PDA

View Full Version : Elections Obama Tried To Stall GIs' Iraq Withdrawl


Stinger
09-15-2008, 10:47 AM
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.

While in Iraq, Obama also tried to persuade the US commanders, including Gen. David Petraeus, to suggest a "realistic withdrawal date." They declined.

Obama has made many contradictory statements with regard to Iraq. His latest position is that US combat troops should be out by 2010. Yet his effort to delay an agreement would make that withdrawal deadline impossible to meet.

Supposing he wins, Obama's administration wouldn't be fully operational before February - and naming a new ambassador to Baghdad and forming a new negotiation team might take longer still.

By then, Iraq will be in the throes of its own campaign season. Judging by the past two elections, forming a new coalition government may then take three months. So the Iraqi negotiating team might not be in place until next June.

Then, judging by how long the current talks have taken, restarting the process from scratch would leave the two sides needing at least six months to come up with a draft accord. That puts us at May 2010 for when the draft might be submitted to the Iraqi parliament - which might well need another six months to pass it into law.

Thus, the 2010 deadline fixed by Obama is a meaningless concept, thrown in as a sop to his anti-war base.

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and the Bush administration have a more flexible timetable in mind.

According to Zebari, the envisaged time span is two or three years - departure in 2011 or 2012. That would let Iraq hold its next general election, the third since liberation, and resolve a number of domestic political issues.

Even then, the dates mentioned are only "notional," making the timing and the cadence of withdrawal conditional on realities on the ground as appreciated by both sides.

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.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/09152008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/obama_tried_to_stall_gis_iraq_withdrawal_129150.htm?&page=0

Garcia Bronco
09-15-2008, 10:51 AM
Playing politics. Sad. But it's not any different from what's been going on in this realm for a long, long, long time. How is Obama "change" again?

Mr. Laz
09-15-2008, 10:53 AM
if true this is not good

Garcia Bronco
09-15-2008, 10:55 AM
if true this is not good


It's not any different from what Bush has done. Rumsfield and his tactics have drawn this on much longer than need be. IMO it was done to give republicans an appeal advantage in this election and it's backfired heavily.

kcvet
09-15-2008, 10:57 AM
looks like no rock & roll tour there huh????

dirk digler
09-15-2008, 10:58 AM
This is old news.

During the Dem debates both Obama and Hillary said there should be no agreement unless Congress approved because it would handcuff the next POTUS to make decisions.

I think Hillary was going to submit a bill at one time to block such negotiations.

HonestChieffan
09-15-2008, 10:58 AM
Gee, Obama playing politics?

HonestChieffan
09-15-2008, 10:59 AM
So we should stop progress and wait till post election?

RINGLEADER
09-15-2008, 11:02 AM
Change we can believe in. Or is it change we need? I forgot which slogan Obama was using this week.

BTW, even if McCain benefits from the Iraq issue (which the polls indicate he is) I agree with you that if there was a political motivation it has backfired and has done nothing but weighed down the congressional GOP candidates the last two election cycles.

dirk digler
09-15-2008, 11:04 AM
So we should stop progress and wait till post election?

The main problem is handcuffing the next POTUS so he doesn't have full control on troop levels. It is a legitimate concern don't you think?

patteeu
09-15-2008, 11:11 AM
It's not any different from what Bush has done. Rumsfield and his tactics have drawn this on much longer than need be. IMO it was done to give republicans an appeal advantage in this election and it's backfired heavily.

You can't possibly believe the Bush dragged Iraq out longer than it needed to be in order to get a political benefit, can you?

patteeu
09-15-2008, 11:14 AM
This is old news.

During the Dem debates both Obama and Hillary said there should be no agreement unless Congress approved because it would handcuff the next POTUS to make decisions.

I think Hillary was going to submit a bill at one time to block such negotiations.

Except that that's not what the news is. It's old news that that was Obama's personal position, but it's new and disturbing news that Obama might have tried to undermine our country's official diplomatic efforts.

