BluntPolitics.com

In private conversations on troop presence, candidate pitched delay

Barbara Slavin
Friday, October 10, 2008 Washington Times

EXCLUSIVE:

At the same time the Bush administration was negotiating a still elusive agreement to keep the U.S. military in Iraq, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama tried to convince Iraqi leaders in private conversations that the president shouldn’t be allowed to enact the deal without congressional approval.

Mr. Obama’s conversations with the Iraqi leaders, confirmed to The Washington Times by his campaign aides, began just two weeks after he clinched the Democratic presidential nomination in June and stirred controversy over the appropriateness of a White House candidate’s contacts with foreign governments while the sitting president is conducting a war.

Some of the specifics of the conversations remain the subject of dispute. Iraqi leaders purported to The Times that Mr. Obama urged Baghdad to delay an agreement with Mr. Bush until next year when a new president will be in office - a charge the Democratic campaign denies.

Mr. Obama spoke June 16 to Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari when he was in Washington, according to both the Iraqi Embassy in Washington and the Obama campaign. Both said the conversation was at Mr. Zebari’s request and took place on the phone because Mr. Obama was traveling.

However, the two sides differ over what Mr. Obama said.

“In the conversation, the senator urged Iraq to delay the [memorandum of understanding] between Iraq and the United States until the new administration was in place,” said Samir Sumaidaie, Iraq’s ambassador to the United States.

He said Mr. Zebari replied that any such agreement would not bind a new administration. “The new administration will have a free hand to opt out,” he said the foreign minister told Mr. Obama.

Mr. Sumaidaie did not participate in the call, he said, but stood next to Mr. Zebari during the conversation and was briefed by him immediately afterward.

The call was not recorded by either side, and Mr. Zebari did not respond to repeated telephone and e-mail messages requesting direct comment.

Mr. Obama has called for a phased U.S. withdrawal of all but a residual force from Iraq over 16 months, a position the Iraqi government appears to have embraced.

U.S. and Iraqi officials have been struggling for months to finalize a deal that will allow U.S. troops to remain after Dec. 31, when a U.N. mandate sanctioning the military presence expires. Iraqi officials have said that the main impediment is agreement over a timeline for U.S. redeployment and immunity from Iraqi prosecution for U.S. troops and civilians.

Obama campaign spokeswoman Wendy Morigi said Mr. Obama does not object to a short-term status of forces agreement, or SOFA.

Mr. Obama told Mr. Zebari in June that a SOFA “should be completed before January and it must include immunity for U.S. troops,” Miss Morigi wrote in an e-mail.

However, the Democratic nominee said a broader strategic framework agreement governing a longer-term U.S. presence in Iraq “should be vetted by Congress,” she wrote.

She said Mr. Obama said the same thing when he met in July with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and Mr. Zebari in Baghdad.

A recent article in the New York Post quoted Mr. Zebari as saying that Mr. Obama asked Iraqi leaders in July to delay any agreement on a reduction of U.S. troops in Iraq until the next U.S. president takes office.

Miss Morigi denied this. She said the request for Senate vetting was bipartisan and noted that the first Obama-Zebari conversation took place 12 days after four other members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee - including Republican Sens. Richard G. Lugar of Indiana and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska - wrote to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates urging consultation over any agreements committing U.S. troops and civilian contractors to Iraq “for an extended period of time.”

When Mr. Obama spoke to Mr. Zebari, he was speaking in his capacity as a senator and a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Miss Morigi said. “It’s obvious that others are trying to mischaracterize Obama’s position, [but] on numerous occasions he has made it perfectly clear that the United States only has one president at a time and that the administration speaks with one voice.”

Sen. Jack Reed, a Rhode Island Democrat who accompanied Mr. Obama in Iraq along with Mr. Hagel, said they made “no suggestion of any type of delay” in any agreements.

A congressional aide who was also present and spoke on the condition of anonymity said the senators asked for a congressional role similar to that required by the Iraqi Constitution for Iraq’s parliament.

Still, the fact that the Illinois Democrat on June 3 clinched enough delegates to be assured the Democratic presidential nomination gives his comments special force - something that also applies to the Republican nominee, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, a key proponent of the surge of extra U.S. forces to Iraq last year.

As a U.S. senator, Mr. Obama “has a foot in both camps,” said Ross K. Baker, a professor of political science at Rutgers University. “It’s within the jurisdiction of his committee and something he’s entitled to speak about. It doesn’t raise a red flag for me.”

White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe declined to comment on the matter.

