« New McCain Ad: 'Foundation' | Main | Bootleg Video From Obama's Hollywood Fundraiser »
September 17, 2008
'No, I Didn't Interfere With That Agreement, I Interfered With a Different One'
Topics: Political News and commentariesIn what I then referred to in a previous post as treason, and at the very least a violation of the Logan Act, I have previously posted on the Amir Taheri's article accusing Obama of attempting to derail a status-of-forces agreement between the US and Iraq, and Obama camp's response to it. Checking around the blogosphere, it appears that others are thinking along the same line; Obama indeed appears to have at the very least grossly violated the Logan Act.
Today there's this at The Minority Report:
{...} Amir Taheri broke the news the other day that Senator Obama tried to delay an agreement on the troop levels in Iraq. This brought up the question of "Did Obama violate the Logan Act?". As I stated the other day, Obama's clearest defense of the Logan Act would be to claim that he was under the authority of the State Department (a highly dubious outcome). Alas, Senator Obama went with a different route:Also today, we have this from Jim Geraghty suggesting some caution but recognizing a problem may indeed exist:OBAMA OBJECTS by Amir TaheriHis defense is that he didn't interfere with the Status of Forces Agreement, but that he did interfere with the Strategic Framework Agreement. My question to the Senator is this: How does this still not constitute a violation of the Logan Act? Are you or are you not still guilty of interfering in the foreign policy of the Bush Administration (something that I showed the other day was the sole property of the Administration)?The Obama campaign has objected. While its statement says my article was "filled with distortions," the rebuttal actually centers on a technical point: the differences between two Iraqi-US accords under negotiation - the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA, to set rules governing US military personnel in Iraq) and the Strategic Framework Agreement (SFA, to settle the legal basis for the US military presence in Iraq in the months and years ahead).
[...] Can Obama's Iraq Discussions Become a Major Issue?So, while caution is certainly in order, what does indeed appear likely is that Obama violated the Logan Act. As Hugh Hewitt wrote yesterday, there's not a lot of daylight between what Taheri said and the Obama campaign's response. This, juxtaposed to the fact that the response essentially verifies Taheri's charges, appears on the surface to provide sufficient substance that it needs to be looked into by DOJ and should indeed become a campaign issue. This story deserves the attention of the American people..I had been a little wary about the allegations of Amir Taheri in the New York Post. He quoted Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari as saying that during his Baghdad visit, Barack Obama demanded that Iraq not negotiate with the Bush Administration on the withdrawal of American troops. Instead, he asked that they delay such negotiations until after the presidential handover at the end of January.
Taheri's claims have run into objections in the past, and he's been unable to back up his claims to some outside observers' satisfaction. It doesn't mean he's wrong now, but the past controversies called for caution. The other thing is, how reliable is the word of this Iraqi minister he's quoting? Is it possible these comments are aimed to influence the current administration/McCain? Does he want to gum up the works in negotiations further?
Of course, the Obama pushback on this... well, pretty much confirmed the broad outlines, just asserting that telling Zebari to delay negotiations is okie-dokie. And while yesterday's campaign response insisted that Obama didn't want to delay the Status of Force Agreement, just the Strategic Framework Agreement, an NBC report at the time said it was indeed the Status of Forces Agreement that Obama urged be delayed.
Will voters object to Obama going off and telling Iraq not to reach a deal until after the elections? I wish they would, but I have doubts. A PAC is running an ad on this, but I'm not sure the average voter realizes the danger of a presidential candidate going around and making his own counteroffers to foreign governments. Maybe this will catch on if the argument is put simply enough: America has one commander-in-chief at a time; a country that has legislators posing as self-appointed diplomats trapsing around the globe, each seeking to negotiate their own separate peace, has no foreign policy at all.
Posted by Richard at September 17, 2008 11:32 AM
Articles Related to Political News and commentaries:


















