Obama tried to stall troop removal.

[Bach]

WHILE campaigning in public for a speedy withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, Sen. Barack Obama has tried in private to persuade Iraqi leaders to delay an agreement on a draw-down of the American military presence.

According to Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, Obama made his demand for delay a key theme of his discussions with Iraqi leaders in Baghdad in July.

"He asked why we were not prepared to delay an agreement until after the US elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington," Zebari said in an interview.

Obama insisted that Congress should be involved in negotiations on the status of US troops - and that it was in the interests of both sides not to have an agreement negotiated by the Bush administration in its "state of weakness and political confusion."

"However, as an Iraqi, I prefer to have a security agreement that regulates the activities of foreign troops, rather than keeping the matter open." Zebari says.

Though Obama claims the US presence is "illegal," he suddenly remembered that Americans troops were in Iraq within the legal framework of a UN mandate. His advice was that, rather than reach an accord with the "weakened Bush administration," Iraq should seek an extension of the UN mandate.

While in Iraq, Obama also tried to persuade the US commanders, including Gen. David Petraeus, to suggest a "realistic withdrawal date." They declined.

Obama has made many contradictory statements with regard to Iraq. His latest position is that US combat troops should be out by 2010. Yet his effort to delay an agreement would make that withdrawal deadline impossible to meet.

Supposing he wins, Obama's administration wouldn't be fully operational before February - and naming a new ambassador to Baghdad and forming a new negotiation team might take longer still.

By then, Iraq will be in the throes of its own campaign season. Judging by the past two elections, forming a new coalition government may then take three months. So the Iraqi negotiating team might not be in place until next June.

Then, judging by how long the current talks have taken, restarting the process from scratch would leave the two sides needing at least six months to come up with a draft accord. That puts us at May 2010 for when the draft might be submitted to the Iraqi parliament - which might well need another six months to pass it into law.

Thus, the 2010 deadline fixed by Obama is a meaningless concept, thrown in as a sop to his anti-war base.

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and the Bush administration have a more flexible timetable in mind.

According to Zebari, the envisaged time span is two or three years - departure in 2011 or 2012. That would let Iraq hold its next general election, the third since liberation, and resolve a number of domestic political issues.

Even then, the dates mentioned are only "notional," making the timing and the cadence of withdrawal conditional on realities on the ground as appreciated by both sides.

Iraqi leaders are divided over the US election. Iraqi President Jalal Talabani (whose party is a member of the Socialist International) sees Obama as "a man of the Left" - who, once elected, might change his opposition to Iraq's liberation. Indeed, say Talabani's advisers, a President Obama might be tempted to appropriate the victory that America has already won in Iraq by claiming that his intervention transformed failure into success.

Maliki's advisers have persuaded him that Obama will win - but the prime minister worries about the senator's "political debt to the anti-war lobby" - which is determined to transform Iraq into a disaster to prove that toppling Saddam Hussein was "the biggest strategic blunder in US history."

Other prominent Iraqi leaders, such as Vice President Adel Abdul-Mahdi and Kurdish regional President Massoud Barzani, believe that Sen. John McCain would show "a more realistic approach to Iraqi issues."

Obama has given Iraqis the impression that he doesn't want Iraq to appear anything like a success, let alone a victory, for America. The reason? He fears that the perception of US victory there might revive the Bush Doctrine of "pre-emptive" war - that is, removing a threat before it strikes at America.

Despite some usual equivocations on the subject, Obama rejects pre-emption as a legitimate form of self -defense. To be credible, his foreign-policy philosophy requires Iraq to be seen as a failure, a disaster, a quagmire, a pig with lipstick or any of the other apocalyptic adjectives used by the American defeat industry in the past five years.

Yet Iraq is doing much better than its friends hoped and its enemies feared. The UN mandate will be extended in December, and we may yet get an agreement on the status of forces before President Bush leaves the White House in January.


http://www.nypost.com/seven/09152008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/obama_tried_to_stall_gis_iraq_withdrawal_129150.ht m
---------------


The Messiah apparently wants to use the war as a political game to make things look as bad as they can now and then if he wins he can take credit for bringing the troops home.

Change? Hope? Yeah, right.

[BrAinPaiNt]

The Messiah apparently wants to use the war as a political game to make things look as bad as they can now and then if he wins he can take credit for bringing the troops home.

Change? Hope? Yeah, right.

If you don't think the McCain and Bush camp is in the same boat as far as using this as a political tool...I got some great ocean front property to sell you here in WV.

Trust me, they both are using it.

Just another reason that the two party system disgusts me because they only support the troops for the cameras and votes. When it comes down to it what they really believe is that the troops are there to support them.

I even said way back in the primaries that if dem voters think that Hillary or Obama were going to bring all of the troops back out of iraq...they have a big surprise in store because they both would leave troops in place.

[ConcordCowboy]

---------------


The Messiah apparently wants to use the war as a political game to make things look as bad as they can now and then if he wins he can take credit for bringing the troops home.



Bush and McCain have never used the War as a political game/tool?

Are you for real?

:laugh2:

[theogt]

If you don't think the McCain and Bush camp is in the same boat as far as using this as a political tool...I got some great ocean front property to sell you here in WV.

Trust me, they both are using it.Like how?

[Heisenberg]

It's obvious he's trying not to get us into any agreements between this administration and the Iraqis. He wants his administration, if he wins, to be in on that. That's understandable considering how many of the steps of whatever agreement that is reached will take place once a new administration is in place here in the US.

Doesn't mean the Iraqi government has to listen.

[Bach]

Bush and McCain have never used the War as a political game/tool?

Are you for real?

:laugh2:

Change!!111!!!1

[BrAinPaiNt]

Like how?

Bush went on record saying OBL was not a priority and he did not care about him any longer. This was less than a year after 9/11.

From that point until a few months ago little was said or done concerning OBL and afghanistan because all efforts were put on Iraq.

I posted a few months ago about an article that had an inside source say that bush was now determined to get OBL because he felt he needed that for his legacy and how he would be viewed down the road.

I thought it was a stretch at the time but low and behold it was less than two weeks later and we started seeing a ramp up on the OBL/Afghan situation.




That is one example. I thought it was a stretch at first but then things started happening...strange coincidence.

Another example.

Bush has always been on record saying that he listens to the commanders on the ground and gives them what they want.

Simply not true and we have seen former commanders coming out saying they asked for this or that and were ignored. We have a recent article saying that a commander gave his assessment of the situation and he was denied and removed.

Next...

McCain was against torture and even went on record saying that waterboard was torture. Only to later bow down to his base and vote along with the President's wishes concerning torture.

Furthermore McCain, who IMO at one time, would have been the one guy who put troops first turned out to do the opposite and that was the last straw for me with him. Fought hard against the equal time situation for soldiers and also fought against the GI bill for soldiers and fought against the raise for soldiers.

Another example...

The commander of the Alaskan National Guard basically came out recently and said that Palin did not have much to do with the Alaskan National guard and was not that big a factor in their operations esp considering international situations.

Oddly enough a week or so later he completely changed his tune and guess what...he got a promotion...coincidence...I kind of doubt it.

Another example.

The military, and please excuse me if I don't believe someone in the executive branch did not know after some time, really screwed up the situation with Pat Tillmans death.

Another Example.

The president during an interview said he no longer plays golf because he did not think it would be right for families of lost soldiers to see him out playing golf.

What is closer to the truth is that he had a medical condition that slowed down his golf play and even the dates he quoted as when he quit was wrong.

Is it so hard to just say, I just don't play golf anymore without using the fallen troops families as part of it for political reasons.

Another example.

McCain is always quick to point out that all vietnam and vets groups giving him passing grades....until he is confronted with groups that say that is false. He even gets testy in a town hall meeting with one that questions why he was against some vet programs.

Another example.

The condition of Walter Reed medical problems last year is enough to say that if these politicians truly supported veterans and troops they would have never let it gotten to such a disgraceful level.

[vta]

Actually, the difference here is an Administration that started an unpopular war and can in no way benefit from the politicizing of it, and a Candidate who wants to alter the outcome of that war for political purposes, despite his stated intent, which contradicts that effort.

It's not the same old, same old, it's down right subversive.

[trickblue]

It's obvious he's trying not to get us into any agreements between this administration and the Iraqis. He wants his administration, if he wins, to be in on that. That's understandable considering how many of the steps of whatever agreement that is reached will take place once a new administration is in place here in the US.

Doesn't mean the Iraqi government has to listen.

Both sides play politics with the war, but the bolded isn't understandable under any circumstances if it costs a single life of an American soldier...

For how many years now have we heard the mock outrage from the left claiming Reagan made a deal with the Iranians to hold the hostages in order benefit his campaign...

[sacase]

Obama committed treason. I don't see how someone as a member of the government can attempt to negotiate a side deal with a foreign power behind the presidents back. All so he can look good for an election.

[theogt]

Bush went on record saying OBL was not a priority and he did not care about him any longer. This was less than a year after 9/11.

From that point until a few months ago little was said or done concerning OBL and afghanistan because all efforts were put on Iraq.

I posted a few months ago about an article that had an inside source say that bush was now determined to get OBL because he felt he needed that for his legacy and how he would be viewed down the road.

I thought it was a stretch at the time but low and behold it was less than two weeks later and we started seeing a ramp up on the OBL/Afghan situation.Not an example of Bush or McCain using the Iraq war for political reasons.

