NY Post: Obama tried to DELAY agreement on U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq until after the election!
The New York Post is reporting that Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama- who has campaigned for the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq ever since the beginning of his candidacy- tried behind the scenes to convince the Iraqi government to delay agreement on a schedule for the draw down of American troops in Iraq until after the election, when presumably he would be president!
The Obama camp's rhetoric in making the request, as quoted in the article, also seems clearly aimed at undermining the credibility and thus the diplomatic position of the current President of the United States for the sake of partisan partisan gain.
If true, Obama's actions are not only despicable, but differ from treason more in degree than in kind. And yes- it is illegal.
HT: Drudge
The Obama camp's rhetoric in making the request, as quoted in the article, also seems clearly aimed at undermining the credibility and thus the diplomatic position of the current President of the United States for the sake of partisan partisan gain.
If true, Obama's actions are not only despicable, but differ from treason more in degree than in kind. And yes- it is illegal.
HT: Drudge
Comments
Our lying about the other side isn't any better than their lying about us (like they've been doing for eight years)- and it produces the very effect you describe even among the more reasonable Obamaphiles. It blinds them even to the obvious truth: that "uniter" Barak is in fact a partisan divider (albeit a very slick one) who simply doesn't have a clue.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/undermining-mcc.html
Maybe there is not much media coverage because the story was not true.
The problem is that a clear pattern has emerged whenever a damaging charge is made against the most radical major party presidential nominee since George McGovern. I'll give you an example.
When Obama was a member of the Illinois Senate, a bill was introduced on the subject of sex education. Obama voted to insert the following very inflammatory language in the bill: "Each class or course in comprehensive sex education in any of grades K through 12 shall include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread of HIV." He then voted in favor of the bill.
The language is explicit. It says what it says. Obama voted to insert it in a bill which originally did not contain it, and then voted for the bill.
When a McCain ad pointed this out, however, the Obama responded as he had in the 2004 Senate campaign: “Actually, that wasn’t what I had in mind. We have a existing law that mandates sex education in the schools. We want to make sure that it’s medically accurate and age-appropriate. Now, I’ll give you an example, because I have a six-year-old daughter and a three-year-old daughter, and one of the things my wife and I talked to our daughter about is the possibility of somebody touching them inappropriately, and what that might mean. And that was included specifically in the law, so that kindergarteners are able to exercise some possible protection against abuse, because I have family members as well as friends who suffered abuse at that age. So, that’s the kind of stuff that I was talking about in that piece of legislation.”
Perhaps. But in any case, whatever his intent, Obama still voted to include that irresponsible language, and then voted to approve the bill that containted that language. The McCain charge was absolutely accurate.
Yet the media- including some sources which normally are immune to partisanship- are unanimous in claiming that McCain's factually accurate ad was somehow a smear.
That claim is, not to put too fine a point on it, itself a lie. And no, "lie" is not too strong a word.
This is only one example of a pattern that has become pretty clear whenever an embarassing revelation about Obama becomes public. When the arbiters of fairness are themselves partisans, fairness ceases to be fairness.
So excuse me if I don't take the mere fact that the story has been denied by Obama supporters at ABC and in the camp of Chuck Hagel as gospel. Mere denial by interested parties is not refutation.
It's far more likely that there's no media coverage because the story is damaging to the media's candidate- and apparently Chuck Hagel's.