Leslie Phillips, a press officer at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, also declined to comment even though an embassy note-taker was present during the senators’ meeting in Iraq. “The embassy’s role is purely to facilitate the meetings,” she said.

Presidential nominees traditionally have not intervened personally in foreign-policy disputes, although campaign surrogates have done so.

Historian Robert Dallek has documented meetings with South Vietnamese diplomats in 1968 by Republican vice-presidential candidate Spiro Agnew and Anna Chennault, widow of Gen. Claire Chennault, the commander of “Flying Tiger” forces in China during World War II.

Mr. Dallek, author of “Flawed Giant: Lyndon Johnson and His Times 1961-1973,” obtained tapes of the conversations from bugs the Johnson administration had placed in the South Vietnamese Embassy in Washington.

Negotiations to end the Vietnam War were taking place in Paris at the time between the Johnson administration and the North and South Vietnamese.

Mr. Agnew and Mrs. Chennault “signaled the South Vietnamese that they would get a better deal with Richard Nixon as president instead of the Democrat” Hubert Humphrey, Mr. Dallek said.

“Johnson was furious and said that Nixon was guilty of treason,” Mr. Dallek said, but neither he nor Mr. Humphrey disclosed the matter before the election, which Mr. Nixon won.

September 20, 2008
hp-1150

FACT SHEET:
Proposed Treasury Authority to Purchase Troubled Assets

Washington – The Treasury Department has submitted legislation to the Congress requesting authority to purchase troubled assets from financial institutions in order to promote market stability, and help protect American families and the US economy. This program is intended to fundamentally and comprehensively address the root cause of our financial system’s stresses by removing distressed assets from the financial system. When the financial system works as it should, money and capital flow to and from households and businesses to pay for home loans, school loans and investments that create jobs.  As illiquid mortgage assets block the system, the clogging of our financial markets has the potential to significantly damage our financial system and our economy, undermining job creation and income growth.  The following description reflects Treasury’s proposal as of Saturday afternoon.

Scale and Timing of Asset Purchases. Treasury will have authority to issue up to $700 billion of Treasury securities to finance the purchase of troubled assets. The purchases are intended to be residential and commercial mortgage-related assets, which may include mortgage-backed securities and whole loans. The Secretary will have the discretion, in consultation with the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, to purchase other assets, as deemed necessary to effectively stabilize financial markets.  Removing troubled assets will begin to restore the strength of our financial system so it can again finance economic growth. The timing and scale of any purchases will be at the discretion of Treasury and its agents, subject to this total cap. The price of assets purchases will be established through market mechanisms where possible, such as reverse auctions. The dollar cap will be measured by the purchase price of the assets. The authority to purchase expires two years from date of enactment.

Asset and Institutional Eligibility for the Program. To qualify for the program, assets must have been originated or issued on or before September 17, 2008. Participating financial institutions must have significant operations in the U.S., unless the Secretary makes a determination, in consultation with the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, that broader eligibility is necessary to effectively stabilize financial markets.

Management and Disposition of the Assets. The assets will be managed by private asset managers at the direction of Treasury to meet program objectives. Treasury will have full discretion over the management of the assets as well as the exercise of any rights received in connection with the purchase of the assets. Treasury may sell the assets at its discretion or may hold assets to maturity. Cash received from liquidating the assets, including any additional returns, will be returned to Treasury’s general fund for the benefit of American taxpayers.

Funding. Funding for the program will be provided directly by Treasury from its general fund.  Borrowing in support of this program will be subject to the debt limit, which will be increased by $700 billion accordingly.  As with other Treasury borrowing, information on any borrowing related to this program will be publicly reported at the end of the following day in the Daily Treasury Statement. (http://www.fms.treas.gov/dts/)

Reporting. Within three months of the first asset purchases under the program, and semi-annually thereafter, Treasury will provide the appropriate Congressional committees with regular updates on the program. 

"They" (pick a party) talk about 43,000,000 uninsured. (I don’t care the exact number so don’t argue with me…jeez that felt good saying that). We know that about 15,000,000 are illegal immigrants. BTW in Madison it is very difficult to see a doctor at night in the emergency room because it is filled up with indigent people. I have tried.
43,000,000- 15,000,000= 28,000,000 uninsured

Not good.

Ok there are about 220,000,000 Americans covered by some type of insurance. (I don’t care to break this down [government versus private] and again don’t argue with me because I will reach through this darn email and spank you…and that too felt good to say)

What is the ratio of actual uninsured then? 12.7% are not insured. Translated to glass half full….87.3 (or nearly 90%) are insured. WOW

Ok here is my question. Why do the democrats want to take an entire for-profit system (motive to provide excellence and efficiency) that works reasonably well for 90% of Americans and turn it over to the government as a non profit (no motive for excellence and no motive for efficiency thus the result is rationing (aka "guidelines to pay claims"). This is part of the democratic platform.

