liberals. While I prefer the company of classical liberals, I don't get to indulge that often. All of these groups tend toward radical, which I certainly am as well (notice all of the definition work).
It is nice to find some common ground.
I like FoxNews. The shows I watch focus on politics though, not Cayley.
Fox & Friends, Special Report, Beltway Boys, Sometimes Hannity & Colmes... although Colmes "they do it too" defense gets on my nerves.
I almost never watch On the Record because it is not well done IMHO.
But this issue is not strictly a war issue, it goes to Obama's credibility. If it is true, and it sure seems to be, then it will make it's way onto one of the FoxNews shows.
Hey, but I could be wrong... I think I was wrong once before, but I could be mistaken.
Right, Keith I just want to know when it shows up, I searched the Fox new site and didn't find it. It also doesn't come up very high on google, so I understand that people are reading pretty deep on the tails to get this story.
I am trying to understand if it is a technicallity, a attempt to seem scandelous on the part of far-far-right wing reporters, or something that is being verified like Steph said. I would be very anxious for any presidential canidate that violated law to be brought swiftly to justice, but so far the system is either really corrupt or there are mitgating circumstances which make the problem not as serious as it is described here.
The biggest problem to the story was Zebari's reputation. He's known to exaggerate. However, an Obama campaign spoeksperson confirmed it while trying to deny it. It was funny.
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hi9TDNHvuBZpFsO8ZbiFYsnbIl3A
Sad, really. Semantical games don't make it false.
Steph is not radical. People think Fox is right of center because the other networks are flaming left of center.
Radical describes the Malcolm X type of friends who surround Obama. Radical is Keith Olberman. The View chicks. Not Steph.
Amy, I fear you missed the part where Steph agrees. Without definitions we don't have common ground.
I am perfectly willing to agree, studies show that Fox news reflects more closely the median-voter than other networks. I just want you to understand that calling Fox news mainstream makes your use of the word mainstream a little confusing. They are the ones that created the distinction. Plus, I live in Washington, DC and it is a little hard to find anyone who reads the sites that you guys read. I know plenty of people who read deeply about politics. I would call this fairly radical, critiques against DC aside. I also called myself radical. I am sorry I bore you with my definitions, but it might actually be worthwhile to read the dialouge fully before responding.
I wish this story would get verified. I actually just found this blog because I was doing a net search trying to find some other sources besides the NY Post that I could point my lib friends to look at. This is the kind of thing that if it was the GOP candidate, the news would beat it into the ground over and over again until every person in America was sick of hearing about it.
Put down your pitchforks.The actual story is, of course, quite different from the one posted.