Skip to comments.Undermining McCain Campaign Attack, Republicans Back Obama‘s Version of Meeting
Posted on 09/20/2008 2:29:14 PM PDT by 2nd amendment mama
Earlier this week, the campaign of Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., seized upon a column in the New York Post that described Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., as having urged Iraqi leaders in a private meeting to delay coming to an agreement with the Bush administration on the status of U.S. troops.
"Obama has tried in private to persuade Iraqi leaders to delay an agreement on a drawdown of the American military presence," Post columnist Amir Taheri wrote, quoting Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, who told the Post that Obama, during his meeting with Iraqi leaders in July, "asked why we were not prepared to delay an agreement until after the U.S. elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington."
The charge -- that Obama asked the Iraqis to delay signing off on a "Status of Forces Agreement," thus delaying U.S. troop withdrawal and interfering in U.S. foreign policy -- has been picked up on the Internet, talk radio and by Republicans, including the McCain campaign, which seized on the story as possible evidence of duplicity.
The Obama campaign said that the Post report consisted of "outright distortions."
Lending significant credence to Obama's response is the fact that -- though it's absent from the Post story and other retellings -- in addition to Obama and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, this July meeting was also attended by Bush administration officials, such as U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker and the Baghdad embassy's legislative affairs advisor Rich Haughton, as well as a Republican senator, Chuck Hagel of Nebraska.
Attendees of the meeting back Obama's account, including not just Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., but Hagel, and Senate Foreign Relations Committee staffers from both parties. Officials of the Bush administration who were briefed on the meeting by the U.S. embassy in Baghdad also support Obama's account and dispute the Post story and McCain attack.
The Post story is "absolutely not true," Hagel spokesman Mike Buttry told ABC News.
"Barack Obama has never urged a delay in negotiations," said Obama campaign national security spokesperson Wendy Morigi, "nor has he urged a delay in immediately beginning a responsible drawdown of our combat brigades."
Buttry said that Hagel agrees with Obama's account of the meeting: Obama began the meeting with al-Maliki by asserting that the United States speaks with one foreign policy voice, and that voice belongs to the Bush administration.
A Bush administration official with knowledge of the meeting says that, during the meeting, Obama stressed to al-Maliki that he would not interfere with President Bush's negotiations concerning the U.S. troop presence in Iraq, and that he supports the Bush administration's position on the need to negotiate, as soon as possible, the Status of Forces Agreement, which deals with, among other matters, U.S. troops having immunity from local prosecution.
Obama did assert at the meeting with the Iraqis that he agrees with those - including Hagel and Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., the ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee -- who advocate congressional review of the Strategic Framework Agreement being worked out between the Bush administration and the Iraqi government, including the Iraqi parliament.
The Strategic Framework Agreement is a document that generally describes what the relationship between the two countries should look like over time.
According to one person present at the meeting, Obama told al-Maliki that the American people wouldn't understand why the Iraqi parliament would get to have a say on the Strategic Framework Agreement, but the U.S. Congress would not, especially since Bush is only months from leaving the White House, regardless of whether Obama or McCain succeeds him.
Morigi said in a statement that "Barack Obama has consistently called for any Strategic Framework Agreement to be submitted to the U.S. Congress so that the American people have the same opportunity for review as the Iraqi parliament."
Its possible, Obama advisers believe, that either Zebari or Taheri confused the Strategic Framework Agreement -- which Obama feels should be reviewed by Congress -- with the Status of Forces Agreement, which Obama says the Bush administration should negotiate with the Iraqis as soon as possible.
Two officials of the Bush administration say that if Obama had done what the Post story asserted - which they believe to be untrue - Crocker and embassy officials attending the meeting would have ensured that the Bush administration heard about it immediately. If such an incident occurred in front of officials of the Bush administration, it would have constituted a foreign policy breach and would have been front-page huge news; it would not have leaked out two months later in an op-ed column.
Nonetheless, based on nothing more than the Post report, McCain senior foreign policy adviser Randy Scheunemann issued a statement earlier this week, expressing outrage.
It should be concerning to all that (Obama) reportedly urged that the democratically-elected Iraqi government listen to him rather than the U.S. administration in power, Scheunemann said, apparently not having talked to anyone with knowledge about the meeting in the Bush administration, the U.S. embassy in Baghdad, Hagel, or any Republican staffers on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
If news reports are accurate, this is an egregious act of political interference by a presidential candidate seeking political advantage overseas, Scheunemann continued. Sen. Obama needs to reveal what he said to Iraq's foreign minister during their closed door meeting. The charge that he sought to delay the withdrawal of Americans from Iraq raises serious questions about Sen. Obama's judgment, and it demands an explanation.
What actually demands an explanation is why the McCain campaign was so willing to give credence to such a questionable story with such tremendous international implications without first talking to Republicans present at Obamas meeting with al-Maliki, who back Obamas version of the meeting and completely dismiss the Post column as untrue.
Hagel is an ass as usual.
Hagel is a Republican??? Who knew.
And yet, the 0bama campaign’s initial denial essentially confirmed the allegation made by Iraq’s foreign minister. Go figure.
ABC News quoting “Two (unnamed) officials of the Bush administration” is about as trustworthy as Chuck Gibson.
Let’s see which shoe drops next.
ABC works to undermine the McCain campaign. ABC knows Hagel is not a spokesman for Republicans.
WHY DOESNT SOMEONE MAKE THE CONNECTION: Obama’s spokesHole has said that HE DID make the comment. Now this comes out. THERE IS A DEEPER mystery here and it’s getting no play.
why is a Hagel a source??? Was he there?
Are you sure his name isn’t spelled “Hegel”?
GOP’s Hagel says Palin isn’t qualified - Sep 18, 2008
Chuck Hagel Takes On McCain, Repeatedly Praises Obama
Chuck Hagel: Obama-Biden good pair
Hagel Flirts with Obama Veepstakes
Obama is hoping to appoint cross-party figures to his cabinet such as Chuck Hagel
Republican Chuck Hagel Defends Obama on Foreign Policy
Obama considering Chuck Hagel as Defense Secretary, possible VP
Chuck Hagel (R): Tough words for McCain
NO THANKS, I don’t believe a word Hagel says, period!
ABC - Doing Rarama’s bidding. Having Hagel involved and backing Barama is quite a surprise. /s
“why is a Hagel a source??? Was he there?”
Susan Collins couldn’t be reached for comment.
20 September 2008 21:36:18 GMT+02:00 · 58 of 58
I was away yesterday so I missed this article. Read it today on HotAir with comments by AllahPundit.
As I understand it there were two issues discussed: the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) which concerns military matters and is a no, no for a first period Senator, and the Strategic Framework Agreement (SFA), which may be within the remit of the Congress.
Taheri claimed that Obama had been discussing issues definitely within the framework of the SOFA. Obama's campaign dismissed that and claimed he had been discussing the SFA. Some of his advisors even have gone so far as to suggest that Taheri or Zebari (Iraqi FM) must have mixed up the SOFA and SFA.
But let's go to the interview with Obama posted on the same link:
This is what he says at ca 1:12- 1:45 in the video.
"I also insisted that now it is important for us to begin....eh....the process of withdrawing US troops...eh..making clear that we have no interest in permanent bases in Iraq; that...eh...any negotiations for a Status of Forces Agreement or Strategic Framework Agreement..eh...should be done..eeeeeh....in the open..eh..and with Congress's authorization."
Let me repeat: "...any negotiations for a STATUS OF FORCES AGREEMENT or STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK AGREEMENT......"
NOW WHO IS IT THAT MIXED UP THOSE TWO AGREEMENTS?
Is it not possible that the totally inexperienced Sen Obama, devoid of his dear teleprompter, did mix up SOFA and SFA when talking to the Iraqis?
At least that is what he tells the journalists? Time for a McCain ad, and s...w the State Dept and the unnamned Bush officials.
PS: I noted the "ehhs" in the transcription not to make fun of Obama, but to show that he was actually trying to weigh every word he said. That makes it an even more surprising mistake.
So Hagel (who supports Obama for president) and two unnamed official make it so?
I wouldn’t believe ABC News if they told me today is Saturday.
The original story holds. Obama tried to sell out the U.S Armed Forces for his own political gain.
Hey, I know Hagel is a POS, I’m just the messenger for this article.
The moment I saw the headline I thought “Hagel”. I wuz right.
They need to drag both Upchuck Hagel and 0bama before a grand jury and see if they both perjure themselves. There are enough people out there who heard exactly what they said especially since 0bama’s own people have agreed that what Zebari said was true.
You're correct. This is now the third reported version of the meeting.
Bullshit. Hagel is just giving his hero a blowjob on this one.
According to one person present at the meeting, Obama told al-Maliki that the American people wouldn’t understand why the Iraqi parliament would get to have a say on the Strategic Framework Agreement, but the U.S. Congress would not, especially since Bush is only months from leaving the White House, regardless of whether Obama or McCain succeeds him.
“...especially since Bush is only months from leaving...”
there is the proverbial nugget of truth in this BS story....AND the exact premise upon which o’mamba the snake hoped he could succeed with his act of subversion
So now ABC is reporting we can’t trust the “reporting” done by the WaPo in addition to the WaPo saying McCain’s first mistake is trusting the reporting by the WaPo. So, I get the picture now. We can’t trust what the WaPo says... but it does get logically tricky when the WaPo says you can’t trust the WaPo. Are they lying now or lying then... or both.
Hagel is the new Lincoln Chaffee. Time to start looking for a primary opponent.
Jeez, Gibson’s interview and the criticism following it must have shaken the ABC in-the-tank-for-Obama establishment more than we thought. This and their Troopergate “exclusive” makes two stories where ABC is distorting and/or making conclusions from partial/incorrect information. Makes for good headlines, though.
the only person named is that idiot, Hagel.
I never believe what ‘two officials’say and I never believe ABC.
Chuck Hagel is NOT a Republican, he IS and filthy TRAITOR.
The guy who said his own party's VP nomineee was not qualified?????
How do they explain the Obama campaign’s admission of the same, then, just in more flowery language?
I don’t trust what Hagel says to be the truth.
Hagel’s working overtime. Guess he’s still bucking for a Cabinet position.
What do you think should happen? Be specific, and explain the consequences that would result.
If criminal action is taken against Obama, it will be perceived by liberals and many independents as a political prosecution; Republicans will lose in a landslide.
If the Republicans publicize Obama's actions, but no criminal action is taken, the lack of action will be perceived by liberals and many independents as a sign that the accusations are baseless. Again, landslide.
I see no scenario by which the Republicans can benefit by fully exposing Obama's actions. The guy belongs in jail, but patience is required.
But, wasn't it NBC back in June who reported "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," back in June 2008?
And, wasn't it Obama's security spokeswoman Wendy Morigi who just this week said, "In fact, 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," as she denied reports were outright falsehoods?
Maybe, it only happened just a little bit, on accident?
WHO HERE HAS SEEN THE McCAIN CAMPAIGN "PICK THIS UP?"
As quite a number of other Democrats do for even more serious crimes. Remember the homicide case concerning Vince Foster?
Why is it a taboo to prosecute a 'Rat for a horrendous crime while it's fair game to prosecute a Republican like Scooter Libby for nothing?
Hagel prefers Al Jazeera over the Republican Party.
The Bush officials are annoymous so they need to be dismissed.
I don’t know how to react to this story.
McCain being stabbed in the back by “Republicans” doesn’t bother me. He led the charge for too long to deserve any better for himself. He emboldened Republicans to do this.
On the other hand, if the story is accurate whatever Mccain deserves isn’t the point. Defending of the story’s accuracy is.
Get this straight, when you see the name Jake Tapper you should know that he is a hitman for the Democrats.
If not accurate, Tapper should take it up with Taheri, not McCain.
They will do anything.
The msm will do whatever it takes to get Barack Hussein 0bama in the White House.
There’s a lot more that needs to be known about this — for just one example, is this meeting with Maliki the ONLY meeting that Obambi had with ANY Iraqi official during a multi-day trip there? Was the weasel Hagel with Obambi at all times? This may well be one of those “(im)plausible deniability” cases where the supposed main meeting was not where the real purpose(s) of the trip were being pursued by Obambi. Why does Hagel imagine that he was privy to everything said and done by Obambi during this trip? Did they share a room?
The media bias is what it is. The only way Republicans can win is to work around it. It's not fair that they should have to do so, but matters is reality. Whether or not the MSM should be fair, they aren't, so Republicans will either work around it or lose.
BS! If the advisers are trying to parse words like this then they know he was trying to undermine the President.
If Hagel told me the sky is blue, I’d look out the window to be sure.
This story came out at least 2 weeks ago. How is it that Hagel-rino NE, is just now counterdicting it. Did it take that long to float the bribe to the traitorous SOB? He better live it up now because he will never be reelected in NE.