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.

[stevestras]

Stunningly stupid.

Why would he deny it today when he is on record.

[RobinOfKingston]

Stunningly stupid.

Why would he deny it today when he is on record.

Because three months ago is a long time to remember just what had been said, and he had to respond to today's article by Taheri.

[nathanbedford]

When this story broke yesterday I thought that the first step was to bring Obama to bay and require him under pressure from new media creeping into old media to respond to these charges as they originally occurred yesterday in the New York Post. Thanks to the good work of poster XEHRpa, that has become partially unnecessary because we now know that the Obama camp cannot take the line that he never uttered the words of all. There is now no doubt that he had these conversations. We know generally the subject matter and his position. Obama now is reduced to disputing the characterization of his motives.

The Post columnist, Amir Tahiri has alleged in the first paragraph of his column (http://www.nypost.com/seven/09152008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/obama_tried_to_stall_gis_iraq_withdrawal_129150.htm?&page=0):

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.

The headline to this story, however, alleges something quite different:

OBAMA TRIED TO STALL GIS' IRAQ WITHDRAWAL

Are these two things the same thing? Does an attempt to delay an agreement equate to an attempt to stall troop withdrawal?

Amir Tahiri who wrote the New York Post piece which appeared yesterday seems to think so. His argument: Obama proclaims publicly that he wants the troops out by 2010. But by delaying this agreement until his administration is elected, sworn in and staffed, means, when Iraqi politics are also considered into the schedule, that nothing can be done before 2011 or 2012.

I do not see how anyone can say that this is conclusive. Obama will simply argue that when he comes into office he will insist on immediate withdrawal or at least a withdrawal sooner than 2011 and 2012. In any event, even Amir Tahiri describes the proposed troop withdrawal dates in the proposed status of troops agreement to be "notional" or provisional diplomat speak.

I do not understand how the charge can be laid to Obama unless one insists that troops cannot be withdrawn a) without a status of forces agreements, and b) never contrary to the terms of that agreement because those agreements contain a schedule which is fixed and not "notional".

But of course all of this leaves open the charge that Obama is attempting to interfere with the foreign policy of the United States to win an election. He is doing so because to scuttle an agreement providing for United States troop withdrawals leaves him free to promise the country that he will end the conflict, and these promises got Eisenhower elected in 1952 and Nixon in 1968. It exposes Obama as the worst kind of political opportunist.

At worst, that is the way the foreign minister of Iraq saw what he was doing. At best, Obama was so inept that he looks foolish and out of his league.

It opens the way for McCain himself and not his surrogates to declare that Obama would rather risk prolonging the war then lose an election. That is perfectly fair because it is confirmed out of Obama's own mouth:

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,"

At the very least it betrays Obama to be either an inept amateur or a brazen opportunist who would risk prolonging the war to win an election. Let Obama fight it out on this basis and see what happens to his election chances. Meanwhile, who knows what else might be revealed by officials in Iraq. Even reports of their subjective reaction to Obama's overtures could be quite damning because they might confirm him to be an inept intermeddler who made a damn fool of himself in Iraq.

No matter how Obama slices it he is stuck in a lose -lose. It confirms all of the detractors charges about him. Let him climb out of this hole for another few news cycles.

Let Obama whine that they are "mischaracterizing my motives."

[gop4lyf]

” At worst, that is the way the foreign minister of Iraq saw what he was doing. At best, Obama was so inept that he looks foolish and out of his league.

It opens the way for McCain himself and not his surrogates to declare that Obama would rather risk prolonging the war then lose an election. That is perfectly fair because it is confirmed out of Obama’s own mouth:”

THIS

[cake_crumb]

"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..."

Congress is legislative, not executive or military. Seperation of Powers, Mr. 57 States.

"He argued it would make sense to hold off on such negotiations until the next administration."

So he DID try to delay troop withdrawl. He LIED. AGAIN.

[kitkat]

***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.***

I find that absolutely fascinating. Could you point me to any place with more information on this? I’m definitely not on Obama’s side, but perhaps we can find some legal information about the work of Congress to disprove him.

[tsowellfan]

MoveAmericaForward already has an ad about this up on YouTube. I hope it goes on TV!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKqHFk-3yQM

[XEHRpa]

PING! Ahem, FReepers were over this story early.

[XEHRpa]

PING! This story predates and dovetails with the latest Drudge siren. In particular, the Obama campaign originally bragged about this illegal intrusion.