Obama tried to delay troop with drawl to help his campaign

**mrw** · 09-15-2008, 10:14 AM

Obama, while publicly calling for quick removal of troops from Iraq, quietly tried to persuade Iraqi leaders not to agree to a troop draw down until after the election.

If this was done by a Republican candidate, the press would be screaming bloody fucking murder. But yet all I hear is silence from the Democrat lap dogs in the press.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/09152008...wal_129150.htm

Let's all say it together...

what a fucking scumbag!

**Crass3000** · 09-15-2008, 10:19 AM

Originally Posted by mrw

Obama, while publicly calling for quick removal of troops from Iraq, quietly tried to persuade Iraqi leaders not to agree to a troop draw down until after the election.

If this was done by a Republican candidate, the press would be screaming bloody fucking murder. But yet all I hear is silence from the Democrat lap dogs in the press.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/09152008...wal_129150.htm

Let's all say it together...

what a fucking scumbag!

Yep pretty much all the Dems lied to get into office this time cause they said the same thing. I can't imagine how that didn't make the people that voted for them on that principle pissed off. They played you!!!!

**Dexter Rutecki** · 09-15-2008, 10:34 AM

Regurgitated NYPost neocon bullshit.

Complete bullshit from the Murdoch media empire, written by a Republican operative who regularly lies for the McCain campaign.

Obama didn't do anything 'quietly' or secretly--he held a press conference about this in Baghdad detailing all the facts and substance of the conversation immediately after the meetings. The scumbags are the Republicans trying to put lies like this over on you.

Too much of this propaganda popping up around here recently. You really shouldn't accept what the McCain/Bush/Rove scumbag team tells you just because you find it ideologically reassuring.

**doughboyshredder** · 09-15-2008, 10:36 AM

Wow, you guys are intentionally dense.

"He asked why we were not prepared to delay an agreement until after the US elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington," Zebari said in an interview.
Obama insisted that Congress should be involved in negotiations on the status of US troops - and that it was in the interests of both sides not to have an agreement negotiated by the Bush administration in its "state of weakness and political confusion."

This is completely logical if you do not look at the Bush administration and their actions through rose colored lenses.

**The AD** · 09-15-2008, 10:48 AM

"troop with drawl."

Slim Pickens in Dr. Strangelove?

**mrw** · 09-15-2008, 11:01 AM

spell chk

great movie. It was just on TCM and I watched it for like the 5th time.

**Cliff Huckable** · 09-15-2008, 11:03 AM

Remember when Reagan's people successfully negotiated to delay the release of the hostages until after he won the election against Carter?

**mrw** · 09-15-2008, 11:15 AM

yes i do and i also remember the press shit storm that accompanied that. It is still brought up for God sakes. But for Obama, not a word. Not even a little tiny word from the talking heads. Yet the press has invaded Alaska in an attempt to find something to use against Palin.
Each tiny little crumb they find is being brandished about as though it's a major to do. They need to sling enough mud to make their boy look good.

shit, there I go again, I used the word "boy" I guess I really am a racist,bigotted xenophobe

Smokey McPole · 09-15-2008, 11:16 AM

Originally Posted by Dexter Rutecki

You really shouldn't accept what the McCain/Bush/Rove scumbag team tells you just because you find it ideologically reassuring.

You really shouldn't accept what the Obama/Pelosi/Reed scumbag team tells you just because you find it ideologically reassuring.

**toiletduck** · 09-15-2008, 11:28 AM

Originally Posted by Jerzilla!!!

You really shouldn't accept what the Obama/Pelosi/Reed scumbag team tells you just because you find it ideologically reassuring.

Aren't you just agreeing that ignoring negative spin is wise? So, basically ignore everything the Republican party says?

**David Witherspoon** · 09-15-2008, 01:36 PM

Originally Posted by mrw

spell chk

Firefox's spel chk might catch spell chk but it won't see "troop with drawl" - that's a correctly-spelled and grammatically-sound reference to soldiers from the southern United States.

**Blurred** · 09-15-2008, 01:41 PM

Originally Posted by toiletduck

Aren't you just agreeing that ignoring negative spin is wise? So, basically ignore everything the Republican party says?

How many threads are in this forum talking smack about Palin?
It goes both ways. (like Dex) It's ALL douchebaggery from either side.

**MTT** · 09-15-2008, 02:17 PM

This is nothing,

I can't wait to see the dirt that gets put out in late October, thats when the Repuplican machine drops the big BOMBS

Anyone think the RNC does (NOT) have some stuff up thier sleeve for just before the Election

**Jer** · 09-15-2008, 03:53 PM

Originally Posted by toiletduck

Aren't you just agreeing that ignoring negative spin is wise? So, basically ignore everything the Republican party says?

Umm..no, genius. I cut & pasted Dex's post and substituted a few words to show what a brianwashed partisan DB Dex is. Like Brett said - it goes both ways. Hope that cleared everything up for you.

**str8line** · 09-15-2008, 04:52 PM

Originally Posted by Jer

Like Brett said - we go both ways. Hope that cleared everything up for you.

Yes, yes it does.

**Core Shot** · 09-15-2008, 05:05 PM

Straightilne for the WIN!

Oh, and is this the point where I say Clinton lied and no one died? (unlike Obama)

**Adolf Allerbush** · 09-15-2008, 05:33 PM

Originally Posted by MTT

This is nothing,

I can't wait to see the dirt that gets put out in late October, thats when the Repuplican machine drops the big BOMBS

Anyone think the RNC does (NOT) have some stuff up thier sleeve for just before the Election

I think both sides have some shit and they're both waiting on the timing to be right to use it. Don’t' want to use it to early (see the Palin effect) and have it fizzle out when people come to their senses (i.e. did not happen last time, Kerry with regards to swift boat). So, I think the Dems could come out with some shit if they wanted to now to throw off the advantage that the republicans are experiencing at this time...but I think they figure they'll just wait till people calm down and save it for the onslaught of negative campaigning from the republicans down the stretch.

**timvwcom** · 09-16-2008, 02:49 PM

More on the douchenozzle who worked with the NYPost on this one;

Noted Bamboozler Behind Latest Obama Smear

Since yesterday, the right-wing blogosphere has been all aflutter over a report in the New York Post, written by the Iraqi journalist Amir Taheri, that Barack Obama has privately tried to delay an agreement between the Iraqi government and the Bush administration on a draw-down of American forces from Iraq.

Here's the key passage:

According to Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, Obama made his demand for delay a key theme of his discussions with Iraqi leaders in Baghdad in July.

"He asked why we were not prepared to delay an agreement until after the US elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington," Zebari said in an interview.

Obama insisted that Congress should be involved in negotiations on the status of US troops - and that it was in the interests of both sides not to have an agreement negotiated by the Bush administration in its "state of weakness and political confusion."

Yesterday evening, the McCain camp sought to get some mileage out of Taheri's report, releasing a statement from Randy Scheunemann, McCain's top foreign policy aide, asserting that: "If news reports are accurate, this is an egregious act of political interference by a presidential candidate seeking political advantage overseas."

But there are a couple reasons why the bloviation looks to be uncalled for. The Obama camp yesterday put out a statement of its own asserting that the story "bears as much resemblance to the truth as a McCain campaign commercial," and charging that Taheri has confused a long-term Status of Forces agreement with negotations over a shorter-term drawdown.

It's worth looking at that distinction more closely to get a sense of what the Obama camp means here and where Taheri may have erred. In terms of a Status of Forces agreement, Obama has consistently made clear that he believes any such agreement should be delayed until after the election -- so that a President Obama or McCain would not be bound by an agreement negotiated by a weakened Bush administration. The McCain camp did not object when, in June, Obama told reporters at a press conference that he had made exactly this argument to Zebari in a phone call.

The Obama campaign's statement released yesterday in response to the report was consistent with this position: "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," though, perhaps unwilling to alienate antiwar voters, it artfully omitted the fact that Obama has argued that this should be delayed until the next administration is in charge.

As for a shorter-term drawdown -- which is what Taheri seems to mean by "a draw-down of the American military presence" -- Obama has never suggested that this should be delayed. And again, yesterday's statement backs that up: "Unlike John McCain, he supports a clear timetable to redeploy our troops that has the support of the Iraqi government. Barack Obama has never urged a delay in negotiations, nor has he urged a delay in immediately beginning a responsible drawdown of our combat brigades."

Still, if Taheri's report were accurate, and Obama had indeed talked to Zebari about delaying any shorter-term deal, it would at least represent a change of position for the candidate.

But Taheri doesn't exactly have a reputation for care and precision in his work. In May 2006, he published an explosive story in the Post (since removed from the paper's site), as well as Canada's National Post, about an Iranian law that forced Jews to wear a yellow stripe, stoking fears of a second Nazi Germany. Only problem: it turned out to be a complete fabrication.

That turned out to be typical of Taheri's work. A 1989 review of Taheri's book, Nest of Spies: America's Journey to Disaster in Iran, written for The New Republic by noted Iranian scholar Shaul Bakhash and unearthed by TPMmuckraker in 2006, noted that Taheri "repeatedly refers us to books where the information cited does not exist," and is "capable of generalizations of breathtaking sweep and inaccuracy." According to Bakhash, "[Taheri's] interpretations of the documents are often egregiously inaccurate," and he "has trouble transcribing even the simplest information."

[COLOR="Yellow"]One Iraq scholar told TPMmuckraker after the false yellow-star report, referring to Taheri: "This is a person who doesn't have any credibility."

Doesn't exactly sound like a reliable source.

**David Witherspoon** · 09-16-2008, 03:15 PM

I don't understand why a racist bigoted xenophobe would leap at any excuse, however weak, to declare an African-American candidate for the Presidency to be a "scumbag."

Somebody explain this to me.

**timvwcom** · 09-24-2008, 12:18 PM

As always with the Republicans and Bush/Cheney, the truth is 180 degrees opposite their claims;

Originally Posted by The Wonk Room

Maliki: Bush Tried To Delay U.S. Withdrawal To Help McCain

In an al-Iraqiya interview on September 17, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki discussed the state of negotiations between the U.S. and Iraqi governments regarding the eventual withdrawal of U.S troops from Iraq. Maliki said that “perhaps one of the two most important points is deciding the final date.” Transcript via Open Source Center:

MALIKI: Actually, the final date was really the end of 2010 and the period between the end of 2010 and the end of 2011 was for withdrawing the remaining troops from all of Iraq, but they [the Bush administration] asked for a change [in date] due to political circumstances related to the domestic situation [in the US] so it will not be said to the end of 2010 followed by one year for withdrawal but the end of 2011 as a final date. Agreement has been reached on this issue. They are willing to respond positively because they, too, are facing a critical situation.

President Bush has repeatedly insisted that the U.S. withdrawal would be dictated by military commanders and the situation on the ground, and not by political considerations. Now, according to Prime Minister Maliki, the Bush administration has attempted to time a withdrawal in a way that would benefit John McCain and the Republican Party. I would say that I’m shocked, but of course, this is the way that the Bush administration has always treated national security, as just another piece in a political game.

...