This is the most disturbing part of the article to me:

 

"Obama has given Iraqis the impression that he doesn't want Iraq to appear anything like a success, let alone a victory, for America. The reason? He fears that the perception of US victory there might revive the Bush Doctrine of "pre-emptive" war - that is, removing a threat before it strikes at America"

 

Why would they get that impression?

^Very good point 75. Once again it shows that Obama cares nothing about the troops and only about furthering his political agenda.

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

 

 

 

 

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?

No, the bigger question is why is one member of that Senate trying to undermine the Presidents foriegn policy. You twist it however you want but Obama is stepping way over the line here.

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.

 

If Obama were elected, he would not have his staff/administration in full force until February or March. That means that no deal could be worked out for another 7 months. Why put off an agreement until then? If the situation has improved and dictates that we can start pulling troops now, why not?

 

If this is true, Obama has overstepped his bounds and appears to be trying to get all the credit for troops beginning to leave Iraq. He voted against the surge, which, even by his accounts within the past 2 weeks has been 'wildly successful and more than we ever dreamed it could be' but won't admit he was wrong about what the surge would do when he voted against it. NO senator, democrat or republican, has the authority to dictate foreign policy by themselves as he appears to be doing.

 

If I am not mistaken, we are beginning to hand over areas of the country back to the leadership of Iraq and troops are beginning to come home. Why would he want to wait on a deal to bring them home another 7 months if he really wants the troops to come home? IMHO, he wants them to come home on his watch so he can claim that he brought them home.

If Obama were elected, he would not have his staff/administration in full force until February or March. That means that no deal could be worked out for another 7 months. Why put off an agreement until then? If the situation has improved and dictates that we can start pulling troops now, why not?

 

 

When have we required a formal, negotiated, written agreement to either increase troop levels or reduce them? We can start pulling troops now without the agreements in question (we have been pulling incremental "surge" troops for several months now and I don't believe we had to negotiate with anyone to do it). I don't see how these agreements have any material effect on the pace at which troop reductions occur in the short term. It makes a good political argument to imply that they do, I guess.

 

 

 

If this is true, Obama has overstepped his bounds and appears to be trying to get all the credit for troops beginning to leave Iraq. He voted against the surge, which, even by his accounts within the past 2 weeks has been 'wildly successful and more than we ever dreamed it could be' but won't admit he was wrong about what the surge would do when he voted against it. NO senator, democrat or republican, has the authority to dictate foreign policy by themselves as he appears to be doing.

 

If I am not mistaken, we are beginning to hand over areas of the country back to the leadership of Iraq and troops are beginning to come home. Why would he want to wait on a deal to bring them home another 7 months if he really wants the troops to come home? IMHO, he wants them to come home on his watch so he can claim that he brought them home.

 

 

As I understand it, the agreements in question are not required to bring our troops home. The agreements are required to allow our troops to stay beyond the expiration of the UN mandate. The Iraqi government wanted U.S. troops out by the year 2010, the Bush administration didn't want U.S. forces to leave until 2015. They settled on the end of 2011 to have all U.S. troops out, but have not announced agreement.

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.

Whether or not it would actually delay withdrawal is something that remains to be seen.

 

I think the big question, if this is true, is what was Obama's motive? Why was he trying to delay it?

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?

Ever heard of the Logan Act? What kind of foreign policy would we have if the minority party lobbied against treaties on foreign soil to undermine the efforts of the POTUS to negotiate treaties? Advice and consent does not cover sabotaging treaty negotiations in advance and I suspect that you understand that fact.

Ever heard of the Logan Act? What kind of foreign policy would we have if the minority party lobbied against treaties on foreign soil to undermine the efforts of the POTUS to negotiate treaties? Advice and consent does not cover sabotaging treaty negotiations in advance and I suspect that you understand that fact.

 

Ah, yes. The Logan Act. The Act that has never been invoked or used in a prosecution in the history of our country, which, coincidentally, was about the time it was written.

It is always amazing to watch people defend the indefensible. Obama was wrong to attempt to undermine negotiations with Iraq and he had no legal right to do so.

 

UNITED STATES V. CURTISS-WRIGHT EXPORT CORP., 299 U. S. 304 (1936)

 

Page 299 U. S. 319

 

The President is the constitutional representative of the United States with regard to foreign nations. He manages our concerns with foreign nations, and must necessarily be most competent to determine when, how, and upon what subjects negotiation may be urged with the greatest prospect of success. For his conduct, he is responsible to the Constitution. The committee consider this responsibility the surest pledge for the faithful discharge of his duty. They think the interference of the Senate in the direction of foreign negotiations calculated to diminish that responsibility, and thereby to impair the best security for the national safety. The nature of transactions with foreign nations, moreover, requires caution and unity of design, and their success frequently depends on secrecy and dispatch.

Ever heard of the Logan Act? What kind of foreign policy would we have if the minority party lobbied against treaties on foreign soil to undermine the efforts of the POTUS to negotiate treaties? Advice and consent does not cover sabotaging treaty negotiations in advance and I suspect that you understand that fact.

 

I see all this (if true) as borderline treason on obama's part. I'm smack dab in the middle of a military family and if this is what it seems to be, throw him in jail!:mad:

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.

