« Favorite Comfort Foods | Main | Did Obama "Lie" About Talks With Zebari? »

September 16, 2008

Obama Brags About Logan Act Medding In June

Ed. note: This is a post from yesterday that I originally decided not to publish. In light of several posts on the subject today, I have reconsidered that decision.

It's not just Amir Taheri pushing the Logan Act story. Before he ever went to Iraq, Obama's bragging about his meddling in U.S. foreign policy made the pages of the NY Times:

Among the issues being discussed with the two presidential candidates is the long-term security accord between Iraq and the United States. [Ed.note, because this will become important later: this is the strategic framework agreement referred to later in the post] While the Bush administration would like to see an agreement reached before the summer’s political conventions, Mr. Obama said today that he opposed such a timetable.
So it seems The One had already commenced unsanctioned telephone negotiations with Iraqi Foreign Minister Zebari back in June. His goal was to prevent the White House from successfully concluding negotiations for a long term security agreement with Iraq. Bizarrely, Obama not only admitted what he was doing, but bragged about it repeatedly over the next few weeks:
“My concern is that the Bush administration, in a weakened state politically, ends up trying to rush an agreement that in some ways might be binding to the next administration, whether it’s my administration or Senator McCain’s administration,” Mr. Obama said. The foreign minister agreed that the next administration should not be bound by an agreement that’s currently made.

Now *that's* real audacity - using your own illegal acts as the pretext for undermining your own government's foreign policy!

Of course now the Obama camp claims Taheri has it all wrong. He wasn't talking about the Status of Forces agreement. Obama aides claim he meant the Strategic Framework Agreement. Doh!

...Obama's national security spokeswoman Wendy Morigi said Taheri's article bore "as much resemblance to the truth as a McCain campaign commercial."

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, she said.

Obama's aides might want to Google up what their boss had to say on the subject earlier this summer. Once again, The One is contradicted by own mouth big ego mouth:

While Sen. Barack Obama says he'll visit Iraq and Afghanistan before the election, he's staying consistent with his plans to start withdrawing U.S. troops almost immediately should he become president.

...Obama also expressed concern that the Bush administration would rush to make some sort of status of forces agreement that would be binding to the next administration.

This time it's the Status of Forces Agreement he's trying to delay! Remember, back in June it was the Strategic Framework Agreement! Sometimes, Google is not your friend.

For those of you who left your scorecards at home, the difference between the Status of Forces agreement and the Strategic Framework agreement is subtle, and the Iraqis may press for a timeline in either one, though it makes less sense in the SOFA:

Ambassador to Iraq Ryan C. Crocker, testifying before Congress in April 2008, said two separate accords are on the table. The first is a status-of-forces agreement (GlobalSecurity.org), called a SOFA, which would codify legal protections for U.S. military personnel and property in Iraq. Such agreements already govern U.S. military conduct in other long-term deployment zones—including Germany, Japan, and South Korea—and the administration has characterized talks for a SOFA in Iraq as a hopeful step toward stability.

Details of the second accord under discussion are more opaque. Referred to as a "strategic framework agreement," the measure would broadly address issues not covered by the SOFA, including those outlined in a "declaration of principles" document signed by President Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki in November 2007. Among these issues: the U.S. role in defending Iraq from internal and external threats; its support of political reconciliation; and its efforts to confront terrorist groups. Critics of the measures contend the Bush administration aims to tie the hands of the next president and usurp Iraqi sovereignty, charges the White House vehemently disputes.

The one thing we can count on in all of this is that Senator Obama has helpfully told us he was trying to delay BOTH the SOFA and the Strategic Framework Agreement, insisting that any negotiations be conducted "in the open" and that they earn "strong bipartisan support" from Congress (and we all know how quickly Congress moves).

If this doesn't sound like a man who was trying to play President long before he is elected, I don't know what is:

Thankfully, this sort of traveshamockery will never happen under an Obama administration. That's because, come the Revolution, we'll have real, genuine "Constitutional law" experts like Biden and Obama running the country:

The Obama-Biden slate is historic in many ways, but for law professors it has a special cachet: It's the first time that professors of constitutional law have occupied both slots on a ticket. Barack Obama was a senior lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School, and Joe Biden has been an adjunct professor at Widener University School of Law since 1991.

I don't know about you all, but I can't wait until we have some really smart folks in charge; people who have the knowledge and expertise to keep us bitter gun clinging types straight on those all-important Constitutional issues....

...like which branch of government is empowered to negotiate agreements with foreign heads of state.

Posted by Cassandra at September 16, 2008 05:49 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.villainouscompany.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2389

Comments

Come The Revolution, I'm hoping the bitter, clingy types rise up and separate the powers from the "Constitutional law experts" like Obama and Biden.

Posted by: socialism_is_error at September 15, 2008 10:28 PM

"Thankfully, this sort of traveshamockery will never happen under an Obama administration."

Hopefully, that's 'cause there will never be an Obama administration...

Posted by: camojack at September 16, 2008 03:39 AM

Cassandra!

I think you are a mean-spirited poopy-head, who is obviously in league with the evil McCainiacs, wishing to spread scandalous and untrue inuendo about the noblest American to run for President in generations: Barack Obama!!

Yeah, there is lots of fodder to criticize that guy (BHO), but who is going to carry this to the great unwashed out there? When Anderson Cooper (now in 360!), Chris (thrill legs) Matthews, Keith Olbermann and a gang of dozens on cable will denounce you upon trying, it's a tough sell, cookie.

