Under what authority is either presidential candidate allowed to intervene/interfere in U.S foreign policy negotiations?
Except, of course, for that woefully small band of veterans known as the Viet Nam Veterans Against the War. Or do they not count? Not “real” veterans, were they? But, hey, start a thread to explain how anything you’ve ever done entitles you to sneer at them.
You must be so proud, helping to deliver our country into the hands of a grinning baboon.
He wasn’t negotiating anything. He’s a sitting United States Senator who told a foreign official his views on an important issue in US-Iraqi relations.
Senators and Congressmen do this routinely on foreign trips, and the Logan Act, which prohibits individuals from interfering in the foreign affairs of the United States, has never once been applied to any member of Congress who has met with foreign leaders.
In fact, in 1975 the State Department found the following when two Senators met with officials in Cuba: “The clear intent of this provision is to prohibit unauthorized persons from intervening in disputes between the United States and foreign governments. Nothing in section 953, however, would appear to restrict members of the Congress from engaging in discussions with foreign officials in pursuance of their legislative duties under the Constitution.”
It’s as if words mean nothing to you. He clearly tried to interfere with ongoing negotiations:
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.
As I posted above showing that this was confirmed by Obama’s national security spokeswoman:
In fact, Obama had told the Iraqis that they should not rush through a "Strategic Framework Agreement"
Obama wasn’t suggesting that Iraq do away with the negotiations so your reasoning makes no sense. Obama was asking that the negotiations be delayed until after the elections.
Of course their vote counts. I never suggested they did. I didn’t sneer at any of them but if you have any individuals who lied in front of Congress that you want to discuss (such as Kerry) I’ll be happy to voice my opinion on them. But just as their vote counted, so did the votes of the veterans who felt Kerry was a traitor and thus unworthy of the office of President.
You must be so proud to have delivered a jackass to the position of Democratic Primary candidate. If only there was a symbol to represent such a phenomena.
He’s a senator who sits on a committee that may have to deal with the agreement. It is well within his official duties to talk to foreign officials on these sorts of matters.
The timing of the agreement has nothing to do with when troops are withdrawn. You’re making an absurd argument that the security framework and SOFA has something to do with speeding the withdrawal of troops. You are so far from any nugget of truth, you might as well be complaining that Obama has kidnapped and imprisoned the Tooth Fairy, depriving starving kids of the dollars they have earned through losing their teeth.
Cite?
You can keep saying up is down but the Iraqi Prime Minister says Obama wanted to delay the process that involved troop withdrawal and it seems PAINFULLY OBVIOUS that this is in fact the case. Obama’s spokeswoman backs up the statements he made.
See, thing is, this particular dollop of horseshit is a recurring theme, and its worse than a lie, its a damned lie. You been had, cuz.
Ask yourself: if his testimony is lies, doesn’t that mean that the testimony of the men who told him were lies, as well? And so many, how do you account for that? Did Kerry make up the stories out of whole cloth, and distribute them to willing minions? Hardly seems likely.
Isn’t it more likely that the men who talked to Kerry told him the truth, as best they knew how? Do you imagine that My Lai was a unique event, never happened before nor again after? Bit hard to swallow, no?
As you probably know, Kerry was the nominal leader of the Viet Nam Veterans Against the War and their spokesman, for a while. If, as you say, Kerry so clearly and indisputably slandered veterans with lies…why did they let him? Do you imagine the sense of loyalty to comrades was somehow weaker in this group, they were more willing to see their comrades reviled?
But didn’t they, in fact, back up his stories,and testify to their truth? What do you think was the motivation for these men, to lie so horribly about thier comrades, and their country?
Ain’t so, Magiver. It just ain’t so.
I don’t have to ask myself anything. He lied in front of Congress. He did not experience the information he testified to. He had no proof of what he said to Congress. NONE.
And all the men who corroborated that testimony, they lied as well? And all those VVAW guys, they let the lies pass without demur, even as he slandered their comrades? Met quite a bunch of them, didn’t seem like slimeballs to me.
So, none of these things happened, then? All made up for propaganda, a vast conspiracy of unpatriotic veterans to slander their country, full of made up dates, places, and names?
Of course, you can’t prove any of this either, so your argument is hoist on its own retard.
The more you ask for cites, the more it proves that I am right.
Geez, you can’t even get your facts straight in this sentence. You’ve made multiple errors of fact, and I bet you don’t even realize it.
At the risk of over-simplifying…
The agreement under consideration has to do with the legal status of US forces in Iraq: their legal status, their obligations to Iraqi law, things like that. Such an agreement is not dependent, nor even directly related, to the number of such forces. The same agreement will be in force if there are 500,000 US troops in Iraq, or half a dozen. Or whether such troops are entering or leaving.
About right?
Give that man a cigar.
Well, then, I quite take your point, of course its treason!
I really wish you would stop being so sexist.
Wow. A foreign Minister complains that Obama tries to delay negotiations, which is backed up by Obama’s own people, and there are people willing to ride this straight to hell even though it hurts Obama. Works for me.
I see you’ve finally dropped the “troop withdrawal” nonsense. I thought you might, because that was a real loser of a talking point, you know.
No, I haven’t dropped anything and I wouldn’t be running that up the flag poll without the research to back it up. It’s just common sense that troop withdrawal would be discussed in negotiations regarding troops.
Iraqi PM: Obstacles remain to US security deal
6 hours ago
U.S. and Iraqi officials have said the two sides agreed tentatively to a schedule that includes a broad pullout of combat troops by the end of 2011 with the possibility that a residual U.S. force might stay behind to continue training and advising Iraqi security services.
This is directly related to the July meetings:
U.S. officials in Washington have privately expressed frustration over the Iraqi stand in the negotiations, which were supposed to have ended by July 31. Opposition to a deal by Iraq’s fractious 275-member parliament also is strong.
Sounds like troop withdrawal was discussed to me. Also sounds like Obama tried to interfere with those negotiations. Obama wanted it to be delayed until after the elections against the wishes the Iraqi Prime Minister. Spin it any way you want.