Another possible Obama scandal?

From the New York Post:

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."

Then there is this:

In a sign of just how nervous senior Democrats are about Barack Obama's situation, top Democratic Party operatives are privately urging the party's major donors to get serious about putting big money into outside groups looking to attack John McCain in key battleground states.

How often does Obama consort with "top Democratic Party operatives"? What did Obama know and when did he know it?

The Iraq report is an obvious lie. Come on, you probably believe that Clinton conspired to blow up the Murrah Federal Building to destroy his drug trafficking records. Taheri has a horrible record of completely fabricating stories. See: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Amir_Taheri

For the sake of Obama's campaign, let's hope it is a lie. Otherwise, he was essentially attempting to use American lives as pawns in his little bid to become Leader of the Free World.

I say there should be more investigation into this matter. Maybe the New York Times could send a reporter or two to Baghdad to interview more Iraqi politicians about what deals Obama and his staffers were trying to extract from those politicians, if any.

In case you want to know what really happened, it is described here.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/9/15/125036/940

Jmcgarve, that supposed refutation in no way refutes anything in the New York Post article. In fact, the NYPost article is entirely conterminous with the DKos diary entry. The only difference between the two is the NYPost article contains some he-said/she-said elements.

By the way, the oozing machismo displayed by JustForTheRecord, the Kos diarist, is side-splittingly hilarious. He must own a Slam Man.

Obama's predictable response, where he essentially confirms Taheri's account, but with a twist: it's a McCain smear. Gee, who didn't see that coming?

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hi9TDNHvuBZpFsO8ZbiFYsnbIl3A

It might be predictable...and it might be true, too. I guess we'll have to stay tuned.

The objective evidence suggests that Obama said something unobjectionable (that it's a bad idea to forge supposedly binding agreements that the next American administration might not want to be bound by) that could easily be spun into something bad-sounding.

The dubious hearsay evidence implies that Obama wants to keep our boys fighting until he's president, so he can get the credit for bringing them home. The hearsay and spin will probably get plenty of play, but I don't see any reason to take them seriously. At least not yet...

Reminds of the rumor that Reagan negotiated with Iran to keep the hostages a little bit longer, so he can be seen to have brought them home. See sleepwalking through history.

Sounds hokey.

Actually the Reagan allegations probably have some credibility. Don't forget, Reagan operatives traded arms to Iran for hostages in Lebanon, in order to fund the Contras in Nicaragua, after Congress had cut off funding for that particular military adventure. The National Security Archive has a retrospective on the Iran-Contra affair, including declassified documents. Interesting to see how many of the players in that scheme are now or have been active in the current administration.

Hhmm, that's true...

So it's okay if Obama uses American troops as pawns in his bid to become president (the verdict is still out) because Reagan supposedly did the something similar? I'm not following. I thought liberals were supposed to be the good guys.

No, it's not okay. Definintely not. I don't think that's what most liberals are saying. Or at least that's not what I'm saying.

But I continue to wait for more information before believing this allegation.

Actually the Reagan parallel was the first thing that came to mind when I read this, but that's also complicated, and probably worse.

I'm glad to hear you think we're supposed to be good guys.

The author, Amir Taheri, is apparently associated with the neocons, and has been accused of misrepresentation on several occasions in the past.

Here are some differing opinions about the agreement:
McClatchy, June 9, 2008: U.S. seeking 58 bases in Iraq, Shiite lawmakers say

The Washington Times editorial, August 22, 2008: Questions about US-Iraq agreement
At a joint press conference with Miss Rice yesterday, however, Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari stated that the text of an agreement was ready and a draft would be presented today to senior Iraqi officials.

On Obama’s campaign website:
The Status-of-Forces Agreement
Obama and Biden believe any Status of Forces Agreement, or any strategic framework agreement, should be negotiated in the context of a broader commitment by the U.S. to begin withdrawing its troops and forswearing permanent bases. Obama and Biden also believe that any security accord must be subject to Congressional approval. It is unacceptable that the Iraqi government will present the agreement to the Iraqi parliament for approval—yet the Bush administration will not do the same with the U.S. Congress. The Bush administration must submit the agreement to Congress or allow the next administration to negotiate an agreement that has bipartisan support here at home and makes absolutely clear that the U.S. will not maintain permanent bases in Iraq.

So it seems that Taheri took a public statement Obama has made on his website (and I seem to recall hearing him quoted on the same topic in campaign coverage) and tried to make it look like some secret negotiation. Also, it appears that Taheri tried to oversimplify the Status of Forces Agreement to the issue of troop withdrawals, when in fact it deals with everything from troop numbers to US bases to criminal prosecution of US military personnel and contractors. Hopefully one of the fact checking websites will investigate this.

Even the National Enquirer is right every now and then, Oregon. Like I said, you guys better hope Amir Teheri is being disingenuous or outright lying because otherwise it would be a disaster for the Obama campaign.

#12 codyed said: "So it's okay if Obama uses American troops as pawns in his bid to become president (the verdict is still out) because Reagan supposedly did the something similar?"

I'm struggling with how this makes sense. How is Obama using our troops as pawns? There is no way in hell our troops will come home any sooner and much more likely much later if BushCo completes this "Status of Forces" agreement. As an aside, isn't "Status of Forces" the military version of signing statements? How is a "Status of Forces" agreement between two nations not a treaty? Just the same way a signing state4ment negates laws, unconstitutionally. Just by calling this treaty something different doesn't make it anything other than a treaty requiring the advice and consent of the Senate.

If anyone is using our troops as political pawns, it is BushCo through his desire to bypass the constitution to accomplish his ends of a permanent military presence where we are manifestly unwelcome and is an unpopular idea with many (most?) Americans.

This is just another attempt to bypass the Constitution through extra-legal mumbo-jumbo.

#12 Codyed, you're over-reading the post. It's not good in any case. The question is: Is it true?