By Here is some more red meat for you guys that like to discuss politics to fight over. So what does everyone think of the report that Barack Obama during his trip to Iraq in July tried to persuade Iraqi politicians to scuttle a US troop withdrawal deal until after the Bush Administration left office?:
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. [New York Post via Blackfive]
Read the whole article because it has plenty of other interesting information such as Obama tried to get General Petraeus to change his troop withdrawal time line as well. However is anyone really surprised by any of this?
I guess some are because they are saying Obama committed a felony offense with his negotiations:
The Logan Act is a United States federal law that forbids unauthorized citizens from negotiating with foreign governments. It was passed in 1799 and last amended in 1994. Violation of the Logan Act is a felony, punishable under federal law with imprisonment of up to three years.
The text of the Act is broad and is addressed at any attempt of a US citizen to conduct foreign relations without authority. However, there is no record of any convictions or even prosecutions under the Logan Act. [Wikipedia]
However if he committed a felony he didn’t hide his intentions very well considering what he allegedly negotiated with the Iraqi government, he discussed with the media before he left:
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.
Asked by NBC’s Lee Cowan if a timetable for the status of forces agreement was discussed, Obama said, “Well he, the foreign minister, had presented a letter requesting an extension of the UN resolution until the end of this year. So that’s a six-month extension. [MSNBC]
Oddly the Obama campaign is denying the report despite the fact he spoke to reporters about the very same issue before he left. I seriously doubt this will blow up into anything though considering the much larger issues the media is dealing with such as lip stick on pigs, whether Sarah Palin has too many kids to be Vice-President, if she is the second coming of Pontius Pilate, etc, etc.
9:38 pm on September 15th, 2008 1
These Clowns are just dying to create an environment, similar to what has gone on in the Philippines (Lcpl. D. Smith falsely accused/convicted of Rape & sentenced to 40 years…an unheard of sentence in the PI for rape, since most rapes are never even prosecuted) and the extensive list of railroad type convictions of U.S. troops in Korea and other countries out to make a statement against the U.S. by unfairly prosecuting/persicuting U.S. troops.
How can there be a “Status of Forces Agreement” when people are still dying by the tens, twenties & thirties? I said it during my first tour there in 2004 & I’ll say it today…we might have kicked the royal Dog Crap out of them, but as soon as we put the DoS, via Paul Bremmer in charge, we lost the war. So what, we got rid of THEIR dictator that we more than helped prop up against Iran? There will be another one, probably already there, who will be just as bad, if not worse. The Iraqis will get the government they deserve, as they did previously.
They especially want to gain legal control over Civilian Contractors (I will not go into the right/wrong of contractor actions here) and it looks like the U.S. is more-than-willing to throw them a U.S. contractor bone sometime in the near future.
Now we have Brother Obama trying to cut midnight deals with a foreign power when he is NOT guranteed of even being the next president??? Sounds like Jimmy Carter & Jesse Jackson moves. If this Jackass is elected, then Heaven help us!
I would just close saying this…”If” you serve overseas as either a civilian contractor, or as a U.S. military member, then DO NOT be surprised when YOUR government feeds you up to the locals on a silver platter…all for the sake of political expediency.
Reply
9:54 pm on September 15th, 2008 2
A non-issue. If Obama talked to reporters about that very same topic before he met with Iraqi leaders, it means his views were already public. If that’s the case, it makes no difference whether he told them in person or not. The Iraqi government would have been able to read press reports and see what kind of policy they could expect from Obama.
Public foreign policy statements from both campaigns are already influencing other countries, many of whom have put issues on hold until the US election is decided.
Reply
10:52 pm on September 15th, 2008 3
Consider your reputation before you go too far out on a limb with this “story.”
Red flag #1. The source: the New York Post. You know, Rupert Murdock.
Red flag #2. The reporter: Amir Taheri. Google his name and you will allegations of conspiracies and fabrications and retracted stories.
Red flag #3. In the article itself, he conflates two different things to make his charge and confuse the reader. The first paragraph claims Obama tried “to delay an agreement on a draw-down of the American military presence.”
We don’t have the full transcript of what the Foreign Minister said, but if you look at the selected quote that was used, “However, as an Iraqi, I prefer to have a security agreement that regulates the activities of foreign troops, rather than keeping the matter open”, it appeared that the Minister was actually talking about the negotiations for a Status of Forces Agreement in Iraq. That is further supported by comments about extending the UN mandate.
Discussing terms for the draw down of forces is the opposite of discussing a SOFA for their extended stay.
I think it’s premature to go off on what may or may not have been discussed, and in what context, based on this weak source.
Reply
11:12 am on September 16th, 2008 4
LoganGate.
Reply
6:27 pm on September 17th, 2008 5
Here is a link to an article from the right that tries to add weight to the charge:
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=13897
And what it says does raise the stakes to me.
Quote: 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. endquote…
That is very different from talking to the press about what you want to see.
McCain or Obama would be grossly interfering with the government if they were to suggest to any foreign head of state that they — not negotiate with the US until after the election on any matter. Period.
They can say in public all they want about what foreign policy items they believe are right for the US. They can’t sit down with a foreign head of state and try to manipulate foreign policy by undermining current efforts.
This is probably one of those moments Obama’s inexperience is showing. A seasoned Washington veteran likely wouldn’t have done this.
This also vaguely reminds me of the Clinton impeachment period: It was one thing to lie about having sex with an intern to the media and American public.
It was a very and fundamentally different thing to lie about that relationship under oath in a sexual harassment lawsuit.
He got away with it in the American public thanks to the media having enough voices saying it was just about sex.
Obama will skate by much more easily on this thing.
But, still, you can undermine current administration policy in the press and public opinion all you want as a candidate.
You cannot, however, actively seek to undermine policy through conversations with foreign heads of state or high ranking government officials.
—well—-obviously you can and get away with it—-but you shouldn’t be able to….
Reply