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: 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: 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: 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: XEHRpa
Stunningly stupid.
Why would he deny it today when he is on record.
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..."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.
25 posted on
09/15/2008 7:44:29 PM PDT by
cake_crumb
(Terrorist organizations worldwide endorse Obama.)
To: XEHRpa
27 posted on
09/16/2008 7:22:44 PM PDT by
tsowellfan
(http://www.youtube.com/cafenetamerica)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson