Obama's Talk with Iraqi Foreign Minister (Obama's version)

FirstRead (MSNBC) ^ | Monday, June 16, 2008 | Domenico Montanaro, Athena Jones

[XEHRpa]

FLINT, Mich. -- Obama reiterated his commitment to withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq during a telephone conversation this morning with the country's foreign minister, he told reporters in a 10-minute press conference on the tarmac here.

...

He said he told Zebari that negotiations for a Status of Forces agreement or strategic framework agreement between the two countries should be done in the open and with Congress's authorization and that it was important that that there be strong bipartisan support for any agreement so that it can be sustained through a future administration. He argued it would make sense to hold off on such negotiations until the next administration.

"My concern is that the Bush administration--in a weakened state politically--ends up trying to rush an agreement that in some ways might be binding to the next administration, whether it was my administration or Sen. McCain's administration," Obama said. "The foreign minister agreed that the next administration should not be bound by an agreement that's currently made."

[XEHRpa]

This is a 3-month old description, from the Obama'a campaign point of view, what happened in that phonecon with the foreign minister in Iraq. None of these statements contradict the NY Post piece from this morning. However, while Obama admits that he wanted a decision to wait until the election, this article leaves the tacit impression that he would desire a faster withdrawal than the Bush administration. That is the key point from today's article that adds a new dimension to the story.

[teletech]

Since when was Congress made CIC?

[DB]

Congress isn't in charge of foreign policy and is not commander in chief of the armed forces.

Obama is interfering with the executive branch of the government unlawfully.

[truthluva]

Today’s comments are CYA after he read the NY Post article.

[XEHRpa]

This article is not today’s comments. It is 3 months old. Apparently, nobody noticed.

[truthluva]

Odd that was not specified anywhere. Are we sure these weren’t comments he made today?

[XEHRpa]

I posted the article today. But the article first appeared on MSNBC in June, according to the webpage (see date at top).

[truthluva]

I didn’t mean for my response to sound disagreeable. I know you are correct.

[traditional1]

"strategic framework agreement between the two countries should be done in the open and with Congress's authorization"

Yeah, we need the 10% approval-rating-Congress to speak for us!

ROFL

[xkaydet65]

A status of forces agrement is not a simple military deployment. It represents an agreement between two sovereign governments. While not of the same level as a treaty these agreements have often been submitted to the Congress in the past.

This story by Taheri is going nowhere. Unless there is a great deal of independent coroborration, and that means more than Mlicki, no proof exists that the haloed one said this. Taheri's rep for accuracy is not the greates and as a NYPost reader I cannot recall the last time he was on target. Even if true without evidence no story here.

[XEHRpa]

No insult taken. Cheers!

[BlueNgold]

This story - including the comment:
He argued it would make sense to hold off on such negotiations until the next administration.

dates in it's entirety to June. This absolutely corroborates the context of the story from today.

[sunmars]

So he did interfere with the negotiations of the Govt, Obama is not the President nor even President elect and has no right to demand the Iraqis do anything. He has no right to be even consulting them.

[mass55th]

"He said he told Zebari that negotiations for a Status of Forces agreement or strategic framework agreement between the two countries should be done in the open and with Congress's authorization..."

From what I understand, Congress could only be involved in authorizing such an agreement if the UN mandate expired. According to today's article, Obama wanted Iraq to delay any agreement with the Bush Administration until after the UN mandate had expired. Once that happened, Congress would be allowed to get involved in any authorizations that took place. So in June, if Obama was recommending that Congress be involved, the only way this would be able to take place was if Iraq stalled on an agreement until after the elections or the UN mandate expired.

If I'm not seeing this correctly, can someone set me right?

[mass55th]

"This absolutely corroborates the context of the story from today. "

Exactly. I just said basically the same thing in my post before this. His comments in June prove that today's article is the truth.

So, the Obama campaign denies it, yet here are Obama's own words from June proving he's a liar.

[sunmars]

I’m sorry but Obama has interfered in things he had no right to, thats the state dept job, the defense dept job and the Presidents job, you do not undermine them in war situations, that gets people and troops killed.

[XEHRpa]

!!PING!!

[Gator113]

This proves yet again, Obama is a LIAR..... and he’s a fool.

There is more truth, honesty, integrity and reliability in a Mexican made Rolex than this asshat.

[igoramus08]

So, the Obama campaign denies it, yet here are Obama's own words from June proving he's a liar.

'He argued it would make sense to hold off on such negotiations until the next administration', quoted from the article.

Proof that he lied today. 0bama is using troops as his pawns for political purposes.

[XEHRpa]

Ping! Hey everyone. I think this MSNBC source from June gives more damning info about Obama’s actions in Iraq than the NYT piece.