Posted on 09/17/2008 8:27:34 PM PDT by Eleutheria5
IN Monday's Post, I discussed how Barack Obama...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.
.....
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Will the MSM report it?
NO
Next question.
If McCain does an attack ad based on these facts, the MSM will denounce the ad, thereby drawing attention to the facts. Don’t you know how this works by now?
You can’t stop:
“...Obama was willing to SACRIFICE the lives of AMERICAN SOLDIERS to ADVANCE his POLITICAL career....”
*TREASONGATE!!!!!!!!!
*TREASONGATE!!!!!!!!!
*TREASONGATE!!!!!!!!!
*TREASONGATE!!!!!!!!!
*TREASONGATE!!!!!!!!!
So, Obama is essentially calling Zebari a liar. Too bad no one in the MSM seems willing to question Obama on this....
- "death threats", "email break-ins", when are authorities gonna round up, throw the book and start to locking up these idiots!
Obama was trying to sabotage the foreign policy of a sitting president so HE could have an issue to run for president on. This is megalomania on a par with Nebuchadnezzar.
Even worse, though, he can’t even lie and spin competently!
Sounds like Amir hit a nerve...
And Zebari is outright calling Obama a liar.
I'm so sure Charlie Gibson will be along shortly to ask Obama the tough questions on this.
Didn’t his brother Henry use to recite funny poems on Laugh-In?
No, the Laugh-In Gibson and the ABC News Gibson are the same guy.
;)
come on Amir, they're just being neighborly, getting up in your face.
Brownshirts. Certainly no better than Brownshirts. Are you allowed to get away with this bullying if you are “progressive”? That’s an entirely rhetorical question, we already know the answer.
Obama.getMoney(), Obama.setPolicy(), Obama.disperseMisinformation(), Obama.callRacist(republican *politician)
If you laughed, you’re a very big geek.
function ObamaStumble()
{
mouth.utter(”uh”)
}
teleprompter.onfail = ObamaStumble();
BTTT
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.