HonestChieffan
09-15-2008, 11:18 AM
The main problem is handcuffing the next POTUS so he doesn't have full control on troop levels. It is a legitimate concern don't you think?

no

dirk digler
09-15-2008, 11:22 AM
Except that that's not what the news is. It's old news that that was Obama's personal position, but it's new and disturbing news that Obama might have tried to undermine our country's official diplomatic efforts.

I don't think asking why don't they wait is undermining. I think it is a legit question.

"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.

HonestChieffan
09-15-2008, 11:24 AM
I dont imagine the soldier with exposre to getting his head blown off cares about Obama's desire to hold on and stay there so he can propogandize and get votes. Thats pretty sick

Garcia Bronco
09-15-2008, 11:24 AM
You can't possibly believe the Bush dragged Iraq out longer than it needed to be in order to get a political benefit, can you?


I can't say it was done on propose, but you'd have to admit that the planning on containing the situation after our military campaign into the country was over was less-than good. In fact, I would say it was down right crap and all it did was extend the commitment to the project.

dirk digler
09-15-2008, 11:29 AM
I dont imagine the soldier with exposre to getting his head blown off cares about Obama's desire to hold on and stay there so he can propogandize and get votes. Thats pretty sick

:rolleyes:


It is about not handcuffing the next POTUS whoever that maybe. It is not fair to that person if they are only limited to 1 or 2 options because the LAMEDUCK POTUS made a deal.

Of course the next POTUS probably could just void the deal and do whatever he wanted to do. At least that is what I would do.

mlyonsd
09-15-2008, 11:32 AM
Except that that's not what the news is. It's old news that that was Obama's personal position, but it's new and disturbing news that Obama might have tried to undermine our country's official diplomatic efforts.

The democrats have been doing that since the 2006 election so I wouldn't put anything past them.

Providing money for the surge while calling it a failure before it began is a perfect example.

Garcia Bronco
09-15-2008, 11:34 AM
:rolleyes:


It is about not handcuffing the next POTUS whoever that maybe. It is not fair to that person if they are only limited to 1 or 2 options because the LAMEDUCK POTUS made a deal.

Of course the next POTUS probably could just void the deal and do whatever he wanted to do. At least that is what I would do.

The next President can't "void" the contract. And really if Obama did, he'd just be delaying getting our troops out and NOT keep his campagn promise. It's a no win situation for him. Again, the "stupid, dumb, chimp-in-charge" has out smarted the Democrats.

BigCatDaddy
09-15-2008, 11:38 AM
If true, I would think this is borders on treason.

dirk digler
09-15-2008, 11:38 AM
The next President can't "void" the contract. And really if Obama did, he'd just be delaying getting our troops out and NOT keep his campagn promise. It's a no win situation for him. Again, the "stupid, dumb, chimp-in-charge" has out smarted the Democrats.

The next President can do whatever he wants. Who is going to stop him? What if McCain wants to keep troops longer? What if Obama wants to withdraw faster? or vice versa?

HonestChieffan
09-15-2008, 11:41 AM
So your position is allow the war to drag on at a current state and leave soldiers in Harms way for the next 6 months so the new President can take over?

Garcia Bronco
09-15-2008, 11:45 AM
The next President can do whatever he wants. Who is going to stop him? What if McCain wants to keep troops longer? What if Obama wants to withdraw faster? or vice versa?


It's up to the contract parties, so if Iraq didn't want to make a change then the State Department couldn't. The President cannot do whatever he wants. But as stated, it's a no win situation for Obama.

dirk digler
09-15-2008, 11:47 AM
So your position is allow the war to drag on at a current state and leave soldiers in Harms way for the next 6 months so the new President can take over?

My position is that a LAMEDUCK President shouldn't be making any kind of deals that is going to hamstring the next POTUS WHOEVER that may be.

Other than that he can do what he wants.

What you are not understanding is that this applies to McCain as well. I suspect he isn't happy about this agreement and would like the troops to stay there longer.

Do you think it is fair to force him to withdraw troops earlier then he wants?

