Obama on striking a deal with Iraq on troop withdrawls.

So apparently Obama asked the Iraqi government not to settle on troop withdrawals until after the elections. Depending on how you read it, it could be something or it could be nothing.

To me, it looks an awful lot like he wants this to be left undecided so he can continue to attack Bush and tie it into McCain. If he became POTUS, he could then fulfill his current campaign promise of responsibly removing troops from Iraq within the first few months of taking office. Astute, but it'd be pretty messed up for the other participants.

If so, I doubt he'll get what he wants, because elections are also coming up in Iraq, and if they wait for a new administration to get in place and then hammer out an agreement, it'll be too late. The Iraqi incumbents want to have this deal in place, because without it, they're more vulnerable to their opponents.

The author has a strong conservative bias, however his facts appear to be in line and unfortunately the only counter that Obama's camp has offered so far looks weak.

It may be that Obama's camp is not pushing the matter, because of this bias and the fact that Taheri has also been caught with his pants down before telling what appeared to be an outright lie in one of his articles for the National Post of Canada in April 2006. He may be waiting to see if this story gets any traction before really going after the article, but I'd really like to see a stronger rebuttal from Obama, beyond him basically saying "that's not what I said".

Read for yourself and decide on your own.

edit bc doesnt belong in this thread

I heard that too.  Withdrawing from Iraq has been a major standpoint of his campaign and all the dems in congress as well.  It’s funny that when the surge was announced, all the dems talked about was how “the surge wouldn’t work”,"we are losing", and "we have to pull out". For the longest time I heard this over and over again from the same people.  The past year, I haven’t heard very much from the dems about the surge.  Why? 

Maybe it’s because, violence against U.S. troops is down 80%...the number of U.S. combat deaths in July (5), was the lowest since the invasion. Violence against Iraqi civilians is also down about 70%. We've turned over more and more provinces to Iraqi control...their infrastructure is being rebuilt and their economy is on the rise. Iraq's oil production is up to around 2.5 million barrels per day and they just posted a budget SURPLUS of $70 billion. In fact, the Surge has worked so well, Bush has announced that we will start withdrawing troops in Iraq by next spring/summer. 

It’s just funny.

The Iraqi Government is going to decide something (imo) because of their elections, and I do not think they will put this off because of our election. 

For those who would prefer less biased sourcing:

AFP

Christian Science Monitor on Iraq troop withdrawals

BBC on Iraq Troop withdrawals

I couldn't find any reputable sources corroborating Ignayshus's link but I will keep looking.

If it were true, it would make him even more like Ronald Reagan, wouldn't it?

Indeed it would.

edit: like I said, it'd be an astute move, but very messed up for some of the other participants.

I read all three articles.

The article I posted state's Obama's rebuttal and addresses it, where as the AFP article just states it. It explains why Obama's rebuttal is at best weak, and in light of what's available, I agree.

The other two articles don't address the issue in the OP at all.

in light of what's available

i like it!

i'll remember that one from the skeptic who claims that he won't believe anything until there is definitive proof and will question all motives (like rightwing web sites have no motives at all and are as innocent and pure as baby kittens) until there is evidence

you're taking by hearsay the word of a 'conservative Iranian' who is supposedly quoting an iraqi official

nope, no bias there, surely  *chokes on laughter*

a conservative Iranian who might wish for McCain to launch a war on Iran so that he can go back to Iran in the aftermath and lead the country, delusional a la Chalabi and his "iraqi national congress" bs

like i said, i'll keep looking for a reputable source, but i won't be surprised if it's not just the lead-in tactic of launching a PAC for swiftboating this - determined to misrepresent facts to suit its purpose - a song and dance that should be familiar by now

we shall see

if it's true, then i won't vote at all

Original Post by nomoreexcuses:

in light of what's available

i like it!

i'll remember that one from the skeptic who claims that he won't believe anything until there is definitive proof and will question all motives (like rightwing web sites have no motives at all and are as innocent and pure as baby kittens) until there is evidence

you're taking by hearsay the word of a 'conservative Iranian' who is supposedly quoting an iraqi official

nope, no bias there, surely  *chokes on laughter*

a conservative Iranian who might wish for McCain to launch a war on Iran so that he can go back to Iran in the aftermath and lead the country, delusional a la Chalabi and his "iraqi national congress" bs

like i said, i'll keep looking for a reputable source, but i won't be surprised if it's not just the lead-in tactic of launching a PAC for swiftboating this - determined to misrepresent facts to suit its purpose - a song and dance that should be familiar by now

we shall see

if it's true, then i won't vote at all

He stated his sources Nomo, it's all there in the text and IF he's only SUPPOSEDLY quoting the Iraqi FM, then every other media outlet is committing the same offense. Those exact quotes are being carried everywhere, so I'm gonna go with they're safe.

The reason I said in light of what's available is because the Obama camp has given us nothing beyond saying, "that's not what we meant"

I'm hoping they give us something more, but I'm guessing they'll leave it at that and hope it doesn't get any traction.

As for me it's not a reason I'd vote against him, but it's another reminder that as much as he claims he's above political games, he shows that they're not beneath him either.

A politician running for president, go figure.

Here is a NYT article stating the same thing basically of what obama said about waiting till post election to come up with a plan.

article

I guess to me it seems like he has realized that what has been going on for the past few years has been working, and when the current administration has been withdrawing troops (there are less troops there now than there was pre-surge) and has a plan to keep withdrawing, then a major part of his campaign is no longer really valid, so he wants to take credit for withdrawing the troops under his administration (if given a chance). 

