Barack Obama, who apparently considers himself president-in-waiting, has been conducting negotiations with Iraq designed to DELAY the agreement for our troop withdrawal! So reports the New York Post:
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.
Is there ANY WAY this is appropriate?
The Obama campaign denounced the story:
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.
I KNOW. THAT’S WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT! Foreign policy and the conduct of our nation’s wars are the responsibility of the President. It is just wrong for a Senator to inject himself into these important negotiations and try to block them even if he is running for president.
HT and for commentary: Power Line
42 comments ↓
It’s simply that he wants credit personally, or at the very least credit for his party, for getting us out of Iraq. I have a lot of respect for Obama, and this is the first I’ve heard of these negotiations, but it worries me that he may be too personally involved in war planning as president. If anything is going to lead us into another Vietnam, it’s that.
Ooh, ouch. This one is going to hurt. You know the (successful) McCain strategy of “taking control of your opponent’s most successful issue”? Well, here is a prime example to do it not only on “Change” but also on “Good judgment regarding Iraq.”
He explicitly told the Iraqis (according to HIS press statement, not McCain’s), NOT to do the thing that he has been pushing for his ENTIRE CAMPAIGN: to withdraw troops from Iraq, give responsibility to the Iraqi government, and send those needed troops to Afghanistan.
Why? Looks like its for pure political gain. He says that if the president (the commander in chief and primary diplomat of the United States) negotiates it, it would tie the hands of the future administration. Instead, he says Congress should negotiate it. But that would also tie the hands of the future administration, (after all, it’s just a different body negotiating EXACTLY the same issue) but Congress is Democrat right now. The White House is Republican. Who would take credit? Exactly, the White House. Personally, as much crap that this administration has come through to get to this point, I think they deserve to take out their own troops.
He blames the inability to negotiate the withdrawal on the political confusion of the Bush administration. I’ve heard many things hurled at the Bush administration, some deserved, some not. But I’ve never ever heard them called “politically confused.” Mostly, they don’t care about politics and they just do what they think they should do. Politically confused? As if Bush doesn’t know if he should draw down troops, or something like Bush is in a state of weakness in Iraq? We’ve got the best news ever coming out of Iraq and that has led to the MOST strength of the US in that country in years.
This is a terrible issue for Obama, and if the McCain team has any brains, it will be the headline for the most effective negative ad of the campaign.
This isn´t somn surfaced by the obama people, so I dont think kirk that they are trying to win points from anyone.
Obama is a senator. Not sure whether his comment was appropriate or not. I guess I don´t know enough about the workings of government. It is supposed to be up to congress to declare war constitutionally, and that hasn´t been followed since wwii, so ….
It does make sense that Bush would reserve the resolution of some issues and leave them for whoever comes after him. That actually does make ALOT of sense. It does not seem to be happening in any area; Bush seems to be trying to rush through stuff in alot of areas deliberately to make what he has done hard to reverse. not sure that is right…. dunno.
We live in a democracy where debate and disagreement are public even between branches of government. we are missing alot of context here it seems…. context as to what traditionally has been the involvement of congress members in these sorts of things….
congressmen do regularly visit heads of state. I suspect that they give their opinions and that sometimes those opinions vary from those of whatever administration is in power. To authoritarian governments this probably seems like a weakness and lack of discipline. It is actually probably one of our strengths.
This is not the first time the Iraqis have injected themselves into our politics. I remember when maleki said that he agreed with obama on withdrawl dates!
I am thinking after reading your outspoken comments… what will any of this change really. I don´t imagine that the iraqis don´t know what is going on in the usa politically. Obama didn´t give up any state secrets, and the iraqis should be smart enough to know he is a senator only and what that means….
when all is said and done….. tempest in a teapot…. like the mock offense of the lipstick-on-pig comment. does this REALLY address ANY substantive issue personal to obama or change anything at all?
the word shrill does come to mind….
FW, @ 3, I have to disagree with you. I think this is a real substantive issue. It shows the principles behind Obama’s policy and diplomatic decisions. Personally, I think knowing the principles behind decisions are more important that knowing specifically what those decisions are.
