Interesting, since I’m the only one posting actual information how did you come to that conclusion? Elucidator wanted to argue about Kerry and now ships.
The problem is the conclusions you’re drawing are just fabrications. The process of withdrawing troops does not require any negotiating. It’s the troops staying there that requires negotiating as Raveman’s link clearly shows.
from the OPs link
Zebari, the man you have quoted, says it’s about regulating the activities of foreign troops. That would be the ones staying,…not the ones leaving. Once the troops are withdrawn there is no need for the Iraqis to be concerned about their activities right? The evidence is against you. Do you deny that troops have already been withdrawn?
Wow again!! You’re saying Raveman hasn’t provided any information? Did you bother to read his link which leads to the Council on Foreign Relations and an article on Security agreements in Iraq?
You’ve shown you’ll insist you’re correct despite the evidence that shows you’re not while offering no evidence of you’re own other than conclusions based on partisan bias. Not really a unique tactic , but hardly a debate at this point.
I’m actually a little surprised we haven’t seen more of it. It seems like the kind of falsehood they like to get out there and make noise about, even though they know it will be shown to be bogus. Perhaps it’s circulating under the mainstream media so it won’t be outed as bullshit quite so quickly. The big lies in the mainstream are getting busted much quicker this election.
Since Magiver has avoided answering my simple question, let me share something from today’s news.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/09/19/africa/19diplo.php
So, at the very worst, Obama may be guilty of casting doubt on Bush’s aspirations. Whoop-de-freaking-doo.
Guilty as charged! Punishment TBD.
New info out today:
Jake Reed (D-RI), Chuck Hagel (R-NE), and U.S. Ambassador Crocker all back up the Obama campaign’s denials of the accusation in the NY Post article. It seems likely now that Zebari (or more likely Tehari) confused the Strategic Framework Agreement with the Status of Forces Agreement. Not too surprising when you consider the source is the same guy that said the Iranians were making Jews were star patches (amongst other stories since proven false). But hey, it got the “Obama hates America” meme out there for another few days, so job well done!
Not quite there:
In politics Obama is still guilty until proven innocent. Punishment TBD.
What “closed door meeting” would that be, exactly?
Cite that one ever took place.
I see you conveniently omitted the fact that the only one make such an allegation is a McShame spokeshole.
I also notice that you completely omitted the part that followed that, which reads:
Did you actually read the whole thing?? The second quote in your post is from the McCain representative Randy Scheunemann, not someone with any first-hand knowledge of the meeting in question. The article itself quotes Bush administration officials that do have direct knowledge of the meeting. Basically, Scheunemann didn’t know what he was talking about (how could he, he wasn’t there). The money quote from ABC:
Made my day.
yep! I was able to ignore all the fluff that did not pertain to the question “Did Obama try to delay US troop withdrawal from Iraq?”.
Minister Hoshyar Zebari was quoted.
And repeating
Believe is acceptance as fact without proof. They were or were not present in all meetings. Since they said believe this lends credence to a private meeting.
‘in front of officials’ again suggest that there was another private meeting.
ABC, of course, would never ask the most telling question “Was there a private meeting?” because the answer would incriminate the messiah.
But Zebari don’t like and distrusts Obama!!! So this whole thing could have been a setup by Zebari to get the messiah in hot water and to that end it has been successful. Way to go Zebari .
ABC could have proved innocence by asking one question of the two officials.
Alas, In politics Obama is guilty until proven innocent. Punishment TBD.
Quacks like a whippoorwill. So far as I can tell from this, the proposed Status of Forces Agreement does not include any troop withdrawal timetable, so Obama cannot be accused of delaying troop withdrawal if he delays that agreement – which is out of his hands anyway; no way were the Iraqis going to agree to it. They will accept no agreement that does not include a timetable. Which Obama, if elected, might give them.
He said he was just repeating what other soldiers had told him, and he was. So?
Someone actually researched something. Congrats. We have something to debate.