I guess not only that, but I also read, and agree with, is what right does a senator have to try and interfere with and/or negotiate in a diplomatic manner with other world leaders?  Is that not wrong for a senator to try and influence world leaders and undermine diplomatic efforts of the United States? 

Anyways that is just the impression I get from it, perhaps I am wrong, but what other reason could he want to not have a plan in place before next year on a time line to withdraw troops from Iraq?

Original Post by obigmcveyo:

I guess not only that, but I also read, and agree with, is what right does a senator have to try and interfere with and/or negotiate in a diplomatic manner with other world leaders?  Is that not wrong for a senator to try and influence world leaders and undermine diplomatic efforts of the United States?

Senators getting involved in foreign affairs and trying to affect policy is nothing new.

But that doesn't make it right, I guess I am unsure how much this happens and how it is looked at by the diplomats and foreign relations people.  I mean if its common knowledge and accepted that senators can do this then I retract my statement, but just because others have done it doesn't make it right.

Original Post by obigmcveyo:

But that doesn't make it right, I guess I am unsure how much this happens and how it is looked at by the diplomats and foreign relations people.  I mean if its common knowledge and accepted that senators can do this then I retract my statement, but just because others have done it doesn't make it right.

 ob - I am unsure as well.  I wonder how often this happens.

Waiting benefits both Obama and McCain. It's a six month extension on the rules governing troops actions on the ground. And he's right that congress should be involved in the withdrawal agreement.

And isn't the Bush administration, fueled by a need to see McCain win, driven to make the agreement before the election? Isn't it the same politics-playing?

Or am I being too simplistic?

Honestly Ig. Just because I have made my decision, doesn't mean I'm not open-minded.

The way I see it, it benefits Obama way more, since they have pushed so hard against the war and have been pressing so hard how McCain is just like the current administration. Now if the current administration does something good then that takes away from a major part of their campaign, so in my eyes it helps Obama a lot more. Though I do agree that congress should probably be involved somehow as well.

Though I tend to agree with the current proposed timeline of 2011 since everything I have read from General Patraeus and Adm. Mullen have said that 2010 is too early and to leave that soon could cause a lot of harm. (example)

Also, according to the one article, this has been being negotiated for 10 months (and the article was written in August) at least, so its not something that the Bush administration is just throwing together to try and get in before the election. At least it doesn't seem that way to me. Of course they are politicians and could have had the foresight to start this 11 months ago to make the republicans look good now, I don't put anything past politicians, but I kind of doubt that.

Also, it may be important to elect a candidate who you agree with on future foreign policy issues, because Iraq definitely is not the last. Our troops coming back from Iraq is within sight, regardless of what either candidate says now, but we will see even more of Afghanistan and unfortunately Iran (and others for sure) in the headlines soon enough. We need a president who doesn't want to push our democracy on the entire world, especially when we need a lot of help here at home protecting our own way of life.

Playing the blame game doesn't matter now. Innocent people and soldiers are injured or dead and they aren't coming back. We only get to blame Bush for a few more months, and then who do we blame? It doesn't matter. As American's, we need to ensure that our next president will never intentionally put us in harms way again, whether it's Obama or McCain is your decision.

Do your own research and vote on the issues please.

Original Post by kathygator:

Waiting benefits both Obama and McCain. It's a six month extension on the rules governing troops actions on the ground. And he's right that congress should be involved in the withdrawal agreement.

And isn't the Bush administration, fueled by a need to see McCain win, driven to make the agreement before the election? Isn't it the same politics-playing?

Or am I being too simplistic?

Honestly Ig. Just because I have made my decision, doesn't mean I'm not open-minded.

No you're right, it is the same politics being played. Bush needs his legacy, McCain needs a leg up, and Obama doesn't want to give up a weapon.

The point really is this is just politics as usual, which nomo drove home very well with the reference to Reagan.

edit: and actually the Iraqis are driving this one, because they need fuel for their own incumbent campaigns.

edit: and I wouldn't characterize you as "up to your eyeballs in your candidates camp". I know you're voting for Obama, but you're eyes and ears are open.

Ugh... this is why i HATE politicians!  I hate that it is only seen as a political move instead of it being about getting all of our guys out of there and home to their families.  My brother just deployed to Iraq and all I want if for him to come home to his 4 week- old son.  I wish we could find a politician who througt about the actual people and not how it will help/ hurt their political career.

 

Edited the OP after looking into the author.

I was under the impression that when Obama met with Iraqi leaders and also with other leaders of other countries, that those conversations were private (out of respect for the current administration) and mostly a 'learning or listening tour' for him.

If that is correct, and they were private conversations, then what more can he say than I didn't say that ?

Is it so wrong if he said that Congress should be involved in decisions that are going to impact our country and our budget mainly AFTER Bush leaves office?

Thank you for at least admitting that you're quoting biased, possibly unreliable sources.

I will continue to look for reliable sources.

I heard about Iraqi statements on this subject yesterday.  That they are holding firm to their demands and that Bush is holding firm to his.  It looks like Bush could perhaps want to blame someone else for his failure to reach an agreement?  I mean, wouldn't that be very convenient, to be able to blame Obama for his failure?

I don't know, like I said, I will continue to look into it.

 

I'll still pick Obama over those other two, but this kind of move just reflects poorly on him. Ugh.