Obama has a "troop-gate" – UPDATED

UPDATE II: Here is a long and anti-climactic denouement to this whole story. Bottom line: both the press and Obama need to be taken with a grain of salt. We should know that, by now. :::

Yes, yes, yes, Sen. Barack Obama really did – while on his “Behold, It’s Me World Tour” – interfere with American foreign policy and troop withdrawal negotiations in Iraq:

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. [emphasis mine -admin]

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…to deny the comments would create a bigger problem.

…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. [emphasis mine -admin]

If you read on, you get to the point where Sen. Joseph Biden gets to pipe in: “and ahhhh helped!”

As I said when this story broke, it just seems so counter-intuitive, doesn’t it? To spend two years saying “bring those troops home! Mr. President bring those troops home!” and then go over to Iraq and say, “hey buddy, do me a favor, and don’t negotiate on those troop withdrawals until I can get into office and keep all that glory for myself…” or words to that effect.

This is possibly in violation of the Logan Act, but there is no chance of Obama being charged with it, because let’s face it, that would create a political maelstrom at this moment that would tear the country apart. But this is pretty serious stuff – not pretty serious, exceedingly serious. This is something the press is going to have to hunker down and actually ask this candidate about, especially since he’s admitting it. And it might not be out of line for some sort of congressional censure. After all, I’m quite certain that a President Obama would not want some congressman going overseas and undercutting him. So, he should set an example, and take some paddling for this.

Will any of that happen? It should. If the press wants to have a scintilla of credibility after this election, they will give this situation the exposure and gravity it deserves. But perhaps they don’t care about their credibility, anymore. If Obama gets in, perhaps they won’t have to. Pelosi is already talking about regulating the internet.

More concern about Obama; there is also this story out there that he is trying to hugely inflate his influence in the creation for the stimulus package hammered out earlier this year, and that he simply assumes his entire party will nod their heads and lie for him.

He doesn’t understand it’s every man for himself on the economic front, right now. The Democrats are already too busy trying to pretend that they bear no responsibility at all for the current financial crisis. None. Nada. They were all looking at the ceiling and whistling, five years ago when President Bush was introducing ideas to overhaul the home financing sector and oversee Fred and Fan, and Barney Frank and others on the left were blocking it and deriding it. (You have to read to the very end to find that out – but The Wall Street Journal spells it.)

If the Democrats will not even be honest about a bi-partisan mistake of long-standing then how in heaven’s name are they ever going to be able to “correct” it? Isn’t the first step toward healing admitting you have a problem? Isn’t being unable to ever, ever, ever admit a fault or a failing a sign of something unhealthy? How can one party never do anything wrong, and another never do anything right? That’s not reality. It’s not sanity.

I can’t help but feel a little discomfited, as well, by the tacit approval the Obama camps seems to give to thugs shutting down free speech, if that speech is critical of Obama. It is another serious issue. We’ve heard for the past 8 years that Bush is a “fascist” taking away our rights, by people who bellow that opinion in obvious safety; no one was shutting them down or shouting them down. Obama’s silence here – in the shutting down of free speech that reflects on him negatively – implies consent. It’s Capital-T Troubling.

The rest of the stuff at the spectator is pretty interesting too. Fund raisers who had a hand in the banking crisis, and such. And will someone please explain how Jamie Gorelick, who wrote the policy putting “the wall” in place between the FBI and the CIA, in the 1990′s, keeps failing upwards? Shouldn’t her name be Calamity Jamie? She made 26 MILLION from her time at Fanny Mae between 1997 and 2003? Huh?

Meanwhile, excuse me, but we have to listen to Gov. Sarah Palin get excoriated for buying a used tanning bed with her own money, as if that makes her some sort of out-of-touch elitist? It’s dark half the year, where she lives. Nuts.