Obama is a Senator, and the Senate has the job to advise the president and approve treaties negotiated by the President. The Senate Foreign Affairs Committee does not NEGOTIATE on behalf of the United States, it is a specialized information gathering and policy group in the Senate that argues about foreign policy WITHIN the United States government. The job to negotiate ON BEHALF of the government is the president’s and the president’s alone. That precedent in government is as old as George Washington, John Adams, and the undeclared Naval war with France.
You are right, congressmen visit foreign heads of state many times, but they NEVER speak for the United States. Even when Nanci Pelosi had her controversial visit to Syria in April of 2007, she never changed the message of what the United States’ diplomatic mission was in the region. Barack Obama has. He specifically told the government of Iraq (according to him, not the Post) NOT to negotiate yet on troop withdrawals. That goes directly against the wishes of the President, the chief diplomat of the US, who DOES want to negotiate troop withdrawals.
You are right, the Congress has never “declared war” since WWII, but that doesn’t really matter. The Congress doesn’t “declare war” because they’re a bunch of wimps that are too afraid of that word (in my opinion). Instead, they just authorize the use of force. Different words, same thing in the real world and legally. I think that has little to do with this situation, though.
Of course Malaki said he wants a timetable for withdrawal. Malaki wants two things for Iraq. First, he doesn’t want his government to collapse. Second, he wants to be in charge of his government. When things were bad pre-surge, he didn’t want his government to collapse. That’s why he desperately wanted US troops to stay (even when Obama did not want them to stay). Now, post-surge, he is confident that his government won’t collapse, so he wants the fewest US troops possible in his country to make sure he has the maximum control over his government. This is nothing surprising, nothing new, and nothing that goes counter to what the Bush administration has been doing all along.
However, what Obama just said IS new, it IS surprising, and it goes COUNTER to what he has been saying all along. Tie the hands of the next administration? That’s baloney. If troops are withdrawn, that’s exactly what he would have WANTED to happen. Why would he complain about that? The only things that HAVE changed are the political ramifications of withdrawing troops. It was going to be a Democratic victory. The surge success threatens to make it a Republican victory.
Obama’s move here shows that his strategy of action in Iraq is heavily tied to politics back in Washington, and that has A GREAT DEAL to say about the substantive issue of judgment in foreign affairs. Perhaps his front line issue in the campaign.
Now Obama´s team is trying to silence his critics. Dang. wrong.
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/128821.html
#4 jones
you could be right. it seems that we don´t yet know all the facts. time will tell. it would be good if journalists did their job so we could know more…
Whoops. Before you get your pants in an even greater uproar, here’s some more information about this ’story,’ which appeared not in a news report, but in an opinion column by a somewhat discredited writer.
Bamboozler Alert
09.16.08 — 12:11PM By David Kurtz
You may have seen the kerfuffle yesterday that arose when the New York Post published an opinion piece by Amer Taheri in which he reported that Barack Obama was secretly negotiating with the Iraqi government to delay the withdrawal of U.S. troops.
The McCain camp (which is, remember, opposed to the quick withdrawal of U.S. troops) seized on this report, issuing a statement by Randy Scheunemann, McCain’s top foreign policy adviser:
If news reports are accurate, this is an egregious act of political interference by a presidential candidate seeking political advantage overseas. … The charge that he sought to delay the withdrawal of Americans from Iraq raises serious questions about Senator Obama’s judgment and it demands an explanation.
If the news reports are accurate, and therein lies the rub. We’ll have more on what exactly Obama has said on this issue, publicly, in a bit. But you need to know a bit more about Taheri, who runs in the same neocon circles as Scheunemann.
Taheri was the guy who back in 2006 fabricated the story that the Iranian government was requiring Jewish citizens to wear yellow badges to identify them as such. That story, which also ran in the Post, was completely discredited.
As we reported at TPMmuckraker at the time, Taheri has a long history of such bamboozlement, although it hasn’t kept him from advising the White House on Middle East issues.
Sam, that would hold water if Obama’s own national security spokesperson hadn’t said what she said:
“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.”
How was that any different from Taheri’s claims?
The first report I heard of Taheri’s article, on CNN, was followed by the report of this very denial, and I couldn’t believe the reporter kept not only a straight face in quoting it, but smiled as if the case had been closed. I thought maybe I’d missed something. But, alas, the spokesperson (Wendy Morigi) said exactly what she said, apparently hoping no one would notice.
