Obama And The Iraqi Foreign Minister, Part II

On Monday I blogged about a column in the NY Post claiming that on his visit to Iraq Obama urged the Iraqi government to delay negotiations with the US until a new administration took office.

It looks like the skepticism was the right choice after all.

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-RI, but Hagel, 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.
…Buttry said that Hagel agrees with Obama's account of the meeting: Obama began the meeting with Prime Minister Nuri 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 Maliki that he would not interfere with President Bush's negotiations concerning the US 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 US troops having immunity from local prosecution.

As I noted in my original post, this wasn’t the first time Obama and the Iraqi Foreign Minister had differing opinions on a conversation. If it had happened the way the Post column claims you’d think someone else (not Chuck Hagel but either a committee or embassy staffer) would have come forward at some point to confirm it.

Absent some other form of confirmation, it’s looking like Obama didn’t cross any lines on his trip. Thank Heaven for small favors, I guess.

Posted by: DrewM. at 02:55 PM

Comments

(Jump to bottom of comments)

1 I thought it was in a phone call with the Iraqi Foreign Minister that Obama demanded delays, not in the face-to-face meeting with the Prime Minister.

Posted by: Molon Labe at September 19, 2008 02:58 PM (kYpqT)

2 Ummm....

Posted by: cthulhu at September 19, 2008 02:59 PM (FzSTG)

3 Sorry...I have a hard time giving any credence to the word of Chuck Hagel.

Posted by: John Tant at September 19, 2008 03:04 PM (tVWQB)

4 If he did it, it obviously wouldn't have been in a meeting with everyone present. The Obama campaign's original denial was sort of a non-denial, so it makes one wonder if something didn't go on there.
Maybe not. But, in any case, thank heaven for little girls.
"It's a smear! McCain lies! Obama wins! Yaaaaaay!"

Posted by: Medicinal at September 19, 2008 03:10 PM (jQS9X)

5 As a long time democrat I am dismayed. Just the other night I was at a workers rally, and I overhear a conversation between a community organizer and a wiccan Monsignor--they were saying that Obama should have told the foreign minister to delay. It's only right.

I usually vote for the candidate who will redistribute the most wealth, but Obama has really disappointed me with his foreign policy here. It pains to have to vote for McCain. I call on all my proletariat brothers--unite!

The only way people will learn is if we elect McCain/Palin and every sees how truly aftwul the next 12 years are. (4 years McCain-Palin, 8 more Palin-Jindal)

Posted by: erik at September 19, 2008 03:12 PM (hblvb)

6 cthulhu,

That's an interesting article but how does it provide any additional confirmation of what Tehari wrote on Monday?

Posted by: DrewM. at September 19, 2008 03:13 PM (hlYel)

7 Ummmmm Drew? First, as Haven't you seen this article?
With the quote
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
Isn't that sorta saying, "Yeah, we did it"?

Posted by: Veeshir at September 19, 2008 03:14 PM (ThMnZ)

8 Just think, if this had been a Republican doing this to a Democrat president, the MSM would be covering this 24/7 until the election.

Posted by: OregonMuse at September 19, 2008 03:16 PM (FO+YO)

9 I think Hagel wants Obama to win, with his Palin comment last week, now this.

Posted by: Concerned Christian Conservative at September 19, 2008 03:20 PM (mzfP0)

10 Veeshir,

I did see that but here's the thing, that's not a quote. That's just the reporters statement. Based on what? The next bit of the article contains a quote from Obama spokesperson and it says:

In the face of resistance from Bush, the Democrat has long said that
any such agreement must be reviewed by the US Congress as it would tie
a future administration's hands on Iraq."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," Morigi said.The only direct quote denies there was a suggested delay. The two paragraphs are contradictory but the actual quote is a denial from the spokeswoman.

It's a hell of choice, you either believe an Obama staffer or an AFP reporter. I'd prefer neither but that's the choice.

Posted by: DrewM. at September 19, 2008 03:20 PM (hlYel)

11 Present.

Posted by: Some Guy at September 19, 2008 03:22 PM (lPxkl)

12 Well how about this, he admitted saying this:

"In the face of resistance from Bush, the Democrat has long said that any such agreement must be reviewed by the US Congress as it would tie a future administration's hands on Iraq."

Thats bullshit, if I understand correctly as Taheri assumes in his article, the Senate radifies Treaties. Not Agreements like the SAF. So no, Congress has no business reviewing the administrations agreement.

Posted by: Iwillnotsubmit at September 19, 2008 03:23 PM (omcGu)

13 This is the quote, I just cut out the middle part:
But Obama's national security spokeswoman Wendy Morigi said Taheri's article bore "as much resemblance to the truth as a McCain campaign commercial."
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.
So Obama!'s National Security Spokestool said it.

Posted by: Veeshir at September 19, 2008 03:26 PM (ThMnZ)

14 It's a hell of choice, you either believe an Obama staffer or an AFP reporter. I'd prefer neither but that's the choice.
Or an Arab politician or a Republican DINO. It's like Rashomon except they're all probably lying.

Posted by: Maetenloch at September 19, 2008 03:28 PM (hn7Rm)

15 Iwillnotsubmit and others...

Part of the confusion maybe the fact that there are two agreements being negotiated. One is the Status of Forces Agreement which is an executive agreement and the other is the Strategic Framework Agreement, which the administration argues they can conclude on their own but others say is tantamount to a treaty and must be ratified by the Senate.

Personally, in my initial reading on it, I agree the later should be submitted to the Senate. It's a big deal and just calling it an agreement and not a treaty is a cheap way around putting something up for a vote simply because you don't think you'd win.

Posted by: DrewM. at September 19, 2008 03:29 PM (hlYel)

16 First of all, Hagel's got his nose so far up Obama's buttcrack he hasn't seen daylight in 19 months. I have no doubt he would lie to protect the great One.

Secondly, is this the ONLY meeting , via phone or otherwise, that Obama's had with Iraqi officials or is someone (media) spinning it to sound like it is? Is this just another example of Obama's thugs putting pressure on somebody to change their story.

Posted by: Ann at September 19, 2008 03:29 PM (c3H+i)

17 No, no, no Drew. Obama's spokesman has already confirmed the story (even as he called it a lie).
It doesn't matter who was there, there's no question he still interfered with U.S. negotiations. The Bush admin is just weirdly obsessed with being nice to the same Democrats who are promising to put him on trial in three months.

Posted by: TallDave at September 19, 2008 03:30 PM (3SJFO)

18 Veeshir,

No, you can't assume something not in quotes was said by the person. It's the reporters summation but not a direct quote.

When you read all 4 paragraphs together they make no sense.
But Obama's national security spokeswoman Wendy Morigi said Taheri's
article bore "as much resemblance to the truth as a McCain campaign
commercial."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.In the face of resistance from Bush, the Democrat has long
said that any such agreement must be reviewed by the US Congress as it
would tie a future administration's hands on Iraq."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,"
Morigi said.How do you square her denial in the 4th paragraph with her supposed admission in the second? I ask honestly because what the AFP published makes no sense to me.

First the reporter claims that she said (but without quoting her directly) then he directly quotes her contradicting what he just claimed she said.

Posted by: DrewM. at September 19, 2008 03:34 PM (hlYel)

19 Sure, there's no delay on negotiations.....there's just delay on agreements.

Posted by: cthulhu at September 19, 2008 03:34 PM (FzSTG)

20 but others say is tantamount to a treaty and must be ratified by the Senate. Yes, I absolutely agree, it is to beratified by the Senate.
Unless my dictionary is messed up, Ratified is not equivalent to negotiated.
So the President negotiates it and the Senate ratifies it.
Separation of powers and all that.

Posted by: Veeshir at September 19, 2008 03:34 PM (ThMnZ)

21 Cross posting, you say that she denied it, she didn't. It's typical double-talk that's almost Homeresque in its deliver.
No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.
Well, yes.

Posted by: Veeshir at September 19, 2008 03:37 PM (ThMnZ)

22 14
It's a hell of choice, you either believe an Obama staffer or an AFP reporter. I'd prefer neither but that's the choice.
Or an Arab politician or a Republican DINO. It's like Rashomon except they're all probably lying.

Clearly, the only safe option is to take off and nuke the site from orbit. It is the only way to be sure.

Posted by: A Balrog of Morgoth at September 19, 2008 03:38 PM (wgLRl)

23 Cross posting, you say that she denied it, she didn't.

Veeshir

Tehari claimed:

WHILE campaigning in public for a speedy withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, Sen. Barack Obama has tried in private to persuade Iraqi leaders to delay an agreement on a draw-down of the American military presence.

Her response was:

"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,"
Morigi said.

That's not a denial? Really?

I have to head out but please continue parsing, God knows if Obama wins
we'll be doing it everyday. I think I was pretty equivocal in my post
("it’s looking like Obama didn’t cross any lines on his trip" isn't
exactly a ringing endorsement of any ones veracity). It just seemed
fair to put this up after airing the accusation.

