Hypocrisy by any other name…..

Nice! Real patriotic NOT! Here is the first of three articles that tell the truth about how Obama feels about Iraq and our troops there.

Obama Interferes In US-Iraq Agreement

 

In direct interference in US foreign policy and the execution of the war in Iraq, Barack Obama today told the Iraqi foreign minister, according to the New York Times’ Caucus blog report,

While the Bush administration would like to see an agreement reached before the summer’s political conventions, Mr. Obama said today that he opposed such a timetable. 

“My concern is that the Bush administration, in a weakened state politically, ends up trying to rush an agreement that in some ways might be binding to the next administration, whether it’s my administration or Senator McCain’s administration,” Mr. Obama said.

According to Obama, “The foreign minister agreed that the next administration should not be bound by an agreement that’s currently made.”
What else could he say when confronted with such effrontery by someone not the president who might be.

The CBS reporton the phone conversation doesn’t think it’s significant enough to mention this part of their conversation, nor that regardless of the progress that’s been made Obama says he’s firm on withdrawing US troops quickly. Jenifer Rubin at Commentary’s Contentions blog, however, correctly sums it up: “Great Surge, Let’s Quit.”

The Washington Post’s editorial today says of the agreement,

It means that Iraq, a country with the world’s second largest oil reserves and a strategic linchpin of the Middle East, just might emerge from the last five years of war and turmoil as an American ally, even if its relations with Iran remain warm. So it’s hard to fathom why Democrats in Congress have joined Ayatollah Khamenei in denouncing the U.S.-Iraqi agreements even before they are written….

 

Ed Morrissey comments,

So why haven’t the Democrats shown more enthusiasm? They would have to admit that they were wrong about the surge, wrong about Maliki, and wrong to declare defeat fourteen months ago. Democrats from Barack Obama down have insisted that the US should abandon Iraq as a failed mission rather than adjust to better strategies. Had the Bush administration listened to them, Iran would already be in charge of Iraq through Moqtada al-Sadr.

 

Another example to add to the many that Barack Obama is a dangerous poseur.

— Bruce Kesler | Jun. 16, 2008 | 4:52 PM

So not only did he meddle to try and influence the elections he used the troops that he claims he is so concerned about to do it! The media did know but said nothing. I see the pattern is not straying from the traditional Obama “whatever it takes to climb the ladder” mindset that we’ve all come to know so well.

Here’s more:

http://www.nypost.com/seven/07292008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/os_tour_de_farce_122049.htm?page=0

 

O’s Tour de Farce  by Amir Taheri 

Posted: 3:24 am
July 29, 2008

TERMED a “learning” trip, Sen. Barack Obama’s eight- day tour of eight nations in the Middle East and Europe turned out to be little more than a series of photo ops to enhance his international credentials.

“He looked like a man in a hurry,” a source close to Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said last week. “He was not interested in what we had to say.”

Still, many Iraqis liked Obama’s claim that the improved situation in Iraq owed to Iraqi efforts rather than the Gen. David Petraeus-led surge. In public and private comments, Obama tried to give the impression that the Iraqis would’ve achieved the same results even without the greater resources America has poured into the country since 2007.

In private, though, Iraqi officials admit that Obama’s analysis is “way off the mark.” Without the surge, the Sunni tribes wouldn’t have switched sides to help flush out al Qaeda. And the strong US military presence enabled the new Iraqi army to defeat Iran-backed Shiite militias in Basra and Baghdad.

Nevertheless, in public at least, no Iraqi politician wants to appear more appreciative of American sacrifices than the man who may become the next US president.

Iraqis were most surprised by Obama’s apparent readiness to throw away all the gains madein Iraq simply to prove that he’d been right in opposing the 2003 overthrow of Saddam Hussein. “He gave us the impression that the last thing he wanted was for Iraq to look anything like a success for the United States,” a senior Iraqi officialtold me. “As far as he is concerned, this is Bush’s war and must end in lack of success, if not actual defeat.”

Even so, Obama knows that most Americans believe they’re still at war with an enemy prepared to use terror against them. So he can’t do what his antiwar base wants – declare an end to the War on Terror and the start of a period of love and peace in which “citizens of the world” build bridges between civilizations.