Certainly the reporter on CNN didn’t notice.
and fw:
‘it would be good if journalists did their job so we could know more’
Ya think?
Anyone asking Obama what he actually said? Anyone asking him to clarify what his spokesperson meant in her ‘clarification’?
Sam,
As Susan said, Obama’s campaign confirmed the substance of the charge while trying to deny some of the details. The bottom line—taking Obama’s response into consideration—seems to be that President Bush (who, by the way, is still the diplomatic face of the United States) is trying to negotiate an agreement with another nation while Obama, whose oversees role should be to support the President, is in actuality undermining Bush’s efforts. If Obama thinks that an agreement now is not the best course of action, he should take it up with President Bush. But, whether we like it or not, Bush is still the President and has the final say on whether to proceed with the negotiations or not. Obama has no authority to say anything to the other nation that breaks with our current foreign policy as set by the President.
The initial report said that Obama argued the negotiation should be stalled because of the “state of weakness and political confusion.” In the Bush administration. Political confusion I can buy, since there are now two Presidents claiming negotiating authority.
Article Sam quoted: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/217250.php
Obama’s campaign response: http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0908/Obama_campaign_contests_Taheri_column.html?showall
Attempt to distinguish the initial report and Obama’s response: http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/09/noted_bamboozler_behind_latest.php
[The initial post included too many hyperlinks and was sent to moderation. Dr. Veith, you don’t need to approve it as I am reposting the information and breaking up the hyperlinks]
Sam,
As Susan said, Obama’s campaign confirmed the substance of the charge while trying to deny some of the details. The bottom line—taking Obama’s response into consideration—seems to be that President Bush (who, by the way, is still the diplomatic face of the United States) is trying to negotiate an agreement with another nation while Obama, whose oversees role should be to support the President, is in actuality undermining Bush’s efforts. If Obama thinks that an agreement now is not the best course of action, he should take it up with President Bush. But, whether we like it or not, Bush is still the President and has the final say on whether to proceed with the negotiations or not. Obama has no authority to say anything to the other nation that breaks with our current foreign policy as set by the President.
The initial report said that Obama argued the negotiation should be stalled because of the “state of weakness and political confusion.” In the Bush administration. Political confusion I can buy, since there are now two Presidents claiming negotiating authority.
Obama’s campaign response: http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0908/Obama_campaign_contests_Taheri_column.html?showall
Here is one attempt to distinguish the initial report and Obama’s response: http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/09/noted_bamboozler_behind_latest.php
It seems as if Obama telling the Iraqi’s anything regarding policy, knowing that it is adverse to the position of the Bush administration, would be a potential Logan Act violation, if true. The Obama spokespersons’s statement seems to indicate that it is true. Each president gets a 4 or 8 year term, in full, to conduct his foreign policy, and Bush is entitled to exclusively pursue his foreign policy initiatives until January 20, 2009. Obama is certainly free to advise Bush of his opinion (even though they are adverse to his public policy positions, strangely enough), but he is not free to go over Bush’s head and deal directly with the Iraqi’s. It is as simple as that. Plus, it takes an incredible amount of hubris to make such a presumption that you are destined to be elected president as this incident reveals.
We can be sure that the national press will get right on this as soon as they complete their investigations of the Palin library book banning case and the Palin tanning bed matter.
The Logan Act, originally “passed in 1799 and named after Passed under the administration of President John Adams, during tension between the U.S. and France, it was informally named for Dr. George Logan of Pennsylvania, a state legislator (and later US Senator) and pacifist who in 1798 engaged in semi-negotiations with France during the Quasi-War.” (Wikipedia)
United States Code Annotated
Title 18. Crimes and Criminal Procedure
Part I. Crime
Chapter 45. Foreign Relations
§ 953. Private correspondence with foreign governments
Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply, himself or his agent, to any foreign government or the agents thereof for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan_Act
fw@3: What I mean is that Obama is trying to push the withdraw off until he takes office, so that it starts and ends under him. He wants to have credit for that in history. Bush, by the same token, wants it to happen before the next executive (whether it’s McCain or Obama) so that he doesn’t leave unfinished business. He doesn’t want that on his resume. It’s political on both sides. I wonder what the generals actually think.
FW; not the first time, nor will it be the last, that Obama has tried to silence his critics. And not the first time, nor the last, that Obama has clearly tried to act above his pay grade.
And not the first time, nor the last, that I’ll be reminded to do what I can to keep him out of the White House. Playing games with 22 million Iraqis and 150,000 soldiers is not excusable behavior.
“I wonder what the generals actually think.”
“Petraeus leaves behind a heavy dose of caution, reflected in his recommendation to President Bush that he maintain 15 combat brigades in Iraq through the end of the year instead of pulling out one or two, as many had expected.”
http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Sep16/0,4670,USIraq,00.html
#16 Bike Bubba
The reason this attempt at silencing critics bothers me is because it doesnt fit the pattern for Obama , which is why I have personally emailed him and his staff and screamed my head off at them. (if you think I am sometimes shrill here , try to imagine me taking obamas folks to task….).
I don´t accept bad behavior from my candidates OR their proxies. I am thinking it is more critical for me to try to hold MY candidates to high standards than it is to snipe at what I see on Mc Cain´s side.
So Bike. what have you see in the methods of your candidate that look shady or beneath him and that he should rise above or stop doing? any of his ads bother you? anything he has said that seems to shade the truth or distort it or is flat against facts (ie a lie)?
I will go first.
I think the obama ad about McCain´s computer skills was stupid. It was not inaccurate, but EVEN being true, it was undignified, and worse a distraction from FAR larger policy issues. It IS possible to be idiotic and wrong and immoral (!) even when telling something that is the truth.
Obama KNEW that McCain does not really thing that “rich” starts at five million. it was a joke McCain was making. THIS was a lie in the form of a deliberate distortion and taking out of context. I emailed my displeasure promptly to Obamas group.
Obama is saying in an ad that McCain is clueless on the economy. This is puffery. exageration that is ALMOST ok in a political ad. Of course he is not clueless. he was chairman of the commerce committee for years. I would rather see Obama talk positively about what he would do. The issue of the economy is the Democrats´to lose in this election cycle. They should be able to play that issue in their favor I would think speaking strictly of political strategy. Yes there is plenty of blame to go around on this for both parties in reality, but the meltdown is happening on a republican watch so advantage goes to the dems normally if they play it right.
Ok. your turn bike bubba!
.
so to all: how would you like to see your candidate be more civil? where do you think they have been immoral by distorting deliberately things that they must know are not true? how has your candidate fallen below your own personal standards for honesty and civility and civil discourse?
or are they being exactly at the same level you are with your friends and family and neighbors and how you talk about them?
or should we not hold them to our personal standards of behavior because we need to “fight fire with fire” and if the other side lies and distorts then all is fair in love and war?
I HOPE that is not what I am gonna hear…. NOT from THIS group that I have such high respect for.
fw - this is my own personal preference and leaning, but I really don’t care much at all about who runs the nastier campaign. Call me jaded, but I pretty much expect all political campaigns to descend into mudslinging regardless of what the person is like.
One, even the best intentioned person is going to be extremely tempted to take obvious digs at their opponents because there are some digs that really ought to be made. That makes it really easy though to start making digs that aren’t so germane, and thus a very easy slippery slope to slide down. I’m not particularly affected by “dirty” campaigns run by either side. It does affect me if there are full lies, but most politicians are cautious enough that they make sure there’s some sort of basis for their various outrageous claims. (Biden being an exception at times)
Second, neither candidate has much detailed control over their campaign, and virtually no control over their supporters. A candidate can hopefully set a general tone for his campaign, but most of his campaign is going to be run by people who are long-time campaigners and they will have set ways of running campaigns, and there’s virtually no chance that they will substantively change. To run a completely clean campaign, a candidate would need to spend most of his time riding herd on his own campaign.
So, all that to say I’m not particularly affected by McCain’s sudden eagerness to put his time as a POW in the national eye, and neither am I bothered by Obama’s cheap shots about McCain’s computer skills and disabilities.
I’m not saying that the candidates SHOULD engage in those things, but I view it sort of like the daily practice of everyone’s sinful flesh - a sad reality that we have to live with in this world. I will fight against it and take it into account in different ways, but I’m not going to constantly condemn everyone for it either.
