Skip to comments.
Obama's Talk with Iraqi Foreign Minister (Obama's version)
FirstRead (MSNBC) ^
| Monday, June 16, 2008
| Domenico Montanaro, Athena Jones
Posted on 09/15/2008 4:53:49 PM PDT by XEHRpa
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-29 next last
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.
1
posted on
09/15/2008 4:53:49 PM PDT
by
XEHRpa
To: XEHRpa
Since when was Congress made CIC?
2
posted on
09/15/2008 4:56:00 PM PDT
by
teletech
(Friends don't let friends vote DemocRAT)
To: XEHRpa
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.
3
posted on
09/15/2008 4:57:41 PM PDT
by
DB
To: XEHRpa
Today’s comments are CYA after he read the NY Post article.
4
posted on
09/15/2008 4:57:59 PM PDT
by
truthluva
("Character is doing the right thing even when no one is looking" - JC Watts)
To: truthluva
This article is not today’s comments. It is 3 months old. Apparently, nobody noticed.
5
posted on
09/15/2008 5:00:18 PM PDT
by
XEHRpa
To: XEHRpa
Odd that was not specified anywhere. Are we sure these weren’t comments he made today?
6
posted on
09/15/2008 5:05:50 PM PDT
by
truthluva
("Character is doing the right thing even when no one is looking" - JC Watts)
To: truthluva
I posted the article today. But the article first appeared on MSNBC in June, according to the webpage (see date at top).
7
posted on
09/15/2008 5:08:19 PM PDT
by
XEHRpa
To: XEHRpa
I didn’t mean for my response to sound disagreeable. I know you are correct.
8
posted on
09/15/2008 5:08:59 PM PDT
by
truthluva
("Character is doing the right thing even when no one is looking" - JC Watts)
To: XEHRpa
"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
9
posted on
09/15/2008 5:11:20 PM PDT
by
traditional1
("The American presidency is not supposed to be a journey of personal discovery")
To: teletech
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.
10
posted on
09/15/2008 5:11:38 PM PDT
by
xkaydet65
(Freedom is purchased not with gold, but with steel.)
To: truthluva
11
posted on
09/15/2008 5:13:25 PM PDT
by
XEHRpa
To: xkaydet65
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.
12
posted on
09/15/2008 5:17:41 PM PDT
by
BlueNgold
(... Feed the tree!)
To: XEHRpa
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.
13
posted on
09/15/2008 5:18:24 PM PDT
by
sunmars
To: XEHRpa
"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?
14
posted on
09/15/2008 5:27:52 PM PDT
by
mass55th
(Courage is being scared to death - but saddling up anyway...John Wayne)
To: BlueNgold
"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.
15
posted on
09/15/2008 5:30:47 PM PDT
by
mass55th
(Courage is being scared to death - but saddling up anyway...John Wayne)
To: mass55th
Im 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.
16
posted on
09/15/2008 5:34:14 PM PDT
by
sunmars
To: All
17
posted on
09/15/2008 5:42:25 PM PDT
by
XEHRpa
To: XEHRpa
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.
18
posted on
09/15/2008 5:50:02 PM PDT
by
Gator113
(Drill here, drill now...... or die.)
To: mass55th
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.
To: 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.
20
posted on
09/15/2008 6:15:22 PM PDT
by
XEHRpa
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-29 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson