WASH TIMES Friday: Obama secretly tried to sway Iraqi government to ignore Bush deal on keeping troops in Iraq...

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/10/obama-sought-to-sway-iraqis-on-bush-deal/

Quote :

"In private conversations on troop presence, candidate pitched delay EXCLUSIVE: At the same time the Bush administration was negotiating a still elusive agreement to keep the U.S. military in Iraq, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama tried to convince Iraqi leaders in private conversations that the president shouldn't be allowed to enact the deal without congressional approval. Mr. Obama's conversations with the Iraqi leaders, confirmed to The Washington Times by his campaign aides, began just two weeks after he clinched the Democratic presidential nomination in June and stirred controversy over the appropriateness of a White House candidate's contacts with foreign governments while the sitting president is conducting a war. Some of the specifics of the conversations remain the subject of dispute. Iraqi leaders purported to The Times that Mr. Obama urged Baghdad to delay an agreement with Mr. Bush until next year when a new president will be in office - a charge the Democratic campaign denies. Mr. Obama spoke June 16 to Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari when he was in Washington, according to both the Iraqi Embassy in Washington and the Obama campaign. Both said the conversation was at Mr. Zebari's request and took place on the phone because Mr. Obama was traveling. However, the two sides differ over what Mr. Obama said. "In the conversation, the senator urged Iraq to delay the [memorandum of understanding] between Iraq and the United States until the new administration was in place," said Samir Sumaidaie, Iraq's ambassador to the United States. He said Mr. Zebari replied that any such agreement would not bind a new administration. "The new administration will have a free hand to opt out," he said the foreign minister told Mr. Obama. Mr. Sumaidaie did not participate in the call, he said, but stood next to Mr. Zebari during the conversation and was briefed by him immediately afterward. The call was not recorded by either side, and Mr. Zebari did not respond to repeated telephone and e-mail messages requesting direct comment... "

Continued for 2 more pages

First comment on the site:

Quote :

"Read the first paragraph. Obama secretly lied to Iraqi leaders about our Commander-in-Chief's powers in a time of war. He did this to gain personal political power for himself ... during a time of war. This. Is. Treason."

10/10/2008 1:03:54 AM

I think treason is lying to your own country in order to get it involved in a war in the first place.

And that comment seems inaccurate, after I read the first paragraph. It says Obama tried to convince them the president SHOULDN'T be able to act, not COULDN'T. There's a pretty big difference there.

[Edited on October 10, 2008 at 1:08 AM. Reason : ]

10/10/2008 1:05:03 AM

This is old, there was already a topic made about this. The Washington Times if the first larger paper I have seen with the story, but it will probably be ignored by most of the media.

10/10/2008 1:06:21 AM

lol good luck getting this one to stick

10/10/2008 1:08:16 AM

I thought obama was accused of this a while ago

10/10/2008 1:23:09 AM

Hmm, maybe so. Washington times published it on their website tonight around midnight (guessing by the comment time stamps)

10/10/2008 1:26:04 AM

so the Iraqi gov't says that's what Obama did

Obama camp denies it

The questions:

What do the Iraqis have to gain from lying about this?
What does Obama have to gain from lying about this?

10/10/2008 1:42:49 AM

Can someone point out why we should care about this?

10/10/2008 2:16:49 AM

maybe that a US Senator was trying to cut the legs out from underneath a sitting President's negotiations with another country, and said Senator was doing this without authorization and arguably for political goals of his own. That's pretty bad.

10/10/2008 7:34:41 AM

Quote :

"Can someone point out why we should care about this?"

You shouldn't care about it without evidence, I guess.

But if it's true, how do you NOT care about that? Regardless of if you agree with the president or not, that's wrong.

10/10/2008 8:00:41 AM

another example of how the media has tried to cover up what kind of a crook Obama really is. his worshippers, however will discount anything negative said about him.

10/10/2008 8:07:25 AM

Quote :

"Can someone point out why we should care about this?"

because its treason (if true).

10/10/2008 8:22:27 AM

OCTOBER SURPRISE

GOOD NEWS EVERYONE

YOU CAN FINALLY HANG HIM

10/10/2008 9:04:27 AM

^^ No. No it's not. The US definition of treason is a fairly narrow one. See, back in England those in power had a history of calling things against the ruling party "treason" so they had a good excuse for disgracing and even killing their competition. The founding fathers were smart enough to include a concise and specific definition of treason in our constitution. Article III section 3. Read it.

It's not good or responsible if true as some have been interpreting it, but it's certainly not treason unless you stretch the 3 sentence definition so thin as to be meaningless and dangerously broad. From reading the article, it doesn't even sound that people are interpreting it correctly. The use of the word "shouldn't" is a fairly important one. He was expressing disagreement with the president's interpretation of the powers delineated to him in the constitution. Professing disagreement with the president isn't treason- it's constitutionally protected speech. Even taken at face value and as true, this could be called "presumptuous" at worst. Calling it treason just reeks of desperation.

[Edited on October 10, 2008 at 9:53 AM. Reason : ]

10/10/2008 9:38:49 AM

If true, this could be huge. Everyone knows that's a BIG no no.