As near as I can tell, it is frankly illegal, but since the executive allowed Pelosi to illegally engage in foreign relations in the past couple years, I’m not sure what can be done.
On another note, the AP shows its bias by refusing to release to the Secret Service e-mails that were obtained illegally from Sarah Palin’s Yahoo account.
I’d have an easier time believing the concerns of those opposed here to Obama’s actions (which certainly seem questionable) if (1) they had also appeared concerned about McCain’s sending of his own campaign emissaries to Georgia at a time when his that campaign employed a Georgian lobbyist and (2) it didn’t depend so much on paraphrasing by a “liberal media” outlet. Oh, so now we trust the “liberally biased” media to get a non-quoted statement correct. I can never get it straight when we can trust the media and when we can’t. Is it really as simple as: if the media says something bad about a Democrat, we can trust them? That’s convenient.
Also, Anon (@21), while hacking into Palin’s Yahoo account was likely illegal (if, sadly, easy), I find it interesting that you see no need to comment on Palin’s using a Yahoo account for government business. First, it’s a really stupid thing to do, given how, well, easy it is to hack into such Web-mail accounts. Second, it seems designed to flout rules regarding government accountability and transparency. But none of that for you — just whine about the AP and let Palin off the hook.
I’m sorry, tODD, but I can’t understand a thing you just said in that first paragraph. Please shoot again.
Nice excuse for dirty tricks, tODD.
it seems designed to flout rules regarding government accountability and transparency
Well, we have transparency now.
Having easy to detect passwords was a mistake; the occasional business e-mail from a personal e-mail address was unwise. None of this justifies hacking the e-mail account
“… I find it interesting that you see no need to comment on Palin’s using a Yahoo account for government business.”
tODD, as far as I can find, there haven’t been any reports by anyone of official business that had been sent via Yahoo. There were emails sent to officials, but from what I can see they were all of a personal nature.
Now, I can’t seem to get to the screenshots on wikileaks, but I have found a couple transcriptions of some of the emails and none of them were business. Likewise, I haven’t found any news sources that have said there was business sent.
The argument against Sarah for having a yahoo account is of like nature to “the woman was asking for it because she. . .” isn’t it?
tODD @ 22:
1) If the MSM says something bad about Democrats you can be sure it’s true and they were dragged kicking and screaming into having to make the statement. Hopefully, this rule of thumb will help you in the future.
2) Would you like a re-do on the statement “…while hacking into Palin’s Yahoo account was likely illegal…”? You can’t have meant that the way it sounds. “Likely” illegal? Under what circumstances would it have not been illegal?
3) Regarding Palin’s use of emai, first, I agree with Webmonk. The hackers found nothing of note. An email to another official is not state business just because it is an email to another official. Second, we are not going to give any credence to anything uncovered through wholly illegal and despicable acts. “Fruit of the poisonous tree” is the doctrine at play here.
All that needs to be said has been said. I will say from months study on Obama I will sum it up this way for him run our nation would be an abomination.
Anon (@24), can you please point out where I “excuse[d]” the hacker’s “dirty tricks”? Thanks.
Nemo (@25), agreed.
WebMonk (@26), I’m not sure I agree with your conclusion “they were all of a personal nature”. According to a summary found on a mirror of the Wikileaks site:
A similar WikiLeaks article can be found at the above mirror site, titled “VP contender Sarah Palin hacked” (9/16/2008), and it has a list of her inbox contents (not the actual emails, though).
Anon (@27), I have no idea what you’re talking about, though it sounds like you’re the second person this week comparing the actions of liberals to rapists. Did a letter go out or something?
Don (@28), “If the MSM says something bad about Democrats you can be sure it’s true and they were dragged kicking and screaming into having to make the statement.” Wow. Just … wow. Frankly, I doubt there’s anything I could say to disabuse you of that notion, so why bother trying? You’ve got your filter, and that’s that.
“Under what circumstances would it have not been illegal?” Well, first of all, I don’t even know what laws would apply in this case — you seem to know more than I do. Under what laws would it be illegal? Under the assumption that neither of us actually know about the relevant statutes, I’ll ask a more general question: is it illegal for me to guess the password of an account that is not mine? Are you sure? Are there different circumstances in which that activity may be illegal and may not be? Do you know if those circumstances apply? In short, I feel pretty comfortable with my merely stating that, from a probability point of view, the actions were “likely” illegal.
