As much as I believe nObama is a disaster waiting to happen and he is not above violating the Logan Act in Iraq and elsewhere, I was not aware that Ronald Reagan ever visited Iran. Could some enlighten me with a source?
He ends this fine article with these questions. Will no one ask Obama these questions? Whu not?
Since I do not wish to become involved in an Alphonse-and-Gaston number with Obama, I suggest that we focus our attention on the fact that the nominee is left without anything resembling a policy on Iraq. So, rather than coming out with another denial of something I never said that he had done, the esteemed senator should ponder these questions:
Does he still believe that toppling Saddam Hussein was illegal and “the biggest strategic blunder in U.S. history”? If yes, we might wonder why he is prepared to deal with the new Iraqi leaders who, by definition, have usurped Hussein’s power in Baghdad with American support.
Does he still want to withdraw from Iraq or does he want to stay, doing a bit of “drawdown” and “redeployment” every now and then? And, if he wants to stay, on what basis, for what purpose, and for how long?
Is Senator Biden’s plan to carve Iraq into three separate states still a live option or has it been thrown into the dustbin where it should have been from the start?
Would Obama now support the conclusion of a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) and a Strategic Framework Agreement (SFA) through negotiations between the Bush administration and the Iraqi administration of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, also a “lame duck,” as it faces elections early next year?
Since I do not wish to become involved in an Alphonse-and-Gaston number with Obama, I suggest that we focus our attention on the fact that the nominee is left without anything resembling a policy on Iraq. So, rather than coming out with another denial of something I never said that he had done, the esteemed senator should ponder these questions:
Does he still believe that toppling Saddam Hussein was illegal and “the biggest strategic blunder in U.S. history”? If yes, we might wonder why he is prepared to deal with the new Iraqi leaders who, by definition, have usurped Hussein’s power in Baghdad with American support.
Does he still want to withdraw from Iraq or does he want to stay, doing a bit of “drawdown” and “redeployment” every now and then? And, if he wants to stay, on what basis, for what purpose, and for how long?
Is Senator Biden’s plan to carve Iraq into three separate states still a live option or has it been thrown into the dustbin where it should have been from the start?
Would Obama now support the conclusion of a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) and a Strategic Framework Agreement (SFA) through negotiations between the Bush administration and the Iraqi administration of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, also a “lame duck,” as it faces elections early next year?
Somebody please tell me this issue is gaining traction in the mainstream, even just a little rubber on the road?
Taheri’s argument and supplementary material in this article is so very cogent and stinging. Even if one wishes to ascribe dubious motives to its author, this type of clear cut thinking is striking. Truth has no bias.
This issue really does seem like a game changer, yet I do not hear anything about it other than FR and NRO. Please, please, please tell me I’m missing something...
As much as I believe nObama is a disaster waiting to happen and he is not above violating the Logan Act in Iraq and elsewhere, I was not aware that Ronald Reagan ever visited Iran. Could some enlighten me with a source?
I would love to know why the McCain campaign is not going after this story like a hungry dog on a steak...
This incident is interesting. I came across these quotes posted a month ago on youtube. I’m not endorsing them nor do I necessarily believe them.
__________________________________________________
Amir Taheri is the same guy who claimed Irans parliament had passed sumptuary laws for religious minorities, which ended up being fake. Not only did the law not exist but it wasnt even discussed in Parliament as the associated press showed. The National Post had to retracted the story and apologize for not checking to see if the story was true.
Taheri on the other hand still maintains that the law was passed, which shows his poor journalistic skills.
San Francisco state university also documented faked stories that Taheri authored to make himself appear like he had inside knowledge.
Historian Shaul Bakhash of George Mason University has accused Amir Taheri of concocting nonexistent conpiracies in his writings and “repeatedly refers us to books where the information he cites simply does not exist. Often the documents cannot be found in the volumes to which he attributes them.... “
____________________________
I think there is a lot of rhetoric thrown out during the election time that needs scrutiny before its pushed forward as fact. Again, no BHO fan here.
I do not believe he is 'loyal' to the constitution of the United States. Most of the democrats fall into this same camp.
Mc Cain should bring this up in the Foreign Policy debate next Friday.
This shows why you don’t put a rookie with 145 days of experience in a position that would allow him to run the most powerful nation on earth.
If this is true, it shows that Obama is a real loose Cannon on the deck of American Politics. His ego when viewed as above conventions of diplomacy can start wars when the communication between party breaks down. There is a place for Maverick, but not in diplomacy.