As I previously posted here, Obama’s camp has essentially confirmed the Amir Taheri – NY Post report alleging Barack Obama the (presumptuous) Democratic Presidential candidate of trying to stall troop withdrawal until he becomes (God forbid) president.
A quick re-cap…
Obama’s national security spokeswoman Wendy Morigi responds to the Amir Taheri – NY Post report.
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.
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.
Where is the distinction? I do not see any difference between what Taheri reported and in how the Obama camp responded.
A non-denial denial. A trademark of the Obama camp.
Amir Taheri vs. Obama round two:
Here is how NBC reported Obama’s position on June 16, after his conversation in the US with Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari: “Obama also told Zebari, he said, that Congress should be involved in any negotiations regarding a Status of Forces Agreement with Iraq. He suggested it may be better to wait until the next administration to negotiate such an agreement.”
In other words, Obama wanted a delay on the Status of Forces Agreement, not on the Strategic Framework Agreement – as his rebuttal now claims.
This confirms precisely what I suggested in my article: Obama preferred to have no agreement on US troop withdrawals until a new administration took office in Washington.
Obama has changed position on another key issue. In the NBC report, he pretends that US troops in Iraq do not have a “clear mandate.” Now, however, he admits that there is a clear mandate from the UN Security Council and that he’d have no objection to extending it pending a bilateral Iraq-US agreement.
The campaign’s rebuttal adds other confusions to the mix. It notes that Obama (along with two other senators who accompanied him) also stated in July: “We raised a number of other issues with the Iraqi leadership, including our deep concern about Iranian financial and material assistance to militia engaged in violent acts against American and Iraqi forces; the need to secure public support through our respective legislatures for any long term security agreements our countries negotiate; the importance of doing more to help the more than 4 million Iraqis who are refugees or internally displaced persons; and the need to give our troops immunity from Iraqi prosecution so long as they are in Iraq.”
Note that in this part of the statement, the term “security agreements” is used instead of SOFA and SFA – another sign that the two can’ t be separated.
My account of Obama’s message to the Iraqis was based on a series of conversations with Iraqi officials, as well as reports and analyses in the Iraqi media (including the official newspaper, Al Sabah) on the senator’s trip to Baghdad. It is also confirmed by Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari.
In a long interview with the pan-Arab daily Asharq al-Awsat, Zebari says: “Obama asked me why, in view of the closeness of a change of administration, we were hurrying the signing of this special agreement, and why we did not wait until the coming of the new administation next year and agree on some issues and matters.”
Again, note that Zebari mentions a single set of agreements, encompassing both SFA and SOFA.
As has come to be expected, since the publication of Taheri ’s initial report, Obama’s league of supporters/brown shirts have threatened him with “death and worse”.
Move America Forward has already created a video addressing this issue.
Disgrace! Obama discourages troop negotiations for personal political gain @YouTube
The Prowler provides further proof.
STANDING BY THE STORY
The Obama campaign spent more than five hours on Monday attempting to figure out the best refutation of the explosive New York Post report that quoted Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari as saying that Barack Obama during his July visit to Baghdad demanded that Iraq not negotiate with the Bush Administration on the withdrawal of American troops. Instead, he asked that they delay such negotiations until after the presidential handover at the end of January.
The three problems, according to campaign sources: The report was true, there were at least three other people in the room with Obama and Zebari to confirm the conversation, and there was concern that there were enough aggressive reporters based in Baghdad with the sources to confirm the conversation that to deny the comments would create a bigger problem.
Instead, Obama’s national security spokeswoman Wendy Morigi told reporters that Obama told the Iraqis that they should not rush through what she termed a “Strategic Framework Agreement” governing the future of U.S. forces until after President Bush left office. In other words, the Iraqis should not negotiate an American troop withdrawal.
Barack Obama grossly violates the US Constitution and the separation of powers between the branches of government using US Troops as political pawns. The Senate should open an investigation ASAP.
He is a disgrace to this Country and has no right being a US Senator let alone POTUS.
And to think he taught constitutional law.
The mind reels…