Another example.

Bush has always been on record saying that he listens to the commanders on the ground and gives them what they want.

Simply not true and we have seen former commanders coming out saying they asked for this or that and were ignored. We have a recent article saying that a commander gave his assessment of the situation and he was denied and removed.Not an example of Bush or McCain using the Iraq war for political reasons.

Next...

McCain was against torture and even went on record saying that waterboard was torture. Only to later bow down to his base and vote along with the President's wishes concerning torture.

Furthermore McCain, who IMO at one time, would have been the one guy who put troops first turned out to do the opposite and that was the last straw for me with him. Fought hard against the equal time situation for soldiers and also fought against the GI bill for soldiers and fought against the raise for soldiers.Not an example of Bush or McCain using the Iraq war for political reasons.

Another example...

The commander of the Alaskan National Guard basically came out recently and said that Palin did not have much to do with the Alaskan National guard and was not that big a factor in their operations esp considering international situations.

Oddly enough a week or so later he completely changed his tune and guess what...he got a promotion...coincidence...I kind of doubt it.Not an example of Bush or McCain using the Iraq war for political reasons.

Another example.

The military, and please excuse me if I don't believe someone in the executive branch did not know after some time, really screwed up the situation with Pat Tillmans death.Not an example of Bush or McCain using the Iraq war for political reasons.

Another Example.

The president during an interview said he no longer plays golf because he did not think it would be right for families of lost soldiers to see him out playing golf.

What is closer to the truth is that he had a medical condition that slowed down his golf play and even the dates he quoted as when he quit was wrong.

Is it so hard to just say, I just don't play golf anymore without using the fallen troops families as part of it for political reasons.HEY LOOK! You actually came up with an example of Bush using the war for political reasons. Got any links to back up all your claims?

Another example.

McCain is always quick to point out that all vietnam and vets groups giving him passing grades....until he is confronted with groups that say that is false. He even gets testy in a town hall meeting with one that questions why he was against some vet programs.Not an example of Bush or McCain using the Iraq war for political reasons.

Another example.

The condition of Walter Reed medical problems last year is enough to say that if these politicians truly supported veterans and troops they would have never let it gotten to such a disgraceful level.Not an example of Bush or McCain using the Iraq war for political reasons.

[sacase]

It's obvious he's trying not to get us into any agreements between this administration and the Iraqis. He wants his administration, if he wins, to be in on that. That's understandable considering how many of the steps of whatever agreement that is reached will take place once a new administration is in place here in the US.

Doesn't mean the Iraqi government has to listen.

If all presidents didn't enter into agreements so the next president would have a clean slate, then nothing would ever get accomplish. Obama is scum, pure and simple.

[BrAinPaiNt]

Here is some more...

During the RNC they played a video in the background showing a military funeral in order to get the crowds heart and patriotism going. Only problem was it was a fake military funeral using actors. Kind of a slap in the face to those soldiers that have lost fellow soldiers and families who have lost sons and daughters to use a fake military funeral using actors in order to help pump up the crowd in a Convention.

Another...

McCain and some others talk about how safe it is now in Iraq and in doing so shows a video of him walking down in a village....only problem is he has a number of soldiers (around a hundred not counting hummers and helicopters) in the background providing security for his photo op. If it is so safe, does he need to use the military for his photo op?

W...I am sure we all remember his mission accomplished moment. However I am not going to rag on the banner as there was a reason for that and it was legit IMO. However how about him flying in on a jet...nice photo op there.

[theogt]

Obama committed treason. I don't see how someone as a member of the government can attempt to negotiate a side deal with a foreign power behind the presidents back. All so he can look good for an election.Maybe not treason, but a gross usurpation of the Constitution at least.

[theogt]

Here is some more...

During the RNC they played a video in the background showing a military funeral in order to get the crowds heart and patriotism going. Only problem was it was a fake military funeral using actors. Kind of a slap in the face to those soldiers that have lost fellow soldiers and families who have lost sons and daughters to use a fake military funeral using actors in order to help pump up the crowd in a Convention.Using the funerals is a political ploy, but I don't see what them being fake has anything to do with it.

Another...

McCain and some others talk about how safe it is now in Iraq and in doing so shows a video of him walking down in a village....only problem is he has a number of soldiers (around a hundred not counting hummers and helicopters) in the background providing security for his photo op. If it is so safe, does he need to use the military for his photo op?Not an example of Bush or McCain using the Iraq war for political reasons.

W...I am sure we all remember his mission accomplished moment. However I am not going to rag on the banner as there was a reason for that and it was legit IMO. However how about him flying in on a jet...nice photo op there.Not an example of Bush or McCain using the Iraq war for political reasons.

