« Quiet Courage | Main | Hmmmm.... »

October 10, 2008

Iraqi Ambassador Confirms Obama Meddled In US Negotiations

I covered Barack Obama's Logan Act violations earlier, but they have now been confirmed by a second source - an eye witness:

It has been confirmed that Mr Obama spoke to Hoshyar Zebari, the Iraqi foreign minister, during Mr Zebari's visit to Washington in June. The talk, which was at Mr Zebari's request, was carried out over the phone because Mr Obama was on the campaign trail.

Samir Sumaidaie, the Iraqi ambassador to the US, told the Washington Times: "In the conversation, the senator urged Iraq to delay the [deal] between Iraq and the United States until the new administration was in place."

He added that Mr Obama had said "The new administration will have a free hand to opt out" of the deal.

But what is even more interesting is what I noticed the day after my original post. Obama also lied to the press about the content of his discussion with Zebari:

Watching the video in my previous post raised a red flag. It struck me as ludicrous for Obama to say he was going to pull 1-2 brigades out of Iraq per month, yet (if you believe Obama) Zebari didn't so much as bat an eyelash. The pertinent quote is at 5:03:

"He did not express that concern directly"

I did some Googling and hit paydirt. Jennifer Rubin had noticed the same thing:

...something seemed odd about Barack Obama’s account of his conversation with Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshay Zebari. Obama said that Zebari didn’t express any concern about Obama’s immediate withdrawal plans. Well, according to Zebari that is a lie.

...“my message” to Mr. Obama “was very clear. . . . Really, we are making progress. I hope any actions you will take will not endanger this progress.” He said he was reassured by the candidate’s response, which caused him to think that Mr. Obama might not differ all that much from Mr. McCain. Mr. Zebari said that in addition to promising a visit, Mr. Obama said that “if there would be a Democratic administration, it will not take any irresponsible, reckless, sudden decisions or action to endanger your gains, your achievements, your stability or security. Whatever decision he will reach will be made through close consultation with the Iraqi government and U.S. military commanders in the field.”

So not only did Zebari express concern but Obama’s private comments suggested his immediate withdrawal plans, which he still adheres to publicly, may not be so immediate. What does Zebari think about a sudden withdrawal? According to the Post:

In a meeting with Post editors and reporters Tuesday, he said that after all the pain and sacrifices of the past five years, “we are just turning the corner in Iraq.” A precipitous withdrawal, he said, “would create a huge vacuum and undo all the gains and achievements. And the others” — enemies of the United States — “would celebrate.”

I want to emphasize this part one more time:

He said he was reassured by the candidate’s response, which caused him to think that Mr. Obama might not differ all that much from Mr. McCain.

This is absolutely huge, because if it ever managed to get any traction, it would torpedo Obama's candidacy with the Netroots. Let's keep in mind that this is not the first time Barack Obama has been caught saying one thing to his supporters and another to representatives of foreign governments:

I have always maintained that despite Obama's antiwar rhetoric, once he gets into office he face the same problems George Bush has had to deal with for the past eight years.

This means dealing with Iraq and Afghanistan as they are, not the way he would like them to be. Obama is not a stupid man. The odds are he already realizes that his antiwar rhetoric has outlived its usefulness. Just as the Democrats' fulmination about the NSA's wiretapping came to nothing when it came time to actually cut off funding, watch for Obama's talk of rapid troop withdrawals to die a sudden death, should he be elected in November. What he cannot afford, however, is for his far left supporters to realize what he has no doubt already twigged to.

No matter which way this story comes out, it is bad for Obama because three things are unequivocally plain:

1. He has lied to the press Zebari having raised the issue of rapid troop withdrawals jeopardizing recent security gains.
2. He tried to interfere in US-Iraqi negotiations in contravention of the Logan Act.
3. He is playing a double game on troop withdrawals - saying one thing to US voters and another to the Iraqis.

