Posted on 10/09/2008 5:54:42 PM PDT by Snappy1MarineMom
WASH TIMES Friday: Obama secretly tried to sway Iraqi government to ignore Bush deal on keeping troops in Iraq... Developing...
Blook is very bad.
There is additional info in this article — collaboration from Iraqi leaders that was not there before.
PLEASE NOTE EVERYONE:
I would not discount the author of this Washington Post article. If THIS gal writes this, there is substance to it, probably more than we even have here.
Author: Barbara Slavin
Barbara Slavin is Assistant Managing Editor for World and National Security of The Washington Times and the author of a 2007 book on Iran entitled “Bitter Friends, Bosom Enemies: Iran, the U.S. and the Twisted Path to Confrontation.” Prior to joining The Times in July 2008, she was senior diplomatic reporter for USA TODAY, responsible for analyzing foreign news and U.S. foreign policy.
Prior to joining The Times in July 2008, she was senior diplomatic reporter for USA TODAY, responsible for analyzing foreign news and U.S. foreign policy. Beginning in 1996, she covered such key issues as the U.S.-led war on terrorism and in Iraq, policy toward “rogue” states and the Arab-Israeli conflict. She accompanied three secretaries of State on their official travels and also reported from Iran, Libya, Israel, Egypt, North Korea, Russia, China, Saudi Arabia and Syria.
Prior to joining USA TODAY, she was a Washington-based writer for The Economist and the Los Angeles Times, covering domestic and foreign policy issues, including the 1991-93 Middle East peace talks in Washington.
Prior to moving abroad, she was a writer and editor for The New York Times Week in Review section and a reporter and editor for United Press International in New York City.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm, good point.
We knew this on Freerepublic a week or more ago. Drudge and Washington Times is a little late with this story.
The constitution does not specify a particular turn of phrase to declare a war.
They authorized the use of military force, and did not specifically call it a police action, humanitarian aid, armed conflict, peace keeping action or any of the other phrases for not quite war.
Further, every leftist and “progressive” has called it nothing but a war.
What we know and what we can prove aren't always the same.
Now we have testimony from the Iraqis he tried to suborn.
Yes, that is what the Obama Camp has implied, and the MSM has taken up the refrain. Sarah Palins remarks are "dangerous!"
How dare we deign to resist " The One".
These unpatriotic snits have a lot to learn about real Americans.
We are going to off them like ticks on a dogs ass, one way or the other. Nov. 4 is our first chance.
F*cking traitor...
thanks for the pings..
same story with new information...hey, it never rains but it POURS, lol! Months go by and the MSM ignores us, then suddenly the heavens open up and all heck breaks loose...LOVE IT!
There’ll be lots more. Lots. A good marksman never pulls the trigger until he sees the whites of their eyes. (Whoops! Is that rascist? I’m an Aussie, we aren’t particularly worried about that.)
To set the record straight, the original accusation was apparently "quelled" by Bush administration pnnl. who were in the public meeting between Iraqi leaders and Obama.
THIS is about a private telephone conference.
I agree that the Constitution does not specify a particular set of words.
However historical tradition has established a precedent of what a declaration of war should be.
A Congressional authorization of the use of force does not meet that standard. It’s merely acknowledgment from the legislature that we can defend ourselves, which is already one of the inherent powers constitution already provided to the executive branch. In short its Congress courageously saying yes we agree you can do what is already in your right to do ! Big Deal !
They accuse our troops of war crimes. No war, no war crimes. (atrocities maybe, but not war crimes)
AND
An acknowledgment from the legislature that we can defend ourselves is also an acknowledgment that Iraq was a threat.
The MSM may have a preference in this election and they may do most anything they can to push that preference. But reality eventually bites everyone and everything, including the mainstream media. The MSM dragged its' feet in '04 regarding the Swift Boat allegations until they couldn't ignore it any longer. This time the Ayers issue--along with others that will soon become more discussed--will be reported simply because that there are two things more important to the liberal media: ratings (or revenue) and credibility (or at least the appearance of it).
Stand by. The real fun starts when McCain actually brings these issues up in the next--and last--debate. The bluff by Obama that McCain didn't say anything "to my face" wasn't planned by Barry. It was another case of THE ONE speaking off the cuff and saying something he's stuck with. Obama has nothing to throw at McCain that hasn't already been discussed by the MSM. However, since the MSM has been steadfast in its' refusal to investigate anything Obama all the stories will appear "new". It will reluctantly report what has to be reported although not to the lengths that will satisfy most of us here.
No matter. Even "bare-bones" reporting will be enough to influence most of the "undecideds" who, having not decided by now, will need very little to do so. These are the people who buy into sound bytes in the first place so "Obama associated with a terrorist" will actually resonate with them and... viola...President McCain.
I believe you are right about that.
But remember what happens when existing laws are not enforced. They do exist for a reason: to prevent conflict and establish an orderly society, beyond their specific application to activity proscribed.
When laws are not enforced , order is lost.
When order fails, matters are settled in other ways.
This is a fact few remember when they do not enforce immigration law or laws like the Logan Act.
I believe that Obama has violated the Logan act on at least two ocassions and maybe more, as in sending his aid to talk with Ahminajihad in New York.
He likely violated the Logan act in Kenya by campaigning for Odinga who had promised to bring Sharia law ( and terrorism) to Kenya.
And Obam violated it again if he did indeed attempt to influence the Iraqi government to refuse the position of our president on troop withdrawals.
What Obama may not realize, is that this activity makes him fair game for intelligence agencies around he world who may not favor such interference by him. Obama, in conducting himself as if the Logan Act does not apply to him, may very well suffer consequences beyond his imagining. Certainly even our President may not have the resouces to protect Obama. He is likely at extreme risk because of these activities, and no good will come of it.
thanks, appreciate your comment. Might there be something else involved also? Perhaps the MSM knows the polls are bunkum - and if they are ever going to save face - the time is now?
I can also imagine the Iraqi government in a quandary, say too much whilst there’s a chance of an obama win they place themselves at risk, but if indications are that he hasn’t a prayer, they can afford to speak up?
I’m an optimist...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.