[BrAinPaiNt]

Not an example of Bush or McCain using the Iraq war for political reasons.

Not an example of Bush or McCain using the Iraq war for political reasons.

Not an example of Bush or McCain using the Iraq war for political reasons.

Not an example of Bush or McCain using the Iraq war for political reasons.

Not an example of Bush or McCain using the Iraq war for political reasons.

HEY LOOK! You actually came up with an example of Bush using the war for political reasons. Got any links to back up all your claims?

Not an example of Bush or McCain using the Iraq war for political reasons.

Not an example of Bush or McCain using the Iraq war for political reasons.

Those are all examples of using the troops, and war, for political gain or future gain in his viewed history (the first one).

No care about OBL until he wants to help ensure his legacy and help who he is viewed seems like he is using troops to better his future self.

Furthermore I am talking about using troops or the military to politicize and they all do it.

If you can't bring yourself to admit it...so be it. But they do and only a naive person rooting for one party or another would deny it.

[theogt]

Those are all examples of using the troops, and war, for political gain or future gain in his viewed history (the first one).Actually, no, they're not.

[vta]

Here is some more...

During the RNC they played a video in the background showing a military funeral in order to get the crowds heart and patriotism going. Only problem was it was a fake military funeral using actors. Kind of a slap in the face to those soldiers that have lost fellow soldiers and families who have lost sons and daughters to use a fake military funeral using actors in order to help pump up the crowd in a Convention.

Another...

McCain and some others talk about how safe it is now in Iraq and in doing so shows a video of him walking down in a village....only problem is he has a number of soldiers (around a hundred not counting hummers and helicopters) in the background providing security for his photo op. If it is so safe, does he need to use the military for his photo op?

W...I am sure we all remember his mission accomplished moment. However I am not going to rag on the banner as there was a reason for that and it was legit IMO. However how about him flying in on a jet...nice photo op there.

How are any of these things, in anyway, equal to what Obama is being accused of doing? None of these actions, while defiinitely tactless, will have an affect on the outcome of the war. In fact, they are an effort to effect the people farthest from the war. U.S. citizens and their opinions.

Trying to delay, exactly what he's trying to ride part of his campaign on, is not only politicising, it's deeply subversive and dangerous for the people actually fighting the war.

There's no comparison, unless you want to agrue the semantics of 'politicizing'.

[BrAinPaiNt]

Using the funerals is a political ploy, but I don't see what them being fake has anything to do with it.

Not an example of Bush or McCain using the Iraq war for political reasons.

Not an example of Bush or McCain using the Iraq war for political reasons.

How are those not using the troops or war for political gain?

It is supporting a position they held that was in contention by others esp the McCain setting up a photop about how safe it is in baghdad.

The only reason to go there and do the photo op was to try and prove his contention that it was safe.

I mean I can understand if you don't agree with everything. But it seems like you are little too quick to just ignore the majority and esp some that are clear cut cases of using the troops and the war for gain.

Around a 100 troops, hummers and 5 apache helicpoters were required for his saftey in that little photo op. Too bad those troops, hummers and apaches could not be used elsewhere in Iraq when the military is already stretched thin.

[BrAinPaiNt]

How are any of these things, in anyway, equal to what Obama is being accused of doing? None of these actions, while defiinitely tactless, will have an affect on the outcome of the war. In fact, they are an effort to effect the people farthest from the war. U.S. citizens and their opinions.

Trying to delay, exactly what he's trying to ride part of his campaign on, is not only politicising, it's deeply subversive and dangerous for the people actually fighting the war.

There's no comparison, unless you want to agrue the semantics of 'politicizing'.

:laugh1:

Yeah whatever.

Geez...some people just kill me.

[vta]

:laugh1:

Yeah whatever.

Geez...some people just kill me.

Cop out.

[theogt]

How are those not using the troops or war for political gain?

It is supporting a position they held that was in contention by others esp the McCain setting up a photop about how safe it is in baghdad.

The only reason to go there and do the photo op was to try and prove his contention that it was safe.

I mean I can understand if you don't agree with everything. But it seems like you are little too quick to just ignore the majority and esp some that are clear cut cases of using the troops and the war for gain.

Around a 100 troops, hummers and 5 apache helicpoters were required for his saftey in that little photo op. Too bad those troops, hummers and apaches could not be used elsewhere in Iraq when the military is already stretched thin.I think you're confusing using a little PR photo opp with manipulating the outcome of the war for your own political benefit. They aren't the same thing.

[BrAinPaiNt]

Cop out.

It's called not going to waste any longer with what I consider partisan stupidity.

I will make my points and if they continue to a level I deem stupid...I am just not going to waste my time on them any longer.

I am sorry if that makes people mad on here. I don't care if people find it to be a cop out. I don't care if people think I am scared or any other lame attempt to bait me back into the conversation.