 

Here is an article that discusses the recently announced troop withdrawals.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/09/iraq.usa

 

Here's a relevent paragraph from the article:

 

There are around 146,000 US forces in Iraq. A marine battalion, of about 1,000 troops, would go home on schedule in November and not be replaced. An army brigade of between 3,500 and 4,000 troops would leave in February. About 3,400 support forces will also go home over the next few months.

 

If the troops are going to return in November, they need time to prepare to leave. Also those who would replace them would have to prepare to arrive in Iraq by November and those left behind would also have to plan accordingly. Therefore, if the announcement of the troop withdrawals waited until after the election, they would not be able to leave in November. There wouldn't be sufficient time.

Whether or not it would actually delay withdrawal is something that remains to be seen.

 

I think the big question, if this is true, is what was Obama's motive? Why was he trying to delay it?

 

 

Caveat: the below post is made with the assumption that what has been reported is true. If not true, the following post is moot.

 

While I totally agree with your post, I do think that Ace is like wise correct in also discussing whether Obama stepped out of bounds in even having discussions with Iraq about troop withdrawals, regardless of his motives.

 

I think all posters if they could put their politics aside for a moment would realize the danger of having Senators trying to convince foreign countries to do something different than what the President was attempting to get accomplished. Its one thing for Obama to have a press conference here in the States saying he disagrees with Bush (as if he would have had a press conference saying that he wants the troop withdrawals delayed), but its a completely different thing for him to meet privately with Iraqi govt representatives and encourage them to do something different than what the President was negotiating for. The very fact that Obama doesn't appreciate the danger of his actions is, in my opinion, attributable to his lack of experience in and understanding of foreign policy negotiations. Very concerning to me, regardless of the motives.

 

What possible motives could Obama have had for delaying troop withdrawal? I know the nefarious one already mentioned, but are there other possible legitimate reasons (and I think we need to keep in mind Obama's previously stated positions on Iraq and the troop withdrawal as posters come up with other possible motives or reasons for him to want the withdrawal delayed).

Here is an article that discusses the recently announced troop withdrawals.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/09/iraq.usa

 

Here's a relevent paragraph from the article:

 

There are around 146,000 US forces in Iraq. A marine battalion, of about 1,000 troops, would go home on schedule in November and not be replaced. An army brigade of between 3,500 and 4,000 troops would leave in February. About 3,400 support forces will also go home over the next few months.

 

If the troops are going to return in November, they need time to prepare to leave. Also those who would replace them would have to prepare to arrive in Iraq by November and those left behind would also have to plan accordingly. Therefore, if the announcement of the troop withdrawals waited until after the election, they would not be able to leave in November. There wouldn't be sufficient time.

 

 

We have been reducing troop strength in Iraq for some time without a formal written agreement with the Iraqis--why would further reductions of the magnitude you mention be thwarted by the temporary lack of a written agreement?

Caveat: the below post is made with the assumption that what has been reported is true. If not true, the following post is moot.

 

While I totally agree with your post, I do think that Ace is like wise correct in also discussing whether Obama stepped out of bounds in even having discussions with Iraq about troop withdrawals, regardless of his motives.

 

I think all posters if they could put their politics aside for a moment would realize the danger of having Senators trying to convince foreign countries to do something different than what the President was attempting to get accomplished. Its one thing for Obama to have a press conference here in the States saying he disagrees with Bush (as if he would have had a press conference saying that he wants the troop withdrawals delayed), but its a completely different thing for him to meet privately with Iraqi govt representatives and encourage them to do something different than what the President was negotiating for. The very fact that Obama doesn't appreciate the danger of his actions is, in my opinion, attributable to his lack of experience in and understanding of foreign policy negotiations. Very concerning to me, regardless of the motives.

 

What possible motives could Obama have had for delaying troop withdrawal? I know the nefarious one already mentioned, but are there other possible legitimate reasons (and I think we need to keep in mind Obama's previously stated positions on Iraq and the troop withdrawal as posters come up with other possible motives or reasons for him to want the withdrawal delayed).

 

 

Your the first one to seemingly couch his/her comments with that disclaimer (at least as boldly as you stated it.). So does anyone know if this is truly what happened? Is it part of what happened? Is any of it what happened?

 

I find it amusing because I thought a not long ago there was a bold story about the Iraqi Prez wanting troops out sooner. Then when the story was checked out it was not exactly like that at all. Some here stated, "Typical liberal media jumping out there without checking facts."

 

Now a similar event has occurred but the roles and posters seem to have switched viewpoints on the whole matter. :confused:

Your the first one to seemingly couch his/her comments with that disclaimer (at least as boldly as you stated it.). So does anyone know if this is truly what happened? Is it part of what happened? Is any of it what happened?

 

I find it amusing because I thought a not long ago there was a bold story about the Iraqi Prez wanting troops out sooner. Then when the story was checked out it was not exactly like that at all. Some here stated, "Typical liberal media jumping out there without checking facts."

 

Now a similar event has occurred but the roles and posters seem to have switched viewpoints on the whole matter. :confused:

 

In that case the disclaimer came out immediately. In this case no one has come out to dispute the claim. You would think it would have come out immediately, if not sooner.