Garcia Bronco
09-15-2008, 11:48 AM
My position is that a LAMEDUCK President shouldn't be making any kind of deals that is going to hamstring the next POTUS WHOEVER that may be.

Other than that he can do what he wants.

What you are not understanding is that this applies to McCain as well. I suspect he isn't happy about this agreement and would like the troops to stay there longer.

Do you think it is fair to force him to withdraw troops earlier then he wants?


You don't even know when a President becomes a "lameduck". We shouldn't stop running our executive branch just because there is an election coming up.

dirk digler
09-15-2008, 11:50 AM
It's up to the contract parties, so if Iraq didn't want to make a change then the State Department couldn't. The President cannot do whatever he wants. But as stated, it's a no win situation for Obama.

BS. If the next POTUS the day after being inaugurated said we are pulling all troops out there isn't a damn thing anybody can do about it.

The CIC has total and full command authority in regards to the military.

What are they going to do? Sue? LMAO

ROYC75
09-15-2008, 11:50 AM
It's up to the contract parties, so if Iraq didn't want to make a change then the State Department couldn't. The President cannot do whatever he wants. But as stated, it's a no win situation for Obama.



Really goes against Obama and Hillary when they wanted to leave, then, immediately , and then by , what was it, a 6 month withdraw once in office ?

The next POTUS is capped ........

Garcia Bronco
09-15-2008, 12:25 PM
BS. If the next POTUS the day after being inaugurated said we are pulling all troops out there isn't a damn thing anybody can do about it.

The CIC has total and full command authority in regards to the military.

What are they going to do? Sue? LMAO


As a matter of fact yes. But forget about being sued, what would happen to Obama if he extended the "Occupation".

tiptap
09-15-2008, 12:36 PM
So if Obama makes his case for waiting to deal with him, it is seen as political. Yet Bush's moves have no political motive? His interests are above reproach? I can understand why the Republicans want to impugn their operating methods on Obama; it is all they know.

RINGLEADER
09-15-2008, 12:40 PM
I don't think asking why don't they wait is undermining. I think it is a legit question.

I think it's also a legit position to take if you're on the other side and think you may be the president in six months.

RINGLEADER
09-15-2008, 12:42 PM
I can't say it was done on propose, but you'd have to admit that the planning on containing the situation after our military campaign into the country was over was less-than good. In fact, I would say it was down right crap and all it did was extend the commitment to the project.

It takes us four years minimum to mint an officer corp. To say that the Iraqis, who had no standing army after we went in, could do it quicker is probably unrealistic. That said, the original idea to disband and the NUMEROUS mistakes that were made along the way certainly contributed to the depth of the problems that were ultimately encountered.

tiptap
09-15-2008, 12:46 PM
And no one could foresee that. It has been worth every 1trillion dollar to get Iraq where it is by financing debt her at home to dry up financial reserves presently. Have you read the book comparing our quagmire in Iraq with Britian's big money hit from the Boer War?

Warrior5
09-15-2008, 01:08 PM
I think I'll wait for the Iraqi Foreign Minister to clarify his statement before I make any assumptions...

He's going to have to explain this in more detail.

patteeu
09-15-2008, 01:55 PM
I can't say it was done on propose, but you'd have to admit that the planning on containing the situation after our military campaign into the country was over was less-than good. In fact, I would say it was down right crap and all it did was extend the commitment to the project.

I think there were politically motivated decisions along the way (e.g. I think they tried to avoid heavy fighting in the run up to the 2004 and 2006 elections), but I don't think they intentionally dragged the conflict on.

Programmer
09-15-2008, 04:16 PM
if true this is not good

If true Obama needs to be put on the carpet.

memyselfI
09-15-2008, 05:16 PM
Well he did state he admired Ronald Reagan so this should surprise no one that he'd emulate him ...:spock::doh!::cuss:

Messier
09-15-2008, 05:38 PM
Well he did state he admired Ronald Reagan so this should surprise no one that he'd emulate him ...:spock::doh!::cuss:

As a transformative figure in the Republican party, yes.