I have grown tired of some stupidity and the one sided nature of some people and or topics in here and just refuse to keep going around and around with someone who is just not going to do anything but argue about it or change their view point on topics.

So again...don't like it...sorry.

[Heisenberg]

Also keep in mind the source here people:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Amir_Taheri

This guy is known to make up crap.

[vta]

It's called not going to waste any longer with what I consider partisan stupidity.

I will make my points and if they continue to a level I deem stupid...I am just not going to waste my time on them any longer.

I am sorry if that makes people mad on here. I don't care if people find it to be a cop out. I don't care if people think I am scared or any other lame attempt to bait me back into the conversation.

I have grown tired of some stupidity and the one sided nature of some people and or topics in here and just refuse to keep going around and around with someone who is just not going to do anything but argue about it or change their view point on topics.

So again...don't like it...sorry.

From the school of evasive politics... ? You board-wide actions more than contradict these words, so please, sell it to someone else.

How about you answer the question, instead of pretending you're above it?

[Heisenberg]

I'm surprised more people don't remember the concern on the left about having the current administration tie the hands of the incoming administration by entering into an agreement with the Iraqi government without the approval of Congress.

[BrAinPaiNt]

I think you're confusing using a little PR photo opp with manipulating the outcome of the war for your own political benefit. They aren't the same thing.

You don't think we have been manipulated to go to war in the first place?

You don't think we have basically abandoned the troops in Afghanistan and now are just ramping it back up because of no reason...or is it a reason to ramp it back up more tied to the idea of W.

You don't think we ignored advice of generals many times over and in doing so it prolonged and manipulated how the war in iraq went.

You don't think the idea that Rummy knew he was doing such a bad job that he even told the president on at least two occasions (by his own admission) that he would resign but they kept him until just after the dems won control of congress before making the change? You don't think that had any effect on the war?...keeping a guy around even when he said he would resign but only getting rid of him when you party loses control of congress.

come on guys...this is not rocket science.

I know the repubs are supposed to be the tough guys and war party while the dems are supposed to be the wimpies and so on.

But please. If you think both parties don't use the troops and war to politicize their agendas than I don't know what else to tell you because you are in lala land.

[BrAinPaiNt]

I'm surprised more people don't remember the concern on the left about having the current administration tie the hands of the incoming administration by entering into an agreement with the Iraqi government without the approval of Congress.

It does not matter to partisan minds.

Sadly.

By their own words and defense...it really only hurts the troops that have to put up with the bs and those who are used by politicians for their political gains.

Sad.

[zrinkill]

It may be wrong of me ..... even unfair .....

But I only have a problem with people using things like the war and our military experience when they themselves did not serve.

I did not have a prob when Kerry used it ..... I do not have a problem with McCain using it.

Its probably not fair ..... but hell, its not fair that some peoples lives where at risk while others went to college.

I do not agree with the deaths of troops being used as propaganda by anyone though. And I would be very disappointed in any candidate that did.

.
.
.

[BrAinPaiNt]

It may be wrong of me ..... even unfair .....

But I only have a problem with people using things like the war and our military experience when they themselves did not serve.

I did not have a prob when Kerry used it ..... I do not have a problem with McCain using it.

Its probably not fair ..... but hell, its not fair that some peoples lives where at risk while others went to college.

I do not agree with the deaths of troops being used as propaganda by anyone though. And I would be very disappointed in any candidate that did.

.
.
.

I don't like either doing it but yeah I get what you are saying about at least having some time serving your country vs not ever serving.

On a side note.

Something it seems that is really being missed here IMO.

Where we not going to wait until later next year before we were going to pull out troops and now they are saying this story, as it preventing them from pulling out early even though it would be sooner than the preconceived time line to begin with?

Not sound fish to anyone.

Also have to consider not only the source, as the write has been caught fabricating stories in the past, but also the person quoted who has been at odds with Maliki in the past.

This might be smarter for people to let this one breath a little and see how it shakes out because it could be way wrong and people get their knickers in a twist for no reason.

[Heisenberg]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_GWtAb34KA

This is what he's trying to prevent. To say that he's attempting to stall withdrawal for political purposes is just silly.

This video is from a debate earlier in the year, but it explains it well.

[theogt]

You don't think we have been manipulated to go to war in the first place?No.

You don't think we have basically abandoned the troops in Afghanistan and now are just ramping it back up because of no reason...or is it a reason to ramp it back up more tied to the idea of W.No.

You don't think we ignored advice of generals many times over and in doing so it prolonged and manipulated how the war in iraq went.No.

You don't think the idea that Rummy knew he was doing such a bad job that he even told the president on at least two occasions (by his own admission) that he would resign but they kept him until just after the dems won control of congress before making the change? You don't think that had any effect on the war?...keeping a guy around even when he said he would resign but only getting rid of him when you party loses control of congress.No.

come on guys...this is not rocket science.