Keep up the good work, dear. Maybe someone will notice, eventually.

"A republic, if you can keep it." -Benjamin Franklin.

Posted by: Don Brouhaha at September 16, 2008 06:13 PM

A toast to the sentiment expressed by Mr. Camojack!

Posted by: bt_what-me-worry_hun at September 16, 2008 06:23 PM

Another nail in the Obama campaign's coffin for me. It's getting hard to find an empty spot for another nail.

Posted by: Donna B. at September 16, 2008 06:33 PM

Gosh, former mayors of Minneapolis really were prescient in covering over our cobble stone streets with asphalt. They feared The One even back then! Tearing up the streets to make barricades now will be much more difficult when the Communard revolution comes.

Posted by: DougW at September 16, 2008 10:54 PM

A toast to the sentiment expressed by Mr. Camojack!
Posted by: bt_what-me-worry_hun at September 16, 2008 06:23 PM

I'll drink to that!!!

Posted by: camojack at September 17, 2008 01:23 AM

I like it. ABC News (and Fix) had this quote from Obama describing his phone call with Iraq FM Zebari:

"Obama said Zebari told him the Iraqi government is deeply interested in negotiating an effective Status of Forces agreement and a strategic framework agreement with the United States — agreements that would hammer out rules for U.S. troop operations in Iraq.

So far, talks between the U.S. and Iraq have stalled, and the agreements remain controversial inside Iraq and the United States. Obama said he told the Iraqi foreign minister that the U.S. has no interest in establishing permanent bases in Iraq.

"I emphasized to him how encouraged I was by the reductions in violence in Iraq, but also insisted that it is important for us to begin the process of withdrawing U.S. troops, making clear that we have no interest in permanent bases in Iraq, that any negotiations for a Status of Forces agreement or strategic framework agreement should be done in the open and with Congress's authorization, because I believe that it's in the interests of both Iraq and the United States that any such critical negotiations have strong bipartisan support and that they can be sustained through a future administration," Obama told reporters. "

Or there is this at Obama's website, which clearly links the two and wants a delay in both:

" The Status-of-Forces-Agreement

Obama believes any Status of Forces Agreement, or any strategic framework agreement, should be negotiated in the context of a broader commitment by the U.S. to begin withdrawing its troops and forswearing permanent bases. Obama also believes that any security accord must be subject to Congressional approval. It is unacceptable that the Iraqi government will present the agreement to the Iraqi parliament for approval—yet the Bush administration will not do the same with the U.S. Congress. The Bush administration must submit the agreement to Congress or allow the next administration to negotiate an agreement that has bipartisan support here at home and makes absolutely clear that the U.S. will not maintain permanent bases in Iraq."

Yet another foreign policy gaffe by Obama, along with his unconditional pledge to meet foreign leaders and keeping Jerusalem undivided.

Posted by: Tom Maguire at September 17, 2008 02:51 PM

He really is a piece of work, isn't he.

Why even bother having the election? These formalities are so tiresome. I think we could just begin moving his stuff right into the Oval Office right now and save everyone a whole lot of trouble :p

Posted by: Cass at September 17, 2008 03:02 PM

"we could just begin moving his stuff right into the Oval Office"
<snark>Do Bill and Hill still have the china, crystal, and flatware packed up? Along with everything else that was not nailed down?</snark>

Posted by: bthun at September 17, 2008 05:38 PM

"Come the Revolution" would make a nice October Surprise. Especially if people remember that "October Revolution" thing.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at September 19, 2008 01:50 AM

If you believe Obama violated the Logan act go to this link. It’s so easy to voice your concern.

http://www.rallycongress.com/americansentinel/1223/a-call-for-hearings-into-senator-barack-obamas-violation-of-the-logan-act/

Note: use the “send for free” option.

Posted by: Sal at September 20, 2008 01:53 PM

Thanks, Sal, for providing the site. I put my money where my mouth is, for once, and paid to have the letters delivered; that's how serious a threat I believe the villain to be!

Posted by: Sandra at September 21, 2008 12:42 PM

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/obamaimpeachment/index.html

Posted by: DoubleL at September 22, 2008 02:27 PM

Unfortunately, Since he is already a member of the US Senate, he is exempt on this charge. The precedent has already been set when in 1975, Senators John Sparkman and George McGovern visited Cuba. The State Department has already ruled that Senators had the right to engage with foreign governments. If the Logan act had teeth, which it does not, it would require pre-approval by all citizens by the president.

DIGEST OF UNITED STATES PRACTICE IN INTERNATIONAL LAW 1975, p. 750

Let's find a real issue and stop making the party look like a bunch of idiots.

Posted by: MLong at October 10, 2008 02:01 PM

If you want to request an investigation into Obama violation of the Logan Act and any other issues write to the United States Supreme Court in Washington, DC below

United States Supreme Court
1 First Street NE
Washington, DC 20543

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts
Supreme Court Justice John Stevens
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia
Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy
Supreme Court Justice David Souter
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Ginsburg
Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer
Supreme Court Justice Samual Alito

Write a letter to each requesting an investigation.

Posted by: JoanofArc at November 18, 2008 07:37 PM

Post a comment

To reduce comment spam, comments on older posts are put into moderation 5 days after the last activity. Comments with more than one link also go into moderation. If you don't see your comment after posting it, try refreshing the screen. If you still don't see it, your comment is probably in the moderation queue.




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)