Everyone can and clearly will draw their own conclusions.

Posted by: DrewM. at September 19, 2008 03:47 PM (hlYel)

24 Hagel is wetting himself over the possibility of being Secretary of Defense in an Obama administration, and is thus willing to do, say, or be anything in support of the Messiah.

Posted by: North Dallas Thirty at September 19, 2008 03:48 PM (E3Yxq)

25 Not sure what Obama did over there, but let me be the first to say "Fuck Chuck Hagel."

Posted by: Countrysquire at September 19, 2008 03:49 PM (e910j)

26 Post number one had it righ, they are just obfuscating. Fucking liars.
Obama spoke briefly (about 10 minutes) with reporters about his telephone conversation with Zebari. He said he was encouraged by the progress made in reducing the violence in Iraq, but believed troops should be withdrawn, and they should do so carefully.
Obama also told Zebari, he said,that Congress should be involved in any negotiations regarding a Status of Forces agreement with Iraq. He suggested it may be better to wait until the next administration to negotiate such an agreement

From MSNBC:http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/06/16/1146192.aspx

Posted by: Javems at September 19, 2008 03:49 PM (hq71Y)

27 Drew? Didn't you read my post?
No, no, no, no,no,no.
Well yes.
I implicitly said that she had denied it before admitting it was true.

Posted by: Veeshir at September 19, 2008 03:52 PM (ThMnZ)

28 Heres a little more:
Obama also told NBC: “The foreign minister agreed that the next administration should not be bound by an agreement that’s currently made, but I think the only way to assure that is to make sure that there is strong bipartisan support, that Congress is involved, that the American people know the outlines of this agreement.
“And my concern is that if the Bush administration negotiates, as it currently has, and given that we’re entering into the heat of political season, that we’re probably better off not trying to complete a hard-and-fast agreement before the next administration takes office, but I think obviously these conversations have to continue.
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/rubin/30911

I think that is blatant interference, those are his words to NBC
I also believe they are attempting to parse the two agreements saying that he had confused the 2 agreements when they are actual connected at the hip. You cannot have one without the other.

Posted by: Iwillnotsubmit at September 19, 2008 03:52 PM (omcGu)

29 Sorry for the multi posts but here is the kicker about the 2 agreements:
"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. Here is how NBC reported Obama's position on June 16, after his conversation in the US with Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari: "Obama also told Zebari, he said, that Congress should be involved in any negotiations regarding a Status of Forces Agreement with Iraq. He suggested it may be better to wait until the next administration to negotiate such an agreement." In other words, Obama wanted a delay on the Status of Forces Agreement, not on the Strategic Framework Agreement - as his rebuttal now claims. The NBC report continues: "Asked by NBC's Lee Cowan if a timetable for the Status of Forces Agreement was discussed, Obama said, 'Well he, the foreign minister, had presented a letter requesting an extension of the UN resolution until the end of this year. So that' s a six-month extension.'" That Obama was aware that the two accords couldn' t be separated is clear in his words to NBC:

So basically he knew that putting one off would ineveitably put off the other. Thats like me calling my mechanic and asking him to put off taking out the heads from the motor but go ahead and replace the pistons.

Posted by: Iwillnotsubmit at September 19, 2008 04:02 PM (omcGu)

30 Javems and others...

One last thing:

That MSNBC story and the phone call took place in June. The meeting Tehari wrote about took place in July.

They are different events.

As I said my post on Monday, this isn't the first time Obama and the Iraqi FM have gone at it in public.

Posted by: DrewM. at September 19, 2008 04:08 PM (hlYel)

31 I implicitly said that she had denied it before admitting it was true.

Veeshir,

I see your interpretation. I just don't share it. I see the reporter claiming something (admitting it) but not quoting her. The only direct quote from her is a denial. I'm not saying that it's true or not but that's the only on the record quote.

Like I said, an Obama spokeswoman or an AFP reporter is a hell of a tough choice when it comes to who to believe.

Posted by: DrewM. at September 19, 2008 04:14 PM (hlYel)

32 I've got the answer to the AFP v. Obama Spokeswoman conundrum. I vote...present.

Thanks Barack!

Posted by: DrewM. at September 19, 2008 04:18 PM (hlYel)

33 Parse it all you want. If I was a lame-duck Bush, I'd decide I might as well be the neo-Nazi I'm accused of being and both Obama and Hegel would be in solitary at the Federal pen in Marion, Illinois accused of Logan Act violations. Hell, I'd have Reed and Pelosi locked up under the Sedition Act. Maybe I would have just had the whole bunch shot. Fuck 'em.