I know the repubs are supposed to be the tough guys and war party while the dems are supposed to be the wimpies and so on.

But please. If you think both parties don't use the troops and war to politicize their agendas than I don't know what else to tell you because you are in lala land.Look, you said that Bush and McCain manipulated the war for political gain. Until you can actually come up with some examples like Obama's, then I'm just going to have call BS.

[vta]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_GWtAb34KA

This is what he's trying to prevent. To say that he's attempting to stall withdrawal for political purposes is just silly.

This video is from a debate earlier in the year, but it explains it well.

That makes sense.

[BrAinPaiNt]

No.

No.

No.

No.

Look, you said that Bush and McCain manipulated the war for political gain. Until you can actually come up with some examples like Obama's, then I'm just going to have call BS.

Well you will just have call bs and I will have to call bs back because the generals did ask for things and were denied. We did manipulate the media to manipulate the people going into the war, W did wait until the dems won control of congress before sacking rummy even when rummy had offered to resign twice by his own admission and man alive it sure is funny that the war started going better once rummy was gone.

We can agree to disagree I guess.

[Heisenberg]

And in case there needs to be another hole blown in this:

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/06/16/1146329.aspx

OBAMA'S TALK WITH IRAQI FOREIGN MINISTER
Posted: Monday, June 16, 2008 2:22 PM by Domenico Montanaro
From NBC/NJ's Athena Jones
FLINT, Mich. -- Obama reiterated his commitment to withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq during a telephone conversation this morning with the country's foreign minister, he told reporters in a 10-minute press conference on the tarmac here.

The presumptive Democratic nominee told Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari that he looked forward to seeing him in Baghdad and told reporters he also wanted to visit Afghanistan, saying the situation there continued to deteriorate -- noting a prison break this past weekend. He declined to specify when such trips would take place, but said he would like to go before the election.

The men spoke about the progress U.S. troops have made in helping to reduce the violence in Iraq but Obama told Zebari troop withdrawals must go forward.

"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," the senator said. "I gave him an assurance that should we be elected, an Obama administration will make sure that we continue with the progress that's been made in Iraq, that we won't act precipitously, but that we will move to end U.S. combat forces in Iraq in a manner that's as careful as we were careless getting in."

The need to withdraw is twofold, Obama said. Reprising an argument he has been making for months, he cited the need to encourage the Iraqi government to make the political accommodations on matters like oil revenues and provincial elections, which the surge was supposed to help happen. He argued that the progress made in the South and in Sadr City showed the need not for a longer commitment but a shorter one, because they indicate a greater capacity on the part of Iraqis to deal effectively with their security. Obama said the second reason was the $10- to-12 billion being spent each month in the country, a statistic he often cites when discussing the need to withdraw.

In response to a question about how much flexibility there would be to withdrawal plans, Obama said he still believed U.S. forces could be out of the country within about 16 months and that "I've also consistently said that I will consult with military commanders on the ground and that we will always be open to the possibility of tactical adjustments. The important thing is to send a clear signal to the Iraqi people and most importantly to the Iraqi leadership that the U.S. occupation in Iraq is finite, it is gonna be coming to a foreseeable end."

He said he told Zebari that negotiations for a Status of Forces agreement or strategic framework agreement between the two countries should be done in the open and with Congress's authorization and that it was important that that there be strong bipartisan support for any agreement so that it can be sustained through a future administration. He argued it would make sense to hold off on such negotiations until the next administration.

"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 was my administration or Sen. McCain's administration," Obama said. "The foreign minister agreed that the next administration should not be bound by an agreement that's currently made."

[theogt]

Well, of course Obama isn't going to come out in that article and say he told him to delay. Zebari may be full of it, but that article doesn't say much one way or the other.

[MilesAustinforMVP]

When did the New York Post become a legitimate source of information?

[ThaBigP]

First, they likely used staged funerals out of respect for any of the fallen - they have no idea the political disposition of those in the coffins or their families, so it would seem appropriate that if you wanted that scene in a political video you should use political neutrals. That of course doesn't address the issue of using funerals for political purposes in the first place, but it does explain to me the reason for using staged ones.

Also, the idea that Bush/McCain used Iraq for political purposes is odd, considering they've never once waivered on their support of it, even when opinion of that war began to swing the other way. In addition, they supported a troop surge precisely when the war was toughest, and opinion was most strongly aligned against it. Contrary to using it for political gain, that's actually taking a political risk by sticking by your guns.

