Obama broke U.S. law and tried secret negotiations with Iraq


Another Democrat shadow government
The New York Post reports some disturbing news.

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."

First and foremost, this is illegal. Only the President can negotiate with other nations. This makes sense, you can't have 535 Congressmen and Senators, each with their own agenda, at the table. Granted, this law is often honored only in breech, the U.S. Department of State has done end runs around sitting Presidents for decades, and Speaker of the House Pelosi has tried to do the "shadow government" bit and hold her own negotiations.

It also fails the old parity test. There is no way Obama or any of the Democrat leadership would sit quietly by and let this happen to a lame duck Democrat President.

George Bush is President until January 20, Congress can't limit his powers. Remember, Bill Clinton was issuing pardons and Executive Orders up to the last minute.

So here are questions for your consideration. Why should you trust a man who was telling the American public one thing while trying to secretly and illegally negotiate for something else? Even as he attempted to circumvent the chain of command? In wartime, aren't these acts of treason?

Not that McCain is much better.

Why isn't this getting better coverage?

Obama is denying it. But look closer at the wording. Emphasis added.

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.

In the face of resistance from Bush, the Democrat has long said that any such agreement must be reviewed by the US Congress as it would tie a future administration's hands on Iraq.

Just so you know, that pesky piece of paper that we call the Constitution says that the President negotiates with the advice and consent of the Senate, not the Congress. By law and by custom, it's the Senate that ratifies treaties and agreements, but it is the President who negotiates.

Can you imagine the can of worms this would open up?

Say that Obama does get elected. Doubtful, I know, but it could happen. Under those circumstances, why couldn't McCain tell anyone that since Obama is only in office for a couple of years, Congress needs to be involved because any treaties would tie the hands of a future administration? After all, if it's true for eight months it's true for four years.

That's the parity test for you.

— NeoWayland

Posted: Tue - September 16, 2008 at 12:34 PM  Tag


 ◊  ◊   ◊  ◊ 

Random selections from NeoWayland's library


Pagan Vigil "Because LIBERTY demands more than just black or white"
© 2005 - 2009 All Rights Reserved