[Rhodes22-list] Politics - The US MSM - reply to advocate for America, Brad

[Brad Haslett]

Ed,

Here's a follow-up comment from the original newspaper article
(published today).

Brad

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

September 19, 2008, 7:00 a.m.

Obama 101
My firsthand lesson.

By Amir Taheri

On Monday, in an opinion piece published in the New York Post, I
suggested that Senator Barack Obama had urged Iraqi leaders to
postpone making an agreement with the United States until there was a
new administration in Washington.

I said this because Obama himself had said it.

In an interview broadcast by NBC on June 16, 2008, Obama said that he
had told Iraqi foreign minister Hoshyar Zebari that "the Congress
should be involved in any negotiations regarding the Status of Forces
Agreement with Iraq" and "suggested it may be better to wait until the
next administration to negotiate such an agreement."

I said it because Iraqi foreign minister Hoshyar Zebari said it.

In an interview published by the pan-Arab daily Asharq Alawast on
September 11, 2008, Zebari raised the issue at length. This is part of
what he said: "Obama asked me why, in view of a change of
administration, we were hurrying the signing of this special
agreement, and why we did not wait until the coming of a new
administration next year to agree on some issues and matters."

I said it because my Iraqi sources, who asked not to be identified
because they do not wish to pick a quarrel with someone who could be
the President of the United States next year, said it.

A day after my op-ed was published, Obama's campaign issued a
statement, in effect confirming what I had said.

It said, in part, "Senator Obama has consistently said that any
security arrangements that outlast this administration should have the
backing of the US Congress — especially given the fact that the Iraqi
parliament will have the opportunity to vote on it."

On Wednesday, the senator issued another statement — also in response
to my op-ed — denying that he had ever opposed "a redeployment and
responsible drawdown" of U.S. forces in Iraq. But I never said he did.
I also never said that he opposed motherhood and apple pie; In any
case, no one would oppose "redeployment and responsible drawdown,"
something that is happening all the time. Redeployment means moving
some units from one location to another. Drawdown means reducing the
size of the expeditionary force in accordance with the task at hand.
Right now troops are being redeployed from Anbar province to
Salahuddin. There is also drawdown: The number of U.S. troops has been
drawn down to 136,000, the lowest since a peak of 170,000 in 2003.

What Obama hopes his more radical followers will not notice is that he
is no longer speaking of "withdrawal."

He also hopes to hide the fact that by telling the Iraqi leaders that
a putative Obama administration might scrap agreements reached with
the Bush team, he might have delayed the start of a process that
should lead to a withdrawal of U.S. forces within a mutually agreed
timeframe. The later you start the negotiating process, the later you
get an agreement. And the later you have an agreement, the later you
can withdraw your troops based on the agreed necessary security
arrangements to ensure their safe departure.

By trying to second-guess the present administration in its
negotiations with Iraq, Obama ignored a golden rule of American
politics. I first learned about that rule from Senator Edward Kennedy
more than 30 years ago. During a visit to Tehran, Kennedy received a
few Iranian reporters for a poolside chat. The big question at the
time was negotiations between Washington and Tehran about massive arms
contracts. When we asked Kennedy what he thought of those
negotiations, his answer was simple: He would not comment on
negotiations between his government and a foreign power, especially
when abroad. That, he said, was one of the golden rules of American
politics.

A few years later, I spent a day with Ronald Reagan during his visit
to Iran. I asked what he thought of the strategic arms limitation
talks between the U.S. and the USSR. He echoed Kennedy's golden rule:
He would not comment on his government's negotiations with a foreign
power, especially when abroad.

A couple of years ago, I ran into that golden rule again. At a meeting
with Senator Hillary Clinton in Washington, I asked what she thought
of the Bush administration's negotiations with the Iraqis concerning
security cooperation. She said she would not second-guess the
president and would wait for the outcome of the negotiations. In a
statesmanlike manner, Senator Clinton reminded me of the golden
rule—one that is common to all mature democracies where the opposition
is loyal and constitutional.

Today, Senator Obama is the leader of a loyal opposition in the United
States, not the chief of an insurrection or a revolutionary uprising.
What we are witnessing in the U.S. is an election, not an insurrection
or a coronation, even less a regime change.

Obama should not have discussed the government-to-government
negotiations with the Iraqis. That he did, surprised the Iraqis no
end. Raising the issue with them, especially the way he did, meant
that he was telling them that he did not trust his own government. The
Iraqis could not be blamed for wondering why they should trust a
government that is not trusted by the leader of its own loyal
opposition. (There was also no point in raising the matter, because
Obama did not know the content of the negotiations.)

An opposition leader's foreign trips are useful as fact-finding
missions. This means that the opposition leader listens to the locals,
asks questions, and tries to get the political feel of the place. He
is not there to lecture the natives or bad-mouth his own government
back home.

Obama might have attended a session of the new Iraqi parliament and
congratulated the people of Iraq for defying death to go through one
referendum and two general elections to build a new democracy.

He might have visited some of the good work done by over 1.2 million
Americans, both military and civilian, who have heroically served in
Iraq since its liberation.



He might have visited some of the wounded victims of terrorism, both
U.S. troops and Iraqi civilians, to comfort them, and assure them of
continued U.S. determination to fight the forces of evil.

He did none of those things during his eight-hour photo-op visit.

In the American system, the administration can conclude agreements
with foreign powers on a range of issues backed by an executive order
from the president. I am no expert, but the U.S. has signed scores,
maybe hundreds of such agreements with many countries across the
globe. To be sure, the U.S. legislature always has the power to seek
the abrogation of any of these agreements. When it comes to treaties,
however, they cannot come into effect without full Senate approval.