KC Jones
09-15-2008, 09:19 PM
Here is what wikipedia says of the author....

Amir Taheri is an Iranian-born journalist and author based in Europe. His writings focus on the Middle East affairs and topics related to Islamist terrorism. Taheri's public speaking engagements are arranged by Benador Associates, a public relations firm with a predominantly neoconservative clientele. [1][2][3][4] Critics have questioned Taheri's journalistic integrity, alleging that Taheri's writings contain misrepresentations.[5]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amir_Taheri


The majority of the entry details articles he published that later proved to be incorrect. Sounds like a fair source to me? :shrug:

plbrdude
09-15-2008, 10:04 PM
So we should stop progress and wait till post election?

sounds like a plan. get new potus and congress, take 2 yrs to draw up new time table or what ever, another year to get it approved, wala, another election year. can't do anything till the new administration is installed.

orange
09-15-2008, 11:50 PM
sounds like a plan. get new potus and congress, take 2 yrs to draw up new time table or what ever, another year to get it approved, wala, another election year. can't do anything till the new administration is installed.

voilą'

(I've made the same mistake).

jAZ
09-16-2008, 12:37 AM
Why is is political for Obama to oppose an agreement but not political for Bush to try to push it through? That assumes that it's good policy at it's core and that' not reality in any case. It's policy with details that are objectionable to Obama and opposing what you think is bad policy is no more political than supporting what you think is good policy.

RINGLEADER
09-16-2008, 01:26 AM
Why is is political for Obama to oppose an agreement but not political for Bush to try to push it through? That assumes that it's good policy at it's core and that' not reality in any case. It's policy with details that are objectionable to Obama and opposing what you think is bad policy is no more political than supporting what you think is good policy.

It's not that it's political, it's that some will tell you it's illegal (in violation of Title 18.953 as outlined at this link: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00000953----000-.html). I think it's much to do about nothing but everyone on the right doesn't seem to agree.

Logical
09-16-2008, 02:11 AM
You can't possibly believe the Bush dragged Iraq out longer than it needed to be in order to get a political benefit, can you?Sure I can (I dont know about GB). There is nothing I would put past Bush/Cheney

patteeu
09-16-2008, 06:29 AM
Sure I can (I dont know about GB). There is nothing I would put past Bush/Cheney

Of course you can, but as far as I know, Garcia Bronco isn't an intellectual cripple when it comes to political issues. :p

patteeu
09-16-2008, 12:01 PM
That was a little harsh. I apologize.

clemensol
09-16-2008, 07:33 PM
Misleading title... the impression i got from the article is not that obama is trying to delay a withdrawal of troops but rather that he is trying to delay a status of forces agreement... which makes perfect sense seeing as he will hopefully look for different things in the SOFA than Bush.

InChiefsHell
09-17-2008, 07:08 AM
Doesn't this just smack of hubris? Nobama is not doing this for the next administration, he's doing it because he thinks HE will have the next administration. Just watch him start railing about troop withdrawal in February after McCain takes office. Does anyone here, lib or con NOT believe that he would do that???

J Diddy
09-17-2008, 07:12 AM
Doesn't this just smack of hubris? Nobama is not doing this for the next administration, he's doing it because he thinks HE will have the next administration. Just watch him start railing about troop withdrawal in February after McCain takes office. Does anyone here, lib or con NOT believe that he would do that???

I don't believe McCain will be the one taking office.

memyselfI
09-17-2008, 07:13 AM
I wish the media would cover this so we could get to the bottom of it and let chips fall where they may.

Obots will embrace his actions, ignoring it's hypocrisy and potential illegality, they will also adopt his stance.

The rest of us will mark it as another example of how this man is a fraud and will live up to our expectations of him.

InChiefsHell
09-17-2008, 07:38 AM
I don't believe McCain will be the one taking office.

Of course you don't, but for Obama to be so presumptive is just...well, typical I guess. And I still maintain that when he loses this election, he'll jump on the "get out of Iraq NOW" train against the McCain administration...