10/10/2008 9:40:18 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_surprise_conspiracy

10/10/2008 9:42:41 AM

The Washington Times? Get real.

10/10/2008 9:52:43 AM

Quote :

"^^ No. No it's not. The US definition of treason is a fairly narrow one. See, back in England those in power had a history of calling things against the ruling party "treason" so they had a good excuse for disgracing and even killing their competition. The founding fathers were smart enough to include a concise and specific definition of treason in our constitution. Article III section 3. Read it. It's not good or responsible if true as some have been interpreting it, but it's certainly not treason unless you stretch the 3 sentence definition so thin as to be meaningless and dangerously broad. From reading the article, it doesn't even sound that people are interpreting it correctly. The use of the word "shouldn't" is a fairly important one. He was expressing disagreement with the president's interpretation of the powers delineated to him in the constitution. Professing disagreement with the president isn't treason- it's constitutionally protected speech. Even taken at face value and as true, this could be called "presumptuous" at worst. Calling it treason just reeks of desperation. "

I want to say firstly that I have no idea if this is true or not, but I would like to make a counter-argument to your point.

I would agree that by your definition, 'treason' probably isnt the best technical term to describe it. HOWEVER, the public will interpret it as such, seeing it as an obvious power-play to undermine the negociating power and status of the POTUS during a time of war...thereby potentially putting US soldier's lives on the line for political gain. It would be spun as a political coup of sorts...a candidate trying to assert political power before gaining office.

If it is true, it is a shocking presumption of status and a HUGELY dangerous precedent.

The public would see it as treason and public opinion is all that really matters during an election.

10/10/2008 10:02:53 AM

The agreement or lack of one would only endanger US troops if, after the end of the year, the Iraqi government unilaterally requested they left. Since the presence of US troops is legitimized under international law (barely, and the resolution was unpopular with most UN nations anyways) by a UN mandate that expires at the end of this year, the Bush administration wanted a bilateral security agreement to replace it. The difference to American troops whether the agreement was hammered out or not is minimal. It only comes if the Iraqi government suddenly asked the US troops to leave their country. The danger from that situation isn't seriously mitigated by an agreement and it's not likely to occur without one anyways.

10/10/2008 10:12:18 AM

Ahhh October...the smell of desperation hangs thick in the air.

10/10/2008 10:13:41 AM

``

[Edited on October 10, 2008 at 10:16 AM. Reason : save that one for later. ]

10/10/2008 10:16:11 AM

Quote :

"The agreement or lack of one would only endanger US troops if, after the end of the year, the Iraqi government unilaterally requested they left."

I dont think saying that undermining the political capital/negociating power of the POTUS in a time of war endangers the troops on the ground is a stretch by any means.

10/10/2008 10:20:20 AM

Quote :

"Can someone point out why we should care about this?"

Why worry about Obama's questionable character? Hope! Change! Audacity!

10/10/2008 10:40:05 AM

You all are seriously getting desperate to pin something on him.


THIS.
IS.
HYPERBOLE.

10/10/2008 11:57:12 AM

What is the Washington Times? Isn't that the loony rightwing paper hell bent on spreading the word of God?

In any case, IF this is true, it is disturbing... going to wait for some more truth and evidence to come out... unfortunately, it probably never will.

10/10/2008 12:29:00 PM

even white house staff has said this story is bunk

10/10/2008 12:29:49 PM

Quote :

"What is the Washington Times? Isn't that the loony rightwing paper hell bent on spreading the word of God?"

YES

10/10/2008 1:28:01 PM

It was founded in 1982 by Unification Church founder Sun Myung Moon. The Times is known for its conservative stance on political and social issues

Moon has said he is the Second Coming of Christ, the "Savior", "returning Lord", and "True Parent". He teaches that all people should become perfected like Jesus and like himself, and that as such he "appears in the world as the substantial body of God Himself." He is well-known for holding Blessing ceremonies, which are often called "mass weddings". [2][3]

Moon has been among the most controversial modern religious leaders. He and his followers have been widely criticized, both for their religious beliefs and for their social and political activism. [4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_Myung_Moon

Quote :

"so the Iraqi gov't says that's what Obama did Obama camp denies it The questions: What do the Iraqis have to gain from lying about this? What does Obama have to gain from lying about this?"

OR, the moonies completely made it up or found one iraqi who said it happened.

[Edited on October 10, 2008 at 1:32 PM. Reason : .]

10/10/2008 1:32:02 PM

this is impossible...obama is way too perfect to ever do anything even 1/1000th this bad

10/10/2008 2:30:02 PM

Personally, I've never heard anyone I know or on tv say Obama is "perfect." In fact, quite the opposite. Sure, people like him more than, say, Gore or Kerry, but to act like his supporters think he's perfect is a pretty stupid straw man.

Let's try to stick to the issues, ok?

10/10/2008 2:52:04 PM

Quote :

"even white house staff has said this story is bunk"

Is there a link to that? That would really make this a non-issue.

10/10/2008 2:55:47 PM

^^you obviously don't read TWW

look how many people are already trying to dismiss this as nothing, without knowing anything about it

10/10/2008 3:03:25 PM