"and the government
33 should ensure that health insurance is affordable and provides meaningful coverage. As
34 affordable coverage is made available, individuals
35 should purchase health insurance and take steps to lead
36 healthy lives." DNC Platform Agenda (DNC Platform)

Why the government? Why not private sector? Is the private sector failing? Not when 90% of people are covered. When does the government need to take care of us from cradle to grave?

The republicans are not much better in their plans. But they don’t consider the government as a resource.

Our focus should be on covering the 12.7% people who are uninsured not destroying a system that works very well. And yes there are always exceptions! But lets focus on fixing the 12.7%.

My idea.

Sponsorship of Family or Single person without health care coverage. Why can’t a family register with a carrier and groups of employees purchase health insurance for a person in need? Or if they are between jobs someone can sponsor a short term medical plan.
The government was never intentioned to go this deeply into our lives and we should not let one party over the other turn our health care system over to the government. If anyone has any doubt about this look at Katrina and now look at Houston.

Focus on the issue. Fix the 13%.

By Ric Joyner

I find this disturbing from several angles. First, if the HQs are limited in number by region compared to Obama’s. For example, in WI there are HQs in many areas including Madison. None for McCain! The fact there are accessible offices show a certain level of enthusiasm?  Second, my confidence level in the McCain Campaign actually winning is a bit shaken. If McCain doesn’t have the infrastructure to carry this fight forward to the Whitehouse with “on the ground” troops and accessible offices, then how can he expect to win the Presidency?

If you want to see the offices of McCain go to www.johnmccain.com and compare that with the offices at www.barackobama.com. It will rock your world for bad or good.

Third, I called each McCain office and the Regional Office in the Midwest mailbox was full! The IOWA office was voicemail. The NATIONAL Office mailbox was also FULL at 10:45am CST. WOW

My confidence in a well run campaign just went down the tube.

Appalled

by Trapper John

Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:34:11 PM PDT

Carly Fiorina is appalled:

“I am appalled by the Obama campaign’s attempts to belittle Governor Sarah Palin’s experience,” said RNC Victory 2008 Chair and senior McCain adviser Carly Fiorina today in a statement. “The facts are that Sarah Palin has made more executive decisions as a Mayor and Governor than Barack Obama has made in his life. Because of Hillary Clinton’s historic run for the Presidency and the treatment she received, American women are more highly tuned than ever to recognize and decry sexism in all its forms. They will not tolerate sexist treatment of Governor Palin.”

Democrats are even more appalled by the racist McCain campaign’s ongoing and clearly racist belittling of Senator Obama’s experience and qualifications. 

Ham-handed identity politics.  As American as campaigns to pass anti-flag burning amendments. And just as lame.

By Ric Joyner

I can’t shake the feeling or sense that Obama is a creation. Let’s use the metaphor of robot manufacturing. A robot is created to perform a certain job. Obama was manufactured from the radical left (moveon.org, DailyKos.com and their ilk) to perform a job…get elected, and change the country toward socialism. It is unnerving to see a “creation” running for President of the United States! And the media is fawning over Obama which has been documented.

But, why do the democrats feel the need to field a creation versus a genuine, but tough candidate like Hillary?  Is it because she isn’t radical enough? Did she tell the truth about Obama during the campaign? Gotta wonder….

McCain, as a comparison, is genuine, authentic and deep (deep meaning he has a history of keeping his word). On the flip side Obama has generic words such as; Cross the isle, Change, Yes we can, free healthcare, free college, free gas, and a host of other empty words that lack specifics. Not only are there lack of details, but there is no record he practiced what he preached! The democrats are very worried about the dropping poll numbers of Obama. In fact, some polls show McCain ahead.

The question is do you vote for vaporware created by the liberal left? Or do you vote for the genuine, authentic, and “can do” candidate?

I won’t vote for vaporware!

By Ric Joyner

Obama showed his core beliefs at the Saddleback Church debate which is “redistribute wealth” by taxing the rich and many other socialistic leanings. The problem with taxing the rich thinking, is that being rich is a moving target. For example, I have relatives that are “rich” in farmland that will be sold for their retirement, but have lower  income now. Are they rich? Yes. Wealth, in the land puts them in the wealthy or rich category. But they don’t “feel” rich (their words) because the disposable income is not in their pocket NOW. But it will be in the future. Paying the bill when the land is sold from the tax increases, which  Obama enacts, will be payback for voting for him.

