« Voter fraud allegations once again plague Obama-related liberal group ACORN ( A lesson in the Obama kind of community organizing) | Main | New McCain-Palin ad: 'Crisis' »

September 15, 2008

NY Post: Obama Tried to Delay Withdrawal Agreement of U.S. Troops (Updated)

Topics: Political News and commentaries

Truly jaw-dropping, if accurate, but not surprising, news: The Democrat's nominee to become Commander-in-Chief, privately tried to delay an agreement on a draw-down of U.S. forces from Iraq: Obama Tried To Stall GI's Withdrawal:

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.

As Dan Spencer points out at RedState, this, like his prediction that the surge would make things worse, is further evidence of Obama's poor judgment on national security matters. Clearly, Obama has once again caught saying one thing, while doing another.

Trying to delay an Iraq withdrawal is a good example of why Obama had to change his mantra from "change we can believe in" to "change we need." We can't believe in the change Obama says he proposes because we can't count on anything Obama says.

Don't forget Obama broke his promise to vote against and filibuster the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) re-authorization, went back on his commitment to accept public financing for the general election. Obama also has reversed course on NAFTA, whether the D.C. gun ban was constitutional, meeting with rogue leaders without preconditions and the unity of Jerusalem. That's Obama's change.

And as The Minority Report notes, we can only wonder what other reassurances Obama has offered to the various political leaders in Iraq, when he believed the microphone wasn't hot. After all, Obama certainly wasn't atop the stump, in Scranton, PA, when he announced the small town America was filled with bitter people who clung to their guns and Bibles because they were unemployable for life:

This leaves us with the more honest and more consistent interpretation of Senator Obama's latest attempts at usurping the prerogatives of an office he has not yet been elected to. The man thinks that the typical American citizen is an idiot. He believes he can tell us what is good for us to hear and then tell the real truth behind closed doors.

Like his NAFTA position during the Ohio Primary, Obama will lie like a carpet for short term political advantage. According to Canadian Television, Obama told Canada ahead of time not to worry about the things he was preparing to say about NAFTA.

And just what sinister political advantage could have been up to in Iraq by attemting to delay the withdrawal agreement? Dare I suggest, as even an Iraqi official has posited, does it have to do with the possibility that 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?

Let there be no doubt, Barack Obama will say and do anything to accomplish his own agenda, even if it means undermining the sitting elected President of the United States and his own country.

Take home message here is: Has Camp Obama ever heard of The Logan Act, and where is the DOJ on this?

Update: From Andy McCarthy at The Corner: McCain Responds to Obama's Reported Undermining of the Commander-In-Chief During Wartime:

The McCain Campaign has issued a statement responding to the report from Amer Taheri (see today's web briefing) that Sen. Obama secretly negotiated with the Iraqi government regarding U.S. withdrawal from Iraq. McCain spokesman Randy Scheunemann stated as follows:

At this point, it is not yet clear what official American negotiations Senator Obama tried to undermine with Iraqi leaders, but the possibility of such actions is unprecedented. It should be concerning to all that he reportedly urged that the democratically-elected Iraqi government listen to him rather than the US administration in power. If news reports are accurate, this is an egregious act of political interference by a presidential candidate seeking political advantage overseas. 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.

Posted by Abdul at September 15, 2008 10:50 AM

Articles Related to Political News and commentaries:

• NY Post: Obama Tried to Delay Withdrawal Agreement of U.S. Troops (Updated) - Sep 15, 2008