For Obama, I'd have considered his unwavering position of opposition to itself be taking a political risk, as opinion of the war has swung back to neutral on the issue, since victory appears within grasp. However, the idea of holding off an agreement, negotiated illegally (Sentaor, not President), makes me rethink that opinion. He was attempting postpone the appearance of a "light at the end of the tunnel" so he could continue to pound the Iraq issue during the campaign. Ironic - he's running around demanding an immediate end to the conflict, to bring our troops home, all the while trying to negotiate behind closed doors for a postponement of such an agreement so he can keep it on the front burner as an issue.

[ThaBigP]

Again, all this hinges on the notion of the assertion being true, of course.

[Hostile]

Again, all this hinges on the notion of the assertion being true, of course.Funny how so many assertions on both sides end up being empty.

;)

[Bach]

When did the New York Post become a legitimate source of information?

When did the New York Times, Washington Post, ABC, NBC, CBS...etc?

Is there something in there that's not true or you just want to broadly dismiss it with some kind of sweeping attack of the messenger?

[JBond]

If you don't think the McCain and Bush camp is in the same boat as far as using this as a political tool...I got some great ocean front property to sell you here in WV.

Trust me, they both are using it.

Just another reason that the two party system disgusts me because they only support the troops for the cameras and votes. When it comes down to it what they really believe is that the troops are there to support them.

I even said way back in the primaries that if dem voters think that Hillary or Obama were going to bring all of the troops back out of iraq...they have a big surprise in store because they both would leave troops in place.

Barack is lying to your face and you lap it up. Hates NAFTA\loves NAFTA, Immediate withdrawal of all troops\ No keep them in.

Obama=Bad Joke. This was the best the Dems can come up with? Thank god Hillary is not running. I was worried when my stupid party picked a liberal put he is so much better than a socialist the dems have trotted out.

[BrAinPaiNt]

Barack is lying to your face and you lap it up. Hates NAFTA\loves NAFTA, Immediate withdrawal of all troops\ No keep them in.

Obama=Bad Joke. This was the best the Dems can come up with? Thank god Hillary is not running. I was worried when my stupid party picked a liberal put he is so much better than a socialist the dems have trotted out.

:banghead: I really wish people would actually take the time to read instead of just the normal jumping they do...it would save them some embarrassment of looking silly when they realize what was really said.

I don't trust either party when it comes to truly having the troops best at heart I don't know how much plainer I can make it.

But go ahead, jump, look foolish.

[Doomsday101]

I don't see where Bush stance has been a popular one nor has McCain. Obama was the one who was going get the troops out right away. Why because that is what people want to hear so while both may so call use war for political means I'm not sure how that has been a good thing for Bush or McCain. McCain called for the surge not a big political move if you are looking for a boost in the poll numbers but because it appears to have worked you bet McCain is going to ride that pony and why not.

[JBond]

:banghead: I really wish people would actually take the time to read instead of just the normal jumping they do...it would save them some embarrassment of looking silly when they realize what was really said.

I don't trust either party when it comes to truly having the troops best at heart I don't know how much plainer I can make it.

But go ahead, jump, look foolish.

When Obama mania was in high gear one of his claims to fame is the immediate withdrawal of troops. Remember, he thinks the troop surge was a huge mistake and a failure. He was very strong on the point. He will say anything, anytime to anyone to get a vote. All troops out when the polls were against the war and now when we are winning...Well you know. Time to flip.

[BrAinPaiNt]

When Obama mania was in high gear one of his claims to fame is the immediate withdrawal of troops. Remember, he thinks the troop surge was a huge mistake and a failure. He was very strong on the point. He will say anything, anytime to anyone to get a vote. All troops out when the polls were against the war and now when we are winning...Well you know. Time to flip.

And you jump on me because???...you didn't really read my post that's why. Or you would realize I have said that BOTH parties use the troops for political means.

Geez...seriously, this is not that hard.

[vta]

And you jump on me because???...you didn't really read my post that's why. Or you would realize I have said that BOTH parties use the troops for political means.

Geez...seriously, this is not that hard.

Now why would you waste your time trying to convince someone of your non-partisan bent?

Apparently you do waste time on 'Partisan Stupidity', eh? ;)

[BrAinPaiNt]

Now why would you waste your time trying to convince someone of your non-partisan bent?

Apparently you do waste time on 'Partisan Stupidity', eh? ;)

For a time until I am tired of it...not really hard to grasp. I was not going to waste anymore time on you in the topic we had earlier. Had not had any argument with jbond earlier.

Again...not hard to get here.

[vta]

For a time until I am tired of it...not really hard to grasp. I was not going to waste anymore time on you in the topic we had earlier. Had not had any argument with jbond earlier.

Again...not hard to get here.

:laugh2:

It was the same thread and it was not at all about partisan politics...

No not hard to get at all.

[BrAinPaiNt]

:laugh2:

It was the same thread and it was not at all about partisan politics...

