Obama tries to sabotage and delay troop withdrawals in Iraq so he can take credit

This is treason. Treason. What a megalomaniac -- to put his own selfish ambitions and ego above doing what is right for the people of Iraq and OUR TROOPS. This is perhaps the most disgusting thing I have read about Obama yet. For those of you who support Obama -- how can you justify this act of selfishness? Especially considering that most of you want the troops home asap? Obama runs a campaign of 'bringing the troops home now' and then pulls this stuff behind the scenes. Unbelievable. He simply can not be trusted with our nation. Period. This also clearly violates the Logan Act. It's just unimaginable.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/0915200...tried_to_stall_gis_iraq_withdrawal_129150.htm

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.

While in Iraq, Obama also tried to persuade the US commanders, including Gen. David Petraeus, to suggest a "realistic withdrawal date." They declined.

Obama has made many contradictory statements with regard to Iraq. His latest position is that US combat troops should be out by 2010. Yet his effort to delay an agreement would make that withdrawal deadline impossible to meet.

Supposing he wins, Obama's administration wouldn't be fully operational before February - and naming a new ambassador to Baghdad and forming a new negotiation team might take longer still.

By then, Iraq will be in the throes of its own campaign season. Judging by the past two elections, forming a new coalition government may then take three months. So the Iraqi negotiating team might not be in place until next June.

Then, judging by how long the current talks have taken, restarting the process from scratch would leave the two sides needing at least six months to come up with a draft accord. That puts us at May 2010 for when the draft might be submitted to the Iraqi parliament - which might well need another six months to pass it into law.

Thus, the 2010 deadline fixed by Obama is a meaningless concept, thrown in as a sop to his anti-war base.

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and the Bush administration have a more flexible timetable in mind.

According to Zebari, the envisaged time span is two or three years - departure in 2011 or 2012. That would let Iraq hold its next general election, the third since liberation, and resolve a number of domestic political issues.

Even then, the dates mentioned are only "notional," making the timing and the cadence of withdrawal conditional on realities on the ground as appreciated by both sides.

Iraqi leaders are divided over the US election. Iraqi President Jalal Talabani (whose party is a member of the Socialist International) sees Obama as "a man of the Left" - who, once elected, might change his opposition to Iraq's liberation. Indeed, say Talabani's advisers, a President Obama might be tempted to appropriate the victory that America has already won in Iraq by claiming that his intervention transformed failure into success.

Maliki's advisers have persuaded him that Obama will win - but the prime minister worries about the senator's "political debt to the anti-war lobby" - which is determined to transform Iraq into a disaster to prove that toppling Saddam Hussein was "the biggest strategic blunder in US history."

Other prominent Iraqi leaders, such as Vice President Adel Abdul-Mahdi and Kurdish regional President Massoud Barzani, believe that Sen. John McCain would show "a more realistic approach to Iraqi issues."

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.

Despite some usual equivocations on the subject, Obama rejects pre-emption as a legitimate form of self -defense. To be credible, his foreign-policy philosophy requires Iraq to be seen as a failure, a disaster, a quagmire, a pig with lipstick or any of the other apocalyptic adjectives used by the American defeat industry in the past five years.

Yet Iraq is doing much better than its friends hoped and its enemies feared. The UN mandate will be extended in December, and we may yet get an agreement on the status of forces before President Bush leaves the White House in January.

 

Here is the quote:
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.

This happened, people, and it's treasonous. It's a violation of the Logan Act. Obama put his selfish ambitions ahead of our troops' safety. There is simply no other explanation for this. He wanted to delay progress and demanded that it happen. Of course, he has no authority to do that, thank God.

This, in combination with his lack of oversight over NATO, simply prove that he is unfit to be Commander in Chief. He prioritizes his own photo opp's and political standing over our nation's interests. Just look at this incident, the Landstuhl troop snubbing, and his Afghanistan ball-dropping in favor of campaigning for President. Every step along the way, Obama chose to maximize his self interest and minimize the interests of our country. That is not leadership. How can anyone argue otherwise? The man is just in over his head and unfit to lead.

 

No it's not a reasonable question. First of all, it's ridiculously presumptuous. Obama is assuming he will be the next President. The polls today tell a much different story. Obama has no right to be negotiating on the United States' behalf. He's the freshman Senator from Illinois, not the Secretary of State or the President. Obama is such a presumptuous clown to arrogantly assume that he has Presidential power today. Nothing qualifies him to make that assumption. Nothing. He's out of his mind if he thinks otherwise. What an ego maniac.

Second, George Bush is the President until January 2009. He runs things until the next President is sworn in. Neither McCain nor Obama can interfere with him until then.