http://www.nypost.com/seven/09152008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/obama_tried_to_stall_gis_iraq_withdrawal_129150.htm
OBAMA TRIED TO STALL GIS' IRAQ WITHDRAWAL
Amir Taheri
Last updated: 2:34 pm
September 16, 2008
Posted: 4:02 am
September 15, 2008
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."
"However, as an Iraqi, I prefer to have a security agreement that regulates the activities of foreign troops, rather than keeping the matter open." Zebari says.
Though Obama claims the US presence is "illegal," he suddenly remembered that Americans troops were in Iraq within the legal framework of a UN mandate. His advice was that, rather than reach an accord with the "weakened Bush administration," Iraq should seek an extension of the UN mandate.
The title of this thread is idiotic; the Bush administration has repeatedly and publicly refused to consider any timetables for withdrawal in their discussions with the Iraqi government. The idea that Bush and his crew were going to negotiate a withdrawal of all troops before Obama's proposed 18 month timetable is laughable in the extreme.
No agreement reached between the Bush administration and the Iraqi government would be binding on the next president anyway unless it was approved by the Senate (which ain't gonna happen).
Originally posted by no1marauderAgreed...how on earth can he do such a think if he is not even in power.
The title of this thread is idiotic; the Bush administration has repeatedly and publicly refused to consider any timetables for withdrawal in their discussions with the Iraqi government. The idea that Bush and his crew were going to negotiate a withdrawal of all troops before Obama's proposed 18 month timetable is laughable in the extreme.
...[text shortened]... on the next president anyway unless it was approved by the Senate (which ain't gonna happen).
edit: another stupid post from Zeeblebot!
Originally posted by no1maraudersome adviser you are! ... you should told him before he tried to delay it!
The title of this thread is idiotic; the Bush administration has repeatedly and publicly refused to consider any timetables for withdrawal in their discussions with the Iraqi government. The idea that Bush and his crew were going to negotiate a withdrawal of all troops before Obama's proposed 18 month timetable is laughable in the extreme.
...[text shortened]... on the next president anyway unless it was approved by the Senate (which ain't gonna happen).
Originally posted by zeeblebotNo, I don't read the Post (well the Sports section occasionally). But there's nothing to see here. Absent a binding treaty, a US President can withdraw troops from anywhere he sees fit any time he pleases (that's what it means to be "Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces"😉. Nothing Bush can do is going to limit the discretion of his successor.
c'mon, no1m, don't you read the Post? why didn't YOU find this one?
So the title of this thread remains idiotic.
Originally posted by no1marauderAll of what you said is besides the point, Obama violated a federal law, the Logan Act, in order to undermine the Bush Administration and provide steam to his presidential campaign. By persuading Iraqi leaders to delay talks on American withdraw from Iraq until his anticipated inauguration, Obama can make the claim that the unpopular war is a quagmire and the Bush Administration is doing nothing to get us out of it. He can also link the Bush Administration's perceived faults in the end game of Iraq to John McCain, thus winning over key votes; we have already seen this tactic utilized, most recently in last Friday's debate where Obama kept reiterating the claim that the "Bush/McCain" War on Terror has thus far been a failure. Obama has already plagiarized in order to make himself look more credible on the campaign trail, now he has violated a federal law; what else is he willing to do to win this election?
The title of this thread is idiotic; the Bush administration has repeatedly and publicly refused to consider any timetables for withdrawal in their discussions with the Iraqi government. The idea that Bush and his crew were going to negotiate a withdrawal of all troops before Obama's proposed 18 month timetable is laughable in the extreme.
...[text shortened]... on the next president anyway unless it was approved by the Senate (which ain't gonna happen).
Originally posted by MoneyManMikeThis ridiculous claim is another bogus right wing talking point. Please read the Logan Act and consider that Barrack Obama is a US Senator, a government official and his trip was authorized by the US government. Then go smack yourself in the head for your uncritical acceptance of foolish, right wing internet propaganda.
All of what you said is besides the point, Obama violated a federal law, the Logan Act, in order to undermine the Bush Administration and provide steam to his presidential campaign. By persuading Iraqi leaders to delay talks on American withdraw from Iraq until his anticipated inauguration, Obama can make the claim that the unpopular war is a quagmire rail, now he has violated a federal law; what else is he willing to do to win this election?
EDIT: Here's some history of the Logan Act: http://law.jrank.org/pages/8357/Logan-Act.html
It's a 209 year old law that no one has ever been convicted of. The idea that it was meant to apply to US Senators is just plain silly.
Originally posted by no1marauderBogus? Last time I checked there were different branches of government and each branch vested powers unique to the other branches. The powers relevant to our discussion are that of the legislative and executive branches. To be concise, the President and his appointees (ambassadors, ministers, consuls, etc.) are solely entitled to negotiate with foreign governments, while the legislative branch can only approve Presidential appointees and foreign treaties. Under federal law, individuals who are not the President or are one of his appointees are not authorized people who can negotiate with foreign governments, which means that even government officials as high as senators can not legally negotiate with foreign governments. The late Supreme Court Justice Sutherland said in 1936, "[T]he President alone has the power to speak or listen as a representative of the nation. He makes treaties with the advice and consent of the Senate; but he alone negotiates. Into the field of negotiation the Senate cannot intrude, and Congress itself is powerless to invade it." Therefore, without a doubt, Obama is in clear violation of the Logan Act. Whether or not he is convicted of this crime we have yet to see, but his actions in Iraq is a testament to the ethics he subscribes to.
This ridiculous claim is another bogus right wing talking point. Please read the Logan Act and consider that Barrack Obama is a US Senator, a government official and his trip was authorized by the US government. Then go smack yourself in the head for your uncritical acceptance of foolish, right wing internet propaganda.
EDIT: Here's some his ...[text shortened]... ver been convicted of. The idea that it was meant to apply to US Senators is just plain silly.
If any readers believe that Obama violated the Logan Act, you can go to this link and voice your opinion:
http://www.rallycongress.com/americansentinel/1223/a-call-for-hearings-into-senator-barack-obamas-violation-of-the-logan-act/
Originally posted by MoneyManMikeAnother right wing moron heard from. The trip was authorized by the US government; therefore, by the clear words of the Logan Act he cannot be in violation of it.
Bogus? Last time I checked there were different branches of government and each branch vested powers unique to the other branches. The powers relevant to our discussion are that of the legislative and executive branches. To be concise, the President and his appointees (ambassadors, ministers, consuls, etc.) are solely entitled to negotiate with fore ericansentinel/1223/a-call-for-hearings-into-senator-barack-obamas-violation-of-the-logan-act/
To wit: Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States,
Was Sarah Palin violating the Logan Act by discussing matters with Afghan leader Karzai and the Colombian President??? Could you cite to the right wing website where I can call for hearings on her obvious violation of the Logan Act?
Senators, congressman, governors, state legislators talk to foreign leaders ALL THE TIME regarding government business. They have the authority of the US government to do so. No, they can't make binding agreements but discussions like these are utterly routine. They are the purpose behind these trips and meetings like Palin's. To claim otherwise is just foolish.
For those with reading disabilities like yourself, go to the nearest 1st grade teacher who might be able to help.
In fact, the State Department in a 1975 statement declared the following:
The clear intent of this provision [Logan Act] is to prohibit unauthorized
persons from intervening in disputes between the United States and foreign
governments. Nothing in section 953, however, would appear to restrict
members of the Congress from engaging in discussions with foreign officials in
pursuance of their legislative duties under the Constitution.
DIGEST OF UNITED STATES PRACTICE IN INTERNATIONAL LAW 1975, p. 750.
quoted at http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33265.pdf
Originally posted by no1marauderSo what you are saying is that President Bush authorized Senator Obama to negotiate with leaders in Iraq on policy? I earnestly disagree, but if you have evidence I am open to it.
Another right wing moron heard from. The trip was authorized by the US government; therefore, by the clear words of the Logan Act he cannot be in violation of it.
To wit: Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, [b]without authority of the United States,
Was Sarah Palin violating the Logan Act by discussing m ...[text shortened]... ing disabilities like yourself, go to the nearest 1st grade teacher who might be able to help.[/b]
About Governor Palin's meeting with Karzai, her advisor, Stephen Biegun, said that Palin is aware that she is a candidate for office and not the President of the United States, “So rather than make specific policy prescriptions, she was largely listening, having an exchange of views, and also very interested in forming a relationship with people she met with today.” Obama, on the other hand, tried in private to persuade Zebari to delay an agreement on a withdrawal of American troops. There are stark differences between both meetings in legal terms and Obama's meeting was clearly illegal. How you fail to grasp this is beyond me.