Looking at Ravenman’s original cite (with no commentary) from the Council on Foreign Affairs you see that SOFA is tied to troop withdrawal. The Iraqi Parliment would not accept the agreement without it:
**In a letter released June 4, 2008, Iraqi parliamentarians said the bilateral agreements being penned between Baghdad and Washington must “obligate the occupying American military forces to fully withdraw from Iraq.” **
This is supported by your cite:
On July 8, 2008, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani rejected the proposed agreement on the basis that it violates Iraqi sovereignty, following a meeting with Iraq National Security Advisor Mowaffak al-Rubaie.[10] Rubaie, clarifying remarks by Maliki on July 7 that Iraq would accept a memorandum of understanding in lieu of a SOFA, stated "We will not accept any memorandum of understanding if it does not give a specific date for a complete withdrawal of foreign troops.
The process of SOFA was tied to troop withdrawals and Obama attempted to delay this process. Without a SOFA agreement after the end of the UN mandate the troops would have no legal defense at all. This would make every action of self defense a civil matter. The UN mandate ends this year and Obama was asking that negotiations BEGIN after the next administration takes over (and thus after the UN mandate ends). Without a troop withdrawal agreement SOFA would not occur.
Since you’re back to the thread, let me repeat my question:
Do you believe that once the UN mandate expires, and if there never is an agreement between Iraq and the US, that US troops will be prohibited from ever leaving Iraq?
From today’s ABC cite:
Magiver, Bush administration officials and other Republicans who were present at the meeting in question back up Obama’s account of what he said. Are they lying too?
You can’t delay something isn’t moving. You run over a dried armadillo pie on Rt. 7 outside of Lubbock, you are not delaying the armadillo. He has no appointments to meet.
It’s al-Sistani, as you noted above. al-Sistani has brokered a peace deal between the al-Maliki factions (which supports Iran and would like to keep American troops to kill their enemies) and the Sistani faction, (which supports Iran and wants American troops gone, soonest, being the enemies cited above).
The Malikites keep a lot, they keep at least the illussion of control, and are in a position to milk America for every last dollar of “aid” they can squeeze, and determine which partiotic Iraqi hands they belong in. The price they pay is American troop withdrawal, sooner rather than later, here’s your hat, hello, you must be going. Its kind of like the Pope cutting a deal between the Corleones and the Barzinis.
The Bushiviks are yet hoping that they’re kidding, that they can paper it all over with a few platitudes and vague ideas like “aspirational goals” but it ain’t gonna happen. Once al-Sistani went public, it was over.
As it happens, the Iraqis also have a list of conditions they demand be met for any, repeat, any number of troops to remain in Iraq, for any purpose whatsoever. Thats the part of status of forces that is wholly divorced from the issue of withdrawal deadlines. And it is the most toxic poison pill evah, there is no way, no chance, none, that GW will consent to the degree of control and vulnerability to Iraqi law that is demanded.
There is no withdrawal to delay because the Bushiviks are resisting it to their last breath, or Jan 20, whichever comes first. So, he and Maliki are playing chicken. Bush can’t flinch, his legacy depends on it. But Maliki can’t flinch because his very ass depends on it.
What was Obama talking to him about? Well, I hope for one thing he was getting some idea of who he might be dealing with, in that, I can only hope he is a better judge of character than GeeDub, who can peer into the soul of a KGB apparatchik and not run screaming from the room.
But he wasn’t interfering with troop withdrawal because no such troop withdrawal exists, nor has he the slightest power to affect that. But he might, if the Goddess shall cease to avert Her eyes…
The reason I didn’t answer before is it’s not a real question. Of course we can withdraw the troops. The reality of it is that we will withdraw in a controlled manner.
People like Cindy Sheehan actually believed the political hyperbole that Democrats would simply withdraw from Iraq. It’s sad that she was tossed aside after being used for political purposes but that was inevitable. Political rhetoric always morphs closer to reality after the Primaries and this is no exception. If you look at Primary Obama he wanted troops out of Iraq by March 31 of 2008. Presidential candidate Obama wants troops out by 2010ish (except for a residual force to conduct counter-terrorism missions against al Qaeda).
Well since his spokeswoman says he wanted to delay the process and they’re agreeing with him then no, they’re not lying. There is no doubt that he tried to delay negotiations.