“We are not going to give any credence to anything uncovered through wholly illegal and despicable acts.” Man, they’d never let you work at Gitmo with an attitude like that! Hello, then why do we extradite suspected terrorists to countries where they torture people? Why do we engage in (what used to be called) torture ourselves? Note: I’m not actually condoning our nation’s despicable acts carried out under the banner of the “War on Terror”, I just find the double-standard here more than a bit bemusing. Regardless, just because something was discovered illegally doesn’t mean it’s suddenly false. It just means it probably can’t be used legally.
tODD @ 30:
Obviously, my quote about the media was said in jest (well, half in jest anyway). Just forgot my smiley face
I am an attorney, so I do have some familiarity with laws. Yes, in every state in which I am aware, it is illegal to access an email account that is not your’s, even if you happen to guess the password. These acts are prosecuted under privacy laws, and in many jurisdictions there are specific statutes related to computer hacking. Federal laws also apply to computer hacking, which may be defined as intentionally accessing a computer without authorization or in a manner which exceeds authorized access. Guessing someone’s password does not in any way “authorize” you to access their account. 18 U.S.C. 1030 is the specific computer hacking statute (”Fraud and related activity in connection with computers”). Additional laws no doubt apply when one is deliberately trying to access the email account of a candidate for federal office, all of which likely lead to a lengthy prison sentence
As for the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine, anything uncovered by the illegal hacking of Palin’s account could not have been used to prosecute her. Of course, nothing whatsoever incriminating was found. But in my view it would be improper to even discuss those things had they been found, because doing so would have encouraged more such hacking.
Given your past interest in ensuring that the feds can’t tap your cell phone calls to suspected foreign terrorists, on privacy grounds, I am surprised that you so easily excused this invasion of Palin’s privacy and were so willing to exploit its fruits. Double standards apparently apply both ways, eh?
Don (@31), I’m so sorry I misinterpreted your remark about the media. (Well … half-misinterpreted?
) That said, I do appreciate some sort of indicator that you’re joking about such things. Frankly, given what gets said around here (not necessarily by you — I don’t always remember who exactly said what), it wasn’t obvious at all that you were joking. But maybe that’s just me. You know us lefties, no sense of humor, right?
An attorney, eh? But you’re a Republican? So you can’t be a trial lawyer then. … Sorry, the proper phrase is “Fat Cat Trial Lawyer(tm)”.
Anyhow, you win this round! Thanks for the information on laws on “hacking” (a poorly defined term if ever there was one). At some level, I’m interested in the corner cases for these laws (Illegal to access my wife’s email account? What if she hasn’t authorized it, but I think she wouldn’t mind? And so on), but a more important level, that’s irrelevant to the discussion.
“Nothing whatsoever incriminating was found”? What’s your source on that. What do you mean by “incriminating”? How does your source compare to the (admittedly non-specific) quote I pasted @30?
Also, please tell me what you’re referring to when you say I “excused this invasion of Palin’s privacy and [was] so willing to exploit its fruits”. I didn’t excuse it. I assumed it was illegal. I said it couldn’t be used for legal purposes. Moreover, while I didn’t say it explicitly, the hackers were wrong to do so, regardless of the laws involved.
That doesn’t mean Palin didn’t do some stupid stuff (at the very minimum being a very public figure with a chintzy, public, free Web mail account with laughably guessable security questions).
No, I’m still in favor of privacy, opposed to warrantless wiretapping and other unreasonable searches and seizures. Perhaps after this, Palin may be one Republican who feels the same way, now that she knows what it’s like to have someone search through her private communications without cause.
tODD: the statement that nothing incriminating was found is attributable to the young man who allegedly did the trangression.
He was disappointed that, in examining all her emails, he ‘found nothing incriminating, nothing that would derail her campaign as [he] had hoped, all [he] saw was personal stuff, some clerical stuff from when she was governor…. And pictures of her family’
No state business was conducted or attempted thru the emails. Tho emails transpired between official parties, the emails were of a personal nature.
Do you not find it a shame that her prior naivete (that ’stupid stuff’) about operating a ‘chintzy’ Yahoo acct has now had to bite the dust, and she’s forced to be less accessible than she has been? Is this political progress (change) we can believe in?
It would appear by federal law that both Baraq Hussein Obama and Nancy Pelosi need to be spending the next three years in federal prison.
Interesting that the Associated Press reporter, Ted Bridis, who broke the story maintains that the whole kerfuffle was Palin’s fault (as tODD hints), for using a Yahoo acct.
So, that sort of backs up my contention that the liberal tack on Sarah Palin is in line with that of abusers/rapists etc.: it’s the victim’s fault.
It’s uncanny and oh-so ugly, and constitutes the real threat to freedom. More than even a McCain-Palin or an Obama-Biden administration. If members of the press–even the AP itself in its current reporting on the matter–are so inclined as to think it’s okay to fudge reality (and why would they do that, except to influence the election?) and to insert an irrelevant point of view based on absolutely no facts, then it looks like we’re in the hands of both the most gullible of voters and the most reprehensible of journalists.
Come, Lord Jesus.
Susan (@33), what the “young man who allegedly did the trangression” called “some clerical stuff from when she was governor”, the Guardian called “several from (GOV) addresses belonging to her aides, including a draft letter to California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, a discussion of nominations to the state court of appeals, and several bearing ‘DPS’, the acronym for the Alaska Department of Public Safety.” It is difficult to know if these statements are in agreement or not, but it is just as hard to conclude with any certainty that “No state business was conducted or attempted thru the emails.” To me, “clerical stuff” sounds like “state business”, but all we have is these two insufficient descriptions.
“Do you not find it a shame that her prior naivete … about operating a ‘chintzy’ Yahoo acct has now had to bite the dust, and she’s forced to be less accessible than she has been?” What? I apparently don’t understand your question. How is she any less accessible now? Wherever her political career may take her, I hope she’s learned a valuable lesson about online security. Ditto for the “young man”.
Anon (@34), sorry I ask this a lot, but what are you talking about? What crime have Obama and/or Pelosi committed?
Susan (@35), congratulations on working the “rapist” thing back in again. It’s really winning over my heart and my mind, as you can only imagine.
And as much as I love being compared to “rapists”, I love having my position misrepresented even more! I did not (and do not) maintain “that the whole kerfuffle was Palin’s fault”. Go back and read what I wrote, please.
You are aware, are you not, that in a story, there can be multiple people doing things wrong, at various levels of importance? That each story cannot filed facilely into a “Democrats win this time” or “Republicans win this time” bucket?
As such, the major (obvious) conclusion here is that what the email hacker did was wrong. That does not mean that Palin acted perfectly. There is the (to me, unsettled at least as to the letter of the law) question of using a private email for government business. More obviously, there is the issue of the wisdom of a highly public government official using a free Web email account, and that with easily guessable security questions. Had this last point not been true, none of the other issues would have taken place. Can you really not see that?
Or, to use your lovely metaphor, just because a woman gets raped doesn’t mean she was dressed or acting appropriately. Your argument here is the equivalent (in this metaphor of yours, mind) of arguing that women should be able to wear any and all revealing and tawdry clothing, and that no one should ever criticize that. On a different day, it seemed you would have disagreed with such an argument.
I can’t help but think that if it had been Obama’s or Biden’s (is he still in the race?) accounts which had been hacked, the press would have taken a different view of the whole matter, focusing a bit more on those “evil” Republicans for once again having violated someone’s privacy, rather than focusing on the crime victim’s behavior. I think Susan makes an excellent point on that score. Maybe I’m just paranoid, tODD?
At any rate, from all reports (or at least, Obama’s recent ad), we won’t have to worry about McCain’s email account being hacked. A bit of good news, anyway.
But see, Don (@38), Republicans wouldn’t need to hack into Obama’s email account! They’d just strong-arm the relevant telecomm company into giving them access, claiming they have the necessary authority because we’re in a War, Unitary Executive, no need for warrants, trust us, we’re the Government, Terrorism! … and then refuse to cooperate with any inquiries into the matter later!
Democrats won’t be able to abuse power like that until they get into the White House.
Again, Whoops!