No not hard to get at all.

YOU = JBOND?

VTA = JBOND?

Now if you both are the same person...so be it.

Since you are not the same person...oooh wait for it. Ahh you can figure it out...just in case...my words

waste anymore time on you in the topic we had earlier

Now maybe if I had said, in the post you quoted, I am not going to talk about the topic and did not say with YOU or the WE had earlier.

So...is VTA also JBOND because if so than I guess I just screwed the pooch...if not, once again, I wish people would actually read what I post.

Thanks

[vta]

YOU = JBOND?

VTA = JBOND?

Now if you both are the same person...so be it.

Since you are not the same person...oooh wait for it. Ahh you can figure it out...just in case...my words



Now maybe if I had said, in the post you quoted, I am not going to talk about the topic and did not say with YOU or the WE had earlier.

So...is VTA also JBOND because if so than I guess I just screwed the pooch...if not, once again, I wish people would actually read what I post.

Thanks

Come on Brain, youre smarter than that...

It's called not going to waste any longer with what I consider partisan stupidity.

Arguing about what you are, is arguing partisan stupidity.
But this thread isn't about you, just figured I'd poke you when the inevitable contradiction came along, so I digress...

[BrAinPaiNt]

Come on Brain, youre smarter than that...

It's called not going to waste any longer with what I consider partisan stupidity.

Arguing about what you are, is arguing partisan stupidity.
But this thread isn't about you, just figured I'd poke you when the inevitable contradiction came along, so I digress...

And I was quoting you directly...hmmm. :laugh2:

[vta]

And I was quoting you directly...hmmm. :laugh2:

And I, you...

[BrAinPaiNt]

And I, you...

So it does not mean I was talking in general terms about everybody in this thread...just you.

So if JBond spoke to me...I replied about the topic.

Get it?

Hopefully.

Maybe

Probably aiming too high I know.

[vta]

So it does not mean I was talking in general terms about everybody in this thread...just you.

So if JBond spoke to me...I replied about the topic.

Get it?

Hopefully.

Maybe

Probably aiming too high I know.

The topic is about your partisan beliefs??

Actually you micharacterized the discussion because you couldn't answer a question, so you fell back on one of the two most popular evasive tacts.

Yeah, high indeed.

:laugh2:

[BrAinPaiNt]

The topic is about your partisan beliefs??

Actually you micharacterized the discussion because you couldn't answer a question, so you fell back on one of the two most popular evasive tacts.

Yeah, high indeed.

:laugh2:

This is the kind of stupidity I am talking about. I was talking to YOU...not the board in general. Someone ELSE comments on something so I talk to THEM not you.

Seriously...I don't know what it is so hard for some to figure out.

I don't know if it is intentional or you honestly don't get it.

I am sorry if I don't want to argue about the topic with YOU because I think your take is stupid. I know you are not stupid, however I think your take was in this topic and it clearly was partisan. So I said I am not going to go on with you on the topic.

Someone else comes along and I discuss it with them...not you.

You come back thumping your chest.

Geez

You can have the last word and thump your chest and say I got that BP..woohoo.

[jrumann59]

Obama committed treason. I don't see how someone as a member of the government can attempt to negotiate a side deal with a foreign power behind the presidents back. All so he can look good for an election.

Rumors are Reagan did it in 1980.

[Brandon]

Our goverment killed over 3000 innocent individuals, so treason is nothing.

[jrumann59]

I'm surprised more people don't remember the concern on the left about having the current administration tie the hands of the incoming administration by entering into an agreement with the Iraqi government without the approval of Congress.

They gave the president wide ranging powers it is ultimately the Congress' fault.

[jrumann59]

Our goverment killed over 3000 innocent individuals, so treason is nothing.

Please provide rock solid damning evidence. Please no Fahrenheit 9/11 facts or links to tinfoilhats.com, or alienanalprobes.com or any other looney conspiracy theorist websites like JFK was on united 93. I want cold hard empirical evidence. I was at the Pentagon and the last time I checked I don't have a dark sedan out front of my house with fellows in suits follwing me out. No one has approached me to change my story. So unless you can provide evidence that will erase every bit of actual experience I have in memory, you then just need to move out of your parent's basement either the carbon monoxide or radon is getting to you.

[vta]

You can have the last word and thump your chest and say I got that BP..woohoo.

http://chickenscustoms.com/images/personal/chest%20thumping.bmp

[Bach]

Our goverment killed over 3000 innocent individuals, so treason is nothing.

Where?

If you say 9/11 I hope they make it 3001.

[BrAinPaiNt]

Our goverment killed over 3000 innocent individuals, so treason is nothing.

If you start up this loony tunes truther crap again you might find yourself the victim of a conspiracy.:laugh1: