Clarifying Obama’s secret Iraq negotiations
Two days ago, word broke that Barack Obama, despite myriad campaign promises to bring the troops home from Iraq as soon as possible, tried to derail withdrawal talks in order to advance his own political agenda. Yesterday, Barack Obama issued a weirdly phrased denial that called Amir Taheri (the journalist who broke the story) a liar, while at the same time issue what was, apparently, an explicit concession that he tried to delay withdrawal talks:
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, she said.
It turns out that there is lawyer’s language involved in that concession. Obama claims now that all he was trying to was slow progress on the Strategic Framework Agreement, which is intended to establish the legal basis by which Americans will stay in Iraq over the long haul. Implicit in his statement, therefore, is that he had nothing to do with the Status of Forces Agreement, which governs the troops’ current engagement in Iraq. That makes a certain amount of sense — except it’s not true.
Taheri, who takes exception to being called a liar, today explains two things in great detail: (1) the fact that the two Agreements are completely interrelated and that all parties have treated them as such; and (2) that Obama’s own words demonstrate that he is among those who recognizes that they are inextricably intertwined.
Strip away the lawyer’s fine distinctions and the basic point remains the same: Obama was willing to put his own political ambitions ahead of what he himself states are the needs of this country and our troops. In a very good National Review article, Peter Hegseth puts aside the name calling of “traitor” and “Logan Act violator,” and focuses tightly on this revelation about the connection between Obama’s understanding of American foreign policy and his character:
It’s not just that Sen. Obama doesn’t believe in the mission in Iraq, it’s that he still doesn’t get it (to plagiarize from the senator himself). Fundamentally, he doesn’t understand the mission in Iraq, what it takes to win a war, or the ramifications of the outcome of this war for the U.S.’s enduring national security. He just doesn’t get it.
In Obama’s world, foreign-policy contorts to meet domestic politics, and commanding generals accommodate arbitrary political timelines. From his perspective, facts on a foreign battlefield exist to the extent they comport with his judgment, rather than his judgment comporting to facts on a foreign battlefield.
Despite recognizing security gains in Iraq, Sen. Obama continues to declare the surge a strategic failure because it hasn’t created necessary political progress — an assertion that has been patently false for some time now. Nonetheless, Senator Obama won’t adjust his stance before the election because, as Taheri so aptly points out, “to be credible, his foreign-policy philosophy requires Iraq to be seen as a failure, a disaster, a quagmire.”
The MSM is never going to get around to reporting this story, so it’s up to us — “We, the People” — to broadcast word that the man who would be King . . . er, President . . . the man whose followers advance him as the personal embodiment of hope and change, is quite possibly the most cynical, self-involved, narcissistic, power-hungry, ego blinded person ever to make a run for the White House.
