So why did Obama demand that the Iraqis gundeck the Bush Administration’s (and General Petraeus’) Iraq withdrawal plan?
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.
So let’s get this straight; he’d rather hold off the withdrawal and claim the credit than bring the troops home?
Yow.
Remember- It takes practice to be a bastard!
So much for his superior foreign policy & negotiation skills… apparently they SUCK!
Constitutionally, isn’t the Executive the only branch empowered to treat with foreign powers? I sure remember something about Senators not negotiating on their own.
I loved the non-denial of the Obama campaign:
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, [Obama’s national security spokeswoman Wendy Morigi] said.
In the face of resistance from Bush, the Democrat has long said that any such agreement must be reviewed by the US Congress as it would tie a future administration’s hands on Iraq.
In other words: don’t agree to a draw down until we can claim credit for it!
Mitch,
Just to be clear, Obama’s proposal EXACTLY matched what Norm Coleman said to me personally – namely:
1. NO AGREEMENT without Congressional buy-in
2. No long-term agreement should be reached until the new administration was in place.
Perhaps you don’t get the reasons, perhaps you don’t grasp the logic- but Coleman did. Obama was relfecting the sentiment both of the Congress and of the time of the discussion.
Just a counterpoint – General Odierno, the General who commaned 4th ID when it occupied Bagdhad in the early stage of the war, the General who was regarded as having a cavallier attitude about Iraqi civilian safety, and who probably helped, by that attitude, to foster the insurgency – in short, a man who’s stance is generally counter to David Patraeus’ on cooperation with and respect for, local leadership – based on past conduct the former can CERTAINLY be proven – is taking over in Iraq today.
Before you worry overmuch about Obama doing what many believe to be a sound thing – and requiring this President to get the Constitutionally required Congressional approval on a treaty – dang that pesky thing (the Constitution) – perhaps you should worry that we put the wolf in charge of the hen house and run the risk of having a reversion on the policy of cooperation which ACTUALLY was successful for the reduction in violence (and not the surge).
BTW – sure am glad Bush/McCain know ‘how to win wars’
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/16/world/main4452192.shtml
Yep.. sure. am. glad.
Peeve, look carefully at what Obama’s spokesman said: 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.
There’s a BIG difference between:
a) don’t think you can rush through a SFA without Congressional agreement.
and
b) don’t rush through a SFA with the executive branch of the US until after Bush leaves office.
Perhaps you don’t see the difference? I know it’s pretty clear, but with those partisan lenses on you might not be able to discern mountains right in your face. The One was playing politics with foreign policy at the least and trying to “negotiate” with a foreign power at the worst.
Peni,
Trying to manipulate foreign governments into not doing “what many believe to be a sound thing” until Obama can take credit for it is self-serving, selfish, sleazy, manipulative, corrupt, disgusting, ego-maniacal, childish, and pretentious. When you also consider that postponing “what many believe to be a sound thing” can have a very serious effects on our troops & military, all to make Bastard H. Obama look like a savior, well, many would also add treasonous.
But hey, we all know you don’t care about that kind of thing.
What Norm says is ultimately irrelevant, P — and we’ll set aside the matter of whether or not you actually had the conversation in question. Bottom line is that George W. Bush is still president and it’s still his bailiwick to be negotiating with foreign governments. Would it have been acceptable for W. to be making side deals with Ehud Barak while Clinton was trying to get something done on the Israeli-Palestinian front in 2000? What’s changed now?
Guess penguenigma never learned from his mother as I learned from mine to “pick your battles”, eh? If ever there was a loser of an issue to stand up and start defending ……..
And thank you Mr. D for voicing the oh-so-obvious concern for whether or not the “conversation” actually occurred with Norm Coleman or just in the rarified air of Peev’s head.