_____________________
From ABC News
Undermining McCain Campaign Attack, Republicans Back Obama‘s Version of Meeting with Iraqi Leaders
September 19, 2008 1:06 PM
Earlier this week, the campaign of Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., seized upon a column in the New York Post that described Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., as having urged Iraqi leaders in a private meeting to delay coming to an agreement with the Bush administration on the status of U.S. troops.
“Obama has tried in private to persuade Iraqi leaders to delay an agreement on a draw-down of the American military presence,” Post columnist Amir Tehari wrote, quoting Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari who told the Post that Obama during his meeting with Iraqi leaders in July “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 charge — that Obama asked the Iraqis to delay signing off on a “Status of Forces Agreement,” thus delaying US troop withdrawal and interfering in U.S. foreign policy — has been picked up on the internet, talk radio and by Republicans including the McCain campaign, which seized on the story as possible evidence of duplicity.
The Obama campaign said that the Post report consisted of “outright distortions.”
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.
“Barack Obama has never urged a delay in negotiations,” said Obama campaign national security spokesperson Wendy Morigi, “nor has he urged a delay in immediately beginning a responsible drawdown of our combat brigades.”
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.
Obama did assert at the meeting with the Iraqis that he agrees with those – including Hagel and Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., the ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee — who advocate congressional review of the Strategic Framework Agreement being worked out between the Bush administration and the Iraqi government, including the Iraqi parliament.
The Strategic Framework Agreement is a document that generally describes what the relationship between the two countries should look like over time.
According one person present at the meeting, Obama told Maliki that the American people wouldn’t understand why the Iraqi Parliament would get to have a say on the Strategic Framework Agreement but the U.S. Congress would not, especially since the President Bush is only months from leaving the White House, regardless of whether Obama or McCain succeeds him.
Morigi said in a statement that “Barack Obama has consistently called for any Strategic Framework Agreement to be submitted to the U.S. Congress so that the American people have the same opportunity for review as the Iraqi Parliament.”
It’s possible, Obama advisers believe, that either Zebari or columnist Taheri confused the Strategic Framework Agreement, which Obama feels should be reviewed by Congress, with the Status of Forces Agreement, which Obama says the Bush administration should negotiate with the Iraqis as soon as possible.
Two officials of the Bush administration say that if Obama had done what the Post story asserted – which they believe to be untrue – U.S. Ambassador Crocker and embassy officials attending the meeting would have ensured that the Bush administration heard about it immediately. If such an incident occurred in front of officials of the Bush administration, it would have constituted a foreign policy breach and would have been front-page huge news; it would not have leaked out two months later in an op-ed column.
Nonetheless, based on nothing more than the Post report, McCain senior foreign policy adviser Randy Scheunemann issued a statement earlier this week expressing outrage.
“It should be concerning to all that (Obama) reportedly urged that the democratically-elected Iraqi government listen to him rather than the US administration in power,” Scheunemann said, apparently not having talked to anyone with knowledge about the meeting in Bush administration, the US Embassy in Baghdad, GOP Sen. Hagel, or any Republican staffers on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
“If news reports are accurate, this is an egregious act of political interference by a presidential candidate seeking political advantage overseas,” Scheunemann continued. “Senator Obama needs to reveal what he said to Iraq’s Foreign Minister during their closed door meeting. The charge that he sought to delay the withdrawal of Americans from Iraq raises serious questions about Senator Obama’s judgment and it demands an explanation.”
What actually demands an explanation is why the McCain campaign was so willing to give credence to such a questionable story with such tremendous international implications without first talking to Republicans present at Obama’s meeting with Maliki, who back Obama’s version of the meeting and completely dismiss the Post column as untrue.
– Jake Tapper and Kirit Radia
Sam (@40), well, at least this is the right thread!
Thanks for pointing out this information. Of course, in keeping with the saw that “a lie will go round the world while truth is pulling its boots on,” likely no one who opposes Obama is reading these comments anymore. So it goes.
That said, really do consider a link, along with a few choice quotes that entice the readers to follow the link if they want to read more. But — and this is just my opinion; I’m just a fellow commenter — I don’t see any value in pasting in the entirety of someone else’s article.
Well put, tODD.
I agree with you that a combination of choice words and the link would have worked very well. You must appreciate the irony that this article appeared on the same day that Dr. Veith posted about fact checking fact checkers.
I was tempted to post this there as well.
Leave a Comment