However, Iraq and the U.S. are not negotiating a treaty, and, if they
were, Obama could have waited until the draft text was submitted to
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, chaired by his
vice-presidential running mate Joseph Biden.

In any case, every agreement and every treaty contains mechanisms for
its suspension or abrogation. Therefore, even supposing Bush was
negotiating an absolutely terrible agreement with the Iraqis in which
he would be selling the family silver, Obama should have waited until
he saw the text, and then demanded the cancellation of the accord
through the constitutional channels.

One key feature of all mature powers, at least since the Congress of
Vienna, is the reliability of their international commitments. Even
putschists who seize power in a military coup make sure that their
first pronunciamento includes this key sentence: We shall honor all of
our country's international obligations and commitments. Even regime
change does not absolve states from their international obligations.
The new Iraqi government, for example, has not rejected the estimated
$100 billion in foreign debt left by Saddam Hussein.

Instances of a state reneging on all its obligations as a result of
change are rare in history. One instance came in 1918 when Trotsky,
appointed Commissar for Foreign Affairs by Lenin, announced that he
had abrogated all of Tsarist Russia's treaties with foreign nations
and ordered the texts burned to heat the rooms of an empty foreign
ministry.

What Obama was attempting, however, was more original. It amounted to
preemptive diplomacy used against one's own government: opposing an
agreement not yet negotiated and of the content of which he knew
nothing. A neophyte in matters of politics and diplomacy, the young
senator is certainly not wanting for originality.

Since I do not wish to become involved in an Alphonse-and-Gaston
number with Obama, I suggest that we focus our attention on the fact
that the nominee is left without anything resembling a policy on Iraq.
So, rather than coming out with another denial of something I never
said that he had done, the esteemed senator should ponder these
questions:

Does he still believe that toppling Saddam Hussein was illegal and
"the biggest strategic blunder in U.S. history"? If yes, we might
wonder why he is prepared to deal with the new Iraqi leaders who, by
definition, have usurped Hussein's power in Baghdad with American
support.

Does he still want to withdraw from Iraq or does he want to stay,
doing a bit of "drawdown" and "redeployment" every now and then? And,
if he wants to stay, on what basis, for what purpose, and for how
long?

Is Senator Biden's plan to carve Iraq into three separate states still
a live option or has it been thrown into the dustbin where it should
have been from the start?

Would Obama now support the conclusion of a Status of Forces Agreement
(SOFA) and a Strategic Framework Agreement (SFA) through negotiations
between the Bush administration and the Iraqi administration of Prime
Minister Nuri al-Maliki, also a "lame duck," as it faces elections
early next year?






On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 9:10 AM, Tootle <ekroposki at charter.net> wrote:
>
> Brad,
>
> Thank you for keeping us informed.  Certainly CNN (aka Communist News
> Network) does not do it.
>
> The following is posted for Brad's and a select few others information.
> Fellow travelers should not read.
>
> Locally we have a Black news columnist (Leonard Pitts) who is openly an
> Obama advocate.  In the past week he has written several columns spouting
> all the bias main stream media talking points.  Finally our local communist
> rag the Greenville News printed a letter to the editor reply:
>
> Aug. 19, 2008 Letter to Editor:
>
> Leonard Pitts failed in a recent column to explain why Democrats can't
> answer questions as well as Republicans. The real reason is that Democrats
> cannot tell the truth behind their policies. If they did, they would never
> be elected.
>
> What is the Democrat's guide to governing? Control Americans' lives down to
> what we can eat, based on their standards.
>
> Democrat tax policy? Steal from people who have money and give it to
> programs they favor.
>
> Democrat foreign policy? Appeasement, in hopes our enemies will leave us
> alone.
>
> Democrat energy policy? Force Americans to conserve by limiting supply and
> driving prices up.
>
> Democrat economic policy? Capitalism, free trade and low taxes are bad:
> fascism, tariffs and higher taxes are good.
>
> Democrat education? Keep our schools the liberal madrassas they are now by
> blocking vouchers, home schooling and any real reform.
>
> Democrat morality? Abortion and gay rights are the cornerstones, secularism
> and humanism the guiding lights. Christianity does not apply.
>
> Democrat homeland security? Shrink the military, tie the hands of our
> anti-terrorist strategy, unionize everything and give terrorists the same
> rights as a citizen.
>
> Democrat patriotism? Never-ending criticism of our commander in chief and
> our military, supporting our enemies and blaming America are required. Flag
> waving, the Pledge of Allegiance and public support of our nation are
> discouraged.
>
> Mr. Pitts, it is no mystery why Democrats have trouble explaining their
> positions while Republicans do not. It's difficult to justify being
> anti-American on all the issues, in an American election.
> Jonathan A. Wynn
> Taylors
>
> Posted for Brad.
>
> Ed K
> Greenville, SC, USA
>
>
>
> Brad Haslett-2 wrote:
>>
>> Rather sad that we have to go to Arabic newspaper interviews to get
>> the truth.  Here is the link to the follow-up story on The One
>> attempting to negotiate a separate troop withdrawal to bolster his
>> campaign-
>>
>> http://www.nypost.com/seven/09172008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/obama_objects_129453.htm?page=0
>>
>> Is the "Wizard of Uhs" in violation of the Logan Act?  Is he at least
>> being disingenuous when he says he wants the troops home but
>> negotiates for a delay?  You decide.
>>
>> Here's a short video on the issue-
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sW6lW8uD1ck
>>
>> The silence of the US MSM is deafening.
>>
>> Brad
>> __________________________________________________
>> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to
>> http://www.rhodes22.org/list
>> __________________________________________________
>>
>>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Politics---The-US-MSM-tp19572592p19573146.html
> Sent from the Rhodes 22 mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
> __________________________________________________
> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to http://www.rhodes22.org/list
> __________________________________________________
>