The most disturbing news of the day is an article in the New York Post that talks about Obama's efforts to stall a US troop withdrawal agreement with Iraq.
The article states that during Obama's recent trip to Iraq, when he met with the most senior Iraqi leadership, he tried to sabotage US efforts to negotiate a troop withdrawal agreement. It quotes senior Iraqi officials as saying that Obama actually tried to delay an agreement until after the US elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington.
It quotes Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari as saying "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.”
The article then goes on to report another serious charge that while meeting with top US commanders including General David Petraeus, he tried to get them to actually change their military viewpoints on a realistic withdrawal date for US troops.
Obama's motivation for such an attempt would appear clear. He spent the last year and a half of his campaign talking about what an incredible mistake the surge was. And he is of course facing an opponent in John McCain that fought for the surge when it was extremely unpopular. It would seem that it would be convenient for Obama for our efforts to appear not to be going nearly as well as they are. But for a presidential candidate to actually interfere in United States war efforts for campaign gain or advantage is a very, very shocking accusation.
This also brings up the question of campaign promises. His campaign has been saying that he is for a withdrawal by 2010. However if this was delayed because of his efforts to stop a troop withdrawal agreement from being negotiated until after his election, followed by the Iraqi election shortly thereafter, followed by the time needed to put together a Iraqi coalition government after the election, the withdrawal by 2010 is simply not possible.
According to the article, the overall impression that Obama left on the leadership of Iraq is that he doesn't want Iraq to appear anything like a success because that takes away his main attack against the Bush administration. When asked about his foreign-policy experience, he always says its not about experience, it's a matter of judgment. And he goes on to say that the true test of his judgment was his decision that Iraq was the wrong war and would never be a success and his decision to fight tooth and nail against the surge.
These are very, very serious charges that need to be either proved or disproved as quickly as possible. I personally hope that this story goes the way of “Sarah Palin’s daughter is actually her granddaughter” story. This accusation is to incendiary to leave hanging out there. It needs to be proved or disproved by the mainstream media. I hope they devote a good amount of resources to doing this so we either know this is true or not, as soon as possible.
In the words of Abraham Lincoln in 1863, "Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged".
I strongly urge you to read this article and draw your own conclusions.
Rebublished from Strategic_Thought