UPDATE: Amir Teheri has filed a long follow-up at the NY Post which, to my way of thinking, both re-inforces his claim that Obama tried to affect US policy while he was in Iraq, and suggests that his motives were not, perhaps, as malevolent as they seemed yesterday. Or I’m reading it incorrectly? The whole issue seems to be sliding into the usual slipstream of doubletalk and obfuscation, what I’m getting from it is that either Obama’s team was sloppy (or confused) about distinctions between two Iraqi-US accords beign negotiated – the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) and the Strategic Framework Agreement (SFA) which, apparently are interlinked and not mutually exclusive considerations. In the sloppiness, or confusion, it urged Iraq not to come to any conclusions with the Bush administration – essentially stay in a holding pattern – until after the election.

I’m less certain that it all has much to do with the Logan Act, but this is still certainly interfereing with a sitting president and his team trying to get real work done instead of simply waiting out their clock, and no, I’m sure a President Obama would not appreciate some fella whose been in congress for three years playing that game. The end of Taheri’s article is interesting:

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.

Zebari continues: “I told Obama that, as an Iraqi, I believe that even if there is a Democratic administration in the White House it had better continue the present policy instead of wasting a lot of time thinking what to do.”

In other words, Obama was trying to derail current US policy, while Zebari was urging him not to “waste time.”

Zebari then says: “I pointed out to him [Obama] that the agreement being negotiated [with the US] was not to be necessarily binding on the future administration unless it wanted to cooperate with the people of Iraq instead of [causing] crises and problems from its very start.”

It sounds to me like Obama got a dose of “open your eyes,” while in Iraq, and realized that simply saying “bring them home,” was simplistic, naive and in no one’s best interest at the moment.

According to Zebari, Obama said “some media reports that I want all [American] forces withdrawn are wrong. I want to keep American forces [in Iraq] to train [the Iraqi army] and fight terrorism.” This is precisely what US troops have been doing in Iraq for the last five years. [emphasis mine- admin]

Zebari then says that he had the impression that US policy in Iraq wouldn’t change: “The US has permanent strategic interests in our region. A change in the administration would not change realities and priorities and would not mean a change of policy as a whole.” (Full text of the Zebari interview is available on Asharqalawsat.com)

Contrary to what Obama and his campaign have said, Iraqi officials insist that at no point in his talks in Washington and Baghdad did Obama make a distinction between SOFA and SFA when he advised them to wait for the next American administration.

I get easily confused by that sort of stuff. But I don’t want to be POTUS, either.

Ends Taheri:

The real news I see in the Obama statement is that there may be an encouraging evolution in his position on Iraq: The “rebuttal” shows that the senator no longer shares his party leadership’s belief that the United States has lost the war in Iraq.

He now talks of “the prospect of lasting success,” perhaps hoping that his own administration would inherit the kudos. And he makes no mention of his running mate Joe Biden’s pet project for carving Iraq into three separate states. He has even abandoned his earlier claim that toppling Saddam Hussein was “illegal” and admits that the US-led coalition’s presence in Iraq has a legal framework in the shape of the UN mandate.

In his statement on my Post article, Obama no longer talks of “withdrawal” but of “redeployment” and “drawdown” – which is exactly what is happening in Iraq now.

Sounds like Obama is a quick study and he’s catching up. That’s good news.

While I am encouraged by the senator’s evolution, I must also appeal to him to issue a “cease and desist” plea to the battalions of his sympathizers – who have been threatening me with death and worse in the days since my article appeared.

Yeah, what’s up with that? Obama supporters can’t take criticism of their man. They’d better man up and learn to roll with it, because President’s get criticized. A President Obama, beloved of the press, won’t see a scintilla of the criticism President Bush has, but he’ll still get some. Unless his goons continue to shut down free speech, as discussed above.

Interesting stuff. Probably less malicious than it first seemed…but it still seems to me Obama should be put on the hot seat and made to squirm a little. Like I said, he has to set an example. Otherwise, s President, he may find some Jr. Senator from somewhere come up and bite his ass from behind, in the same way.

Bob Owens calls it Freshman Arrogance
Fausta’s saying, the press will ignore. She’s probably right. The financial news will drown this out, (Megan McArdle says Obama’s full of hooey, there and McCain only marginally better). And it won’t come up in debate, probably.
Brutally Honest
Tom Maguire has a lot more on this.
No, the press won’t cover any of it.

