PDA

View Full Version : General Politics The story about Obama trying To Stall GIs' Iraq Withdrawl = FALSE


dirk digler
09-19-2008, 11:53 AM
http://blogs.abcnews.com/

Undermining McCain Campaign Attack, Republicans Back Obama‘s Version of Meeting with Iraqi Leaders

September 19, 2008 1:06 PM
<!--Julia Hoppock
--> Earlier this week, the campaign of Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., seized upon a column in the New York Post that described Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., as having urged Iraqi leaders in a private meeting to delay coming to an agreement with the Bush administration on the status of U.S. troops.

"Obama has tried in private to persuade Iraqi leaders to delay an agreement on a draw-down of the American military presence," Post columnist Amir Tehari wrote (http://www.nypost.com/seven/09152008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/obama_tried_to_stall_gis_iraq_withdrawal_129150.htm), quoting Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari who told the Post that Obama during his meeting with Iraqi leaders in July "asked why we were not prepared to delay an agreement until after the US elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington."

The charge -- that Obama asked the Iraqis to delay signing off on a "Status of Forces Agreement," thus delaying US troop withdrawal and interfering in U.S. foreign policy -- has been picked up on the internet, talk radio and by Republicans including the McCain campaign, which seized on the story as possible evidence of duplicity.

The Obama campaign said that the Post report consisted of "outright distortions."

Lending significant credence to Obama's response is the fact that -- though it's absent from the Post story and other retellings -- in addition to Obama and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, this July meeting was also attended by Bush administration officials such as U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker (http://www.zimbio.com/pictures/zDy8webPvw0/Barrack+Obama+Meets+Iraqi+President/4AzFpjHW2Bf/Ryan+Crocker)and the Baghdad embassy's Legislative Affairs advisor Rich Haughton, as well as a Republican senator, Chuck Hagel of Nebraska.
Attendees of the meeting back Obama's account, including not just Sen. Jack Reed, D-RI, but Hagel, Senate Foreign Relations Committee staffers from both parties. Officials of the Bush administration who were briefed on the meeting by the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad also support Obama's account and dispute the Post story and McCain attack.

The Post story is "absolutely not true," Hagel spokesman Mike Buttry told ABC News.

"Barack Obama has never urged a delay in negotiations," said Obama campaign national security spokesperson Wendy Morigi, "nor has he urged a delay in immediately beginning a responsible drawdown of our combat brigades."

Buttry said that Hagel agrees with Obama's account of the meeting: Obama began the meeting with Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki by asserting that the United States speaks with one foreign policy voice, and that voice belongs to the Bush administration.

A Bush administration official with knowledge of the meeting says that during the meeting Obama stressed to Maliki that he would not interfere with President Bush's negotiations concerning the US troop presence in Iraq, and that he supports the Bush administration's position on the need to negotiate as soon as possible the Status of Forces Agreement, which deals with among other matters US troops having immunity from local prosecution.

Obama did assert at the meeting with the Iraqis that he agrees with those – including Hagel and Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., the ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee -- who advocate congressional review of the Strategic Framework Agreement being worked out between the Bush administration and the Iraqi government, including the Iraqi parliament.

The Strategic Framework Agreement is a document that generally describes what the relationship between the two countries should look like over time.
According one person present at the meeting, Obama told Maliki that the American people wouldn't understand why the Iraqi Parliament would get to have a say on the Strategic Framework Agreement but the U.S. Congress would not, especially since the President Bush is only months from leaving the White House, regardless of whether Obama or McCain succeeds him.
Morigi said in a statement that "Barack Obama has consistently called for any Strategic Framework Agreement to be submitted to the U.S. Congress so that the American people have the same opportunity for review as the Iraqi Parliament."

It’s possible, Obama advisers believe, that either Zebari or columnist Taheri confused the Strategic Framework Agreement, which Obama feels should be reviewed by Congress, with the Status of Forces Agreement, which Obama says the Bush administration should negotiate with the Iraqis as soon as possible.

Two officials of the Bush administration say that if Obama had done what the Post story asserted – which they believe to be untrue – U.S. Ambassador Crocker and embassy officials attending the meeting would have ensured that the Bush administration heard about it immediately. If such an incident occurred in front of officials of the Bush administration, it would have constituted a foreign policy breach and would have been front-page huge news; it would not have leaked out two months later in an op-ed column.

Nonetheless, based on nothing more than the Post report, McCain senior foreign policy adviser Randy Scheunemann issued a statement earlier this week expressing outrage.

“It should be concerning to all that (Obama) reportedly urged that the democratically-elected Iraqi government listen to him rather than the US administration in power,” Scheunemann said, apparently not having talked to anyone with knowledge about the meeting in Bush administration, the US Embassy in Baghdad, GOP Sen. Hagel, or any Republican staffers on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

“If news reports are accurate, this is an egregious act of political interference by a presidential candidate seeking political advantage overseas,” Scheunemann continued. “Senator Obama needs to reveal what he said to Iraq's Foreign Minister during their closed door meeting. The charge that he sought to delay the withdrawal of Americans from Iraq raises serious questions about Senator Obama's judgment and it demands an explanation.”