Historically the democrats “tax the rich” and the rich stop spending money. Who gets hurt when people stop spending money? Take a look at housing….slow now because folks aren’t spending… and the result is people are out of work. But the real question is; “who is better with my money…a bureaucrat in DC…or my family?” Those that want to tax the rich, don’t mind if the government taxes someone else, as long as it isn’t them.

McCain was clear on taxes. Let’s not tax anyone.

It was clear that Obama doesn’t do well in a personal debate, which John McCain excels. John McCain doesn’t do well as Obama in a prepared speech.

I was on the DailyKos Blogs, which is a left wing daily blog, earlier in the day on Saturday prior to Saddleback. I found the comments interesting as they focused on how Obama will show the world what a cool candidate he is, and turn John McCain into Elmer Fudd. During the debate, I watched the comments on Kos, and was surprised at the comments being shared that said Barack was doing poorly. Later in the day Kos posts began to coalesce that their “man” went into the lions den of Christians, and Obama was at an unfair advantage! Yikes, both candidates were given the questions ahead of time! Are Obama supporters whiners? The other thread that was on Kos was many Hillary supporters were saying “I told you so”.

The real Obama came out. Big government, redistribute wealth, and good feelings all around!

My opinion is that Obama is in a world of hurt and the polls are showing this fact.

By Ric Joyner

Nancy Pelosi sent the Congress home for a 5 week vacation without allowing a vote on energy! Why? The democrats gained control of Congress in 06, amidst the anti-Bush vote, and promised action on energy. Their “action” is what we have today…higher prices! Oil affects nearly every part of our economy, and once oil starts going up EVERYTHING goes up including daily necessities. Since the Democrats took control of Congress, and the Senate, oil has skyrocketed? But why?

The oil speculators could see the future. With the Dems controlling congress, and taking an ideological stand against using fossil fuels (no drilling, no exploration, no nuclear, just wind and solar or other alternatives which are in their infancy) the speculators could now drive up prices…and make huge profits, without consequence. The speculators know the Dems would block any further expansion of fossil fuels due to ideology. But who does higher energy cost impact the most? The little guy…which are the people the Dems say they represent. Or do they represent an ideology or the environmentalist lobby? I think both. If you don’t believe my comment, read a liberal newspaper article regarding the agenda of the Dems after winning in 06. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/14/AR2006111400801.html

Another interesting aspect of the article is it comes very close to predicting the current outcome!

To be fair the Republicans didn’t do anything when they were in office, but they didn’t need too either. Oil was cheap, but getting more expensive, because worldwide demand was increasing.(The republicans were a bit too cozy with the oil companies as well which is similar to Dems cozy with environmental groups).

China helps their citizens by paying part of the cost of the oil and this drives up utilization.

Notice that when President Bush said he was lifting the executive order against off shore drilling, gas prices started to come down. Now the ball was in Nancy Pelosi’s court to pass a bill allowing fossil fuel exploration, and she dodged the issue by recessing Congress! Nancy Pelosi said; “I am trying to save the planet!”. What about those that voted for you Ms Speaker?

We need energy answers for the long term. Lower prices now by fossil fuel exploration, and alternative fuel research. We need to wean off of fossil fuels and become energy independent. Becoming energy independent won’t happen overnight.

I feel as though the Dems are going against their roots of watching out for the little guy versus ideological paths, and this is why I am not a Dem.

Call Congress today, and demand they end their 5 week vacation, and solve the energy crisis!  http://speaker.gov/contact/

My next blog post will be on the bogus red herrings the dems are using to stop fossil fuel exploration. Some of the red herrings are:

1. The oil companies aren’t drilling on land they have now.

2. If we drill now, the oil will not be available for 10 years.

3. Fossil fuels add to global warming.

4. It’s President Bush’s fault or rich people, or Republicans or oil companies.

By Ric Joyner

I listen to the Bush haters rant, and rave about how George Bush is cashing in on the high gas prices. I sit back and wonder what happened to their common sense, and lack of understanding of basic economics. So what is causing the high oil prices? Simple: Demand. When demand goes up, and supply is down, prices go up for any good or service. There is an old saying, “I believe in the golden rule…he who has the gold rules”. Who has the gold…in this case the black gold of oil? Several countries that are keeping the output down to increase prices.

But could these large price increases be prevented? Yes, by drilling in our own back yard. Have we? No for several reasons. Environmental groups, and the liberal democratic congress who won’t let us drill in our own oil reserves.

The facts are as follows:

Environmental groups:

“Environmental concerns militate against drilling, but improvements in technology have greatly reduced both the above-ground footprint and the risk of offshore spills. Any new drilling would be subject to the world’s strictest standards.”  —Ben Lieberman is Senior Policy Analyst for Energy and Environment in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.

To understand why enviromental groups create crisis, follow the money. They artificially create “environmental causes” to get donations, and “feed the monster”. EGs are like any business. They need money to survive. For example, EGs were successful in CA by filing lawsuits to stop new refineries, off shore drilling, and nuclear power plants. They advocated for renewable energies. Last year I was watching CNN, and the Sierra Club was protesting more wind farms due to the hazard to birds! I did an OMG! They got what they wanted… renewable energy, and now they are protesting the very thing they were advocating? But why? If you follow the protest, the young media respresentative of the Sierra Club was seeking money donations! This is what feeds their monster…creating crisis to collect more donations! For more information and reading on wind energy: http://www.wind-works.org/articles/SCSCRCWind.html

Democratic Congress:

Passed a bill that would tax the companies producing energy which the companies will pass on to consumers! That bill was passed in 2007 vetoed by Bush. Look at the gas prices now! For more reading on this bill: http://www.conservative.org/pressroom/2007/070808pr.htm

The Dems in the Senate stopped any potential drilling in a wasteland called ANWR. (Arctic National Wildlife Refuge) The problem with ANWR is that there is little “life” in the tundra, but it holds untold billions of gallons of oil! Why won’t the democrats allow us to be energy independent? Gas is .12  in Venezuela and Mexico who produce their own energy! http://money.cnn.com/pf/features/lists/global_gasprices/

Here is a terrific conclusion in an article from the Heritage Foundation:

“Conclusion. It is no coincidence that, despite the massive 2005 and 2007 energy bills, the price at the pump continues upward. Both measures did little to create new oil and gasoline supplies or to untangle the red tape afflicting existing supplies. America needs fewer laws, regulations, taxes, and other government-created impediments to a more affordable gasoline supply. Most of the provisions in the American Energy Production Act are intended to liberate Americans from that morass. In contrast, the Consumer-First Energy Act of 2008 contains just about everything we don’t want or need.”
—Ben Lieberman is Senior Policy Analyst for Energy and Environment in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.\

George Bush doesn’t have his hand in the pocket of oil companies, the democratic congress has its hands in the pockets of environmentalists, and special interest groups that are opposed to energy freedom!

But the Democrats answer is to tax the people who produce the energy because of profits! This actually drives up the prices for everyone. Why? The example is my wife’s coffee shop. The CAM (a form of moveable rent cost) increased 22% in one year! She has to decide where to make up this cost increase. The only recourse is to pass on to the consumer. But can she raise prices on a cup of coffee to almost $2.00 per cup and expect people to continue to buy? No. So she has to raise prices by 10%, but must cut expenses in other areas. One option is to cut worker pay or lay off employees. I just don’t think the Democrats understand basic economics. They use slogans like “tax the rich” and “windfall profits tax on oil companies” to get people’s blood boiling to pass this economic terrorism by enacting taxes (they love taxes). But is it the right answer? No, for the reasons stated above.

Another famous democrat who wrecked havoc on our economy was Jimmy (the I negotiate with terrorists) Carter in the 70s. Jimmy imposed a windfall tax on oil company profits to help the poor afford gas. What happened? National oil rationing and higher prices! The producers of gas lowered their output, and the result is we all paid for this dumb approach to energy.

Write your congressional representative today, and tell them you want energy freedom which will increase supply, and for the US to become self sustaining in energy. And another approach is to ignore the enviromental groups.

Tell your respresentative to stop the economic terrorists (enviromental groups and liberal democrats)!

By Ric Joyner

She made an incredible comment of ignorance. Question what if your generals say that pulling troops out would be a disaster? “We do not know what will happen when we pull out”.

WE DO KNOW WHAT WILL HAPPEN. Our fallen heroes sacrifice will be for nothing! Hillary, do you remember Vietnam when the Democrats DEFUNDED the war and the communists won and experts say that over 5,000,000 people were massacred? Iraqi’s have died during the war, but many thousands more will die after the fundamentalists get a hold of the country and it will be a new terrorist base!  We will tell the world community that when the going gets tough the US gets going….with our tail between our legs.

She is playing to the liberal left which wants no wars at all even to defend ourselves.