Posted on 09/19/2008 11:30:47 PM PDT by GoingBacktoCali
The “Strategic Framework Agreement” governs the future basing rights I believe (going out decades). All the Congress critters want a say in that.
So what?
Let me remind you of what the Obama spokesperson admitted:
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
You have already read that and yet you persist in avoiding the admission and engaging in DU style obfuscation and spin.
I find that telling.
oooh you find it “telling.”
I find it telling that you aren’t able to distinguish between the SFA and the status of forces. I still believe it’s a good talking point even if not true. That’s why I didn’t make a separate post with the ABC article.
“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...”
[crickets]
You’re outed.
You are outed as being clueless.
September 18, 2008
By Amir Taheri
The New York PostIN Monday’s Post, I discussed how Barack Obama, during his July trip, had asked Iraqi leaders not to finalize an agreement vital to the future of US forces in Iraq - and how the effect of such a delay would be to postpone the departure of the US from Iraq beyond the time Obama himself calls for.
The Obama campaign has objected. While its statement says my article was “filled with distortions,” the rebuttal actually centers on a technical point: the differences between two Iraqi-US accords under negotiation - the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA, to set rules governing US military personnel in Iraq) and the Strategic Framework Agreement (SFA, to settle the legal basis for the US military presence in Iraq in the months and years ahead).
The Obama camp says I confused the two. It continues: “On the Status of Forces Agreement, Sen. Obama has always said he hoped that the US and Iraq would complete it - but if they did not, the option of extending the UN mandate should be considered.
“As to the Strategic Framework Agreement, Sen. 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.”
If there is any confusion, it’s in Obama’s position - for the two agreements are interlinked: You can’t have any US military presence under one agreement without having settled the other accord. (Thus, in US-Iraqi talks, the aim is a comprehensive agreement that covers both SOFA and SFA.)
And the claim that Obama only wanted the Strategic Framework Agreement delayed until a new administration takes office, and had no objection to a speedy conclusion of a Status of Forces Agreement, is simply untrue.
Read Taheri’s first article and then what he writes now. He is saying 2 different things or at the very least he did not write his first article clearly.
Do you have any non-Obama talking points on your sheet?
Have you posted her home phone number at WikiLeaks ?
I mean, isn’t that the “cool” thing to do these days?
I thought Bush said that wasn’t true. More butt kissing I guess.
Hardly the point.
The point is to let them know WE the PEOPLE know and that we demand they take action - tell them to pretend it's a Republican that committed he crime - THEN they'd take action.
My point was that we have become too complacent and do little more than gripe about something while waiting for the media to cover it and the reps in DC to take action.
That's lazy and loosing be default.
WE have to make a big noise - DEMAND action be taken.
The media (I'm retired - worked in media many years) has a formula which they use to cover a story...They have ‘number thresh-hold” for ‘hits’. When a story brings in that number of hits they will cover it - mainly because, they know that, with that much interest on a subject, someone in the media will run with it - and they don't want to be behind in reporting it.
That said: Here's my ‘egregious Obama issue”:
Just where, Mr. O, are you going to get the money you say you will use to fund your “National Police Force” that will have as many in it as our military and as much funds? And by the way, isn't a National Police Force unconstitutional? We have the military to protect us from foreign enemies and the the individual states have the National Guard and the Coast Guard to protect within the country. And we have Homeland Security.
How are states rights protected under your National Police Force? And will they wear Brown Shirts and Jack Boots?” Hear him in his own words - need to be an add - run the video with the questions: Where are you going to get the money to fund such a force and - are they going to wear Brown Shirts?"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fO-usAlqak
Live link next post
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fO-usAlqak
live link Obama’s Brown Shirts - A National Police Force - see above post
WOW - on the PUMA sight!
That’s refreshing.....
So, guys and gals, are we going to demand it too? It will only get done if we shout loud and clear and without let up.
Time to put the book down and get out of the “lazy’ chairs and shout it from the housetops.
POINT!
When emailing - the reps and media will not bother to look at mass emails: To circumvent this, Put just ONE email address in the “TO” line. Then...
go to the end of that line and click on “Go to BCC”
This will pop up another line just above the “subject” line...the “BCC” line. put the rest of the emails adds in there - and each recipient will see ONLY their own address. Make a note for this and future FREEPS
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.