What actually demands an explanation is why the McCain campaign was so willing to give credence to such a questionable story with such tremendous international implications without first talking to Republicans present at Obama’s meeting with Maliki, who back Obama’s version of the meeting and completely dismiss the Post column as untrue.

whatsmynameagain
09-19-2008, 12:10 PM
GAME OVERPosted via Mobile Device

splatbass
09-19-2008, 12:10 PM
McCain and his supporters are quick to jump on any rumor or allegation against Obama. They don't really care if they are true or not. In this case the damage is done. Some people will have believed it, and this story will not matter. This is the McCain plan. They know the initial impression is what stays with people, not the correction that comes later. It is quite deliberate on their part. McCain could easily have called the Bush people that were there, or Senator Hagel, and found out the truth, but they weren't interested in the truth, they were interested in the smear.

BigCatDaddy
09-19-2008, 12:27 PM
McCain and his supporters are quick to jump on any rumor or allegation against Obama. They don't really care if they are true or not. In this case the damage is done. Some people will have believed it, and this story will not matter. This is the McCain plan. They know the initial impression is what stays with people, not the correction that comes later. It is quite deliberate on their part. McCain could easily have called the Bush people that were there, or Senator Hagel, and found out the truth, but they weren't interested in the truth, they were interested in the smear.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=190676&highlight=pregnant+bristol

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=190243&highlight=pregnant+bristol

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=190753&highlight=bristol+black

tiptap
09-19-2008, 12:52 PM
Only the first reference could be considered similar. But in none of them, the Obama's camp directly quote a source in their campaign statement against McCain or Palin. If you mean some surrogate did so well that is a totally different level of involvement. If the McCain camp had left it to the Post to make the case alone that would have been politics by proxy. But they didn't leave it at that.

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-19-2008, 12:57 PM
It doesn't matter if it's true or false. All you have to do is continually repeat a lie and these prokaryotes will believe it.

dirk digler
09-19-2008, 01:00 PM
http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=190676&highlight=pregnant+bristol

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=190243&highlight=pregnant+bristol

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=190753&highlight=bristol+black

As tiptap pointed out where in any of those did Obama make those accusations. Oh wait he didn't. His supporters did. The difference being the McCain campiagn got caught up trying to peddle another lie.

splatbass
09-19-2008, 01:06 PM
It doesn't matter if it's true or false. All you have to do is continually repeat a lie and these prokaryotes will believe it.

For some they don't even need to repeat it. The minute it comes out of the mouth of McCain - or Rush, Hannity, O'Reilly, Coulter, Drudge, Rove,etc. - they believe it without question. Then they come on CP and other forums like it and try to convince us all it is true. The RNC knows this and uses these people. You can watch it happen in real time. One of the people I mentioned says something (usually straight from the RNC daily talking points), and within minutes it starts appearing word for word on blogs and forums all over the internet. I go to a couple of other political forums, and you can see the threads start all pretty much simultaneously, and all word for word the same, as if it is organized. In a way it is. They are counting on these people to believe without question and to start spreading it around, and they are never disappointed.

It is fascinating.

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-19-2008, 01:08 PM
For some they don't even need to repeat it. The minute it comes out of the mouth of McCain - or Rush, Hannity, O'Reilly, Coulter, Drudge, Rove,etc. - they believe it without question. Then they come on CP and other forums like it and try to convince us all it is true. The RNC knows this and uses these people. You can watch it happen in real time. One of the people I mentioned says something (usually straight from the RNC daily talking points), and within minutes it starts appearing word for word on blogs and forums all over the internet. I go to a couple of other political forums, and you can see the threads start all pretty much simultaneously, and all word for word the same, as if it is organized. In a way it is. They are counting on these people to believe without question and to start spreading it around, and they are never disappointed.

It is fascinating.


It never ceases to amaze me how many people lack basic critical thinking skills.

BigCatDaddy
09-19-2008, 01:12 PM
Only the first reference could be considered similar. But in none of them, the Obama's camp directly quote a source in their campaign statement against McCain or Palin. If you mean some surrogate did so well that is a totally different level of involvement. If the McCain camp had left it to the Post to make the case alone that would have been politics by proxy. But they didn't leave it at that.

He said McCain and his supporters. I just included some threads started by his supporters, I didn't have any threads started by Obama.

tiptap
09-19-2008, 01:30 PM
Well good you do see the difference. Even if supporters got caught up in this Obama's camp did not on this. patteeu will be along any moment to be outraged that McCain's quote about 100 years is something similar. I don't see it but he can feign outrage and I'll at least not hold it against him when it is all over.