If Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari and Gen. Petraeus confirm the allegations in this story to another source, this may cost Obama any chance at winning the presidency. A presidential candidate has no right to impede the foreign policy of the incumbent administration and most liberal Democrats will be disappointed if Obama discouraged early troop withdrawal.

 

Obama Tried to Stall GIs' Iraq Withdrawal

 

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.

 

According to Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, Obama made his demand for delay a key theme of his discussions with Iraqi leaders in Baghdad in July.

 

"He asked why we were not prepared to delay an agreement until after the US elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington," Zebari said in an interview.

 

Obama insisted that Congress should be involved in negotiations on the status of US troops - and that it was in the interests of both sides not to have an agreement negotiated by the Bush administration in its "state of weakness and political confusion."

BEcause he wants to get credit and look like he is resposible for getting troops out of Iraq when it was going to happen anyways.

Wow. If this is true, this is truly politics at its worst.

Obama's priorities: NOT what's good for the country, but rather what's good for him.

Sounds similar to what happened in 1980 with the Iranian hostages.

Sounds similar to what happened in 1980 with the Iranian hostages.

Your analogy only works if these new allegations are found to have no factual basis. Carter supporters suspected the George H. W. Bush struck a deal with the Iranians to release the hostages after Reagan took office and based on their suspicion, they proposed the appointment of a special investigator because of the "seriousness of the charges." No investigator was appointed and no evidence supporting the conspiracy theory was ever produced.

 

My guess is that the Iraqi who was quoted will backtrack and say that something was lost in translation. If not, then this will be a gigantic PR black eye for Obama.

This was not the first time that Obama has tried to interfere with the Bush administration's Iraq policy.

 

Why is Obama trying to torpedo this nation's foreign policy and why does freelance foreign policy seem to be okay to liberals?

 

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." -

OBAMA'S TALK WITH IRAQI FOREIGN MINISTER (MSNBC, June 16, 2008)

Here is Obama's response. Essnetially, his spokeswoman admits that Obama encouraged the Iraqis not to agree to the "Strategic Framework Agreement" until after the election. Although Obama seems to admit to the alleged facts, his campaign still manages to make a personal attack upon McCain's integrity and label the New York Post story as untruthful

 

This article could have been more accurately titled Obama camp hits back at Iraq claim with double-talk.

 

But Obama's national security spokeswoman Wendy Morigi said Taheri's article bore "as much resemblance to the truth as a McCain campaign commercial."

 

In fact, Obama had told the Iraqis that they should not rush through a "Strategic Framework Agreement" governing the future of US forces until after President George W. Bush leaves office, she said.

 

In the face of resistance from Bush, the Democrat has long said that any such agreement must be reviewed by the US Congress as it would tie a future administration's hands on Iraq.

 

"Barack Obama has never urged a delay in negotiations, nor has he urged a delay in immediately beginning a responsible drawdown of our combat brigades," Morigi said.

 

"These outright distortions will not changes the facts -- Senator Obama is the only candidate who will safely and responsibly end the war in Iraq and refocus our attention on the real threat: a resurgent Al-Qaeda and Taliban along the Afghanistan/Pakistan border." - Obama camp hits back at Iraq double-talk claim

Wait, let me understand:

 

1) Obama wants the troops out

2) Negotiations to get the troops out begins

3) Obama tries to convince the Iraqi Foreign Minister to wait to get the troops out

 

Does he want the troops out, or is it just a way to get votes? If he really believes Iraq is not where our troops should be, then why would he delay it?

Wait, let me understand:

 

1) Obama wants the troops out

2) Negotiations to get the troops out begins

3) Obama tries to convince the Iraqi Foreign Minister to wait to get the troops out

 

Does he want the troops out, or is it just a way to get votes? If he really believes Iraq is not where our troops should be, then why would he delay it?

 

Because it hurts his political agenda if the removal starts before his potential presidency.

Wait, let me understand:

 

1) Obama wants the troops out

2) Negotiations to get the troops out begins

3) Obama tries to convince the Iraqi Foreign Minister to wait to get the troops out

 

Does he want the troops out, or is it just a way to get votes? If he really believes Iraq is not where our troops should be, then why would he delay it?

The bigger issue is that Obama has no legal right to conduct negotiations or interfere with President Bush's foreign policy without explicit permission from Bush.

 

The secondary issue, which should be paramount to Obama's supporters, is the hypocrisy of advocating a speedy withdrawal of troops in public while privately urging the Iraqis not to agree to a speedy withdrawal until he becomes president.

 

Despite the admission of the Obama campaign that the alleged discussion did take place and despite Obama's own admission that he made the same pitch to the Iraqi Foreign Minister in June, this evidently is of little concern to the same people who are scrambling to find mud to toss at Sarah Palin.

 

Obama would not, as president, tolerate this kind of behavior by a Republican Senator - and neither should President Bush. Obama's actions are the consequences of allowing people like Jimmy Carter to conduct freelance foreign policy without paying a price.

For those making the claim that Obama's discussions "tried to stall GI's Iraq Withdrawal", please lay out the Bush-proposed timeline of troop drawdowns and prove, specifically, how Obama's suggestion to the Iraqis to wait until after the election would delay one soldier from leaving Iraq by one day. If you can't show that, you're making a false claim.

 

The Iraqis are probably beginning to realize that, since they want U.S. troops out of their country, they are likely to get a deal much more to their liking if they stop talking to the lame duck desperate to salvage a legacy from the wreckage of the past 8 years.

^So, do you believe that a US Senator has a legal and constitutional right to conduct his own foreign policy?

If I was sitting in a foxhole and found out that I was coming home and then heard a CANDIDATE was trying to hold it off for his own agenda....WOW! Don't think I would vote for that and don't think military families would be overjoyed.

This shows how important a soldier's life would be to Mr. Obama.

There would still be soldiers dying who should have been in rotation.

 

"What's one lowly private from No Name, Iowa's life compared to me becoming the Commander in Chief?" is the message I get from this.

 

Heartless and brainless if it's true.

^So, do you believe that a US Senator has a legal and constitutional right to conduct his own foreign policy?

 

 

The U.S. Constitution enumerates one of the President's powers as

 

Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur

 

 

Did Obama make a treaty?

 

The bigger question is, why is President Bush trying to make important treaties with the Iraqi government without obtaining approval from the Senate?