That’s why Obama is trying to adopt Afghanistan as “his” war. He claims that Bush’s focus on Iraq has left Afghanistan an orphan in need of love and attention. Even though US military strategy is to enable America to fight two major wars simultaneously, Obama seems to believe that only one war is possible at a time.

But what does that mean practically?

Obama says he wants to shift two brigades (some of his advisers say two battalions) from Iraq to Afghanistan. But where did that magicalfigure come from? From NATO, which has been calling on its members to provide more troops since 2006.

NATO wants the added troops mainly to improve the position of its reserves in Afghanistan. The alliance doesn’t face an actual shortage of combat units – it’s merely facing a rotation schedule that obliges some units to stay in the field for up to six weeks longer than is normal for NATO armies.

Overall, NATO hopes that its members will have no difficulty providing the 5,000 more troops it needs for a “surge.” So there’s no need for the US to abandon Iraq in order to help Afghanistan.

The immediate effect of Obama’s plan to abandon Iraq and send more troops to Afghanistan is to ease pressure on other NATO members to make a greater contribution. Even in Paris, some critics think that President Nicolas Sarkozyshould postpone sending more troops until after the US presidential election. “If President Obamacan provide all the manpower needed in Afghanistan, there is no need for us to commit more troops,” said a Sarkozy security adviser.

Obama’s move would suit Sarkozy fine because he’s reducing the size of the French army and closing more than 80 garrisons. Other Europeans would also be pleased. German Chancellor Angela Merkelwill soon face a difficult general election in which her main rivals will be calling for an end to “the Afghan adventure.”

Today, with the sole exception of Spain (where the mildly anti-American Socialist Party is in power), pro-US parties govern Europe. These parties feel pressure from the Bush administration to translate their pro-American claims into actual support for the Afghanistan war effort. By promising to shoulder the burden, Obama is letting the European allies off the hook.

Obama doesn’t seem to have noticed the European scene’s subtleties. Despite his claim that he came to listen, he seems to have heard nothing of interest during his 10,000-mile trip.

Having announced his strategy before embarking on his “listening tour,” he couldn’t be expected to change his mind simply because facts on the ground offered a different picture.

In Paris, a friendly reporter asked the Illinois senator if there was anything that he’d heard or seen during his visit that might persuade him to alter anyaspect of his polices. Obama’s answer was clear: no.

Amir Taheri’s next book, “The Persian Night: Iran Under the Khomeinist Revolution,” is due out this fall.

 

So Obama saw the whole tour as a photo op. Not news. That he tried to interfere in foreign affairs for his own political gain? Big, game changing news. This article was from July, the previous one from June yet we haven’t really heard much about this until now. The media for the most part is beyond not doing their job they are now doing Obama’s job.

The latest again from the New York Post is by the same author and is dated today. Really informative.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/09152008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/obama_tried_to_stall_gis_iraq_withdrawal_129150.htm?page=0

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.

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.”

“However, as an Iraqi, I prefer to have a security agreement that regulates the activities of foreign troops, rather than keeping the matter open.” Zebari says.

There’s more. Click the link to read the entire article.

The idea you might get here from reading these things about Senator Obama is that he really doesn’t care as much as he claims about the troops and getting them home. He cares about how he can spin this to favor him in the election. How refreshingly new and full of hope and change! (Sarcasm off sorry  couldn’t resist)

Mr. We need to Just admit defeat and bring our guys home decided he wants them to stay a bit longer because he doesn’t want the Republicans to look less lik the Devil if people know that they did at least one thing right. The surge that Obama did not support actually worked to some degree and the American officials are actually working with the Iraqis to get things under control and get our troops headed home. Remember how hard he fought to admit the surge actually worked? How about the NAFTA thing with Canada anybody remember that? How he denied it all and then had to admit that he did just what he said he would not do. Pander to the guys he was railing against just to make him look “good”.

That’s a joke. Nothing could make him look good to me. Everthing about him screams narcicistic, arrogant fraud. He is not above using anybody and anything to further his own career and adgenda.

Oh I forgot to mention that what Obama did by trying to interfere in the politics of a foriegn country without authorization from our government is illegal. It is against The Logan Act.

So yes by any other name it is still a stinky, fake, hypocritical rose just the same! (Sorry Shakesphere!)

CQ