Okay folks, its time to play defense and then some powerful OFFENSE. John McCain has been on his heels in the last few days regarding all of the lies of he and Sarah Palin's campaign. His judgment is awful and he is running one of the sleaziest campaigns in history. But here comes the new attack to change the news cycle, let's knock it back now, before it grows. This is truly red meat for the average Rushie Obama haters and it will stick if it does not get debunked.
The article suggests that Obama wanted to "OBAMA TRIED TO STALL GIS' IRAQ WITHDRAWAL".
Okay, before I finished writing this I debunked it. Now lets get to some "ground and pound" going! (For all you non-mixed martial artists ground and pound happens when you get your opponent on the ground in mounted or semi-mounted postion and you begin to let the elbows, fists, and knees fly. Let the pain rain.
More below.
It makes the assertion that Obama is saying one thing in private and another in public. It tries to undermine his character and his patriotism:
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."
Wow. This is a just a straight out lie. And if he actually did it, some would accuse him of treason!
But, This is just old information regurgitated with a new spin to make it sound all ominous. As if he did it in private and that is just a lie!
Obama spoke on the tarmac right after speaking with the Iraqi Foreign Minister and had these comments according to Athena Jones of NBC News on June 16, 2008:
He said he told Zebari that negotiations for a Status of Forces agreement or strategic framework agreement between the two countries should be done in the open and with Congress's authorization and that it was important that that there be strong bipartisan support for any agreement so that it can be sustained through a future administration. He argued it would make sense to hold off on such negotiations until the next administration.
"My concern is that the Bush administration--in a weakened state politically--ends up trying to rush an agreement that in some ways might be binding to the next administration, whether it was my administration or Sen. McCain's administration," Obama said. "The foreign minister agreed that the next administration should not be bound by an agreement that's currently made."
So, he did not try to hide his comments. And further as a Senator suggesting that congress have a role in reviewing the final agreement before we commit our nation to a 25 or 50 year commitment to Iraq is maybe just a little sensible.
Now its time for some ground and pound!
Let's send letters to the Drudge Report and the New York Post. They need to pull this, but we also need to push the narrative:
Obama is a centrist who has consisently gotten the foreign policies issues right. And that John McCain and his neocon campaign advisers and surrogates will say anything to get McCain elected. And we know that they will stop at nothing to achieve their agenda...that's why we are in Iraq now!
(BTW, the New York Post endorsed John McCain.) They know Amir Taheri is a neocon.
Amir Taheri has had a very controversial journalism career and anyone accepting his work should have known that he and the truth don't always see eye to eye:
On May 19, 2006, the National Post of Canada published two pieces, one by Taheri, claiming that the Iranian parliament passed a law that "envisages separate dress codes for religious minorities, Christians, Jews and Zoroastrians, who will have to adopt distinct colour schemes to make them identifiable in public."[7] Numerous other sources, including Maurice Motamed, the Jewish member of the Iranian parliament, refuted the report as untrue. The Associated Press later refuted the report as well, saying that "a draft law moving through parliament encourages Iranians to wear Islamic clothing to protect the country's Muslim identity but does not mention special attire for religious minorities, according to a copy obtained Saturday by The Associated Press." [8] Reuters also reported that "A copy of the bill obtained by Reuters contained no such references. Reuters correspondents who followed the dress code session in parliament as it was broadcast on state radio heard no discussion of proscriptions for religious minorities."[9] Taheri insisted that his report is correct and that "the dress code law has been passed by the Islamic Majlis and will now be submitted to the Council of Guardians", claiming that that "special markers for followers of Judaism, Christianity and Zoroastrianism are under discussion as a means to implement the law".[10]
The National Post retracted the story several hours after it was posted online. The newspaper blamed Taheri for the falsehood in the article,[11][12] and published a full apology on May 24.[13] Taheri stood by his article.[10][14]
Fight back! Fight back!