Posted by: SGT Dan at September 19, 2008 04:33 PM (nranl)

34 I don't know. I read Allah's report too. Could be a misunderstanding based on the differences in language. But it seems strange that the people that are willing to go on the record with their names all say Obama crossed the line ( which seems to be confirmed by Obama's people). And the people that say he didn't are all insisting on anonymity... Also seems strange that journalists are willing to give more wieght to the anonymous sources than the folk willing to stand up and use their names...

Posted by: The Obvious at September 19, 2008 05:24 PM (1g+FW)

35 So... we're supposed to forget all about Jim Johnson?

Posted by: DANEgerus at September 19, 2008 07:23 PM (uLDXC)

36 I don't know. I read Allah's report too. Could be a misunderstanding based on the differences in language. But it seems strange that the people that are willing to go on the record with their names all say Obama crossed the line ( which seems to be confirmed by Obama's people). And the people that say he didn't are all insisting on anonymity... Also seems strange that journalists are willing to give more wieght to the anonymous sources than the folk willing to stand up and use their names...

Posted by: The Obvious

That's my take as well. Also, wasn't the original claim that he urged this in private?

Posted by: Mark at September 19, 2008 07:28 PM (/9jiG)

37 Hmmmm-

so we're supposed to believe Reed and Hagel?

Right.

As far as the Bush Administration goes, please remind me the last time a Bush Administration official ( aside from Cheney) set a Democrat straight. In Public.

Hasn't happened. Ever.

They follow the Rino Creed: If you can't say something nice about a Democrat, then you shouldn't say it at all.

Now let a Pub twist in the wind like Scooter, that's OK. Anytime.

Posted by: Paul at September 19, 2008 08:02 PM (QdjU/)

38 Seems to me another reason for the Bush administration to avoid a public fight over such things is the lack of political capital, which is very much needed for the war on terror and now, such a move would be spun as Bush and McCain working together to rig the election.

Posted by: Mark at September 19, 2008 08:45 PM (/9jiG)

39 I checked out the two stories you had linked re this situation.
1st...not for one minute do I believe that the McCain campaign would just make a statement without checking out the facts. That is uncharacteristic of Senator McCain's campaign so far.
2nd....I reread the article by Amer Taheri in the New York Post and he gives direct quotes from the ambassador concerning troop withdrawal.

SO..are we listening to an ABC reporter whose network has shown a very biased prejudice/preference towards one presidential candidate over another?
This whole thing needs further investigation.

Posted by: Mary RN at September 20, 2008 09:44 AM (vt8OU)

40 It looks like he did cross lines, Drew, as there was more than one meeting:
http://tinyurl.com/4y5epx

Posted by: andycanuck at September 20, 2008 03:29 PM (5YIG4)

41
discount tiffany discount
tiffany Tiffany
Bangles Tiffany Bangles Tiffany
Bracelets Tiffany Bracelets Tiffany
Pendants Tiffany Pendants Tiffany
Earrings Tiffany Earrings Tiffany
Necklaces Tiffany Necklaces Tiffany
Rings Tiffany Rings Tiffany Money
Clips Tiffany Money Clips Tiffany Cuff
Links Tiffany Cuff Links Tiffany Key
Rings Tiffany Key Rings Frank Gehry Frank
Gehry Elsa
Peretti Elsa Peretti Paloma Picasso
Paloma Picasso Return To
Tiffany Return To Tiffany Tiffany 1837
Tiffany 1837 Tiffany Notes
Tiffany Notes Tiffany Keys
Tiffany Keys tiffany sale tiffany
sale tiffany tiffany sale charm
bracelet charm bracelet jewelry
on sale

Posted by: tiffany at April 22, 2010 11:03 PM (MHxPv)

42 Christian louboutin shoes cheap Louboutin says the key christian louboutin wedges<%2

Posted by: louboutin sandals for sale at April 08, 2011 10:04 AM (M38D8)

43 2011 fashionable vigor hat launched, hot brands are you waiting for
baseball hats
Reduce weight a product list, select the most effective, evaluate the best products reducing weight, products for main reference according to on sales, it is our products
slimming capsule

Posted by: abc acai berry at June 21, 2011 09:25 PM (SFnqb)

Processing 0.01, elapsed 0.0195 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.0123 seconds, 52 records returned.
Page size 49 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.