Why is Obama meeting with foreign officials to thwart any official US negotiations?
All parties involved know that Obama is not acting in an official capacity and is not officially acting in the name of the U.S.
It would be impossible for him to thwart or broker any deal, and he wouldn’t even try.
He IS a U.S. Senator; and it’s a completely accepted practice for them to visit foreign countries and to ask questions for themselves.
Mufasa
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
All parties involved know that Obama is not acting in an official capacity and is not officially acting in the name of the U.S.
It would be impossible for him to thwart or broker any deal, and he wouldn’t even try.
He IS a U.S. Senator; and it’s a completely accepted practice for them to visit foreign countries and to ask questions for themselves.
Mufasa[/quote]
I like you
…not in that way
but in a sort of unbiased not using the blinders sort of way.
[quote]Gael wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
Gael wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
Gael, are you with Obama 24/7 to know everything he did? It sure sounds like it: you are very authoritative in stating what he did not ever do. I am wondering how you have such knowledge though.
If you are trying to smear someone, you must back up your claims. The burden of proof rests on you. I have illustrated how the article manipulates and spins the subject – and if you wish to refute a particular point, have at it.
I was the only one here who bothered to fact check anything, while the rest obediently and cheerfully (excitedly) praised the article with choruses of “as if we didn’t already know.”
I have no real reason to defend Obama, and will not be voting for him. But this article was one of the shittiest pieces of “journalism” I’ve seen in a long time. If you are remotely informed about any of this, you will agree.
Again, the burden of proof rests on you.
Hmmm. The article had a named person in an authoritative position saying the things in question. I’d say that that is evidence. I don’t know why you imply it isn’t and are so sure (apparently) that it is untrue.
In contrast, your asserting that Obama never did a thing, without your having been there 24/7 to actually be able to say so with knowledge, is not evidence.
Saying that Obama denies it would be bringing up a fact of what another person says, but it could be relevant that Obama also has denied ever doing favors for the criminally corrupt serial-briber Rezko, and actually stated that he accepted money from this corrupt slumlord only because he never dreamed that Rezko would ask for anything in return, when in fact he steered millions of dollars worth of benefits from the state to Rezko during the time frame when Rezko was helping Obama so much.
So I would not take an Obama denial of something potentially disastrous to his campaign as being much or even really any evidence of anything, as my personal judgment. Of course you’re entitled to assume differently, that the credibility of Obama’s denial exceeds the Iraqi Foreign Minister’s credibility, whether you have a specific reason to consider him non-credible (as for example the above reason for Obama), for no reason at all, or for any reason you like.
You can do better than this.[/quote]
Don’t think so, I think I said it pretty plainly and clearly and nothing you wrote below contradicts a single point.
Which is more than enough treasonous behavior from him to in my personal opinion absolutely be reason to deny him the Presidency. He has NO business trying to persuade foreign governments to do differently in any way in foreign policy agreements.
In fact, I understand it to be a federal crime to do so (Logan Act.) If it’s not criminal, it ought to be IMO.
It’s certainly vastly unethical in my opinion, and certainly when out of one side of the mouth and in public saying one is going to bring the troops home as fast as can be done, and out of the other side, in private discussions with a foreign government – and yes, Obama did NOT make public what Zebari says happened – go the opposite route and try to defeat ongoing efforts to do just that.
You can approve of it if you like, though, of course. I’ve replied more than sufficiently already.
I’ve already put all this more than clearly enough. There is zero reason to continue stating the same, or trying to put it different ways, as the ways already done were clear enough, so that won’t happen.
This is reminding me of the fellow who, when I pointed out that one could not have it at the same time both that bone mass in many individuals on a given diet type stays the same over the course of the year AND that these individuals were simultaneously chronically losing calcium (as his theory claimed was inevitable from that diet type) and he insisted yes he could too have both at the same time, he had seen it clinically, etc. Makes me wonder why bother? There comes a point where speaking clearly but repetitiously (on account of previous occasions being uttelry ignored) is useless. Saves a lot of time once becoming aware of that (probably took me till I was 30 before I started leaving off at about the right point.)
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
It’s certainly vastly unethical in my opinion, and certainly when out of one side of the mouth and in public saying one is going to bring the troops home as fast as can be done, and out of the other side, in private discussions with a foreign government – and yes, Obama did NOT make public what Zebari says happened – go the opposite route and try to defeat ongoing efforts to do just that.[/quote]
There are no such “ongoing efforts” for any kind of major withdrawal from the current administration. The only plans include continued indefinite military presence. You have twice ignored this point.
Now this is just fucking stupid. You had no points, except:
-
Why would you trust Obama’s denial? He’s a liar. —> I didn’t. I have not read response/denial from the Obama camp about this.
-
Why would you doubt Zebari’s word? —> I didn’t. I said the nypost distorted and took stripped his remarks from their context. I trust Zebari.
Bow out if you wish, but remember – you’re the one who wants to smear Obama and keep him out of the Whitehouse. This story is trash, so unless people like you work hard to keep it alive, it will die.
I have decisively won this debate. Your side is point blank wrong here, and you seem to be the only one stepping up to defend the article.
[quote]Gael wrote:
There are no such “ongoing efforts” from the current administration. The only plans include continued indefinite military presence. You have twice ignored this point.[/quote]
There is no “point”. That is irrelevant to the issue - even if we charitably take your point that there are no “ongoing efforts”, Obama has no authority to fill the policy gap.
[quote]Gael wrote:
I have decisively won this debate. Your side is point blank wrong here, and you seem to be the only one stepping up to defend the article.[/quote]
It’s always a hoot when someone declares victory. Childish.
More to the issue:
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.
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hi9TDNHvuBZpFsO8ZbiFYsnbIl3A
To note - that is no different than what Taheri claimed Obama did. In short, Obama essentially confirmed Taheri’s statements.
Such a response from Obama doesn’t necessarily provide better answers - it simply raises more questions, and not good ones. Obama is a sitting Senator - he does not have the authorization to offer alternatives to the Bush administration’s foreign policy and diplomatic efforts.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
<<< Obama is a sitting Senator - he does not have the authorization to offer alternatives to the Bush administration’s foreign policy and diplomatic efforts.[/quote]
It’s always a blast when stuff like this has to be pointed out.
I’m surprised he didn’t try to declare Galveston a federal disaster area and authorize troop movements in Pakistan. Next week they’ll be kicking him off of Air Force One.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Such a response from Obama doesn’t necessarily provide better answers - it simply raises more questions, and not good ones. Obama is a sitting Senator - he does not have the authorization to offer alternatives to the Bush administration’s foreign policy and diplomatic efforts.[/quote]
This is the key point for me. If it’s true that obama was suggesting alternatives to Bush’s diplomatic efforts, that’s scumball 101. However, I know that it is accepted practice and a relatively common event for senators to travel abroad and meet and ask questions of leaders about issues, in order to “see for themselves”.
I’m still unclear on what exactly he was doing–whether he was mostly asking questions or whether he was suggesting some alternative policy or otherwise conveying a desire to conduct “personal diplomacy” by himself. He has no authority to do the latter, and that’s a crappy thing to usurp to yourself.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Gael wrote:
There are no such “ongoing efforts” from the current administration. The only plans include continued indefinite military presence. You have twice ignored this point.
There is no “point”. That is irrelevant to the issue - even if we charitably take your point that there are no “ongoing efforts”, Obama has no authority to fill the policy gap.
[/quote]
You are correct. But the article did not speak to this, and I wasn’t really addressing it. And you cannot make the case that what I have written is “irrelevant to the issue” when the article did not even discuss the issue that you are now trying to claim is central.
Is his behavior unethical? Technically illegal? Perhaps. If you have a good understanding of the Logan Act and how it has historically been applied to situations like this, feel free to argue this point.
But is it inconsistent? Dishonest? Two faced? The article tried to argue this case, and this is what I was addressing.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
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.
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hi9TDNHvuBZpFsO8ZbiFYsnbIl3A
To note - that is no different than what Taheri claimed Obama did. In short, Obama essentially confirmed Taheri’s statements.[/quote]
TAHERI: “OBAMA TRIED TO STALL GIS’ IRAQ WITHDRAWAL”
I’m curious as to why you think that delaying the SFA is the same as stalling troops withdrawal.
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
All parties involved know that Obama is not acting in an official capacity and is not officially acting in the name of the U.S.
It would be impossible for him to thwart or broker any deal, and he wouldn’t even try.
He IS a U.S. Senator; and it’s a completely accepted practice for them to visit foreign countries and to ask questions for themselves.
Mufasa[/quote]
That’s the problem. He’s not acting in an official capacity, but still attempting to thwart negotiations by taking it upon himself to negotiate a delay until after the elections. If he attempted to create a delay, going against OFFICIAL US investigators, it needs to be investigated.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Mufasa wrote:
All parties involved know that Obama is not acting in an official capacity and is not officially acting in the name of the U.S.
It would be impossible for him to thwart or broker any deal, and he wouldn’t even try.
He IS a U.S. Senator; and it’s a completely accepted practice for them to visit foreign countries and to ask questions for themselves.
Mufasa
That’s the problem. He’s not acting in an official capacity, but still attempting to thwart negotiations by taking it upon himself to negotiate a delay until after the elections. If he attempted to create a delay, going against OFFICIAL US investigators, it needs to be investigated. [/quote]
History repeating itself: 1968 Nixon, South Vietnam, back channels…