The press are really falling down on the job here. Obama is leading them by the garden path and they are willing accomplices in his serial deceptions.

What happened to their so-called accountability journalism?

Asleep at the wheel, at least so long as it involves holding Democrats accountable for much of anything. Pitiful. Truly pitiful.

Posted by Cassandra at October 10, 2008 08:46 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.villainouscompany.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2451

Comments

"The new administration will have a free hand to opt out" of the deal.

That's nothing new. Democrats have never felt any overwhelming urge to honor US commitments -- except for those made during a Democrat's administration.

Posted by: BillT at October 10, 2008 09:39 AM

Bad enough BHO is running scared from the left and catering to their delusions but he has to lie to do it.

Particularly revealing is his statement that his administration could undo anything President Bush puts in place. Cindy McCain is correct in pointing out the duplicity in BHO's request to delay pulling troops out until he gets elected. Presumably to take credit for winding down the war at the expense of military lives.

The next three weeks will tell the story...

Posted by: vet66 at October 10, 2008 11:07 AM

Cass, remember when the Dems and the Left were hitting Bush and us over the head with "Bush lied, people died" and how horrible it was that he lied and people were sent into harm's way and how this gross national deception was grounds for getting rid of Bush and obstructing him and sabotaging America's chances for victory?

They felt it was justified to hit us in the head with a steel cored bat over lies. Why? Not because they gave a damn about truth or honesty, but because they knew that we did.

They knew that we valued the lives of civilians so they used those civilians as shields. THey used the truth as a shield, as a sacrificial pawn with about as much consideration as we use to decide which shoe to put on first.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at October 10, 2008 12:44 PM

Face it. Unless they catch Obama wearing a Raggety Andy costume in bed a twelve-year old boy, there's simple no story.

Posted by: spd rdr at October 10, 2008 02:18 PM

I guess in the end it all comes down to whether you give up or not?

So... do you?

No, I don't think it will gain any traction. But on the other hand I don't really think it is right to just ignore it.

Nearly every week for over four years my husband has told me that I have been wasting my time trying to convince anyone on the war because no one is listening. Most days, I believe he is right, but I have continued anyway. I am not sure why most times. Less than 28% of the country supports what we're trying to do over there. They don't even pay attention to the war. It bores them. I feel guilty if I write about it too much.

People are dying, probably for no reason in the long run. Perhaps I have been wrong to prop up that effort. I don't think so. But you could make that argument. In my worst moments that is what haunts me. But then I realize that nothing I say is that important anyway and it's really hubris to assign that much importance to my writing :p

Humor me.

Posted by: Cassandra at October 10, 2008 02:32 PM

"...Obama wearing a Raggety Andy costume in bed a twelve-year old boy..."
Yikes, I was skimming comments and in my haste,for a sec, I thought that indicated that BO was having a fund raiser with his supporters in SanFran!

Posted by: bthun at October 10, 2008 03:19 PM

Cassandra,
I always thought that Obama's flip-flops are a good thing because whenever he deviates from his leftist position to merely a practical one is good.
So, you have just given me hope that not all is lost, even if Obama wins.
Eric.

Posted by: Eric-Odessit at October 10, 2008 08:18 PM

...whenever he deviates from his leftist position to merely a practical one is good.

The problem is that he flips so often, there's no guarantee he'll stick with the practical one.

If he's elected, he'll take the position in which he's most comfortable and in which he'll take less flak from his base. Which *isn't* necessarily good for the country, as witness the current financial kerfluffle -- Fannie and Freddie needed more oversight and the one who called for it (Bush) got castigated by the Dems.

Think Obie would have even *hinted* at more oversight?

Posted by: BillT at October 11, 2008 08:30 AM

The easiest thing for a President to do is act like Japanese Shoguns and send off their entire family and loyal followers in a bansai charge to save the face of the Shogun.

And that won't be good for military families like Cassandra's, even if it would be good for Obama.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at October 12, 2008 09:42 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)