The Last Time a Candidate Was Accused of Interferring in Foreign Affairs… (Update: SOFA-Gate)
John on September 16, 2008 at 11:43 pm
I was surprised yesterday when an AFP story in the Herald Sun appeared to confirm the allegations made by Amir Taheri, i.e. that during his Summer trip to Iraq Barack Obama had asked Iraqi officials not to negotiate with Bush. Why would team Obama just admit something so damning? It didn’t make sense.
Today, the American Spectator adds some behind the scenes detail to the story. What does it reveal? Team Obama knows this is a serious problem:
The Obama campaign spent more than five hours on Monday attempting to figure out the best refutation of the explosive New York Post report that quoted Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari as saying that Barack Obama during his July visit to Baghdad demanded that Iraq not negotiate with the Bush Administration on the withdrawal of American troops. Instead, he asked that they delay such negotiations until after the presidential handover at the end of January.
The three problems, according to campaign sources: The report was true, there were at least three other people in the room with Obama and Zebari to confirm the conversation, and there was concern that there were enough aggressive reporters based in Baghdad with the sources to confirm the conversation that to deny the comments would create a bigger problem.
Instead, Obama’s national security spokeswoman Wendy Morigi told reporters that Obama told the Iraqis that they should not rush through what she termed a “Strategic Framework Agreement” governing the future of U.S. forces until after President Bush left office. In other words, the Iraqis should not negotiate an American troop withdrawal.
The only question left is what, if anything, the MSM will do about this story. For comparison purposes, you might be interested in what happened when a similar claim of interference in US foreign policy in the Middle East was laid against another Presidential candidate.
The “October Surprise” theory said that George H. W. Bush had flown to Paris just prior to the election in 1979 and worked out a secret deal with the Iranians to release the hostages after the election. The purported purpose of this scheme was to allow Ronald Reagan to enter office having ended a major international crisis. Despite scant evidence (eventually the story was found to emanate from a Lyndon LaRouche periodical), the press looked into it:
- PBS Frontline did a film investigating the claim in 1990
- The US Sentate held an investigation in 1992 which found the allegations not credible
- The US House of Representatives came to similar conclusions in 1993 after their own investigation
- Retired CIA analyst investigated the story for the Village Voice and found the witnesses were lying
- Newsweek investigated the claims and found them lacking
- The New Republic investigated the claims and also found them lacking
So, just to refresh, we have an incredible claim of a Vice Presidential candidate (Bush Sr.) interfering with US foreign policy on behalf of a Presidential candidate (Reagan) prior to an election. At least four major news outlets investigated, not to mention the House and Senate.
Now jump back to the present. We have a credible claim of interference in a major foreign policy issue (the Iraq war). We know the candidate was at the places in question, that he attended meetings with the people in question, and that the reporter has access to the sources in question. But all that’s beside the point since the candidate’s spokeswoman came out the next day and admitted the key issue, i.e. Obama encouraged Iraq’s leaders “not to rush” the troop redeployment agreement but to wait until after the elections (when he’d be in office and able to make the deal and claim the credit).
Strangely, even with all the salient facts on the table the press doesn’t seem that eager to dig into this. So how is this different exactly?
Barack Obama (D)
Oh, right…
[HT: Hot Air for the Spectator piece]
Update: Amir Taheri writes a follow up to his initial piece, essentially confirming that everything he claimed was true. He ends with this:
While I am encouraged by the senator’s evolution, I must also appeal to him to issue a “cease and desist” plea to the battalions of his sympathizers – who have been threatening me with death and worse in the days since my article appeared.
Also, this is worth a read. Even Obama’s backers and defenders are confused by his denial statement.
Finally, because it’s bound to happen anyway, I dub this controversy SOFA-GATE.
Category: Foreign Affairs |
John, it is mind numbing and I don’t understand why McCain and the Republicans are not attacking him on this arrogant and traitorous action. The MSM will not do anything about it until the Republicans make an issue just like they left the Wright debacle alone, the Pfleiger friendship alone, the Ayers connection, etc.
This guy is a total socialist and traitor in my book. But then again, so is most of the democratic leadership along with many in the msm.
September 17, 2008 @ 3:23 amHow about domestic affairs? McCain has championed de-regulation which gave way to greed and avarice and now America is a communist nation – the government owns everything. Anyone who believes that we don’t need some oversight and regulation when it comes to money is niave to the extreme.
Obama is no better, but let us be clear, McCain needs to bear some responsibility for the current economic mess. Two trillion doallrs will be needed for bailouts, if you ask me we should kick them all out. The only reasonable position to vote for McCain is that he is moderately pro-life, any economic issues are laughable.
September 17, 2008 @ 4:43 amRick: Democrats created the non-regulation scheme of Fannie and Freddy and then used them as their ATMs and blocked any oversight or real reform for as long as they can
That is the originating source of all of this. it’s not private industry’s fault that they bought investments sold to them by a Quasi-Government entity with the implicit understanding that any losses would be paid for by us.
Dont blame the people who tried over and over again to change that.. people like McCain
September 17, 2008 @ 5:55 amI love this game. One side says it’s the dems, the other side says it’s the Reps, and in the end there is no unassailable evidence that points to any empirical facts.
In the end, a subjective shouting match. Brilliant!
September 17, 2008 @ 7:08 am“if you ask me we should kick them all out”
I’m up for that. All these problems hitting us right now have been years and years in the making. No one’s innocent. I’d love to start fresh with a whole new Congress.
September 17, 2008 @ 8:08 amNot so. Bush pushed for reform of Fannie and Freddie 5 years ago. Now it turns out McCain co-sponsored another attempt at reform just 3 years ago, the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005.
In 2005, McCain said:
The bill was stalled by Chris Dodd, the #1 recipient of Fannie/Freddie lobbying money. The #2 recipient in the Senate…Barack Obama.
September 17, 2008 @ 9:28 amAnd Obama has posted quotes where he warned about these things as well. I do not disagree with most of what you say, I disagree that McCain is any different than Obama. We need not go back to the savings and loan scandal, can you say Keating Five?
It is all perspective. Just because Bush or McCain or Obama SAID SOMETHING, what did they DO to avoid this mess? I do not remember EITHER making it much of an issue in the Primaries. All of a sudden they are projecting themselves as “I told you so” prophets.
September 17, 2008 @ 9:38 amAnd Pelosi calls for “hearings”. Of course congress is on its way out to campaign. Nothing will ever change except those who embrace the gospel, everything else is great political theatre!
September 17, 2008 @ 9:41 amCan you provide them please?
September 17, 2008 @ 9:59 amIn his speech yesterday on the subject I heard him quote himself 3 times where he supposedly warned about these things. The speech is probably on YouTube or maybe on his site. They carried those quotes on Chris Mathews show as well.
September 17, 2008 @ 10:03 amFor the record, co-sponsoring a bill is not “saying something”, it’s what legislators do. McCain did more than predict the disaster, he tried to avert it with legislation. Unless Obama can claim likewise, I’d say there’s a significant difference here.
September 17, 2008 @ 10:11 amJohn – didn’t McCain vote for Phil Gramm’s deregulation bill in the several years ago? And wasn’t Gramm McCains chief economic advisor until he resigned?
September 17, 2008 @ 10:19 amRick: According to Robert Reich this is how it happened:
September 17, 2008 @ 10:32 am[...] Verum Serum has the scoop on what happened when a similar claim of interference in US foreign policy in the Middle East was laid against another Presidential candidate. It’s like a peek into an alternate universe. No, the media doesn’t care about their credibility anymore. Filed Under: NewsTagged: [...]
September 17, 2008 @ 10:38 amThe problem with John and Vince’s arguments is that you guys use facts to back up your statements. This will not satisfy the McCain haters. They’ll continue to try and figure out a way to blame this on him.
September 17, 2008 @ 10:41 amYep, facts. I hate facts especially since I am an Obama shill. :cool:
Facts = whatever agrees with my point of view.
Point of order – there are no facts in politics.
September 17, 2008 @ 11:23 amAm I the first to pint this out?
So we have 11 years before there’s any hint of bias? Someone call me in 10 years 11 months and 30 days time, I have stuff to do.
September 17, 2008 @ 1:57 pmThe fact that an “investigation” was done so many years later illustrate what a bogus charge this was.
Rick, there are no facts in politics? LOL. If that were true we’d be living in a state of anarchy.
You and Keith should get a room. LOL
September 17, 2008 @ 4:22 pmThere are no facts in politics, only perspectives. And most of those perspectives are ideologically driven. Subjectivity is inherrant in the human assessment, and once we are persuaded in a certain direction most of the events and statements are processed through our own perspective colored prism.
September 17, 2008 @ 4:29 pmNice try Rick. Put policy comes from politics. And policy either gets implemented by law or it doesn’t. We can usually tell objectively which laws work and which ones don’t. Anyway, I’m done with this. This subject is boring!
September 17, 2008 @ 6:00 pmKeith,
I knew someone would throw that out. I think this case is a bit different in that we have an admission from the party in question. I’m sure the press will dig on this…right after the election.
September 17, 2008 @ 10:26 pmThat makes me want to puke.
September 18, 2008 @ 8:31 am