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

Was that?

 

This story is gaining legs...

 

The legs of a dachshund in a pack of great danes, yes. But do keep trying. I think Glenn Beck is still listening to Rush and vice versa, even if nobody else listens with interest to either of them. That has to be good for something, right?

 

I gotta ask, "Who are you listening to?"

As for me, I haven't heard Glenn Beck in two months and I've tuned in to Rush for about 2 hours in the last month. So who am I listening to? Oh wait, I did check out Sean Hannity for about an hour and was bored out of my mind...

 

oh Jorge.....


Undermining McCain Campaign Attack, Republicans Back Obama‘s Version of Meeting with Iraqi Leaders

September 19, 2008 1:06 PM

Earlier this week, the campaign of Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., seized upon a column in the New York Post that described Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., as having urged Iraqi leaders in a private meeting to delay coming to an agreement with the Bush administration on the status of U.S. troops.

"Obama has tried in private to persuade Iraqi leaders to delay an agreement on a draw-down of the American military presence," Post columnist Amir Tehari wrote, quoting Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari who told the Post that Obama during his meeting with Iraqi leaders in July "asked why we were not prepared to delay an agreement until after the US elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington."

The charge -- that Obama asked the Iraqis to delay signing off on a "Status of Forces Agreement," thus delaying US troop withdrawal and interfering in U.S. foreign policy -- has been picked up on the internet, talk radio and by Republicans including the McCain campaign, which seized on the story as possible evidence of duplicity.

The Obama campaign said that the Post report consisted of "outright distortions."

Lending significant credence to Obama's response is the fact that -- though it's absent from the Post story and other retellings -- in addition to Obama and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, this July meeting was also attended by Bush administration officials such as U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker and the Baghdad embassy's Legislative Affairs advisor Rich Haughton, as well as a Republican senator, Chuck Hagel of Nebraska.

Attendees of the meeting back Obama's account, including not just Sen. Jack Reed, D-RI, but Hagel, Senate Foreign Relations Committee staffers from both parties. Officials of the Bush administration who were briefed on the meeting by the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad also support Obama's account and dispute the Post story and McCain attack.

The Post story is "absolutely not true," Hagel spokesman Mike Buttry told ABC News.

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

Buttry said that Hagel agrees with Obama's account of the meeting: Obama began the meeting with Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki by asserting that the United States speaks with one foreign policy voice, and that voice belongs to the Bush administration.

A Bush administration official with knowledge of the meeting says that during the meeting Obama stressed to Maliki that he would not interfere with President Bush's negotiations concerning the US troop presence in Iraq, and that he supports the Bush administration's position on the need to negotiate as soon as possible the Status of Forces Agreement, which deals with among other matters US troops having immunity from local prosecution.

Obama did assert at the meeting with the Iraqis that he agrees with those – including Hagel and Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., the ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee -- who advocate congressional review of the Strategic Framework Agreement being worked out between the Bush administration and the Iraqi government, including the Iraqi parliament.

The Strategic Framework Agreement is a document that generally describes what the relationship between the two countries should look like over time.

According one person present at the meeting, Obama told Maliki that the American people wouldn't understand why the Iraqi Parliament would get to have a say on the Strategic Framework Agreement but the U.S. Congress would not, especially since the President Bush is only months from leaving the White House, regardless of whether Obama or McCain succeeds him.

Morigi said in a statement that "Barack Obama has consistently called for any Strategic Framework Agreement to be submitted to the U.S. Congress so that the American people have the same opportunity for review as the Iraqi Parliament."

It’s possible, Obama advisers believe, that either Zebari or columnist Taheri confused the Strategic Framework Agreement, which Obama feels should be reviewed by Congress, with the Status of Forces Agreement, which Obama says the Bush administration should negotiate with the Iraqis as soon as possible.

Two officials of the Bush administration say that if Obama had done what the Post story asserted – which they believe to be untrue – U.S. Ambassador Crocker and embassy officials attending the meeting would have ensured that the Bush administration heard about it immediately. If such an incident occurred in front of officials of the Bush administration, it would have constituted a foreign policy breach and would have been front-page huge news; it would not have leaked out two months later in an op-ed column.

Nonetheless, based on nothing more than the Post report, McCain senior foreign policy adviser Randy Scheunemann issued a statement earlier this week expressing outrage.

“It should be concerning to all that (Obama) reportedly urged that the democratically-elected Iraqi government listen to him rather than the US administration in power,” Scheunemann said, apparently not having talked to anyone with knowledge about the meeting in Bush administration, the US Embassy in Baghdad, GOP Sen. Hagel, or any Republican staffers on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

“If news reports are accurate, this is an egregious act of political interference by a presidential candidate seeking political advantage overseas,” Scheunemann continued. “Senator Obama needs to reveal what he said to Iraq's Foreign Minister during their closed door meeting. The charge that he sought to delay the withdrawal of Americans from Iraq raises serious questions about Senator Obama's judgment and it demands an explanation.”

What actually demands an explanation is why the McCain campaign was so willing to give credence to such a questionable story with such tremendous international implications without first talking to Republicans present at Obama’s meeting with Maliki, who back Obama’s version of the meeting and completely dismiss the Post column as untrue.

-- Jake Tapper and Kirit Radia
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/undermining-mcc.html

I'm sure an apology from Jorge is forthcoming.

 

Why does McCain feel the need to blatantly lie when the truth is so easy to find out? Does it make him feel superior? Does he think Americans are idiots? Does he have so much distain for the truth that he is willing to be made a fool of?

Why?

 

pffft

 

It sure is, why did mccain lie?

 

Step 5 in how these threads work. Of course, step 6 got a heads start on a bunch of other threads already.

BBS D&D Thread Progression

1. Thread started and title saying "Obama [fill in something that sounds absolutely and undeniably fact based and implies something bad]"

2. First post has a combination of:
a) Opinion piece written by someone clearly highly biased and written in a manner as if the opinion was fact.
b) The opinion piece either is from a "reputable" source already, from a "non-reputable" source but somehow linking back to a "reputable" source, or just completely from a "non-reputable" source - which is either ok, or not okay and labeled a joke, depending on whose side your on.
c) Either before the cited piece, or after, anywhere from 3-7 lines of response from thread starter who is shocked and amazed that everything in the opinion piece is so true and unbelievable.

3. Multiple posts pointing out the stupidity of the article, thread starter and thread.

4. A random argument. This is always indirectly related to the thread, but a little off base, too. It will sustain the thread for at least 3 or 4 pages.

5. Anywhere from 1 minute to a few days after the thread is started, responses more clearly showing why the thread is stupid and the original piece is in no way close to reality.

6. Sometime around points 4 or 5 in the system another thread of a similar nature has already been started.

 

Oh come now Jorge. Surely you must have some comment on these new developments. Or do we just assume you are a bold faced liar that cannot be trusted with anything you post?