Tammy Bruce: Obama Camp Confirms Attempted Iraq Interference

Obama Camp Confirms Attempted Iraq Interference

The New York Post's Amir Taheri was the one to break the fact that Obama, in this trip to Iraq, had asked the Iraqi government to stop negotiating with the US on troops withdrawals until after our presidential election. Effectively, he was trying to stop troops withdrawals while then demanding the very same thing publicly.

Scum. Of. The. Earth.

Now, his campaign has essentially confirmed this, a disgusting effort to keep our loved ones in harms way because he thought it would help his campaign. Oh yeah, despite the fact that the story is that Obama confirms Taheri's charges, and check out the Agence France-Presse headline. (HT Instapundit).

Obama camp hits back at Iraq double-talk claim

Barack Obama's White House campaign angrily denied Monday a report that he had secretly urged the Iraqis to postpone a deal to withdraw US troops until after November's election.

In the New York Post, conservative Iranian-born columnist Amir Taheri quoted Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari as saying the Democrat made the demand when he visited Baghdad in July, while publicly demanding an early withdrawal.

"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, according to Taheri.

"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 reportedly said...

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.

Which is exactly what the Taheri story claims Obama tried to do.

Posted by Tammy · September 16, 2008 08:55 AM · Permalink
Just Wrong | Leftists | Military | Politics

Comments

once again, our bravest citizens are being used as pawns in an ugly power game. shameful

Posted by: ConnecticutBruce at September 16, 2008 09:11 AM

I would like to think that this news would have some impact on the voters. It is outrageous that this man would underhandidly interfere with negotiations and troop withdrawal for his own cause. Unbelievable!

Posted by: Judy at September 16, 2008 09:42 AM

CONNETICUTBRUCE,

Remember the Democrats have a long and bloody history of using our best and bravest as pawns in their power struggles. Just look at what Johnson did for campaign contributions or what Clinton did to distract the nation from his affairs. Do you think he cared about those kids that got killed in Somalia? The only thing he cared about were the media showing dead bodies instead the current bimbo erruption.

Posted by: maldain at September 16, 2008 09:57 AM

If this isn't a glaring example of O'Mans contempt for the lives of US Soldiers, I don't what is. To even treat with a foreign power, ally or not, that extends the risk of one (1) soldier, is deplorable.
But "Americana" willfully blinded by the glitter can't help but jon the chorus for "CHANGE".
I haven't seen what the change would be yet.
The change would apparentnly be in terms of ethics; maybe reducing Cain's murder of Abel to a probate of Adam and Eve's estate.

Posted by: Shawmut at September 16, 2008 10:54 AM

There's more than one source wondering if Obama's *innocent* advice to the Iraqis didn't violate the Logan Act.

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both. This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply, himself or his agent, to any foreign government or the agents thereof for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.

Now this act has only been used as a threat. Its language is broad, and some say unconstitutional. But I think Obama's interference ought to qualify for a warning. Bottom line is, we don't want or need an unauthorized person (not even the Chosen One) negotiating with foreign governments on our behalf.

Posted by: marleed at September 16, 2008 12:48 PM

MARLEED: You are right on! First, Nanners Pelosy goes to Siria and claims to get assurances that they will not intervene directly in Lebanon, now this! I thought the justice department could investigate violations of federal law without permission of the party of the perpetrator. Am I wrong on this? Or is Bush and his A.G. just impotent? They can sure bring the federal resources to bear in prosecuting border guards, but not an exhalted congresswoman or the messiah.

Posted by: mrfixit at September 16, 2008 03:23 PM

I remember the left accusing Ronald Reagan of an "October Surprise" with the Iranian hostages - supposedly secretly negotiating with the Iranians to keep the hostages longer through GHW Bush so that Carter would be discredited and Reagan would win the 1980 election and become President.

The moral of this story?

The left actually does those things that they falsely accuse the right of doing.

Posted by: John H Schneider II at September 16, 2008 04:46 PM

Marleed and Mr. Fixit have hit on one our greatest problems.
When other countries scoff us, it's less the issue of our virtues as a country, it'our failure to respect our own laws and not prosecute accordingly.
Remember, if the UN had enforced it's own mandates, we'd have had no reason to be in Iraq at all.

Posted by: Shawmut at September 16, 2008 06:42 PM

But Obama has the perfect excuse: "moi? L’etat c’est moi!"

Posted by: Swen at September 17, 2008 04:24 PM

Mrfixit, the US government has never brought a single prosecution under the Logan Act in the more than 200 years it's been on the books. It's hopelessly vague and that's even before confronting the First Amendment issues. Criminalizing politics is supposed to be what the Left threatens to do, not us. The remedy here for this disgraceful behavior is in the voting booths, not the courts.

Posted by: Dave J at September 17, 2008 04:30 PM

Why put a law on the books if it won't be enforced. Voluntary compliance? What if five senators go off on their own foreign policy expeditions and make commitments to foreign leaders just to accuse the sitting administration of renigging on commitments they made, for political purposes?

The constitution gives the POTUS the exclusive on foreign policy. The Logan Act puts teeth in that provision of the constitution, just as many other laws affix rules and penalties for violating other constitutional provisions. It seems pretty clear that the Act goes hand in glove with the constitution.

Of course there are those that think the first ammendment protects only political opinion speech if it is published in a national newspaper. (I actually heard this from a Harvard Law grad.) 2nd ammendment: right of the "Collective" to maintain a standing army. And so-on.

Have we become a nation of laws that are enforced for some and ignored for others? I sincerely hope not. A rouge Senator Pelosi could do tremendous dammage to an administration in a six year term. I would'nt want to have to wait that long to resolve the issue in the voting booth. Politics are for political parties to play in the U.S. Playing U.S. politics on the world stage is out of constitutional bounds.

Posted by: mrfixit at September 18, 2008 09:42 AM

By Category

By Month

Obama Camp Confirms Attempted Iraq Interference

Comments

Post a comment