About Elizabeth Scalia
  • BackwardsBoy

    There is so much that is negative in The Vapid One’s campaign that I can’t keep track any more. But at least Joe Biden thinks we’re all dumber than a box of rocks;

    http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/09/joe-biden-barack-obama-is-too-smart.html

    That really gets my blood boiling. I knew that the leftards acted in a condescending way, now they just come out and say it to my face. For the first time in a long time, I’d wish he would…

    [I'm beginning to think that when they start talking about how "smart" they are, it's the beginning of the end for them. Gore was "so brilliant," and Bush and his supporters were "morons," but after the election we found out his GPA was below Bush's. Ditto John Kerry, he was "sophisticated, smart and nuanced," not like that moron Bush. After the election, we found out he got a lot of D's in college. Obama won't release his transcripts from Columbia. It's kind of wearying, isn't it? - admin]

  • Joe Odegaard

    Obama Quisling

  • http://reflectionsbykris.squarespace.com KrisinNewEngland

    Nuts – is right. This is all just such ridiculous insanity, such incredible farce – I keep thinking I’m going to wake up from it. But I can’t seem to shake it all off.

    Even more ridiculous is that the MSM will give The One a free pass on all this. Because somehow it will be twisted to be about hopeandchange and about how Bush is responsible for everyone’s personal problems.

    I despair of it all.

  • Acer Palmatum

    At a minimum it show the hypocrisy of Barack Obama’s positions. Barack Obama should be asked about it in the debates.

    But unfortunately the MSM is afraid or too biased to take Barack Obama on.

  • Pingback: Fausta’s Blog » Blog Archive » Taheri insists that Obama wanted a delay on troops’ return

  • Pingback: Brutally Honest

  • http://opinionatedcatholic.blogspot.com lsusportsfan

    ANchoress I am tad more lerry of the Evolved OBama here

    is very much like the immigration reform bill. Obama role in killing the immigration reform bill last year very much told me all I needed to know about Obama and his supposed new politics.

    The issue here is not if you thought it was good or bad but role but Obama’s role in killing it.

    For those of us that supported it we were shocked that Obama betrayed us and voted for one of the poison pills to kill it. It was quite unexpected. For those that supported the Immigration Bill our main goal was just to get it over to the House and we could clean up in a possible conference. Obama switch was part of what caused the whole thing to fall apart.

    I have always thought he did this because:

    (1) He went along with Dems that have a manic hate of Bush and wanted to kill any chance of Bush getting a second term defining legislative victory

    (2) He wanted to kill of McCain. McCain was at his lowest point then. Obama listening to the pundits probably thought Republicans voters would kill him off. He failed of course to recognize the political skill of McCain, that the Republican Primary voters was a lot more evenly divided on this issue than people thought, and of course the emergence of Governor Huckabee that in many ways saved McCain.

    (3) He did not want Hispanics giving any Kudos to McCain for his hard work on the bill

    and

    (4) He wanted to get the glory and have immigration reform as a achievement of an Obama and Democrat Administration.

    Country First ? or Politics First? or Obama First?

    People might not like Bush but at least he had the political courage to bring social security reform and the very tough issue of immigration reform TWICE. McCain took great political risk on the immigration reform bill.

    Is this a foretaste of what a Obama administration will look like? I pray the country takes a pass

    I hope the optimistic outlook that he had evolved on this issue and was trying to do what is right is correct

  • SlimReed

    I found the Headline! Saying Palin Bought a Tanning Bed! to be just a bit ridiculous, so much that I thought it might be an Onion piece. Three small items bothered me: what a waste of a reporter’s and editor’s time; I thought there were other, slightly more serious (or funny) things going on in the world; and the line “some tanning beds go for as much as $35,000.” Okay, so X buys a car, some of which go for $1 million. One semester, or quarter, of rhetoric or logic should be a part of a college education. Unless, I guess, you’re a “J-school” intellectual. A good used tanning bed (note to serious editor) can be bought for hundreds of dollars. Just like a car.

  • Pingback: “Troopgate” Media Embargo; Plenty Of Time For “TroopERgate” : Pursuing Holiness

  • http://www.pursuingholiness.com Laura

    Here’s the part that is driving me up a wall – the media has tons of time to cover “troopergate” where Sarah Palin supposedly fired the guy who refused to fire her brother in law. Even though the main investigator is an open, avid Obama supporter and publicly promised to make political hay out of the investigation; even though the guy who got fired originally acknowledged his faults and only after Palin was McCain’s VP selection changed his tune; even though there is ample documentation that the guy was insubordinate; even though he was a political appointee and she had every right to fire him… that, plus a used tanning bed in the governor’s mansion are Big News!!1!!eleventy!!

    But “troopgate” – where the facts are not even in dispute, just the interpretation of the facts – total silence. It’s indefensible.

  • gs

    The Democrats are already too busy trying to pretend that they bear no responsibility at all for the current financial crisis. None. Nada.

    I agree.

    They were all looking at the ceiling and whistling, five years ago when President Bush was introducing ideas to overhaul the home financing sector and oversee Fred and Fan, and Barney Frank and others on the left were blocking it and deriding it…

    “Introducing ideas.” George Bush was not president of some think tank. He was President of the United States, and his party controlled Congress. Where should the buck stop?

    If the Democrats will not even be honest about a bi-partisan mistake of long-standing then how in heaven’s name are they ever going to be able to “correct” it?

    I fear the Democrats won’t correct it. I know the Republicans didn’t correct it.

    Isn’t the first step toward healing admitting you have a problem? Isn’t being unable to ever, ever, ever admit a fault or a failing a sign of something unhealthy? How can one party never do anything wrong, and another never do anything right? That’s not reality. It’s not sanity.

    I agree with that, but I doubt I’m reading it the way you intend it to be read.

    [I think I'm pretty clear that BOTH parties are deeply at fault here. I don't know how much president bush could do without the co-operation of the congress. he's not a dictator. -admin]

  • Gina

    Smart, but appparently not smart enough to figure out they just stomped on the shin of the bitter clingers AGAIN. They must have given up on us entirely, because they surely aren’t winning friends.

    BTW, the logo-designing lady needs to come up with a good “bitter clinger” t-shirt. I would wear one, even here in Silicon Valley. :)

    [Gina, scroll down the page, I show one of her tees with the slogan: Small Town America, Clinging to our guns and religion since 1776, or something like that - admin]

  • yougottabekidding

    can someone tell me how Barrack Obama and the lefties invaded Palin’s privacy?
    First of all, if you look at any youtube site, and type in “how to hack someone’s page”, they always tell you to use Yahoo. Yahoo seems to be the cheapest security provider if everyone invades Yahoo.
    SO PLEASE, GET OFF IT. OBAMA DOESNT BOTHER ANYONE. HE DIDNT EVEN COMMENT ON THE BOSNIA ISSUE WHEN HILLARY WAS PICKING ON HIM.

    [I never said "Obama" did it. I didn't even say his "camp" did it. I said - specifically - that the "Obamaphiles - the angry, crazed, hate-filled part of the left who cannot understand the right and will not play fair..." You'll note, I didnt' even say "the left" I said "a part of the left." And further investigation into this thing looks, at least as some are beginning to find, like perhaps it is ONE person...one "obamaphile" who did this. No one is "picking on Obama." But he's no saint - no one running for office is. But don't worry; the press will make sure that no harm comes to him. -admin]

  • ironwood

    I think you have been too generous by characterizing the Obama campaign as giving tacit approval to efforts to shut down speech critical of him. They have not only approved of it but they have actively recruited individuals to “shout down” opposing views. That is a relatively new and unwelcome development in national campaigning.

  • gs

    [I think I'm pretty clear that BOTH parties are deeply at fault here. I don't know how much president bush could do without the co-operation of the congress. he's not a dictator. -admin]

    I gather that a few years ago the GOP realized that Fannie was getting dangerous and tried to rein it in, but the Democrats blocked reforms that, in hindsight, were essential. That doesn’t change the fact that the Republicans had the majority and the White House, with the powers of patronage and veto, but did not maintain the party discipline to push the reforms through.

    If the Republicans want a reprieve for (what I consider) their sorry 2001-2006 record, they, like the Democrats, should accept responsibility and convincingly communicate a commitment to reforming themselves.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X